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.

I don't agree with you analogy. You can't replicate game experience at practice most of the time, because you just don't have the number of players needed. So it's nothing like playing piano (which only requires a piano). Game experience is really valuable at this age. It's how you understand field position and off-ball movement.

But I will agree with your sentiment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP here. I can assure you that 10-11 year olds care about winning. Going 0-14 (as my son did one year) is not fun. While kids understand that winning all the time is usually not likely, NO ONE likes losing all the time.

Are their parents whose ultimate goal is to win, win, win? Yes, of course. But don’t kid yourself that tweens and teens don’t want to win.

Maybe if the coach had sat your kid the team would have won 1-2 games and everyone would have been happy.

OP here. I don't think you read my post. I'm not sitting any kid. Every kid is playing at least two-thirds of the game. The stronger players average about 90% of each game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Have your ever coached a rec team? They certainly do not all want to play the entire game. Some do, but some get tired and like getting breaks. They are happy to play part of the game.

It’s also delusional to think that no one cares about winning. I have seen kindergarteners keeping score of soccer games even when the parents and coach are telling them not to. They aren’t dumb. No one should get crazy about winning, but kids generally have a better experience if their team at least has a chance to win a good amount of the time.

This. The most emotional that I've ever seen my kid after a tournament was after winning their U7 rec tournament. They've played years of travel and win at least a tournament a year, but that rec tournament was the one that the whole team seemed the most invested in

Lol u7 rec tournament? Are you serious? Did your kid wear the medal to school? Is she/he still wearing it today or is it in the trophy case in your house? I bet your kid still talks about it today. Obviously you are still heavily invested in “the win”.

I have coached my fair share of rec team from u7-u16. Below u13 you can game the system and win a lot of games. All the crazy parents are so happy! Before puberty it’s all about the kids who develop early for their age. Just play them and you win. Go look at a travel team roster’s birthdates. 70% born Jan-April, 20% May-August and 10% for the rest.

It is what it is. My kid is in high school now playing ECNL and they win a lot, that was the one they were happiest about by far.

10:54, you must be talking about soccer. An April baseball birthday is the youngest in the age group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Have your ever coached a rec team? They certainly do not all want to play the entire game. Some do, but some get tired and like getting breaks. They are happy to play part of the game.

It’s also delusional to think that no one cares about winning. I have seen kindergarteners keeping score of soccer games even when the parents and coach are telling them not to. They aren’t dumb. No one should get crazy about winning, but kids generally have a better experience if their team at least has a chance to win a good amount of the time.

This. The most emotional that I've ever seen my kid after a tournament was after winning their U7 rec tournament. They've played years of travel and win at least a tournament a year, but that rec tournament was the one that the whole team seemed the most invested in

Lol u7 rec tournament? Are you serious? Did your kid wear the medal to school? Is she/he still wearing it today or is it in the trophy case in your house? I bet your kid still talks about it today. Obviously you are still heavily invested in “the win”.

I have coached my fair share of rec team from u7-u16. Below u13 you can game the system and win a lot of games. All the crazy parents are so happy! Before puberty it’s all about the kids who develop early for their age. Just play them and you win. Go look at a travel team roster’s birthdates. 70% born Jan-April, 20% May-August and 10% for the rest.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Have your ever coached a rec team? They certainly do not all want to play the entire game. Some do, but some get tired and like getting breaks. They are happy to play part of the game.

It’s also delusional to think that no one cares about winning. I have seen kindergarteners keeping score of soccer games even when the parents and coach are telling them not to. They aren’t dumb. No one should get crazy about winning, but kids generally have a better experience if their team at least has a chance to win a good amount of the time.

Yup, exactly. I feel like a lot of the parents responding here have kids who do NOT play rec and are on higher teams. The kids on the rec teams want to have fun and play games. They're actually probably far more focused on winning the game as a team than on keeping track of playing time (theirs or other people). Winning is fun. Loosing all the time is miserable.
They aren't there to develop into the next level varsity super-star.
At least 50% of the game is important. It makes every kid an integral part of the team. Beyond that, do what seems right for your team and your kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our Rec League requires each kid play 50% of the game. If you can play the strong players more, while still giving everyone else 50%, go for it.

It's Rec, how are other players going to develop if they aren't given the playing time?

