Travel soccer plus little league

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sucks. But, I really don't think any kid should be trying to do two travel sports in the same season.

1) it automatically teaches kids the wrong thing--- not making a commitment to the team.

Any kid that is going to sign up for travel has a commitment to the Coach and teammates. It's really infuriating to have players miss tournaments or games for another sport.

My kids were athletic and did very well in multiple sports at a young age---soccer, flag football, lacrosse, baseball, basketball.

But, I only let them play one travel sport per season. With soccer, it's pretty much year-round.

I also tried to minimize signing up for any sport that would have conflicts. So--it was winter Rec basketball and travel soccer. One year--flag football (games Saturdays) and travel soccer(games Sundays).

I found baseball to hard to juggle since the increase and games, length of practices, game times. It would have required a full-time commitment that wasn't possible with travel soccer. I do know kids that do it. When they get to a higher team in soccer--the coach usually makes them make a choice. I am sure the travel baseball coach does the same.

It's just not fair to teammates to have teammates that repeatedly miss games/practices.

Again, NO!

Youth travel sports at 8 years old are not about "Commitment to the Team". They are about exposing CHILDREN to a sport and teaching them the necessary skills to succeed in that sport. If the kid, without practice, is still good enough to start over your child you need to worry more about your kid and less about someone else's kid. If the other kid does decide to take baseball more seriously my guess is your kid still isn't starting.

Do you ask your kid everyday after school what kids were not in class that day? As long as there are enough kids to have practice and field a team for a game the attendance of the other kid is not something that affects your kid at all.

You are so wrong.

If your kid cannot make it to practice, even for his rec team, he only should be playing the minimum

I dont think you understand how rec teams work. It's about learning.

I don't think you understand being part of a team.

You're not making sense.

Take MSI rec soccer, age 7. One kid is a star. Natural talent, etc. Shows up to practice. Other kid AWFUL. Shows up to practice because forced by parents. During a game, star kid is a star, while other kid literally picks flowers and even scores once for the other team.

Both are getting equal playing time, but the star is frustrated because the other kid is awful. Star plays other sports where teammates are better, so he prefers to play there. Rec team suffers.

Is it about learning, or sports mentality, or fairness? You can't have it all.

At age 7? 1st or 2nd graders on a rec team? Everyone should get at least the minimum playing time, even the daisy picker.

But the key thing you are arguing about is bolded and underlined. If the star attends practice, he should play/start. That is not the dispute here. The dispute is whether the star who does not attend practice should be able to waltz in and start/get more playing time over the kids who are attending practice regularly. He should not, especially in baseball. He wasn't there to practice drills. He wasn't there to practice fielding with the team. There are a dozen kids on a little league roster, with 3 kids benched each inning. All of those 3 are not going to be daisy pickers. One might be a daisy picker, one might be a kid who gives it his all but at 7 or 8 is not a developed player, and one might be a solid player. If all of those three have attended all the practices, why should they be on the bench while the kid who has never attended practice get to start? He shouldn't. No matter how good he is. The average kid who has tried week in and out should be a starter while the kid who only pops in for games should be on the bench cheering snd supporting his teammates.

If the star is better than the kid on the bench, I'm sorry, but that's life. You have no idea what training the star is putting in away from your practices. Again, my advice is to worry about your kids development and path and not about who is starting. Your kid has two to three practices a week to get better than the absent kid and can't do it. Your problem is you have a different problem than the one you are fixated on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the main point is no matter what age or level if your on a team your making a commitment to your teammates and coaches. teach your kids to fulfill them.. if they don't like don't put them on the team again. if its just for fun take your kid to the park and play with them. but if your on a team you owe it to the team to not only show up but give your best effort. not saying you have to be the best but you should demand your child give his best. if not everyone suffers. team sports is about learning and competing at whatever level. hence the word sport. take your kids out to play for just fun it requires no commitment to others

I think that you are missing the point that the sense of "team" at 8 years old is overstated and not necessary. You need a "team" to train how to play the sport but each kid is there for their own fundamental skill building not for team success or camaraderie. Psychologically most kids at that age are all in the developmental stage of "me and my ball" and the concept of "team" has very little meaning to the child. If you simply understand that at these ages all the kids need are a cohort of players where they can share the experience of learning the skills necessary to play as team later on. The only commitment a parent should have is to their kid and not a set of other kids. Other than making sure there are enough kids to play a game and run a proper training session the group of kids are secondary.

