Travel sports are killing American families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who?

I had the same question when I heard this on a Facebook reel. I searched for the whole video to understand the context. Apparently he is on Dave Ramsey's team and specializes on mental health issues [https://www.ramseysolutions.com/john-delony]. PhD in psychology.

That instantly discredits him. I wonder if he's as much of a hypocrite as his boss.

According to this logic, everything he says is worthless because of an association with a person you don't like. This is an interesting case study for confirmation bias: you avoid discussing the issue and dismiss the person because you don't agree with what he says.

I'm dismissing the source just as I'd dismiss someone with Newsmax above their byline. Find a source worth reading if you want to be taken seriously

You’re an idiot. You’d dismiss his whole premise just because you don’t like who he works for? Whether you’re a travel sports family or not, he makes some valid points.

This is uncalled for. The source does matter to a certain degree. Conservatives don't take MSNBC seriously, liberals dismiss Newsmax. We got to the point where we only trust sources that parrot our beliefs exclusively. If both of MSNBC and Newsmax would write that the Earth is round, liberals would not trust the Newsmax story and the conservatives would argue against the MSNBC story.

[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.

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.

What do you think about rec but playing the same sport two or more seasons, or doing local specialty camps during school break? DC is into ice hockey and would do every extra and play it year round if allowed. I like the idea of limits but it’s not like they can just practice outside like bball or soccer. The need ice time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny all the people who are like "Why do you hate travel sports? We only did them because there really aren't rec sports around here past early elementary, so we didn't have a choice." And don't understand the relationship between those two things.

The reason rec sports are so depleted is that people who are passionate about sports shifted to travel teams. So now if your kid is very good at a sport and committed to playing in HS, you basically have to do travel sports. This is precisely what people hate about them. It was better when a kid could pursue a sport at a progressively high level without having to participate in a travel team.

Also, at least where I grew up (West coast), middle schools used to have strong sport programs. I played sports in MS and it was ideal prep for playing HS sports. Having teams located in the schools is obvious -- it makes it easier to have regular practices, and then you just play the other MS's in your area. You don't have to travel throughout a 5 state area. We even had championship series, and teams were leveled so the best players at one school played agains the best players at another (but teams were no cut and there were games and tournaments for "B" and "C" teams too -- so everyone played). All the top varsity players in HS for basketball, volleyball, and cross-country/track also were on the MS teams.

Baseball and football were done through little league and pee-wee, but not travel teams.

Soccer had travel teams when I was a kid, but there was also an extensive rec system and you could make HS teams just playing rec, though even then the travel kids had an edge.

Now MS sports are barely a thing, rec leagues peter out after 3rd grade, and everything is travel leagues if you want to play in HS. It's a worse system. That's why people complain. It would be better to have a system where kids could compete and develop in a local league. Especially in a place like the DMV where there are PLENTY of high level players at every age to play with and against. There is no compelling reason for travel sports around here beyond wanting to funnel more money, and family time/energy, towards poorly-run private companies. Yay?

This is true: middle schools should have more teams / more sports and encourage local competition. There was a thread here where parents expressed frustration at how MCPS schools don't do enough to help more young athletes participate in sports. Lack of facilities? Where do you think all these travel teams practice? If there was a will they could have found a way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

PP and I understand that being a problem. However, I have not experienced it with my family. Oldest is 9, and there are plenty of rec options available and he is a decent player at most sports and is still enjoying the level of play. I guess if that changes in 2 years I might feel differently. But it's not something I have seen first hand. In fact two of our neighbors have middle school sons playing rec sports and still loving it. Soccee and basketball.

[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…

Guarantee you that pitcher was spending a lot of time on the side working with his kids. Taking them to batting cages, maybe even has their own cage at their house, lobbing balls to them. That's a real advantage so it's cute to say they didn't even do travel until high school. I live in an area with a ton of ex-MLB players and their kids are all very good. No surprise, because they spend tons of time with them on the side, at home. That's a huge leg up that got conveniently glossed over here. How is the regular kid going to compete with that without more play and practice time?

[Anonymous]

There is another way (and I say this as a travel parent for the worst sport in travel — soccer — for the past six years)

But for hockey there is a youth league in Fredericksburg, Va for roller hockey that has created an oasis from travel for a nominal rec league fee - and if you can’t pay - the league will!

