rec league coaching -- OK to give the strongest players slightly more minutes than the weaker?

[Anonymous]

It’s fine to want to win games. The coach, however, is the adult on the field. It is not fine to favor some kids over the others. The kids try to win but the coach is trying to make sure everyone is having fun and playing.

It is weird that a rec coach does not understand this very basic premise. I would note that playing time in travel sports also is equalized. Don’t do that and teams fall apart. No one stays if they don’t play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s fine to want to win games. The coach, however, is the adult on the field. It is not fine to favor some kids over the others. The kids try to win but the coach is trying to make sure everyone is having fun and playing.

It is weird that a rec coach does not understand this very basic premise. I would note that playing time in travel sports also is equalized. Don’t do that and teams fall apart. No one stays if they don’t play.

If, by “equalized”, you adhere to its definition of absolute equality, you are about to get a horde of posters berating you for claiming that every kid get equal playing time in travel sports. I have never seen this to be true.

Kids in 5th grade want to win. They accept and understand that playing time won’t be exactly equitable on rec teams with a maturity that many parents lack.

Ask any 10/11 year old, would you rather play 70% of the game and have your team lose, or play 50% of the game and have your team win - most kids want their team to win. The coach is definitely the adult in the room, but they also are there to balance fairness with the kids’ competitive drive to win. At least 50% play time is a good compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm coaching a rec soccer composed mostly of 5th graders.

We have had a lot of turnover the last couple of years, with some kids moving onwards to play in the travel league, and kids who are entirely new to the game joining the team. About half the team has less than 1 year of experience.

If I play all of the kids evenly -- each getting the same number of minutes -- will would probably lose every game by a wide margin.

If I slightly favor the 5 most experienced kids -- letting them play 90% of each game -- and slightly underplay the rest of the kids, letting them play about 70% of each game -- then the team is competitive and we can we games.

So far this season, I've been favoring the more experienced players to avoid lopsided defeats. I've received no complaints from parents or the kids.

If you are a rec league coach, do you feel my strategy is appropriate, or should I be giving all kids equal playing time?

Keep in mind that no player is permanently parked on the sidelines. Everybody is playing at least 60% of each game.

I can not remember any scores from my rec or travel days. Wins and loses just do not matter. Coach up the weaker players.

Yeah, no. “Losing every game by a wide margin” means it’s not fun for any of the kids.

OP, you’re doing fine.

[Anonymous]

If everyone is getting 50%, no one will complain. If anything, I would think some of the players would rather not be out there 70% of the time, particularly as it gets hotter in May and June.

[Anonymous]

If I have a full team (14 players) then I play everyone 50-50. We are 7 v 7 format. However, if we have 11-13 players it is impossible for me to play everyone exactly the same. Some of the players get tired and don’t want to play more, some have a lot of stamina and want to play the whole game. If we are down by a lot and I can play my better players a little more, I will, because as you said, my team wants to win. If we are ahead and doing well, I let the players who aren’t as good play more. It all evens out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s fine to want to win games. The coach, however, is the adult on the field. It is not fine to favor some kids over the others. The kids try to win but the coach is trying to make sure everyone is having fun and playing.

It is weird that a rec coach does not understand this very basic premise. I would note that playing time in travel sports also is equalized. Don’t do that and teams fall apart. No one stays if they don’t play.

If, by “equalized”, you adhere to its definition of absolute equality, you are about to get a horde of posters berating you for claiming that every kid get equal playing time in travel sports. I have never seen this to be true.

Kids in 5th grade want to win. They accept and understand that playing time won’t be exactly equitable on rec teams with a maturity that many parents lack.

Ask any 10/11 year old, would you rather play 70% of the game and have your team lose, or play 50% of the game and have your team win - most kids want their team to win. The coach is definitely the adult in the room, but they also are there to balance fairness with the kids’ competitive drive to win. At least 50% play time is a good compromise.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s fine to want to win games. The coach, however, is the adult on the field. It is not fine to favor some kids over the others. The kids try to win but the coach is trying to make sure everyone is having fun and playing.

It is weird that a rec coach does not understand this very basic premise. I would note that playing time in travel sports also is equalized. Don’t do that and teams fall apart. No one stays if they don’t play.

If, by “equalized”, you adhere to its definition of absolute equality, you are about to get a horde of posters berating you for claiming that every kid get equal playing time in travel sports. I have never seen this to be true.

Kids in 5th grade want to win. They accept and understand that playing time won’t be exactly equitable on rec teams with a maturity that many parents lack.

Ask any 10/11 year old, would you rather play 70% of the game and have your team lose, or play 50% of the game and have your team win - most kids want their team to win. The coach is definitely the adult in the room, but they also are there to balance fairness with the kids’ competitive drive to win. At least 50% play time is a good compromise.

