Sub-HS baseball (and the majority of HS level travel ball) shouldn't even be about winning as a primary goal.
This is an idea I can get behind, and think it's a far bigger issue than the one being discussed. Again, I think a topic for another day. I think we're a bit closer to agreeing than you think, but I can live with not seeing completely eye to eye. We agree on most things here, it's ok to be different on some things.
Someone has to be on the bench unless you have a 9-10 man roster. Unless you rotate players evenly someone is going to be disappointed. I would agree that the younger age groups should not be consumed with winning. However, we all know how it really is.
People can choose to do what they desire. Players and parents should understand what they are getting involved in.
Interesting discussion and thread...
Money muddies the waters.
If small market pro team finds itself in contention at the trade deadline and decides to trade for a star that could help them win now but will only be a half-season rental, they'd do it in a heartbeat and a good player would be pushed out of a position.
If a D2 school could convince the stud getting D1 attention to choose them instead, they would take him in a second and a good player would lose his starting spot.
If a JC has an opportunity to take a few strong drop-downs between Fall and Spring, they will do so without batting an eye and a few projected starters will likely get bumped.
If a private HS can convince a stud kid to choose their school instead of the public school he has been attending, the coach will welcome him with open arms - and another kid gets bumped.
If a 13-14 club team is trying to establish itself as a legitimate program that aspiring players will want to join, it will make every effort to improve, both by developing the kids in the program and by bringing on better players, whenever the opportunity arises.
These are realities.
If parents pay for their son to be part of a club program, they tend to feel a sense of entitlement that son should get regular playing time. At the same time, they are usually choosing to go the club/travel route because they want a more challenging, competitive environment for the player. Sort of a catch-22. They want the competitive environment without the risk of losing the competition. Money muddies the waters.
I really like Swamp's assessment...
"If the money you paid is guaranteeing your kid a spot in the lineup, then by definition you are playing daddy ball.
If, on the other hand, you have affiliated with a competitive team, the fees bought an opportunity to compete.
If the player finds himself sitting on the bench the last three weeks of the season, it's an indication of what he did with that opportunity to compete."
If this were the stated position of every club/travel team (the fees buy an opportunity to compete), the waters would be quite a bit more clear. And the players would be much better prepared for the next level that they aspire to reach.
I don't think we're going to be able to meet in the middle on this one. Sub-HS baseball (and the majority of HS level travel ball) shouldn't even be about winning as a primary goal. The idea that 13/14 year olds are just replaceable pieces on some coach's roster to be cut or benched when a better option comes along is so far from what youth baseball should be about at any level that I'm not even sure how to address this discussion at this point.
I understand the premise of your statement and no one is bigger on emphasizing development and character building than I, but try telling a 12 or 14yo kid that the game (in any sport) is not about winning. Most are quite competitive and a large part of the appeal to play sports meshes with the objective of the game - to win... particularly those who choose to play club/travel ball where it is perceived that this is where the better players play.
I have a side gig as a site director for one of the large tourney organizations and I get to talk to parents, coaches and kids across several age ranges all the time - just did one this weekend. Even at 8 and 10 years old, they want to win. Now, that said, I think that good coaches/organizations will hold development as higher priority but they will conduct things in a manner that does not take away the kids' desire and opportunity to compete.
Another problem with that line of thinking (pre-HS ball shouldn't be about winning) is that most of the kids won't play beyond that age group. The funnel really starts to narrow. Most LL players won't go on to play Babe Ruth. Most Babe Ruth players won't go on to play HS... and so on and so on. So why should the game be all about development when most of the players won't be moving to the next level? NOW may be their last opportunity to enjoy pure sport, to enjoy competing to win.
To address your statement about 13-14 y.o. as replaceable pieces on some coach's roster being so far from what youth baseball should be... you do realize, the next step is HS and most HS programs have cuts, right? And, we're talking in the context of club/travel where the kids are supposed to be the better players. Don't you think it may be helpful feedback for a 14yo paying to play club discover that he may be just a borderline HS player and needs to work harder if that is his aspiration? Isn't their some good in seeing what size fish he is in the bigger pond? He won't discover that if his fees are assuring his spot in the lineup.
To play and not to win on the sub-varsity level is ridiculous. Go tell that to a kid and he'll laugh in your face. To bring in ringers on a free ride and push away paying players is whats wrong.
