|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 8, 2008 9:01:06 GMT -6
bigshel...los..dave...
Wouldn't those factors support the movement that the English Heads of soccer are trying to push.
Football is SO diverse in skills, that the best method to the "winning" isn't to teach most of these skills. Dave, you have an impeccable W/L record when it comes to youth ball. How often have you taught QB mechanics, or WR mechanics, or rerouting, secondary reactions...? I would bet very little, because you astutely realize that such things don't lead to wins in youth. If wins were off the table, do you think you might find yourself teaching such skills?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 8, 2008 10:36:41 GMT -6
Our kids are more fundmentally sound than our opponents, thats why we win. Our kids block, tackle and yes we have better completion rates than our competition as well. No one tackels better down blocks, trap blocks, double teams, open field blocking, crab blocks, drive blocks, pass blocks etc, same goes for tackling and every other skill out there including kicking. Most importantly we dont lose any kids, extremely rare, because they are having fun and having success. Our secondary has had more Ints than our opponents have had receptions in the last 8 seasons, our kids know how to play DB, cover, reroute, respond to the ball and our DL knows how to pass rush, You dont win in your ball around here if your kids dont do those things better than the competition.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 8, 2008 10:59:12 GMT -6
Dave...you didn't answer the question asked.
|
|
|
Post by coachtabales on Jul 8, 2008 11:11:57 GMT -6
I too would be interested in the resonponse to Coachd5085's question. And I have a few questions of my own. Based on this statement: ... Most importantly we dont lose any kids, extremely rare, because they are having fun and having success. Do you think that it's possible for the kids to still have fun even if they weren't winning all the time? Also, are you suggesting that if you were not succesful that they wouldn't return?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 8, 2008 12:43:58 GMT -6
5085 We do work throwing mechaincs and catching the ball at every practice, the results are, our completion rates are much better than our competition. Please share with us your typcial practices in real life with your youth team last season and what your retention rates were last year and the previous 5, that may help us all. HAving founded 1 huge organization (over 400 kids) and a smaller one (100 kids) and running them both over the last 10 years, Ive been in a unique position to being able to not only track but do exit interviews on the kids that drop. Weve found correlations of team success to retention rates. We also found a very close correlation between coaching and wins. My good coaches almost always won and retained kids, my poor coaches didnt do either very well and it didnt matter where I assigned, them, young old, select, B etc etc. For the organizations around here, all the ones that consistently lose consistently lose players and are always scrounging for players. Same goes for the HS teams the ones that always lose are always hurting for kids and the ones that win are suiting up over 100 on Friday nights. Well run programs that have consistent success and teach great fundamentals aften are busting at the seams and have wating lists to play like mine. The arguement you make I see from time to time with coaches whose teams consistently lose, usually a CYA move. But my observation on these guys teams is they arent losing because they are teaching their DBS to reroute ( most of us teach that), they are losing because their teams cant block or tackle worth a darn or execute anything with relative perfection. Coachbales I will be doing a clinic in KC in 2009 and will make sure and get you a free seat. You can see how we do it and why the clinics are always full The kids can have fun if they arent winning every ga,e but if they arent at least competitive and having reasonable success, the retention rates will not be in the 95% range for most. You dont have to be 12-0 every year, but if your 2-10 and losing games by 30 points, most of the kids wouldnt equate that with "having fun". It's been 8 seasons since we last lost more than 2 games and there was lower retention numbers than what we have now (my personal teams still did better than the rest of my teams inthe org, but the numbers werent anything like we get now) The net is you can teach great fundamentals, have fun, play everyone and win they arent at all mutually exclusive as some soccer moms and perennial losing coaches may think.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 8, 2008 13:31:16 GMT -6
Dave---remember, the point of the thread is talking about "trophies" and emphasizing / not emphasizing winning at the 6,7,8 year old ages. I find it interesting that with that being the topic, you mentioned LOSING 3 times in your post. Also, you mention success and retention rates, but again the crux of this thread is THE DEFINITION OF SUCCESS.
