*POLL* 18u everybody plays

[_MIA_]

I'm curious about something. Our very first TB team included 12 players. While there was 3 or 4 standouts, we had another 6 or 7 that were relatively equal in ability and work ethic. We had two that were clearly a step below. This was 12u, so we still tried to play everyone. However, when we were playing key games, our top 9 was always on the field. As we progressed through the years, our goal was to add new players that were similar in ability to our core. By the time we got to 16u, we still had 12 players but could take virtually any combination of them and be competitive. So, I'm curious why teams offer roster spots to players that they know won't see the field much? What's the purpose? If you don't have plans to play a specific player, why have that player on your team?

Probably depends on age,total roster size, ability to draw players in general and ability to get pick up players if necessary, etc. At 16's for example you probably need to have at least 13 or 14 on the roster if you cannot get pickup players easily and hence you may be forced to pick up a couple kids who have no business on the team in order to make sure you have enough to play regularly....

Just a guess...

 

[FP26]

Probably depends on age,total roster size, ability to draw players in general and ability to get pick up players if necessary, etc. At 16's for example you probably need to have at least 13 or 14 on the roster if you cannot get pickup players easily and hence you may be forced to pick up a couple kids who have no business on the team in order to make sure you have enough to play regularly....

Just a guess...

It's common here, but unfortunately it is typically for the reason Eric states; namely $$$.

In my opinion travel ball provides a great deal of good discussion concerning supply and demand. The balance between providing opportunities for anyone interested and oversaturation of teams. It's a delicate balance. The ugly truth is that when providing more opportunities, the result is often watered down a bit. As a result, teams can have trouble filling their rosters with the type of player they are looking for. I see a lot of parallels in the business world.

 

[_MIA_]

It's common here, but unfortunately it is typically for the reason Eric states; namely $$$.

Unfortunately you are probably correct. With 12 on the roster at 16U, how often did you have to pick up a player or two?

 

[Orange Socks]

I keep bringing up Boulder IDT. We always had a team meeting the day before we started playing our practice games. The conversation basically let players/parents know what to expect during the week. One of the things that the coach pointed out was the committed players would not be getting the amount playing time they were accustomed to and that they are helping the other players get committed and seen. The girls before them did, not it's your turn. In all reality, everyone played. Coach also sent out a playing schedule indicating which games the girls will start two weeks prior so they could email the college coaches. For families that have played that week Colorado scheduling is nuts for college coaches especially if they are covering Sparkler/Fireworks and IDT. Fields are ALL OVER the Denver Metro area.

 

[tamss13]

Great question!

In my best O'Jays Voice - Money Money Money Moneyyyy

 

[FP26]

Unfortunately you are probably correct. With 12 on the roster at 16U, how often did you have to pick up a player or two?

We were lucky. There was always players around that were willing to play for us. Plus we kept a couple high school players on our roster that were not on other travel teams. They were happy just playing a couple tournaments each summer. We even utilized some of our player's younger sisters at times.

I remember one 16u tourney we played with only 9 players. Our catcher's sister was only 12u st the time but came as our 10th player. She had a blast and the rest of the team took good care of her.

 

[_MIA_]

We were lucky.

To some extent you make your own luck. You probably had a program which was attractive to players to come play for. My original point was, for whatever reason(s), that may not be the case for some teams hence in order to guarantee they can play regularly at that age, they need to load the end of their bench with players who probably shouldn't be on the team. If they only carried players who could play, they would probably miss half their tournaments...

 

[FP26]

To some extent you make your own luck. You probably had a program which was attractive to players to come play for. My original point was, for whatever reason(s), that may not be the case for some teams hence in order to guarantee they can play regularly at that age, they need to load the end of their bench with players who probably shouldn't be on the team. If they only carried players who could play, they would probably miss half their tournaments...

Agreed. Goes back to my comment that creating opportunities for all leads to a watered down product. Not saying the process is right or wrong, just a result of how it works.

 

[radness]

Agreed. Goes back to my comment that creating opportunities for all leads to a watered down product. Not saying the process is right or wrong, just a result of how it works.

There is still top tier that keeps being top tier. In other words top tier is not getting watered down. Actually there are more top tier teams now. More players.
But there are many more less than average teams simply because there are more players.
Think people see average more than they see top tier.

That said
Since there are options of team levels and dynamic,
there is a responsibilty on the families/players to their decisions.
And this responsibility plays a factor into the stability, or not,
of teams.
Also affect the development or not of the individual player & teams.
This imo is why certain coaches and org's are/have implemented mandatory standards.

Look at the 3 polls.
They show peoples diversity of decisions they would make.

With all that mixture....
There needs to be a way to define a teams goals!
To gather the right players to fit together.

 

[FP26]

There is still top tier that keeps being top tier. In other words top tier is not getting watered down. Actually there are more top tier teams now. More players.
But there are many more less than average teams simply because there are more players.
Think people see average more than they see top tier.

That said
Since there are options of team levels and dynamic,
there is a responsibilty on the families/players to their decisions.
And this responsibility plays a factor into the stability, or not,
of teams.
Also affect the development or not of the individual player & teams.
This imo is why certain coaches and org's are/have implemented mandatory standards.

Look at the 3 polls.
They show peoples diversity of decisions they would make.

With all that mixture....
There needs to be a way to define a teams goals!
To gather the right players to fit together.

Agreed. Responsibility/Accountability is a difficult trait to find sometimes... From either side of the fence... As stated earlier, I feel lucky because we never experienced many of the issues that so many other teams do.