To play and not to win on the sub-varsity level is ridiculous. Go tell that to a kid and he'll laugh in your face. To bring in ringers on a free ride and push away paying players is whats wrong.
Process, not results. The goal of sub-HS ball shouldn't be about winning, winning should happen if/when it does because the team goals are properly set up and executed, and winning isn't even a necessary component to being successful as a player or team. The trophy you win sandbagging some lower level competition is just as made in China as the one you win for beating the best teams in a big tournament.
At the HS age travel level it's not all that different. You don't need to be on a team that wins the WWBA to play college ball, you don't even need to be on one that has a winning record. You need to be on one that plays challenging competition in front of the right people, and you have to perform well as an individual.
Every individual player wants to win every time they step on the field. They should all know, especially by the time they get to the point about thinking about the level(s) ahead, that all that matters is they work as hard as they can to be the best they can, and let everything else fall where it will.
To play and not to win on the sub-varsity level is ridiculous. Go tell that to a kid and he'll laugh in your face. To bring in ringers on a free ride and push away paying players is whats wrong.
I agree.
I am not into rushing players while they are young, but letting them know that its not necessary to win doesn't make winners at 13,14. Its not necessary to win every game, but if your player develops the attitude I will play no matter what, it;'s not conducive to his development.
Some great points brought up here, one of them as to why the coach brought in these players?
Did the OP's friend ask the coach?
Not sure that was every answered.
Good posts by Swampboy and PG.
jacjacatk- Winning and its value being at or near zero. I have made the same statement a few times and usually find myself in a bit of a dogfight defending it.
Trying to win - very important. Actually winning - irrelevant. Usually comes up in the topic of pitcher usage and when you see the plus 125 pitch counts or consecutive day usage etc. Also usually at the HS level in District or State Tourney play.
Adding players to try to win a 14 or 15U tournament after taking peoples money is shaky at best and if not disclosed is probably a breach of contract. It is extremely unlikely that there was no communication about expectations, schedule, approach etc. before money changed hands. If you were told - hey we are going to Disney in July and may add a couple of players to make us more competitive - then you got what you deserve.
My son and his teammate once filled in on a older team at their world series. My kid played every inning and hit better than he did at his own world series. The players that the coach was planning on cutting did a bunch of sitting that week, I kinda felt horrible the whole time. The tension in the stands was obvious, now we are very picky about guest playing.
My son played for a team for a couple of years that was finally done in because of the way the coach used ringers. The coach was unethical about this in the extreme. His ringers were often not even age appropriate. He would bring sixteen year old pitchers to pitch in the championship of a 14U tournament. He did this ALL The time. He once even brought a 23 year old guy to play in a a 16U tournament, when we moved up to 16U. That was a lark, admittedly. He originally brought the guy in to help coach. But some players didn't show up on time, so we were short handed at game time, and looked like we would have to forfeit. The 23 year old coach was quite rightly appalled at the thought. But he did what he was asked so we wouldn't have to forfeit. But he would only lay down bunts and wouldn't run them out full speed. Don't know how we got away with that one, but we did.
Eventually the team broke up because the coach really got carried away, especially when we were going to move up to playing 17/18U and the team started having serious ambitions. He had sold us on the idea of doing many more exposure events. The team had been together for awhile and had started playing really well against more local competition. But as soon as he announced the plan to do more exposure type tournaments we frankly had ringers all the time -- like he really didn't believe in hi core players. He sat fees paying guys all the time. (and the fees had gone up since we were entering more expensive tournaments) Sometimes as many as half the guys on the field were one shot ringers. (He ran a training facility and gave lessons and had lots of access to many players/clients. And would often invite them to guest play.)
Parents and players eventually had enough after several years running of this now escalating behavior. We more or less deserted him en masse. What made it worse was that too often the ringers weren't even real ringers -- they were no better than our regular guys. We could have won or loss just as well with our regular guys, it seemed to many. So people just didn't get it and got really really tired of it-- especially the cheating aspect of it. I mean how important is winning some local USSSA tournament, with nothing really at stake, that you'll bring in an overage guy to help do it? What kind of message is that sending to the players.
