How Does an Ohio Travel Team Best Generate College Players and Is That the Primary Goal?

[default]

Here is what I posted as somewhat of a hijack on a different thread relating to Stacie Mahoe's comments on what it takes as a player to develop the credentials to play in college (that thread is at http://www.thesoftballzone.com/vb3/...all-you-willing-do-what-takes.html#post417145).

I have no conclusions yet on how to develop a team that gets the most college opportunities or on whether that should be the main goal, so I would be very interested in the thoughts of others:

"But, from a coach's perspective, the Mahoe piece sidles up against an issue that I have been contemplating over the past weeks and especially over the past weekend. How does a coach put together a really good college exposure team? It really isn't a matter of just putting together the most talented softball players that you can get at the time the team is formed. It is also a matter of having players that are committed to the goal of playing in college, which goal is in turn dependent upon having players who, when they are 16u, have good grades and good test scores.

I've always been a proponent of forming a relatively young team and staying with that team as it ages (for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which that you can do a lot of teaching/development and there is always a nucleus of players who "know how we roll"), but I'm now musing over the question whether that model really results in the optimum number of college playing opportunities (and some college money for those players). "

 

[default]

I think both your ideas have merit. Both models MUST have the chemistry of all players AND parents having college goals, and knowing exactly what that entails. The difference between grooming that team from a young age like 10u vs. recruiting them at around 14u -16u means that you have higher odds over time of losing a larger percentage of players to competitor teams. There are examples of both concepts. Team Coke seemed to always be a collection of 16u superstars, while teams like the Slammers started with a core and we all saw the evolution of that group.

Then there's the biggie - academics. How do you convince kids AND parents that college coaches just won't take chances on a kid with a lack of academic drive? I've personally seen about a half dozen kids who were easily DI prospects on the field, but were passed over because of grades. HS grades, like college scholarship $$$ just seems to be a taboo subject. Unfortunately, a kid with college ball goals MUST face the fact that HS grades and ACT/SAT scores are at least half of the battle in getting a decent college athletic scholarship.

It's no secret that I think high level travel ball is synonymous with softball scholarships. That's what it for. It's "training" for college ball. There are many summer teams whose sole purpose is to market their players. Some claim to "train from the cradle", while others just recruit the best from other teams. Which method is best? Does it even matter if the players are the ones who benefit from an athletic scholarship?

So, what would be the perfect "machine" to produce scholarship players? My opinion is that the team simply provides the venue for exposure. It's the development OFF the field that makes players great. A coach who has strict requirements of self-development which requires a strong "practice at home" mentality gets my vote. Team practice is where it all comes together, and not the time to learn how to catch and throw. Next is an open system between coach and player for "grade reporting" during high school. If a player fails in the classroom, they are also failing the team. Just as a college coach requires study tables, so should a summer coach. Provide a voluntary system of academic intervention. The alternative is to cut players who are academic risks, but I'm not a fan of that. Sure, it's a lot of work to help with academics, but what about a team effort? What better lesson to teach a college bound kid?

P.S. - The results your teams have shown to date rank up there pretty well in my book.

 

[default]

@Sammy:

Thanks, as always, for a well thought response. You hit the nail on the head with your succinct statement that this is about "'train from the cradle', while others just recruit the best from other teams."

As I've also expressed in my OP, I'm fond of the "train from the cradle" premise, though none of us would be naive enough to suggest that the 11-12 that you started with will be there at the end of the age road. We feel lucky that we have had eight players (on the existing team, more if you count some who left earlier) for multiple years and five players from their 11u year. But I also know that if one conducts try-outs at first year 16u, you have a much better view of the academics and the commitment to the individual player's commitment to self-development, which includes commitments to utilizing resources outside of the team and a commitment to spending hours outside of team practice, or to work with paid coaches.

Sometimes it all runs together: floating around in my head are the facts that these days loyalty seems at times to be a one way street (players committing to return and then leaving for "better" exposure opportunities in October or later); that players often won't take instruction or work harder as Mahoe suggests they must in her piece; that it is hard to get agreement on how many expensive (mostly in terms of travel) tournaments to play in a season; and (in contrast to the foregoing) that so many kids and families turn out to be salt of the earth team members that you as a coach feel great about spending hours and money to help.

