Does your Rec sports team play to win?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have coached 4 Rec sports - ages 4 to 14. I have always played to win, but will always play every kid who shows up to practice and games and tries their best. That is what Rec sports is about.

I also never allowed kids to focus on one position each and every game ( i.e send THAT kid tot he outfield). Much better that all kids have an opportunity to plan sports at a recreational level. Travel and high school teams should have a different philosophy.

I’m sure if you try you will find people who want to win every game, though those coaches will often play their DC first and foremost also IME.

Have you ever allowed kids to choose their one positions at the beginning of the game “just for fun”? Because Rec doesn’t have cuts, there are definitely kids who aren’t great at any position. You don’t put those kids in the outfield? What if your team is losing and is trying for a comeback?

NP here. Yes, of course rec is going to have kids who are playing for fun and aren't that good -- that's the point of rec. And they should be able to play as fully as anyone else -- go to a competitive team if you don't like that philosophy.

OP here. I guess that’s what will sadly have to do. I just don’t want to hear any more lamenting and handwringing from our league commissioner (as we have heard many many times) about why “so many kids leave for travel.” Like it’s some mystery. It’s not a mystery - this is why. I’m fine with the not-so-great kids being on the team and having a spot. But they shouldn’t be playing catcher or first base if they can’t throw or catch. It’s not fair to the other kids.

I agree with this. Does your team have willing catchers? Our team is lucky because we have a few who love catching but some teams have to force kids into it. Our coach is excellent at balance IMO (but my son often plays catcher or 1st base )

OP here. Yes we have 2 excellent catchers, 3 fairly good pitchers, and a couple strong in-fielders. (Some of these are the same kids.)

I am scared of travel for lots of reasons - time, money, hassle, intensity/stress. My kid is willing to stay Rec, but she wants to play to win. She’s fine switching it out during blowouts (on either side) but if it’s a close game we should be putting forth a competitive lineup. Otherwise she doesn’t want to play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have coached 4 Rec sports - ages 4 to 14. I have always played to win, but will always play every kid who shows up to practice and games and tries their best. That is what Rec sports is about.

I also never allowed kids to focus on one position each and every game ( i.e send THAT kid tot he outfield). Much better that all kids have an opportunity to plan sports at a recreational level. Travel and high school teams should have a different philosophy.

I’m sure if you try you will find people who want to win every game, though those coaches will often play their DC first and foremost also IME.

Have you ever allowed kids to choose their one positions at the beginning of the game “just for fun”? Because Rec doesn’t have cuts, there are definitely kids who aren’t great at any position. You don’t put those kids in the outfield? What if your team is losing and is trying for a comeback?

NP here. Yes, of course rec is going to have kids who are playing for fun and aren't that good -- that's the point of rec. And they should be able to play as fully as anyone else -- go to a competitive team if you don't like that philosophy.

OP here. I guess that’s what will sadly have to do. I just don’t want to hear any more lamenting and handwringing from our league commissioner (as we have heard many many times) about why “so many kids leave for travel.” Like it’s some mystery. It’s not a mystery - this is why. I’m fine with the not-so-great kids being on the team and having a spot. But they shouldn’t be playing catcher or first base if they can’t throw or catch. It’s not fair to the other kids.

I agree with this. Does your team have willing catchers? Our team is lucky because we have a few who love catching but some teams have to force kids into it. Our coach is excellent at balance IMO (but my son often plays catcher or 1st base )

OP here. Yes we have 2 excellent catchers, 3 fairly good pitchers, and a couple strong in-fielders. (Some of these are the same kids.)

I am scared of travel for lots of reasons - time, money, hassle, intensity/stress. My kid is willing to stay Rec, but she wants to play to win. She’s fine switching it out during blowouts (on either side) but if it’s a close game we should be putting forth a competitive lineup. Otherwise she doesn’t want to play.

