I think it is a great idea. Most kids aren't getting recruited to play anyway, but everyone should get a chance to participate in organized high school teams of the sport they love.

High schools are just too big. I've heard coaches say they have enough depth to field three competitive teams, but they can only keep one. That means two full teams worth of kids don't get to play at all. There is no good reason for denying this experience to all those kids.

Anonymous wrote:Are you suggesting that a D1 coach considers a pick up team player and a varsity team player the same? That’s ridiculous.

I will repeat the key points I made in the original post.

I am looking to add another layer to the pyramid structure that exists in high schools

1) freshman team
2) JV
3) Varsity

I can’t believe that I have to make an obvious point but all these teams are competitive, not everyone who tries out gets in.

I want to plug the gap between JV and Varsity where older players get cut if they are not good enough for varsity. This is by adding a new team.

A different issue that I did not bring up but is a valid point is having Rec or no cut options for those who do make the competitive teams. I am totally in favour of those and yes kids can talk about their experience in college essays but that is a different thing than college level sport recruitment.

Is that clearer?

No, I never brought up the term D1 coach, but you just did. You have gone from "[advocating] for getting as many kids playing as possible" to somehow division 1 level recruiting and never addressing the question asking you what sport(s) are you thinking of this for, and now sadly thinking a D1 coach is actually going to consider an older player who wasn't good enough for Varsity but too old for the freshman or JV teams. I think you're wasting your time, and I know I have trying to make sense of what you are trying to accomplish.

Are you suggesting that a D1 coach considers a pick up team player and a varsity team player the same? That’s ridiculous.

I will repeat the key points I made in the original post.

I am looking to add another layer to the pyramid structure that exists in high schools

1) freshman team
2) JV
3) Varsity

I can’t believe that I have to make an obvious point but all these teams are competitive, not everyone who tries out gets in.

I want to plug the gap between JV and Varsity where older players get cut if they are not good enough for varsity. This is by adding a new team.

A different issue that I did not bring up but is a valid point is having Rec or no cut options for those who do make the competitive teams. I am totally in favour of those and yes kids can talk about their experience in college essays but that is a different thing than college level sport recruitment.

Is that clearer?

Anonymous wrote:
Because it’s a competitive team!!!

Doesn’t a 14 year old feel accomplished if they make the JV team? Isn’t that something they later put on college application or reels for travel teams ?

Do you really think if one applicant says they played JV and another applicant says they played school-sponsored pick-up sports every day after school it will make one iota of difference in their college application? I'm sorry but I don't think either of those items on a college application is going to separate them from other applicants. Or are you intimating that the JV person might write their college essay about the sense of accomplishment they got from making the JV team, but that the pick-up player couldn't write a similar essay about their sense of accomplishment at being able to play pick-up sports because they learned they were able to work well people who had a wide array of acumen in the sport?

Because it’s a competitive team!!!

Doesn’t a 14 year old feel accomplished if they make the JV team? Isn’t that something they later put on college application or reels for travel teams ?

Anonymous wrote:
Re-read my first post. My “ goal post” was a JV level team but for older kids who are too old for it but not good enough for varsity. I never said that it was no cut for all abilities.

That said, if money was no object I am totally ok with a no cut team option. Too many high schoolers don’t get enough exercise. The more opportunities there are the better.

How will that address "impressive inclusion on a college application or on a recruitment reel"?

Re-read my first post. My “ goal post” was a JV level team but for older kids who are too old for it but not good enough for varsity. I never said that it was no cut for all abilities.

That said, if money was no object I am totally ok with a no cut team option. Too many high schoolers don’t get enough exercise. The more opportunities there are the better.

Anonymous wrote:Playing pickup games isn’t something that would be seen as an impressive inclusion on a college application or on a recruitment reel. I am not discounting the inherent value for the kid of playing for fun but this is about the competitive level.

Not everyone can afford outside sports. I am focusing on the public subsidised school sports offerings.

Don't move the goalposts, bruh. Your original post says nothing about "impressive inclusion on a college application or on a recruitment reel" as the problem you are trying to solve. The OP says "I will always advocate for getting as many kids playing as possible."

The fact you are throwing that into here now and that was your true intention is sad. And what college is going to give two s#!+$ about Larlo's intermediate level highlight? OMG, have a great day but don't come back and see us.

There is currently a gap in some places where 16-17 year olds who have aged out of JV but isn’t deemed good enough for Varsity is cut completely. That seems a real shame and a hole in the system. I wanted to find a way to untilize them.

Also, there are late bloomers and kids who don’t start a sport until it’s too late to develop the skills to complete against those who where in travel teams since being little kids. It seems stupid to tell 14 year olds that it’s too late for them to make a high school team. What about children of immigrants from places that don’t have a culture of that sport and wouldn’t even think to sign them up for say football at 5?

I wish we could get behind this idea - I have seen this implemented in certain states and sports where there is enough interest across multiple schools. Colorado with soccer had an A,B & C teams. I think this is the limitation though - the majority of the schools would need to have enough interest to support all these teams otherwise there are not enough teams to play.

Playing pickup games isn’t something that would be seen as an impressive inclusion on a college application or on a recruitment reel. I am not discounting the inherent value for the kid of playing for fun but this is about the competitive level.

Not everyone can afford outside sports. I am focusing on the public subsidised school sports offerings.

Anonymous wrote:These are what I would invest in if the money was available.

They would consist of kids who currently are the bench players on Varsity. So overall there would be 3 teams ( 4 if you want an additional freshmen team):

Junior B ( current JV team)- age 14-17- intermediate level

Senior B - 16-19- intermediate level

Varsity- 14-19- elite

My rationale is that players improve by playing not by being on the bench. The Varsity squad will get more competitive by developing more players this way and having a deeper bench to choose from. Younger people would also have another transition space to play up against people older and bigger than them in practice settings. I overlapped the age boundaries to give the coach more flexibility in how best to utilise talent.

I will always advocate for getting as many kids playing as possible.

What sport(s) are you thinking of this for? It's pointless for many sports, such as soccer, because there are plentiful options outside of school to find playing time. Perhaps in stead of having stratified teams the goal should be to offer after school pickup games for these sports. Then everyone gets a chance to play.

That question could be asked of the need of JV teams. They exist to have a more competitive and challenging team than Rec and to develop talent for Varsity.

Why not just have a varsity team and set up a school intramural league for every other kid who wants to play in the sport?

These are what I would invest in if the money was available.

They would consist of kids who currently are the bench players on Varsity. So overall there would be 3 teams ( 4 if you want an additional freshmen team):

Junior B ( current JV team)- age 14-17- intermediate level

Senior B - 16-19- intermediate level

Varsity- 14-19- elite

My rationale is that players improve by playing not by being on the bench. The Varsity squad will get more competitive by developing more players this way and having a deeper bench to choose from. Younger people would also have another transition space to play up against people older and bigger than them in practice settings. I overlapped the age boundaries to give the coach more flexibility in how best to utilise talent.

I will always advocate for getting as many kids playing as possible.