A Willing Punching Bag Talks Pet Peeves in Youth Sports

It’s not easy dissecting the issues that surround many of our youth sports leagues. For me, it can mean stating an opinion that is in direct contrast to what a friend or former coaching partner may be practicing.

I can only hope that those I consider friends or at least contemporaries will understand that my goal is to wipe away the fingerprints that smear many a parent’s view of some of our area youth organizations.

I’ve been soliciting comments over the past couple of weeks from parents regarding what they see as issues or concerns that they’d like to see addressed. The response was lukewarm, and I suspect a lot of it has to do with not wanting to stir up the beehive. But just like the person who decides not to vote on Election Day, don’t expect change if you are not willing to place your stamp of discontent in the middle of your forehead.

I once sat in the shadows. Eventually, my personality demanded that I follow through on expressing my points of discontent. Hence, a history of unsolicited opinions for which I offer no apologies.

Here are some of the concerns that were sent to me:

One parent wrote, “I don't like when the 'good' kids get to play all the time — every game — every inning ... and the not-so-good-kid rides the bench. That child has a right to play too. He paid to be in the game too ... maybe if he or she played more often they could be pretty good players. But a lot of them aren’t even given the chance. It’s supposed to be a learning time in their (youth sporting) 'careers' but usually it’s (about) winning at all costs — even at the expense of a kid who just wants to play.”

To ME, that just about says everything that needs to be said about the biggest concern facing young athletes and their parents. In Little League Baseball each child plays a minimum of two innings in the field and bats at least once a game. But should that really mean EVERY GAME for that same child? I’ve watched game after game where a team is winning by a large-enough margin that it wouldn’t matter if my 9-month-old granddaughter was on the field! The game was out of reach! And often most of the same kids were in the game.

And yes, I do see this from time to time in the youth football league that I am a member of and it drives me crazy. I left a meeting last week where we once again increased the minimum play rule that each player must play per game. In my perfect world, however, playing time would be more even across the board.

My favorite system is the one used by the Farmington Rec Basketball League. Usually there are 10 players on the bench. After 5 minutes of play, the five on the floor switch places with the five on the bench. To me it’s as perfect as it gets.

One local coach wrote, “Politics. Who’s 'in (cahoots)' with who and how that allows the bad coaches to keep coaching.”

In many areas this is referred to as the “Good Old Boy Network.” It’s a situation where a group of parents (usually friends) are calling all of the shots with little, if any, outside influence. It reminds me of a time many, many years ago when I was invited to join the board of a certain league only after it was determined that I’d vote along the lines of the right side of the room as opposed to the left.

Another father wrote that his biggest complaint is the blatant exhibits of nepotism (favoritism granted to relatives or friends regardless of merit). We’ve all seen this enough times to make us want to stand on the top of the bleachers and scream (I am in no way recommending this action as a solution to this problem).

I will add some of my own observations as well:

There are leagues that will allow a parent to coach on two separate levels (age groups) while another parent is left out entirely. I’ve had this happen to me on two separate occasions. Many times the coach (of two teams) misses a portion of one game because there is an overlap with his other game. It’s not fair to the players, and it’s not fair to the parent who would like the opportunity to coach.

Another issue is the parent that is coaching a team of 11- and 12-year-olds (as an example) and allows his 10-year-old to play “up” on that team. There are two issues here. The first is that in some cases the only way the coach can keep his coveted position at that level is to have a child on the team. The move usually blocks a deserving parent from getting the position. The second is that in MOST cases it is taking up a slot that should be filled by another 11-year-old so that he is able to play with kids his age and in his class. Believe me — this happens. In the case where the coach already has one child on the team, his rationale will be that he can’t be at two places at once. Welcome to all of our worlds!

And now for my favorite: A group of coaches ban together while their kids are very young (5 or 6 years old). They build a team of superstars and mold them to their liking, but somewhere along the way they are forced to take on other players — with lesser skills — from outside their stable. When those players cannot perform to the coaches’ standards, they are mocked in front of the team for poor play. They sit on the bench. Often they lose interest and quit — essentially spit out the back of the group.

It’s sad and it needs to stop. Egotistical parents need to get out of the way of our children having a good time. Is that not why they are playing — to have a good time?

Obviously there are many wonderful, nurturing, and caring coaches at every level of every league in every town. And I commend them for their dedication and commitment to fairness.

I’ll be the punching bag on this subject. In my mind it’s only about the kids and I’m not backing down. So jab away!