RJM posted:When my son was younger (9u to 13u) and reading where these ads would be placed I saw many of them. Here's my translation ... We have eleven players. We play nine. We need eleven to pay the bills. Two kids got pissed of and left because they played little. We need to find two more suckers with delusions of grandeur.
The same teams run the same ad year after year replacing the two kids who hardly played. I've heard a kid has to earn his playing time. But what kid wants to commit his summer to a team where dad pays big bucks and the kid watches from the bench? These tend to be teams all about winning. They tend not to be about quality instruction.
When I coached these age groups everyone played. The 9u and 10u teams were community kids. They were league all stars. They played at least half the time in five tournaments. In 11u and 12u the concurrent with the LL season travel team was sorting out LL all stars and prepping them for the tournament. It was equal playing time until all stars.
In 13u I put together my first no geographic boundaries travel team. Everyone was talented. Positions were earned. Getting more playing time was earned. But everyone played at least 60% of the time. In any given pool game I felt I could pull the lineup out if a hat and compete.
Back in rec ball CR played CBO. A player had to be in the field at least every other inning. In LL we played 2/1 MPT. I played everyone at least three innings.
Giving kids reasonable playing time never affected winning in rec or travel. My feeling was kids who knew they would get in the game practiced and played harder. In travel I did have the power to sit players for discipline and lack of hustle (rarely occurred). What is your feeling on playing time?
When I see those ads, I assume the team is looking to upgrade its roster.
Maybe two kids have left or maybe two kids will be asked to leave if they find two better players.
In my area, it would be much more likely you would attend an "open" tryout and then find out they were only looking for starting pitchers.
From what I saw, the teams that survived year to year were the teams that upgraded their rosters when adding players. The teams that added to the bottom of their rosters fell apart.