Travel sports are killing American families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big benefit of travel sports is that they greatly broaden the reach of sports participation generally.

Pre-travel sports, the number of sports played at schools was smaller, and the same kids were getting the bulk of the playing time in multiple sports. Now, there are more sports played, and more kids are involved. The quarterback on the football is not walking onto the basketball team, because there are 20-30 kids in his grade who are focused on basketball, and a different 20-30 kids who are focused on baseball. And 2-3 who want the quarterback position who are training for that. Instead of the same 20 or so kids moving from sport to sport, you now have 60-80 involved in different sports.

That's actually not what the data shows. Participation statistics are more complex. Youth participation is down which high school is up. High school is where you have some opportunities - like no cut cross country - that kids can just jump into. Crazy travel is where you have significant gates, including cost, time, and making the team. I'd argue that well-run, widely available, relatively inexpensive recreational leagues would be better for broadening the reach of sports participation generally.

Source: https://www.jerseywatch.com/blog/youth-sports-statistics

This article blows up a lot of the commonly held beliefs repeated often here. Myths like:

1) Myth: Rec leagues have been decimated. Fact: The majority of youth athletes (58.4%) play community-based sports, like recreational leagues.

2) Myth: Sports are only for rich kids "pay to play" Fact: Families whose children play organized sports tend to be in lower income brackets

3) Myth: Sports are ruining families. Fact: 70% of kids also quit sports by age 13

If so many kids drop out how can families be ruined by something their kids don't do?

They could be ruined in the first 13 years?

But I would say that travel sports can't be ruining most American families if most kids aren't athletes and the majority of them play rec. They might be perceived by part of DCUM's audience to be ruining families, since DCUM's audience is heavily embedded in subcultures where travel sports are a thing. But most American families aren't DCUM types.

I don't get the sense that the complainers here care at all about other American families. They seem angry that other kids aren't available to entertain theirs, they have a serious case of FOMO, and they just aren't athletic, nor are their kids, and they have a chip on their shoulder about it. There's not much evidence about what's going on in these so called ruined families to support the judgment. That Billy missed Johnny's birthday party doesn't mean his family is ruined. Billy will get to many other birthday parties in a year.

I think the other thing people get annoyed by - and this is just DCUM types obviously - is the in-the-middle kids who do get left behind by travel sports. In-the-middle might mean the family doesn't have resources for travel but the kid is decently athletic. It might mean the kid is decently athletic but not good enough for most travel teams except the worst of the pay-to-play. Whatever it is, the kid is left it rec and rec is a miserable experience after a certain age (age depends on when travel picks up in your sport). Rec leagues have overworked volunteers who can't do everything, coaches who aren't good enough/don't care enough for travel, and lots of families who just use them as babysitting. They aren't a great sports experience.

People like to daydream that if you took the bottom half of travel and put those kids back in rec, rec would improve. And maybe it would! But how do you get that genie back in that bottle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big benefit of travel sports is that they greatly broaden the reach of sports participation generally.

Pre-travel sports, the number of sports played at schools was smaller, and the same kids were getting the bulk of the playing time in multiple sports. Now, there are more sports played, and more kids are involved. The quarterback on the football is not walking onto the basketball team, because there are 20-30 kids in his grade who are focused on basketball, and a different 20-30 kids who are focused on baseball. And 2-3 who want the quarterback position who are training for that. Instead of the same 20 or so kids moving from sport to sport, you now have 60-80 involved in different sports.

That's actually not what the data shows. Participation statistics are more complex. Youth participation is down which high school is up. High school is where you have some opportunities - like no cut cross country - that kids can just jump into. Crazy travel is where you have significant gates, including cost, time, and making the team. I'd argue that well-run, widely available, relatively inexpensive recreational leagues would be better for broadening the reach of sports participation generally.

Source: https://www.jerseywatch.com/blog/youth-sports-statistics

This article blows up a lot of the commonly held beliefs repeated often here. Myths like:

1) Myth: Rec leagues have been decimated. Fact: The majority of youth athletes (58.4%) play community-based sports, like recreational leagues.

2) Myth: Sports are only for rich kids "pay to play" Fact: Families whose children play organized sports tend to be in lower income brackets

3) Myth: Sports are ruining families. Fact: 70% of kids also quit sports by age 13

If so many kids drop out how can families be ruined by something their kids don't do?

They could be ruined in the first 13 years?

