We quit our team today

[grcsftbll]

That's the whole point of leaving, to enjoy the ride. Nobody was enjoying the ride. I just want to be sure where we land, it'll be fun. She'll get to play and have a good time, that she'll like the girls and the coaches. I said earlier on, who knows what she'll be doing in a few years. She might not be playing at all, like you said. I'm not worried about all that. I'm worried about her having fun THIS season! I'm just nervous about the whole flip a coin option because of the coaching. Then again, we thought we were careful in the fall and look what happened. Maybe we should have flipped a coin then

We downplay the angst with her but obviously, everyone in the house knows there's an issue. I told her, we'll play with several teams over the next month, it's going to be awesome and fun, and when we check out a few we can decide which one we like best. She doesn't seem stressed about it at all now that we've left, so that's good. We're telling her and ourselves and the coaches we're playing with, right now we're not thinking about decisions, we're just going to play some ball and see what we like. But it's different here, because there are so many more experienced parents/coaches/players. Here I can get actual advice and maybe get some ideas of things I may not have thought of (there has been a lot of that here in this thread and in others, and I'm really grateful ). So the angst is definitely amped up on this thread, compared to real life, because I'm trying to see all the angles. If that makes sense.

 

[CoogansBluff]

HC's response was that he didn't care if they liked it or not.

I strongly prefer coaches who care how my daughter feels. I would never say something like this as a coach.

That doesn't mean that players' feelings determine every decision, but coaches are in youth sports for the wrong reason if they don't try to see things from their players' point of view. Too many coaches have their own agenda - to build a great team - and exploit kids to do it. They believe it's about them and not their players.

 

[grcsftbll]

I strongly prefer coaches who care how my daughter feels. I would never say something like this as a coach.

That doesn't mean that players' feelings determine every decision, but coaches are in youth sports for the wrong reason if they don't try to see things from their players' point of view. Too many coaches have their own agenda - to build a great team - and exploit kids to do it. They believe it's about them and not their players.

I could definitely say some things about this (I totally agree with you). But I will refrain But yes, I definitely think this is true. IME, these coaches seem to be the minority. I really hope I'm not proven wrong about that, considering we are relative newbies.

 

[Me_and_my_big_mouth]

I could definitely say some things about this (I totally agree with you). But I will refrain But yes, I definitely think this is true. IME, these coaches seem to be the minority. I really hope I'm not proven wrong about that, considering we are relative newbies.

I think the harsh reality, as others have said, is that there is always going to be circular thinking at work. Coaches have a responsibility to build a really great, super dooper awesome, studly platinum gold titanium xposure showcase team. To do that, they have to be wildly successful because that's what attracts the athletes (and their parents). Losing a lot doesn't bring the talent. So, coaches schedule "friendlies," and they romance the new talent in the hopes to reach organizational nirvana. The flip side is that, should coaches NOT attract talent, the Super dooper amazing Russell Wilsons on the team will get tired of losing all the time and will inevitably jump ship mid-season because they want trophies.

So either way, coach is kinda screwed because he either plays pickups during auditions, er, friendlies - and ticks off parents. Or, he plays the girls he already has and doesn't take any new blood, and your team stays at the bronze or copper level but everybody gets a turn and it's fair, and the higher level girls bail because no sprinkles. It's been my experience that you can't have both.

There's the decision, in a nutshell. Do you want "fair?" Or do you want, "Win."

I know - perhaps an oversimplification, but not by much.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[grcsftbll]

I think there is a middle ground, though. Or should be. If you have a full team, every position filled, and 2 players sitting each inning (11 players total), and it's a solid team already with talented girls, why would you risk running off your already talented girls to romance players who may or may not want to play with you anyway? He lost one pitcher, and the pitcher picking up already turned him down for another team once. This was just a pick up for her, she's not even looking for a new team. I totally see what you're saying, and I agree to an extent. If you've got a weakness, you try to fill it. If you've got a team where there's already at least one solid player for every position, why not work with those girls and build an awesome team? They've got the talent for it. It seems lazy to me. Where do you draw the line on being acquisitive? And it doesn't create any loyalty in either direction. He doesn't really care about the girls except for what wins they can bring him; the girls don't care about him because they know they're replaceable. It's just not a very pleasant situation for a bunch of 9 and 10 year olds.

