Would you rather play worst teams than you and kill them just to get wins or play better teams and improve but MIGHT lose?

 

I think playing better teams with the chance of losing helps your team better than playing weaker teams just to get a win.

Definitely better or equal teams. Sometimes you have to play weaker teams if they are in your district but better or equal teams will prepare you for the end of the season. Look at Campbell County girls basketball team last year. Had a tough schedule + injuries which had their record below .500 but come tournament time they were at their best.

Depends on the state of the program.

 

Personally, for a lot of programs, the whole "play better competition" is overrated. If you are building a program in the early years, get wins. Wins generate excitement; "we played 10 really good teams and only lost by so and so points" doesn't. Nobody cares about that.

 

Now, once you get your core foundation built (7-3, 8-2 regular seasons in football; 20+ wins in basketball/baseball/softball), and the goals of having a winning season or just being district champs (be it regular and/or tournament) is a thing of the past, then start beefing up you schedule.

 

Early on, though, get wins and it doesn't matter who, bc 90% of the population couldn't care less if it was a sister of the poor or a state powerhouse, all they know and care about is seeing a "W" and not an "L".

 

Probably not the most politically correct thing to say, and some might view it as sacreligious given the contexts, but it's my 2 cents.

I would rather lose every game than play teams that can not compete. Nobody gets anything out of a total mismatch.

I would rather lose every game than play teams that can not compete. Nobody gets anything out of a total mismatch.

 

Exactly! We were in a situation last night during a JV game where the score was 27-1 after two innings...that doesn't teach EITHER team anything at all. I felt horrible for the pitcher and our team walked mostly so they didn't even get a batting practice out of it...but what about the "lesser" teams...how do they ever get experience if no one would ever play them?? Tough situation!

^^How is that teams varsity? Just guessing here, but I would think that their Varsity is probably their JV in terms of age, this forced to play a lot of younger (and, lesser talented ones obviously) at the JV level. I know it's not uncommon to see a lot of JV teams that are in all reality, middle school teams..or should be as far as the age of the girls.

I would much rather play better teams. Padding stats and records playing a ton of less talented teams does nothing for the girls.

 

The JV issue talked about above is different. I agree that is no fun for either team and does not help either team. That is a problem in the northern ky area. There is not enough girls at each grade to make a strong JV and Varisty team at a lot of the schools, plus there is no middle school feeder programs in place to help build dept and skills. There are areas (even in KY and especally in the south) that have very strong middle school and high school programs. There are very few girls good enough to even play JV in these areas while they are still in middle school. There are lots of middle school girls and under classman that play a big part on their varsity teams in our area, especially when it comes to pitching. They are good players, but in other areas there are multiple good player at each grade level which makes it harder to play up. Many of the girls on our JV team would be playing middle school ball in other areas, diffently no higher than on a freshman team. This is not a knock on those girls, many are being forced to play a higher level than they should because of the low number of older girls.

I do see the point of if your building a less than stellar program up from the bottom that you don't want to get hammered by top teams every game. That being said you definitely need to play top teams to show your team what it takes to get there. Now if you are an average program or above then you need to play the hardest schedule you can. If you take some lumps you build off of that and move on and get better.

Holy Cross is by no means a power house and we have been on more than our share of butt whoppings, but we played Dayton and Cov Latin the last two days and no disrespect to either team but I am pretty sure we are worse off for doing so.

Has to be a mix of both. You have to play better teams to get better but if you just get beat up by better teams all the time the team will lose any confidence and will think they have lost everytime they get behind. So I think you have to have some games in there that will boost confidence as well as playing the better teams.