But I would say that travel sports can't be ruining most American families if most kids aren't athletes and the majority of them play rec. They might be perceived by part of DCUM's audience to be ruining families, since DCUM's audience is heavily embedded in subcultures where travel sports are a thing. But most American families aren't DCUM types.

I don't get the sense that the complainers here care at all about other American families. They seem angry that other kids aren't available to entertain theirs, they have a serious case of FOMO, and they just aren't athletic, nor are their kids, and they have a chip on their shoulder about it. There's not much evidence about what's going on in these so called ruined families to support the judgment. That Billy missed Johnny's birthday party doesn't mean his family is ruined. Billy will get to many other birthday parties in a year.

I think the other thing people get annoyed by - and this is just DCUM types obviously - is the in-the-middle kids who do get left behind by travel sports. In-the-middle might mean the family doesn't have resources for travel but the kid is decently athletic. It might mean the kid is decently athletic but not good enough for most travel teams except the worst of the pay-to-play. Whatever it is, the kid is left it rec and rec is a miserable experience after a certain age (age depends on when travel picks up in your sport). Rec leagues have overworked volunteers who can't do everything, coaches who aren't good enough/don't care enough for travel, and lots of families who just use them as babysitting. They aren't a great sports experience.

People like to daydream that if you took the bottom half of travel and put those kids back in rec, rec would improve. And maybe it would! But how do you get that genie back in that bottle?

We tried rec and it was just so bad. The coaches put their mediocre kids front and center, they never sat on the bench, and then favored their kids' besties. Also screaming and cussing at the kids. Club/travel has been a much better experience. Not sure why everyone romanticizes rec as some giant kumbaya of friendly neighbors and kids having tons of fun with effective coaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big benefit of travel sports is that they greatly broaden the reach of sports participation generally.

Pre-travel sports, the number of sports played at schools was smaller, and the same kids were getting the bulk of the playing time in multiple sports. Now, there are more sports played, and more kids are involved. The quarterback on the football is not walking onto the basketball team, because there are 20-30 kids in his grade who are focused on basketball, and a different 20-30 kids who are focused on baseball. And 2-3 who want the quarterback position who are training for that. Instead of the same 20 or so kids moving from sport to sport, you now have 60-80 involved in different sports.

That's actually not what the data shows. Participation statistics are more complex. Youth participation is down which high school is up. High school is where you have some opportunities - like no cut cross country - that kids can just jump into. Crazy travel is where you have significant gates, including cost, time, and making the team. I'd argue that well-run, widely available, relatively inexpensive recreational leagues would be better for broadening the reach of sports participation generally.

Source: https://www.jerseywatch.com/blog/youth-sports-statistics

This article blows up a lot of the commonly held beliefs repeated often here. Myths like:

1) Myth: Rec leagues have been decimated. Fact: The majority of youth athletes (58.4%) play community-based sports, like recreational leagues.

2) Myth: Sports are only for rich kids "pay to play" Fact: Families whose children play organized sports tend to be in lower income brackets

3) Myth: Sports are ruining families. Fact: 70% of kids also quit sports by age 13

If so many kids drop out how can families be ruined by something their kids don't do?

They could be ruined in the first 13 years?

But I would say that travel sports can't be ruining most American families if most kids aren't athletes and the majority of them play rec. They might be perceived by part of DCUM's audience to be ruining families, since DCUM's audience is heavily embedded in subcultures where travel sports are a thing. But most American families aren't DCUM types.

I don't get the sense that the complainers here care at all about other American families. They seem angry that other kids aren't available to entertain theirs, they have a serious case of FOMO, and they just aren't athletic, nor are their kids, and they have a chip on their shoulder about it. There's not much evidence about what's going on in these so called ruined families to support the judgment. That Billy missed Johnny's birthday party doesn't mean his family is ruined. Billy will get to many other birthday parties in a year.

I think the other thing people get annoyed by - and this is just DCUM types obviously - is the in-the-middle kids who do get left behind by travel sports. In-the-middle might mean the family doesn't have resources for travel but the kid is decently athletic. It might mean the kid is decently athletic but not good enough for most travel teams except the worst of the pay-to-play. Whatever it is, the kid is left it rec and rec is a miserable experience after a certain age (age depends on when travel picks up in your sport). Rec leagues have overworked volunteers who can't do everything, coaches who aren't good enough/don't care enough for travel, and lots of families who just use them as babysitting. They aren't a great sports experience.