I don’t have experience with girl’s sports but past age 10 I think it’s dangerous to have unskilled catchers subbing in, same with pitchers to some extent (dangerous for the batter)

[Anonymous]

I’ve coached rec basketball for more than a decade and I purposefully run a position less offense (I’ve used several, but usually 5 out motion) . It makes sense for younger ages because you never know who will grow as they get older and you want them all to develop all the skills.

As for playing time, I give everyone equal playing time for the first three quarters. Then in the last quarter I play to win putting in the better players. I feel like that’s a good balance of everyone getting playing time versus wanting to win.

[Anonymous]

You can switch over to travel and still lose a lot of your games.

[Anonymous]

OP, in 3 years you’ll find a lot of travels Danvers very good players return to rec and then you can shut your mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have coached 4 Rec sports - ages 4 to 14. I have always played to win, but will always play every kid who shows up to practice and games and tries their best. That is what Rec sports is about.

I also never allowed kids to focus on one position each and every game ( i.e send THAT kid tot he outfield). Much better that all kids have an opportunity to plan sports at a recreational level. Travel and high school teams should have a different philosophy.

I’m sure if you try you will find people who want to win every game, though those coaches will often play their DC first and foremost also IME.

Have you ever allowed kids to choose their one positions at the beginning of the game “just for fun”? Because Rec doesn’t have cuts, there are definitely kids who aren’t great at any position. You don’t put those kids in the outfield? What if your team is losing and is trying for a comeback?

NP here. Yes, of course rec is going to have kids who are playing for fun and aren't that good -- that's the point of rec. And they should be able to play as fully as anyone else -- go to a competitive team if you don't like that philosophy.

OP here. I guess that’s what will sadly have to do. I just don’t want to hear any more lamenting and handwringing from our league commissioner (as we have heard many many times) about why “so many kids leave for travel.” Like it’s some mystery. It’s not a mystery - this is why. I’m fine with the not-so-great kids being on the team and having a spot. But they shouldn’t be playing catcher or first base if they can’t throw or catch. It’s not fair to the other kids.

I agree with this. Does your team have willing catchers? Our team is lucky because we have a few who love catching but some teams have to force kids into it. Our coach is excellent at balance IMO (but my son often plays catcher or 1st base )

OP here. Yes we have 2 excellent catchers, 3 fairly good pitchers, and a couple strong in-fielders. (Some of these are the same kids.)

I am scared of travel for lots of reasons - time, money, hassle, intensity/stress. My kid is willing to stay Rec, but she wants to play to win. She’s fine switching it out during blowouts (on either side) but if it’s a close game we should be putting forth a competitive lineup. Otherwise she doesn’t want to play.

I feel your pain. Both my son and daughter left rec for that reason. For kids that are competitive, its frustrating to lose a game because the 3rd baseman was looking at bug in the grass and let a ground ball go by.

BUT....if you do make the switch to travel, it can be very difficult on that same child to go from the big fish in a little pond to just being another player. For example, my daughter made the switch to travel softball, and all of a sudden she is not a top 2 pitcher on the team and ends up playing a lot of outfield. The upside is that the team and games are more competitive. The downside is that she doesn't get to play the positions she really wants.

With my son, we moved around on teams until he found a team where he could play the position he wants (as a 14 yo). But the downside to that is making new friends every year. There's something to be said for just playing the game for fun with your friends from school

[Anonymous]

My son's 5th grade Rec soccer team does not play-to-win which frustrates my son, the primary goal-scorer. He finds himself also playing defense because most of his teammates don't hustle. We've kept him on this team to keep in contact with former elementary school friends after he switched to private. This past weekend, after the umpteenth loss (despite his best efforts playing the whole game without a break) he told us he wants to quit the team and probably quit soccer altogether!

[Anonymous]

Depends on the coach. Some coaches ignore playing time rules and will play the best players the whole game. Others will let the weaker kids play in all positions.
As you get to higher ages playing to win happens more.

