St. Mary in A-town has playing time rules for their basketball teams. Younger kids get equal playing time which gradually decreases the older they get. By the time they are in 8th grade, it's like half a quarter or something like that.

 

This sounds reasonable. For young kids it is good to get everyone in. As they get older, the kids seem to understand that competitiveness becomes more important at the expense of playing time.

This sounds reasonable. For young kids it is good to get everyone in. As they get older, the kids seem to understand that competitiveness becomes more important at the expense of playing time.

 

Agreed. There's a difference between keeping an eye on developing versus no one leaves with their feelings hurt.

Agreed. There's a difference between keeping an eye on developing versus no one leaves with their feelings hurt.

 

And I could say that as one of the kids who spent a fair share of time on the bench .

 

 

St. Martha's was good about having the right number of teams for the number of kids who come out for basketball so our teams were large enough that we could scrimmage in practice and our bench would not be wiped out if kids were sick for games but at the same time, not too many kids that it was not feasible to give kids some playing time. In many cases, substitution was more for giving kids a breather than "letting everyone play".

Here's my thought on it. I know this is talking about middle school, but I'm going to take it a step further, and go back to elementary school too. But, basically it boils down to this...at what point in time do you want to choose your high school varsity athletes? Because when you start taking kids just so that you can have someone your "stars" can practice against, you're setting in motion the perennial benchwarmers' attitude of "why bother?" Sure they may stick with it for a few years, just for the sake of the camaraderie, or the prestige of "being on the team". But, after awhile, it's going to get old. And as they get older and older, there's going to be more an more "distractions" that are going to pull them away from athletics. And that's why you'll see these 6'4" kids walking down the halls of the high school that are not playing basketball. And it's because their growth spurt didn't happen until 8th grade, and by that time they've become bored with the sport because they haven't seen any significant playing time since 2nd grade.

 

Things are completely different than when I was in school 25-30 years ago. There's more competition for kids' time now. And if athletics wants to maintain it's spot as a priority for kids, it's going to have to "give" them something in return. And running wind sprints, or shooting free throws, or being practice fodder for the #1's, just isn't going to cut it anymore. You've got to make them feel involved in something important...and that's the game.

 

And what really hurts, is if you have multiple elementary schools in the same district. Say, for instance, you have three elementary schools...each fielding a 12 member basketball team. When they move to the 6th grade, under a single middle school, now there's 36 kids trying out for maybe 15 spots. So, 21 are going to get cut. That's an awful lot of pressure on the 6th grade coach to properly evaluate talent for the next 6 years. And now, you're going to turn around and whittle that number down even further to just the 6 or 7 "stars" in that grade level who get the bulk of the playing time?

 

I agree that it shouldn't carry over into high school...but, at the lower levels, I think every school district would be better off if it not only got, but kept, more kids involved. And the longer you can do that, the more beneficial it will be at the high school level. JMO.

Guaranteed playing time is what recreational leagues are for.

Guaranteed playing time is what recreational leagues are for.

 

Funny, because one could say the uber-competitive playing environment is what the (non-school associated) traveling teams are for. And that the school environment should be what schools are supposed to do best...and that's teach (even if it is on a court or a field).

Middle school is preparation for high school IMO. Middle school is not Rec League. It is not a perfect world and while it would be nice for everyone to play it isn't always going to happen. Winning is and should be emphasized because the score is kept. Middle school teams that I know of will have tryouts and cut people. My son's middle school lets players and parents know playing time isn't guaranteed. If kids are going to be cut in tryouts and told they will not be a part of the team then playing time isn't nor should it be guaranteed. Most middle school teams have 10-15 kids in each class(6th,7th and 8th). Maybe 5 of those kids will still be playing when they are seniors. Some people's careers end in middle school. Some end in high school. Some in college. Either way, it is the natural order of life and it begins in middle school.

 

C'est la vie........

Funny, because one could say the uber-competitive playing environment is what the (non-school associated) traveling teams are for. And that the school environment should be what schools are supposed to do best...and that's teach (even if it is on a court or a field).

 

Like it or not, it has always been understood in any form of competitive athletics that you have to earn playing time. You typically have to tryout for the team, you have to earn your spot on the floor. It has always been that way and it always should be that way. You know that going in, and you should therefore not be surprised that some play more than others and some don't play at all. If a kid is looking for the experience of playing the game for the fun of it with guaranteed playing time, then again, that is what rec leagues are for. Competitive leagues, be they in school or AAU or traveling squads, are not for everyone and they never will be.

 

Consider this - if you make it to where playing time is guaranteed, then where do you draw the line as to who is even allowed on the team? Think the last person cut might then take it up to the school board that cuts aren't right either?

Funny, because one could say the uber-competitive playing environment is what the (non-school associated) traveling teams are for. And that the school environment should be what schools are supposed to do best...and that's teach (even if it is on a court or a field).

 

And the schools are teaching the kids that sometimes you just aren't good enough. Just like sometimes you just aren't smart enough to be the valedictorian.

Here's my thought on it. I know this is talking about middle school, but I'm going to take it a step further, and go back to elementary school too. But, basically it boils down to this...at what point in time do you want to choose your high school varsity athletes? Because when you start taking kids just so that you can have someone your "stars" can practice against, you're setting in motion the perennial benchwarmers' attitude of "why bother?" Sure they may stick with it for a few years, just for the sake of the camaraderie, or the prestige of "being on the team". But, after awhile, it's going to get old. And as they get older and older, there's going to be more an more "distractions" that are going to pull them away from athletics. And that's why you'll see these 6'4" kids walking down the halls of the high school that are not playing basketball. And it's because their growth spurt didn't happen until 8th grade, and by that time they've become bored with the sport because they haven't seen any significant playing time since 2nd grade.

