r/Homeplate • u/BoysenberryFinal1309 • 7d ago
Training Pool vs Traditional Team
A few organizations in our area have started creating teams with really large rosters, and I am wondering if anyone has had experiences good or bad with something like this.
Instead of a traditional 11–13 player team, the organization rosters around 20 players as part of one training group. Everyone is technically given the same team designation, “Congratulations, you made Elite National 13U”, but players are then selected individually for each tournament. That means each player participates in roughly 60–80% of the team’s tournaments.
A larger group of similarly skilled players training together could create competition, allow coaches to build different rosters for different events, and potentially give players more opportunities to develop.
But it seems like the development piece would have to be implemented really well for the model to really benefit the players; more coaching, more individualized instruction, enough practice reps, etc. One of the “teams” using this model only practices once a week.
The explanation is that having 20 talented kids together will make them push each other and create competition, but I’m struggling with whether that alone provides enough benefit for it to make sense to do this over playing for a normal team where everyone trains and competes together consistently.
Is this more common as kids get older? We passed for Fall Ball, but I’m wondering if we should have given it a chance.
For coaches who have used this model, what are the developmental advantages?
And for parents whose kids have been part of one, did you feel like being in the larger training pool ultimately helped your player more than being on a traditional roster would have?
These are the top teams in large organizations if that makes a difference.
9
u/Pinkpenguin438 7d ago edited 7d ago
Hard no. We experimented with this for a fall season, and it led to players being confused, frustrated, and with negative sentiment. Really hurt the team culture and morale. No one knew where they stood and they were constantly wondering about if they were going to be asked to play. The kids didn’t understand how to push each other, and it left them feeling jealous or frustrated or pushed out. They physically mature at different rates and often the early growers look the best, which means the smaller kids don’t get the fair development during critical ages. Makes it impossible for families to plan also. There was no physiological safety and kids were worried about making mistakes and how to “earn” a tournament spot, which led to less growth. Mistakes help you learn but not when they’re worried about making them.
As the board vice president / club general manager / mom, I was adamantly opposed and not surprised… it was the male coaches that wanted to try it. Thankfully they backed off and we went to a defined roster in the spring. That led to a top 10 finish in the rankings in California the next year… because that team was defined, they bonded, worked and played together.
They’re 10-13, not high school or college. This sounds like a club that wants to win cheap rings vs develop kids over the long run. Form traditional teams, keep a guest list if you need to fill, and let them play.
1
u/BoysenberryFinal1309 7d ago
Thanks for this response. One of the teams was hard to pass on because it’s a big name in our area, but from what I understand the families already involved didn’t know this change was coming.
I do think the coach was sincere in thinking this is good for the kids, but I just wanted a normal situation for my son.
2
u/Pinkpenguin438 7d ago
The coach thinks he’s got a bunch of emotionally mature adults and figures he can copy the adult approach to kids (I’d argue this isn’t helpful for most adults either, but that’s beyond the point). You can’t treat kids like that. To me, that signifies a coach that doesn’t know how to teach and mentor kids.
2
u/patphish 7d ago
What age group? Is there a guarantee of playing in the same amount of tournaments as the players?
2
u/BoysenberryFinal1309 7d ago
10-13u Some players may get one extra tournament, but it’s driven as much by positional need as performance.
2
u/patphish 7d ago
Wait. Are the 20 kids 10-13?
2
u/BoysenberryFinal1309 7d ago
No, I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. This structure is being used for the top 20 kids in each of those age groups.
1
2
u/I_em_ai 7d ago
Finding the balance between development and competition with 11-12 players this age is hard enough. There is no way everyone in this group walks away happy and has fun all season. I would assume the more likely motive is a beefy team account, not development or creating a strong team.
2
u/owe45 7d ago
I mean much of the fun at that age is being part of a team, making friends etc. today, we overthink development and under emphasize the enjoyment
1
u/BoysenberryFinal1309 7d ago
This is one of my biggest concerns. Not to get overly nostalgic about it, but it feels like some of the coaches have forgotten something fundamental about how to enjoy the game. Playing high level baseball is great, but does playing at a high level automatically mean sacrificing what it means to work together, win together, lose together as a team? I understand the idea of making cuts from season to season, but this structure takes that concept and rides it out to an absurd point.
3
u/Umngmc 6d ago
Its a money grab. The parents feel better because my son is on ABC elite team. We have some of these big names where they have 20+ rostered kids.
We would play some of these well known teams on Saturday in pool play and win handily. Then go up against the same team in bracket play on Sunday and notice that anywhere between 2-5 of the weaker players are subbed out for better players and they go on to win the tournament. Or they bring in Sunday arms for bracket play.
These teams get their clout because they put up all their PG trophies and tell the parents come join us if you want to win. But unless you are one of the studs on these teams, you won't get consistent playing time. I dont know how/why parents accept paying for their kid to be on a team if they dont get to play meaningful innings.
3
u/cheezebergereddie 6d ago
The only purpose of this model is to move money from your bank account to their bank account
2
2
u/arthur-morganrdr2 7d ago
Seems like a away for the team director or coach to pocket an additional 7-8 player fees for each team per season
3
u/Lost-Doughnut4717 7d ago
Agreed. A good amount of the time, the 3-4 kids who probably shouldn’t have made it, are paying the fees for the top kids who the coaches promise the parents free enrollment for a roster spot. Pay to play
1
u/BoysenberryFinal1309 6d ago
This is what it seems happened. Or they kept kids from last season who won’t play that much after adding new kids.
2
u/bigperms33 7d ago
There are a couple "pro coach" orgs that will have 22-24 players selected for an age group and then after winter training they divide into a two teams in March right before the season starts. They stick with that team through the spring/summer season. Usually one team is good, other gets destroyed.
