Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I'm tired of being told I'm rich just because I'm willing to sacrifice for my kids and pay for some of their activities. There's a big difference between the two!
I had to stop reading after several of those suggestions...
If the "Rich" families remove there children from a local team, are they really affecting those in the lower incomes. Many of the "Rich" families live in the same suburb/enclave as others in their salary range. So I believe that, the premise provided, is a bit of a red herring.
I also think it is a parenting issue, to let a child quit a sport because they did not make the travel team. That would never fly with many of the Families I know. Find another team. In many communities there are lower priced options, ran by people who have a true connection to the community. If you cannot make those travel teams, there are other options. We lived in a suburb, however we had out sons play Rec ball in a near by community that their mother had played in, when she was young. They welcomed all comers.
This discussion comes up often.
There's probably lots of reasons that kids in families making below $25k don't play team sports and it's too bad the article didn't attempt to explore this. It seems lazy that the author blames well-off families for this.
I haven't read yet, it's bookmarked. But we've heard this argument before. It's definitely a new world. Private pay-to-play travel teams are popping up all over. Some good, some bad. It's certainly giving jobs to a generation of young sports management majors...
And I think it is also diluting talent. Just because mom and dad can afford to pay for a spot on the team doesn't mean that the player is talented. So now you have diluted rec leagues and a multitude of diluted travel programs.
My opinion - bottom line, buyer beware.
It's 2018. How can any "family" survive on $25k or less a year?
CTbballDad posted:I'm tired of being told I'm rich just because I'm willing to sacrifice for my kids and pay for some of their activities. There's a big difference between the two!
I had to stop reading after several of those suggestions...
Couldn't agree more!
Check out some of the author's tweets. He's a self-proclaimed socialist. One of his tweets suggests the US should model our youth sports from Norway, who "stresses participation over competition" and fines organizations who post statistics. Other suggests we should copy Canada...
As I posted in another thread earlier in the week. Know your source before accepting it as gospel.
Nothing to see here, move on...
OK I read it. I'm amused by the shaming.
They don't touch on how elite teams full of wealthy mediocre talent use those funds to "scholarship" talented but less fortunate players.
The article also fails to touch on how some of the most talented professional players oftentimes come from the most impoverished parts of the country. Ain't no travel ball in Muck City.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA68yW521zY
The Atlantic was one of the best non partisan magazines for over 140 years. Then a Silicon Valley based organization heavily financed by Laurene Powell Jobs purchased it. The Atlantic took a hard left.
In looking at this article, some aspects of it rings true, while most of it falls in the "sour grapes" arena. My personal experience indicates that if a player shows talent in the rec league, some coach or dad is going to want that kid on their travel team and if the talent is strong enough a team will find a way to make it work...i.e. everyone else is paying their way. Seen it a ton of times on travel teams my son has played for where a stronger player in a lower income family is making the same trips to the same tournaments and when you add up the "per player" cost for the tournaments you know they are padding to compensate for some kids...just the way it is and I don't really have a problem with it. Rec league kids tend to play with kids in the same socio-economic strata, so not sure the rich kids leaving for travel ball leaves poor kids there to compete at a lower level...not buying that.
Regarding the "pot of gold" with regard to the scholarship dollars, this guy is just misinformed with how many are getting scholarship dollars.
My son is committed to a school that gets a lot of their players from private schools. Some of those schools are ridiculously expensive (like $40-60K a year). Some of these guys are attending a "post graduate" at private academies the year after they graduate 12th grade in order to continue the recruiting process. One guy my son will be competing for playing time with as a freshman (both will be frosh) will be 20 years old when their first college season starts, my son 18. Maybe his parent's $$$ bought him time in the recruiting process or afforded him to be a big fish in a very little pond...if they are willing to do that, then that's their call.
