Eye opening experience

[Coach Hig]

Hello all! I am somewhat new to your board, lurking often however posting little. Please accept my appreciation to all for the great stuff I have taken in, will continue to take in and will hopefully, also make positive contributions to.

I have a question that I am hoping parents and coaches alike will address. My DD has been playing rec ball for about four years. She is a contributor to the success of her team(s), strongly in the mix and holds her own however, she is not an intense, nearly obsessed or almost over indulgent stand out player. She enjoys the game and has fun playing it ... Until now.

She is in her freshman year of high school playing for the academic stand out school in our district. A school that is often referred to as the districts only public private school. Standards are very high both academically and athletically - which I find to be a good thing. However, great attention is given to 'legacy' and what simply appears to be 'who you are,' (i.e., small southern town perpetual family name.) There also appears to be considerable effort placed on getting these few players attention at the expense of all the other players and definitely at the expense of the inclusion of the freshman class, their parents and even enjoying the game. Being softball parents and coaches, I trust you can assemble the picture I'm painting here. This scenario, and my pondering the situation, has resulted in a couple of questions. They are:

1. Does today's HS SB attempt to mimic travel ball by making an effort to expose a few girls to prospective D1 coaches while basically throwing the remaining TEAMMATES to the curb? Or is it vice versa - TB mimics HS SB? Totally incorrect? For support of my point, JV plays twelve games; Varsity about twenty five including about three tournaments, of which, JV does not attend with the team nor do they stay behind with a JV coach and practice.

2. Is it fair to all other players, namely the incoming freshman "group," to be somewhat side stepped (that is, receiving little coaching time) while a VERY select player and/or couple of players (also freshman) are given unequaled amounts of coaching and attention do to that "legacy" or possibility of D1 success? Furthermore and specific to this particular matter I speak of, never mind the addition of shall we say, a 'continued legacy name' DD's parent brought out as a non-faculty member AC ... bearing in mind there are three, well experienced, faculty member coaches, coaching this team. And yes, the additional AC efforts are directly primarily at a very specific player (playER - emphasis on the singular).

Am I missing something or just getting introduced to a world I was not nearly as familiar with as I thought I was? Softball, like football, volleyball, baseball, etc is a TEAM sport. As a former wrestler, I can appreciate the individuality of a sport but even wrestling had a cumulative concern. One may win his match, but WE all wrestled for the team to win the meet. I will add that, though not a huge part of this is, there is consideration given to the thought that I, as well as all other parent(s) have made a fairly sizable financial contribution to this program - upwards of $800.

All of what I have written here is not just my concern or conversation; it is one I have had with a few of the parents of the incoming freshman class. Additionally, as DD does often, she talks with me about the chemistry of the team ... and it is not good. She (DD) and her teammates recognize all of what I have mentioned here and unfortunately, a few will not be returning next year ... not only for softball, but even to the school.

I do understand that this may simply be a clash of my perspective of how team sports function with the way they actually function in today's society.

Your comments would be greatly appreciated - good and bad.

Thank you all in advance.

 

[John Kelly]

As an 18 Gold travel coach in southern California I can assure you that very little player evaluation by college coaches is done at the high school level. The high school coaches, unless they also coach travel or have local college connections, don't have the relationships. As well college coaches would rather spend their time (which is regulated by the NCAA) watching the most competitive teams at the most competitive showcases or tournaments...none of which high school ball offers.

As far as your daughter being treated "less than" in a high school program, particularly at the JV level is pretty standard I think. In most high school programs I see the varsity coach doesn't really give a *** about the JV team. ***

So if your daughter aspires to play in college focus on her travel experience and college exposure. If she is just playing to enjoy the game she'll have to suffer through her high school experience likely.

Hope this helps. Be sure to follow my "mental game" section here on the forum.

John Kelly

 

[sluggers]

NOTE TO POSTERS: This thread will not devolve into yet another HS bashing threads.

It sounds like you simply want validation of your opinion...in which case, why ask?

Does today's HS SB attempt to mimic travel ball by making an effort to expose a few girls to prospective D1 coaches while basically throwing the remaining TEAMMATES to the curb?

HS and TB (travel ball) are quite a bit different. There is little done by a coach to expose girls to D1 coaches. HS softball is played at the same time as college softball, so coaches aren't that interested. Also, a HS team (usually) has two or three exceptional players and several mediocre players. So, it is waste of a college coach's time to go to the games.

I'm not sure how you think "exposing" girls to D1 coaches occurs. The D1 coaches show up and watch games. Presumably, the team fields nine players.

Or is it vice versa - TB mimics HS SB? Totally incorrect?

Totally incorrect...you are comparing apples and oranges. We have beaten the HS vs. TB story to death on this board. They have different priorities and restrictions.

Is it fair to all other players, namely the incoming freshman "group," to be somewhat side stepped (that is, receiving little coaching time) while a VERY select player and/or couple of players (also freshman) are given unequaled amounts of coaching and attention do to that "legacy" or possibility of D1 success?