You are placing cognitive/developmental attributes on children based on adult sensibilities. I stated earlier that I do not remember my elementary age teams. I remember the experience, but I do not associate the concept of team until my middle school years. In a couple of weeks your team will have no recollection of Timmy missing practices and just playing games. And it would be good if you forgot about it sooner than a couple of years.

But a 7 or 8 year old kid who attends every practice and tries might quit at the end of the season over being benched so the kid who never came to practice can play

Given that a kid can make a tremendous jump in baseball once size, maturity and hand eye coordination catches up, writing off that kid who might not be that good as a 1st or 2nd grader in favor of the early bloomer who might drop rec little league for soccer or who might not be a standout by 5th or 8th when growth spurts make a big difference in ability is a bad policy for coaches, teams and programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Yaass

to the previous prior

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sucks. But, I really don't think any kid should be trying to do two travel sports in the same season.

1) it automatically teaches kids the wrong thing--- not making a commitment to the team.

Any kid that is going to sign up for travel has a commitment to the Coach and teammates. It's really infuriating to have players miss tournaments or games for another sport.

My kids were athletic and did very well in multiple sports at a young age---soccer, flag football, lacrosse, baseball, basketball.

But, I only let them play one travel sport per season. With soccer, it's pretty much year-round.

I also tried to minimize signing up for any sport that would have conflicts. So--it was winter Rec basketball and travel soccer. One year--flag football (games Saturdays) and travel soccer(games Sundays).

I found baseball to hard to juggle since the increase and games, length of practices, game times. It would have required a full-time commitment that wasn't possible with travel soccer. I do know kids that do it. When they get to a higher team in soccer--the coach usually makes them make a choice. I am sure the travel baseball coach does the same.

It's just not fair to teammates to have teammates that repeatedly miss games/practices.

Again, NO!

Youth travel sports at 8 years old are not about "Commitment to the Team". They are about exposing CHILDREN to a sport and teaching them the necessary skills to succeed in that sport. If the kid, without practice, is still good enough to start over your child you need to worry more about your kid and less about someone else's kid. If the other kid does decide to take baseball more seriously my guess is your kid still isn't starting.

Do you ask your kid everyday after school what kids were not in class that day? As long as there are enough kids to have practice and field a team for a game the attendance of the other kid is not something that affects your kid at all.

You are so wrong.

If your kid cannot make it to practice, even for his rec team, he only should be playing the minimum

I dont think you understand how rec teams work. It's about learning.

I don't think you understand being part of a team.

You're not making sense.

Take MSI rec soccer, age 7. One kid is a star. Natural talent, etc. Shows up to practice. Other kid AWFUL. Shows up to practice because forced by parents. During a game, star kid is a star, while other kid literally picks flowers and even scores once for the other team.

Both are getting equal playing time, but the star is frustrated because the other kid is awful. Star plays other sports where teammates are better, so he prefers to play there. Rec team suffers.

Is it about learning, or sports mentality, or fairness? You can't have it all.

At age 7? 1st or 2nd graders on a rec team? Everyone should get at least the minimum playing time, even the daisy picker.