I fully expect my son will be prepared to play against college competition based on the fact that we put him in the most competitive environment we could, not the most expensive one. Usually that environment did not include rec league, but if my son wanted to play with his friends, we allowed him to play LL thru Juniors, to have fun without the pressure of a travel team. He still played travel ball as well, like 50% of the guys playing did.
I also know many kids whose parents have spent a fortune on private lessons, recruiting services, etc. and have nothing to show for it...and I know kids who come from humble backgrounds whose talent have gotten them a long way. The author doesn't address those type of scenarios.
My guess is that the author never played baseball a day in his life, at any level.
it is bullshit hatchet piece in my opinion.
The big problem that makes us youth sports expensive is the draft and the college system.
In Europe the major league teams pay for the development of the top talents and in exchange they get young talent cheaper. For example lionel messi played for Barcelona since he was 13.
So it is the socialist nature of US sports that makes youth sports expensive
.
We never bought into the playing with the friends deal. My son's teammates on every team became his friends so he had his friends at school and his friends for baseball. Whether those friends lived 30 miles away or 16 hours away. It is amazing the things he knows about his baseball friends who live all over the US. Technology has changed friendships in this day and age. They are already talking smack about playing against each other in college. He has friends on almost every SEC team that he has played with throughout the years. You have to love what baseball does to break down barriers. They don't care about color of skin or socio-economic levels or what they voted yesterday. They just know they can play the game and love it. That's all that counts for them.
The article was clearly written with an agenda. Anybody who thinks that a legit MLB/SEC prospect can't play travel ball for free, if they need to, is either just hopelessly naive or haven't really been around the travel ball world.
My 2021 plays for one of the top travel teams in our region, and has worked very hard to get that opportunity. But when he was younger & just another kid who loved Baseball there were all sorts of ways that we had him on teams that cost anything from $200-$600 per season. We didn't see any reason that our 12 year old needed to travel 3 states away to play Baseball anyways. We stuck with teams that played within 90 minutes of our hometown, it all worked out fine. Having him "play up" in Fall Ball most years completely achieved the "playing better competition" ideal that we recognized as good experience, without costing more than the $150 Fall Ball fee.
I also question the agenda. But trying to be objective, I don't think anyone can deny the increased sophistication and money spent on youth sports at "higher" levels over the last decade plus. Often with the hope or dream of giving the young athlete an opportunity to play his/her chosen sport in high school and beyond. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. But it may have an unintended consequence of dampening overall participation, which would be unfortunate. That is, there may be less "rec" leagues b/c there's not enough kids. Or young people drop the sport because they are not playing at a travel or higher level? Not sure. Our community still has "rec" leagues that seem to doing fine , and some of our HS students still "make" HS teams without specializing or playing AAU, travel ball, etc. Like most things, it may swing back the other way if/when parents no longer will bear the cost but for now it does not seem to be slowing down any.
I definitely see the concern for rec leagues taking a hit. I'm not sure the cost of travel ball has much of an affect on it necessarily, more so the amount of parents telling their children its ok not to play sports. Short of any physical ailments/health issues I don't see a reason every 9-14 year old isn't involved in at least 2 seasonal rec league sports or after school activities.
Anybody living under 25k a year is going to have a hard time doing anything, let alone playing sports.
3and2Fastball posted:The article was clearly written with an agenda. Anybody who thinks that a legit MLB/SEC prospect can't play travel ball for free, if they need to, is either just hopelessly naive or haven't really been around the travel ball world.
My 2021 plays for one of the top travel teams in our region, and has worked very hard to get that opportunity. But when he was younger & just another kid who loved Baseball there were all sorts of ways that we had him on teams that cost anything from $200-$600 per season. We didn't see any reason that our 12 year old needed to travel 3 states away to play Baseball anyways. We stuck with teams that played within 90 minutes of our hometown, it all worked out fine. Having him "play up" in Fall Ball most years completely achieved the "playing better competition" ideal that we recognized as good experience, without costing more than the $150 Fall Ball fee.
I agree, the ones ripped off by travel are delusional parents of the average kids who think they can buy themselves success.
