Didnt ask me, but Ill chime in.

 

For football, their 10th/11th grade year depending in the program you are at (unless we are talking about kids who are a legitimate liability to themselves or their teammatea)..after that, sorry Johnny. Now, Im not saying give them varsity minutes bc of this theory; hell no, but thats why you have freshmen and JV teams.

 

it goes without saying that other factors figure into their playing time at these levels. I'm just basing off of ability.

 

Basically, if they are still a 'tweener' kid at that age; and, he is doing everything to make himself and his team BETTER, find some minutes for him at those levels.

 

He might be a slow WR who struggles catching it, so what....split his happy *** out away from the play and never run the ball to his side. Or throw it to him when you have a comfortable lead.

 

Great thing about football is you can hide a poor athlete (essentially 33 positions in all 3 phases). In basketball you don't have that luxury. I would rather sit a kid on the bench in basketball than intentionally embarass him when he's clearly not ready to be out there. Not getting in, IMO, is not nearly as bad as humiliating a kid by sticking him in because you are told you "have" to play him.

Not Chinese...I guess if someone challenges YOUR thought they must not be as intelligent? Nice! My IQ indicates otherwise. You have YET to support anything you say with anything factual. I guess I missed the contract you signed with your coach that said you get playing time because you made the team???? C'mon champ, stay with me here.

 

There is always the kid who is the last kid to make the team (I will break this down further). If there are 17 jersey numbers, the coach will keep 17 kids and cut the rest. The kid whom coach ranks #1 and #17 have both EARNED a spot. A position on the team. Stay with me, it get's tough for you here. #17 (the kid with the least amount of ability or skill) IS NOT AFFORDED ANY PROMISE THAT HE WILL PLAY A SINGLE MINUTE. He hasn't EARNED that part of it. As a coach you hope they all get in every game, but no promises.

 

My whole point (which was way over your head) is how we allow kids regardless of age, to be successful by our deeds, not their own. Kids need to be allowed to fail, to not be good enough at that time. Because eventually...they will learn to overcome.

 

First the irony of you trying to act like I AM THE ONE who can't follow along. Precious.

 

You never challenged MY thought. You challenged what you THOUGHT was my thought ie can't keep up with details.

 

I haven't supported anything with facts? I'm offering an opinion. What facts can I use?

 

Any coach that keeps 17 kids is asking for trouble.

 

Real-world is 12 max. 12 kids can get playing time at the middle school level.

 

You can't generalize by saying kids need to learn lessons. I've already disproved that with my first grade example. Why are we in such a rush to teach "hard lessons" to 12 yr olds? Heck, only getting a few minutes PER GAME is a slap in the face to most of them. Isn't that enough?

Then let's carry this logic out. Start having A teams in 1st grade. Kids getting cut can get a head start on learning life's tough lessons.

 

Or lets take the other philosophy into high school, because that's where it's headed. I have no problem with development of players, but mandating playing time is not good either. Developing more than 5-6 kids is much different than mandatory playing time. Any decent program knows you have to develop as many as possible, but that doesn't mean every kid has to play in every game.

 

If a team carries 14 players and 12 of them get in 100% of the games and 2 off them sit out lets say 4 games all year, then I think that coach is developing players. But mandatory would mean that those other 2 had to play regardless. I don't think that is a must in every game. Some kids also can't stand failure in front of their peers. So I would say putting the last two kids in a game where the competition level is over their head can do just as much damage or more than not playing them. If they don't play, they didn't have a chance to fail.

 

All this is fixed with good coaching, but I'm not naive enought to think you can always hire good coachs for middle school sports.

 

I agree with you on the Conner 6th grade team last year.

First the irony of you trying to act like I AM THE ONE who can't follow along. Precious.

 

You never challenged MY thought. You challenged what you THOUGHT was my thought ie can't keep up with details.

 

I haven't supported anything with facts? I'm offering an opinion. What facts can I use?