My two cents: Your district schedule is set so you have to take that part out but the rest of your schedule, you should schedule according to your level of play. For instance, you know if you have the pitching or hitting to compete with certain teams. It doesn't help your girls if you schedule teams that have a pitcher throwing 60+ mph if they will never see 60+ mph in your district or region. My suggestion is to set your schedule up with some games you will probably win, some games that will be a toss up and a few that you will probably lose unless you play great (but you have a chance). But I would never set up a schedule with games that you will win or lose no matter what. Neither team will get anything out of those games, as stated earlier in this thread. Keep in mind especially if you have a young team, you have to teach them how to win. Don't let your ego get in the way and say we are going to play anyone and everyone and allow your girls to get run ruled every other day. No player wants to be part of a team that doesn't have fun and getting killed will hurt their confidence and possibly make them want to concentrate on another sport rather than spend their spring playing the #1 and #2 teams in the state to get killed. Not all high school players are focused on playing in college so as coaches, you must remember at the end of the day, its still just a game. IMO, the worst thing you can do to a player is put them in a situation where they are guaranteed to fail. Instead of that, let's teach them how to win but don't send them to a gun fight with a pocket knife.

 

Again, just my two cents but I'd say you schedule according to the level of your team and try to keep them competitive. No lopsided wins or losses unless you have no choice with district teams.

In my Opinion it depends what the team and coaches are trying to accomplish!

 

If your primary goal is to have a great end of season banquet you play the weaker teams and you finish with a 20 win season everyone feels great, plenty of awards and great stats in many categories to brag on all off season. They might even be used in the next season pre season polls.

 

If you are wanting to prepare your team to be able to play with the best and be in a situation to win Regional Championships you have to play the best teams in the Region. You need to see the best Pitchers! You need to see the best Hitters! You need to see how the best teams play situationally. In the High School Format everyone enters their District Tournament (which should be seeded) so your record only matters for seeding purposes. Then it comes down to how prepared your team is to compete with the best of the best!

I would rather lose every game than play teams that can not compete. Nobody gets anything out of a total mismatch.

 

WOW!!! You don't plan on being a head coach very long.

After all, isn't a head coaches job to win games?

 

I have always heard that a good coach schedules look like this:

1/3 games against teams that you should beat

1/3 games against teams that are similar to you. (if you play well, you win)

1/3 games against good teams (you must play well to win)

WOW!!! You don't plan on being a head coach very long.

After all, isn't a head coaches job to win games?

 

I have always heard that a good coach schedules look like this:

1/3 games against teams that you should beat

1/3 games against teams that are similar to you. (if you play well, you win)

1/3 games against good teams (you must play well to win)

 

Heard it very similar, but broken down this way...

 

1/4 against teams you are a definitive underdog - serves two purposes...1 - it lets you're kids know just how good they're going to need to play against top-level teams in the tournament...and 2 - it keeps them from getting all "high and mighty" thinking they can continue bad habits and still expect to win.

 

1/2 against teams that are your equal - these should be the real battles that likely have back and forth lead changes or pitchers' duels.

 

1/4 against teams where YOU are the prohibitive favorite - this is the one for team morale. It also gives a slumping hitter a chance to regain some confidence, or allow the pitcher to work on using a pitch in a game environment.

 

But, he told me, that's all in an IDEAL world. He says reality is, when you're forced to play so many games against conference or district opponents, you often times have that control taken away from you. Plus, it's sometimes hard to judge just how good a team may necessarily be when you schedule them a year out.

Depends on the state of the program.

 

Personally, for a lot of programs, the whole "play better competition" is overrated. If you are building a program in the early years, get wins. Wins generate excitement; "we played 10 really good teams and only lost by so and so points" doesn't. Nobody cares about that.

 

Now, once you get your core foundation built (7-3, 8-2 regular seasons in football; 20+ wins in basketball/baseball/softball), and the goals of having a winning season or just being district champs (be it regular and/or tournament) is a thing of the past, then start beefing up you schedule.

 

Early on, though, get wins and it doesn't matter who, bc 90% of the population couldn't care less if it was a sister of the poor or a state powerhouse, all they know and care about is seeing a "W" and not an "L".

 

Probably not the most politically correct thing to say, and some might view it as sacreligious given the contexts, but it's my 2 cents.

 

Well done, Harry! :thumb: 100% agree.