Youth Sports Oversight Committee---Good or Bad Idea?

[Bullaholic]

Do you think a youth sports oversight committee such as mentioned in the following is a good or bad idea?


http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/06/youth.sports.oversight/index.html

[Pick6]

Unfortunately to many people put to much emphasis on sports. The "winning is everything" mantra has taken on a bad meaning in recent years. Once parents realize that little Johnny isn't the best ever and also realize that sports isn't the be all end all, kids will be able to enjoy playing games like they should be able to.

[cshscougar08]

Absolutely ridiculous!

[TexMike]

Not surprising that such a ridiculous idea would come from a LiberalLand state. If parents are not satisfied with the management of the organizations they put their kids in to then they can go elsewhere or get involved and make changes.

(PS VAMike is no more. He has returned to the motherland)

[Farmersfan]

I think it all depends how you look at the situation. If you maintain the view like Pick6 just mentioned then an oversight committee is probably needed. Because if sports isn't considered important and winning isn't everyting then I have a prefect right to expect my child to have as much playing time as the next child. Correct? It is a public sport meant to be played by all and to have a single person (such as a coach) determine one child is not as important as another cannot be tolerated.
On the other hand: If you think like I think that sports are as important as other school subjects and the "winning is everything" attitude creates competitive and aggressive children who will settle for nothing less than success then this committee would do nothing but add to the idea that parent's desires should influence the coachs decisions. As long as the coach can demonstrate success on the field then his decisions are final. (or at least should be)......
What do you think?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Do you think a youth sports oversight committee such as mentioned in the following is a good or bad idea?


http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/06/youth.sports.oversight/index.html

Since it's Rhode Island it won't oversee very many folks! Current population is just over 1 million. That makes them smaller than the cities of Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio. Maybe those New Englanders are just too rowdy.:eek:

[Pick6]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I think it all depends how you look at the situation. If you maintain the view like Pick6 just mentioned then an oversight committee is probably needed. Because if sports isn't considered important and winning isn't everyting then I have a prefect right to expect my child to have as much playing time as the next child. Correct? It is a public sport meant to be played by all and to have a single person (such as a coach) determine one child is not as important as another cannot be tolerated.
On the other hand: If you think like I think that sports are as important as other school subjects and the "winning is everything" attitude creates competitive and aggressive children who will settle for nothing less than success then this committee would do nothing but add to the idea that parent's desires should influence the coachs decisions. As long as the coach can demonstrate success on the field then his decisions are final. (or at least should be)......
What do you think?

So if your kid gives 100% and he doesn't win, would you consider him a failure? Or is he a winner because he gave his all. Explain to me what is more important, winning or giving all you can give.

[buff4life]

Originally posted by Pick6
So if your kid gives 100% and he doesn't win, would you consider him a failure? Or is he a winner because he gave his all. Explain to me what is more important, winning or giving all you can give.

In most cases or atleast in yours here, the kid is giving 100% because he WANTS to win and that is the mentality all should have, both individuals and teams should strive to win and if they don't they should be ticked and figure out how to the next time

[STANG RED]

Sadly, from reading the article it is probably something that is needed. However, cookie cutter fixes often create more problems than they are intended to fix. Just take a look at "zero tolerance policies" for a good example of a ridiculous one.
Also, the article said nothing about age. I hope they don’t plan on governing farm leagues the same as varsity sports.
Personally I think the great lessons kids can learn from participating in team sports is something they cant get anywhere else. So any policies drawn up should be inclusive of all kids that want to participate, even those with much less ability than others. Winning is very important, but sometime lessons on how to deal with losing is also just as important. Even learning to deal with an unfair lose is just as important. All children should have this opportunity, because they will benefit greatly from it when they grow up and have to face real life, like we all eventually have to do. Varsity level sports are a completely different story though. It is and should have more emphasis on winning.
They just don’t need to try to govern the play of 6 six year olds the same as 18 year olds.
In the end, councils like this one proposed wouldn’t even be needed if people would just use their God given common sense. But we all know that’s way too much to ask. Many have seemed to have lost that ability, especially in dealings with their own child.
Lots of screwed up priorities out there! :(

[gatordaze]

Different leagues for different kids. YMCA or rec type leagues should be equal participation for all. AAU and Select leagues are intended for competition and the best available should get the playing time. In either case there should be an outlet for everyone that wants to participate.