Radical unschooling and organized sports - Page 6

[Kessed]

Originally Posted by zeldamomma

How do you find a good sports program? How do figure out how to work sports into your kids life? Should I wait until they ask, or seek something out? I have known people who can spot athletic ability in their kids, but since I don't know anything about most sports, I haven't any idea what direction to pursue.

Any thoughts?

For me - I would try to find a community based group which doesn't group kids by skill - but rather by some other arbitrary reason like where they live. That way there will be a mix of skills in the group. This will also mean that there will be less emphasis on 'winning' and more on skill development and having fun.

If you can't find that kind of group - then look for a BIG club. That way there will be many teams in each age group and it will be more likely for there to be a team where you kids fit in. Small clubs will often have a couple 'elite' teams and not care about the rest. But large clubs will have enough resources to work with all the teams.

As a coach - if you kid is having trouble with some kind of skill. It is ALWAYS a nice idea to ask the coach is there is some way to practice that skill with your kid at home IF the kid wants to. If you have an issue with the way the coach is doing something - please talk to the coach about it. Don't just tell your kid to do something different. I had one parent who didn't like the way I taught throw ins - so he taught his DD a different way and made her do them that way. What he didn't know is that the girls had developed there own 'method'... They spent most of a practice as a group coming up with different plans, organizing drills to try them out, and then figureing out what they wanted to use in the games. (I may be a RU - but I'm totally into letting kids learn by experimenting)

[bellymama]

when i wrote this:

it's just biology, it's not about oppressing anyone's spirit, it's about preventing injury.

i meant exactly what i said. there was no secret meaning, or passive aggressive intent. i meant that regardless of what lifestyle philosophy you want to have in your life, both encouraging free will, free spiritedness and self education vs. highly regimented, rigid and organized education, the basic biology of the human body is the same...it doesn't change. if you engage in intense activity (which, where i come from, ultimate frisbee can be...i mean, all you do is run you ass off after a frisbee) with out a proper warm-up, you have a high chance of injury. that's just a fact. doesn't matter how you feel about education, children's rights, etc. that's all i meant.

and i agree that kids sports can be taken waaaay to seriously, in terms of encouraging competitiveness or teaching people that winning is the only thing that matters. however, i DON'T think that taking the warm-up seriously is wrong, or that it encourages a negative attitude in anyone. that's all i meant.

[mammal_mama]

That's cool, bellymama! I'm sorry I misunderstood you. But guess what -- I didn't see anyone here, including the OP, advocating not taking warming-up seriously. There's just disagreement over how that warming-up has to happen.

[AngelBee]

I do not see an RU factor in this.....unless YOU are the coach.

I understand your frustration, but unless you are willing to coach the team, it is up to the coach to set the tone for his or her team.

Lesson learned for your son: You can not choose how people run things, but you CAN choose to participate or not.

[AngelBee]

bellymama.....I teach dance too!

[AngelBee]

Originally Posted by UUMom

ETA: Premature thread ejaculation. My kids need me.

If anyone responds again *I'll be baaakk".

I think I just peed myself!

[mama in the forest]

I found this whole thread somewhat disturbing.

Fourlittlebirds stated exactly what she wanted to discuss:

but basically it's about organized sports and the associated schoolish "teacher as god" mentality.

and clearly she wanted to discuss it from a radical unschooling/consensual living perspective. Not only that, but I see several posters not actually reading what she was writing. Reading it indepth, that is.

What's the point of coming to this thread, stating, and restating how you do believe in the teacher as god mentality? We get it. Let's move on and get to what she really wanted to discuss.

[Kessed]

Originally Posted by mama in the forest

What's the point of coming to this thread, stating, and restating how you do believe in the teacher as god mentality? We get it. Let's move on and get to what she really wanted to discuss.

I don't believe in the "teacher as God" mentality. But, nothing the OP has posted has indicated that the coach was acting with that mentality.