Jacjacatk...I agree whole heartedly with your posts. Of course I want to win, nobody on the field wants to win more then my kid but if you asked him if one of his team mates who battled and must have succeeded all year to even be on a team eligible to play on would be thrown under the bus for some "perceived" better player (while those teams of the ringers have lost and are done), if he would take a win at the cost of one of his brothers who contributed all year to get to that point's expense then he would tell you no, I'd rather stand by my team mate and see what he can do. In my opinion succeeding at high levels requires trust in your team mates and chemistry. You want to know they will pick you up and have your back. It's up to adults to teach them that as they participate through the years. It's up to parents to support teams/coaches that reinforce our personal values.
So, we found a team with the same values. It pretty much boils down to values doesn't it?
Some may hide behind competition but if you are paying for exposure, have been admitted onto the team by try out, not just cash, and both you and your son sacrificed (which is what you do every weekend and week night spent driving to games and practices, not to mention financial sacrifices for other things), why should a coach get to screw those players HE CHOSE at the beginning of the season, paid his bills and provided his living? Why should I end up paying for someone else's kid because that's what it boils down to isn't it? They didn't perform, let them know after the season they should look elsewhere but so long as they held up their end of the bargain then he should too.
I am not advocating nor do I think anyone on this thread is saying I paid so my kid should play. I am saying if a kid is good enough for a coach to choose and take his parents money then the coach should stand behind his decisions through the season or else it's basically theft....I'll take you and your money and find someone who can't pay to play when it matters, thanks for funding them without knowing. That's wrong on many levels and my choice would be not to have my son influenced by someone who thinks that's right.
Not every kid will succeed and go pro but every single kid will benefit by learning to be a good team mate. Parents ought to be as worried about putting them in a position to learn that as they are about putting them in a situation to win....
The funny part about all of this is that we do not know the entire set of circumstances, so its all about opinions, based on a bit of info we have been given.
I am going to assume that the OP's friend was directly affected by the pick up players coming in, based upon the comment that the mom quit.
I will bet that there is more to the story. I don't think it is fair to judge the coaching staff not knowing all of the facts.
As far as some here feeling that its wrong to pay for other players who get picked up, how do we know that actually happened? No where does Golfman make reference to these players walked on for free unless I am missing something.
Why not just give all of the story details instead of just a part?
I'm surprised anyone would endorse late comers from other teams playing over kids who worked hard and committed to the team all season. Especially if the new kid plays free after the parents of the kids already on the team paid thousands to be on the team.
Whenever my son was added to a roster from 13u to 16u because they were short players I told the coach he should play left and bat last. One time he played second and led off. There were some teed off parents on the sidelines.
I'm surprised anyone would endorse late comers from other teams playing over kids who worked hard and committed to the team all season. Especially if the new kid plays free after the parents of the kids already on the team paid thousands to be on the team.
Whenever my son was added to a roster from 13u to 16u because they were short players I told the coach he should play left and bat last. One time he played second and led off. There were some teed off parents on the sidelines.
I think that we all agree that bringing in players for free isn't fair.
But again, we really do not have all of the details.
Filling a roster spot with a player or even a ringer to keep a team from forfeiting a tournament a whole different deal than bringing in ringers and shoving your regular paying customers off to the side.
This is 14U travel ball.
These players either a) will be in high school next year or b) played up, presumably in search of better competition.
If a), some long-suffering JV coach may be posting here next year seeking advice on how to deal with parents who think their kids are entitled to start because they played travel ball.
If b), perhaps someone over-estimated the players' present competitive standing.
I'm still trying to figure out how parents whose players got a full winter of workouts and started for 35 or 40 games of a 50-game travel schedule have a basis for complaining that they didn't get their money's worth or their kids didn't have a chance to show the coach what they could do.
Giving these players a small dose of reality at the end of their season probably did not scar them emotionally or retard their development as players. And it may have helped them get ready for that high school tryout looming just around the corner.
I feel commitment is a two way street. If the player commits to the team for the season and puts in the work the coach shouldn't be throwing him under the bus at the end of the season for players whose own seasons already ended. Commitment is a two way street. How do you think the coach would react if one of his players walked out on him before the season was over?
I didn't notice major leaguers whose seasons had ended playing for the Red Sox and Cardinals in the World Series last fall.
This is 14U travel ball.
These players either a) will be in high school next year or b) played up, presumably in search of better competition.
If a), some long-suffering JV coach may be posting here next year seeking advice on how to deal with parents who think their kids are entitled to start because they played travel ball.
