really good player can only practice part time

[msnyder]

we have a really really good player who has never played before he's big he's athletic he works real hard and he competes, problem is because hes this athletic and good he also plays another sport that is very competetive, much higher level then what we are playing and has made a team that will require him to miss min 1 practice per week for the entire season as well as between 3-4 of our games depending on his schedule, his dad and him tlaked to me at the start of the season to tell me this may happen (which i appreciate) and also told me last night that yes it is happening (he made the competetive team) and that he would like to remain with football but his other sport is his first priority, i appreciate the honesty and i explained to him that im going to have to think about how i want to handle this situation but that even if he does remain on the team he will see limited playing time due to attendence, his dad who coaches sports as well understands the situation

i will not be able to replace him on my roster, our rosters are frozen and because of a situation with triplets i am 1 roster spot over my limit (league agreed to this)

question... how would you guys handle this situation, the kid is missing for a very valid reason but he is also misisng, when he is there he's a worker, he has 1 year in our program then he is gone, he would have been our mike backer now we are most likely moving him to DT or a modified version of our bear crawler where we stand him up in the A and let him go, the kid is a beast and he's physical but i dont think it's best to have him at mike, we have a kid who would take over at mike who would be with us 2 years who will get better...

thoughts?

[Coach Kyle]

we have a really really good player who has never played before he's big he's athletic he works real hard and he competes, problem is because hes this athletic and good he also plays another sport that is very competetive, much higher level then what we are playing and has made a team that will require him to miss min 1 practice per week for the entire season as well as between 3-4 of our games depending on his schedule, his dad and him tlaked to me at the start of the season to tell me this may happen (which i appreciate) and also told me last night that yes it is happening (he made the competetive team) and that he would like to remain with football but his other sport is his first priority, i appreciate the honesty and i explained to him that im going to have to think about how i want to handle this situation but that even if he does remain on the team he will see limited playing time due to attendence, his dad who coaches sports as well understands the situation

i will not be able to replace him on my roster, our rosters are frozen and because of a situation with triplets i am 1 roster spot over my limit (league agreed to this)

question... how would you guys handle this situation, the kid is missing for a very valid reason but he is also misisng, when he is there he's a worker, he has 1 year in our program then he is gone, he would have been our mike backer now we are most likely moving him to DT or a modified version of our bear crawler where we stand him up in the A and let him go, the kid is a beast and he's physical but i dont think it's best to have him at mike, we have a kid who would take over at mike who would be with us 2 years who will get better...

thoughts?

I say you put him at DE for the games you get him. I wouldn't put him on offense because that changes so often.

[mahonz]

Matt

As tough as this would be I'd have to let him go.

No sport is a part time sport. If it were an issue whereas he is missing one practice per seek then maybe I could deal with that. Missing all of those games is what would do it for me. I'd rather not have to deal with him on game day even though he could make a difference. Not fair to the team.

We have this issue on occasion with Hockey. Maybe that is what you are going thru too.

He admitted....football is not his main sport so I'd cut him loose.

Coach Mike

[msnyder]

it is hockey, the kid will be going into his junior draft year next year, he isn't leaving hockey

its not my place to cut a player, the kids sign up 1st come 1st serve we get our roster, if i cut him i won't get to replace the spot, if he quits same thing

so it benefits me to keep him around in terms of numbers... the situation is tough, great kid, watns to play just wants to play hockey more, when he can be there i anticipate he will be there going hard...

[rodnok1]

I think he should choose between the two, what example are his parents setting saying it's "OK" to only partially commit to something. Heck we all have other stuff that we can't do and do right because of scheduling issues. I'd sub him minimum time otherwise you're rewarding kids for not coming to practice.

[jkoester]

He's a kid.  It's not his fault Hockey has f*cked up priorities and don't care if they abuse children.  Let him play on those terms, just be careful where you have him.  I'd probably have him on D.