He *gasp* encouraged her son to run. Then he *gasp* tried to get a kid you wasn't participating to participate. That's his job! That's what he volunteered for. How is he to know that the kid didn't want to participate because he's being raised by a RU? I coached plenty of children who didn't want to participate because they were having a rough day, or their mom yelled at them in the car, or they didn't like the team sock color (he was a fun kid - and I'm not being sarcastic, but he had definite ideas about how he thought things should be)... And - if I spent a little bit of 1 on 1 time with them, I could convince them to participate - and once they were participating they had fun.

After all, in general, kids don't join teams when they don't want to.

I think that the OP is confusing the "teacher as God" mentality with the mentality of someone who is in charge and responsible for a large group of children. It is necessary for a coach to keep the kids generally moving in the same direction. The importance of crowd control cannot be underestimate.

[Serendipity]

Originally Posted by Kessed

I don't believe in the "teacher as God" mentality. But, nothing the OP has posted has indicated that the coach was acting with that mentality.

He *gasp* encouraged her son to run. Then he *gasp* tried to get a kid you wasn't participating to participate. That's his job! That's what he volunteered for. How is he to know that the kid didn't want to participate because he's being raised by a RU? I coached plenty of children who didn't want to participate because they were having a rough day, or their mom yelled at them in the car, or they didn't like the team sock color (he was a fun kid - and I'm not being sarcastic, but he had definite ideas about how he thought things should be)... And - if I spent a little bit of 1 on 1 time with them, I could convince them to participate - and once they were participating they had fun.

After all, in general, kids don't join teams when they don't want to.

I think that the OP is confusing the "teacher as God" mentality with the mentality of someone who is in charge and responsible for a large group of children. It is necessary for a coach to keep the kids generally moving in the same direction. The importance of crowd control cannot be underestimate.

i think the problem is that the OP felt the coach was using intimidation, coercion, guilt what-have-you to get him to participate. is that what you did during your one-on-one time with students? do you think that's acceptable?

now, we are RU's and my son has participated in a lot of athletics, as well as theater etc. and he seems to just 'get' that he has to listen to the teacher/coach etc. he's never questioned it or had a problem with it. actually, during piano lessons he hated doing the workbook pages and i just gave him a lot of help with it and basically did it with him and some for him so that he met the requirement, and the teacher was awesome. i'm not sure how i would respond in OP's situation with someone in authority who felt intimidation was an OK method to use with my kids. i would certainly make it clear i wasn't OK with that. but, i basically feel like kids do need to learn that not everyone does things the way we do, i can do what i can to help but not everyone can accommodate us and that's just life, take it or leave it but maybe that's not very RU of me.

OP- did the coach explain the physical aspects of needing to warm up or was he just using 'your part of a team, i'm the coach yada-yada'?

[bellymama]

i thought the OP said he wasn't mean, and that he was a nice guy?

[Kessed]

Originally Posted by granolapunk

i think the problem is that the OP felt the coach was using intimidation, coercion, guilt what-have-you to get him to participate. is that what you did during your one-on-one time with students? do you think that's acceptable?

I didn't use anything other than the truth. On my teams it is a requirement to participate in the practice in order to be allowed to play in the game. I'm not a hardass. Obviously, if a kid misses a practice because they are sick or have an occasional other commitment - then they are still allowed to play. But if a player chooses not to participate in drills - then they don't play as much. I reward effort. That's one of the big reasons I prefer to coach rec soccer rather than elite soccer (I've done both). I don't like being forced to reward skill rather than effort.

From the OP I didn't get the sense that the coach was actually using any thing that a non RU would consider coercion or intimidation. There is NOTHING wrong with a coach trying to convince a kid to participate. I'm all for respecting my kid and allowing her to choose yes or no. But that doesn't mean I only ask once. Even though DD is only 18 months, she will often say 'No' first - and then once she sees us eating/doing something - if you ask her again she will say 'yes'. Older kids aren't too much different.