People like to daydream that if you took the bottom half of travel and put those kids back in rec, rec would improve. And maybe it would! But how do you get that genie back in that bottle?

We tried rec and it was just so bad. The coaches put their mediocre kids front and center, they never sat on the bench, and then favored their kids' besties. Also screaming and cussing at the kids. Club/travel has been a much better experience. Not sure why everyone romanticizes rec as some giant kumbaya of friendly neighbors and kids having tons of fun with effective coaching.

One of my DC's coaches was super peppy and highly qualified to teach the sport, but subtly did some of the things you mentioned (favored kid and besties, put down kids she didn't like in ways that were hard to pinpoint and therefore complain about). Moved DC to a different coach and DC was like a different kid at practice.

But DH has a good friend whose kids are leaving their travel team in droves because the coach plays favorites, doesn't make the players do anything the coach's kid doesn't enjoy doing, yells at the kids constantly without actually training them to be better at the sport, and fosters a negative clubhouse culture. I still prefer the peppy coach who managed to put down my kid without looking like she was doing it over someone who openly rips kids to shreds and encourages the kids to do it to each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an exurban disease. Most people don’t do travel kids sports.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big benefit of travel sports is that they greatly broaden the reach of sports participation generally.

Pre-travel sports, the number of sports played at schools was smaller, and the same kids were getting the bulk of the playing time in multiple sports. Now, there are more sports played, and more kids are involved. The quarterback on the football is not walking onto the basketball team, because there are 20-30 kids in his grade who are focused on basketball, and a different 20-30 kids who are focused on baseball. And 2-3 who want the quarterback position who are training for that. Instead of the same 20 or so kids moving from sport to sport, you now have 60-80 involved in different sports.

That's actually not what the data shows. Participation statistics are more complex. Youth participation is down which high school is up. High school is where you have some opportunities - like no cut cross country - that kids can just jump into. Crazy travel is where you have significant gates, including cost, time, and making the team. I'd argue that well-run, widely available, relatively inexpensive recreational leagues would be better for broadening the reach of sports participation generally.

Source: https://www.jerseywatch.com/blog/youth-sports-statistics

This article blows up a lot of the commonly held beliefs repeated often here. Myths like:

1) Myth: Rec leagues have been decimated. Fact: The majority of youth athletes (58.4%) play community-based sports, like recreational leagues.

2) Myth: Sports are only for rich kids "pay to play" Fact: Families whose children play organized sports tend to be in lower income brackets

3) Myth: Sports are ruining families. Fact: 70% of kids also quit sports by age 13

If so many kids drop out how can families be ruined by something their kids don't do?

They could be ruined in the first 13 years?

But I would say that travel sports can't be ruining most American families if most kids aren't athletes and the majority of them play rec. They might be perceived by part of DCUM's audience to be ruining families, since DCUM's audience is heavily embedded in subcultures where travel sports are a thing. But most American families aren't DCUM types.

I don't get the sense that the complainers here care at all about other American families. They seem angry that other kids aren't available to entertain theirs, they have a serious case of FOMO, and they just aren't athletic, nor are their kids, and they have a chip on their shoulder about it. There's not much evidence about what's going on in these so called ruined families to support the judgment. That Billy missed Johnny's birthday party doesn't mean his family is ruined. Billy will get to many other birthday parties in a year.

Comments like this are what make people dislike travel sports parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big benefit of travel sports is that they greatly broaden the reach of sports participation generally.

Pre-travel sports, the number of sports played at schools was smaller, and the same kids were getting the bulk of the playing time in multiple sports. Now, there are more sports played, and more kids are involved. The quarterback on the football is not walking onto the basketball team, because there are 20-30 kids in his grade who are focused on basketball, and a different 20-30 kids who are focused on baseball. And 2-3 who want the quarterback position who are training for that. Instead of the same 20 or so kids moving from sport to sport, you now have 60-80 involved in different sports.

That's actually not what the data shows. Participation statistics are more complex. Youth participation is down which high school is up. High school is where you have some opportunities - like no cut cross country - that kids can just jump into. Crazy travel is where you have significant gates, including cost, time, and making the team. I'd argue that well-run, widely available, relatively inexpensive recreational leagues would be better for broadening the reach of sports participation generally.

Source: https://www.jerseywatch.com/blog/youth-sports-statistics

This article blows up a lot of the commonly held beliefs repeated often here. Myths like:

1) Myth: Rec leagues have been decimated. Fact: The majority of youth athletes (58.4%) play community-based sports, like recreational leagues.