As long as success is scoring more touchdowns than the other team, then there is no debating. If you want to win YOUTH SPORTS, then there are certain things you do, and certain things you don't. As I stated, I witnessed a baseball victory in which the winning team DID NOT SWING AT A PITCH. In youth baseball, if you want to win, you let your top 3 kids swing, and everyone else takes. In youth basketball, you don't teach solid man to man principles, you don't teach players how to move without the ball on offense...you teach halfcourt trap in the corner...screening the halfcourt trap on offense, and weakside rebounding.
I have not coached youth football for 5 years, so I can not answer the first question.
I was asking YOU...with your tremendous youth record...IF you would change things if winning at the 6,7,8.9 year old levels was not your definition of success. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by coachtabales on Jul 8, 2008 13:44:56 GMT -6
Coachbales I will be doing a clinic in KC in 2009 and will make sure and get you a free seat. You can see how we do it and why the clinics are always full Oh man, I am so going to hold you to that. By the way, I have your CD, and have used quite a bit of it. I have not used it 100% for various reasons that have nothing to do with this thread. I love going to clinics, but really can't afford very many of them. However, free works for me. That said, you still didn't answer the question, in your part of the country, do you feel that it's possible for a child to not be successful (by that I mean win all the time), and still have fun and maybe even learn something? Because I have to tell you, it doesn't happen much, but I've seen teams go 2 or 3 seasons without winning more than a couple of games and retain quite a few of their players. Granted, it's not the "norm", but it's not as uncommon as one would think.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 8, 2008 13:48:04 GMT -6
I wouldnt change anything we do now, it works for us. Our definition of success is not just wins. Winning is the BYPRODUCT of good coaching, good fundamentals etc we also have academic goals , sportsmanship goals, skills development goals, retention goals, we sent teams traveling to Florida based on academics, not wins etc.
In football I dont think there is any parallel to just taking walks in baseball. I despise walks, what a joke, that took ZERO skill or execution, to win the game, none.
My teams and coaches are graded out on a spectrum on those above qualities, it's right in my book in a form and with instructions etc. My "good" coaches do all those things and win. The data we have clearly shows that retention rates are not good with perennial losing programs and are usually quite high with perennial winning programs. The net is the perennial losing teams in youth football rarely teach great fundamentals, thats why they lose.
Hence winning is not the evil thing soccer moms and the perennial losing coaches make it out to be. In the end: the kids we have have fun, they all get to play a bunch, they all come back and they all learn sound fundamentals. In football some guys that havent coached much or really know what it takes to have a team that is the best fundamental team in their league think if they just go to X formation or do Y they would magically win. It isnt like that at all, the best teams are almost always the best fundamental team in the league, they do the basics extraordinarily well. When are you going to coach again? 5 years is a long time not to coach. Im not sure English soccer is the best thing to copy IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 8, 2008 13:55:32 GMT -6
The Glazier Clinics are 100% free for youth coaches, I do those, Nike and my own. I answered your question in my original response. The teams up here that lose consistently often lose 30-50% of their players every season. It is a merry go round unless the program is in an area where there arent any choices within reasonable driving or walking distance.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 8, 2008 18:08:25 GMT -6
I wouldnt change anything we do now, it works for us. Our definition of success is not just wins. Winning is the BYPRODUCT of good coaching, good fundamentals etc we also have academic goals , sportsmanship goals, skills development goals, retention goals, we sent teams traveling to Florida based on academics, not wins etc. And it should be obvious that I also subscribe to the "winning is a byproduct" theory based off of my numerous posts talking about the objective being to "win" the next play. And I agree with you here. Although one could argue that having your bottom hitters just take pitches and pitching around the opponents top hitters could be equivalent to bearcrawling MMP's or doing that WR sprint rotation thing mentioned in another thread. (I know you don't do this) The basketball analogy is a bit truer. The underlying philosophy is the same though, youth sports are different, and what it takes to win youth sports is somewhat different. Wins can be obtained by specializing in the fundamentals needed to win YOUTH sports, not necessarily all aspects of the game. I just said that I haven't coached a youth team in the last 5 years (or at least, that is what I was TRYING to say). Last year was the first year I hadn't coached. I might coach some jr. high ball this year. It has been really interesting starting at Jr. high, then H.S then Div 1, then going back to HS...and now possibly Jr. High.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 8, 2008 18:30:18 GMT -6