I also think that a coach has an obligation to try their best to get kids to participate.

now, we are RU's and my son has participated in a lot of athletics, as well as theater etc. and he seems to just 'get' that he has to listen to the teacher/coach etc. he's never questioned it or had a problem with it. actually, during piano lessons he hated doing the workbook pages and i just gave him a lot of help with it and basically did it with him and some for him so that he met the requirement, and the teacher was awesome. i'm not sure how i would respond in OP's situation with someone in authority who felt intimidation was an OK method to use with my kids. i would certainly make it clear i wasn't OK with that. but, i basically feel like kids do need to learn that not everyone does things the way we do, i can do what i can to help but not everyone can accommodate us and that's just life, take it or leave it but maybe that's not very RU of me.

And I agree with this. I think that kids should learn that different people do things differently. I also believe that my child will be shaped by the people she has primary contact with.

Her grandparents don't always interact with her in the same way we do - they tell her she "can't" do things alot.... "Oh - you can't climb on that"... It bugs me. But I'm confident that the small amount of time she spends with them being slightly limited in what she is permitted to do - won't destroy her.

OP- did the coach explain the physical aspects of needing to warm up or was he just using 'your part of a team, i'm the coach yada-yada'?

She said that he explained that it was both important in the sense of preventing injury and as being part of a team.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by UUMom

So does your kid want to play on his team? How long is the run? How many paractices have there been and what has your child decided about it? [...] Please tell me how much they need to run, how long, and why the coach won't let your kid walk! [...]

My answer to most of this is four posts before yours, post #40, and in more detail in my previous posts. I don't understand why you're asking though -- are you wanting to decide for yourself whether it's okay for my son to opt out of the run or not? Why? The issue is not whether this particular expectation is objectively correct, that's a pointless conversation to have, because there is no objectively correct answer. The coach has one idea of what's appropriate; I have another; my son's body has another. The issue is whether it's reasonable to expect people to respect others' personal body knowledge.

Is it a reasonable expectataion to have children warm up before an Ultimate Sport?

As I've said: It's reasonable to warm up to hard activity. It's reasonable for the person responsible to lay down rules under which s/he's comfortable being responsible. It's reasonable to object to those rules that one is averse to. It's reasonable to come to a compromise between those two things if both parties are amenable. It's reasonable to part ways if that doesn't work. What's not reasonable, as I've said over and over and over, is to not respect a person's "no" and to try to make them do something they are averse to.

Originally Posted by bellymama

but sometimes the joy of playing equals some hard work. why is hard work considered bad?

It's not. What is bad is for a person to decide that that's what it should be for someone else.

but if you put your kid on a team, the kid is going to be expected to participate with the team. it's a no brainer. the only and obvious solution here is that your kid shouldn't be on a team, that he should just play pick-up games at his leisure. no matter how much you love the concept of free will and no rules and all that, other people might not. and teamwork requires a bit of cooperation from all members of the team.

Right, thanks, I get that that's the way team sports in our culture are. As I've said. I never said that people shouldn't be allowed to play this way. What I am saying is that there is room for variety of philosophy and approach. It doesn't have to be all schooly/dictatorial/win at all costs/gain-must-be-pain. That is not the natural default for active play. It is the natural default for our culture. Your argument is the usual conservative response to challenges to the status quo: "If you don't like it, leave." Well, that might be fine if all the other kids felt that way, and if there were other options. But in fact, a lot of kids are uncomfortable with the state of organized sports in our culture, and they just stop playing sports, which is unfortunate. And there aren't always other options. As I said, we're hoping to start up something more relaxed. But we don't have the kind of advertising power that Parks and Rec does, and even as it is they've only attracted enough kids for one team.