If b), perhaps someone over-estimated the players' present competitive standing.
I'm still trying to figure out how parents whose players got a full winter of workouts and started for 35 or 40 games of a 50-game travel schedule have a basis for complaining that they didn't get their money's worth or their kids didn't have a chance to show the coach what they could do.
Giving these players a small dose of reality at the end of their season probably did not scar them emotionally or retard their development as players. And it may have helped them get ready for that high school tryout looming just around the corner.
Yeah, the best way to prepare a 14 year old for HS tryouts is to let him ride the pine and watch better players play. Baseball is a business, if you can't cut it at 14 there's no point in wasting any more time trying to help you improve, time to move on to the next kid, 'cause coach's trophy case isn't going to fill itself.
Giving these players a small dose of reality at the end of their season probably did not scar them emotionally or retard their development as players. And it may have helped them get ready for that high school tryout looming just around the corner.
I don't think this is the point of the whole thread. The point is that if the original players payed for that last tournament, they should get to play. Not the kids the coach brought on. You're always gonna have a player with the least amount of at bats, and the kid who played the field the least amount of time. That happens with every team.
But in pre high school ball, the kids that paid for everything should get the time on the field.
Unless they have won every game they should be very aware there are plenty of players out there that have talent and if they go to school with enough of them that reality will be faced soon enough.
I still come back to what the coach sold the parents. If he told them he was adding players if he could then it is OK...if he didn't then it is dirty pool unless they lost players and he is replacing them.
If you see no problem with an otherwise competent roster player getting benched in favor of a late-season, non-paying ringer at 13-14U...in pursuit of the big trophy...
...then would you also agree that the coach's role is at risk for the same reason? Let's say a highly-respected, seasoned coach with a better W-L record and a reputation for winning the big tourney became available at the end of the season...would you "bench" your coach to improve your chances to win the big one?
Of course you wouldn't.
Seems as though there are two ways to look at this. Teams can operate in different ways.
1. Team is sponsored and no one pays.
2. Players pay for the opportunity.
3. Players pay to be in the line up.
If #3 a player should be in the line up. To me these type teams are mostly about winning also, but winning in a different more financial way. What happens if some dad pays twice as much so that his kid hits clean up and plays shortstop?
Years ago in our Jupiter Tournament we allowed a team in. The team didn't win a game, didn't score a run, didn't even have a close game and basically couldn't compete. Later we found out the team was charging players a large sum of money to play in that tournament. It didn't do anyone any good other than someone made a boat load of money. They definitely didn't have any ringers on that team. They certainly didn't care about competing, let alone winning. They took advantage of the situation. Some might actually think this is OK, but we have never allowed that team back.
I think it is necessary for most teams to charge a fee. Playing in the better events can get expensive. But there is a huge difference between paying to be on a team and paying to be in the line up in a championship game. The better programs, seldom need to pick up a "ringer". They already have the ringers on their roster. Sometimes they are even on the bench.
To me the teams that form basing the way they operate on nothing more than who has paid or in some cases how much they have paid are in it for the wrong reason. In most cases I don't think those type teams create the best opportunity for development.
Do I think it is right to replace a player who has been on your team all year? No! That is not right. It's not right whether he payed to play or didn't pay to be on the team. I just don't understand why someone would want to coach a team where playing time was based on nothing more than who paid. What kind of real team is that? Johnny has made 20 errors at shortstop in the last six games and has struck out nearly every at bat. Heck with the rest of the team, Johnny paid to play shortstop. Go out there and have some fun!
College teams and HS teams establish their roster at the beginning of the season. There are tryouts for HS and recruiting for college. Once the rosters are set, they don't change (unless maybe you get a student who moves into the district in HS). Overall, I think this is the way it should be in travel ball - particularly at the pre-HS level.
I have nothing against competition for play time. Every player that is on a team's roster should be competing and earning their starting spot. If you don't perform, you don't play. However, to bring in players from outside the team's roster to play in specific tournaments, is not the right thing to do, IMHO. Not that it is against the rules of any tournament or illegal in any way, I just don't think it's the right thing to do. Of course there are exceptions. If a team has had injuries, or players could not make it to the tournament for some reason, the coach should be able to replace those players in order to have a full team. But if a coach picked his team at the beginning of the year, he should go with what he's got.
