PARENT
The One Sport Voice blog recently posted an article titled Why is unequal playing time the norm in youth sport? In the article, Nicole Lavoi advocates equal playing time for all players up until age 12, regardless of competitive level.I posted a comment in response, but for whatever reason my comment didn't make it past the moderation filter. But hey, one advantage of having my own blog is that I DO get the opportunity to comment! So here we go.
Although I don't fully agree with Nicole's perspective, she raises a good question, "Why shouldn't every child receive equal playing time in organized youth sports?"
In competitive organized youth sports, there's undoubtedly a wide range of opinion held by parents and coaches regarding playing time (and the overall merits of this form of play). I'm not going to address this side of the issue except to make two points.
- First, in some (most?) team sports there is an inherent conflict between the greater number of kids needed to conduct productive practices and the smaller number required to field the most competitive player rotation in a game. On a basketball team, for example, coaches usually consider ten to fifteen players the ideal number for practices. But in a competitive game, coaches typically prefer to rotate 7 or 8 players in and out. To optimize a team's chance to succeed, coaches (and many parents) understand the above reality and why playing time will likely be unequal in a more competitive setting.
- Secondly, I would suggest that as long as coaches are honest and transparent with parents about the overall opportunity that they will afford a child, less playing time for some is okay. On most youth sports teams, there is usually a mix of players who are at different stages in their development (age, skill, etc.). For those who are slightly younger, inexperienced, or less skilled, they may initially benefit from smaller roles that don't overwhelm them. As they get older and improve, their playing time will likely increase and possibly exceed that of their newer, younger teammates. (This is especially true of programs where teams are comprised of both younger and older kids.)
Regarding sports programs that DO emphasize equal participation, there are instances where a coach may believe it's best to play one child somewhat more (or less) than others. To this point, here's the comment I submitted:
"Without wading into the waters of older, more competitive youth sports, the goal of providing players with equal playing time in participation based programs is a good one.
But even in this setting, there are qualifiers to an approach of simply dividing playing time up equally.
Most team sports require a certain level of competence in key positions. Without a minimum level of performance in these positions, the play can disintegrate resulting in NO FUN for many of the other players.
For example, a competent point guard in basketball is needed to handle the ball against pressure and make good passes to his or her teammates. Likewise, a good “big-man” is needed to provide a young team with second shot opportunities (there are MANY missed layups).
In the pursuit of equal playing time, taking out a key player can ruin the play for others. It also can diminish the self-esteem of a young player who does not yet possess the necessary skills to play a certain position. This is even more evident when teams are not equally matched in terms of talent and age (something that regularly occurs in the real world of organized youth sports programs).
I generally prefer an approach that builds individual paths to success—especially for kids in the 10 to 13 age group. Teach Everyone Everything in practice, but tweak playing time as necessary in games so that everyone is placed in the best position to succeed. (I discuss this approach in several articles on my Inside Youth Sports blog.)
Yes, the emphasis is on equal playing time in each game. But the goal of equal playing time may also be achieved over the course of a season, with better players possibly getting a little more playing time against the tougher opponents, while the weaker and younger players receive more time against lesser opponents. The goal is to challenge players, but not put them in situations where they are destined to fail. Unfortunately, some parents only look at each individual game in judging whether their son or daughter is receiving equal playing time.
Like many other issues in youth sports, the equal playing time one is magnified by today’s youth culture that places so much emphasis on adult-run organized youth sports. Promoting more opportunities for children to engage in self-directed play (e.g., pickup games) would enable kids to naturally get the “equal playing time” they need to develop their skills and have fun."
As I was finishing this post, I saw a tweet referencing an older MomsTeam article that expressed similar sentiments to the One Sport Voice article. The MomsTeam article also includes several reader comments that express varying views. It's a worthwhile read. The article's main anecdote highlights an instance of questionable coaching behavior that touches on several issues including: The Coaches Kid Always Plays, coaches who are too win-oriented (and consequently distort the intent of playing time guidelines), and not reducing playing time for those who consistently miss practices. But I would disagree that the remedy for these instances is across-the-board equal playing time in all youth sports programs.