I don't think a really great athlete will be denied opportunity to advance if money is short.
Ever watch that series in Netflix “Friday Night Tykes”? There are kids from every socioeconomic strata on that show. The kids that can play, regardless of their family income, are COVETED by all the teams. This never changes.
I agree the Atlantic article had an axe to grind. Gotta generate clicks for their web site...
I don't think any parent should feel guilty about providing whatever opportunities they can and choose to for their kids. But there is no denying that youth sports has turned into something of an arms race. If the kid competing with yours for playing time is taking lessons, doing speed & agility training at age 9, etc., then that creates some pressure to "do more." And "more" often costs money. Yes, there are parents who throw money away, there are ways to go that are less expensive than others--but I think my general observation is still true.
Sure, kids with extraordinary talent can find places to play at little or no cost. But that still leaves the other 99.99%. The Little League where my son played will waive fees for needy kids, and coaches often purchase cleats or gloves for players, drive them to and from practice while their parents are at work, call school to find out why a kid hasn't been at practice and his parents' cell phone number has stopped working... Travel teams don't do that. (Maybe for a kid who is an obvious future draft pick. But that's the exceptional case.) That league is still thriving for now, but I see some troubling signs. Some (not all) of the best players are leaving to play travel ball. Parents hear that those kids have left, so they get worried that their child will "fall behind" (or their kid wants to play travel ball with his schoolmates or neighbors), so more kids decide to leave rec ball. Then after Little League, kids who want to play in HS need to play in summer, and Legion ball is just about dead around here. It's not hard to see signs of a two-tiered system developing based on ability to pay.
I'm not saying I think things are totally out of whack (yet), and I don't have a good solution. I get that the tone of the article linked in the OP could put people off, but I think we ought to recognize that as youth sports get more serious they generally get more expensive; and that trend will tend prevent some kids from being able to play who in years past might have done so.
Maybe I should add: The Little League I am describing encompasses some quite well-off neighborhoods and one that is high-poverty and high-crime. Part of the league's mission is to help bring disadvantaged kids into the game. Other Rec leagues I know of do much the same thing. Travel ball can't fulfill that same mission. Which is NOT to bash travel ball. I just am concerned about what we'd lose if Rec leagues can't continue to thrive.
Chico Escuela posted:The Little League where my son played will waive fees for needy kids, and coaches often purchase cleats or gloves for players, drive them to and from practice while their parents are at work, call school to find out why a kid hasn't been at practice and his parents' cell phone number has stopped working... Travel teams don't do that. (Maybe for a kid who is an obvious future draft pick. But that's the exceptional case.)
I think this point sums it up. The author chose to put the blame on income rather than on lazy parent(s). Little League is not expensive, especially when there are leagues that provide helmets, glove, etc. The whole "elite travel" point is a cop out. Most 9 year olds aren't playing travel baseball. If they are it's most likely for the town all star team or they're playing both travel and LL. A weekend tournament does not get in the way of a LL game on Tuesday and a LL game on Thursday.
A $70 TBall bat, a $30 cheap fake leather mitt and a $2 gatorade should not be a reason for an 8 year old not to play a sport.
I think Little Leagues biggest problem is the field size. A lot of 11-12 year olds leaving a year or two early to play 50/70 or even 60/90. That 46/60 field is too small for 13 year olds and dangerous
I skimmed the article. The author makes some legitimate points, but also misses a lot of the issues.
Strong families with athletic DNA and at least one parent who is committed to sports is necessary to continue playing through high school and beyond. Many, many rich kids have two of the three but lack the athletic DNA (though with two of three most can play through high school). Also the author never mentioned Denmark (and Europe in general) which has the most fair and effective system for producing world-class soccer players - a systematic (and ruthless) process of talent identification and government sponsored development along with an unbiased weeding out process creates the best athletes.
2020-RHP-Dad posted:I skimmed the article. The author makes some legitimate points, but also misses a lot of the issues.