PP putting a top scorer on defense is nice if the kid will accept it. It is how you play to win, because it won't matter if your kid scores a hat trick if the other team is now able to score easily.
We've had that issue where I want to play certain players on offense but we need them on defense. My older son's team got a really good player in rec who was playing defense the whole time, and won them championships as a result. I worry about losing the players on my team because we stick them on defense too much, but the other coaches don't seem to care.

[Anonymous]

I’m a rec coach and we play to win but I also give equal playing time and as someone else said, rotate positions if we have a larger lead to give kids time to play a position they aren’t as good at. I have always said it’s actually a hard balance to strike as a coach because I’ve put someone in goal before and the other team basically scored 3 goals on them in 5 minutes, so that’s not good for the team as a whole, but I also want to make sure the kids get to try and play every position they are interested in. There are also some players who aren’t as interested in the game and asked to be subbed out when they get tired. My best players seem to have the most stamina and most interest in playing, so that also works out when you’re playing to win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Largely agree with PP. Starting around age 10, there is more emphasis on winning, but all do play & playing time rules are followed. But some kids play more than others and not everyone gets a chance at key positions.

Sounds like your kid plays baseball. Most common scenario on rec teams is 6 kids who play full time (mostly at key positions), 6 split time 50/50 and are more limited in what positions they play. The nicer coaches flip things around during scrimmages and blowouts - sitting starters and putting weaker players in full time. So- everyone plays- but they do try to be competitive as well.

Travel teams are far different, especially at ages 12+, so make sure to do your homework if you go that route. I have two sons that play travel (12u and 14u) Many teams at the older ages play to WIN, period. Especially on Sundays/bracket play. It depends on the team, but - on some teams- there will be kids that see shockingly little playing time. Basically the opposite of what you are seeing now in rec. So be prepared.

Disagree on travel. These are paid coaches, and they don't seem to care about winning but about developing players and make sure everyone gets playing time so they will continue to pay for travel. Some players will get far less, but I was surprised to see a coach while leading by 1 at the end put in a pretty weak player who was clearly out of it that day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Largely agree with PP. Starting around age 10, there is more emphasis on winning, but all do play & playing time rules are followed. But some kids play more than others and not everyone gets a chance at key positions.

Sounds like your kid plays baseball. Most common scenario on rec teams is 6 kids who play full time (mostly at key positions), 6 split time 50/50 and are more limited in what positions they play. The nicer coaches flip things around during scrimmages and blowouts - sitting starters and putting weaker players in full time. So- everyone plays- but they do try to be competitive as well.

Travel teams are far different, especially at ages 12+, so make sure to do your homework if you go that route. I have two sons that play travel (12u and 14u) Many teams at the older ages play to WIN, period. Especially on Sundays/bracket play. It depends on the team, but - on some teams- there will be kids that see shockingly little playing time. Basically the opposite of what you are seeing now in rec. So be prepared.

Disagree on travel. These are paid coaches, and they don't seem to care about winning but about developing players and make sure everyone gets playing time so they will continue to pay for travel. Some players will get far less, but I was surprised to see a coach while leading by 1 at the end put in a pretty weak player who was clearly out of it that day.

Watch an AAU team. The end of the bench isn't playing in a close game. My DD has been on teams where she plays whole and games where she plays a couple of minutes. It's one sport where a kid needs a team that matchers their ability level. Rec is great for a kid who wants to play because most leagues force coaches to play everyone even if it means losing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or do they rotate through all the positions for “fairness” even if that means giving up any chance of winning a game?

If they do this, is there a certain age group where they stop doing this? Is there a certain age where the kids want to win more than they want to rotate everyone through the “good” positions fairly?

Just trying to get a sense of what’s typical here. We really don’t want to switch to travel for many reasons but I feel like our Rec team isn’t really giving us another option. This is for older kids btw, 12+.

OP

stop just stop.

If you want competition move your kid if they get selected.

Otherwise stop having them play sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Largely agree with PP. Starting around age 10, there is more emphasis on winning, but all do play & playing time rules are followed. But some kids play more than others and not everyone gets a chance at key positions.