They have free clinics on Saturdays to learn to skate and learn to play. Three age divisions elementary, middle and high school. Coed teams. This is the way!

https://www.fyrhl.org/home

BTW: if there are any HBO Real Sports producers on here the rise of this greedy and unregulated enterprise of travel youth sports would make a phenomenal doc. Michael Lewis even offers a foundation in his book profiling his experience with his daughter’s travel softball team. Insidious.

[Anonymous]

I know people lament travel sports, but I guess the alternative is to look at European soccer and basketball development.

In Europe, kids are selected to play for academy teams as early as 5. Ajax in Holland basically has boarding school for players staring at 5.

You basically have groups of kids groomed for pro leagues at very young ages. Everyone remaining knows they are only Rec players. There isn’t as much pressure because you never play against these pro kids. They exist in their own world. There are no college sports, so again, it’s either pro or rec.

The other difference is they don’t start playing real games until like 15. Up until that, it is all skills development, conditioning and training.

Maybe that is a better system even though perhaps harsher. Kids know at a fairly young age that it’s only Rec from here on out and there is not the false thinking everyone will be a D1 athlete.

[Anonymous]

It’s sad. The amount of time and money spent for 5-10 years and then poof!

Most kids will not play in college, most will not get scholarships, none will make the Olympics.

Life goes on. No one cares if you were in a club team and most won’t even care of you play D1.

Once you get have a job, get married and have kids none of this matters. No one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad. The amount of time and money spent for 5-10 years and then poof!

Most kids will not play in college, most will not get scholarships, none will make the Olympics.

Life goes on. No one cares if you were in a club team and most won’t even care of you play D1.

Once you get have a job, get married and have kids none of this matters. No one cares.

[/quote

Well, that's like most things, lol. Sports are fun now, in the moment. And of course there are lasting benefits and the wonderful memories and friendships.

[Anonymous]

“Playing to Win” by Michael Lewis is interesting. Only available on Audible I think. Youth sports are a business; they don’t really serve the kids well - this whole industry has really crept up, grown and really is completely unregulated. But agree with posters that the have “pushed out” more traditional rec leagues, frequently that used to be run by local towns, counties etc. (maybe at the same times budgets for those types of things were cut just like public school middle school sports).

Running events and these tournaments they take up all weekend are where the really $$$ is!

By the time most parents exit, disgruntled or not, there is a whole new crop of parents to feed into the business …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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…

Guarantee you that pitcher was spending a lot of time on the side working with his kids. Taking them to batting cages, maybe even has their own cage at their house, lobbing balls to them. That's a real advantage so it's cute to say they didn't even do travel until high school. I live in an area with a ton of ex-MLB players and their kids are all very good. No surprise, because they spend tons of time with them on the side, at home. That's a huge leg up that got conveniently glossed over here. How is the regular kid going to compete with that without more play and practice time?

Well, of course he was working with his kids on the side. They did take lessons with other people, either because he couldn’t give them what they needed or because they learned better from someone who wasn’t him.

But he was anti-travel for some reason, maybe just for the younger ages. I don’t know why. He’s my sister’s brother-in-law and she never knew why he felt like that.

But my overall point still stands that there are kids in his area who benefit from having rec ball that goes through 16 or 17, whereas my kid’s rec ball stopped at 12. They may have benefited from their former D1 dad’s knowledge, but not everyone on their Juniors/Seniors teams had that benefit either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny all the people who are like "Why do you hate travel sports? We only did them because there really aren't rec sports around here past early elementary, so we didn't have a choice." And don't understand the relationship between those two things.

The reason rec sports are so depleted is that people who are passionate about sports shifted to travel teams. So now if your kid is very good at a sport and committed to playing in HS, you basically have to do travel sports. This is precisely what people hate about them. It was better when a kid could pursue a sport at a progressively high level without having to participate in a travel team.

Also, at least where I grew up (West coast), middle schools used to have strong sport programs. I played sports in MS and it was ideal prep for playing HS sports. Having teams located in the schools is obvious -- it makes it easier to have regular practices, and then you just play the other MS's in your area. You don't have to travel throughout a 5 state area. We even had championship series, and teams were leveled so the best players at one school played agains the best players at another (but teams were no cut and there were games and tournaments for "B" and "C" teams too -- so everyone played). All the top varsity players in HS for basketball, volleyball, and cross-country/track also were on the MS teams.

