Kids sports/extra curriculars and $$$

[soccerdad72]

Too many parents made decisions on what was best for their own kids or their own kids' schedules.

Honestly, shouldn't every parent make decisions based on what's best for their own kids?

 

[Turn the Page]

Maybe in the future, it will be more time but OP said now the commitment is only 9hrs. I did competitive dance and trained easily trained 20+hrs a week. There was no time for any other activity. If you think about it through your commitment is only to one year or season. We had girls overwhelmed by the level of training and commitment so they just finish out the year and then go and try something out the next. I dedicated most of my life to competitive dance so of course, I am partial to that way of thinking lol. However, I do understand how not being able to do other activities would be bothersome to other people.

"Only" 9 hours a week sounds like a lot to me for one activity. Our local dance school has a pre-professional ballet program. I believe those kids have a weekly class commitment of like 8 - 10 hours a week but they have to go to Chicago for summer workshop auditions just about every weekend in January and February but beyond that they are not allowed to do any activities like ice skating, gymnastics, skiing, track or any other sport due to risk of injury. I'm not just talking about not having time to do other organized activities I'm talking about not being allowed to go skiing with your family because your coach is afraid you might get hurt. Pigeon holing kids like that just seems harsh to me.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

OMG. I never said it was easy. Again, how bad do you want something? If you want it bad enough, then do it. Don't wait on someone to hand it to you. I know, that's a tough concept for people to understand in this day and age. I'm sorry you disagree with that.

And yes, we pay a lot of money for our kids to participate. If you want to call that "elite", ok. But I've never looked down (your words) at kids and families who are less fortunate than ours. And I know first hand money <> talent. YOU came out of the gate making accusations that I try to "inoculate" my kids and nothing can be further from the truth. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to quote where I've "looked down" on HS programs.

This is contradictory. You say "if you want something bad enough" and "don't wait on someone to hand it to you" to parents that have been involved, paid but also care to involve other kids who are at a financial disadvantage. What have you done?

You stated that there are no cheap sports or activities. I am pointing out that high school sports are cheap...free actually, unless you are pay to play.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

Honestly, shouldn't every parent make decisions based on what's best for their own kids?

Not if you are on the board of a league that serves all kids. You can individually make personal decisions for your kid, but you shouldn't base what other kids are offered on your own kid.

 

[sam_gordon]

I see what you are saying, but it was the opposite for our league. The travel players HAD to play rec in the lower age groups and were evenly dispersed among the rec teams (we had an excellent soccer chairman at the time). The rec games became more competitive and it actually brought up the play of non-travel players also. But eventually a few travel parents thought their kids were too good for rec or didn't have the time to do both, so they voted to eliminate the rec requirement (overrode the excellent chairman)...and then the rec league emptied out after some kids went travel only. There simply weren't enough kids for rec, the age groups had to be combined, level went down, etc.

The numbers is a big issue. I personally don't like travel players playing rec (and it has nothing to do with "looking down" at rec players). I think too many coaches look more at W/L record and will play the travel players more to get that all important W, which then does nothing to help the lower level players. Now, if you had a leader that could keep a handle on that, great!

Too many parents made decisions on what was best for their own kids or their own kids' schedules.

Are you talking about board members making league decision based on their kids (which I agree is wrong), or parents electing to take their kids out of the rec program and to travel because it's better for them (which I don't have a problem with). Parents SHOULD be looking out for their own kids best interest, unless their position (ie: board member) doesn't allow it.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

The numbers is a big issue. I personally don't like travel players playing rec (and it has nothing to do with "looking down" at rec players). I think too many coaches look more at W/L record and will play the travel players more to get that all important W, which then does nothing to help the lower level players. Now, if you had a leader that could keep a handle on that, great!


Are you talking about board members making league decision based on their kids (which I agree is wrong), or parents electing to take their kids out of the rec program and to travel because it's better for them (which I don't have a problem with). Parents SHOULD be looking out for their own kids best interest, unless their position (ie: board member) doesn't allow it.

First paragraph: It also depends on your town size. A small city or large suburb could handle kids jumping ship to travel only. Small towns under 10,000 people will have trouble. We did get spoiled with a terrific and firm leader who was able to squash idiot parents who were intent on stacking teams. He was also believed travel relegated kids to positions too early and rec gave them an outlet to explore other areas. Basically, he couldn't be replicated and only a few others agreed with him. But of course those people eventually age out of volunteering when their kids do.

Second paragraph: I'm talking about basing league decisions on their kids. I think you can be on a board and still separate league decisions from personal ones.

 

[sam_gordon]

This is contradictory. You say "if you want something bad enough" and "don't wait on someone to hand it to you" to parents that have been involved, paid but also care to involve other kids who are at a financial disadvantage. What have you done?