And just to be clear, I didn't put my kid on a team. It was his decision to play Ultimate Frisbee. Also, the focus is on learning to play the game, not winning against other teams, because there are no other teams. They're learning how to play the game. And they're kids, so ultimately play is the point.

but you can't expect other people to feel the same way, nor are they responsible for making sure that everything works exactly the way that one specific kid needs.

Nope. And, again, I don't. What I do expect is that someone won't try to make my child do something that doesn't feel right to him.

in most places, regardless of how "competitive" a sporting team is, practice requires some warm-up, and some stamina building, and some activities that are going to create muscle fatigue, which to some people equals some discomfort during the period where they are building up the stamina and muscle memory that is required for the activity. ultimate frisbee requires a lot of running. so if your kid doesn't run, i don't get how he will build up the stamina required to be a decent player.

Gee, so I guess you just think I'm full of shit when I talk about how different types of sports require different types of breathing and muscle activity, and when I offer up that my husband and I can play stop-and-go sports just fine, but running is painful for us. Maybe you could just be straightforward about that, because otherwise I just get the idea that you're not reading my posts.

Oh, and I didn't say he wasn't doing anything to warm-up, or not doing stamina-building activity. His safety is not the issue as far as I'm concerned, and trust me, as his mother I want him to be safe.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by mama in the forest

I found this whole thread somewhat disturbing.

Fourlittlebirds stated exactly what she wanted to discuss:

but basically it's about organized sports and the associated schoolish "teacher as god" mentality.

and clearly she wanted to discuss it from a radical unschooling/consensual living perspective. Not only that, but I see several posters not actually reading what she was writing. Reading it indepth, that is.

What's the point of coming to this thread, stating, and restating how you do believe in the teacher as god mentality? We get it. Let's move on and get to what she really wanted to discuss.

I agree. I believe there was a reason she put Radical Unschooling in the title: She wanted to open up a discussion among RU parents about dealing with our children's desire to participate in organized sports, coupled with our children's desire to retain their autonomy and have their No's be respected, as they're used to with us.

She put RU in the title, and posted in the Unschooling forum, in the hopes (I believe) of increasing the likelihood that this kind of discussion could take place.

Though neither of my children has yet become involved in organized sports (and I'm hoping we can meet any need for this through playing in the neighborhood and with other homeschooling families), I am currently dealing with my 8yo's desire to get involved in more organized group activities.

Sometimes she enjoys an activity enough to stay involved in spite of some rules she doesn't like. Sometimes she doesn't, and we move on. We're currently in the process of changing churches because of this.

Sometimes it's hard to know exactly how much to bother with communicating with activity-leaders, before simply moving on. Sometimes leaders seem genuinely interested in expanding an activity to make it interesting to more different kinds of children (including my child).

This was how it initially seemed in our previous church. However, it recently became clear to me that some leaders were a lot more interested in continuing with their current regime, and presenting a united front with my daughter. One leader stated that she feels children need to start learning, by age 4, to sit down and listen; she feels boredom is good as it teaches patience. I started to sense an underlying attitude that they'd be doing kids a disservice if they got used to being "entertained" in church.

When I finally realized we'd reached a dead-end with this church, but dd wasn't wanting to leave because she enjoyed the Wednesday night suppers and getting to play in the gym (just nothing else), I said I knew we could find a children's program that was more geared to children than the program in this church (which actually seemed to pride itself in not being geared to children). She agreed to try out somewhere else, and so far she's greatly enjoyed herself for the last two weeks in a new church we're visiting, which I'm hoping will be our church home.

I know church issues aren't the same as organized sports. But, honestly, I find there are politics in every organized thing we try to take part in. And for extraverted, active kids, it's hard to meet their needs without ever getting involved in any organized stuff. So, to me, it all comes down to keeping the communications open with my children, and helping them determine what they really want.