Baseball and football were done through little league and pee-wee, but not travel teams.

Soccer had travel teams when I was a kid, but there was also an extensive rec system and you could make HS teams just playing rec, though even then the travel kids had an edge.

Now MS sports are barely a thing, rec leagues peter out after 3rd grade, and everything is travel leagues if you want to play in HS. It's a worse system. That's why people complain. It would be better to have a system where kids could compete and develop in a local league. Especially in a place like the DMV where there are PLENTY of high level players at every age to play with and against. There is no compelling reason for travel sports around here beyond wanting to funnel more money, and family time/energy, towards poorly-run private companies. Yay?

This is true: middle schools should have more teams / more sports and encourage local competition. There was a thread here where parents expressed frustration at how MCPS schools don't do enough to help more young athletes participate in sports. Lack of facilities? Where do you think all these travel teams practice? If there was a will they could have found a way.

Even in areas with robust Middle School Sports, travel teams still proliferate. You guys think DMV is travel sports obsessed? Go down to DFW and Houston where the public and private middle school sports leagues are robust, rec leagues are strong and club (local and travel) teams are still a huge thing.

The issue is that parents will always be willing to commit to “more”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny all the people who are like "Why do you hate travel sports? We only did them because there really aren't rec sports around here past early elementary, so we didn't have a choice." And don't understand the relationship between those two things.

The reason rec sports are so depleted is that people who are passionate about sports shifted to travel teams. So now if your kid is very good at a sport and committed to playing in HS, you basically have to do travel sports. This is precisely what people hate about them. It was better when a kid could pursue a sport at a progressively high level without having to participate in a travel team.

Also, at least where I grew up (West coast), middle schools used to have strong sport programs. I played sports in MS and it was ideal prep for playing HS sports. Having teams located in the schools is obvious -- it makes it easier to have regular practices, and then you just play the other MS's in your area. You don't have to travel throughout a 5 state area. We even had championship series, and teams were leveled so the best players at one school played agains the best players at another (but teams were no cut and there were games and tournaments for "B" and "C" teams too -- so everyone played). All the top varsity players in HS for basketball, volleyball, and cross-country/track also were on the MS teams.

Baseball and football were done through little league and pee-wee, but not travel teams.

Soccer had travel teams when I was a kid, but there was also an extensive rec system and you could make HS teams just playing rec, though even then the travel kids had an edge.

Now MS sports are barely a thing, rec leagues peter out after 3rd grade, and everything is travel leagues if you want to play in HS. It's a worse system. That's why people complain. It would be better to have a system where kids could compete and develop in a local league. Especially in a place like the DMV where there are PLENTY of high level players at every age to play with and against. There is no compelling reason for travel sports around here beyond wanting to funnel more money, and family time/energy, towards poorly-run private companies. Yay?

This is true: middle schools should have more teams / more sports and encourage local competition. There was a thread here where parents expressed frustration at how MCPS schools don't do enough to help more young athletes participate in sports. Lack of facilities? Where do you think all these travel teams practice? If there was a will they could have found a way.

Even in areas with robust Middle School Sports, travel teams still proliferate. You guys think DMV is travel sports obsessed? Go down to DFW and Houston where the public and private middle school sports leagues are robust, rec leagues are strong and club (local and travel) teams are still a huge thing.

The issue is that parents will always be willing to commit to “more”.

But... wouldn't it be nice to have a robust middle school sports program in the DMV area? At least that would offer an alternative to the travel sports to those who cannot afford the travel teams or don't want to commit the resources. If parents would be willing to commit to "more," that would be beneficial to clubs as well because they would have better trained athletes coming out of the middle school teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad. The amount of time and money spent for 5-10 years and then poof!

Most kids will not play in college, most will not get scholarships, none will make the Olympics.

Life goes on. No one cares if you were in a club team and most won’t even care of you play D1.

Once you get have a job, get married and have kids none of this matters. No one cares.

Ha ha this is so nihilistic but I love it!

[Anonymous]

Clearly we need something in between rec and travel teams.. a good business opportunity for someone