Personally I think it stunts the development of the kids that are losing court time to the younger bring ups. Keep in mind, the 6th graders in this discussion are still playing the 6th grade games as well.

 

Right now you have a pg and 2 big men getting very little playing time on the 7th grade team because of the bringups. What happens if/when the 6th grade big man decides as a freshman to just concentrate on football? And the two 7th grade big men that aren't playing now decide to give up the game because they aren't getting on the court? Or the 7th grade pg decides to quit playing as well, and maybe the 6th grader who's better now quits developing after the 8th grade and struggles to even make the high school team later down the road?

 

Playing these kid up in this grade level to me is short sighted and the development of several 7th graders it can be argued is being stunted and possibly their like/love of basketball being hurt.

Sure, maybe the 6th graders help the 7th grade team win a few games and they go 12-10 instead of 9-13. But has this really helped anything? Some will argue the 6th graders are getting better. Some, me included will say but the 7th graders aren't developing. So in the end at best maybe it's a wash. If so then nothing has really been accomplished.

 

I think there are different types of kids we talk about moving up and different levels of acceptance according to the level they are moving up to.

 

If a kid is a once in a generation, or even once in a decade type talent, I see no harm in moving them up. It keeps them driven because they aren't just going to beat up on kids their own age who have no chance against them, they'll be pushed by players better than them. I honestly believe that you won't really improve at that age unless you play those who are better than you.

 

Now, I have a hard time seeing the need to move two kids up unless it's a numbers thing at a small school and/or kids just aren't coming out.

 

Here's an example I'll use to illustrate why I think it's fine, even if you have the numbers anyway: say it's a deal like, say, Elliott County was in with the younger of the Knipp brothers. They knew that the team they had with the twins, Fergueson, etc. was going to be special. Probably as good as they'd ever had or will have for awhile. They put all their eggs in one basket because they don't have the talent pool to try to just develop kids just to develop them when the group needed every advantage that they could get and one way to do that was by playing together. If you can see something like that coming, I have no problem with moving a younger kid up to round out the team and put them in the best position possible to win. Maybe it wasn't fair to kids in other grades, but I'm guessing going to the semis of the Sweet 16 and making the consecutive trips they did was a nice consolation prize, because for that school and community, they'll always be part of something special.

This is an interesting topic. I am intrigued by the varsity and jv option for middle school. That is an idea. I also like the "A" and "B" team scenarios. This whole situation can be looked at from two sides. One side sees younger kids taking playing time from older kids when they have their own team, but what if you look at from the younger players eyes. Say their 6th. grade team is so good with them that they only get to play limited time because they are always leading and the second string is in. I don't know if this is the case, but I think that if I had a son who was years ahead in his game that I would want to have the option of playing him up.

I think there are different types of kids we talk about moving up and different levels of acceptance according to the level they are moving up to.

 

If a kid is a once in a generation, or even once in a decade type talent, I see no harm in moving them up. It keeps them driven because they aren't just going to beat up on kids their own age who have no chance against them, they'll be pushed by players better than them. I honestly believe that you won't really improve at that age unless you play those who are better than you.

 

Now, I have a hard time seeing the need to move two kids up unless it's a numbers thing at a small school and/or kids just aren't coming out.

 

Here's an example I'll use to illustrate why I think it's fine, even if you have the numbers anyway: say it's a deal like, say, Elliott County was in with the younger of the Knipp brothers. They knew that the team they had with the twins, Fergueson, etc. was going to be special. Probably as good as they'd ever had or will have for awhile. They put all their eggs in one basket because they don't have the talent pool to try to just develop kids just to develop them when the group needed every advantage that they could get and one way to do that was by playing together. If you can see something like that coming, I have no problem with moving a younger kid up to round out the team and put them in the best position possible to win. Maybe it wasn't fair to kids in other grades, but I'm guessing going to the semis of the Sweet 16 and making the consecutive trips they did was a nice consolation prize, because for that school and community, they'll always be part of something special.

 

Bolded...not the case at all in this situation. That I could see. The younger kids in this case are better...but not significantly so. Personally I think they are there for one thing...to get the 7th grade team more wins. That's my opinion and I could be wrong. However, if this is the case, as I said I think it should be more to it than just accumulating wins at that age.

Bolded...not the case at all in this situation. That I could see. The younger kids in this case are better...but not significantly so. Personally I think they are there for one thing...to get the 7th grade team more wins. That's my opinion and I could be wrong. However, if this is the case, as I said I think it should be more to it than just accumulating wins at that age.

 

Agree completely on that one.

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.

 

Where is he supposed to play that kid? And what if he does grow to 6' 8"? Can a MS coach tell how tall every kid is going to be by senior year. Yes, you can make an argument that some kids develop late, but you can also make an argument that a 6'2" kid could keep growing!

Bolded...not the case at all in this situation. That I could see. The younger kids in this case are better...but not significantly so. Personally I think they are there for one thing...to get the 7th grade team more wins. That's my opinion and I could be wrong. However, if this is the case, as I said I think it should be more to it than just accumulating wins at that age.

