American Meritocracy Is Killing Youth Sports (?)

Baseball for kids starting out is boring as hell. First of all none of the kids can catch. None of the kids can hit. They can't even play catch. They end up chasing after the ball instead of playing catch. Practice consist of everyone standing in the field waiting for the kid at the plate to put something in play that no one can field anyway. They get bored. They get frustrated. And that's the one hour a week where they get development. 

Now the other kids. Someone has spent hours playing catch with them. Someone has spent hours in the yard throwing them balls to hit. Someone has encouraged them and started a fire for the love of the game. When they come home from school someone is there to play catch. When there is free time they are practicing and learning and again building a love of the game. 

When these two different kids get on the same field at the youth level well we all know what happens. Sooner or later one will move on and the other will not. Baseball is a game where those assisting with the development are critical to the development. Critical to the process. Who's fault is it when one gets that assistance and one does not? Who is to blame? It's not the money spent. It's not the rich vs poor that makes the difference. It's the time spent vs the time not spent. Put a price tag on that one for me. 

Coach_May posted:

Baseball for kids starting out is boring as hell. First of all none of the kids can catch. None of the kids can hit. They can't even play catch. They end up chasing after the ball instead of playing catch. Practice consist of everyone standing in the field waiting for the kid at the plate to put something in play that no one can field anyway. They get bored. They get frustrated. And that's the one hour a week where they get development. 

Now the other kids. Someone has spent hours playing catch with them. Someone has spent hours in the yard throwing them balls to hit. Someone has encouraged them and started a fire for the love of the game. When they come home from school someone is there to play catch. When there is free time they are practicing and learning and again building a love of the game. 

When these two different kids get on the same field at the youth level well we all know what happens. Sooner or later one will move on and the other will not. Baseball is a game where those assisting with the development are critical to the development. Critical to the process. Who's fault is it when one gets that assistance and one does not? Who is to blame? It's not the money spent. It's not the rich vs poor that makes the difference. It's the time spent vs the time not spent. Put a price tag on that one for me. 

You make some great points.  One advantage soccer has is that you can take kids as young as 3 or 4, divide them into teams, tell them "kick the ball that way" and they can sort of accomplish that.  Baseball requires much more practice--and it hurts to get hit with the ball while you learn.  (Being proficient at soccer requires much practice, but very young kids can play a pretty good approximation of the game.)

A couple of things I'd add to your post:  First, the availability of a parent to teach a kid the rudiments of catching and throwing correlates with income.  It's not a perfect correlation--plenty of upper class parents are absentees and there are moms and dads working two jobs to pay the rent who manage to spend time playing with their kids.  But what I saw as a Little League coach is that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds too often didn't have that kind of figure in their lives.  (In fact, if a kid has involved parents or relatives, they usually do ok even in difficult material circumstances.)

And second, as kids move beyond tee ball and into more competitive baseball, I think you'd agree that access to coaching, playing against good competition (which usually means travel ball), and having an adult available to shuttle a player to practices and games all come into play.  Some kids find ways around these obstacles.  But most kids aren't obvious future draft picks, and many don't have the good fortune to find someone who will help them along.  As youth sports become increasingly specialized and expensive, more kids will miss out on playing, especially playing beyond the early years.  That's a shame for those kids--and for society as a whole as those kids become adults.  It's not a reason to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater by trashing youth sports; but I hope all of us will look for ways to create opportunities for more kids to play and learn about baseball.  (And I know lots of folks here already are doing that.)

As I have thought about this, I have thought about the guys I know that have made it in any sport to the Pros, not just minor leagues but the real deal.  I do not know but 1 out of I named 40 guys that I personally know that made it to the pros that was upper class.  The rest were middle to lower.  I think money helps you when you get good enough but I disagree that it helps in the beginning.  I've never known but a couple of rich kids who have been taught the game by someone else.  They have gotten better by someone else.  But I know a ton of lower to middle families that made a ton of sacrifices of money, vacations, cars, and etc. to make sure their kid had every opportunity to do what they wanted to do.  I don't even want to figure up what I have paid out in 20 years of travel ball and college for my three sons to do this game.  But my wife and I would make the sacrifices and debt again to give our kids the chance.  If you are going to go in debt for something, why wouldn't it be your kids.  I also know that along the way we have tried to help some kids with less than us try to get their chance but it is tough with no one helping them.