 

Any coach that keeps 17 kids is asking for trouble.

 

Real-world is 12 max. 12 kids can get playing time at the middle school level.

 

You can't generalize by saying kids need to learn lessons. I've already disproved that with my first grade example. Why are we in such a rush to teach "hard lessons" to 12 yr olds? Heck, only getting a few minutes PER GAME is a slap in the face to most of them. Isn't that enough?

 

My reasoning is in MS why do we tell kids they fail before they ever get the chance to succeed. It just doesn't make sense to not develop as many kids as you can instead of 5-7.

We are loosing all competitive nature in America' date=' how about this let's just buy us some cheap athletics from a forein country and watch them play while we eat popcorn and not offend each other. We need to get a hold on our nation while it's still ours. If parents wants what is best for their children they will teach them to work hard for what they want and nothing good comes easy.[/quote'] Kind of on the same issues you posted. Today I saw were the US best students are not on the same level as the best in a lot of other nations. It used to be our best were right up there in the same group with the another countries best, no longer true. People need to face facts and stop this chest pounding of how the US is the best at all things . This leads us to fall behind as most don't want to recognize the facts and actually do something about it!

First the irony of you trying to act like I AM THE ONE who can't follow along. Precious.

 

You never challenged MY thought. You challenged what you THOUGHT was my thought ie can't keep up with details.

 

I haven't supported anything with facts? I'm offering an opinion. What facts can I use?

 

Any coach that keeps 17 kids is asking for trouble.

 

Real-world is 12 max. 12 kids can get playing time at the middle school level.

 

You can't generalize by saying kids need to learn lessons. I've already disproved that with my first grade example. Why are we in such a rush to teach "hard lessons" to 12 yr olds? Heck, only getting a few minutes PER GAME is a slap in the face to most of them. Isn't that enough?[/quote

 

Wasn't a generalization as the thread pertained to a MS team, therefore, kids was a reference to those in the article, not 1st graders there bucko. I assumed you read the article (clearly my mistake), I can't help that you missed the lesson on conversation etiquette as a child. Clearly a lesson that as a kid you needed (see, kids do need to learn lessons). I used facts, why can't you?? I was trying to have a decent, civil, conversation…then you joined. I may have actually become dumber for having had a conversation with you. I gotta stop before you pull me down to your level…I can't afford to be down there.

CincySportsFan is dead on.

 

Middle school athletics should be first and foremost about development. You can have quality play AND development of ALL kids. It's not mutually exclusive. All middle schools have an A team for basketball. If you're good enough to make the A team you should get minutes every game. I've done it with very good 8th grade teams. Heck, I've lost games in the regular season where I could have won had I played the best players when it got tight. I wanted my other guys to get that exposure and experience. We were better for it in the long run.

 

I watched the Conner 6th grade girls team last year. They were loaded with talent. However, the coach decided he was going to establish his reputation as a "great coach" by playing a short bench and blowing teams out. His 12th girl could play. However, winning was his priority. That's insane. The guy should not be allowed to coach middle school teams.

 

If I'm a high school coach I tell all of my middle school coaches to get minutes for everyone so they all get better. Selfishly I don't want some gung-ho "look at me" coach running off players that might help me in the future as varsity players.

 

This has nothing to do with "participation trophies" or "lets all get ribbons." That's pure nonsense and shows some of you guys type without thinking.

 

I think as I type. I don't have a rec league mentality with middle school sports. Everybody is different.

Practice makes a player.

 

The problem with middle school basketball is that the amount of practice time is so limited. No one is developing players in games.

 

If a school was really interested in developing players, the number of games would be limited and the number of practices increased. I'm pretty sure most teams can work all 12-17 players into the drills and scrimmages of a practice.

Don't disagree with anything you said for the most part. And if one believes that middle school sports is only preparation for high school sports, then how you described it is the only way you can approach it. I'm just not sure it's the ONLY way to look at it though. It's a tough question no doubt, and for a coach who tries to walk the line of being competitive and trying to get everyone (who is deserving) playing time in games...lets just say it's a very delicate balancing act.