Sounds like your kid plays baseball. Most common scenario on rec teams is 6 kids who play full time (mostly at key positions), 6 split time 50/50 and are more limited in what positions they play. The nicer coaches flip things around during scrimmages and blowouts - sitting starters and putting weaker players in full time. So- everyone plays- but they do try to be competitive as well.

Travel teams are far different, especially at ages 12+, so make sure to do your homework if you go that route. I have two sons that play travel (12u and 14u) Many teams at the older ages play to WIN, period. Especially on Sundays/bracket play. It depends on the team, but - on some teams- there will be kids that see shockingly little playing time. Basically the opposite of what you are seeing now in rec. So be prepared.

Disagree on travel. These are paid coaches, and they don't seem to care about winning but about developing players and make sure everyone gets playing time so they will continue to pay for travel. Some players will get far less, but I was surprised to see a coach while leading by 1 at the end put in a pretty weak player who was clearly out of it that day.

Watch an AAU team. The end of the bench isn't playing in a close game. My DD has been on teams where she plays whole and games where she plays a couple of minutes. It's one sport where a kid needs a team that matchers their ability level. Rec is great for a kid who wants to play because most leagues force coaches to play everyone even if it means losing.

Agree on this. Our AAU team will play the bench. It's not equal but everyone gets playing time at every game. And if it's a blowout, the bench plays more but not for close games. We are in a young grade AAU team. We have been fairly pleased that everyone will get some playing time at every game because we have heard some teams don't play their bench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i have coached 4 Rec sports - ages 4 to 14. I have always played to win, but will always play every kid who shows up to practice and games and tries their best. That is what Rec sports is about.

I also never allowed kids to focus on one position each and every game ( i.e send THAT kid tot he outfield). Much better that all kids have an opportunity to plan sports at a recreational level. Travel and high school teams should have a different philosophy.

I’m sure if you try you will find people who want to win every game, though those coaches will often play their DC first and foremost also IME.

Have you ever allowed kids to choose their one positions at the beginning of the game “just for fun”? Because Rec doesn’t have cuts, there are definitely kids who aren’t great at any position. You don’t put those kids in the outfield? What if your team is losing and is trying for a comeback?

NP here. Yes, of course rec is going to have kids who are playing for fun and aren't that good -- that's the point of rec. And they should be able to play as fully as anyone else -- go to a competitive team if you don't like that philosophy.

OP here. I guess that’s what will sadly have to do. I just don’t want to hear any more lamenting and handwringing from our league commissioner (as we have heard many many times) about why “so many kids leave for travel.” Like it’s some mystery. It’s not a mystery - this is why. I’m fine with the not-so-great kids being on the team and having a spot. But they shouldn’t be playing catcher or first base if they can’t throw or catch. It’s not fair to the other kids.

Yes, it is fair. FAIR is exactly what it is. The other kids can play those positions, too, because they are being fair. A kid should not be stuck in the outfield all the time because they are not super skilled. I have two kids who play baseball. One plays rec only. One played rec for years and then moved to travel and now plays on a highly competitive travel team. If you want to be on a team where everyone is as good as your super stud, switch to travel.

[Anonymous]

Former rec baskeball coach, and I always coached to win within the constraints of the playing time rules (required every player to play at least 2 full quarters). Most years, everyone ended up with equal playing time by the end of the year since I would get the better players more time in close games and then the weaker players would get extra time in less competitive games.

Positionally, it was more of a challenge b/c you don't necessarily want to put kids in a position fail (bad ball handler bringing the ball up the court, for instance). It can hurt their confidence and open them up to ridicule/bullying. I always tried to make sure everyone had a substantive role, whether it being the inbounder, defending the point, setting a key pick, being a rebounder, or even leading drills/warmups. I am sure I didn't always succeed, but kids aren't stupid. They know their strengths and weaknesses and generally don't want to look bad in front of their classmates/teammates.