My son has always played on a team in which the coaches specifically communicated that there would be no more players added once the roster was set. And they followed thru with their commitment. In my area, it is pretty generally known which teams will supplement their roster with "ringers" as the season goes on at the HS level. We had stayed away from those teams, just on principle. Even though they were very good, well respected teams.
It's not about paying to play. It's partly about paying to be on a team, but that still doesn't guarantee play time, if you don't perform. But, if I paid to be on a team and lost the opportunity to play because someone else came in at the last minute without paying, I'm not sure I'd be real happy.
On my son's college team (and probably every college team) half the team is pitchers. That means that my son has to compete against around 15 other guys to get mound time. If he doesn't perform, we won't be on the mound. But the coach can't go out and get some new guys to come in for the conference tournament or NCAA regionals because he thinks they'd do better with some new blood. At the end of the season, there are guys who will be cut and replaced with new players. It should be that way. Why should travel teams - particularly pre-HS - be any different?
Agree with everything BBallman just posted.
You are either part of the team or you are not. Best players (on the team) play. others sit. Ringers, pretty much by definition (and assumed lack of financially contributing to the team) are not "on the team".
When my son was thirteen we (a rival LL all star coach and I) started a 13u travel team to play mostly in the nearby USSSA tournaments. We had a list of twenty top players from our LL district and recruited thirteen of them. It was $500 for ten tournaments and whatever doubleheaders we would play.
We discovered there was a competing new team charging nothing. The head coach was very financially well off. Plus he had raised a few thousand in advertising promising companies tremendous exposure from his team's success. It was free to be on the team. The kids had three uniforms. They had matching equipment bags, matching batting gloves and matching helmets. Even the catching equipment matched. They also got free lunches on the weekends when playing tournaments. The guy owned a popular sub shop and restaurant.
We did lose a couple of potential recruits to this team. Tournament travel was a relatively new thing in our area. Parents were accustomed to paying $100 for LL or Ripken. Free play and free lunch was much better than $500 for the season and feed yourself. But this team had trouble recruiting enough good players. No one had heard of the coach. They had trouble keeping players. It turned out they didn't know how to teach baseball. Transitioning to the 60/90 is a key teaching year. Especially since 50/70 open bases wasn't that popular at the time in our area.
In the beginning the team accumulated a lot of players. They had a roster of about twenty. The coach would send out an email on Wednesday night on what his "active roster" would be for the weekend. Players were now sitting home "for free" on the weekends without getting a free lunch.
What was really going on was the owner/coach was trying to surround his mediocre son with talent making him a winner. The kid quit baseball when he got to high school. Or the game quit him. Players and parents noticed what the deal was. They realized none of the coaches could teach baseball. The roster became a revolving door of mediocrity. The team would go 1-2 in pool play and 1-3 over the weekend.
The team ultimately became desperate for players. They scrambled every weekend to make sure they had nine or ten at every game. When my team wasn't scheduled one weekend they contacted my son. I found out so much about this team because my son played for them for a weekend. I told him to buddy up to a certain player for the weekend so I could recruit him for next year (I won't steal players midseason). I talked baseball with the dad all weekend. The kid played for us in 14u.
My son told me everything about the team was chaos. He added the buddy and he knew more about baseball than the coaches. The team disbanded after one year. The last weekend roster was the Bad News Bears of 13u travel. Free with all the perks isn't always the best price.
I had to go back and read the OPs original post because this post has touched on just about all aspects of the youth travel programs. There are so many different levels of skill, coaching styles, expectations, monetary contributions that it's mind boggling. Sometimes it's a scrappy little team that works their tails off to become a power house. Others are only out for the win and will continuously add players. Maybe a local school puts together a group that is focused only on development. Each team has different goals and it's important to find one that is a good fit for your player. There are even times when the team changes focus mid-season and you will need to re-evaluate going forward.
Teams bringing on ringers is wrong. That goes against the definition of team in my opinion (you know what they say about opinions
). I'm not talking about financially...I'm talking about core values of youth sports. I believe the statistic of youth players making it to the pros is something like .5%. Yikes! Why are we comparing these youth teams to pros and college teams (where 5.6% of youth players will make the team)? If coaches aren't happy with their existing players, cut them at the end of the season and make your additions then. Most likely, though, those ringers aren't going to be showing up to tryouts because they've already got a better gig.