But the key thing you are arguing about is bolded and underlined. If the star attends practice, he should play/start. That is not the dispute here. The dispute is whether the star who does not attend practice should be able to waltz in and start/get more playing time over the kids who are attending practice regularly. He should not, especially in baseball. He wasn't there to practice drills. He wasn't there to practice fielding with the team. There are a dozen kids on a little league roster, with 3 kids benched each inning. All of those 3 are not going to be daisy pickers. One might be a daisy picker, one might be a kid who gives it his all but at 7 or 8 is not a developed player, and one might be a solid player. If all of those three have attended all the practices, why should they be on the bench while the kid who has never attended practice get to start? He shouldn't. No matter how good he is. The average kid who has tried week in and out should be a starter while the kid who only pops in for games should be on the bench cheering snd supporting his teammates.

If the star is better than the kid on the bench, I'm sorry, but that's life. You have no idea what training the star is putting in away from your practices. Again, my advice is to worry about your kids development and path and not about who is starting. Your kid has two to three practices a week to get better than the absent kid and can't do it. Your problem is you have a different problem than the one you are fixated on.

A star at 7 in baseball does not make a star at 10, 13 or high school.

That daisy picker has just as likely odds of being a solid or even superior baseball player by 10, 13 or high school as the kid with early aptitude.

[Anonymous]

The biggest issue here is that travel soccer is a year-long commitment. I wish there was the ability to join a travel soccer team for the fall only, leaving spring to play Little League. At least at the u10 ages...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sucks. But, I really don't think any kid should be trying to do two travel sports in the same season.

1) it automatically teaches kids the wrong thing--- not making a commitment to the team.

Any kid that is going to sign up for travel has a commitment to the Coach and teammates. It's really infuriating to have players miss tournaments or games for another sport.

My kids were athletic and did very well in multiple sports at a young age---soccer, flag football, lacrosse, baseball, basketball.

But, I only let them play one travel sport per season. With soccer, it's pretty much year-round.

I also tried to minimize signing up for any sport that would have conflicts. So--it was winter Rec basketball and travel soccer. One year--flag football (games Saturdays) and travel soccer(games Sundays).

I found baseball to hard to juggle since the increase and games, length of practices, game times. It would have required a full-time commitment that wasn't possible with travel soccer. I do know kids that do it. When they get to a higher team in soccer--the coach usually makes them make a choice. I am sure the travel baseball coach does the same.

It's just not fair to teammates to have teammates that repeatedly miss games/practices.

Again, NO!

Youth travel sports at 8 years old are not about "Commitment to the Team". They are about exposing CHILDREN to a sport and teaching them the necessary skills to succeed in that sport. If the kid, without practice, is still good enough to start over your child you need to worry more about your kid and less about someone else's kid. If the other kid does decide to take baseball more seriously my guess is your kid still isn't starting.

Do you ask your kid everyday after school what kids were not in class that day? As long as there are enough kids to have practice and field a team for a game the attendance of the other kid is not something that affects your kid at all.

You are so wrong.

If your kid cannot make it to practice, even for his rec team, he only should be playing the minimum

I dont think you understand how rec teams work. It's about learning.

I don't think you understand being part of a team.

You're not making sense.

Take MSI rec soccer, age 7. One kid is a star. Natural talent, etc. Shows up to practice. Other kid AWFUL. Shows up to practice because forced by parents. During a game, star kid is a star, while other kid literally picks flowers and even scores once for the other team.

Both are getting equal playing time, but the star is frustrated because the other kid is awful. Star plays other sports where teammates are better, so he prefers to play there. Rec team suffers.

Is it about learning, or sports mentality, or fairness? You can't have it all.

At age 7? 1st or 2nd graders on a rec team? Everyone should get at least the minimum playing time, even the daisy picker.

But the key thing you are arguing about is bolded and underlined. If the star attends practice, he should play/start. That is not the dispute here. The dispute is whether the star who does not attend practice should be able to waltz in and start/get more playing time over the kids who are attending practice regularly. He should not, especially in baseball. He wasn't there to practice drills. He wasn't there to practice fielding with the team. There are a dozen kids on a little league roster, with 3 kids benched each inning. All of those 3 are not going to be daisy pickers. One might be a daisy picker, one might be a kid who gives it his all but at 7 or 8 is not a developed player, and one might be a solid player. If all of those three have attended all the practices, why should they be on the bench while the kid who has never attended practice get to start? He shouldn't. No matter how good he is. The average kid who has tried week in and out should be a starter while the kid who only pops in for games should be on the bench cheering snd supporting his teammates.