And, it's Rec, it's supposed to be fun for everyone - don't be that jerk coach who only cares about winning and not player development, teamwork, fun, etc

OP. Each child on the team is getting way more than 50%. I've been giving the best players about 90% playing time, and the weaker players around 70%.

In practice, the weaker players get most of my attention.

This is perfectly fine.
I've been the weaker player, and have a kid who is the weaker player. It's completely demoralizing when a coach plays a kid for 25% of the game or something like that. But as long as all the kids are playing at least half the game, but 10/11 years old - they also want to win! And they don't want to be the one consistently responsible for not winning.
Playing the weaker kids 60-70% and having them experience the job of being on a winning team is way more likely to get them to come back next year than playing everyone exactly evenly and loosing every game.

The kids are not stupid. If your kid is on a undefeated team but does play or gets limited playing time they know they are not really part of the team.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Have your ever coached a rec team? They certainly do not all want to play the entire game. Some do, but some get tired and like getting breaks. They are happy to play part of the game.

It’s also delusional to think that no one cares about winning. I have seen kindergarteners keeping score of soccer games even when the parents and coach are telling them not to. They aren’t dumb. No one should get crazy about winning, but kids generally have a better experience if their team at least has a chance to win a good amount of the time.

This. The most emotional that I've ever seen my kid after a tournament was after winning their U7 rec tournament. They've played years of travel and win at least a tournament a year, but that rec tournament was the one that the whole team seemed the most invested in

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP here. I can assure you that 10-11 year olds care about winning. Going 0-14 (as my son did one year) is not fun. While kids understand that winning all the time is usually not likely, NO ONE likes losing all the time.

Are their parents whose ultimate goal is to win, win, win? Yes, of course. But don’t kid yourself that tweens and teens don’t want to win.

Maybe if the coach had sat your kid the team would have won 1-2 games and everyone would have been happy.

Anonymous wrote: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.

My kid plays in EDP and generally, they care about winning tournaments because they like medals and they care about promotion and relegation in league play. It's EDP, so it's pretty likely that no one on the team will be playing at the next level. This whole endless developing the player for the next level that clubs like to sell assumes that every kid can be developed for the next level. For some, this and high school will be as high as they play, the develop now and then care about winning at some point in the future makes no sense because these kids won't be playing anymore at that point. The kids just want to win. Developing works for kids at the very highest level and as an excuse for losing below that, and that's about it.

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.

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.

Have your ever coached a rec team? They certainly do not all want to play the entire game. Some do, but some get tired and like getting breaks. They are happy to play part of the game.

It’s also delusional to think that no one cares about winning. I have seen kindergarteners keeping score of soccer games even when the parents and coach are telling them not to. They aren’t dumb. No one should get crazy about winning, but kids generally have a better experience if their team at least has a chance to win a good amount of the time.

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.

I have coach a lot of rec teams. The one I remember was a girls 6th grade team where we lost every regular season game. I made sure all the girls got the same amount of playing time with a really big roster. This was the first time most of the girls had played the sport. There were strong and weak players.

Through practice and coaching they got better each week. They lost games but they started having more and more success individually. They won two playoff of games and the weakest girl actually become fair good. Everyone of those girl stayed with sport and played on their high school team.

You can lose games but still grow individually and gain confidence. This does not happen if you are not in the games. Players rec or travel who do not get playing time do not get better.

I feel like some of the parents on here are acting like this is a first grade team. These kids are in fifth grade! By that age they have a sense whether they are one of the better players on a team or not. If they’re not one of the better players, they will either want to do things to get better, like practice on their own, or they won’t care because they are just out there to be active and be part of a team. OP I think as long as you are meeting the league requirement for minimum playing time you are fine. It sounds like you’re doing a good job balancing things. As I said, if a kid really wants to improve on something, then they can take it in their own hands to work on things outside of practice. The coach can only do so much. I can’t imagine a parent of a fifth grader being mad that their weaker kid isn’t playing as much as a stronger teammate. That’s life! My third grader understands this.

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.

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.

NP here. I can assure you that 10-11 year olds care about winning. Going 0-14 (as my son did one year) is not fun. While kids understand that winning all the time is usually not likely, NO ONE likes losing all the time.

Are their parents whose ultimate goal is to win, win, win? Yes, of course. But don’t kid yourself that tweens and teens don’t want to win.