You made some good points RJM, but, to be honest, I have seen the "ringer" teams thrive as well. The teams in particular I am talking about in our area are top, nationally ranked teams year in year out. If I mentioned the names of the teams, everyone here would have heard of them. But it is well known, that they bring in guys all the time from all over the country to play in the big tournaments. And they get a lot of scouts and recruiters following them and going to their games. The "ringers" they get to come in are usually top D1 and potential draft picks. Lots of pitchers that will come in and out.
I know there are kids that will accept a spot on the teams knowing that this will happen. They are willing to take that chance that they will be able to continue to play, regardless. But it doesn't always happen. Some kids and their parents will always be less than happy at the end of the year. But the allure of playing on these teams was just too much to overcome for some.
It is what it is in this case, but the families should have known what they were getting into. For most teams, I don't think this should be the case. I definitely don't think this should be the case for pre-HS teams.
And they get a lot of scouts and recruiters following them and going to their games. The "ringers" they get to come in are usually top D1 and potential draft picks.
You're comparing 13u to a showcase team. You're comparing coaches who can't teach the game to coaches with college connections.
And they get a lot of scouts and recruiters following them and going to their games. The "ringers" they get to come in are usually top D1 and potential draft picks.
You're comparing 13u to a showcase team. You're comparing coaches who can't teach the game to coaches with college connections.
True.
As I said earlier, I'm not big at all on pre-HS teams doing this in any fashion other than to fill in roster spots for injury or non-attendance by regular team members.
Not to change the subject, but that old odds of making it has popped up again.
Everyone knows that a small percentage of players make it to professional baseball. For that matter it is even a small percentage that make it to college baseball.
But one thing that is absolutely certain is that thousands will play college baseball and thousands will play professional baseball. Someone will fill those spots! The percentages are not the same for everyone. When Bryce Harper, Justin Upton, Delmon Young, were 13 years old their odds were much better than most kids that age.
A better percentage to consider would be how many 13 year will will have the ingredients to make it to the next level. The talent, makeup, desire, passion, work ethic, etc. to have a chance? Now out of all those, what percentage will make it to the next level? That percentage would look much more favorable than the one that includes millions that have nearly a zero chance.
Myself, I look at age 13 as being where things really start happening. The younger ages are important when it comes to developing skills, attitude and love for the game. But separation really sets in at age 13 for most (not all). Some might say older, some might say younger and there's always physical maturity involved.
The reason I have mentioned this is because It seems a lot of people look at 13u similar to 8u. Then I see a 13 year old throwing mid 80s from a shorter distance and realize this is getting fairly serious. This boy belongs in the 16u! It becomes eye opening.
I know this is off topic, sorry for that. Back on topic, would anyone care if a team just picked up another player? What if he was a below average player? Or is it just picking up the so called "ringer" that bothers people? What if a very good player can't afford to pay the team fee? Would he have to set because others payed their fee?
People pay to attend events showcases and tournaments. They get their opportunity to show their skills. Not once, ever, have we ever received a complaint from someone whose son did well. But the typical complaint from others is we spent this money and didn't get what we expected. What they expected was to create recruiting and scouting attention. People need to understand you can't BUY that! You either have what they want or you don't. If you don't you are throwing away money. So it sure makes me wonder when I see a kid that simply can't compete, paying a lot of money to play on a team with a bunch of other kids that have paid a lot of money. Maybe they call themselves a Showcase Team! What is a Showcase Team? Is that better than the truly outstanding regular teams? The very best teams don't call themselves a Showcase Team.
I look at it like this. Nothing wrong with paying a fair price to play baseball. And if you want to be on a team that guarantees you will play all the time, fine. Guess there is nothing wrong with that. Just know that isn't the way it works for the most successful teams. Most of those teams charge a fee also, but no matter how good a player might be there are no guarantees, you might be on the bench In short order. There is just opportunity! But they might pick up a player next week.
Sorry about the rant. Bottom line is I'm just not very smart!
When my son was thirteen we (a rival LL all star coach and I) started a 13u travel team to play mostly in the nearby USSSA tournaments. We had a list of twenty top players from our LL district and recruited thirteen of them. It was $500 for ten tournaments and whatever doubleheaders we would play.