Finally, one "equal playing time" practice that I didn't see mentioned in these other articles, is mandatory substitution stoppages. These provide coaches with a reminder and easy opportunity to get players into a game. This practice works well within the participation oriented basketball leagues in which I coach. In addition to asking coaches to substitute players at the end of each quarter, play is also stopped half-way through each quarter. In the younger leagues, coaches are not permitted to substitute players except at these points. This helps ensure that players stay in the game even when things start to go bad.
The above approach can also improve substitution patterns in more competitive programs. A variation of this practice is successfully used in my YMCA's more competitive middle school basketball league. (Coaches can freely substitute players in the 2nd and 4th quarters.)
Do you have any thoughts on the best approaches to playing time in youth sports programs?
Copyright © 2012 Jeffrey S. Rhoads. All Rights Reserved
If you enjoyed this article, you may like my book:
The Joy of Youth Sports: Creating the best youth sports experience for your child (Amazon $8.95)
(Kindle Edition $2.99)
The Joy of Youth Sports: Creating the best youth sports experience for your child (Amazon $8.95)
(Kindle Edition $2.99)
Copyright 2009-2012 Jeffrey S. Rhoads; All Rights Reserved
18 comments:
Wow Jeffrey. So many of my 16 years teaching youth hockey and lacrosse you have captured in a few words. Thank you. There are a couple of disturbing trends I've seen on these issues. 1) Kids are more likely to question their participation time, or complain to their parents about it; 2) Parents are more likely to watch (clock) their son/daughter's game time and take issue with it; and 3) Youth coaches are more likely to bend to those concerns.
This has created a terrible cycle that by the time the kids are in high school (pretty competitive levels) they are conditioned to EXPECT equal playing time (or at least fair playing time) regardless of skill level or age. I've seen several good hockey players walk away from the HS team because of 'playing time' issues.
Being up front with kids and parents - then following through with the player development plans for both practices and games might be the safest route and the most productive for youth coaches.
Thanks again.
Scott Meske
Waunakee WI
Jeff and Scott, I am glad you waded into this issue. I am learning from both of you.
I think the playing time issue was the hardest thing for me about taking a travel soccer team. I was really of two minds about it. Stronger players could be rewarded with extra playing time, but how do weaker players get stronger when they don't get enough minutes in challenging competitive/game situations?
I actually called together a meeting of some of the players' parents to just air concerns and thoughts on the issue. In the end (and I'm still not sure this was ideal) I did go with unequal playing time. Starters and subs who played quality "blocks" of time.
I would add to this discussion that some girls, and that is where I primarily coach, are very aware when they are over-matched and/or not having a good day. To leave them in the game under these circumstances is unkind (and thus not good coaching). As you say, Jeff, they know they are ruining things for the rest of the kids.
The other example (very sad) is when a girl actually thanked me for taking her out of the game. It was clear she was only playing because her mother insisted. (and the mom was my assistant coach - so she could spend "quality" time with her kid) The week this mom was away, I subbed this girl out. She thanked me and sat happily on the sidelines for the rest of the game. Watching and cheering and smiling.
Kids will really teach you some things, won't they?
Wendy
Thanks Scott and Wendy for offering you insight and experience!
Scott: As a youth hockey coach, I suspect you have a tougher road than I do coaching youth basketball. We've all heard stories about hockey parents!! :-)
Wendy: You offer a great example of the challenges involved. I enjoyed your perspective of how girls sometimes view participation and playing time. (By the way, I'm going to post a follow-up article within a week on "Why Competitive Girls Should Play Sports with Boys." I hope to hear from you!)