Strong families with athletic DNA and at least one parent who is committed to sports is necessary to continue playing through high school and beyond. Many, many rich kids have two of the three but lack the athletic DNA (though with two of three most can play through high school). Also the author never mentioned Denmark (and Europe in general) which has the most fair and effective system for producing world-class soccer players - a systematic (and ruthless) process of talent identification and government sponsored development along with an unbiased weeding out process creates the best athletes.
Denmark? Never heard about that, they are pretty average in soccer even for a smaller country (other small countries like Croatia or Holland are much stronger). Are you maybe confusing them with another country?
PABaseball posted:I think this point sums it up. The author chose to put the blame on income rather than on lazy parent(s). Little League is not expensive, especially when there are leagues that provide helmets, glove, etc. The whole "elite travel" point is a cop out. Most 9 year olds aren't playing travel baseball. If they are it's most likely for the town all star team or they're playing both travel and LL. A weekend tournament does not get in the way of a LL game on Tuesday and a LL game on Thursday.A $70 TBall bat, a $30 cheap fake leather mitt and a $2 gatorade should not be a reason for an 8 year old not to play a sport.
I think Little Leagues biggest problem is the field size. A lot of 11-12 year olds leaving a year or two early to play 50/70 or even 60/90. That 46/60 field is too small for 13 year olds and dangerous
Unfortunately I have seen too many kids 10 and under leave rec altogether for travel when playing both. Primarily because of the scheduling conflict. The rec player numbers have dropped and travel has increased near me as travel orgs that usually take HS students now have 10U teams.
The Youth Sports Industry grows stronger every year. There is a never ending supply of new parent clients that funnel into the market to provide Johnny and Jane with the perceived “Best of the Best;” and ”Best Opportunity $ can by.”
This industry understands that parents will do whatever it takes to give their little one an advantage.
—————————————-
Don’ t hate the Game; question the financiers.
BTW- I’m an ortho surgeon. I have a special running this off-season on my Elite Tommy John Packages for 8u-12u only. Absolutely no HSers, it’s too late for them.
Make sure your player has what they need to compete at the highest level.
For members of HSbaseball Web:
By one get one free is always in play.
Get TJ on both elbows and we’ll throw in the Ambidextrous Pitching Adjuster for Right-handed 8u only. All others, it’s too late.
Give the recruiters what they want at the earliest age possible.
Get ‘er Done. Get Committed.
And remember our Motto;
”IF YOU DON’T BOAST ABOUT WHAT YOUR DOING WITH YOUR PLAYER, YOU AIN’T DOING ENOUGH.”
Proud member of the WE GOTHHA YOUTH SPORTS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
2022NYC posted:PABaseball posted:I think this point sums it up. The author chose to put the blame on income rather than on lazy parent(s). Little League is not expensive, especially when there are leagues that provide helmets, glove, etc. The whole "elite travel" point is a cop out. Most 9 year olds aren't playing travel baseball. If they are it's most likely for the town all star team or they're playing both travel and LL. A weekend tournament does not get in the way of a LL game on Tuesday and a LL game on Thursday.A $70 TBall bat, a $30 cheap fake leather mitt and a $2 gatorade should not be a reason for an 8 year old not to play a sport.
I think Little Leagues biggest problem is the field size. A lot of 11-12 year olds leaving a year or two early to play 50/70 or even 60/90. That 46/60 field is too small for 13 year olds and dangerous
Unfortunately I have seen too many kids 10 and under leave rec altogether for travel when playing both. Primarily because of the scheduling conflict. The rec player numbers have dropped and travel has increased near me as travel orgs that usually take HS students now have 10U teams.
Son played LL and travel (local) one spring - when he was 9 or 10 as I recall. We were at a ball field 7 days a week for either a game or practice. Fortunately not any scheduling conflicts. Told him he had to make a choice the next year - LL or travel ball. While we did enjoy it, it was just a bit too much. He chose travel ball.