2) Myth: Sports are only for rich kids "pay to play" Fact: Families whose children play organized sports tend to be in lower income brackets

3) Myth: Sports are ruining families. Fact: 70% of kids also quit sports by age 13

If so many kids drop out how can families be ruined by something their kids don't do?

They could be ruined in the first 13 years?

But I would say that travel sports can't be ruining most American families if most kids aren't athletes and the majority of them play rec. They might be perceived by part of DCUM's audience to be ruining families, since DCUM's audience is heavily embedded in subcultures where travel sports are a thing. But most American families aren't DCUM types.

I don't get the sense that the complainers here care at all about other American families. They seem angry that other kids aren't available to entertain theirs, they have a serious case of FOMO, and they just aren't athletic, nor are their kids, and they have a chip on their shoulder about it. There's not much evidence about what's going on in these so called ruined families to support the judgment. That Billy missed Johnny's birthday party doesn't mean his family is ruined. Billy will get to many other birthday parties in a year.

I think the other thing people get annoyed by - and this is just DCUM types obviously - is the in-the-middle kids who do get left behind by travel sports. In-the-middle might mean the family doesn't have resources for travel but the kid is decently athletic. It might mean the kid is decently athletic but not good enough for most travel teams except the worst of the pay-to-play. Whatever it is, the kid is left it rec and rec is a miserable experience after a certain age (age depends on when travel picks up in your sport). Rec leagues have overworked volunteers who can't do everything, coaches who aren't good enough/don't care enough for travel, and lots of families who just use them as babysitting. They aren't a great sports experience.

People like to daydream that if you took the bottom half of travel and put those kids back in rec, rec would improve. And maybe it would! But how do you get that genie back in that bottle?

We tried rec and it was just so bad. The coaches put their mediocre kids front and center, they never sat on the bench, and then favored their kids' besties. Also screaming and cussing at the kids. Club/travel has been a much better experience. Not sure why everyone romanticizes rec as some giant kumbaya of friendly neighbors and kids having tons of fun with effective coaching.

One of my DC's coaches was super peppy and highly qualified to teach the sport, but subtly did some of the things you mentioned (favored kid and besties, put down kids she didn't like in ways that were hard to pinpoint and therefore complain about). Moved DC to a different coach and DC was like a different kid at practice.

But DH has a good friend whose kids are leaving their travel team in droves because the coach plays favorites, doesn't make the players do anything the coach's kid doesn't enjoy doing, yells at the kids constantly without actually training them to be better at the sport, and fosters a negative clubhouse culture. I still prefer the peppy coach who managed to put down my kid without looking like she was doing it over someone who openly rips kids to shreds and encourages the kids to do it to each other.

We have changed club teams too. You have to find the right fit. But across 3 kids, the rec teams have always been subpar. The last straw was the super secret practices the group of friends arranged and excluded the others on. Then they taunted the girls who weren't invited. The dads also lied that there was "no practice". Nice. The practice times are always clear and upfront on the pay to play teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big benefit of travel sports is that they greatly broaden the reach of sports participation generally.

Pre-travel sports, the number of sports played at schools was smaller, and the same kids were getting the bulk of the playing time in multiple sports. Now, there are more sports played, and more kids are involved. The quarterback on the football is not walking onto the basketball team, because there are 20-30 kids in his grade who are focused on basketball, and a different 20-30 kids who are focused on baseball. And 2-3 who want the quarterback position who are training for that. Instead of the same 20 or so kids moving from sport to sport, you now have 60-80 involved in different sports.

That's actually not what the data shows. Participation statistics are more complex. Youth participation is down which high school is up. High school is where you have some opportunities - like no cut cross country - that kids can just jump into. Crazy travel is where you have significant gates, including cost, time, and making the team. I'd argue that well-run, widely available, relatively inexpensive recreational leagues would be better for broadening the reach of sports participation generally.

Source: https://www.jerseywatch.com/blog/youth-sports-statistics

This article blows up a lot of the commonly held beliefs repeated often here. Myths like:

1) Myth: Rec leagues have been decimated. Fact: The majority of youth athletes (58.4%) play community-based sports, like recreational leagues.

2) Myth: Sports are only for rich kids "pay to play" Fact: Families whose children play organized sports tend to be in lower income brackets

3) Myth: Sports are ruining families. Fact: 70% of kids also quit sports by age 13

If so many kids drop out how can families be ruined by something their kids don't do?