On a side note, someone talked about teams didn't waive the fees for those struggling.  I do not know of an organization, especially the big ones, that do not subsidize or waive team fees for those who need help that can help them.  I know someone will say I am talking about the 1% again but why would you pick up a kid who can't help you.  I also know a lot of the guys who run these premier teams/organizations and I know they have helped kids get on lower level teams who needed help.

Boring as hell? Sad.

I coached at the 5 year old coach pitch level.

Two practices per week and 1 weekend game for 2 seasons.

Practice consisted of 1 hour of development stations and 1/2 hour of field work. Primarily, the field work consisted of  backing up , cut-off, holding on to the ball, staying focused (touch Job here), staying in batting order on the bench, etc.

It was never about the score, it was about the advancement.

After season two, it was awesome to see how far players developed.

The smiles on the players faces was the most enjoyable part for me.

Parent expectations was the least enjoyable. When Johnny does hit the ball and turns to the stands and mom/dad is texting, the disappointment is striking.

Finding positive outcomes on “bad plays” and finding the good in each situation was my forte.

I miss those years.

Pardon me, but I never had a boring as hell moment with the kids starting out.

Maybe we get what we put in?

When my oldest was in 5th grade he had a little league coach (a guy with three daughters who volunteered his time to coach even before his girls were old enough to play) who had the following practice schedule:

• two field practices per week, two hours each (this was standard in the league)

• this coach got a family to agree to host a batting cage in their back yard -- the coach is a roofer, used to working in construction, and he put up the poles and netting -- and THREE TIMES PER WEEK he and his assistant coach (whose sons had graduated out of little league) offered voluntary hitting practice. They were there throwing BP for about two or three hours. Each kid could come and hit for 15 minutes and then leave. The coaches were there the whole time of course. 

• once per week the coaches offered voluntary pitching practice to those interested 

So that was six days per week for no pay.  8 of the 11 kids ended up playing in high school, and multiple kids are committed to college programs. And of course the team went something like 26-2 and had a ton of fun. Oh, and the team had 4 ten-year-olds, 4 eleven-year-olds, and only 3 twelve-year-olds -- unlike a lot of LL coaches, this coach drafted for athleticism, not age.

I realize that this situation was an outlier. Definitely not normal for rec ball. Put the takeaway for me is that getting good at baseball takes practice, lots and lots of practice -- whether that is in the backyard with a parent or sibling, in rec ball, or elsewhere is immaterial. 

Neither have I. But the sad thing is many kids have. The most important coach your kid will probably ever have is you. Or that guy like you. The guy that makes it fun, challenging, etc. The sad thing far too often that is not the case. Why do so many kids stop playing at such a young age or never play at all? 

The cost to play is a bunch of BS. There are plenty of lower middle income, blue collar kids playing basketball, football and hockey. If kids want to play there are adults somewhere making it happen.

Want to experience expensive? Try organized youth hockey. It’s a very blue collar sport. But parents make it happen. The talented players end up on scholarship at private’s and Catholic schools. 

I’m betting the author of the article played Co-Ed frisbee in college. He hates jocks while secretly wishing he was one. For a visual picture a 5’7” 125 guy with a ponytail and John Lennon style glasses. 

RJM posted:

The cost to play is a bunch of BS. There are plenty of lower middle income, blue collar kids playing basketball, football and hockey. If kids want to play there are adults somewhere making it happen.

Want to experience expensive? Try organized youth hockey. It’s a very blue collar sport. But parents make it happen. The talented players end up on scholarship at private’s and Catholic schools. 

I’m betting the author of the article played Co-Ed frisbee in college. He hates jocks while secretly wishing he was one. For a visual picture a 5’7” 125 guy with a ponytail and John Lennon style glasses. 