There are so many competing forces when it comes to distributing playing time in youth sports including: fun, fairness, fees (pay to play), winning, different age and skill groups lumped together, providing the best individual paths to success (player development), the need for players to understand and willingly play roles in team sports, and the way in which any one player's ability/performance can dramatically impact his or her teammates' enjoyment.
When you couple these factors with others such as the availability of good coaches (many of whom are volunteers), parents who are invested heavily (sometimes too much so) in their child's sports successes and failures, and the different perspectives everyone brings to the table, that’s a lot of stuff to deal with! And naturally, it’s a recipe for dissatisfaction.
Given all of these disparate forces, the complaints about playing time likely aren't going away anytime soon. As Brook De Lynch of MomsTeam tweeted to me about her 11 years of experience with this issue, "Nothing new. Same old same old with this situation. Sad." She also tweeted that MomsTeam receives a continual stream of complaints about the politics of unfair play.
So the question remains, "What's the best way to deal with it?" Absolute equal playing time for all? Trust in coaches to balance the above factors as best they can? Reduce the emphasis on organized sports and promote more opportunities for kids to engage in self-directed play? Some other solution?
As I said in my post, I don't prefer the absolute equal playing time approach; I believe it tends to dumb down (and sometimes hurt) the development process.
Possibly with some selfishness, I view the coach as somewhat of an artist—an individual who ideally balances all of the variables and constructs individual experiences and team ones that have a lasting, positive impact on his or her young players. An imperfect individual; but nevertheless, one capable of creating a great youth sports experience for children.
And finally, as I also mention in my post (and as my regular readers know), I support the remedy of more self-directed play. Among other benefits, pickup games can help restore balance to the youth sports ecosphere.
Equal playing time is always a bone of contention in basketball. Ideally, teams would consist of 7-8 players. Not realistic in school settings but possible in travel team situations. With a smaller roster I always aim to give players quality playing time but do not monitor the minutes. If we end up in a close game, the better players will play more. I think we have made "winning" a bad thing. I realize that competing hard and losing can still be satisfying but we should not be ashamed of trying to win. Is it fair to take playing time from a player who works on ballhandling and shooting everday because they love the game and give it to a player who never practices outside of team practice? I do not think that is fair. I encourage all my players but I think we send the wrong message to kids when we reward them with playing time that they have not earned.
Obviously, if I am in a league that requires equal playing time I honor that rule. What is nice about basketball ( at least in our area) is that there are a multitude of options available from recreational to highly competetive.
I see most of the responses to this blog are from coaches, but there nobody claimed to be the parent.
I have an 8 year old son, playing youth football. He's 8, just started his 3rd year playing for the same team (same coaches). He was the starting defensive end last season, but for some reason, this year, he hasn't been assigned to either offense, or defense first teams.
I understand playing the most competent players, but there are only 19 kids on the team, providing 8 substitutes for 22 positions.
The past 2 years have been solely for learning the basics. Wins and losses were not tracked, and there were no playoffs. However, this year is more competitive, with more emphasis on winning.
I know that it's said way too much, but maybe it's because it's true, btu what's interesting, is that all 6 coaches children play ironman, starting on both sides of the ball. In practices, other children (not just my son) will beat them in blocking skills regularly. Positions are awarded on nepotism, rather than skill. There are other questionable assignments, like playing the starting quarterback at starting linebacker. The backup QB is also the starting defensive end. These "skilled" position players are being put in danger of injury by their own fathers.
Parents notice these things becuase they go to watch their children play. We don't go JUST to watch the team play, we want ot see our child develop, and become better players...it's hard ot do that when they only get on the field for 7 plays in a 60 play scrimmage. A scrimmage that is supposed ot be used to evaluate the skills of the children. Did those 7 plays give them a good idea of what my son can do? Did the 60 plays that their children play give them a better idea of their talents?
Can youth sports parents be annoying? Absolutely. Are there coaches out there that don't give the same opportunities to some children on the team? You betcha! Sometimes the parents can actually have a good argument. Afterall, they paid for their child to be part of the team, bought equipment, participated in fundraisers, deicated to bringing their child to every practice...just to watch them sit the bench, in a league in which learning and fun are paramount?