If the star is better than the kid on the bench, I'm sorry, but that's life. You have no idea what training the star is putting in away from your practices. Again, my advice is to worry about your kids development and path and not about who is starting. Your kid has two to three practices a week to get better than the absent kid and can't do it. Your problem is you have a different problem than the one you are fixated on.

A star at 7 in baseball does not make a star at 10, 13 or high school.

That daisy picker has just as likely odds of being a solid or even superior baseball player by 10, 13 or high school as the kid with early aptitude.

Another reason to not worry about Timmy skipping practices at 8 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue here is that travel soccer is a year-long commitment. I wish there was the ability to join a travel soccer team for the fall only, leaving spring to play Little League. At least at the u10 ages...

your kid would likely suffer in technical skills development and then you'd complain about pt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue here is that travel soccer is a year-long commitment. I wish there was the ability to join a travel soccer team for the fall only, leaving spring to play Little League. At least at the u10 ages...

Aren't travel soccer programs profit based businesses like dance studios and gymnastics places? That is why travel soccer is year round.

If it was about player growth and long term program stability, they would want the kids to cross train at a young age and not specialize year round without a break or seasons.

This is a soccer for profit issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue here is that travel soccer is a year-long commitment. I wish there was the ability to join a travel soccer team for the fall only, leaving spring to play Little League. At least at the u10 ages...

Aren't travel soccer programs profit based businesses like dance studios and gymnastics places? That is why travel soccer is year round.

If it was about player growth and long term program stability, they would want the kids to cross train at a young age and not specialize year round without a break or seasons.

This is a soccer for profit issue.

LOL!!!

No, 98% of travel clubs are non-profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue here is that travel soccer is a year-long commitment. I wish there was the ability to join a travel soccer team for the fall only, leaving spring to play Little League. At least at the u10 ages...

Aren't travel soccer programs profit based businesses like dance studios and gymnastics places? That is why travel soccer is year round.

If it was about player growth and long term program stability, they would want the kids to cross train at a young age and not specialize year round without a break or seasons.

This is a soccer for profit issue.

did you just pull that out of your backside? you clearly dont understand soccer... join rec of you want 8-10 weeks a year. if no one wanted it, it would not exist.

[Anonymous]

DS plays soccer on a DA team. He is also a two sport athlete. Soccer coaches are supportive to a point. DA soccer has to be the priority whenever there is a conflict. Since soccer is his true love, we don’t have issue with prioritizing it this way either.

DS’ second sport is more of an individual sport - think track, fencing, swimming, etc. The secondary sport has been able to easily accommodate any conflicts. An absence doesn’t really hurt a team, just my DS. That said, this fall we are moving him to a more relaxed training environment. There are more intense teams for the second sport that want just as much of a commitment as DA soccer.

I do believe the second sport does help my DS with his soccer. It uses different muscles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue here is that travel soccer is a year-long commitment. I wish there was the ability to join a travel soccer team for the fall only, leaving spring to play Little League. At least at the u10 ages...

Aren't travel soccer programs profit based businesses like dance studios and gymnastics places? That is why travel soccer is year round.

If it was about player growth and long term program stability, they would want the kids to cross train at a young age and not specialize year round without a break or seasons.

This is a soccer for profit issue.

did you just pull that out of your backside? you clearly dont understand soccer... join rec of you want 8-10 weeks a year. if no one wanted it, it would not exist.

You don't understand child development.

Specializing in one sport at an intense level at a young age (7, 8, 9, 10) is very bad for developing bodies and can lead to repetitive motion injuries and long term injuries that do not show up until much later.

