Yeah, Heinie is a little sensitive about travel ball.
We've had plenty of off-SoSH discussions on such matters.
In defense of it, I think as long as the coaches and programs are clear up front about the goals and emphasis for the particular season, it's on the parents (with consultation with the players) to decide if that works for their kids. And it's not necessarily an "either/or" zero sum game on "playing to win/player development." I'll use our travel baseball team as an example - we played a lot of games (We'll do about 50, but about 20% of those are playoffs), and batted the entire order, sometimes reversing it, pitched everybody at least once, but 7 of 12 guys pitched consistently (2 of the other 5 were our catchers), and all players were in the field at least 2/3s of game. Kids played at least 2 positions in field, many 3-4. When playoffs hit, the roster rules change, and we strategically have subs vs. batting everybody, and go for the wins a bit more, although all will get in. I'm sure there's plenty to criticize in those previous two sentences (ex - we decided, with a consult with parents, to do two leagues instead of just one, leading to more games and less practices = less developmental) - next year the team will only do one league, which should result in about 30-35 games total with tournaments.
The problems with the above are a) coaches and programs don't always communicate well with parents up front on plans and expectations, b) coaches often say one thing, do another in too extreme a manner, c) parents hear what they want to hear, then get mad when things don't go the way they like. It's very, very hard to be 100% consistent as a coach throughout a season, especially as circumstances change due to injuries or player behavior, but the coach has to try. I don't think parents necessarily appreciate or understand that all the time.
And no one is making any kids do the travel thing. There are local/fun/more developmental programs for each sport in each season (baseball, basketball), or different levels of team quality/goals within a program (soccer, lacrosse), so there is some choice. The problem is insecurity in parents about not having their kids participate at the highest level possible, even if playing "down" might actually be better for the player from a developmental standpoint. Guilty as charged here, although I'm fighting it hard. There's somewhat of a legit concern that local coaching won't be as good as the the travel coaching, and that the less reps/practices at the local level stunts the development in comparison to travel programs, or perhaps that they jeaopardize the kid's chances of making school teams later in life if they leave or opt out of the travel feeder programs, but if size/player growth is the most determinitive factor in player success early, then a parent should be confident that where they kid plays at this level doesn't matter. It'll all come out in the wash was players are more fully grown (thus evening out the early size advantage) and there's hopefully unbiased non-parents coaching at the higher/older levels, and players will be chosen for teams based on merit.
Yes, the previous sentence is somewhat of a unicorn, but one can hope!
I am pretty sure my son is going back to rec hoops after a difficult and disappointing town travel team experience last winter. I have wrestled with how to deal with the situation (try to get a different coach or influence program to change how it does things vs. merely voting with our feet and leaving), but my kid right now doesn't really want any part of it if things don't change, and that's the first question and last answer. It needs to be fun, first and foremost. He loves baseball, so he has fun within the more demanding environment, but for soccer and hoops, there's no payoff for forcing him into a miserable situation for the wrong reasons. I'm looking forward to getting off the travel sports hamster wheel for a season if that's how it works out.