As you know, academics and educational opportunities are a big part of the value system for Ted and me. And I think you have, both consciously and perhaps unconsciously, identified the conflict in having those values and coaching a softball team. You suggest that we should come as close as possible to conducting our team with part of our resources directed to "study tables" for the players. But you also suggest that we shouldn't cut players when the academic results don't come through. There is an inherent tension in those two suggestions.

At the risk of modesty, I think Ted and I could do a decent job of being "study table" coaches; he's got an undergraduate degree from Wesleyan Connecticut, a PhD from Stanford, and is a full professor at Kenyon who participates in summer retention courses for incoming first year students; I have an undergraduate degree from Stanford, a J.D. from the University of Virginia, and a career that includes teaching law school. That said, however: 1) being a "study table" coach would involve a tremendous amount of commitment in time; 2 &3) it is not at all clear to me that parents or players would react favorably to a more aggressive "study table" approach; and 4) as you acknowledge, making cuts for players who don't measure up academically is not a pleasant or necessarily justifiable act.

Again, thanks for advancing the dialogue and making me think hard about why it is we spend this time on the sport and what principles should guide us in the endeavor.

 

[default]

Well stated guys,
the other issue is at 14's 90% of the high level team players think they want to play in college and some are better at that age due to others not physically maturing at same rate. At 16's 80% of the players are probably thinking they want to play in college and others are catching them skill and size wise and personal doubt starts creeping in. Then the 18's hit and either through personal issues, personal choices, jobs, boyfriends, life takes over and the true deep down feeling is only 50% truly want to play in college. The other 50% are playing because they think they want to, or they think their parents want them to. Delicate balance with that last one, along with burnout of playing all those years since what age 10/12 for most? So finding that nirvana of all 13 girls on the same page at the later years is a tough one regardless. Rare if it happens, but it could if the fun and drive is still there..... If it's not fun, then why bother, even with your job, if you don't enjoy it, you'd better find one you do.......

But Sammy hit the home run with the GRADES, you aren't making a living playing ball, so the grades better be there for your Major for the career for the rest of your life....

Just thoughts from over the years.....

 

[default]

The study tables idea is loosely based on a disciplined approach that seems to be universal in college. I just took it a step further from where my DD's 16u travel coach was headed with it. Regardless, grade monitoring should be an integral part of a successful college showcase team. Parents and players need to understand that it's not intended to be a brow-beating session, but rather encouragement for self improvement. Even if college softball isn't in the cards, the discipline for study will go a long way towards any career. My DD had decent grades, but was not a 4.0 student. But she was a determined, organized kid with a tremendous work/study ethic. The trick to team building is finding a core group who understands just how far a great work ethic will take you - even without "perfect" grades. There's something to be said for busting your butt both on the field and in the classroom.

 

[default]

cgs,
It's difficult for any coach to get the skilled players he/she would need to compete, if a coach must also concern themselves with test scores and gpa's it becomes overwhelming and the coach is going somewhere that they don't belong...Academics and fitness are the player's responsibility.... A coach is meant to teach, in this case softball... Individual and team skills...
Arranging practices and a competitive, affordable schedule is a huge task...
Ron

 

[default]

Tend to agree with Ron on this ... I do think a coach can and probably should constantly remind his college-bound players how important academics are in the equation.

 

[default]

cgs,
It's difficult for any coach to get the skilled players he/she would need to compete, if a coach must also concern themselves with test scores and gpa's it becomes overwhelming and the coach is going somewhere that they don't belong...Academics and fitness are the player's responsibility.... A coach is meant to teach, in this case softball... Individual and team skills...
Arranging practices and a competitive, affordable schedule is a huge task...
Ron

I agree with you that academics and fitness are the player's responsibility. But I'm guessing that you would agree there isn't much shot of helping a travel ball player get a college opportunity unless the player has good grades and a good standardized test score. The issue that got me started thinking about the "train from the cradle" model versus the "conduct try-outs for a new team at 16u" model is that a travel ball coach has very little control or ability to predict academic success under the "train from the cradle" model. And if the goal, or one of the goals, is to get college opportunities for the players, then the travel ball coach spends a lot of time developing ties with college coaches, helping the players with their recruiting efforts and just generally understanding how and why players get an initial look from college coaches. If that travel ball coach is in a "train from the cradle" model, not only does he or she have little ability to predict who among the, say, 11u class will have the academic stuff to get college opportunities but the travel ball coach also loses much of the benefit and momentum from efforts related to college recruiting when he or she cycles back down to start the "train from the cradle" model all over again.