We discovered there was a competing new team charging nothing. The head coach was very financially well off. Plus he had raised a few thousand in advertising promising companies tremendous exposure from his team's success. It was free to be on the team. The kids had three uniforms. They had matching equipment bags, matching batting gloves and matching helmets. Even the catching equipment matched. They also got free lunches on the weekends when playing tournaments. The guy owned a popular sub shop and restaurant.
We did lose a couple of potential recruits to this team. Tournament travel was a relatively new thing in our area. Parents were accustomed to paying $100 for LL or Ripken. Free play and free lunch was much better than $500 for the season and feed yourself. But this team had trouble recruiting enough good players. No one had heard of the coach. They had trouble keeping players. It turned out they didn't know how to teach baseball. Transitioning to the 60/90 is a key teaching year. Especially since 50/70 open bases wasn't that popular at the time in our area.
In the beginning the team accumulated a lot of players. They had a roster of about twenty. The coach would send out an email on Wednesday night on what his "active roster" would be for the weekend. Players were now sitting home "for free" on the weekends without getting a free lunch.
What was really going on was the owner/coach was trying to surround his mediocre son with talent making him a winner. The kid quit baseball when he got to high school. Or the game quit him. Players and parents noticed what the deal was. They realized none of the coaches could teach baseball. The roster became a revolving door of mediocrity. The team would go 1-2 in pool play and 1-3 over the weekend.
The team ultimately became desperate for players. They scrambled every weekend to make sure they had nine or ten at every game. When my team wasn't scheduled one weekend they contacted my son. I found out so much about this team because my son played for them for a weekend. I told him to buddy up to a certain player for the weekend so I could recruit him for next year (I won't steal players midseason). I talked baseball with the dad all weekend. The kid played for us in 14u.
My son told me everything about the team was chaos. He added the buddy and he knew more about baseball than the coaches. The team disbanded after one year. The last weekend roster was the Bad News Bears of 13u travel. Free with all the perks isn't always the best price.
Unfortunately it seems like 90% of the youth teams at 12U and under fit this story....lol Coaches who are "recruiters"....not coaches....kids don't learn, nobody is happy and the team is gone after one horrible season
PG,
You have made a great effort trying to make some understand, you are smart, and you know your stuff better than anyone.
BTW, some may say that David Price became a ringer today. He joined a team that will most likely compete for the WS, while the guy he was traded for went to a team with less possibility of that happening. Can you imagine how that must feel! For every player that got traded today, many have put their blood, sweat and tears into the team that drafted him. It hurts when someone comes and takes your place, no matter what level you are at. I get that.
I guess I'll leave it at:
Coach evaluated 3-4 position players at season beginning.
Coach, "coached 'em up all winter" and through 90% of the year.
Coach determined he was a poor judge of talent, or
Coach determined he was a poor developer of talent, or
Coach decided to give up on these 3-4 for some reason and overcome the poor play of his selected/coached players by replacing nearly 1/2 of his position players for the season ending tournament(s).
Players and players parents should decide if they met their side of the commitment(financially and effort). Either they didn't do their part, or the coach didn't do his. Their decision or plan of action for next year should be easy at that point.
For the record: my son has benefited greatly from being "beaten out" of his primary position when in 14u majors. That occurred in a fair and up front way, and neither of us felt our money deserved for him to start.
This is a great topic and I am a first time poster. We are currently playing in the PG Super 25 14U tournament. We just played the Tennessee Knights, a really good team. They had at least two player who were "illegal players" under PG rules because they did not reside in Tennessee or a state connecting to Tennessee (both these players were exceptional). The PG rules specifically prohibit using such players. An objection was made to these players and PG ignored and rejected the objection.
It is interesting when as parents we wonder about the ethics of using "ringers" but when tournaments allow the use the use of "ringers" in violation of their own rules it makes it more difficult for us to know where the line is drawn.
You should direct that concern to PGStaff.
This is a great topic and I am a first time poster. We are currently playing in the PG Super 25 14U tournament. We just played the Tennessee Knights, a really good team. They had at least two player who were "illegal players" under PG rules because they did not reside in Tennessee or a state connecting to Tennessee (both these players were exceptional). The PG rules specifically prohibit using such players. An objection was made to these players and PG ignored and rejected the objection.
It is interesting when as parents we wonder about the ethics of using "ringers" but when tournaments allow the use the use of "ringers" in violation of their own rules it makes it more difficult for us to know where the line is drawn.