My son played the majority of his pre-HS baseball in a local league that had a policy in place preventing kids from doing both travel and league. This was instituted supposedly for arm protection since it could not be relied upon that the coaches and parents could appropriately coordinate to ensure kids doing both were having pitch counts monitored, etc. There were a lot of kids that left the park so this was modified to permit some travel play if the travel team was "endorsed" by one of the league organization managers. It worked ok but the park still saw a significant exodus of players over a period of two or three years. Seems to me, a big part of this was simply parents thinking their kids were better, or more "projectable," than they actually were and that travel teams were where their kids needed to be. I'm certainly not one to question that but on my son's league team was also the son of a former Cy Young winner, who spoke at one of the park fundraising banquets when they joined. He opened with the statement "None of your kids are going to play in the major leagues." He went on to explain the statement, of course, but it resonated with me and I think it's definitely something that more parents should pay attention to.
PABaseball posted:I think Little Leagues biggest problem is the field size. A lot of 11-12 year olds leaving a year or two early to play 50/70 or even 60/90. That 46/60 field is too small for 13 year olds and dangerous
As of next year, they've gotten rid of the 13 year olds in little league. Age cutoff is now Aug. 31, so everyone will be 12 at the oldest during the season and all the way through the LL World Series. Combined with the new USA bats (essentially BBCOR for youth bats) I think they have eliminated a lot of the issue.
tequila posted:...on my son's league team was also the son of a former Cy Young winner, who spoke at one of the park fundraising banquets when they joined. He opened with the statement "None of your kids are going to play in the major leagues." He went on to explain the statement, of course, but it resonated with me and I think it's definitely something that more parents should pay attention to.
Well sure, *other* people’s kids will never play in MLB. But my son struck out 12 in 6 innings in his 9 yr-olds’ Little League game last week. And he has been working with a pitching coach on the side, who says the boy has TONs of potential. So we need to get him on the Elite Mega Power Travel Squad this fall to help him develop. Joe Smith’s kid played Rec ball with my son last year, but left for a 8 yr olds’ travel ball this spring. He already is throwing a slider and I hear some college coaches are showing interest...
[This is satire. I, of course, never thought anything like this about my kids... And if you believe that, please PM me about a bridge I’m selling...]
Chico,
Those two players sound like excellent candidates for my Tommy John deep tissue bone and chip surgery package.
2019Dad posted:As of next year, they've gotten rid of the 13 year olds in little league. Age cutoff is now Aug. 31, so everyone will be 12 at the oldest during the season and all the way through the LL World Series. Combined with the new USA bats (essentially BBCOR for youth bats) I think they have eliminated a lot of the issue.
That is good to hear. I have been out of the loop for a while as many parents we know with kids don't play sports, which I think is the biggest problem. I would even like to see 12 year olds move up to 50/70. 46/60 to 60/90 is a huge jump at 13.
BaseballBUDDY posted:Chico,
Those two players sound like excellent candidates for my Tommy John deep tissue bone and chip surgery package.
Slightly off topic, but: During the WS, my son, who is a HS pitcher, remarked that Walker Buehler was throwing significantly faster after his TJ surgery, and that maybe we should look into that option. The boy was 95% joking. But is still startled me, bc I know some folks actually consider that line of thinking. (Yeah, I explained to the boy that Buehler probably had been throwing previously with a partial tear, and/or had the chance to really focus on getting his arm in shape during post-surgery physical therapy.)
PABaseball posted:2019Dad posted:As of next year, they've gotten rid of the 13 year olds in little league. Age cutoff is now Aug. 31, so everyone will be 12 at the oldest during the season and all the way through the LL World Series. Combined with the new USA bats (essentially BBCOR for youth bats) I think they have eliminated a lot of the issue.
That is good to hear. I have been out of the loop for a while as many parents we know with kids don't play sports, which I think is the biggest problem. I would even like to see 12 year olds move up to 50/70. 46/60 to 60/90 is a huge jump at 13.