Sometimes I think that coaches, even volunteer coaches, need to realize that it's not their job to turn their kid into a pro athlete, it's their job to ensure that each child on the team understands the fundamentals of the sport, the basics of the theories involved, the conditioning and skills required to succeed at it, and most importantly, that it's a fun activity that the children will grow from being part of.
Well said.
If you want to learn how to swim you have to get in the water.
Sitting on the bench will not teach young players anything.
An adult telling a child that they cannot play because they are not "good enough" is absurd.
In a perfect world, yes, a good coach would evaluate the appropriate amount of playing time for each player per game. However, in reality this does not happen. The raw human emotion of winning at all costs takes over and "weaker" kids stay on the bench.
Coaches cannot be trusted to ensure fair playing time. Direction must come from the top. Leagues must mandate playing time for teams.
After all, the majority of today's top European soccer players were not child stars. They were simply afforded the opportunity to develop when they were young and not pigeon holed as weak players.
We are losing far too many young players due to high drop out rates in sports who potentialy can achieve great success. I cannot say that I blame these players. Who would want to work their butt off at practice (regardless of skill level) and then have to continually warm the bench at games?
I am an asst. coach for a youth u8 girls soccer travel team. The girls on my team who receive less playing team are fully aware they receive less time. The are fully aware the head coach has favorites. Although, I understand and agree with some players having more time. I also believe up to u10 there is surely a learning curve and all should play at least 50% of the game.
In regards to youth soccer in my state - u8-u10 travel soccer promotes child-centered development above winning. No championship trophies awarded or game standings listed for these age groups.
Sorry your comment didn't make it through my spam filter! I certainly didn't not post it on purpose. Great post here. _Nicole
The following is from the UN website:
"The UN recognizes play as the right of every child. Play is NOT a luxury".
I coach baseball and soccer and I watch on the sideline when my son plays basketball. To me, equal playing time is not Players 1-10 getting 50% each game; rather, playing time is equal to the amount of hard work and effort a player brings in practice. I'll take a lesser talented kid who gives 110% over a superstar who "takes plays off" or goofs around any day of the week. The message to each child is clear after a couple of weeks and the effort overall increases.
Your basketball example, Jeffrey, is a big problem with today's youth sports. Coaches are "afraid" to take out the best player because they "assume" their team will fail. Does this mean losing a lead? Not playing well for a stretch? Seriously, if this is a concern for the coach, then he/she is simply not a good enough coach. As for losing self-esteem, I guarantee a player who sits is losing more self-esteem than if they are in there giving their all. Remember, these are kids. Adults need to stop acting like they are teaching them life lessons by sitting weaker players for the betterment of the team. Maybe the kids should be teaching the adults that games are more about having fun and playing.
Once kids get 12 and over, then sports takes on a new role in their lives and many drop out naturally. However, I guarantee that there are many kids in this age range out there who would be highly successful in their sport had they kept playing, but quit because of coaches that over-played more skilled players.
Lastly, parents pay for their kids to play sports, not sit on the bench. If this were a try-out team or league, then the argument shifts. I ask you, if you paid to play in an adult basketball league, went to all practices, shot hoops in your yard for hours a day, but then only played 3-4 minutes a game, wouldn't you be a bit upset?
You know its really too bad a child can't look up to their coaches as a role model and the way they act I hope my child doesn't. If you can't treat a child equally and fairly then you don't represent or should any sport. Coaches are to teach and mentor their team as they are trusted to do just that. If a child gives all he's got, goes to every practice, practices at home and also their parent(s) volunteer and pay for all things they are responsible to, spends the time they can, and then only for the kid to literally get pulled aside in front of his or her teamates during a game winning or not, will that kid be better for it? will the team be better for it? I say no. They learned sports are for just the few. A sport a child once loved is hated for the rest of their lives. It will not be considered for the next generation in good light. If you didn't want the child on the team then say it at the beginning of the season before time and money is spent. If you don't like their race, height, weight, athletic ability, status, then say it. Otherwise play the team as a team and not as an individual. Coaches now are too caught up to use a team for their own purposes to make their child look and learn better than others. Intimidating a child by putting them aside because you feel they aren't good enough is the same as bullying (Using power over someone to intimidate them.) You may think winning is upmost important but really playing as team is what is to be learned.