They could be ruined in the first 13 years?

But I would say that travel sports can't be ruining most American families if most kids aren't athletes and the majority of them play rec. They might be perceived by part of DCUM's audience to be ruining families, since DCUM's audience is heavily embedded in subcultures where travel sports are a thing. But most American families aren't DCUM types.

I don't get the sense that the complainers here care at all about other American families. They seem angry that other kids aren't available to entertain theirs, they have a serious case of FOMO, and they just aren't athletic, nor are their kids, and they have a chip on their shoulder about it. There's not much evidence about what's going on in these so called ruined families to support the judgment. That Billy missed Johnny's birthday party doesn't mean his family is ruined. Billy will get to many other birthday parties in a year.

Comments like this are what make people dislike travel sports parents.

Sorry but it's all true. Just read the comments here. Supposed concern about the ruined families but the comments are all about how travel sports affect them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the "travel" part of travel sports that is the problem.

In a major urban area like the DMV, it should not be a problem to have leagues at all levels of competition--even highly competitive leagues--without traveling overnight for it.

It's absurd that different teams of good DC players travel to, say, Philadelphia, to play different teams in their respective leagues, when, really, they could just stay home and play the other strong local teams.

The problem is that the leagues sell the "travel" thing as prestigious. But's it's a waste of people's time, it's financially burdensome, it's unenvironmental, etc. But it works for the league...

Unenviornmental...Lol. Not saying you have to travel every weekend, but if it's feasible, traveling to other cities with people you compete with and enjoy spending time with is a GOOD thing. The majority of the time with travel sports, you can choose what type of team your kid wants to be on, if it's a team that travels every weekend, don't try out. This isn't complicated.

[Anonymous]

My only experience with travel sports is baseball. We’re not an elite team who does tournaments all over, just your run of the mill NVTBL team. The one thing that always cracks me up is when we travel out of state to play a team from this area.

I know a former D1 pitcher whose kids didn’t do travel until they were mid-high school. They had a very robust Little League that included incredibly strong Juniors and Seniors teams, one of which recently played in the LL Senior World Championship. His kids didn’t need to do travel as they had very strong rec baseball. In contrast, my son’s LL stopped after Majors at 12. So he joined travel…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big benefit of travel sports is that they greatly broaden the reach of sports participation generally.

Pre-travel sports, the number of sports played at schools was smaller, and the same kids were getting the bulk of the playing time in multiple sports. Now, there are more sports played, and more kids are involved. The quarterback on the football is not walking onto the basketball team, because there are 20-30 kids in his grade who are focused on basketball, and a different 20-30 kids who are focused on baseball. And 2-3 who want the quarterback position who are training for that. Instead of the same 20 or so kids moving from sport to sport, you now have 60-80 involved in different sports.

That's actually not what the data shows. Participation statistics are more complex. Youth participation is down which high school is up. High school is where you have some opportunities - like no cut cross country - that kids can just jump into. Crazy travel is where you have significant gates, including cost, time, and making the team. I'd argue that well-run, widely available, relatively inexpensive recreational leagues would be better for broadening the reach of sports participation generally.

Source: https://www.jerseywatch.com/blog/youth-sports-statistics

This article blows up a lot of the commonly held beliefs repeated often here. Myths like:

1) Myth: Rec leagues have been decimated. Fact: The majority of youth athletes (58.4%) play community-based sports, like recreational leagues.

2) Myth: Sports are only for rich kids "pay to play" Fact: Families whose children play organized sports tend to be in lower income brackets

3) Myth: Sports are ruining families. Fact: 70% of kids also quit sports by age 13

If so many kids drop out how can families be ruined by something their kids don't do?

They could be ruined in the first 13 years?

But I would say that travel sports can't be ruining most American families if most kids aren't athletes and the majority of them play rec. They might be perceived by part of DCUM's audience to be ruining families, since DCUM's audience is heavily embedded in subcultures where travel sports are a thing. But most American families aren't DCUM types.

I don't get the sense that the complainers here care at all about other American families. They seem angry that other kids aren't available to entertain theirs, they have a serious case of FOMO, and they just aren't athletic, nor are their kids, and they have a chip on their shoulder about it. There's not much evidence about what's going on in these so called ruined families to support the judgment. That Billy missed Johnny's birthday party doesn't mean his family is ruined. Billy will get to many other birthday parties in a year.

Comments like this are what make people dislike travel sports parents.