 

[Me_and_my_big_mouth]

I think there is a middle ground, though. Or should be. If you have a full team, every position filled, and 2 players sitting each inning (11 players total), and it's a solid team already with talented girls, why would you risk running off your already talented girls to romance players who may or may not want to play with you anyway? He lost one pitcher, and the pitcher picking up already turned him down for another team once. This was just a pick up for her, she's not even looking for a new team. I totally see what you're saying, and I agree to an extent. If you've got a weakness, you try to fill it. If you've got a team where there's already at least one solid player for every position, why not work with those girls and build an awesome team? They've got the talent for it. It seems lazy to me. Where do you draw the line on being acquisitive? And it doesn't create any loyalty in either direction. He doesn't really care about the girls except for what wins they can bring him; the girls don't care about him because they know they're replaceable. It's just not a very pleasant situation for a bunch of 9 and 10 year olds.

Round these parts, they call it trophy chasing. And funny thing, everyone says that like it's a bad thing - but those teams end up being the best in the state, so naturally by the time they reach 14u, the top girls all want to play for them.

It's tough, and I see what you're saying. But that's where choosing a team dedicated to development instead of winning might be the better choice. The coaches are going to do things that make you tear your hair out, but trust me as they get older the girls develop thick skins. The underbelly of the game that moms and dads usually shy away from (myself included) is that the girls need to develop a fierce sense of competitiveness. Not just towards opponents, because that's pretty easy - but towards each other. Yes they are a team, but in the end, there's only 9 spots. Even 9 and 10 year olds can sort out the math on that one.

Sounds like coach is a win win win guy, and he will do what he thinks it takes to achieve that. Perhaps he's trying to push girls to step up, work harder, be competitive. A pickup girl is playing my spot? Oh dang, maybe I better spend a little extra time working on my throws. . .

And I don't say this to be harsh, but coaches dance with the prettiest girl at the ball. There isn't loyalty, only skill, once you reach a certain level. That sucks, but it also keeps the girls accountable.

I'm not telling you this because it's an issue at 10u, just providing some insight into what coach might be doing and why. Or, maybe he's just kind of a jerk.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[grcsftbll]

I get you, it makes sense. I wouldn't have a problem running a team like that if they were up front about it. There's at least one big name team here we thought about trying out for and decided not to, because it was pretty clear the coach was all about all that stuff you just said. And that's ok, for some people that's going to work. The big talk they gave us on our team after the tryout was, this is a first year 10U team. We're going to lose a lot, play tough teams, and we are *all about developing these girls.* So really it's not so much how he runs the team and that he makes it all about winning (everyone likes to win). The part I don't like is the bait and switch. If you're going to run a team that way just be up front with the parents about it so they can go another direction if that's not what they're looking for.

 

[CoogansBluff]

I think the harsh reality, as others have said, is that there is always going to be circular thinking at work. Coaches have a responsibility to build a really great, super dooper awesome, studly platinum gold titanium xposure showcase team. To do that, they have to be wildly successful because that's what attracts the athletes (and their parents). Losing a lot doesn't bring the talent. So, coaches schedule "friendlies," and they romance the new talent in the hopes to reach organizational nirvana. The flip side is that, should coaches NOT attract talent, the Super dooper amazing Russell Wilsons on the team will get tired of losing all the time and will inevitably jump ship mid-season because they want trophies.

So either way, coach is kinda screwed because he either plays pickups during auditions, er, friendlies - and ticks off parents. Or, he plays the girls he already has and doesn't take any new blood, and your team stays at the bronze or copper level but everybody gets a turn and it's fair, and the higher level girls bail because no sprinkles. It's been my experience that you can't have both.