46' mound distance with BPF 1.15 bats and 6' tall 150lb hitters was not only dangerous/reckless to pitchers, it was stupid from a competitive level. Back in my days in LL, everyone used one of the 3 wood bats provided by the league, stuck our heads into some nasty-a$$ batting helmets provided by the league, and if you were a catcher, you used the crappy gear in the duffle bag that smells like someone puked on it. Now, every kid is coming to LL tryouts equipped with $200 gloves, $200 bats, elbow guards etc.
I was cleaning out a shed along my house and found no fewer that 10 baseball bats that are now obsolete and they were used in LL and travel ball from 2010-2014. Probably $2,000 worth of bats that cannot be used any longer. Would have been a whole lot easier if we used wood.
GaryMe posted:46' mound distance with BPF 1.15 bats and 6' tall 150lb hitters was not only dangerous/reckless to pitchers, it was stupid from a competitive level. Back in my days in LL, everyone used one of the 3 wood bats provided by the league, stuck our heads into some nasty-a$$ batting helmets provided by the league, and if you were a catcher, you used the crappy gear in the duffle bag that smells like someone puked on it. Now, every kid is coming to LL tryouts equipped with $200 gloves, $200 bats, elbow guards etc.
I was cleaning out a shed along my house and found no fewer that 10 baseball bats that are now obsolete and they were used in LL and travel ball from 2010-2014. Probably $2,000 worth of bats that cannot be used any longer. Would have been a whole lot easier if we used wood.
Those were the days... Remember practicing in jeans? (You couldn't wear your one pair of baseball pants except on game days.) And my coaches told us it was unhealthy to drink water during practice. I vividly remember how thirsty I was after standing in the field for 90 minutes during a North Carolina summer.
You probably know this, but: Don't throw out those old bats. There are some charities (sorry, I don't recall names) that collect used gear and send it to needy kids in Latin America. They may be swamped with bats now given the recent change, but it's worth looking into.
GaryMe posted:PABaseball posted:2019Dad posted:As of next year, they've gotten rid of the 13 year olds in little league. Age cutoff is now Aug. 31, so everyone will be 12 at the oldest during the season and all the way through the LL World Series. Combined with the new USA bats (essentially BBCOR for youth bats) I think they have eliminated a lot of the issue.
That is good to hear. I have been out of the loop for a while as many parents we know with kids don't play sports, which I think is the biggest problem. I would even like to see 12 year olds move up to 50/70. 46/60 to 60/90 is a huge jump at 13.
46' mound distance with BPF 1.15 bats and 6' tall 150lb hitters was not only dangerous/reckless to pitchers, it was stupid from a competitive level. Back in my days in LL, everyone used one of the 3 wood bats provided by the league, stuck our heads into some nasty-a$$ batting helmets provided by the league, and if you were a catcher, you used the crappy gear in the duffle bag that smells like someone puked on it. Now, every kid is coming to LL tryouts equipped with $200 gloves, $200 bats, elbow guards etc.
I was cleaning out a shed along my house and found no fewer that 10 baseball bats that are now obsolete and they were used in LL and travel ball from 2010-2014. Probably $2,000 worth of bats that cannot be used any longer. Would have been a whole lot easier if we used wood.
With old wood bats at the least you could have a marshmallow roast.
We nailed, glued and taped broken bats to use in pickup games until someone’s dad made a trip to THE sporting goods store to buy a new bat. Cover comes off a ball? No problem! Another use for duct tape.
We biked uphill, against the wind both ways to play baseball at the park every day ... with our gloves on the handbags with the bat shoved through the glove. We went home at three and returned to the park later for LL games or practice.