Sorry but it's all true. Just read the comments here. Supposed concern about the ruined families but the comments are all about how travel sports affect them.

NP here with a child that is doing travel sports and I have serious concerns about travel sports that has nothing to do with how it affects my family or attendance at birthday parties. Travel sports are the "only" option for children with a modicum of athleticism and interest in sports but, the time commitment, money commitment, and overspecialization is NOT good for children.

Most of the people on this board (myself included) can afford travel sports fairly easy so it may not seem like a big deal, but the harmful effects on kids are starting to be realized. Kids are experiencing higher levels of overuse injuries, burning out at higher rates, are less well-rounded athletically, and it's the result of a scam that has convinced parents that it's a worthwhile investment. The vast majority of kids would be better served in rec leagues with varying levels of competition where they can enjoy playing sports (and benefit from physical fitness, team-building, goal setting etc.), naturally improve under competent volunteer coaches, and not have to pay $1000s or spend a large chunk of free time travelling to tournaments and competitions.

I say this as a former D1 athlete and someone who works in sports now. I am a reluctant participant because my children are most interested in a sport different from the one I played in college and I can't coach them. But I recognize we've all been duped. There is so much money to be made by the youth sports machine (leagues, venues, paid coaches, skill trainers, even physical trainers) and the stakeholders have done a terrific job convincing parents it's the only way their kid can get better and then have a chance at making a high school team. The system is broken beyond repair, and it's destroyed the opportunity for your average, normal kid to play sports recreationally.

And yes, I know travel sports "works" for many families. It may even be "working" for my family. But it's a system that doesn't need to exist in this form. The destruction of the rec league experience is a net negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big benefit of travel sports is that they greatly broaden the reach of sports participation generally.

Pre-travel sports, the number of sports played at schools was smaller, and the same kids were getting the bulk of the playing time in multiple sports. Now, there are more sports played, and more kids are involved. The quarterback on the football is not walking onto the basketball team, because there are 20-30 kids in his grade who are focused on basketball, and a different 20-30 kids who are focused on baseball. And 2-3 who want the quarterback position who are training for that. Instead of the same 20 or so kids moving from sport to sport, you now have 60-80 involved in different sports.

That's actually not what the data shows. Participation statistics are more complex. Youth participation is down which high school is up. High school is where you have some opportunities - like no cut cross country - that kids can just jump into. Crazy travel is where you have significant gates, including cost, time, and making the team. I'd argue that well-run, widely available, relatively inexpensive recreational leagues would be better for broadening the reach of sports participation generally.

Source: https://www.jerseywatch.com/blog/youth-sports-statistics

This article blows up a lot of the commonly held beliefs repeated often here. Myths like:

1) Myth: Rec leagues have been decimated. Fact: The majority of youth athletes (58.4%) play community-based sports, like recreational leagues.

2) Myth: Sports are only for rich kids "pay to play" Fact: Families whose children play organized sports tend to be in lower income brackets

3) Myth: Sports are ruining families. Fact: 70% of kids also quit sports by age 13

If so many kids drop out how can families be ruined by something their kids don't do?

They could be ruined in the first 13 years?

But I would say that travel sports can't be ruining most American families if most kids aren't athletes and the majority of them play rec. They might be perceived by part of DCUM's audience to be ruining families, since DCUM's audience is heavily embedded in subcultures where travel sports are a thing. But most American families aren't DCUM types.

I don't get the sense that the complainers here care at all about other American families. They seem angry that other kids aren't available to entertain theirs, they have a serious case of FOMO, and they just aren't athletic, nor are their kids, and they have a chip on their shoulder about it. There's not much evidence about what's going on in these so called ruined families to support the judgment. That Billy missed Johnny's birthday party doesn't mean his family is ruined. Billy will get to many other birthday parties in a year.

I think the other thing people get annoyed by - and this is just DCUM types obviously - is the in-the-middle kids who do get left behind by travel sports. In-the-middle might mean the family doesn't have resources for travel but the kid is decently athletic. It might mean the kid is decently athletic but not good enough for most travel teams except the worst of the pay-to-play. Whatever it is, the kid is left it rec and rec is a miserable experience after a certain age (age depends on when travel picks up in your sport). Rec leagues have overworked volunteers who can't do everything, coaches who aren't good enough/don't care enough for travel, and lots of families who just use them as babysitting. They aren't a great sports experience.