There's the decision, in a nutshell. Do you want "fair?" Or do you want, "Win."

You can be fair and win at the same time.

If you hold a scrimmage and sit your own players for guest players, and those players and families never saw that coming, were never warned of its possibility, then you haven't been fair with them. At best, he's a very poor communicator. At worst, he should not be coaching kids. Players shouldn't be on the bench, nor parents in the stands, wondering what's going on. They should know the broader game plan from Day 1.

If a coach insists on running one of these A+ Gold Elite 10U teams of dubious value where you treat it's like a college or pro team, then explain that up front, in specific terms: ''We will continue to recruit players throughout the season. Players aren't just competing against their teammates, but theoretically against every player who would consider playing for us from the fall of 2015 when we started through through ASA 10U nationals in July. If it helps us achieve our goal, our roster might swell to 20 players. We will use pickup players that may put long-time members of the team on the bench. You might start at 3B one tournament and sit the bench the next to accommodate some stud you've never met before. Our goal is to win the 10-and-under national title, and it's 100 percent competitive. Player development and player concern are secondary.''

If parents and kids are told this when offered a spot on the team, then the coach has been fair. But he should not suddenly spring it on people and say, ''It's my team. I really don't care how the players feel.''

 

[FL02]

Good A level teams will have a minimum of 12 players who can all play. Usually those sitting will rotate including the pitchers possibly sitting before their next start etc. Good teams will play 6-8 games on a tourney weekend and the parents understand there will be ample playing time. The rotation of players increases with the higher age groups. No good coach would say the roster is full at 11 if truly playing the best tourneys- too many things can happen.

Low A level or B level teams will generally have 2 or 3 players which clearly (maybe to all but their parents) are more at the bottom of lineup and sitting- those kids will generally sit more consistently on Sunday which breeds turnover. They usually have one more dominant pitcher and start the same catcher most games. The 9 parents think it's just great....

 

[Me_and_my_big_mouth]

You can be fair and win at the same time.

If you hold a scrimmage and sit your own players for guest players, and those players and families never saw that coming, were never warned of its possibility, then you haven't been fair with them. At best, he's a very poor communicator. At worst, he should not be coaching kids. Players shouldn't be on the bench, nor parents in the stands, wondering what's going on. They should know the broader game plan from Day 1.

If a coach insists on running one of these A+ Gold Elite 10U teams of dubious value where you treat it's like a college or pro team, then explain that up front, in specific terms: ''We will continue to recruit players throughout the season. Players aren't just competing against their teammates, but theoretically against every player who would consider playing for us from the fall of 2015 when we started through through ASA 10U nationals in July. If it helps us achieve our goal, our roster might swell to 20 players. We will use pickup players that may put long-time members of the team on the bench. You might start at 3B one tournament and sit the bench the next to accommodate some stud you've never met before. Our goal is to win the 10-and-under national title, and it's 100 percent competitive. Player development and player concern are secondary.''

If parents and kids are told this when offered a spot on the team, then the coach has been fair. But he should not suddenly spring it on people and say, ''It's my team. I really don't care how the players feel.''

I agree that you CAN be fair and win. And I wish this happened more. Judging from the amount of posts about these issues, it doesn't. Also, I'm talking about 12-14-16-18 level - the "what happens after the 10u" experience where more choices are put on the girls and less on the parents.

Those teams that have 12-14 studs who all earn equal play are very, very lucky. And I would also venture a guess that all of those girls experienced bumps in the road that made them tougher, scrappier, and more competitive.

It's been a pretty recurring event for us, not just our dd but her friends, where coaches say what they think parents and girls need to hear and then do whatever they want later. #1 issue that has been a broken record: not enough communication.

I still stand by my original thoughts, although oversimplified. Buyer beware, and ask around first. OP is trying to make decisions about a new team, so understanding what was happening and why might help her avoid the same thing happening again.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk