I can’t ending wait to be done with travel sports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sort of midway through this now with my 8th grader. What I will say for people who don't have superstar athletes- find a club where your kid can play on the top team. Being on the top team of a lower level club is such a better experience than being on team 2/3/4 of a top club. Usually, lower level teams are less pressured and by being on the top team, you get the most attention/best coaching, etc.

Just my 0.02 5 years into this.

FWIW, coming from the perspective of a college recruit parent whose kid is now through the process, I completely disagree with this. I think avoiding the top team at a big club until kids are u15 or so is the best plan unless you have an absolute superstar (and even then, I’m not convinced). I actually think for development and growth, being on the second or third team for awhile is best. You get the ambitious coaches who have their own career ambitions, but you don’t have the insanity of the top team parents.

You have to be willing to switch clubs sometimes, when it comes time to go to a top-level team. But I’m so glad my kid played lower level for years, and not on the top team. DC got much better development and a lot more playing time, and then easily transitioned to a top team when DC wanted. The parents were mellower than the top team parents as well.

I honestly don’t understand why so many parents push their kids to be on top teams of any club. It doesn’t always make sense.

Maybe those parents really believe their kids are top players? I've always felt that if a kid is not self-motivated or can only compete at that level with lots of extra training that parents are willing to provide, that they probably aren't top level material. My kid thinks it's wild to hear that some of his teammates on a top team have had private training for so long yet he is still the better player (starter and more playing time). He half-jokes and says imagine how much better he would be if we had gotten him a private trainer. I told him we didn't care whether he got on a top team or not so we never even thought about it.

PP here with the college athlete kid. First, I would nip that sort of talk from your kid in the bud immediately. He should absolutely not be talking like that in 8th grade. It isn’t good.

But secondly and more relevant to the conversation, from what I see private training is often a proxy for work ethic, at least for kids in high school. I guess I disagree with your assessment, or more specifically I disagree with it for kids in HS. No parent can make a kid get private training in HS if they don’t want it, and no coaches want to waste their time with kids with no motivation. By high school, the hard workers are well on their way to college athletics. And what I saw was that while some of the athletic superstars went on to college, many didn’t. The kids with work ethic did very well, though.

It really does come down to work ethic in the long run. Kids who coast on their talent have a hard time when that stops working. The ones who have always had to work a little harder just keep pushing and often rise to the top. One of my kids is decently talented but I worry he doesn't have the work ethic. My other kid is young still but I can already see that he's the type who persists in the face of difficulty. It's a personality/temperament thing that I think can be observed even in young kids. I am keeping an eye on my older kid and if he isn't showing the work ethic I am not going to continue paying $$ for travel sports. None of it will matter in the long run if he lacks the work ethic.

I have kid who is not the most athletic and not the greatest work ethic. But because of a sibling that did have talent and the work ethic, he too ended up playing a travel sport and by sheer length of time and consistency from doing it so long, is actually pretty good now. I think once he gets to high school, he'll realizes, with work ethic, he could probably score a college scholarship but we'll see. Having a few kids with varying levels of work ethic, I do know that it's something they themselves have to develop without pressure or nagging from parents.

That is just bullsh#t. The really good athletes with size and speed will beat out the hard workers. Specially at high school age or lower. For many really good athletes they don’t have to work that hard at it. They are just faster, stronger, quicker, etc and they will be able to pick up the skills with significantly less time vs others. I have seen it in football, soccer and basketball. You can not teach athleticism, size, strength, speed, touch, IQ, etc. You can develop it with in a range. One kid can run a 4.7 40 with little work and anther will work their butts off for a 5.5. This really starts to show up at the high school age. In college they are only taking the 10%, pros 1-2%.

There are a lot of Rudy Ruettiger on high school age teams in all sports. There are not many J.J. Watt or Reggie White. Neither would have to work very hard to dominate in high school or college. RG3 relied on his athleticism and dominated the NFL for a year. Also LaVar Arrington great athlete but just did his own thing on the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sort of midway through this now with my 8th grader. What I will say for people who don't have superstar athletes- find a club where your kid can play on the top team. Being on the top team of a lower level club is such a better experience than being on team 2/3/4 of a top club. Usually, lower level teams are less pressured and by being on the top team, you get the most attention/best coaching, etc.

Just my 0.02 5 years into this.

FWIW, coming from the perspective of a college recruit parent whose kid is now through the process, I completely disagree with this. I think avoiding the top team at a big club until kids are u15 or so is the best plan unless you have an absolute superstar (and even then, I’m not convinced). I actually think for development and growth, being on the second or third team for awhile is best. You get the ambitious coaches who have their own career ambitions, but you don’t have the insanity of the top team parents.

You have to be willing to switch clubs sometimes, when it comes time to go to a top-level team. But I’m so glad my kid played lower level for years, and not on the top team. DC got much better development and a lot more playing time, and then easily transitioned to a top team when DC wanted. The parents were mellower than the top team parents as well.

I honestly don’t understand why so many parents push their kids to be on top teams of any club. It doesn’t always make sense.

Maybe those parents really believe their kids are top players? I've always felt that if a kid is not self-motivated or can only compete at that level with lots of extra training that parents are willing to provide, that they probably aren't top level material. My kid thinks it's wild to hear that some of his teammates on a top team have had private training for so long yet he is still the better player (starter and more playing time). He half-jokes and says imagine how much better he would be if we had gotten him a private trainer. I told him we didn't care whether he got on a top team or not so we never even thought about it.

PP here with the college athlete kid. First, I would nip that sort of talk from your kid in the bud immediately. He should absolutely not be talking like that in 8th grade. It isn’t good.

But secondly and more relevant to the conversation, from what I see private training is often a proxy for work ethic, at least for kids in high school. I guess I disagree with your assessment, or more specifically I disagree with it for kids in HS. No parent can make a kid get private training in HS if they don’t want it, and no coaches want to waste their time with kids with no motivation. By high school, the hard workers are well on their way to college athletics. And what I saw was that while some of the athletic superstars went on to college, many didn’t. The kids with work ethic did very well, though.

It really does come down to work ethic in the long run. Kids who coast on their talent have a hard time when that stops working. The ones who have always had to work a little harder just keep pushing and often rise to the top. One of my kids is decently talented but I worry he doesn't have the work ethic. My other kid is young still but I can already see that he's the type who persists in the face of difficulty. It's a personality/temperament thing that I think can be observed even in young kids. I am keeping an eye on my older kid and if he isn't showing the work ethic I am not going to continue paying $$ for travel sports. None of it will matter in the long run if he lacks the work ethic.

I have kid who is not the most athletic and not the greatest work ethic. But because of a sibling that did have talent and the work ethic, he too ended up playing a travel sport and by sheer length of time and consistency from doing it so long, is actually pretty good now. I think once he gets to high school, he'll realizes, with work ethic, he could probably score a college scholarship but we'll see. Having a few kids with varying levels of work ethic, I do know that it's something they themselves have to develop without pressure or nagging from parents.

That is just bullsh#t. The really good athletes with size and speed will beat out the hard workers. Specially at high school age or lower. For many really good athletes they don’t have to work that hard at it. They are just faster, stronger, quicker, etc and they will be able to pick up the skills with significantly less time vs others. I have seen it in football, soccer and basketball. You can not teach athleticism, size, strength, speed, touch, IQ, etc. You can develop it with in a range. One kid can run a 4.7 40 with little work and anther will work their butts off for a 5.5. This really starts to show up at the high school age. In college they are only taking the 10%, pros 1-2%.

There are a lot of Rudy Ruettiger on high school age teams in all sports. There are not many J.J. Watt or Reggie White. Neither would have to work very hard to dominate in high school or college. RG3 relied on his athleticism and dominated the NFL for a year. Also LaVar Arrington great athlete but just did his own thing on the field.

Ridiculous. Of course you can teach athleticism, size, speed, touch, etc. You clearly haven’t spent time developing athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting thread. I am sympathetic to the OP, because I’ve definitely seen a lot of bad behavior from over-invested, clueless parents, and we’ve encountered plenty of petty random or egomaniacal coaches. But overall we’ve had a very positive experience with three kids playing travel sports. We’ve made lasting friendships with other parents and have enjoyed the time in the car or hotels with our kids and the other kids in the carpool..

Thinking back, though, I really agree with the posters who said the B or C teams are often the best place to develop, so long as there is a good training structure and committed families. Our two kids who played/are playing at that level love their primary sport completely. Our eldest went from a C team to club in college, to adult league, and she has ended up with so many close friendships from that experience. Our youngest is on a B team now, with just the sort of talented and ambitious coach a PP mentioned you can often find at that level. If this kid takes a step up, it will be due to the positive coaching and team experience he’s had along the way. And at this level we’ve been surrounded be happy, grounded parents and kids for years. Our middle kid is such an outstanding athlete that he was always among the top players on the top team, and because of that we were insulated from the negativity that his friends who weren’t starters felt. To a person, the parents of the starters felt like those years were mostly positive and the parents of the bench players didn’t, even though most of the kids were recruited and are playing in college now. Proximity to the perceived brass ring can definitely be toxic for a lot of people.

Well said.

I think there are very few kids who actually benefit from being on the A teams as younger players. The A teams can be good for older teens, when it is time to move to college or pro recruitment, because college coaches or pro scouts don’t usually see B or C team games. But as young players? Those top teams often have the coaches that just want to win, at the expense of development. Plus, the parents are often totally nuts and not people you’d want to expose a kid to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sort of midway through this now with my 8th grader. What I will say for people who don't have superstar athletes- find a club where your kid can play on the top team. Being on the top team of a lower level club is such a better experience than being on team 2/3/4 of a top club. Usually, lower level teams are less pressured and by being on the top team, you get the most attention/best coaching, etc.

Just my 0.02 5 years into this.

FWIW, coming from the perspective of a college recruit parent whose kid is now through the process, I completely disagree with this. I think avoiding the top team at a big club until kids are u15 or so is the best plan unless you have an absolute superstar (and even then, I’m not convinced). I actually think for development and growth, being on the second or third team for awhile is best. You get the ambitious coaches who have their own career ambitions, but you don’t have the insanity of the top team parents.

You have to be willing to switch clubs sometimes, when it comes time to go to a top-level team. But I’m so glad my kid played lower level for years, and not on the top team. DC got much better development and a lot more playing time, and then easily transitioned to a top team when DC wanted. The parents were mellower than the top team parents as well.

I honestly don’t understand why so many parents push their kids to be on top teams of any club. It doesn’t always make sense.

Maybe those parents really believe their kids are top players? I've always felt that if a kid is not self-motivated or can only compete at that level with lots of extra training that parents are willing to provide, that they probably aren't top level material. My kid thinks it's wild to hear that some of his teammates on a top team have had private training for so long yet he is still the better player (starter and more playing time). He half-jokes and says imagine how much better he would be if we had gotten him a private trainer. I told him we didn't care whether he got on a top team or not so we never even thought about it.

PP here with the college athlete kid. First, I would nip that sort of talk from your kid in the bud immediately. He should absolutely not be talking like that in 8th grade. It isn’t good.

But secondly and more relevant to the conversation, from what I see private training is often a proxy for work ethic, at least for kids in high school. I guess I disagree with your assessment, or more specifically I disagree with it for kids in HS. No parent can make a kid get private training in HS if they don’t want it, and no coaches want to waste their time with kids with no motivation. By high school, the hard workers are well on their way to college athletics. And what I saw was that while some of the athletic superstars went on to college, many didn’t. The kids with work ethic did very well, though.

It really does come down to work ethic in the long run. Kids who coast on their talent have a hard time when that stops working. The ones who have always had to work a little harder just keep pushing and often rise to the top. One of my kids is decently talented but I worry he doesn't have the work ethic. My other kid is young still but I can already see that he's the type who persists in the face of difficulty. It's a personality/temperament thing that I think can be observed even in young kids. I am keeping an eye on my older kid and if he isn't showing the work ethic I am not going to continue paying $$ for travel sports. None of it will matter in the long run if he lacks the work ethic.

I have kid who is not the most athletic and not the greatest work ethic. But because of a sibling that did have talent and the work ethic, he too ended up playing a travel sport and by sheer length of time and consistency from doing it so long, is actually pretty good now. I think once he gets to high school, he'll realizes, with work ethic, he could probably score a college scholarship but we'll see. Having a few kids with varying levels of work ethic, I do know that it's something they themselves have to develop without pressure or nagging from parents.

That is just bullsh#t. The really good athletes with size and speed will beat out the hard workers. Specially at high school age or lower. For many really good athletes they don’t have to work that hard at it. They are just faster, stronger, quicker, etc and they will be able to pick up the skills with significantly less time vs others. I have seen it in football, soccer and basketball. You can not teach athleticism, size, strength, speed, touch, IQ, etc. You can develop it with in a range. One kid can run a 4.7 40 with little work and anther will work their butts off for a 5.5. This really starts to show up at the high school age. In college they are only taking the 10%, pros 1-2%.

There are a lot of Rudy Ruettiger on high school age teams in all sports. There are not many J.J. Watt or Reggie White. Neither would have to work very hard to dominate in high school or college. RG3 relied on his athleticism and dominated the NFL for a year. Also LaVar Arrington great athlete but just did his own thing on the field.

Ridiculous. Of course you can teach athleticism, size, speed, touch, etc. You clearly haven’t spent time developing athletes.

I reluctant agree with the PP. Of course, you can teach athleticism, speed, touch, etc. But some kids really are just born with the sheer athleticism that gives them an advantage early on and those who were born with less talent are not going to catch up. Size, speed, strength, ability to withstand injuries, sports IQ, etc. There are simply some kids who are born with those natural advantages.