http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-p...-211302532.html

I thought since it's a slow sports day we could discuss this. I read through the article, and I was torn on what I thought. As many people mentioned in the comments on Yahoo, boys aren't allowed to play on girls softball teams. But, I can't help keep coming back to the fact that it's a team for 6 and 7 year olds. And they cut the girl (and several other players) to make the team more competitive. For a team with 6 and 7 year olds...

I've been coaching my son's baseball teams for a few years, and our league is open to boys and girls. In the Shetland (6U) division, there are usually a handful of girls on each team, but by the time you get to Mustang (10U) there are almost no girls, as most have moved on to softball.

So, I'm not sure which side to argue, except that the article is talking about a team for 6 and 7 year olds, and I don't see how cutting a few players can make them that much more competitive.

By the way, mods if you feel this belongs in the Buster, I understand.

Basically agree with what you said. They're 6 and 7. How "competitive" is any league at that age? My guess is the coach has some issues and is trying to live his dream through youth baseball.

This is a big problem with youth sports. I see too often where coaches expect too much out of the kids and end up yelling at them or making them feel bad about themselves. That's no way to make a kid a better player.

My first reaction is every sports program up to high school schould be about skill development, sportsmanship, and learning how to be a team mate. Keep score if you like, but winning and losing should not be the goal until high school.

Fortunately my school district shares this philosophy.

It's good to hear that some areas are doing this. The league where my son plays is all about development. Scores are kept, but both teams just have a team mom or dad doing it. The only time scores count are in the playoffs at the end...and I think some of those games get a little out of control.

At those ages, you do not cut players to be "more competitive". That's absurd. The fact that she was cut because of her gender makes it worse, though I agree that that aspect has me torn a little bit.



I used to ump little league, when I was in High School. I once had two coaches from opposing teams have a shouting match, that escalated into a phyiscal fight behind the backstop, that I had to break up. Also once watched a coach grab his son (player) by the shirt and shove him against the fence for a lecture, about taking more pitches. He was like 9 years old.

There are some people coaching these teams that need to get the f*** over themselves. It's not about you, asshole.

I agree with this, however, going too far to the other end of the spectrum has consequences in my opinion as well.

At these ages, it shouldn't be ultra-competitive. At 6-7 years old, they should just be starting to keep score IMO. They shouldn't be worried about touring teams and cutting players for years. There is plenty of time for that stuff as you get into the 10-11 year range (4/5th grade) and then to build on it into the middle school levels. We are talking about cutting 1st or 2nd graders here. That is just crazy.

The title is mis-leading.

7-year-old Anna Kimball kicked off baseball team just because she’s a girl

Should be

7-year-old girl Anna Kimball cut from baseball team because she's not as good as other players

But the coach admits that she's better than her brother, who's still on the team.

Maybe it's because I played park district baseball, but I don't remember anyone being cut at those ages.

Clearly you didn't read the article, so why bother posting?

BECAUSE I CAN.

Well, in the article the coach said she's better than her brother. But, the title was misleading because other players (including boys) were cut. At least according to the coach, the reason she was cut was that the team was going to be in a league that prohibited girls from playing and to make the team more competitive in said league.

Still ridiculous.

Right, I don't have a problem with any of this. I'm referring more to the comments about not keeping score until the kids reach high school.

Kids are graded throughout school on EVERYTHING. Why should athletics be any different?

Kids aren't cut from school and parents generally don't get into fist fights over 2nd grade math tests.

Kids flunk out of school and are held back a grade.

Kids get split into separate groups based on their aptitude.

Ask teachers how angry parents get about their kids' grades.

I don't think kids should be cut from sports teams, at least not until jr high but I hate the idea of completely disregarding winning/losing. I was a kid not too long ago and I wanted to win and hated losing and the sport would be very dull if those werent important factors. I was only in the town public leagues but end of year we still had a playoffs and whatnot once we got probably in 4th or 5th grade.

So you just limit registration? In many of these areas there are more interested in playing than can conceivably be deployed on a team.

It's not like the s***ty kids aren't very aware that they suck...it's just as embarrassing to suck ass and still be on the team as it is to be cut or redeployed into a weaker league.

It's an unavoidable fact of life, and sheltering kids from it until 12 years old only makes it more difficult for them to adjust later in life.

Well in my town there was a limited registration, pretty much if you didn't get in at a very young age it was hard to get in, it's tough luck for some kids but can only do so much. If a kid is truly talented at the sport obviously he can catch on a travel team somewhere.

Good point. And yes, many leagues limit registration. Right now I think some leagues are hurting for players, and they keep their registration open a lot later. But most have a set TIME for registration, and if someone doesn't sign up in time they're out of luck.

Then there's the option of travel ball (speaking about baseball still) where kids can try out. There will certainly be some kids who don't make it. But, again, depending on the number of kids who try out, it might be a matter of only having room for 12 kids per team.

I agree with your last sentence...for the most part anyway. I've seen my share of bad players, and haven't we all secretly wished the kid was on another team? I don't have experience outside of the league where my son plays, but they don't cut anyone. If someone registers, they get to play. They do, however, hold a draft. So, the better players go first. But each team ends up with those that can't play well, or worse are being pushed into it by their parents.

The fact that things like this are even news just shows how big of p*****s we are anymore.

This.

The pussification of america has been in full force for years

LOL, the seagull posting in here is awesome.

Let's see how you feel after you have kids. No one is saying they shouldn't keep score. They are saying that maybe 1st graders shouldn't have to worry yet about being cut from their f***ing little league team.

You're right. They shouldn't have to worry about it. They likely aren't worried about it, but I'm sure their parents are... sitting on the bench and never playing is way worse than being cut and trying something else.