Sorry coach, I dont read all your posts, Im no stalker like some LOL. I work and cant check on every thread, just the 2-3 that may apply to my situation.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 8, 2008 18:33:35 GMT -6
haha..coach.. sorry about that. I should have not used the word "obvious" in that situation, as it doesn't apply. I should have worded it a bit differently. Bottom line, I agree with you that the scoreboard shouldn't be the end all standard.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 8, 2008 19:51:11 GMT -6
No prob, if the coach is doing all the other things right, the scoreboard over the long haul always takes care of itself.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Jul 14, 2008 7:55:03 GMT -6
Football is SO diverse in skills, that the best method to the "winning" isn't to teach most of these skills. Dave, you have an impeccable W/L record when it comes to youth ball. How often have you taught QB mechanics, or WR mechanics, or rerouting, secondary reactions...? I would bet very little, because you astutely realize that such things don't lead to wins in youth. If wins were off the table, do you think you might find yourself teaching such skills? Are you honestly advocating having youth football players do nothing but practice until they reach high school? Because unless they're playing games, that's all their activities amount to. Why would you deny these kids the thrill of winning a close-fought game, or for that matter the important lesson of sucking it up after a tough loss? Is it really that important for you to see 8-year-olds working on skills - like re-routing receivers - that have zero connection with their current developmental level? And if so, why? Are you also an advocate of giving 2nd graders calculus problems as homework?
|
|
|
Post by coachtabales on Jul 14, 2008 9:20:05 GMT -6
Are you honestly advocating having youth football players do nothing but practice until they reach high school? Because unless they're playing games, that's all their activities amount to. Ted, I don't think that anyone is advocating that (if I'm wrong please correct me). However, in a document written by Michigan State University, in the Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, I read a section that found to be very interesting. Children participate in youth sports for a variety of reasons and have multiple reasons for involvement (Gould & Petlichkoff). For example, the largest study of its type conducted to date (surveying 8000 youth) identified the reasons children report for participating in sport. These reasons included: • To have fun • To do something I am good at • To stay in shape • To learn new or improve my skills • To play as part of a team These motives for participation are interesting for several reasons. First, regardless of gender, the most important reason for participating is to have fun. Second, most young athletes have multiple motives for involvement; there is interplay of skill development, physical development, and social interaction. Finally, “to win” is rated 8th in participation motives for school-sponsored sports and was not even listed by non-school sport participants. If you believe this study, it makes sense that an 8 year olds desire to win is not as important as it is to some coaches. As a result, it is of my opinion that something is being missed and maybe we should find ways to make them better athletes than just kids that rely on a small group of studs to carry them to a win. High school football is completely different and all of us believe that there are (younger) kids who want to win more than others, but apparently, it is not the vast majority like some would have us believe. Nevertheless, to "play to win only", and then try to justify it by saying that "the kids want it" is as equally irresponsible as it is dangerous. Yes, it is important to find that middle ground, while still remembering why we do this, and whom we are doing it for (just my opinion).
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Jul 14, 2008 10:19:54 GMT -6
Winning is fun. Losing isn't. So, kids #1 reason is to have fun, so they must win.
Can a team have fun and lose? I think it's possible, but it's an exception rather than the rule. Even 8 yr olds know how to read a scoreboard.
Want to take the scoreboard away? Sure, that's just inline with the rest of crap we have been giving to kids over the past decade like participation trophies, 'graduating' every freaking grade (you graduate HIGH SCHOOL not 8TH GRADE), lawsuits to remove themselves from their parents, lawsuits to overturn their parents disciplinary actions, the list goes on and on and on.