I think you are right to a point.  But, respectfully, I don't agree that cost concerns are "a bunch of BS."  I coach in a Little League with a district that includes "a really bad neighborhood" by most any measure--economics, crime, lack of intact families.  The league does outreach to get kids to play, waives fees, provides gloves and cleats for those who need them, arranges to drive kids to and from practices and games.  The cost to play is a meaningful hurdle for a lot of kids.  Rec leagues make it possible for many who couldn't play otherwise, but that's the issue:  More and more kids are leaving Rec leagues for travel ball, which means Rec leagues have lower quality of play, a smaller pool of volunteers to run things, and less funding.  That's a vicious circle, because it drives more kids into travel ball.    

It's a sliding scale.  Many "blue collar" families can find a way to pay for youth sports.  Many can't.  (And many families don't have enough to qualify even as working class.) 

The problem with the author was he took families making less than 25k. A family making under 25k is going to have a hard time paying rent and putting food on the table let alone playing sports. That is the biggest problem with the article 

As for little league being expensive, it is not. LL even goes as far to mention on their site that no player should be turned away if they are not able to pay. 

$30 cleats, $60 bat, $30 glove. This can last you 2+ years. That is before community outreach, sponsors, hand me downs, etc. 

Chico Escuela posted:

RJM posted:

The cost to play is a bunch of BS. There are plenty of lower middle income, blue collar kids playing basketball, football and hockey. If kids want to play there are adults somewhere making it happen.

Want to experience expensive? Try organized youth hockey. It’s a very blue collar sport. But parents make it happen. The talented players end up on scholarship at private’s and Catholic schools. 

I’m betting the author of the article played Co-Ed frisbee in college. He hates jocks while secretly wishing he was one. For a visual picture a 5’7” 125 guy with a ponytail and John Lennon style glasses. 

I think you are right to a point.  But, respectfully, I don't agree that cost concerns are "a bunch of BS."  I coach in a Little League with a district that includes "a really bad neighborhood" by most any measure--economics, crime, lack of intact families.  The league does outreach to get kids to play, waives fees, provides gloves and cleats for those who need them, arranges to drive kids to and from practices and games.  The cost to play is a meaningful hurdle for a lot of kids.  Rec leagues make it possible for many who couldn't play otherwise, but that's the issue:  More and more kids are leaving Rec leagues for travel ball, which means Rec leagues have lower quality of play, a smaller pool of volunteers to run things, and less funding.  That's a vicious circle, because it drives more kids into travel ball.    

It's a sliding scale.  Many "blue collar" families can find a way to pay for youth sports.  Many can't.  (And many families don't have enough to qualify even as working class.) 

The league does outreach to get kids to play, waive fees, provide gloves and cleats for those who need them.

Problem solved. As I said adults will make it happen. Adults also make it happen at the travel level for kids who can’t afford to play. 

As for rec ball the issue isn’t the quality of ball. The issue is, are the kids participating having fun? If they are the quality of play is irrelevant. 

RJM posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

RJM posted:

 

 

The league does outreach to get kids to play, waive fees, provide gloves and cleats for those who need them.

Problem solved. As I said adults will make it happen. Adults also make it happen at the travel level for kids who can’t afford to play. 

As for rec ball the issue isn’t the quality of ball. The issue is, are the kids participating having fun? If they are the quality of play is irrelevant. 

The problem goes beyond quality of play.  Every kid who leaves for travel ball means a potential parent coach (or coaches) gone, parental volunteers who could man concession stands, maintain fields, help fund raise, donate...  If enough kids leave, a Rec league ultimately can't survive--but even before that, things can go downhill (which as I said, leads more kids to leave, in a vicious circle).  

My kids played travel baseball, soccer, basketball...  They played Rec for a while in great local programs, then left for more competitive play as they got older.  Nothing wrong with that.  (That may make me a hypocrite.  And I admit I don't have a good solution for you.)  But I'm concerned about what the growth in pay-to-play travel teams means for the continued health of cheaper ways for kids to participate in sports.