That's true. But when we're talking about 1st and 2nd graders, no one should be sitting on the bench. Everyone at that age should have an opportunity to play. Once the kids get to jr high it's a different story. Teams will have bench players.

And that's the way it usually is. At those first levels of play, everyone gets more or less equal time. As they get older, it starts to change. It is a gradual process (usually), as it should be.

Besides, the players who are the best in 1st and 2nd grade are often not the ones who end up star players later. I've coached and umped litte league, and I've played of course, and seen all this myself. So even if you feel this is somehow lame in terms of worrying about kids, well, even if you want the best players, it only makes sense to spend a few years seeing how they shake out.

Athletics aren't required. Education is required.

Don't bet on that. I know of teachers literally assaulted for less.

No it doesn't. The skills you are getting from sports at 6 or 7 aren't the same as even 10 or 11. They are supposed to be learning basic competition, but also teamwork, and getting away from individualism. They are also learning the basics of a particular sport.

100% this. Having actually coached and officiated at these levels 4/5/6/7/8 year olds it isn't the same as even 10/11 year olds.

Seriously. Kid sports at 6 or 7 are mostly chaos.

Very true. Coaching a 6U baseball team is chaos. Watching a 6U baseball game is like watching paint dry.

Americans are "p*****s" because the hyper-competition seen in kids' sports is correctly recognized as inadequate adults with failed dreams and failed lives living vicariously through their children and that this often comes at the expense of the children themselves.

I once watched a hockey "game" with 5 and 6 year olds playing. It was like brownian motion, but reeeeeeeeeealllllyyyyyyy slow.

Bernstein was commenting on his son's b-ball game the other day. The final score of a 40 minute game was something like 6-10.

But we need to focus on the "competition" at this age, otherwise we're p*****s.

Baseball is the one sport where I think girls and boys should all be able to play it together. Especially at that age.

Some of the best players on my little league team were girls and one is one of my best friends (not at the time) She could have played in Jr. High easy if there wasn't a stigma that had her play softball.

My daughter started playing softball around age 7. It was her first year playing so she completely missed the t-ball level. In t-ball the boys and girls all play together on the same teams.

At the next level, they split up. Boys play baseball and girls play softball. It continues that way pretty much through high school and college.

I did read the article and think it's a pretty lousy thing to do if they aren't going to offer softball for the girls to play.

You have to wonder how many kids with true talent end up quitting the game because they were pushed too hard by their parents or coaches. I encourage my kids to play as many sports and be involved in as many activities as they want. And, sure, I want them to succeed. But it's more important that they enjoy it. My son played hockey for a few years and was pretty good. But he decided he didn't want to play anymore. That was fine with me, because it costs a s***load of money, and I didn't want him doing something he didn't enjoy.

Or people who are convinced they can turn out the next Tiger Woods...

For whatever reason baseball draws this type of scrutiny. Every kid plays baseball. Unfortunately the numbers, 9 per team cause some gaps. You can get by with a soccer team of 18 kids or basketball with 15. It is not easy but it can be done. In baseball though it does not work as a kid may not bat in game as there are limited opportunities for hitters and fielding time. Youth teams really need to be 12 to 15 kids tops.

What happens if 17 kids want to play. You can't have two teams because inevitably grandma's 71st birthday will cause a kid to miss.

Parents also think their kid is the best, let's go pay $2,000 to play travel baseball. Over 50% of all travel baseball teams are considered below average. This is killing recreational leagues and making certain folks a nice little side pocket of money.

Johnny joins a travel baseball team.
Johnny's family travels to watch 90 games all summer long.
Johnny's team sucks but Johnny goes because mom and dad paid $2,000 and the housewives need some place to get their sun and talk about their overbearing husbands.
Johnny finishes the year hates baseball and spends the next summer playing Call of Duty and never plays baseball again...Johnny is 11 years old.

I coach a travel baseball team and a recreational team. I have a son that plays recreationally and loves it and another that plays travel and is ok with it. He plays travel as it is more competitive and they are a good team. I see way too many teams that suck spending a whole lot of dough while their neighborhood league is done at the age of 9.

Only if the boys are allowed to play on the local softball teams as well

Start a thread about girls wrestling with boys.

This is no joke. There are a good numbers of girls wrestling in boys youth clubs.

I find this creepy, wrong and borderline illegal.

Yes.

And get rid of the distinction at higher levels, just let them play together.



We had a girl on our high school wrestling team. She wrestled in the 110-pound weight class and won more than she lost. She was also fairly attractive. A few times in matches her opponent got a little “excited.” After one such incident, the opposing coach came over to apologize to our coach for his wrestler getting a chub. My coach responded: “Hey, I understand. As long as you don’t get one, we don’t have a problem.”

http://www.sportspickle.com/opinion/9580/f...-coach-issue-15

LOL, well played.

Someone start a girls league, then people won't b**** when a girl is cut from a boy league. And seriously, buy the kid a f***ing sundae and she won't even care anymore. It's the parents that are b****es.

I confess I was referring to kids older than that in the subject of this article....I was more responding to Tex's comments than the article in question...at 6-10 or so, I agree kids need to engage athletics as much for pure exercise as for any sportsmanship or learning experience. But once you start talking about 6th grade and up, you need to start introducing real competition, and part of what comes along with that is the idea that some kids are more talented than others, someone always loses, and sometimes you just have to sit back and let the more important people do their thing.

So now that you have kids, and some others do not, that immediately qualifies you to be like the youth sports overlord? Or is it because you umpired when you were in HS?

Who do you think you are that you can determine who gets to have an opinion on something and whose commentary is worthy of posting?