I would hope you understand the difference between you (in a general sense, meaning anyone) and you (in a specific sense, meaning Boardwalk Jedi). As far as what I have done, I've been fortunate and there's been opportunities for my kids. I didn't have to start something. But, I've helped coach, I've worked concession stands, I've transported kids, I've taken pictures for kids and parents, I've created brochures, I've helped clean fields, I've videoed games for coaches, I've run scoreboards, and I've kept stats.

You stated that there are no cheap sports or activities.

Please show me where. This is the third time you've claimed I've said something and I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've said any of that.

I am pointing out that high school sports are cheap...free actually, unless you are pay to play.

First, as someone who has kids who play for their schools, I wouldn't call them "free". "Cheap", yes. However, even the expensive travel club DS plays on (as well as the club DD plays on) accepts "scholarship" players. No, they don't accept everyone, but if the talent is there, kids can play for $0. This includes transportation, meals, and hotels for away trips. I know families need to qualify, but I don't know what the qualifications are.

 

[Turn the Page]

This is contradictory. You say "if you want something bad enough" and "don't wait on someone to hand it to you" to parents that have been involved, paid but also care to involve other kids who are at a financial disadvantage. What have you done?

You stated that there are no cheap sports or activities. I am pointing out that high school sports are cheap...free actually, unless you are pay to play.

They still aren't free. Participation costs money. Equipment fees (basketball shoes and football cleats are pricey) plus food money for away games, etc. We went to pay to play in my district a few years ago and the fees are low, like $100 a sport I think and it is capped at $200 per kid a year $400 per family I think. A lot of people were up in arms about it claiming it would keep low income kids from being able to play. Please. The basketball shoes alone cost more than that. I doubt the $100 fee was keeping anyone from being able to play. Even on school teams that is a fraction of what you're already paying anyway.

 

[sam_gordon]

First paragraph: It also depends on your town size. A small city or large suburb could handle kids jumping ship to travel only. Small towns under 10,000 people will have trouble. We did get spoiled with a terrific and firm leader who was able to squash idiot parents who were intent on stacking teams. He was also believed travel relegated kids to positions too early and rec gave them an outlet to explore other areas. Basically, he couldn't be replicated and only a few others agreed with him. But of course those people eventually age out of volunteering when their kids do.

True. But as you mentioned earlier, it takes a strong leader who is willing to look at what's best for the group and not focus on their kid.

Second paragraph: I'm talking about basing league decisions on their kids. I think you can be on a board and still separate league decisions from personal ones.

Yes. If you're on the board, or in any decision making role, you should think first of what's best for the league/group. If you can't do that, then get off the board.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

I would hope you understand the difference between you (in a general sense, meaning anyone) and you (in a specific sense, meaning Boardwalk Jedi). As far as what I have done, I've been fortunate and there's been opportunities for my kids. I didn't have to start something. But, I've helped coach, I've worked concession stands, I've transported kids, I've taken pictures for kids and parents, I've created brochures, I've helped clean fields, I've videoed games for coaches, I've run scoreboards, and I've kept stats.

Please show me where. This is the third time you've claimed I've said something and I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've said any of that.
First, as someone who has kids who play for their schools, I wouldn't call them "free". "Cheap", yes. However, even the expensive travel club DS plays on (as well as the club DD plays on) accepts "scholarship" players. No, they don't accept everyone, but if the talent is there, kids can play for $0. This includes transportation, meals, and hotels for away trips. I know families need to qualify, but I don't know what the qualifications are.

When you suggest "talk to the school", you are telling people to resort to that. If that's not what you meant, okay.

The scholarship gets "chippy" when a kid can't make practice for whatever reason, parents know who is on scholarship, etc....basically judgements abound and most kids (who aren't deemed talented) still don't have the opportunity to play. Plus again...some people who do premier might scrape by doing it...being required (if that's the case in your club) to work concessions, scoreboards, videotape, etc. puts people at a disadvantage.

 

[soccerdad72]

Second paragraph: I'm talking about basing league decisions on their kids. I think you can be on a board and still separate league decisions from personal ones.

Thanks for the clarification - I agree with you 100% on this.

 

[mousefan73]

I don't think it's out of the ordinary to ask if you should pay for these things just because you can afford them. With youth sports there's also just how much time gets taken away from the other kids, family time/dinner, parents' sanity, etc.

We're a family heavily involved in sports and have drawn the line at times for all the above reasons. So the AAU basketball tournaments we attended were sparse and limited to the tri-state area, the premier soccer we held out on until 10th grade and the tourneys were select, no club sport was to interfere with school sports or other school activities, swimmer only did Y meets and not USA, volleyball child found a perfect Sunday morning only clinic. That schedule sounds insane enough for most people, but it was minimal compared to many others.