In contrast, if the travel ball coach holds open try-outs at first year 16u, there is some more reliable information available regarding academic success and, to be frank, regarding softball talent. And prior contacts and experience in the college recruiting process can continue to generate momentum for each successive team.

My heart is tied to the "train from the cradle" model but my head tells me that, especially when you don't have a child playing on the team, the "retool every year at 16u" model gets the most benefit for players seeking college opportunities.

To make clear what I hope should be obvious, neither Sammy nor I are talking about "retooling" by poaching players who have committed to other teams. We are talking about decisions that are made when the travel ball coach comes to the end of the year (summer, that is) and is making decisions about what to do and how to construct try-outs for the next softball year.

 

[default]

I agree with you that academics and fitness are the player's responsibility. But as a Showcase level coach it is our responsibility to field a team the has all the players on the same page. Remember that a TEAM that plays well will get looks from college coaches. Playing well usually means the team is fit. If that isn't the case with all the players, those that aren't usually don't get much dirt time when it counts. Academics are a whole other story. Again college coaches tend to follow good teams. I know that the first question I get from coaches concerns their academic situation. That is why in our case we don't add players that don't have the grades that satisfy the coaches needs.

Unfortunately in Florida growing a team from 12's through 18's isn't possible. It is a shame. Because we draw kids from a larger geographical area we live by the adage - you develop your skills and improve as a player at home, you earn your position and playing time at practices and games are where you perform.

 

[default]

we live by the adage - you develop your skills and improve as a player at home, you earn your position and playing time at practices and games are where you perform.

Amen brother!

 

[default]

cgs,
There are lots of good/bad reasons a player will struggle with school-work and some of these reasons you might not want to have knowledge of... Players that are academically unfit for DI must use the JUCO plan... That's why it's there... I've had players that had to use it... Your interest and good-will should be praised, but I would regard some of this kind of help intrusive...
Ron

 

[default]

cgs,
Your interest and good-will should be praised, but I would regard some of this kind of help intrusive...
Ron

I think you have misinterpreted my posts. We have never given "help" academically to any of our players and in fact didn't even know most of their academic standing until creating the summary sheets required by some Showcase tournaments. My point was that we probably could conduct "study tables" or give other advice about academics, but for the reasons that I laid out, that is probably not a viable approach. As I think I at least implied in stating those reasons, I agree that many if not most families would consider that intrusive. So that leaves us with the question whether to just leave the academics to play out on its own in the "train from the cradle" approach or to adopt a "retool at 16u" model that requires the player to submit academic information as part of the try-out process.

 

[default]

If the team is a "college showcase" team all the players desire to play at the next level so, it should be the team/player primary goal to go to the next level... At 16 and above here is were you have the biggest drop off in players for a variety of reasons so it is just about impossible to take an entire team through the process from the beginning of their playing.

Academics are HUGE since the ladies will not play ball past college for the most part...D1 to NAIA a quality education is what matters most... It does not matter how well you can play if your degree is in basket weaving it is a waste of everyones time IMHO....So, take that 8th Grade career assessment plan they completed and put it to use... To best generate college opportunities the ladies "need guidance" in the process as well as support from the guardian/parent, the process starts by gaining the physical/mental skill to play the game and understanding where and how to use the resources available to them.
It takes mom and dad proofing correspondence early on so, by the junior year they are proficient with communication letters etc. When you look at the NCAA guidelines for core credit requirements for 2015 grads the High School guidance department also needs to be aware of potential desires by the student to play at the next level.

A lot of good coaches decide to stay under 16U because there is more work involved at 16U and 18U outside of game and practice management to help the players.

I expect players on my team to 'follow given instruction" as it relates to recruiting and e marketing... When a coach takes on managing players for showcase events you need to follow up with the players to make sure profiles are up to date and accurate and the players are doing what they need to do to generate interest.
I also give players advice on scholarships "outside of athletics" to help them in their quest at the next level. I also make available resources to help them with their ACT and help them make "realistic choices" as it relates to post secondary options...