 

I agree, however, tell this to some of the middle school parents who absolutely get out of control at these games....

Where is he supposed to play that kid? And what if he does grow to 6' 8"? Can a MS coach tell how tall every kid is going to be by senior year. Yes, you can make an argument that some kids develop late, but you can also make an argument that a 6'2" kid could keep growing!

 

I'm meaning when a kid is in 7th grade, has facial hair, and stands at 6'2 when his parents are 5'4 and 5'8 at 18 years old, and has an older brother whose 5'5, it's a safe bet that he's probably just hit his growth spurt early. Could have been more clear than just saying "probably isn't going to grow anymore" in the example I used, but that was kind of what I was getting at.

 

Not saying you don't have to play him in the post, but in situations like those, you teach them the game so they can still compete if they've reached the height they'll be within 2 inches of for the rest of their life.

 

Certainly, predicting how much kids will grow is an inexact science, but I think when you can see both parents, some of the kids siblings, whether or not they still appear to be growing, especially after you've coached for awhile, you probably get a decent idea.

He may have a decent idea, but now you're getting to a pretty specific scenario. That's not a general statement anymore. And the kid with facial hair can still grow. I understand what you're saying, but you're putting a lot of pressure on a MS coach to predict where 12-14 kids on his current roster may end up. And when you are dealt your hand as a MS coach and your biggest kid is the one you describe, I'm not sure what you or I would do differently with that kid for that particular time in his career. Maybe force him to work on his ball handling and shooting skills in practice because the writing is on the wall, but he still going to play in the post in games because 1) who else is and 2) because if he did grow early, that's probably where he's played all his life.

 

I am completely for developing as many as you can...but completely against mandatory playing time.

 

Let me ask this...mandatory playing time is in the minority I would guess. What are the issues to leaving it the way it is. What would going to mandatory playing time fix or what issues would be diverted by changing it.

 

We tend to talk about the exceptions..."I know one kid that was cut from MS and played College" or "This kid grew 6 inches his JR year". There are plenty of those stories, but they are still the exceptions on the grand scheme of things. The majority of the stories are the kids that put their time in and busted their tails with individual development. Those are the majority of the success stories. The the majority of the failures are still kids that made it through MS and Freshman teams only to have reality hit them when their Freshman team is knocked down from 12 kids to 5 when they go to JV. In a sense, with mandatory or fair playing time, we are presenting a false sense of security to the majority of the kids that are going to get cut eventually anyway. Yes, some exceptions come and opportunities are created, but those are usually by your 6-10 ranked players and those are sometimes. There are many times when your starting 5 your freshman year are the same ones that make the varsity team years later, regardless of how much development you did. And in those cases, do you look back and say "I should have spent more time with these top 5-7 instead of trying to develop 10-12? I don't know if you do, but it's a question you'll ask yourself eventually.

 

You will always have the exceptions and everyone has their story to prove their point. Heck, MJ was cut from his high school team, right?! But how many other NBA players did that happen to in the history of the league. I know a kid that was cut from every MS team at HHS and didn't make the freshman team. He went out on his own and learned to shoot lights out. He made it his Soph year and ended up playing at NKU. But that was around 1993. Not the normal! But in that example, "NO" made him stronger and he had a reason to better himself. If a kid wants to play bad enough in this day and age, he's not going to get his opportunity from a rule of mandatory playing time in MS. It will come from his passion and desire to play. There are plenty of options out there for making yourself better these days. MS mandatory playing time would be the absolute last on my list if my kid has the desire to be good and play a sport.

Never said I was for mandatory playing time at all. Just that I'd err on the side of development for sure, but I don't like the thought of throwing a kid out there whose just going to get hurt, hasn't come to practice, sits on the bench playing with Pokemon cards, whatever doesn't fly.

 

Develop the kids and get them ready for varsity. That, not winning middle school games, should be the priority.

 

For an example of what I mean, look at how Lexington Catholic's kids that come up through their feeder system play the same pressure style they'll play in high school while in middle school. It probably costs them some middle school games that they could win doing something else. They probably play more kids than they would if it were all about winning so their kids know the system. They are still learning it and perfecting it at that time, so they'll make mistakes. But in the end, they'll beat the tar out of some teams who beat them in middle school because they prepare their kids for the next step while others just want to win at that level. That's the point of it.

 

What does taking eight kids and winning a middle school game by 40 and letting a few more play mop up in the last 3 minutes prove? Why not win the game by 15 and develop some kids who might help you later on?

Never said I was for mandatory playing time at all. Just that I'd err on the side of development for sure, but I don't like the thought of throwing a kid out there whose just going to get hurt, hasn't come to practice, sits on the bench playing with Pokemon cards, whatever doesn't fly.

 

Develop the kids and get them ready for varsity. That, not winning middle school games, should be the priority.

 

For an example of what I mean, look at how Lexington Catholic's kids that come up through their feeder system play the same pressure style they'll play in high school while in middle school. It probably costs them some middle school games that they could win doing something else. They probably play more kids than they would if it were all about winning so their kids know the system. They are still learning it and perfecting it at that time, so they'll make mistakes. But in the end, they'll beat the tar out of some teams who beat them in middle school because they prepare their kids for the next step while others just want to win at that level. That's the point of it.