I was recently talking to a doctor who used to spend up to $20,000 per year on his daughter's soccer. Cost wasn't a problem with him but he and his wife one day asked themselves "what are we doing?". He wasn't just talking about how much money he was spending, but how much time they could be spending doing other things, was it worth it to keep their daughter's level of play where her friends' levels were. It all lead back to the comparison of what youth sports were when we were kids and I think you'd understand that. (I've written on here before my feelings on youth sports )

Yes it's great that kids can get more technical coaching and opportunities, but it's also made youth sports more exclusive. I've pondered that and it was nice to see someone else who did too.

I agree. When see the amounts people are paying I ask what the annual salaries here? Seems like a lot to pay for a hobby. For our kids extra stuff is under 1000 a year. DD got a flute. Set us back 800. But band is free and lessons are 50 a month. 1x a week. DS mountain bike club. Free via school. Maybe a trip end of year. 200.
Phone What scares me is that many clubs are all in. Practice daily/ camps/ weekends. Whatever happened to just having fun? My DD does a dance group for a festival. Hard to explain but these girls are not perfect. They practice 1 x a week for a season perform same dance for a few weeks. They are good but not on a competitive level. When I see some of friends they would be embarassed to let their kids dance in this group. “Not comepitive” enough. Another wards not good enough. So yes true but we dont invest 1000s for lessons/ workshop/ private. Whatever. My DD is just having fun.

I think many parents are just themselves too competive. Does a 10 year old have to practice daily and still private lessons/ workshops.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

They still aren't free. Participation costs money. Equipment fees (basketball shoes and football cleats are pricey) plus food money for away games, etc. We went to pay to play in my district a few years ago and the fees are low, like $100 a sport I think and it is capped at $200 per kid a year $400 per family I think. A lot of people were up in arms about it claiming it would keep low income kids from being able to play. Please. The basketball shoes alone cost more than that. I doubt the $100 fee was keeping anyone from being able to play. Even on school teams that is a fraction of what you're already paying anyway.

It does. It effects those kids that aren't superstars from doing a sport they would do to just stay in shape or just be part of a team and learn something new. So it effects numbers on JV and Freshman teams on the big sports (like basketball) and overall numbers on sports like track. One of middle class to upper middle class towns in our league went pay to play for three years and then went back. The athletic director said it took about five years to recover from it.

 

[DopeyDame]

I don't think it's out of the ordinary to ask if you should pay for these things just because you can afford them. With youth sports there's also just how much time gets taken away from the other kids, family time/dinner, parents' sanity, etc.

We're a family heavily involved in sports and have drawn the line at times for all the above reasons. So the AAU basketball tournaments we attended were sparse and limited to the tri-state area, the premier soccer we held out on until 10th grade and the tourneys were select, no club sport was to interfere with school sports or other school activities, swimmer only did Y meets and not USA, volleyball child found a perfect Sunday morning only clinic. That schedule sounds insane enough for most people, but it was minimal compared to many others.

I was recently talking to a doctor who used to spend up to $20,000 per year on his daughter's soccer. Cost wasn't a problem with him but he and his wife one day asked themselves "what are we doing?". He wasn't just talking about how much money he was spending, but how much time they could be spending doing other things, was it worth it to keep their daughter's level of play where her friends' levels were. It all lead back to the comparison of what youth sports were when we were kids and I think you'd understand that. (I've written on here before my feelings on youth sports )

Yes it's great that kids can get more technical coaching and opportunities, but it's also made youth sports more exclusive. I've pondered that and it was nice to see someone else who did too.

Amen!
Far more than the cost (although that's crazy too) is the amount of time that youth sports/activities seem to require of very young children.
I wrote a little last year about my son and travel soccer. When his coach demanded that he drop other activities and made winter indoor leagues and summer training mandatory, we gave DS the option of staying (and said we'd pay the crazy fees for all of that), but made sure he realized the opportunity cost to quitting. He was 9 at the time.
He chose to quit, and will be playing on a low-pressure middle school soccer team in the fall, and has enjoyed trying out flag football this spring - something he wouldn't have been able to do if he stayed in travel soccer.

I know parents all swear their kids are oh-so-passionate about their sport or activity, but when you force kids to leave most other activities at age 8 or 9 or 10, it sure seems like they're missing out on trying a whole lot of cool things.

 

[sam_gordon]

When you suggest "talk to the school", you are telling people to resort to that. If that's not what you meant, okay.

Sigh. Yes, I did tell one poster to talk to the school and see if something can be arranged. Some of my comments are directed to people and some are directed to the collective "you".

The scholarship gets "chippy" when a kid can't make practice for whatever reason, parents know who is on scholarship, etc....basically judgements abound and most kids (who aren't deemed talented) still don't have the opportunity to play. Plus again...some people who do premier might scrape by doing it...being required (if that's the case in your club) to work concessions, scoreboards, videotape, etc. puts people at a disadvantage.

