I sort of chuckle a bit when we try to play the "semantics" game and avoid using the "B" team connotation. Even with younger age groups there is a more savvy way to place a name with a second team than A, B, or even C teams. Black & Orange, Red & White, Blue & Gold.....it really does not matter when you have multiple teams what the semantic term you apply. I have seen "Elite" or "Select" and even Coaches names. My point here is that if a program has multiple teams in an age group, especially in the older groups of programs that hit the national scene there is a big difference in the Top team and any other teams of the same age group in a program. The name you call the team doesn't change that.

 

That said, being on the additional team of a program still may be as good or better if the "fit" is right. It is all about the "fit" and realistic expectations. NKyBFAST said it best on his post above on 2/23 @11:34. He makes excellent points. From my experiences, any program whether here in KY or other states there are distinct advantages being on the top team of a program than on the "other" team. Any program will want to field their best team with the best prospects, it doesn't make sense not to. That team will be funded better, will get more exposure because event organizers schedule accordingly even if they play at the same events, higher level college coaches and more of them will be attracted to watch the elite team of a program, and there will always be a perception (fairly or not) that if you are not on the elite team of a program that you are not as good of a prospect as the players who are.

 

In our state which historically does not produce many D-1 scholarship players, it may have a negative impact to settle for being on a "second" team if that is your goal. I think if you have the talent to be a D1 signee and are a legit prospect who wants to go D1 it would cause me to pause and rethink being on a second team for those reasons above. Perhaps their are examples of D1 signees who played on a 2nd team of a program, but few who actually play on the elite teams even make it from our state. Now if you are talking D2, D3, Juco, or NAIA then you look for a best "fit" which could very easily include being on a second team and there is nothing wrong with that.

I sort of chuckle a bit when we try to play the "semantics" game and avoid using the "B" team connotation. Even with younger age groups there is a more savvy way to place a name with a second team than A, B, or even C teams. Black & Orange, Red & White, Blue & Gold.....it really does not matter when you have multiple teams what the semantic term you apply. I have seen "Elite" or "Select" and even Coaches names. My point here is that if a program has multiple teams in an age group, especially in the older groups of programs that hit the national scene there is a big difference in the Top team and any other teams of the same age group in a program. The name you call the team doesn't change that.

 

That said, being on the additional team of a program still may be as good or better if the "fit" is right. It is all about the "fit" and realistic expectations. NKyBFAST said it best on his post above on 2/23 @11:34. He makes excellent points. From my experiences, any program whether here in KY or other states there are distinct advantages being on the top team of a program than on the "other" team. Any program will want to field their best team with the best prospects, it doesn't make sense not to. That team will be funded better, will get more exposure because event organizers schedule accordingly even if they play at the same events, higher level college coaches and more of them will be attracted to watch the elite team of a program, and there will always be a perception (fairly or not) that if you are not on the elite team of a program that you are not as good of a prospect as the players who are.

 

In our state which historically does not produce many D-1 scholarship players, it may have a negative impact to settle for being on a "second" team if that is your goal. I think if you have the talent to be a D1 signee and are a legit prospect who wants to go D1 it would cause me to pause and rethink being on a second team for those reasons above. Perhaps their are examples of D1 signees who played on a 2nd team of a program, but few who actually play on the elite teams even make it from our state. Now if you are talking D2, D3, Juco, or NAIA then you look for a best "fit" which could very easily include being on a second team and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself... If a kid is a "Legit" D1 prospect, playing on a B team can do nothing to help that kid in his/her scholarship endeavors.

I sort of chuckle a bit when we try to play the "semantics" game and avoid using the "B" team connotation. Even with younger age groups there is a more savvy way to place a name with a second team than A, B, or even C teams. Black & Orange, Red & White, Blue & Gold.....it really does not matter when you have multiple teams what the semantic term you apply. I have seen "Elite" or "Select" and even Coaches names. My point here is that if a program has multiple teams in an age group, especially in the older groups of programs that hit the national scene there is a big difference in the Top team and any other teams of the same age group in a program. The name you call the team doesn't change that.

 

That said, being on the additional team of a program still may be as good or better if the "fit" is right. It is all about the "fit" and realistic expectations. NKyBFAST said it best on his post above on 2/23 @11:34. He makes excellent points. From my experiences, any program whether here in KY or other states there are distinct advantages being on the top team of a program than on the "other" team. Any program will want to field their best team with the best prospects, it doesn't make sense not to. That team will be funded better, will get more exposure because event organizers schedule accordingly even if they play at the same events, higher level college coaches and more of them will be attracted to watch the elite team of a program, and there will always be a perception (fairly or not) that if you are not on the elite team of a program that you are not as good of a prospect as the players who are.