People like to daydream that if you took the bottom half of travel and put those kids back in rec, rec would improve. And maybe it would! But how do you get that genie back in that bottle?

We tried rec and it was just so bad. The coaches put their mediocre kids front and center, they never sat on the bench, and then favored their kids' besties. Also screaming and cussing at the kids. Club/travel has been a much better experience. Not sure why everyone romanticizes rec as some giant kumbaya of friendly neighbors and kids having tons of fun with effective coaching.

One of my DC's coaches was super peppy and highly qualified to teach the sport, but subtly did some of the things you mentioned (favored kid and besties, put down kids she didn't like in ways that were hard to pinpoint and therefore complain about). Moved DC to a different coach and DC was like a different kid at practice.

But DH has a good friend whose kids are leaving their travel team in droves because the coach plays favorites, doesn't make the players do anything the coach's kid doesn't enjoy doing, yells at the kids constantly without actually training them to be better at the sport, and fosters a negative clubhouse culture. I still prefer the peppy coach who managed to put down my kid without looking like she was doing it over someone who openly rips kids to shreds and encourages the kids to do it to each other.

We have changed club teams too. You have to find the right fit. But across 3 kids, the rec teams have always been subpar. The last straw was the super secret practices the group of friends arranged and excluded the others on. Then they taunted the girls who weren't invited. The dads also lied that there was "no practice". Nice. The practice times are always clear and upfront on the pay to play teams.

+1

Experience across 3 kids as well here. Unfortunately, the parent cliques and “dadball” (often extending to the dad’s buddies’ kids) can really get out of hand in rec leagues (and some parent coached travel teams also). It is easy to tolerate up to age 10 or maybe even 12 (after all, does it really matter for younger kids anyway)? But at some point it gets old. At least with a travel/club team you can opt to switch clubs…rec teams are often formed by lottery/chance or a player draft and you don’t really have a choice what team/coach your kids get. For our 3rd and last kid, we moved to a paid non-parent coached team earlier and it has been wonderful and drama free. I so appreciate the parent volunteers in rec leagues (without them, there would be no teams) but a few bad apples tend to spoil the experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My only experience with travel sports is baseball. We’re not an elite team who does tournaments all over, just your run of the mill NVTBL team. The one thing that always cracks me up is when we travel out of state to play a team from this area.

I know a former D1 pitcher whose kids didn’t do travel until they were mid-high school. They had a very robust Little League that included incredibly strong Juniors and Seniors teams, one of which recently played in the LL Senior World Championship. His kids didn’t need to do travel as they had very strong rec baseball. In contrast, my son’s LL stopped after Majors at 12. So he joined travel…

+1

This is another issue. My sons played LL up until age 12 and that is where our league stops. A (very) few leagues in our metro area have LL programs beyond that (juniors and seniors). It largely just is not a thing where I live. After aging out of 12yo LL it is club/travel or nothing. Some middle schools run a spring season but it is very brief (8wks or so).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big benefit of travel sports is that they greatly broaden the reach of sports participation generally.

Pre-travel sports, the number of sports played at schools was smaller, and the same kids were getting the bulk of the playing time in multiple sports. Now, there are more sports played, and more kids are involved. The quarterback on the football is not walking onto the basketball team, because there are 20-30 kids in his grade who are focused on basketball, and a different 20-30 kids who are focused on baseball. And 2-3 who want the quarterback position who are training for that. Instead of the same 20 or so kids moving from sport to sport, you now have 60-80 involved in different sports.

That's actually not what the data shows. Participation statistics are more complex. Youth participation is down which high school is up. High school is where you have some opportunities - like no cut cross country - that kids can just jump into. Crazy travel is where you have significant gates, including cost, time, and making the team. I'd argue that well-run, widely available, relatively inexpensive recreational leagues would be better for broadening the reach of sports participation generally.

Source: https://www.jerseywatch.com/blog/youth-sports-statistics

This article blows up a lot of the commonly held beliefs repeated often here. Myths like:

1) Myth: Rec leagues have been decimated. Fact: The majority of youth athletes (58.4%) play community-based sports, like recreational leagues.

2) Myth: Sports are only for rich kids "pay to play" Fact: Families whose children play organized sports tend to be in lower income brackets

3) Myth: Sports are ruining families. Fact: 70% of kids also quit sports by age 13

If so many kids drop out how can families be ruined by something their kids don't do?

They could be ruined in the first 13 years?