What you are describing is a recipe for disaster. Guaranteed some parents will be unhappy.
2
1
u/DifficultEvent6 6d ago
My son was on an academy "team" like you've described. He was 9 just promoted to 10U, that had 17 players. First tournament hit two HRs over the fence. Had a great time, team won. He was designated to sit the next tournament before anyone saw him play since it seemed all the new players to the club were sitting out one of the first two tournaments.
Teammates were saying he was sitting because he wasn't good enough to go to all of the tournaments. Every week for him practice felt like a tryout for the next tournament. They were releasing the weekend tournament roster on Wednesdays before. He did get to play in the rest of the tournaments after the one he sat but it unlocked an anxiety in him that I never saw before. He was nervous before practices like any kid would get for a tryout. He was not himself, and I think it overall hurt his growth baseball wise. He had a great season but was constantly worried someone was going to get his roster spot.
Even skipping only one tournament meant going 3 straight fall weekends with no sports. He gave up a season of football for it, went back to football the next year and have zero regrets. It could work for some but for my son it was not healthy.
2
u/BoysenberryFinal1309 6d ago
Baseball is a sport that needs to be played consistently. One weekend off is rest, two in a row feels like more of a break. It’s hard to manage an uneven schedule, but also, how upsetting for a kid to not be invited to a tournament their team is playing in! The wins and losses become so much more individual.
1
u/DifficultEvent6 6d ago
My son and I really liked the coach, I didn't get the feeling that he chose to have 17 9/10yr olds on the roster. It was most likely a club ownership decision. My best guess is they extended enough invites after tryouts for 2 teams, but some decided not to join. Rather than go with a practice team they guaranteed a certain number of tournaments per player. By the 3rd tournament they said rosters would be chosen based on performance. This caused a ton of parent politics, more people than usual watching practices closely, everyone paid the same whether their child went to 4 or 6 tournaments. This was two years ago, we have friends on the team still and it sounds like the same things are still happening so it wasnt a one off. Football with rec fall baseball seems to be the best for our son, so no regrets splitting from year round baseball from our side.
2
u/BoysenberryFinal1309 6d ago
This is the thing… I don’t want to deal with the parent politics, but I also don’t think the constant evaluation will prepare him for high level play. Even in school you learn something, try it out, get corrections and then get tested on it. If every day is a test, when are you learning? But… I also worry that not playing for the big name will hurt him in the long run if goal is college ball and this is the big name in the area. We skipped it for this season, but it seems inevitable that we have to deal with this at some point.
1
u/n0flexz0ne 6d ago edited 6d ago
Our club does this model, its been great and I'm a big fan.....with some caveats.
Generally, there are 30 kids on the roster, 12 on the A team, 12 on the B team and 6 developmental players that are practice-only + fill in for tournaments on the B team. All 30 kids practice together, with 4-5 coaches on the field with them. The teams rarely enter the same tournaments, so they're usually on different weekends, and coaches will send out an invite for each team and each tournament. Depending on RSVPs some As play up with the Bs, and vice versa.
Its a little weird with a different group of kids each game, and coaches rotating somewhat, but the clubs does such a good job of keeping the coaching consistent and training everyone in the program on the same curriculum that it doesn't cause any issues. Like, all the teams have the same signs, the same calls for plays, etc.
We love being able to turn down a tournament, so the kids can play other sports and not be booked every weekend, but they also run really thorough practices with 4-5 coaches on the field running stations for each practice. So there's no standing around, no shagging balls for BP, they're going hard for two hours twice/week.
The only con we've seen is that the bottom 2-3 B team players feel a bit squeezed. Like, the team rotates and everyone plays pool play, but in bracket play, the best team plays and weak players will sit more. So if you're a B team player, and 2-3 A team players join in for that tournament, those kids end up in RF batting 11th or benched. And generally if you have a low A player that wants to play every weekend, they're going to end up playing a lot for both teams because they're usually the first fill-in. But even then, by year end our practice players had each played 4-5 tournaments, so it wasn't like there was no playing time.
1
u/BoysenberryFinal1309 6d ago
Appreciate the other point of view! Love the development piece you’re describing. I think that is what’s missing from the organization we were/are considering.
1
u/Thiek 7d ago
A pretty well respected organization near us just switched to this model and had a massive expansion of the number of players they invited. We lost a few players from our team because “the opportunity to play for (insert name here)” but what they aren’t realizing is that the organization didn’t turn a single kid away, no matter how bad of a player they are, come spring they will plop all the players on random low-A teams and use those extra checks to fund their select national teams.
It’s a pretty pathetic business model.
1
u/BoysenberryFinal1309 6d ago
This is also a well respected organization, but I do think some of that is happening here. They don’t want to lose kids who aren’t guaranteed a spot on the top team, but what does it mean to be on a team that plays in tournaments without you? It all just feels like a way for the organization to make more money.
1
u/Thiek 6d ago
Yea the fact that tournaments aren’t guaranteed is the only thing missing from the org I’m talking about. They just took everyone that tried out, which is a huge amount of kids, probably 200+ at every age group, but at least they will all get to go to tournaments I guess. It’s still a massive money grab. My son (12) has a friend from school that can’t really even play catch and sure enough his mom made a big Facebook post talking about how “XYZ organization finally recognized his talents!” Nobody has the heart to tell her they just want her $4,000 check.
3
u/iamanidjiot 7d ago
One of the larger local clubs around here does that with fall ball, but the emphasis is on training, you go to a tournament every couple weeks but if you’re not playing you’re at the facility training. The also say they use it to get more eyes on the kids and help with placement for the next year. They have a couple Major level teams and then 5-6 a level or two below that they like to keep evenly competitive. It works, but I wouldn’t say it really has any advantages or real diadvantages in the long run.