 

In our state which historically does not produce many D-1 scholarship players, it may have a negative impact to settle for being on a "second" team if that is your goal. I think if you have the talent to be a D1 signee and are a legit prospect who wants to go D1 it would cause me to pause and rethink being on a second team for those reasons above. Perhaps their are examples of D1 signees who played on a 2nd team of a program, but few who actually play on the elite teams even make it from our state. Now if you are talking D2, D3, Juco, or NAIA then you look for a best "fit" which could very easily include being on a second team and there is nothing wrong with that.

What programs in KY have two teams at the same age group? After naming those teams post their rosters so we can see if it is truly a B Team or not. I keep seeing posts like yours but have yet to see anyone post any teams that have two teams at the same age level in which the talent isn't equally distributed.

What programs in KY have two teams at the same age group? After naming those teams post their rosters so we can see if it is truly a B Team or not. I keep seeing posts like yours but have yet to see anyone post any teams that have two teams at the same age level in which the talent isn't equally distributed.

 

I prefer waiting to do what you suggest until teams actually start playing and then it is not just speculating on rosters. After the April Live periods we can actually look and should there even be any program fielding two teams in the 16U & 17U age groups my experience tells me that one of those teams will clearly have the best players who are the major D1 prospects. My comments are limited to the age level where most college coaches focus, 16U & 17U.

 

I am not saying that the other team is a "B" team with marginal talent. They could be as talented as any other team in the state perhaps, but they will not have the number of D1 prospects as the roster of the "marquee" team of that program. Programs only have one "marquee" team that is loaded with their top prospects and only that team participates in certain exclusive events. They do not load balance their D1 prospects to deliver parity. Key to my point is an existing perception of who is a D1 prospect already and who is not. If you are not on the team of clearly identifiable D1 prospects the perception that may be assumed is that you are not a D1 prospect. KY in particular has so few D1 prospects it is imperative those few D1 prospects play together.

 

My best example to prove what I am saying is just looking at the teams that either play in the NIKE EYBL, Adidas Gauntlet, or Under Armor Association 17U circuits. The programs that make up the teams from those circuits produce more Mid & Higher level D1 players than all the grassroots teams put together. It is an exclusive circuit of events that are invite only with roughly 40 teams in each respective circuit. That is 120 teams and I cannot think of one program that has multiple teams in their respective circuits except for 1 in Indiana. So at the top level, 1 program out of 120 actually fields two marquee teams competing on the elite circuit of events.

I prefer waiting to do what you suggest until teams actually start playing and then it is not just speculating on rosters. After the April Live periods we can actually look and should there even be any program fielding two teams in the 16U & 17U age groups my experience tells me that one of those teams will clearly have the best players who are the major D1 prospects. My comments are limited to the age level where most college coaches focus, 16U & 17U.

 

I am not saying that the other team is a "B" team with marginal talent. They could be as talented as any other team in the state perhaps, but they will not have the number of D1 prospects as the roster of the "marquee" team of that program. Programs only have one "marquee" team that is loaded with their top prospects and only that team participates in certain exclusive events. They do not load balance their D1 prospects to deliver parity. Key to my point is an existing perception of who is a D1 prospect already and who is not. If you are not on the team of clearly identifiable D1 prospects the perception that may be assumed is that you are not a D1 prospect. KY in particular has so few D1 prospects it is imperative those few D1 prospects play together.

 

My best example to prove what I am saying is just looking at the teams that either play in the NIKE EYBL, Adidas Gauntlet, or Under Armor Association 17U circuits. The programs that make up the teams from those circuits produce more Mid & Higher level D1 players than all the grassroots teams put together. It is an exclusive circuit of events that are invite only with roughly 40 teams in each respective circuit. That is 120 teams and I cannot think of one program that has multiple teams in their respective circuits except for 1 in Indiana. So at the top level, 1 program out of 120 actually fields two marquee teams competing on the elite circuit of events.

 

That'll work. That'll help me answer the initial question as presented. In my experiences I've seen programs with two teams at the same age in high school have two loaded teams. It's very rare I see programs with two teams at the same age level in high school.

That'll work. That'll help me answer the initial question as presented. In my experiences I've seen programs with two teams at the same age in high school have two loaded teams. It's very rare I see programs with two teams at the same age level in high school.

 

Yes and as NKyBFAST said it is about "fit". My comments are really directed at those seeking to make Division 1 as their playing goal in college. I also think that at 16 & 17 age group the reality whether right or wrong is that kids already have began to be recruited as a D1 prospect or not. You can still come out of nowhere and get in the running, but perceptions on D1 prospects have been formed by recruiters and college staffs. It is beneficial to be on teams chock full of other D1 prospects if you "fit" and can play enough to be getting exposure with those othr D1 prospects. That is my basis or where my comments are rooted, at the D1 level.