Chico Escuela posted:GaryMe posted:46' mound distance with BPF 1.15 bats and 6' tall 150lb hitters was not only dangerous/reckless to pitchers, it was stupid from a competitive level. Back in my days in LL, everyone used one of the 3 wood bats provided by the league, stuck our heads into some nasty-a$$ batting helmets provided by the league, and if you were a catcher, you used the crappy gear in the duffle bag that smells like someone puked on it. Now, every kid is coming to LL tryouts equipped with $200 gloves, $200 bats, elbow guards etc.
I was cleaning out a shed along my house and found no fewer that 10 baseball bats that are now obsolete and they were used in LL and travel ball from 2010-2014. Probably $2,000 worth of bats that cannot be used any longer. Would have been a whole lot easier if we used wood.
Those were the days... Remember practicing in jeans? (You couldn't wear your one pair of baseball pants except on game days.) And my coaches told us it was unhealthy to drink water during practice. I vividly remember how thirsty I was after standing in the field for 90 minutes during a North Carolina summer.
You probably know this, but: Don't throw out those old bats. There are some charities (sorry, I don't recall names) that collect used gear and send it to needy kids in Latin America. They may be swamped with bats now given the recent change, but it's worth looking into.
Pitch In For Baseball
Pitch In For Baseball® (PIFB) is a registered 501(c)(3) not for profit organization that provides new and gently used baseball and softball equipment to boys and girls in the United States and around the world who want to play ball but lack the equipment to do so. PIFB helps to reduce barriers to play by providing equipment grants directly to leagues, schools, and organizations around the world to start, continue, and/or expand their youth baseball programs.
This program started with donation barrels at three local grocery stores.
Chico Escuela posted:GaryMe posted:46' mound distance with BPF 1.15 bats and 6' tall 150lb hitters was not only dangerous/reckless to pitchers, it was stupid from a competitive level. Back in my days in LL, everyone used one of the 3 wood bats provided by the league, stuck our heads into some nasty-a$$ batting helmets provided by the league, and if you were a catcher, you used the crappy gear in the duffle bag that smells like someone puked on it. Now, every kid is coming to LL tryouts equipped with $200 gloves, $200 bats, elbow guards etc.
I was cleaning out a shed along my house and found no fewer that 10 baseball bats that are now obsolete and they were used in LL and travel ball from 2010-2014. Probably $2,000 worth of bats that cannot be used any longer. Would have been a whole lot easier if we used wood.
Those were the days... Remember practicing in jeans? (You couldn't wear your one pair of baseball pants except on game days.) And my coaches told us it was unhealthy to drink water during practice. I vividly remember how thirsty I was after standing in the field for 90 minutes during a North Carolina summer.
You probably know this, but: Don't throw out those old bats. There are some charities (sorry, I don't recall names) that collect used gear and send it to needy kids in Latin America. They may be swamped with bats now given the recent change, but it's worth looking into.
...and Dodgers 2017/2018 World Champions t-shirts.
Dominik85 posted:2020-RHP-Dad posted:I skimmed the article. The author makes some legitimate points, but also misses a lot of the issues.
Strong families with athletic DNA and at least one parent who is committed to sports is necessary to continue playing through high school and beyond. Many, many rich kids have two of the three but lack the athletic DNA (though with two of three most can play through high school). Also the author never mentioned Denmark (and Europe in general) which has the most fair and effective system for producing world-class soccer players - a systematic (and ruthless) process of talent identification and government sponsored development along with an unbiased weeding out process creates the best athletes.Denmark? Never heard about that, they are pretty average in soccer even for a smaller country (other small countries like Croatia or Holland are much stronger). Are you maybe confusing them with another country?
I'm not so knowledgeable about soccer, but thought it was Denmark. Read an article a while back about how they select young players for government-sponsored training and since using that method how they have frequently qualified for world cup play (I know qualifyng isn't winning, but for a small country like Denmark population under 6 million, it is a pretty big deal). Anyway, the article I read contrasted the Denmark method of developing players with the US method (which is to recruit from the top club teams which are fairly expensive). Just thought it was interesting.