It depends upon the the kids. And, it also varies by location. There are a lot of variables.

A varsity team *plays* 10 kids. These are the top 10 softball players at the school. Usually, there are only 3 or 4 from each class (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) who eventually contribute on the varsity team.

A freshman team has 15 kids on a team. So, most of the freshman are never going to play varsity ball.

*ASSUMING YOU ARE NOT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA*:

If Suzy play TB and Cindy plays rec ball...Suzy will be the better player 99 out of a 100 times. And Suzy won't be just a little better than Cindy...Suzy will be much, much better than Cindy. It isn't even close.

This applies to other sports as well, but softball in particular. Softball is a skill sport...there are a set of unique skills required to play the game well. Playing against high level competition results in better skills.

By the time a kid reaches HS, it is usually too late to develop a player. Thus, HS coaches work with players who already have an established skill set.

 

[Sweet Lou]

By the time a kid reaches HS, it is usually too late to develop a player. Thus, HS coaches work with players who already have an established skill set.

Good post sluggers. Though I think this may vary a lot from region to region around the united states depending on the depth and quality of travel ball in a particular area.

 

[go4um]

Reputations and politics exist and can impact HS softball as well other aspects of life but the picture you paint seems extreme. In my experience, the primary "legacy" priority for coaches is winning and they will chose a path that they believe will meet the winning expectations.

Yes, player development is important for future winning and I think most coaches would love to have more robust JV programs but shortage of effective coaches, facilities and time can make that very difficult. Players have to take responsibility for their own skill development...practice on their own or with a private coach.

I don't know if you are seeing things as they are or not but you wouldn't be the first to try to connect some dots that shouldn't be connected.

 

[GOINGDEEP]

Sluggers makes some good points. HS ball is pretty much "run what you brung", meaning you don't build your race car once you get to the track ( HS ), you build it BEFORE you get to the track.

Successful HS programs must be trained and developed in the years before the freshman age. EVERY state contending HS team I've known in this area has a developmental youth team that later feeds into one or two HS's. Most will start with rec until 9-10yo, then move into an A or B type travel ball org, then HS. The best HS programs are the ones with the most players who followed some degree of that formula.

Very few HS coaches have upper level connections ( D1 ) unless they were a former player, or the college is close. Most will have some relationship with smaller colleges, Juco-D2-NAIA.

Freshmen, and their parents, always have a rough time adjusting that first.........and maybe second year. Rec players are usually governed for equal play time, TB rosters are small so it's easier to manage equal play time. HS ball is not that way because of its design. If you're a contending HS program, wanting to go deep into the playoffs, the same girls ( which should be your best ) are going to get 90% of varsity time. The JV players just aren't much priority, as there is no "official" state recognized records for them, and no playoffs.

By state rules our HS only has 4 weeks of physical field practice before the start of the season, that's not much time to develop raw talent.

 

[BobInMadison]

One HUGE caveat about HS being too late to develop a player. In many cases, this is not true.

There are always famous examples of people excelling in sports they didn't even take up until college. For example, a woman in our neighborhood has two Olympic medals from a sport she took up in college. Last Olympics, there were 4 alumni of the local college (Wisconsin) who attended the Olympics, ALL in sports they took up in college. One of the greatest basketball players in history, Hakeem Olujawon, learned to play hoops in college.

As for HS being too late? One local kid got a football scholarship to Pitt last year, and he took up football as a sophomore in HS. One of the best HS SB players in town got a rowing scholarship to Wisconsin. She took up rowing for cross-training as a sophomore, and was one of the best female HS rowers by the time she was a senior. Heck, she even missed half the rowing season every year to play HS and TB SB.

In this town, I know of several girls who improved greatly while in HS. When they entered HS, they were rather raw talents, and improved quite a bit.

EDIT TO ADD: The most famous case is Jim Thorpe, arguably the greatest athlete of the 20th century. He broke his school record the first time he attempted a high jump, and he was wearing street clothes at the time. He was still learning some of the Decathlon events when he won the gold in the Olympics, with a performance considered by many to be the greatest Olympic performance of all time.

 

[marriard]

Standards are very high both academically and athletically - which I find to be a good thing.

1. Does today's HS SB attempt to mimic travel ball by making an effort to expose a few girls to prospective D1 coaches while basically throwing the remaining TEAMMATES to the curb?

2. Is it fair to all other players, namely the incoming freshman "group," to be somewhat side stepped (that is, receiving little coaching time) while a VERY select player and/or couple of players (also freshman) are given unequaled amounts of coaching and attention do to that "legacy" or possibility of D1 success?

Am I missing something or just getting introduced to a world I was not nearly as familiar with as I thought I was?

So....

HS Softball has little to do with college recruiting so you can take that out of the equation. Few college coaches ever get to a HS game. Travel is where 99% of the college recruiting occurs.

And you are being introduced to a scenario you are not familiar with.