Someday you might have to make a more difficult call if more kids try to do it.  But as long as he's busting his ass and it's just him, I wouldn't - and haven't - hold that against him.  One of our better players the last two years missed a practice a week with hockey.  We gave him a lot of grief in practice, but he never missed a down in the game.  It really didn't become an issue with the other kids or parents.

There's arguments both ways, for sure.  I tend to default back to what we're here for - to give the kids a chance and the experience to play football.  As long as it's not being abused, we'll be reasonable in how we accommodate kids.  If we think it's being abused, well, I'll let you know then.

I honestly don't buy into the "unfair to the team" argument.  What I COULD call unfair is losing a game they could have won because you took a stand and cut a kid that was a hard worker for reasons beyond his control...

I'll be honest - I'm biased.  I didn't play football as a Jr. in HS because the coach wouldn't let me play if I missed a week of preseason practice to attend a blue chip basketball camp that was invite only.  It was - and turned out to be - my ticket to free college.  I thought it was stupid then, and I haven't changed my mind one little bit in the 22 years since.  We're there for the kids, and sh*t happens that as an adult you should have the ability to reason through and make a good decision.

[mahonz]

Matt

As long as him being around does not upset the team...then do what you have to do. But I dont see how that would work? 

I would be sitting him. Just not a good deal for the team. What if you win games when he is present and do not when he is absent. Not that one player is going to make the difference but what if that happens. Then you teams mental thing is…we cant win without him.

What about the playing time for those that are present 100% of the time? Even if he adds depth to the DL some kids will be giving up playing time for him. Hopefully he is well liked amongst his teammates. You know how these guys get at this age. Everything really does start to matter and they do become enemies…at school…sports…girls…..

And then there are the parents. Everything you stress about working hard…giving to the team…grades…attendance…commitment….

Well you are going to have a few agents rolling their eyes at you because you are not following your own agenda. Now you have a hidden one.

No…I wouldn’t play him. Too many negatives attached. It cant turn out all good.

Coach Mike

[jkoester]

Sorry, Mike, but I don't buy that the team will care.  Kids don't think in the same terms adults do.  They just don't.  That's their classmate, they know he's a hard worker, they know how good he is at hockey, they aren't going to miss him for a minute.  The parents might, but that's their cross to bear - and as we've said so often, f*ck what they think anyway.

Put it to a secret ballot to the team - let him play or not play.  If you're REALLY that concerned about "the team", let the team decide...

[mahonz]

Put it to a secret ballot to the team - let him play or not play.  If you're REALLY that concerned about "the team", let the team decide...

John

That is a great idea.

The 8th grade team I am coaching has 2 pairs of hated enemies off the field. They are classmates and hate each other’s guts. So far no real issues on the team but they do get chippy with each other in drills. You dont see that pre pubescent and if its there…the kids keep it too themselves.

Coach Mike

[jkoester]

Oh, I understand that.  What I'm talking about is the concept of "fairness" as it applies here.  I just don't think that the third DE is going to bitch and moan about fairness in being the back up in games this kid makes.  Not if it's presented properly.  These kids will like/dislike, and carry a grudge, etc. and so forth.  But "fair" because one Jimmy is busting his ass on a hockey rink one night a week?  I don't think so.  I think that's more of an adult concept - I just think that when the coach says it's excused, it becomes a moot issue for the kid unless Mom and Dad are harping on it at home.  I could be wrong, though.

And this isn't a real criticism of you at all Mike.  In fact, I'm willing to bet there are quite a few coaches on here that I tremendously respect including yourself that would give the exact same answer.  In this ONE instance, I think you - and they - are dead wrong.

In full disclosure, in addition to it happening to me as a kid, I also make my living in Human Resources, where I deal with policy and "fairness" around policy enforcement and consistency on a daily basis.  This is what I do for a living - just with adults, not with kids...

[danoconnl]

We have a few players that play soccer at the same time and miss some practice time.
The line is, if you miss practice, you will get reduced playing time, miss enough, and you will not play at all.  As long as the dad/player understands that his playing time will be affected,  I wouldn't have a problem with the kid missing some time for other sports.

