Starting, Bench-Sitting, and Questioning the Status Quo

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:
I didn't read your entire post because it was giving me tired head. But the problem in academy is that too many kids aren't playing on a team that fits their skill level. If you aren't playing much you should find a lower level team that needs you.

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

I didn't read your entire post because it was giving me tired head. But the problem in academy is that too many kids aren't playing on a team that fits their skill level. If you aren't playing much you should find a lower level team that needs you.

futbollove wrote:Awesome idea. I don't see it happening here in uber-competitive NTX soccer, but I totally agree with you. All kids, should be given the chance to start, and get that experience. As well as a good experience for starters to come off the bench.

deepthoughts wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:
I didn't read your entire post because it was giving me tired head. But the problem in academy is that too many kids aren't playing on a team that fits their skill level. If you aren't playing much you should find a lower level team that needs you.

First, I'm sorry about the length. I did get on a bit of a roll. There are a lot of aspects to the issue.

Second, I understand your point about finding a team that your kid will start on, but that was not my point at all. If the coaches and parent's expectations can't change, your solution is logical; however, that would simply continue the current North Texas competitive soccer path where some 25% of the hopeful young ladies in North Texas soccer get their confidence shot down at a very early age with unknown longer-term ramifications, while their parents spend around $3K a year for that privilege.

silentparent wrote:"Every team has also had a parent or two who proclaimed that the player was performing poorly strictly due to the lack of confidence from: A. Not starting B. Playing time C. Coach yells at them D. Who knows? "

I hope YOU are tongue in cheek about this. Let's see, I don't start, I don't play and the coach yells at me. yep i can't wait to practice and try hard under those circumstances.... LAME. 2nd, happy w the status quo? sorry i strongly disagree. motivating players to become better soccer players is what is being paid for, NOT WINS at 10 and 11. parents like you have defiled this system for years and we all pay the price.

coachr wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

I didn't read your entire post because it was giving me tired head. But the problem in academy is that too many kids aren't playing on a team that fits their skill level. If you aren't playing much you should find a lower level team that needs you.

I think the bench revolution is not realistic in the North Texas community of parents that are willing to pay someone not to let their kid play. Think about how stupid that is! So the best some parents come up with is "let little jinny or jonny play for a lower level team".
Having a child under a contract where the child's family pays to be in the contract yet has no control over the wording of said contract probably make labor attorney pants go crazy. Such a contract with a minor is automatically voidable in Texas and seems pretty damn illegal.
The thought should be: you pay me and I'll sign your contract.
In light of this madness I've come up with a logical pay to play system that will obviously not be used by the club scum.
Each team in a club establishes a budget that pays EVERYTHING for one year. A club rep goes to each game that said club has a team in. This representative carefully charts the number of minutes each child plays. At the end of the month each child's minutes are tallied up and the bill is sent to the parents. Each team members portion depends on the percentage of minutes played.

silentparent wrote:"Every team has also had a parent or two who proclaimed that the player was performing poorly strictly due to the lack of confidence from: A. Not starting B. Playing time C. Coach yells at them D. Who knows? "

I hope YOU are tongue in cheek about this. Let's see, I don't start, I don't play and the coach yells at me. yep i can't wait to practice and try hard under those circumstances.... LAME. 2nd, happy w the status quo? sorry i strongly disagree. motivating players to become better soccer players is what is being paid for, NOT WINS at 10 and 11. parents like you have defiled this system for years and we all pay the price.

ballhead wrote:

silentparent wrote:"Every team has also had a parent or two who proclaimed that the player was performing poorly strictly due to the lack of confidence from: A. Not starting B. Playing time C. Coach yells at them D. Who knows? "

I hope YOU are tongue in cheek about this. Let's see, I don't start, I don't play and the coach yells at me. yep i can't wait to practice and try hard under those circumstances.... LAME. 2nd, happy w the status quo? sorry i strongly disagree. motivating players to become better soccer players is what is being paid for, NOT WINS at 10 and 11. parents like you have defiled this system for years and we all pay the price.