But I would say that travel sports can't be ruining most American families if most kids aren't athletes and the majority of them play rec. They might be perceived by part of DCUM's audience to be ruining families, since DCUM's audience is heavily embedded in subcultures where travel sports are a thing. But most American families aren't DCUM types.

I don't get the sense that the complainers here care at all about other American families. They seem angry that other kids aren't available to entertain theirs, they have a serious case of FOMO, and they just aren't athletic, nor are their kids, and they have a chip on their shoulder about it. There's not much evidence about what's going on in these so called ruined families to support the judgment. That Billy missed Johnny's birthday party doesn't mean his family is ruined. Billy will get to many other birthday parties in a year.

I think the other thing people get annoyed by - and this is just DCUM types obviously - is the in-the-middle kids who do get left behind by travel sports. In-the-middle might mean the family doesn't have resources for travel but the kid is decently athletic. It might mean the kid is decently athletic but not good enough for most travel teams except the worst of the pay-to-play. Whatever it is, the kid is left it rec and rec is a miserable experience after a certain age (age depends on when travel picks up in your sport). Rec leagues have overworked volunteers who can't do everything, coaches who aren't good enough/don't care enough for travel, and lots of families who just use them as babysitting. They aren't a great sports experience.

People like to daydream that if you took the bottom half of travel and put those kids back in rec, rec would improve. And maybe it would! But how do you get that genie back in that bottle?

Interesting - where I live, people with kids that are just middling in sports look forward to the time when the athletically talented kids peel off to go to travel teams (seems like 4th-6th grade). Rec becomes fun again instead of dominated by a handful of kids who are very good and their dads who had big college basketball dreams and now do a lot of screaming at 10-year-olds on the sidelines. I am genuinely happy for the kids who have the talent to play travel sports. Everyone has different gifts.

[Anonymous]

Everyone wants what works for their family and their kids! There is one poster here with an interesting perspective that "its working" but they still dont like it. But in general it's odd to me that there is so much complaining when it obvious that different kids have different needs.

My sister was a d1 athlete. She played on the elite teams throughout our childhood. I know this was 25 years ago and times have changed but it had little to no impact on our family or my life. She spent a lot of time at her sport, but it was just "she has practice or she has a tournament this weekend" and sometimes we would go watch her and sometimes we wouldn't, she would go with a friend or my parents would drop her off. She loves her sport and there were no negative effects at all. My brother and I dabbled in rec sports. We had fun, but if my sister had been forced to play at our level she would have hated it. Travel was very right for her.

And maybe it was my parents attitude, and I can see now that perhaps that is the real issue with today's travel sports. While I knew she was a better athlete, it wasnt made a big deal. We were all encouraged to play at our level and our parents supported all of us. Exercise, friendship, and commitment to the team were valued. It wasnt until later that I realized how good she actually was. If DCUM had been around back then maybe my parents would have been busy posting about her and arguing about her coaches and it would have felt like more of a thing!

If youre letting kids play at the level they are skilled for, this doesnt have to be a problem for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants what works for their family and their kids! There is one poster here with an interesting perspective that "its working" but they still dont like it. But in general it's odd to me that there is so much complaining when it obvious that different kids have different needs.

My sister was a d1 athlete. She played on the elite teams throughout our childhood. I know this was 25 years ago and times have changed but it had little to no impact on our family or my life. She spent a lot of time at her sport, but it was just "she has practice or she has a tournament this weekend" and sometimes we would go watch her and sometimes we wouldn't, she would go with a friend or my parents would drop her off. She loves her sport and there were no negative effects at all. My brother and I dabbled in rec sports. We had fun, but if my sister had been forced to play at our level she would have hated it. Travel was very right for her.

And maybe it was my parents attitude, and I can see now that perhaps that is the real issue with today's travel sports. While I knew she was a better athlete, it wasnt made a big deal. We were all encouraged to play at our level and our parents supported all of us. Exercise, friendship, and commitment to the team were valued. It wasnt until later that I realized how good she actually was. If DCUM had been around back then maybe my parents would have been busy posting about her and arguing about her coaches and it would have felt like more of a thing!

If youre letting kids play at the level they are skilled for, this doesnt have to be a problem for anyone.

But what if you and your brother couldn't dabble in rec leagues but had to play travel to have any chance at experiencing sports beyond glorified daycare. Historically, travel sports were for kids like your sister that were much better than average athletes. Now, kids like you and your brother are "playing up" in travel leagues because rec sports aren't really viable