This is from a parent's perspective and involves team volleyball for a U-14 girls team that practices twice a week and then goes to tournaments once a month. We paid $1000.00 to participate including the cost of the mandatory ankle braces and black knee pads. We are not rich but our daughter loves volleyball and had some success at the Boys & girls club and middle school team. The tournament today was 130 miles away and our team has 10 girls so 6 playing at game time and 4 sitting. My daughter played no more than a few minutes of each match and one game she sat the entire time. I am extremely upset as I do believe she would not lose the game for them and the "team" in team is missing. This club has a policy no talking with the coaches until 24 hours after a game. What I want to know is how is joining this team benefitting my duaghter and what example is this setting for her teammates. Message received: Obviously her game sucks and she is not as good as they are and she is a "loser". Why in the world did I pay money to teach her this? I really can't continue to attend tournaments where my daughter waits on the sideline. I do not ask for equal playing time, I'd like to see a minimum playing time of 1/4th of the total game time? I'd be happy with that and that's all it would take for my daughter to feel that she was a part of the team. The longer she sits the harder it is for her to have confidence in her game and for her team-mates to trust her game as well.
Good stuff! Hard work, better results , more opportunities. No different than life. Please remember academics. Your star today may shine for few more years so make sure you farm and recognize everyone' s work. Blanca
If there isn't a written minimum playing time RULE or policy in place for your child's team, club or league, then I'm sorry but I have to advise a 'buyer beware' approach to parents of un-exceptional athletes who complain about their kid's playing time. MOVE YOUR CHILD TO A TEAM THAT WILL PLAY HIM. Win-at-all-costs coaches ONLY respond to roster turnover and how it affects their team's reputation. Your kid will be so much happier contributing on a less competitive field than contributing playing time to a team's better players'. Before eyebrows go too far up, know that I am the parent of an un-exceptional athlete (above average athleticism, below average competitiveness), and I have accepted this. He was the 11th player of 12 on a highly competitive soccer squad, and on average was played about 25% of each league game last fall. I took the team coaches, and ultimately the club leadership to task, harshly, on the playing time issue - but without ever saying my son's name. The league the team played in, and won, has a very clearly stated 50% minimum playing time rule for each kid, each game. The coaches were polite about letting me know they had no intention of obeying the rule. So I demanded the club shift my kid to another team for the next season, and they very quickly did so. The trick is to NOT make it about your precious kid - make it about the rules, playing fairly, winning by cheating, etc. But if your kid is a weaker player versus his teammates, there aren't minimum playing time rules protecting his experience, then maybe a look in the mirror by you might be in order..?
Thanks BobSF for your comment. From the other comments to this post, it's clear that parents' experiences and views on the equal playing time issue are wide ranging. I tend to agree with your pragmatic suggestions. As I mentioned in the original post, coaches in competitive programs ideally are transparent about playing time. Parents should choose their child's teams accordingly. In leagues where playing time is specified, parents have reason to complain based on the rules. I would, however, suggest that parents focus on playing time over 2 or more games, as opposed to one.
And once more, parents should promote opportunities for their child to play pickup. These self-directed games help balance a child's sports experience and ensure that each child gets "equal playing time" to develop their skills and have fun. They can be the antidote to a poor organized sports experience.
