Curious what people think about bringing down players

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

So I’m honestly curious what people think from all perspectives - coaches, parents, kids, opponents, etc.

So as I think I’ve said before my kid plays travel VB. He’s on a pretty good team, particularly considering the team was new this year and some kids hadn’t played competitively before this year.

there is a team in their region that is really good. Like top 15 in the country-good. Let’s call them Club A. Club A has a 2nd team that is not good at all.

So regionals is this weekend and Club A’s 1st skips (they are too good). But Club A brings two kids from the 1st team to play. They are not the best kids from the 1st team but they are good enough that they turn this team into the best team in the tournament when they are on the floor together. I should note that this team has what looks like 14 players on the roster so they more than enough players without them.

clearly, the coaches are aware that something isn’t quite right because they are not playing these two kids all of the time and ended middle of the pack. But playoffs just started and when they wanted to win the first game, they put the two kids in.

Curious to know what people think of this. From my perspective, and it doesn’t matter to us except we like the competition. (His team has done well enough this year.). But I certainly wonder about other teams who may not medal or may get knocked out because of this. Also wondering if people were coaching this team, whether they’d have any second thoughts about bringing guys down. Or the parents of the kids who aren’t playing because these two players are. Or maybe I’m just overthinking this and teams can play whoever they want to play.

because I’m really wondering what people might be thinking. Or maybe it’s just that winning just cures everything.

SOSH has great perspectives; I’m interested in hearing them.

 

[oumbi]

I am just guessing here, but is the sport in question basketball?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I am just guessing here, but is the sport in question basketball?

Volleyball.

 

[luckiestman]

Really lame but many sports parents and coaches are the worst humanity has to offer so I’m not surprised.

 

[Coachster]

I coached club volleyball for many years, so I have a couple thoughts about this.

Who made this decision? The club director? The coach of the 2's team? Lots of club directors have narcissistic personality disorder, and all they care about is every team winning and getting their players recruited, the higher level the better, so that THEY look good. If that's the case, it's a terrible decision. If it's the coach of the 1's team (these guys don't get a lot of run, here's their chance) it's understandable but misguided. If it's the coach of the 2's team, he's an asshole who has lost perspective.

I'm thinking mainly about the kids who will lose playing time. They pay the same money as the guys on the 1's team, and it might be more important for them in terms of confidence building or socialization (which is actually what club sports is supposed to be about).

Other perspective: I was coaching a very good club in Minneapolis and got a call from the head coach of the University of Minnesota, Mike Hebert. He said he had a girl who he was allowing to walk on in the fall. Her club season had ended, but he hadn't been able to fully evaluate her yet, so would it be possible to add her to my team for the rest of the season (which was one tournament and then Nationals.) I was unsure about it, but then he said he'd like his top assistant, Mo Batie to be able to come to practices to watch her. Mo was a genius and about the most charismatic volleyball coach I had ever met (he died in 2000), so I said yes.

Career changing for me. I got swept into the University of Minnesota system for a couple years, was able to watch Mike and Mo do their thing which was like going to college in how to be a professional volleyball coach.

The kid we added got hit in the face by an elbow in our first tournament, broke a bone and didn't finish the season (and never walked on at the U).

So yeah.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Really lame but many sports parents and coaches are the worst humanity has to offer so I’m not surprised.

I don’t think I’d do if I were a coach and would be apoplectic if it were my kid who didn’t get to play but I guess I was trying a rationale for it.

I am tempted to ask the coaches why but I suspect it would be something akin to what coachster said. And I think at least some of the kids will enjoy having a little bit of success.

I coached club volleyball for many years, so I have a couple thoughts about this.

Who made this decision? The club director? The coach of the 2's team? Lots of club directors have narcissistic personality disorder, and all they care about is every team winning and getting their players recruited, the higher level the better, so that THEY look good. If that's the case, it's a terrible decision. If it's the coach of the 1's team (these guys don't get a lot of run, here's their chance) it's understandable but misguided. If it's the coach of the 2's team, he's an asshole who has lost perspective.

I'm thinking mainly about the kids who will lose playing time. They pay the same money as the guys on the 1's team, and it might be more important for them in terms of confidence building or socialization (which is actually what club sports is supposed to be about).

Other perspective: I was coaching a very good club in Minneapolis and got a call from the head coach of the University of Minnesota, Mike Hebert. He said he had a girl who he was allowing to walk on in the fall. Her club season had ended, but he hadn't been able to fully evaluate her yet, so would it be possible to add her to my team for the rest of the season (which was one tournament and then Nationals.) I was unsure about it, but then he said he'd like his top assistant, Mo Batie to be able to come to practices to watch her. Mo was a genius and about the most charismatic volleyball coach I had ever met (he died in 2000), so I said yes.

Career changing for me. I got swept into the University of Minnesota system for a couple years, was able to watch Mike and Mo do their thing which was like going to college in how to be a professional volleyball coach.

The kid we added got hit in the face by an elbow in our first tournament, broke a bone and didn't finish the season (and never walked on at the U).

So yeah.

thanks for your perspective and interesting story I don’t know who made the decision but the 2s coaches seemed pretty thrilled.

update - Club A-2 bounced my kid’s team in the semis in a really good 3-set match. It worked out for us IMO because I got to see decent VB and my kid’s team needed the competition. The club should win the tournament.

