|
Post by bealzabubba on May 13, 2019 13:36:25 GMT -5
There are definitely crazy things that happen and certain circumstances that occur I get that. Maybe their can be a formal appeal process and a special waiver based on certain circumstances. ... 1. If kids and their parents were signing up and paying for an entire season... 2. Again, every club can decide to go to Nationals before fall tryouts.. I think those type of requirements would help solve a majority of the problems. Bad parents have too much power to ruin seasons for clubs and other families. My biggest pet peeve is the whole “we don’t want to pay for club but we will pay for USA or Open”. That is BS. First, I think we basically agree - my son plays b/c he loves the game, and his teammates are his buddies; and b/c he loves the game, I've gotten into it. But there's zero expectation of any ROI by me. Other parents may have different approaches. 1. We had two boys quit in fall; no refunds were demanded/offered (all fees were due before they quit). It happens, and was not related to nationals at all. (Stupid? yes.) 2. That's how our club "fixed" my irritation: "On the -1's? You're going to nationals, regardless." It was optional last year, and, again, I'm still pissed off at the other parents even though they had the right to do it. This year, -2's have a choice; the -3's are not going (and shouldn't - that's developmental level). So if you don't want to commit to nationals unless the team is Open/USA, then play -2's (one kid from last year made that call, and played -2s; but now the -2's are going, playing club, without that kid (which is fine, because it was known - the rest of the boys are absolutely thrilled.) Finally - hypo: you have a kid who's on the bubble for recruiting (so.. a 17, and no money on offer - but maybe acceptance to an impacted school he's otherwise qualified for, or maybe maybe even a special admit), and the coaches want to see him play in Open at nationals b/c his HS sucks / plays bad competition. You Ok with that type of move? I am, candidly; while I don't like it, and don't think I'd do it, I see where it makes sense - and if I'm in a position where a move affirmatively helps your kid in life, it's hard to pass up doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on May 13, 2019 14:47:08 GMT -5
First, I think we basically agree - my son plays b/c he loves the game, and his teammates are his buddies; and b/c he loves the game, I've gotten into it. But there's zero expectation of any ROI by me. Other parents may have different approaches. 1. We had two boys quit in fall; no refunds were demanded/offered (all fees were due before they quit). It happens, and was not related to nationals at all. (Stupid? yes.) 2. That's how our club "fixed" my irritation: "On the -1's? You're going to nationals, regardless." It was optional last year, and, again, I'm still pissed off at the other parents even though they had the right to do it. This year, -2's have a choice; the -3's are not going (and shouldn't - that's developmental level). So if you don't want to commit to nationals unless the team is Open/USA, then play -2's (one kid from last year made that call, and played -2s; but now the -2's are going, playing club, without that kid (which is fine, because it was known - the rest of the boys are absolutely thrilled.) We definitely agree on a lot of aspects. And when I talk about dumb parents, I am not talking about you. Or anyone in particular for that matter. Just a general trend. 1. If your team has 2 kids that quit or even 2 kids that get hurt, and the team can't continue to play in tournaments; that team is way too small! Another common trend lately is small roster sizes which lead to this situation. The average team should be around 11 or 12 people at least. A starting 7, a backup setter, a backup middle, a backup outside, backup libero/utility player. That alone is 11 guys. If 2 guys quit, there's still 9 guys that can play. I know every kid and every parent wants their kid to be a starter, but not everyone can start. You need backups for when kids miss tournaments, get hurt, or quit. And maybe more importantly, to play against the starters in practice and be able to do some 6v6 or something similar in practice. Kids won't get good practicing as a team and not playing against at least 5 guys on the other side of the net. Again, if 2 kids quitting makes it impossible to continue playing in tournaments, that team is way too small. 2. I like the idea of the 1s knowing they are going to Nationals and the 3s knowing they are not going to Nationals. Each team knows their tournament schedule, knows how much the club fees will cost, and know the expectations of the team and the results. I HATE the idea of the 2s being a 'maybe' or 'only Open/USA'. One, that gray area allows for problems to happen. I bet no parent on the 1s or 3s had any problems?? Secondly, just the concept alone puts into the parents mind that if they don't make Open, they should quit. To me, it is a mistake on any clubs part to say "we want your kid on this team and we plan on going to Nationals only if we qualify for Open/USA. If not, expect all your teammates to quit and not go to Nationals". That is a team that I would not want to join as a player or let my kids join as a parent.
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on May 13, 2019 14:56:05 GMT -5
Finally - hypo: you have a kid who's on the bubble for recruiting (so.. a 17, and no money on offer - but maybe acceptance to an impacted school he's otherwise qualified for, or maybe maybe even a special admit), and the coaches want to see him play in Open at nationals b/c his HS sucks / plays bad competition. You Ok with that type of move? In said scenario, I would ask to join the 17-1s or play up on the club's 18s team. Changing clubs to ride the bench on a brand new team for 2 months just sounds stupid in my opinion. More importantly, no college coach would make that demand of a kid that they are not offering any money too. College coaches are smart enough to see talent in one player, regardless of what team or division they are playing in. Obviously it helps, but coaches recruit individuals and individual skill can be seen regardless of competition. The height a kid jumps, the speed of a kids serve/attacks, a kid's athleticism and IQ, a kid's technique, etc.. can all be seen regardless of the player playing in Open, Club, or on a bad high school team. And especially in men's volleyball, there are plenty of walk-on spots at most schools. In addition, no coach would make that demand to a player and their family when said player is "on the bubble for recruiting". If a coach demands you play higher competition in order for that coach to figure out if he wants a kid on his team, that coach is a bad talent evaluator and said player should not go to that school.