 

Things are completely different than when I was in school 25-30 years ago. There's more competition for kids' time now. And if athletics wants to maintain it's spot as a priority for kids, it's going to have to "give" them something in return. And running wind sprints, or shooting free throws, or being practice fodder for the #1's, just isn't going to cut it anymore. You've got to make them feel involved in something important...and that's the game.

 

And what really hurts, is if you have multiple elementary schools in the same district. Say, for instance, you have three elementary schools...each fielding a 12 member basketball team. When they move to the 6th grade, under a single middle school, now there's 36 kids trying out for maybe 15 spots. So, 21 are going to get cut. That's an awful lot of pressure on the 6th grade coach to properly evaluate talent for the next 6 years. And now, you're going to turn around and whittle that number down even further to just the 6 or 7 "stars" in that grade level who get the bulk of the playing time?

 

I agree that it shouldn't carry over into high school...but, at the lower levels, I think every school district would be better off if it not only got, but kept, more kids involved. And the longer you can do that, the more beneficial it will be at the high school level. JMO.

 

Couldn't agree more.

That's Becky Jordan. No relation to Michael Jordan.....whatsoever!

A rule enforcing guaranteed playing time would officially ruin high school sports and club basketball would be here even sooner than spindoc is predicting. And I would have my kid in club basketball faster than you can say spindoc. High school sports would be governed by Upward Bound Basketball.

Here's my thought on it. I know this is talking about middle school, but I'm going to take it a step further, and go back to elementary school too. But, basically it boils down to this...at what point in time do you want to choose your high school varsity athletes? Because when you start taking kids just so that you can have someone your "stars" can practice against, you're setting in motion the perennial benchwarmers' attitude of "why bother?" Sure they may stick with it for a few years, just for the sake of the camaraderie, or the prestige of "being on the team". But, after awhile, it's going to get old. And as they get older and older, there's going to be more an more "distractions" that are going to pull them away from athletics. And that's why you'll see these 6'4" kids walking down the halls of the high school that are not playing basketball. And it's because their growth spurt didn't happen until 8th grade, and by that time they've become bored with the sport because they haven't seen any significant playing time since 2nd grade.

 

Things are completely different than when I was in school 25-30 years ago. There's more competition for kids' time now. And if athletics wants to maintain it's spot as a priority for kids, it's going to have to "give" them something in return. And running wind sprints, or shooting free throws, or being practice fodder for the #1's, just isn't going to cut it anymore. You've got to make them feel involved in something important...and that's the game.

 

And what really hurts, is if you have multiple elementary schools in the same district. Say, for instance, you have three elementary schools...each fielding a 12 member basketball team. When they move to the 6th grade, under a single middle school, now there's 36 kids trying out for maybe 15 spots. So, 21 are going to get cut. That's an awful lot of pressure on the 6th grade coach to properly evaluate talent for the next 6 years. And now, you're going to turn around and whittle that number down even further to just the 6 or 7 "stars" in that grade level who get the bulk of the playing time?

 

I agree that it shouldn't carry over into high school...but, at the lower levels, I think every school district would be better off if it not only got, but kept, more kids involved. And the longer you can do that, the more beneficial it will be at the high school level. JMO.

 

I got to at what point do you choose your high school varsity athletes......that's the high school coach's job. Not the middle school coach. Choose them as freshmen is the first opportunity for that except in those rare cases where the 8th grader gets varsity clock.

 

I'll read the rest now.

Here's my thought on it. I know this is talking about middle school, but I'm going to take it a step further, and go back to elementary school too. But, basically it boils down to this...at what point in time do you want to choose your high school varsity athletes? Because when you start taking kids just so that you can have someone your "stars" can practice against, you're setting in motion the perennial benchwarmers' attitude of "why bother?" Sure they may stick with it for a few years, just for the sake of the camaraderie, or the prestige of "being on the team". But, after awhile, it's going to get old. And as they get older and older, there's going to be more an more "distractions" that are going to pull them away from athletics. And that's why you'll see these 6'4" kids walking down the halls of the high school that are not playing basketball. And it's because their growth spurt didn't happen until 8th grade, and by that time they've become bored with the sport because they haven't seen any significant playing time since 2nd grade.

 

Things are completely different than when I was in school 25-30 years ago. There's more competition for kids' time now. And if athletics wants to maintain it's spot as a priority for kids, it's going to have to "give" them something in return. And running wind sprints, or shooting free throws, or being practice fodder for the #1's, just isn't going to cut it anymore. You've got to make them feel involved in something important...and that's the game.

 

And what really hurts, is if you have multiple elementary schools in the same district. Say, for instance, you have three elementary schools...each fielding a 12 member basketball team. When they move to the 6th grade, under a single middle school, now there's 36 kids trying out for maybe 15 spots. So, 21 are going to get cut. That's an awful lot of pressure on the 6th grade coach to properly evaluate talent for the next 6 years. And now, you're going to turn around and whittle that number down even further to just the 6 or 7 "stars" in that grade level who get the bulk of the playing time?

 

I agree that it shouldn't carry over into high school...but, at the lower levels, I think every school district would be better off if it not only got, but kept, more kids involved. And the longer you can do that, the more beneficial it will be at the high school level. JMO.

 

Not all coaches are like that. In my son's middle school practice there are 11 kids on the team and when 5 on 5 situations take place the 5 are as even as can be. The starters don't practice against the "fodder" on the court.

Except for your cursory shot at the football playoffs :lol2:, I agree with this 100%

 

that was just for you!!!