I did find out that the parents of the team Club A-2 eliminated in the quarters was not happy about the situation.

 

[Just a bit outside]

It is about money and adult ego. They can say they won and keep stringing kids along to get the families to keep paying. I don’t know about club volleyball but 14 guys on a roster seems absurd to begin with.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

It is about money and adult ego. They can say they won and keep stringing kids along to get the families to keep paying. I don’t know about club volleyball but 14 guys on a roster seems absurd to begin with.

My kid’s team has 9 and only one kid barely plays. This team has several kids who haven’t played at all during the playoffs. I guess their parents are okay spending the $.

The other thing about your point is that their 1St team is nationally-recognized so winning this tournament doesn’t get anything.

 

[SoxFanInCali]

The other thing about your point is that their 1St team is nationally-recognized so winning this tournament doesn’t get anything.

I would guess it helps them when recruiting players and getting parents to pay. "Even if you play on our B team, it's better than the A team of these other clubs."

I pretty much hate everything about the pay to play/travel model in youth sports. But once you're in there, expecting all teams to play by an unwritten moral code to ensure fairness is a bit naive, I'm afraid. Sounds like you had the right perspective for your team, that it gave your team a chance to play against some better players and see where they're at. If the parents of the kids from that B team are upset their kids aren't playing because they brought in some A players, they're welcome to find a team that fits better for them.

 

[Coachster]

If the parents of the kids from that B team are upset their kids aren't playing because they brought in some A players, they're welcome to find a team that fits better for them.

Sorry, this is flat out wrong. This is a year of a kid's development. If a kid is placed on a team, and the parents pay the money, the expectation is that that team will move forward as selected, and it's the coach's job to make the players on his roster better. This isn't MLB, where you can DFA a player, or send them to the minors.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I would guess it helps them when recruiting players and getting parents to pay. "Even if you play on our B team, it's better than the A team of these other clubs."

I pretty much hate everything about the pay to play/travel model in youth sports. But once you're in there, expecting all teams to play by an unwritten moral code to ensure fairness is a bit naive, I'm afraid. Sounds like you had the right perspective for your team, that it gave your team a chance to play against some better players and see where they're at. If the parents of the kids from that B team are upset their kids aren't playing because they brought in some A players, they're welcome to find a team that fits better for them.

As for the bolded, it's certainly a possibility that money is involved. Maybe parents were getting antsy because they were paying so much money and their "darlings" were losing all of the time. Although if this is the case, maybe the parents should look themselves in the mirror. I hope this doesn't come off the way it sounds but I think some of the kids would be better off playing recreational VB not travel and frankly the coaches should suggest that (I say this about our B team as well). Particularly given the size of the squad - something like 12 players showing up to tournaments regularly.

The other thing is that the tournament was on Team A's home court so I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

As for the rest of your post, I also dislike the travel model (I mean would a certain percentage of hotels go out of business if not for all the parents taking their kids to sports tournaments on the weekends) but just like soccer (and I'm sure most other sports) there aren't enough good youth players in any one area to foster the competition that kids need. And I agree that I typically don't really care what other teams do but this one seemed particularly jarring to me.

Update: Team A-2 lost in the Finals. They didn't play to win or they would have destroyed the other team (they played the two ringers the entire match against us but as far as I can tell alternated them in the Finals). So very weird.

 

[4 6 3 DP]

They are not the best kids from the 1st team but they are good enough

The nuance here is are they the worst kids on the first team who don't get run on the top team or would they play for team 1 except that they are being brought in to boost team 2?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The nuance here is are they the worst kids on the first team who don't get run on the top team or would they play for team 1 except that they are being brought in to boost team 2?

This is a little complicated. One of the kids is the libero for the 1st team - which means he generally plays defense - but would be the lead hitter on any other team. The issue is that his brother plays on the 1st team and there are some really good older hitters on the first team (which is why they are so good). So there may be something about getting him reps as Coachster says but again, he wasn't playing all of the time.

(For full disclosure, our outside hitter and this kid are pretty good friends; this kid tried out for our team but decided to play for the other club because his brother was on it (easier for the parents). Also (I think I mentioned) that the tournament was on their home court so it could be something as simple as they didn't want us (for whatever reason) to win this.

The other kid if I recall correctly is a starter.

At any rate, I was sitting around a VB tournament all weekend and wondered what folks here thought. It's not a really big issue for our side (I feel badly for the kids who didn't get to play and some kids on the other teams who didn't make it to the playoffs or got bounced from the playoffs); it just seemed super strange and I was wondering if I was missing something in the thought process.

 

[NomarsFool]

I think having ringers in a tournament is absolutely atrocious behavior. Trying to find appropriate matchups for youth sports is one of the most challenging things about it, IMO, because if the teams are unmatched, everyone loses. The kids on the 2 team were in that slot because that is the appropriate level for them, and adding in two ringers messes up the balance. The kids who lose playing time may not care, sometimes kids are happy to just be on a winning team and can be okay with losing playing time to someone who is clearly better. But, it’s not fair to them because they are deprived of that tournament experience which they have been working towards all season.