Playing tournament ball is a small requirement however; it is my belief that if a player wants to play beyond HS there are schools/colleges they can attend that can allow that opportunity to extend their playing time and get a degree if they work. Parents and Players need to keep in mind, the work off the field is harder than the work on the field....

 

[default]

When we were down at the U of Tennessee camp and U of Alabama camp this past week, both Coach R. Weekly and Coach Murphy stated the same thing concerning grades. Coach Weekly stated he lost a girl because her academics were fine, but her CORE classes were short, therefore was ineligible to play. He told us his requirement to play for them was 3.0 and no less. In order to get recruited by them, you needed to be higher than that. One lady asked if a girl was doing everything she can (like tutors) and still can't make the grade, he said then she still shouldn't play ball. If it's taking that much time to just to make grade, how can she expect to add a fully loaded softball schedule.

Coach Murphy told the campers if your batting average is higher than your GPA, then you should not be playing ball (granted there are those who have that .400+ batting average).

 

[default]

Grade monitoring can be construed as personally intrusive, but it's a necessary part of building a team of college eligible recruits. Academic performance should be held in strict confidence between the player, her parents and the coach. While it's one thing to be embarrassed about poor grades, it's also a waste of a coaches time to showcase a kid who is not performing in the classroom to college coaches. For a kid who IS struggling academically, there are MANY avenues for help - but a kid MUST make the effort. I'm betting ANY kid on cgs's team has tremendous resource guidance - just by asking.

My point is that if a kid TRULY wants to play college ball bad enough, she'll bust her tail trying to overcome the academic shortfall. Some kids just get by - but hey, that's all it takes! As Ron stated, there may be extenuating personal circumstances that affect academics. JUCO is a wonderful safety net, and is an excellent place to "get it going". If I remember, Cathi Aradi talks about the JUCO path in her book.

IMO, intrusive or not, a showcase team coach has every right to require a minimum core grade average. Managing a team at the 16u level & up with a heavy showcase travel schedule is mentally and physically draining. I think it's extremely fair to ask EVERY player to work at least as hard as the coach - both on and off the field.

 

[default]

Sammy wrote:
"IMO, intrusive or not, a showcase team coach has every right to require a minimum core grade average."

In my opinion this is not true!

I am not a lawyer but have tried to stay as up to date in discrimination due to learning disabilities. Requiring a minimum grade point average on a SOFTBALL team not affiliated with a school could be illegal discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Even the NCAA had to modify their eligibilty criteria due to a ADA lawsuit. Here is one site that outlines a few cases: Department of Justice ADA Settlements and Consent Agreements

Also, their are privacy requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) that I would doubt the typical travel coach would be familiar with. I've been dealing with these as a parent for 12 years and still am baffled by the rules.

If my daughter was ever cut from a travel youth sports team soley because of grades, I would definitely consider legal action!

 

[default]

fadge61,
Good Post...
Ron Poole

 

[default]

I would like to think that we would be sensitive to learning disability issues. But as a former practicing lawyer, I don't think we have any ADA issues, since we don't have any employees. IDEA and FERPA issues I would have to look at. I highly doubt, however, that there would be a successful cause of action if the travel ball organization asked for disclosure of GPA and any college entrance test scores on its team try-out application. You can always refuse to give that information and the travel ball organization can then decide not to offer a position on the team.

As I said, if there were a documented learning disability issue, that is something that I personally would take into account when deciding whether the grades were good enough for a college exposure team. But I highly doubt I would have taken the lawsuit you describe on a contingency fee basis when I was practicing.

 

[default]

"If my daughter was ever cut from a travel youth sports team soley because of grades, I would definitely consider legal action!"

I think if you willingly sign the team agreement to do so at the beginning of the season, the suit would not hold merit.

 

[default]

Fadge61's daughter has played for me going on 3 years, and i can say without a doubt that she gets as much if not more college coach inquiries than any one on the team. When advised that her grades arent up to "standards" , I have had more than a few coaches (majority div 1's) comment that they have ways and programs to help a player in her situation. running a 2.63 H to 1st has a way of catching thier attention. Bottom line is if they want the player, grades are not going to keep them from pursuing the player.

Edit:

I am not saying grades arent important by any means, they are a important part of the recruiting process. Some school have high academic standards (i think JoeA's school wants a 30 SAT lol) Better grades are instrumental in receiving academic money towards your tuition, which could influence whether you are able to attend or not.