Breaks between seasons and training other sports/muscle groups is much healthier for young children than intense, year round soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue here is that travel soccer is a year-long commitment. I wish there was the ability to join a travel soccer team for the fall only, leaving spring to play Little League. At least at the u10 ages...

Aren't travel soccer programs profit based businesses like dance studios and gymnastics places? That is why travel soccer is year round.

If it was about player growth and long term program stability, they would want the kids to cross train at a young age and not specialize year round without a break or seasons.

This is a soccer for profit issue.

did you just pull that out of your backside? you clearly dont understand soccer... join rec of you want 8-10 weeks a year. if no one wanted it, it would not exist.

You don't understand child development.

Specializing in one sport at an intense level at a young age (7, 8, 9, 10) is very bad for developing bodies and can lead to repetitive motion injuries and long term injuries that do not show up until much later.

Breaks between seasons and training other sports/muscle groups is much healthier for young children than intense, year round soccer.

so fall/spring play HAS to be specialization? Have you seen this conversation where we say you can do a second or third activity and it shouldn’t be an issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue here is that travel soccer is a year-long commitment. I wish there was the ability to join a travel soccer team for the fall only, leaving spring to play Little League. At least at the u10 ages...

Aren't travel soccer programs profit based businesses like dance studios and gymnastics places? That is why travel soccer is year round.

If it was about player growth and long term program stability, they would want the kids to cross train at a young age and not specialize year round without a break or seasons.

This is a soccer for profit issue.

did you just pull that out of your backside? you clearly dont understand soccer... join rec of you want 8-10 weeks a year. if no one wanted it, it would not exist.

You don't understand child development.

Specializing in one sport at an intense level at a young age (7, 8, 9, 10) is very bad for developing bodies and can lead to repetitive motion injuries and long term injuries that do not show up until much later.

Breaks between seasons and training other sports/muscle groups is much healthier for young children than intense, year round soccer.

Please explain what movements they don't do or muscles they don't use in soccer. Your argument is not to have kids pitching every day all year round and things like that. Soccer is a game of jumping, sliding, diving, walking, jogging, sprinting, pushing, pulling, etc. People don't understand that soccer is a different animal and soccer playing kids are well rounded athletes. If you play baseball, yes, you need to play other sports if you want your kid to be athletic. Also, soccer requires so many different skills...dribbling, passing, shooting, defending, tactics, etc that it needs to be a year round sport unlike baseball and some others. You think you will develop as a soccer player playing 3 months a year, good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue here is that travel soccer is a year-long commitment. I wish there was the ability to join a travel soccer team for the fall only, leaving spring to play Little League. At least at the u10 ages...

Aren't travel soccer programs profit based businesses like dance studios and gymnastics places? That is why travel soccer is year round.

If it was about player growth and long term program stability, they would want the kids to cross train at a young age and not specialize year round without a break or seasons.

This is a soccer for profit issue.

did you just pull that out of your backside? you clearly dont understand soccer... join rec of you want 8-10 weeks a year. if no one wanted it, it would not exist.

You don't understand child development.

Specializing in one sport at an intense level at a young age (7, 8, 9, 10) is very bad for developing bodies and can lead to repetitive motion injuries and long term injuries that do not show up until much later.

Breaks between seasons and training other sports/muscle groups is much healthier for young children than intense, year round soccer.

Please explain what movements they don't do or muscles they don't use in soccer. Your argument is not to have kids pitching every day all year round and things like that. Soccer is a game of jumping, sliding, diving, walking, jogging, sprinting, pushing, pulling, etc. People don't understand that soccer is a different animal and soccer playing kids are well rounded athletes. If you play baseball, yes, you need to play other sports if you want your kid to be athletic. Also, soccer requires so many different skills...dribbling, passing, shooting, defending, tactics, etc that it needs to be a year round sport unlike baseball and some others. You think you will develop as a soccer player playing 3 months a year, good luck.

But yes, kids do need some breaks between seasons.