It's a real shame now adays when I see kids being force to choose a sport over others because programs demand that their sport be full time.  Too many kids become sport specific and burn out before they even get to high school.  Let the kids just play and enjoy it.

Dan

[jkoester]

To me, it's situational.

I do have somewhat of a problem with soccer - that's a sport that is directly competing with football.  To me, a kid should pick one or the other.  We do have kids on travel soccer, but typically we don't allow them to miss full practices without suffering missed playing time.  They usually come to one practice a week late, which we can live with.  They usually don't miss much.

Hockey is a different issue - it's a winter sport, but those who run youth hockey have decided that it's more important to pay the rinks than to worry about the health of the kids.  They force these kids to play a season longer than the NHL, and don't give a damn what it does to them physically.  It's perhaps one of the sickest exhibitions of adults (the ones running the league, not necessarily the parents) living vicariously through kids I've ever seen. 

Gumby - how's that?   

A lot of these kids will play both sports (football and hockey) in HS, so I don't really see the need/reason to force them to choose now.  Those that play rec/city league, we typically ask their parents to miss more hockey than football for two months.  They usually comply.  But those kids that play travel, that's a tough one.  We still usually end up 50/50 - they miss one football practice and one hockey practice.  As one parent said - they invest maybe $200 in football, more like $4k overall in hockey, which one would YOU choose?

And it comes back to the point that I'm just not going to punish a kid because of the complete lack of common sense and intelligence shown by adults.

Heh.

[6burkes]

It depends on the type of league you are in. If you are coaching a city rec type team, then you really don't have a choice. I hate coaching kids/parents that don't take the whole thing seriously, but the fact is if that is the type of program he signed up for, then he should play. It sounds like your roster is set and the team was determined by someone else... which sounds liike a rec team.

[gumby_in_co]

I think he should choose between the two, what example are his parents setting saying it's "OK" to only partially commit to something. Heck we all have other stuff that we can't do and do right because of scheduling issues. I'd sub him minimum time otherwise you're rewarding kids for not coming to practice.

Sorry man.  Can't let that one go.  My son loves hockey and he loves football.  Neither one of us had anything to do when one starts and one finishes.  I'm an old hat at juggling overlapping seasons.  Our rule is that the one that started first gets priority.  Then it's up to me not to make stupid decisions and try to minimize the overlap. 

My son plays competetitive roller hockey from March to August.  That's when it is.  His team won a Bronze medal at AAA nationals and he won the fastest skater for his age for the 4th consecutive year.  Kent, my HC understands that this may interfere with football.  This year was particularly bad as we missed the first week. 

He just had ice hockey tryouts.  Again, I can't control when they have tryouts.  It's a 3-day tryout.  Since football was already going, I told the hockey folks that he would be missing the last day.  A bunch of know-it-all dads told me that if I wanted him to have any chance of making the top team, he had to be there for the 3rd day.  I replied, "Ok, then he won't make the top team."  Well, he made it, despite missing the 3rd session.  Now, his coach and the director understand that he'll be missing some practice due to football.  My son and I understand that he'll be missing some playing time due to missing practice.  I fully support the coach on that.  I was up front from the beginning about our commitment to football and if that wasn't okay with them, they didn't have to select him.

To suggest that he choose one or the other at age 11 is crap.  That was the attitude of the last organization he played with.  Now they get to figure out how to stop him from scoring.

[gumby_in_co]

Hockey is a different issue - it's a winter sport, but those who run youth hockey have decided that it's more important to pay the rinks than to worry about the health of the kids.  They force these kids to play a season longer than the NHL, and don't give a damn what it does to them physically.  It's perhaps one of the sickest exhibitions of adults (the ones running the league, not necessarily the parents) living vicariously through kids I've ever seen. 

Gumby - how's that?   

It's perfect.  I sent emails to USA hockey, org directors, coaches, etc. all asking the same question, "Why is ice hockey 8 months long?"  Crickets.  I even asked one of those online magazines who asked ME for my opinion on what I would do to improve hockey.  Apparently they didn't like my answer of having a 3 month season.  My only choice is not to participate.