So you don't think pay clubs should accept scholarship players? How exactly do you want it to work?

It does. It effects those kids that aren't superstars from doing a sport they would do to just stay in shape or just be part of a team and learn something new. So it effects numbers on JV and Freshman teams on the big sports (like basketball) and overall numbers on sports like track. One of middle class to upper middle class towns in our league went pay to play for three years and then went back. The athletic director said it took about five years to recover from it.

As I mentioned, the schools around here aren't "free" to participate in sports, but I'm pretty sure kids who are on free/reduced lunch don't have to pay team fees.

 

[Lumpy1106]

Thought I should offer this experience; I am in SoCal and my kids play lacrosse. It's still "new" enough out here that below High School age you pretty much have to play on the club team closest to you, but then once they reach High School you can ONLY play for the High School team. That's due to CIF rules and the fact that just enough High Schools have teams now that there aren't enough kids to fill club teams with kids that don't play on a High School team. My son actually moved from a small private school to a larger public school so he could play.

The advice that has been offered, "talk to your high school", is exactly how the sport got started at my son's high school. There is a parent (yes, just one) who is a couple years ahead of us that made it her mission to pester and bug the school to start a team until they did. It was a LONG road, filled with a lot of "no's", but she did it! God Bless this woman, we are all so thankful she put in the effort. The sport is not "free". There are equipment costs of course, but we also each chip in roughly $200 per kid per season to pay the coaches. Yes, you heard that right, the school does not pay the lacrosse coaches, and frankly the money we put in is not a great paycheck, but the coaches do it out of love for the sport. We;d put in more but the coaches would not accept it.

One other thing; if you do decide to be "that parent" that goes to the trouble of demanding a school field a team, don't forget the girls! They deserve a team and a chance to play too.

 

[siren0119]

They still aren't free. Participation costs money. Equipment fees (basketball shoes and football cleats are pricey) plus food money for away games, etc. We went to pay to play in my district a few years ago and the fees are low, like $100 a sport I think and it is capped at $200 per kid a year $400 per family I think. A lot of people were up in arms about it claiming it would keep low income kids from being able to play. Please. The basketball shoes alone cost more than that. I doubt the $100 fee was keeping anyone from being able to play. Even on school teams that is a fraction of what you're already paying anyway.

Do you honestly think the kids who are low income are buying brand new basketball shoes? We are middle-ish income and even I buy my kids' gear at used sporting goods stores, get them secondhand through facebook marketplace/craigslist, or look for them at the thrift stores. A low income family is weighing whether they can pay the $100 activity fee or pay for the bus, not whether they can afford brand new sports shoes.
And enrichment activities shouldn't be available only to those who have the expendable income.

 

[DopeyDame]

Thank you for articulating this. I don't begrudge anyone their ability to pay for extra coaching, elite teams etc....but that has become the new shiny at the expense of the base-level organized sports that provided an entry point for more kids as well as a foundational level for kids who would excel. And there are only so many people available with the skill and the time to coach these activities....if the skilled coaches are also being drawn to the elite/travel/paid teams, who is left to support the foundational level teams?

Yup. I played softball from 1st through 10th grade. I was TERRIBLE. I knew I was terrible, I didn't get much playing time, but I loved it. I love the sport (still have season tickets to baseball games) and loved the team, and always had great coaches. There was an all star team and travel teams and stuff, but it was perfectly acceptable for a non-skilled kid like me to keep playing rec sports well into high school. Now, those teams are really few and far between, because it's not just the really amazing kids who go to "special" teams, it's anyone who is half way competent. That kills the rec leagues. Our neighborhood soccer rec league this year has a combined, co ed, 8-10 year old team because so many kids leave rec the moment they're old enough (age 8!!!) for travel soccer. It's frustrating, for sure.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but there's definitely a problem.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

Sigh. Yes, I did tell one poster to talk to the school and see if something can be arranged. Some of my comments are directed to people and some are directed to the collective "you".

So you don't think pay clubs should accept scholarship players? How exactly do you want it to work?

As I mentioned, the schools around here aren't "free" to participate in sports, but I'm pretty sure kids who are on free/reduced lunch don't have to pay team fees.

I really have and want no say in a private club. I'm just saying that a club having scholarship athletes doesn't solve the problem or strike me as charitable. That's just my opinion on that one though.

 

[sam_gordon]

I know parents all swear their kids are oh-so-passionate about their sport or activity, but when you force kids to leave most other activities at age 8 or 9 or 10, it sure seems like they're missing out on trying a whole lot of cool things.

IMO, I don't think kids should be required to swear off all other activities until at least age 13 (prefer age 15). Forcing it at 9 is very extreme, and believe me when I say not every travel/select program is like that.

ETA: I really don't think kids should be required to swear off all other activities at all. BUT, I understand missing practices and games for other activities isn't "fair" to the coach or teammates.