Again, it's hard to know how much to communicate with leaders. I don't want to come across as if I, a new person, am trying to "take over" or tell someone else "how to do her job." At the same time, in my past experiences leading children's activities, I've often been greatly helped by parents who were willing to offer suggestions about how to better meet the needs of individual children. I greatly prefer communication over someone just dropping out and never saying anything. How will I learn if no one ever says anything?

fourlittlebirds, if I'm taking things off-track by talking about other organized stuff, and not confining the discussion to organized sports, please let me know. I just see a lot of parallels between your experience, and things we've experienced, even though we haven't yet joined an organized sports team.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by honeybeedreams

and what's wrong with "getting out" of running if he doesn't like it? why should he be forced to do something he doesn't like. that seems pretty disrespectful to me. this is the unschooling forum right?

Originally Posted by 4evermom

I doubt anyone thinks there is a problem with hard work or thinks it is bad. I'm quite fond of it, myself, when it is internally motivated.

Originally Posted by 4evermom

And I do hope my ds learns the difference between the "good" pain of tired or sore muscles and the "bad" pain of injuries that need to be allowed to heal. My dh doesn't seem to be able to make that distinction.

Ah, thank you for bringing that up! I was trying to imply that, but not articulating it very well, I think. This is part of my concern. I'm not excited about my child exerting his body according to others' demands, for this very reason. When you're constantly looking to someone else to tell you what your body needs, you run the risk both of them being wrong and of not paying proper attention yourself, in the short term making injury more likely, and in the long term losing the ability to hear and discern what your body is telling you. This is one reason I am in full support of him.

Originally Posted by pookel

Originally Posted by honeybeedreams

and what's wrong with "getting out" of running if he doesn't like it? why should he be forced to do something he doesn't like.

Because he signed up for the team?

Right, because lord knows you can't have structured play without the team mentality, and you can't have a proper team without absolute obedience.

Originally Posted by LilyGrace

I think there's a HUGE difference between doing games/sports, and being on a team, if that makes sense. No matter how old you are you follow the coach. If you don't, you're probably not going to be playing. B's dad plays softball (all grownups, mind you!) and if he doesn't show up to batting practice or doesn't feel like doing parts of the group practice, he's batting last. And he's in outfield. The coach has told some to just go home when they show up for the game because they're not giving the effort needed.
Now, if it was a bunch of his buddies out there on the field playing for fun, yeah, they could make the rules how ever they want. But as part of a league that's not going to happen. It's not a kids vs. grownups thing here. It's a coached vs. noncoached thing.

Well, this is the norm in our culture, but it's not just the way it is. My husband's Ultimate team (I think I mentioned that he played in and organized tournaments) didn't have a coach. They also didn't have dogmatic rules about individual behavior during practices, but then their team members were sort of mutually hand-picked in order to have a good match in terms of goals. They wanted to win, of course, but not at all costs. They had a balanced perspective -- maybe one person is having a bad day, so he just takes it easy, or another person has a birthday party to attend so she misses a practice, and the important thing is that they made the choice as individuals and no one else worried about it. They allowed each other real personal responsibility and that's more empowering and can be far more motivating than the duty to obey unconditionally. And this was the way with all the teams in our area.

Something like college football is of course a very different matter.

Agreeing to meet with others at the same place and the same time, brought together by a program run with public funds, with an experienced player ("coach") to show them how to play... there is nothing about that that screams that it must be more like a college football team than a community Ultimate frisbee team.

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

fourlittlebirds, do you think it might help if you signed a release, stating that you won't hold this coach responsible if your son is injured due to not being warmed up properly?