The statement was multiple choice, A, B, C, OR D, (which was really a catchall for anything else). If they all apply, why would you allow her to stay on the team?

My own dd was a star in rec, went to the bench in academy, and worked her way to starter, went back to the bench in club, and worked her way back to full time starter.

Academy can be about finding the team that fits the player, as well as the player fitting the team. Forcing the player into the starting lineup is nuts. If starting is that important, find a team she can start on.

deepthoughts wrote:

futbollove wrote:Awesome idea. I don't see it happening here in uber-competitive NTX soccer, but I totally agree with you. All kids, should be given the chance to start, and get that experience. As well as a good experience for starters to come off the bench.

India gained its independence from England without a war. Reagan ended the Soviet Union and with it, the greatest threat to mankind without one nuke detonated. Apartheid ended in South Africa without civil war. Yet uber-competitive NTX soccer can't adopt a philosophy that results in hundreds -- if not thousands -- of girls growing up with much greater confidence? Surely the goal is worth it. If some of the coaches / parents took the lead with a gleam in their eye, I can't believe it is impossible.

coachr wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

I didn't read your entire post because it was giving me tired head. But the problem in academy is that too many kids aren't playing on a team that fits their skill level. If you aren't playing much you should find a lower level team that needs you.

I think the bench revolution is not realistic in the North Texas community of parents that are willing to pay someone not to let their kid play. Think about how stupid that is! So the best some parents come up with is "let little jinny or jonny play for a lower level team".
Having a child under a contract where the child's family pays to be in the contract yet has no control over the wording of said contract probably make labor attorney pants go crazy. Such a contract with a minor is automatically voidable in Texas and seems pretty damn illegal.
The thought should be: you pay me and I'll sign your contract.
In light of this madness I've come up with a logical pay to play system that will obviously not be used by the club scum.
Each team in a club establishes a budget that pays EVERYTHING for one year. A club rep goes to each game that said club has a team in. This representative carefully charts the number of minutes each child plays. At the end of the month each child's minutes are tallied up and the bill is sent to the parents. Each team members portion depends on the percentage of minutes played.

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

girlovestacos wrote:

deepthoughts wrote:

Larrythesoccerguy wrote:
I didn't read your entire post because it was giving me tired head. But the problem in academy is that too many kids aren't playing on a team that fits their skill level. If you aren't playing much you should find a lower level team that needs you.

First, I'm sorry about the length. I did get on a bit of a roll. There are a lot of aspects to the issue.

Second, I understand your point about finding a team that your kid will start on, but that was not my point at all. If the coaches and parent's expectations can't change, your solution is logical; however, that would simply continue the current North Texas competitive soccer path where some 25% of the hopeful young ladies in North Texas soccer get their confidence shot down at a very early age with unknown longer-term ramifications, while their parents spend around $3K a year for that privilege.

As a coach, there shouldn't be a bench player in any club setting. If you choose the players you want to play for your team and every single player hasn't what you believe to be the right stuff to start then the error is with the coach not the player. Either the coach was wrong or hasn't the skill to bring out the best in the player they saw at tryout.

Or....Bottom line is money, many coaches will take a player or several on at a higher skill level team to pay his club dues. We parents aren't idiots, just hopeful that the sales pitch the coach is giving us will pan out. This is the very reason there is so much discord in the club soccer world, everybody is working their angle to make a nonprofit organization profitable to them. Club soccer stopped being about development when clubs and coaches realized that they could raise their fees after a good statistical season.

Many will defend the status quo, it is ok to do so. Society used to defend the burning of witches too, that doesn't make it right, but at the time it was ok to do so. Many tell their kids "it is a tough, dog eat dog world out there and you should prepare for it". We should be saying, "go and make a difference, change the world to what you want it to be". So, go make a difference, Deepthoughts is trying to.