If you are at a high achieving school athletically and the softball program is solid (and from your post that sounds like that is the case), then it is likely they have plenty of travel players to choose from - and if they do - then they are going to be significantly better as players as well as better known than any non-travel player. I know all our local HS coaches know all the travel softball 8th graders they hope are going to be at the high school as freshman. Many have travel programs that are as tightly connected to the HS as is allowed by the local rules.

The HS program only gets them for a set period of time and the coaches job (if the program is good) is to win. If he has enough travel players to choose from for varsity (somewhere in the 11-15 range) it is more of a management of skills than it is development. Any skills development is going to be done on players who already have a good level of base skills or if there is a major gap that needs to be filled (such as not having a travel level catcher). It is likely that the travel players have batting coaches and pitching coaches so the smart HS coaches are likely leaving that alone for the most part and concentrating of game situation/how to react in certain situations.

With the limited amount of time for HS, the JV team and freshman team and non-experienced players on these teams are not going to get a lot of time from the varisty coach. If you are lucky there is a JV coach and assistants who play that role, but how much development will be done will also depend on whether there is travel girls on these teams as well who possibly could play varsity at some stage - these girls are going to get more time because they are the likely future of the program.

Sounds callous? Somewhat, but because of time constraints and program goals it is realistic. Travel players are dedicated to the game at a level that rec players are not going to be, and even if a rec player is athletically gifted there are few who can match the skills and game knowledge that a long time travel player brings or develops. A good HS softball program is full of players who have decided that softball is THEIR sport - so they play travel and commit a lot of time to the game. Freshman from rec programs haven't made that decision yet - and in travel today - they are running out of time to do so unless they are a truly elite athlete.

Is there a political aspect to everything. I am sure there is, but the above is also all true as well.

Quickly, if you are at a school where softball is awful, then this all goes out the window. But these programs struggle for players, coaches and rarely have enough for a JV team. Whole different situation that from reading your post doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[GOINGDEEP]

One HUGE caveat about HS being too late to develop a player. In many cases, this is not true.

There are always famous examples of people excelling in sports they didn't even take up until college. For example, a woman in our neighborhood has two Olympic medals from a sport she took up in college. Last Olympics, there were 4 alumni of the local college (Wisconsin) who attended the Olympics, ALL in sports they took up in college. One of the greatest basketball players in history, Hakeem Olujawon, learned to play hoops in college.

As for HS being too late? One local kid got a football scholarship to Pitt last year, and he took up football as a sophomore in HS. One of the best HS SB players in town got a rowing scholarship to Wisconsin. She took up rowing for cross-training as a sophomore, and was one of the best female HS rowers by the time she was a senior. Heck, she even missed half the rowing season every year to play HS and TB SB.

In this town, I know of several girls who improved greatly while in HS. When they entered HS, they were rather raw talents, and improved quite a bit.

EDIT TO ADD: The most famous case is Jim Thorpe, arguably the greatest athlete of the 20th century. He broke his school record the first time he attempted a high jump, and he was wearing street clothes at the time. He was still learning some of the Decathlon events when he won the gold in the Olympics, with a performance considered by many to be the greatest Olympic performance of all time.

Yes there a rare instances of single persons excelling later in life, but softball is a team sport. If your HS team wins state, and you're on the team, but didn't play an inning, you're still a state champion and get a ring.

I love HS sports, spring can't get here soon enough every year for me.

I will say this, I've NEVER seen a HS team make it to high levels of state that had to "develop" from raw, more than 50% of the roster.

 

[Coach Hig]

Thanks all! I appreciate all of you replying.

My intentions were not validation of any particular thought process but rather a sincere interest in gathering a corrected and/or more correct point of view. This subject as a whole is not a point of contention simply because, as I stated, DD is not a softball fanatic, if you will, going for a D1 scholarship. Nonetheless, I want to learn and understand the process as I do coach rec ball and as most of us, I believe, would concur; knowledge is a great thing!

You all have shined light on my observation(s) and I can, and do, appreciate your comments. I believe it to be true that the entire playing field of HS athletics has evolved into something more (or perhaps different) than what it was during my days as a HS Wrestling coach. A change that I can appreciate and see somewhat clearer with your responses. My understanding of athletes being exposed to collegiate coaches was minimal to say the least. Nonetheless, what some of you wrote confirmed what little I did know.

There definitely exist a 'political' aspect to this particular school and that too is fine. My interest was in the 'fairness' of how that political tilt is implemented and integrated into a sports program and whether or not that is appropriate simply because of "who" you might be or what your name is in a given (small southern) town. Appropriate or not, I know it exist and it is simply the way it is. I've been in this town since 1977 so it's not a new approach.

I certainly see the points made on the limited amount of time available for developing players from the ground up and the "run what you brung," idea. The majority of the HS in our district (of which there are seven others) do just that. They play at a lower level, but they have fun at it and seem to enjoy the game ... when its against a team other than the one we are discussing. It's as if the "team" aspect functions as it should without emphasis on any one or two 'elite' player(s).

You guys have broaden my perspective on things and for that, I thank you!