Yes and as NKyBFAST said it is about "fit". My comments are really directed at those seeking to make Division 1 as their playing goal in college. I also think that at 16 & 17 age group the reality whether right or wrong is that kids already have began to be recruited as a D1 prospect or not. You can still come out of nowhere and get in the running, but perceptions on D1 prospects have been formed by recruiters and college staffs. It is beneficial to be on teams chock full of other D1 prospects if you "fit" and can play enough to be getting exposure with those othr D1 prospects. That is my basis or where my comments are rooted, at the D1 level.

Gotcha. I think if folks are being realistic with themselves they'll know where they stand and if D-1 is a legitimate avenue for them.

That'll work. That'll help me answer the initial question as presented. In my experiences I've seen programs with two teams at the same age in high school have two loaded teams. It's very rare I see programs with two teams at the same age level in high school.

 

So going back to the original question. Does it benefit your child at the "16U/17U" level to play for a B team? IMO and, as it seems, in many others opinions as well, it seems the answer is No.

So going back to the original question. Does it benefit your child at the "16U/17U" level to play for a B team? IMO and, as it seems, in many others opinions as well, it seems the answer is No.

I still disagree. You still don't have enough variables in the situation to produce an informed answer. You're turning a complicated question and situation into a Yes/No answer.

 

According to the opinions of many a D-1 kid wouldn't be on a B Team anyways. What kid or kids are you talking about that play for B Teams?

I still disagree. You still don't have enough variables in the situation to produce an informed answer. You're turning a complicated question and situation into a Yes/No answer.

 

According to the opinions of many a D-1 kid wouldn't be on a B Team anyways. What kid or kids are you talking about that play for B Teams?

 

Not a complicated question at all IMO.... I have a child and he would NEVER play on anyones B Team especially during the years when exposure is most important. If you feel otherwise for your child, that is fine, but I don't feel you should turn "What IS" a simple yes or no question into a more complicated one... And I feel GoHardITP gave valid reasons/examples for not having B Teams at the 16U/17U levels, so if you need 'variables, simply look back at his post. :thumb::thumb:

Sooooo, according to the "guidelines" to answer this thread with a simple yes or no response, let's see here.

 

A kid who may be a nice player, or one who just started playing a year ago who wants to go and play in college just because he is likes/loves the game. But both of these players will never be a D1 player, or will have a very hard time convincing any college that they can play at that level. Just an example of why more info is needed. There cannot be a blanket yes/no answer.

 

Who is is that thinks the kid can play well? What would his grade be in his play? Who is it who thinks the kid has a shot to play at any level of college ball? The kid? The parent? A friend? A coach? A coach from another team? A scout? A parent who realizes they want/need help financially to send their kid to college and is trying to get some scholarship money to help?

 

So many things come into play here that there is no simple yes/no answer.

Not a complicated question at all IMO.... I have a child and he would NEVER play on anyones B Team especially during the years when exposure is most important. If you feel otherwise for your child, that is fine, but I don't feel you should turn "What IS" a simple yes or no question into a more complicated one... And I feel GoHardITP gave valid reasons/examples for not having B Teams at the 16U/17U levels, so if you need 'variables, simply look back at his post. :thumb::thumb:

So if your child isn't good enough to be on anyone's A team what are you going to do then? Just not play?

Sooooo, according to the "guidelines" to answer this thread with a simple yes or no response, let's see here.

 

A kid who may be a nice player, or one who just started playing a year ago who wants to go and play in college just because he is likes/loves the game. But both of these players will never be a D1 player, or will have a very hard time convincing any college that they can play at that level. Just an example of why more info is needed. There cannot be a blanket yes/no answer.

 

Who is is that thinks the kid can play well? What would his grade be in his play? Who is it who thinks the kid has a shot to play at any level of college ball? The kid? The parent? A friend? A coach? A coach from another team? A scout? A parent who realizes they want/need help financially to send their kid to college and is trying to get some scholarship money to help?

 

So many things come into play here that there is no simple yes/no answer.

Exactly. Makes me think that there is an ulterior motive at play.

Exactly. Makes me think that there is an ulterior motive at play.

 

Not from me, I think you and I are in complete agreement that if the conversation is around gaining a D1 offer that playing on a "second" team (call it whatever term) would not be something that really projects the exposure or perception you would want. As it relates to any exposure to other divisions or levels of college I think the "fit" is most important and it could be a second team provides that "fit".

Not from me, I think you and I are in complete agreement that if the conversation is around gaining a D1 offer that playing on a "second" team (call it whatever term) would not be something that really projects the exposure or perception you would want. As it relates to any exposure to other divisions or levels of college I think the "fit" is most important and it could be a second team provides that "fit".

We are definitely in complete and total agreement.