When high school activities collide with Showcasing

[JJS]

why does it bother you when kids who are on multiple sports teams are considered multi sport athletes? That seems to be the sticking point for you. Is it a designation that somehow detracts from single sport "performers" to you?

Do the coaches really want multi sports athletes, or do they want athletes that have the ability to play multiple sports? I think they like the more athletic girls who happen to be ABLE to play multiple sports, and tend to do so at the high school levels.

Also, there is a difference between playing multiple sports and having one sport that takes priority while playing multiple sports. You can't tell me that Texas A & M would be impressed if they show up at your showcase to see your DD only to find out that she skipped to play HS basketball.

 

[InsidePitch]

only to find out that she skipped to play HS basketball

it would depend on who she was playing for. Texas A&M is one of those schools that utilizes a men's practice team for the Women's BB team, just like UConn. They may be cool with it.

 

[sluggers]

Suppose you are a boss and interviewing applicants to do contract work for your business. The work will last four years. After four years, whoever you pick will be let go. The applicants all understand that after 4 years, the project will be over and the contract will be terminated.

Joe has tons of experience exactly for what you want. He has done this work all the time, 12 months a year for the last 10 years. His skills match perfectly for the work to be done.

Bob has done similar work off and on for the past 5 years. He has done other things. He has experience in other areas. He might have more potential than Joe and, if he had the right training, Bob might be able to do the job as well as or better than Joe. But, you won't know until the job has been underway for a year.

Both will be paid the same amount. Who do you hire?

If any of you say Bob, then you never hired a contractor. You don't pay contractors to "learn on the job". You pay them for what they already know and what they can do for you right now.

You provide "on the job training" to employees who will be with your company for many years, not to someone who will only be around for 4 years.

The only way you consider Bob is if Joe doesn't exist.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

Suppose you are a boss and interviewing applicants to do contract work for your business. The work will last four years. After four years, whoever you pick will be let go. The applicants all understand that after 4 years, the project will be over and the contract will be terminated.

Joe has tons of experience exactly for what you want. He has done this work all the time, 12 months a year for the last 10 years. His skills match perfectly for the work to be done.

Bob has done similar work off and on for the past 5 years. He has done other things. He has experience in other areas. He might have more potential than Joe and, if he had the right training, Bob might be able to do the job as well as or better than Joe. But, you won't know until the job has been underway for a year.

Both will be paid the same amount. Who do you hire?

If any of you say Bob, then you never hired a contractor. You don't pay contractors to "learn on the job". You pay them for what they already know and what they can do for you right now.

You provide "on the job training" to employees who will be with your company for many years, not to someone who will only be around for 4 years.

The only way you consider Bob is if Joe doesn't exist.

Bad analogy. It's not a 4-year project, it's an ongoing project. The contract workers come and go, but the project keeps on regardless. Not only that, it's evolving, changing year by year - sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. So I want the person to best address my needs at that time, and within the scope of the long term project. So I might want Bob for something that Joe can't give me: new perspective, different approach, broader range of experiences, the Jack of All Trades.

 

[goinglefty]

As a college coach, I think the answer is "It depends". Depends on the school, the level of play in their conference, etc. I know great multi sport athletes who are great softball players. I know great athletes who are not great softball players. I would think being a multi sport athlete would only hurt if softball is your main sport and because of lack of time to practice/be on the right showcase team, etc. you aren't able to play softball at the level desired by yourself and the coaches of those schools.

To be honest. If all things were exactly the same skill wise and general athleticism between a full time softball player and a multi sport athlete... I think I would choose the full time softball player. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer there. Just because with all things being equal skill wise, personality and grades, I would go for love of the sport. If the kid loves softball that much they give up everything else I think i want that kind of dedication and player on my team.

 

[JJS]

it would depend on who she was playing for. Texas A&M is one of those schools that utilizes a men's practice team for the Women's BB team, just like UConn. They may be cool with it.

Really, "They may be cool with it"? College coaches who are looking for a reason to cross a name off their list may be cool with it? College coaches who mark kids off for not carrying their bags from the car, for talking back to their parents between games, for walking on or off the field in between innings, those coaches would really drive 100's of miles to see your DD would be okay with her not being there? Your DD gets so few chances, if any to actually make an impression on the coach that she wants to play for. Do you really want to bet her college career on, "they may be cool with it".

Look, I have no problem with playing multiple sports, but at some age the player is expected to make one sport a priority. Not quit the others, but one should be a priority. It may not be the sport or activity that us on DFP hope our DD's pick as their main activity, but they need decide which is the most important to them. Then, that sport or activity that they choose to be a priority better be the same as what they hope to accomplish in college. While coaches may like, and even prefer a girl that plays multiple sports, make no mistake they want a girl that in the end is fully committed to their program and understands that in college they will eat, sleep and breathe softball.

 

[CoachKevin]

Again, if her dream is to play college softball then we would attend the showcases. If her dream is to attend college and play basketball, then we would skip the showcases. However, I don't understand why someone would play on a showcase team if their ultimate goal isn't to play college ball.

I agree with you, however she IS playing Basketball.... Let's flip it.... You coach a travel team attending showcases during the Summer, you have a player that is very good in both softball and volleyball. She has important volleyball tournaments on the same 3 weekends as you have scheduled showcase Tournaments. What do you do?

 

[Greenmonsters]

Suppose you are a boss and interviewing applicants to do contract work for your business. The work will last four years. After four years, whoever you pick will be let go. The applicants all understand that after 4 years, the project will be over and the contract will be terminated.

Joe has tons of experience exactly for what you want. He has done this work all the time, 12 months a year for the last 10 years. His skills match perfectly for the work to be done.

Bob has done similar work off and on for the past 5 years. He has done other things. He has experience in other areas. He might have more potential than Joe and, if he had the right training, Bob might be able to do the job as well as or better than Joe. But, you won't know until the job has been underway for a year.

Both will be paid the same amount. Who do you hire?

If any of you say Bob, then you never hired a contractor. You don't pay contractors to "learn on the job". You pay them for what they already know and what they can do for you right now.

You provide "on the job training" to employees who will be with your company for many years, not to someone who will only be around for 4 years.

The only way you consider Bob is if Joe doesn't exist.

But.....if Bob is as good as Joe to begin with, I'm hiring Bob, who with un-tapped potential and those 4 years of experience, may excel to the point where I can hire him to take my job so I can take my retiring boss's job and rule the roost as CEO.

 

[JJS]

I agree with you, however she IS playing Basketball.... Let's flip it.... You coach a travel team attending showcases during the Summer, you have a player that is very good in both softball and volleyball. She has important volleyball tournaments on the same 3 weekends as you have scheduled showcase Tournaments. What do you do?

If it's my dd, or a player on my team I'm telling her to decide which she is going to put priority on. If it volleyball, then as a coach I would either deal with it or more likely find someone to replace her

 

[John T]

And as the Basketball coach of the girl in the OP, I would find someone else as well. If you sign up for something you commit to it (Season) and if you cannot then do not sign up.

One advantage/disadvantage to living up north is the weather limits what can be done in the winter time...so there is not a lot of spill over from one sport to another.

I also think if you are "Good enough" coaches will find you.