 

What does taking eight kids and winning a middle school game by 40 and letting a few more play mop up in the last 3 minutes prove? Why not win the game by 15 and develop some kids who might help you later on?

 

Okay, we're on the same page. I'm not a win at all cost MS fan either. But I am not for fair or mandatory playing time. I say MS should be competitive, but not to where kids development is getting sacrificed. But not ALL kids deserve the same level of development...which is what mandatory playing time is about. Prior to MS, all the manatory rules you want.

Okay, we're on the same page. I'm not a win at all cost MS fan either. But I am not for fair or mandatory playing time. I say MS should be competitive, but not to where kids development is getting sacrificed. But not ALL kids deserve the same level of development...which is what mandatory playing time is about. Prior to MS, all the manatory rules you want.

 

Can't speak for Clyde and CincySportsFan personally, but I don't think they were really in the "mandatory" camp either (at least not a strict one like the letter was talking about).

 

I will say that something that I think that is unfair about Little League (baseball) and "mandatory" playing time was that, as a fifth grader, we had one or two kids on my Little League team who'd always miss practice but show up to games, and I didn't think that was fair to the kids who'd given up other things for practice that they still got the same innings as some kids because of the mandatory rule.

 

Sure, at that age, I liked going to practice and being with my friends and would have done it anyway, but it didn't seem fair when you are missing a friend's birthday party or something stupid like that to go to practice and sharing a sacrifice with others when some didn't.

Edited December 4, 201312 yr by JokersWild24

Can't speak for Clyde and CincySportsFan personally, but I don't think they were really in the "mandatory" camp either (at least not a strict one like the letter was talking about).

 

I will say that something that I think that is unfair about Little League (baseball) and "mandatory" playing time was that, as a fifth grader, we had one or two kids on my Little League team who'd always miss practice but show up to games, and I didn't think that was fair to the kids who'd given up other things for practice that they still got the same innings as some kids because of the mandatory rule.

 

Sure, at that age, I liked going to practice and being with my friends and would have done it anyway, but it didn't seem fair when you are missing a friend's birthday party or something stupid like that to go to practice and sharing a sacrifice with others when some didn't.

 

Exactly why I am against a strict "mandatory playing time" policy as well, it doesn't give the coach any leeway in sitting kids who miss practice, don't work hard, have disciplinary issues, etc. What I AM for is a coach who will work in kids who may have less talent or are less developed, but who work hard and do all the things they are supposed to do. If the administration/hs coach buys in to this and views winning as not the most important thing, then it takes a lot of pressure off of the coach and lets him let kids learn on the floor.

 

I do something similar with my 5/6 kids with defense. Right now they are learning to play man-to-man. Many of the teams we play ONLY play zone. Well, I won't let my kids play zone, they have to and I want them to learn man principles and how to play tough, in your face d, and how to help when the situation calls for it. Well right now it's really hurt us and we have given up a ton of points that we wouldn't have if I let them pack it in and play zone the way other teams play against us. However, I know it will help them greatly in the long run. Kind of the same thing with playing time.

Just throwing this out there:

 

What is a good roster size to have for a middle school team and how do you allocate the minutes to maximize development?

Exactly why I am against a strict "mandatory playing time" policy as well, it doesn't give the coach any leeway in sitting kids who miss practice, don't work hard, have disciplinary issues, etc. What I AM for is a coach who will work in kids who may have less talent or are less developed, but who work hard and do all the things they are supposed to do. If the administration/hs coach buys in to this and views winning as not the most important thing, then it takes a lot of pressure off of the coach and lets him let kids learn on the floor.

 

I do something similar with my 5/6 kids with defense. Right now they are learning to play man-to-man. Many of the teams we play ONLY play zone. Well, I won't let my kids play zone, they have to and I want them to learn man principles and how to play tough, in your face d, and how to help when the situation calls for it. Well right now it's really hurt us and we have given up a ton of points that we wouldn't have if I let them pack it in and play zone the way other teams play against us. However, I know it will help them greatly in the long run. Kind of the same thing with playing time.

Agree 1000% on bolded. You will never see my 5th grade team play zone either. I have a bigger 5th grade team which causes nightmare matchups for my bigs defending on the perimeter, they get beat off the dribble constantly but it teaches help side defense and team defense. I could pack it in via zone defense but I would be doing a complete disservice to the kids. Everyone we play packs it in a zone against us cause of our size. I'm coaching these kids to prepare them for middle/high school not to win games and beat on my chest for all to see. Everybody plays valuable minutes if they "Earn" them by showing up for practice and practicing hard. I tell them the 5 kids that put forth the best effort at practice starts the game that week. Practices get very intense and the hustle is off the charts.

Just throwing this out there:

 

What is a good roster size to have for a middle school team and how do you allocate the minutes to maximize development?

No more than 10 on a team. Anything more than that is a pain.