So my question is, at what point do people no longer have to WIN at a job interview?
"Well, Mr. Johnson, thanks for showing up today. And because you showed up and participated in this interview, here's a job!"
Not gonna happen. Life is competition. Get them ready BEFORE they graduate college ffs.
|
|
|
Post by coachtabales on Jul 14, 2008 10:35:56 GMT -6
This whole idea is not about the importance of winning. Kids want to win. Go watch em play on the play grounds. They are not playing for a tie. Competition is fun. What is scary about this idea and what this idea is about is nobody losing. Nobody having their feeling hurt. The spreading of the dangerous ideas is the only way some people can win. No, no, no. I'm not saying playing so that nobody loses. I'm not even saying take away the scoreboards. I'm just saying that as per the report that I read, it suggests that when a child plays hard and feel adequate and/or competent in what he is doing, that it weighs more on him than the W/L of the game. I guess what that section of the report was suggesting is that there is a danger in giving the ball to Johnny, because he's the most competent, the rest of the team knowing this, and then losing on top of that. Top it off with the coach making it clear (directly or not; yes, 8 year olds can do that to) how disappointed he is in the team because they lost, and not proud of them for trying hard. eickst suggested that 8 year olds can read a scoreboard. This is true. They also know when they are not givin the ball because at the age of 8 he does not have the natural skills that makes the coach trust him. Instead of being coached, he is being carried. eickst, you lost me at the lawsuits man. I stopped reading at that point; sorry. Does that makes sense ?
|
|
|
Post by coachtabales on Jul 14, 2008 11:01:43 GMT -6
coachtabales, life doesnt work that way. In the real if you can or dont have the skills to carry out a job, YOUR FIRED. end of discussion. You're going to fire an 8 year old because he's not good at doing something, or are you going to coach him?
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Jul 14, 2008 12:37:16 GMT -6
coachtabales, life doesnt work that way. In the real if you can or dont have the skills to carry out a job, YOUR FIRED. end of discussion. You're going to fire an 8 year old because he's not good at doing something, or are you going to coach him? He's going to get coached, but if he's a starter, he's FIRED from that position until my coaching takes effect and he can EARN his starting spot back. If he's 8 or 18 that should be pretty standard.
|
|
|
Post by coachtabales on Jul 14, 2008 12:42:49 GMT -6
Fair enough, I can see that this is a waste of an discussion. I should have followed coachd5085's lead and just left it at that.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Jul 17, 2008 7:24:19 GMT -6
Ted, I don't think that anyone is advocating that (if I'm wrong please correct me). OK, then how do you construe "...if wins were off the table?" That was the point I was discussing. I believe 8,000 kids got walked through the questionnaire, sure. And I also believe that kids tend to tell adult interviewers what they think the adults want to hear. And I think there were very likely hints dropped before the interviews started that "winning is the only thing" is not what good little boys and girls believe. Anyone who has seen sociologists doing field work knows exactly what I am talking about... Sounds great, coach. How?
|
|
|
Post by coachtabales on Jul 17, 2008 9:26:58 GMT -6
OK, then how do you construe "...if wins were off the table?" That was the point I was discussing. Fair enough. I may have misunderstood you. My apologies. And I also believe that kids tend to tell adult interviewers what they think the adults want to hear. And I think there were very likely hints dropped before the interviews started that "winning is the only thing" is not what good little boys and girls believe. Anyone who has seen sociologists doing field work knows exactly what I am talking about... I am not going to dabble in conspiracies here. The document was from a reputable source and professionally done. That usually works for me. Sounds great, coach. How? Seriously? With the highest level of respect that I have for you and for all youth coaches, if you don't know the answer to this, you should not be coaching.
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Jul 17, 2008 10:33:52 GMT -6
This thread has gotten too personal.
Be professional! Appreciate the differences we all have! No Personal Attacks!
I believe this is enough of this discussion.
|
|