Great post Jeff. I have another perspective on this. I am a college freshman, and last year as a high school senior. I coached a no-cut 13-14 year old Juniors travel baseball team in Pennsylvania. I had no connection to any of the players and had never seen any of them play baseball before I took the job. I had played baseball and was always a decent player, though never great, and I stopped after my Freshman season in high school. I had been on some teams where I was among the best players and some teams where I was among the least developed players, and the only times I had serious concerns about playing time is where I felt that the coach was playing his kid (or one of his kid’s friends, one of his friends’ kids etc.) for reasons that were not baseball related. I never had any issue with sitting for the majority of games behind players who were better than me, and I’d like to think I had a pretty good grasp of my abilities in comparison to most of my teammates.
For most of my players, this was their 1st or 2nd season playing on the bigger field. The league we were in had a minimum-playing policy of 2 innings (7 inning game) and one at-bat per player per game, in addition, I could sub out and re-enter starters provided they sat for 2 innings and missed their turn in the batting order at least once. My policy was very simple; I thought the minimum wasn't enough and would always do everything in my ability to play kids at least 3 innings. Beyond that, my goal was to win. I felt this way for a couple of reasons. Our team had games as far as 45 minutes away, and we had 2 games a weekend, as early as 9 AM. I understood the commitment the players and families on my team had made, and I respected that and thought it would be a slap in the face to play kids the minimum on a regular basis. I also wanted to give kids opportunities to play at any positions that they wanted to try, and I found that usually(but not always), after doing this, these guys realized that they were better off at the positions they had more experience at. I also wanted to be realistic with the kids. The boys I coached were 13-14 years old, which, in my opinion, is an age where kids start to understand their role in a team, and understand that role may not be as big as one they may have had on previous teams. The vast majority of the other teams in the league played the same kids at or very near the minimum all season. I think for the most part, the kids put more value to winning than their individual playing time, and I had very little issue with the kids who played little, especially because many of them were in the younger age bracket and understood what they were getting into. We also had an issue with practice; the only night we could get field space was Fridays and that presented a consistent conflict for some of our players with school games, which I encouraged them to play in. (I would be upset if one of my players missed my game for another team’s practice.) I was pretty clear that while I expected people to come to practice if they could, but that because of the nature of our league (most of our players played on school teams and got some practice that way), the purpose of practice was to improve, not to prove to me how committed the players were. Most of the guys who came out to practice improved a lot, and saw their playing time increase. However, I got a lot of complaints from parents, not so much about their kids not playing (in fact, the parents who complained generally had kids who played more than most), but rather about how much other kids who never came to practice because of their school team were playing whenever their sons didn’t play.
Overall, my stance is this: the younger the kids are, the more balanced playing time should be. Once kids start to get into leagues where records are kept and playoffs are held, there should be some emphasis on winning, with this gradually increasing as the kids age The problem we have is that kids show up to high-level travel/school teams which are about winning, and because they’ve been in equal or almost equal playing time leagues for their entire career to that point, and they become accustomed to that. I also think that as long as a coach is open from the get-go about his philosophy on playing time, and it is based in what he feels is in the best interest of the team (and by that, I mean not based purely on giving special treatment to certain players for reasons that have nothing to do with the team, such as playing his son more etc.), he is within his rights. Finally, I think it is not the place of parents to tell coaches how to operate their team. While it is completely OK to ask questions or voice specific concerns, parents need to remember that the coach is volunteering hours of his/her time for their kids, and even if they aren’t the best coach, they stepped up and volunteered, and that coach did not. Great post again, I really enjoyed and empathized with your take on this.
I have coached youth football for a couple years and we have a minimum mandatory play rule in our league. We "coaches" need to understand that these are kids, and we are preparing them for other aspects of their lives not just playing a sport. I am all for equal playing time and it hurts me to see a player sitting on the sideline not participating. I'm sure it hurts them as well. What kind of confidence are we building by playing a better player over a less skilled player? Even if the player makes mistakes, positive reinforcement and practice will shape the players skills and personality. I hold the coach accountable when a player says thanks for taking me out.
Post a Comment