My son is on that team...... and he was brought into play this weekend..... he qualified for this tourney on another team back in June in Deep South Regional. I have know these guys for 10 years.... what makes you think they did anything illegal? what team does your son play for?
I don't mean to offend anyone. I am trying to make a broader point. In our situation the PG Super 25 Rule at issue states:
2.08 A team must have 100-percent of its roster from its home area, region or touching regions. A California, Florida, or Texas team is from either the North or South region of its state.
The Tennessee roster clearly shows a player from Oklahoma and Texas (last I checked neither State "touches" Tennessee).
| 32 | Dylan Bonds  | LHP | 5-9 | 160 | L/L | 2018 | Clinton | Conway, AR | |
| 24 | John Dyer | RHP | 5-10 | 175 | R/R | 2018 | Mount Juliet | Mount Juliet, TN | |
| 8 | Dalton Earheart | 2B | 5-3 | 160 | R/R | 2018 | Mount Juliet | Mount Juliet, TN | |
| 20 | Jon Ellis | LHP | 5-8 | 145 | L/L | 2017 | Keller | Keller, TX | |
| 22 | Sean Hunley | RHP/3B, 1B | 6-1 | 200 | R/R | 2017 | Mount Juliet | Mount Juliet, TN | |
| 9 | Jake Lecroy | RHP/1B, 3B, OF | 6-7 | 235 | R/R | 2018 | Marietta | Kennesaw, GA | |
| 13 | Brayden Osborne | C | 5-9 | 160 | R/R | 2018 | Mount Juliet | Mount Juliet, TN | |
| 14 | Bobby Parliment | 1B | 5-8 | 215 | L/L | 2017 | Gordonsville | Gordonsville, TN | |
| 26 | Tyler Polk | OF | 5-10 | 170 | R/R | 2018 | Duncan | Duncan, OK | |
| 3 | A'Darius Pugh | OF | 5-8 | 150 | R/R | 2017 | Cookeville | Cookeville, TN | |
| 2 | Kolby Reck | SS | 5-10 | 170 | R/R | 2017 | Conway | Conway, AR | |
| 55 | Ethan Smith | RHP | 6-0 | 160 | R/R | 2018 | Mount Juliet | Mount Juliet, TN |
The Knights fully disclosed their roster so I am not saying they did tried to hide anything. The PG staff ruled the roster was acceptable so maybe its just an interpretation of what "touching" means.
Regardless, I think the purpose of this forum is to discuss why teams may want to bring "ringers" on the roster. Is it because they don't feel their existing team is good enough or because it feels it must do so to compete in major tournaments? I know there are pro's and con's to both sides of the issue. Our team, like all teams,has used "visiting players" but why do we feel motivated to do so? I think if a team feels it needs to bring on "ringers" just to compete because other teams are bringing in "ringers" then there is a problem in our sport. It reminds me too much of the Lance Armstrong's defense on using PEDs because everyone else was doing it. That doesn't make it right.
We have our boys playing baseball because of learning team work and other life lessons. What lessons do we teach if everyone uses "ringers" just to be competitive regardless of the rules?
I never worried about other teams rosters. If you want to be the best you have to beat the best.
I was told the players in question have been on this teams roster since the beginning of the season. It was my understanding that they had lost a couple of players to injury and asked if my son would play.
I understand the feeling that many parents have when they see a "new" player all the sudden show up and take time from their son. It has happened to me in the past and it will happen again.
However in regards to this particular team, this team was sponsored and I do not think there was a fee, but a donation.... if a player could not afford to play it was taken care of by those who could. in looking at this roster they are carrying 12 players, if they had taken this roster to say 15-18 players at the 14u age then I would have my doubts.
I have been around travel baseball at the highest level for many years and this type of thing is nothing new... I think the problem is that sometimes parents feel that if their son is on one of these teams and attending PG events that everything is going to be gravy and the reality is you are only just beginning to feel how competitive this is going to be going forward.
Good luck to your team the rest of the way.
bellabaseballfan,
It's not a question of what "touching" means, it's a question of what the regions are.
The Super25 Interactive region map is at http://www.perfectgame.org/per...gamesuper25/map.aspx
Click on the region that includes Tennessee. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi light up.
As long as all the players are from the Deep South region or regions that touch the Deep South region, they're ok.
There doesn't appear to be anything amiss here.