 

Let me ask you your opinion on something PP, and anyone else who wants to chime in.

 

Situation: 7th grade ms basketball team. Overall team/class is fairly down in talent, struggle to win games, struggle at the pg and C spots especially. Have 16 kids on the 7th grade team. Coach brings in the 6th grade pg and C to play up on 7th grade team, and though they might not start (yet), they get the starter minutes. Yes, the 6th graders are better than the 7th graders at those two spots. Yes, tey make the team a little better, but still not really winning games. Question: Should the 6th graders play up or should the 7th grade coach use what he's got and try to develop them?

 

Play the 6th graders up.

I think as I type. I don't have a rec league mentality with middle school sports. Everybody is different.

 

A high school coach mentality, in most cases, is play everyone and let them develop. They need to know who is improving, who works hard, who is a team player, who has what skill sets, etc. I would wnat the MS coach. if they feed one high school to use the same system in any sport as the high school does, also. And... we have seen this many times, some kids develop later than others and some kids just don't get better because they mature physically at a younger age and they can no longer dominate as they could in MS or 9th grade.

Play the 6th graders up.

 

Play the best kids...if the 6th graders are better, play em! This isn't pay to play, a coach is not obligated to play a single kid other than those who give the team the best opportunity to be successful. Heck, how many times have you seen an 8th grader start on the HS Varsity level? I can think of quite a few. Best players play.

Practice makes a player.

 

The problem with middle school basketball is that the amount of practice time is so limited. No one is developing players in games.

 

If a school was really interested in developing players, the number of games would be limited and the number of practices increased. I'm pretty sure most teams can work all 12-17 players into the drills and scrimmages of a practice.

 

Know what you are saying about practice, but I think a big part of development is getting out and doing it in an organized, game setting, with people in the stands. Turn on the spotlight and some kids that are awesome in practice aren't the same.

Play the best kids...if the 6th graders are better, play em! This isn't pay to play, a coach is not obligated to play a single kid other than those who give the team the best opportunity to be successful. Heck, how many times have you seen an 8th grader start on the HS Varsity level? I can think of quite a few. Best players play.

 

I think what you are missing is that Clyde isn't arguing that the best players shouldn't play, or that they shouldn't play much more. He's just saying it doesn't hurt to develop some other kids by giving them playing time as well. And in none of his posts has he advocated for some type of mandatory playing time for all.

A high school coach mentality, in most cases, is play everyone and let them develop. They need to know who is improving, who works hard, who is a team player, who has what skill sets, etc. I would wnat the MS coach. if they feed one high school to use the same system in any sport as the high school does, also. And... we have seen this many times, some kids develop later than others and some kids just don't get better because they mature physically at a younger age and they can no longer dominate as they could in MS or 9th grade.

 

 

Agree. The middle school coach who throws the 6'2 seventh grader who probably isn't going to grow anymore in the post and letting him play bullyball before all the other kids have physically caught up to him is doing the kid a disservice.

Something that I think people are underestimating is the amount of things competing for kids' time, especially at some of the schools where the parents typically have higher incomes.

 

If you are a 12 year old kid or so, would you rather be at practice when you are the 10th man and never leave the bench aside from getting in during the last minutes of blowouts or go to a Bengals game or Perfect North with your family? Playing the new Xbox you got for Christmas or running laps? You all act like every kid in the school cares half as much about their high school's athletics program or school spirit as most of the people who post on here.

 

Kids aren't stupid and at some point will get tired of being practice dummies. Then they quit or stop going out. Predicting how kids at from 11-14 are going to develop is a pretty inexact science and you end up losing out on some kids that could have helped you win at the varsity level, and probably would have stuck it out if there was more in it for them than being a practice dummy while they waited to hit their own growth spurt.