|
|
VBSH 2
Banned
banned
Posts: 890
|
Post by VBSH 2 on May 13, 2019 15:08:50 GMT -5
First, I think we basically agree - my son plays b/c he loves the game, and his teammates are his buddies; and b/c he loves the game, I've gotten into it. But there's zero expectation of any ROI by me. Other parents may have different approaches. 1. We had two boys quit in fall; no refunds were demanded/offered (all fees were due before they quit). It happens, and was not related to nationals at all. (Stupid? yes.) 2. That's how our club "fixed" my irritation: "On the -1's? You're going to nationals, regardless." It was optional last year, and, again, I'm still pissed off at the other parents even though they had the right to do it. This year, -2's have a choice; the -3's are not going (and shouldn't - that's developmental level). So if you don't want to commit to nationals unless the team is Open/USA, then play -2's (one kid from last year made that call, and played -2s; but now the -2's are going, playing club, without that kid (which is fine, because it was known - the rest of the boys are absolutely thrilled.) We definitely agree on a lot of aspects. And when I talk about dumb parents, I am not talking about you. Or anyone in particular for that matter. Just a general trend. 1. If your team has 2 kids that quit or even 2 kids that get hurt, and the team can't continue to play in tournaments; that team is way too small! Another common trend lately is small roster sizes which lead to this situation. The average team should be around 11 or 12 people at least. A starting 7, a backup setter, a backup middle, a backup outside, backup libero/utility player. That alone is 11 guys. If 2 guys quit, there's still 9 guys that can play. I know every kid and every parent wants their kid to be a starter, but not everyone can start. You need backups for when kids miss tournaments, get hurt, or quit. And maybe more importantly, to play against the starters in practice and be able to do some 6v6 or something similar in practice. Kids won't get good practicing as a team and not playing against at least 5 guys on the other side of the net. Again, if 2 kids quitting makes it impossible to continue playing in tournaments, that team is way too small. 2. I like the idea of the 1s knowing they are going to Nationals and the 3s knowing they are not going to Nationals. Each team knows their tournament schedule, knows how much the club fees will cost, and know the expectations of the team and the results. I HATE the idea of the 2s being a 'maybe' or 'only Open/USA'. One, that gray area allows for problems to happen. I bet no parent on the 1s or 3s had any problems?? Secondly, just the concept alone puts into the parents mind that if they don't make Open, they should quit. To me, it is a mistake on any clubs part to say "we want your kid on this team and we plan on going to Nationals only if we qualify for Open/USA. If not, expect all your teammates to quit and not go to Nationals". That is a team that I would not want to join as a player or let my kids join as a parent. A team is too small? For a lot of kids and families, you don't know how many kids are on your team until the 1st day of practice. I would imagine, every club wants 11-13 kids per team whether it is a 1s 2s or 3s team, but who knows with about 1 day to make a decision on where to play.
|
|
|
Post by bealzabubba on May 13, 2019 16:58:48 GMT -5
Son's team was never too small to compete, though we played the playoffs at HC with 8 kids (Starting rotation + backup setter; 2 quit, 2 had their first finals the next day, and were parent DNP decisions). This was not a good thing. Absent additions, we would have been fine going to BJNC, unless there were injuries - our three adds (one was a Jan "rejoining the team," none were on other teams) are gravy for tourneys, but really, really, really improve practices, and the new adds were explicitly told it was a tight rotation team. VBSH 2 - Team made 13 offers - the last one was allowed to practice with both teams for a weak, by both clubs (in the nomenclature of this thread, he was "solid+," but not franchise), and made his decision to play with his buddies. Competitively, that was a mistake, and he tried out for our team again in the spring - this rule absolutely barred him from moving. Totally agree you *should* have at least 12 at practice, but... 1. There's a tension the clubs have on roster size: too big, you end up with kids not playing, which leads to both parents and boys upset - that helps none of us that want to see the game grow. Out of curiosity, I looked: In 15's, 2 of the top three SCVA teams had rosters of 14 (MB Surf, OCVC) - both play tight rotations, the former extremely tight. The other team, Balboa, had 10, with everyone playing. Not a one size fits all recipe for success, obviously; and BB can move up kids from their -2s and -3s if desired/needed. 2. Our -2s were competing in USA (no bid), with an "everyone plays" rotation. A certain parent not on the team, who shall remain nameless, lobbied all the parents to go, regardless (there were extra fees involved), b/c really, these kids might not play club next year - get the experience. No one was irked, incl. the kid who dropped a level because his family had non-changeable plans. Hypo: That happened, last year, with the results you describe, and, yes, it was stupid from a sports perspective. College was an Ivy (not the only D1 Ivy), so the folks were gonna do whatever was "asked," even if it might have been a verbally expressed mere wish. He doesn't want to go to that school for sports, obviously, so the coaches ability is irrelevant aside from admission assistance.
|
|