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents think games matter more than practice, when it is actually the complete opposite. Practice is how kids improve. No one would suggest that performing in piano recitals improves skills better than piano practice and lessons. Focusing on weaker players at practice and giving everyone at least 50% playing time in the games is a good compromise.

You sound better than 90% of rec coaches just from the fact that you are thinking about being fair and improving your players.

With rain, kids spend far more of the rec season at games than at practice. We probably only get about 1/2 of the scheduled practices due to rain and field closures, so maybe an average of 30 minutes a week? It's not much practice.

Games end up being about learning on the job. They get rescheduled if rained out so they are more consistent than practices. The coach needs to be actively teaching during games too.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think you are fine with the approach you are taking. Playing with stronger players is how the weaker players get better. If you have a field full of kids who can’t connect on a pass, then they are just playing kickball and not developing soccer skills. But if you have players on the field who can pass and receive passes, they can help makes plays for/with the weaker players. As long as everyone is getting the minimum time, I would stick with your approach.

[Anonymous]

It’s 5th grade rec soccer. The adults make sure everyone plays about the same amount. It wiggles a bit given team numbers and substitution opportunities.

No one gives a crap whether they win or lose. Everyone who does not play, and their parents, think the coach is a jerk who does understand this.

Having had kids play travel soccer at medium and very high level - coaches and clubs understand that continued existence requires lots of playing time. The alternative is folding teams because you lack numbers. The reality is no one gives a crap whether you win or lose at the highest levels. That apparently is a rec thing. High level youth soccer is all about making the players as good as they can be, and getting them to the next level. No one recruiting an athlete for any sport gives a xxxx whether they played for a winning team.

[Anonymous]

You’re fine, OP. I don’t get these parents who don’t understand the difference between rec and travel soccer. Rec is about fun, and it’s fun to win. Travel is about development, so you need equal training time. If you had the weaker players barely on the field, then that would be wrong, but you’ve got everyone in the field for more than 50%, which is great. Winning will encourage those weaker players to keep playing and sign up next year, which is the whole point of rec— getting kids playing in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm coaching a rec soccer composed mostly of 5th graders.

We have had a lot of turnover the last couple of years, with some kids moving onwards to play in the travel league, and kids who are entirely new to the game joining the team. About half the team has less than 1 year of experience.

If I play all of the kids evenly -- each getting the same number of minutes -- will would probably lose every game by a wide margin.

If I slightly favor the 5 most experienced kids -- letting them play 90% of each game -- and slightly underplay the rest of the kids, letting them play about 70% of each game -- then the team is competitive and we can we games.

So far this season, I've been favoring the more experienced players to avoid lopsided defeats. I've received no complaints from parents or the kids.

If you are a rec league coach, do you feel my strategy is appropriate, or should I be giving all kids equal playing time?

Keep in mind that no player is permanently parked on the sidelines. Everybody is playing at least 60% of each game.

It's a rec league, so everyone should get similar amount of time on. You have to remember that the stronger players will still end up playing more, only because they are going to be the ones to have possession of the ball more often. If you want to win, plan better with position and the combination of players that are on the field at each time.

[Anonymous]

I think you are doing great! Thank you for volunteering and coaching. Being on a team that loses week after week sucks. Kids, even the weak ones, would get defeated and stop showing up to games. It sounds like you are balancing everything nicely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s fine to want to win games. The coach, however, is the adult on the field. It is not fine to favor some kids over the others. The kids try to win but the coach is trying to make sure everyone is having fun and playing.

It is weird that a rec coach does not understand this very basic premise. I would note that playing time in travel sports also is equalized. Don’t do that and teams fall apart. No one stays if they don’t play.

If, by “equalized”, you adhere to its definition of absolute equality, you are about to get a horde of posters berating you for claiming that every kid get equal playing time in travel sports. I have never seen this to be true.

Kids in 5th grade want to win. They accept and understand that playing time won’t be exactly equitable on rec teams with a maturity that many parents lack.

Ask any 10/11 year old, would you rather play 70% of the game and have your team lose, or play 50% of the game and have your team win - most kids want their team to win. The coach is definitely the adult in the room, but they also are there to balance fairness with the kids’ competitive drive to win. At least 50% play time is a good compromise.

No any kid would want to play the whole game. The wins and loses are so unimportant specially at 10/11 year old. The only people who care about the wins and loses are parents. Any parents concerned about wins and loses on a 10/11 year old rec or travel are the problem parents. The kids win or lose are fine. The goal of rec is that the kids have fun and continue to play.

By 13 years old, 75% of the kid will quite. This is in large part because of parents like the pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you are doing great! Thank you for volunteering and coaching. Being on a team that loses week after week sucks. Kids, even the weak ones, would get defeated and stop showing up to games. It sounds like you are balancing everything nicely.

+1

My kids have had seasons in which their teams won every game by huge margins (not great for them) and got blown out every game by huge margins (also not great).