That was actually required for him to be able to play. We also paid a fee, which partly covers insurance. But now I'm wondering if the Parks and Rec program itself has requirements of him as a coach, in terms of how the practice is done. Like, "must do proper warm-up" or some such thing. That never occurred to me. Well, if it comes up again, I'll ask, so thanks for bringing it up. The coach hasn't said anything to him the past two practices, so we may be fine -- my son is doing warm-up essentially with the jogging back and forth warm-up throws and the drills, and I'm thinking that perhaps the coach himself realizes that he's fine and it's just a control issue that he's decided to let go of.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds

Right, thanks, I get that that's the way team sports in our culture are. As I've said. I never said that people shouldn't be allowed to play this way. What I am saying is that there is room for variety of philosophy and approach. It doesn't have to be all schooly/dictatorial/win at all costs/gain-must-be-pain. That is not the natural default for active play. It is the natural default for our culture. Your argument is the usual conservative response to challenges to the status quo: "If you don't like it, leave." Well, that might be fine if all the other kids felt that way, and if there were other options. But in fact, a lot of kids are uncomfortable with the state of organized sports in our culture, and they just stop playing sports, which is unfortunate. And there aren't always other options. As I said, we're hoping to start up something more relaxed. But we don't have the kind of advertising power that Parks and Rec does, and even as it is they've only attracted enough kids for one team.

You've just put something into words that I was trying to put my finger on: there's a whole paradigm of how organized sports "have" to be done -- but they really don't "have" to be done that way, it's just the way many people have got used to them being done. That's something many RU folks can identify with, but not many others can, because they're stuck in the mindset that either you go along with the current regime, or you start something new yourself, or your child just drops out and takes up fingerpainting or something.

It's hard to come online to try to brainstorm with other like-minded parents, only to hear the same stuff you would (and do) hear out in the world: "Just go along with it or drop out," and so on. I'd like to hear more discussion on this -- and, again, please let me know if you'd rather I leave my experiences, which aren't actually sports-related, out of it.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by UUmom

I resent the whole notion that anyone who questions or ask for clarity about an "'RU' situation gets flack for not falling in step with whatever is posted by an 'RU.'

Where exactly were people getting flack for asking for clarity? What I saw flack being given for, specifically, was expressing the belief over and over that anyone who doesn't accept unconditional obedience in sports is wrong and doesn't belong in sports, in a thread asking how people deal with that very attitude from an RU perspective.

Ok. I disagree. But really, carry on with whatever party- lines make you comfy.

It's easy enough to dismiss someone's sincere observation with an ad hominem attack. A little harder, I guess, to actually show that what they've said is wrong. (And yeah, it's disrespectful. To acknowledge it as such is not denying you freedom of expression.)

I was trying. I kept asking questions, but they went unaswered. The OP doesn't even seem to care about the thread. So you know, what the heck are we discussing? Is her dc even on the team any longer?

Woah. First, I certainly did answer your questions, not once but the same ones many times over and over.

Second, I took the time to put much thought into posts over the course of five days, then could not find the time to get back for a while, and after two days of absence you conclude that I don't seem to care? Why would you assume that? And what does it matter anyway? I'm not the only one having the discussion, I'm sure I could drop off the face of the earth and it wouldn't invalidate the topic, I assure you the issue does exist apart from me.

Third, I've stated in plain English what the intent of the thread is several times, and so have others. I said: "I'm lamenting the dearth of playing-just-for-fun sports in our culture, and the schooliness of kid sports." And, "I'm just wanting to talk about this assumption that team sports just are this way, or that they should just be this way, so that anyone who steps outside of that even just a little bit is seen as inherently wrong. It's also frustrating to me when in any setting children's feelings are not respected, and having just experienced that in a sports setting, where it's very common, I was interested in talking about it with others who have experienced it in that setting." And, specifically to you, "When I asked how others handled it, I was just curious mainly, and hoping to start a broader discussion about kids sports in our culture [implied from a RU perspective given the thread title.] I'm not looking for a fix for our particular situation."

Finally, my child is still playing, yes, and the situation has been resolved. Regardless, there's still a conversation to be had for some of us, because it never was just about his specific situation.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

It's hard to come online to try to brainstorm with other like-minded parents, only to hear the same stuff you would (and do) hear out in the world: "Just go along with it or drop out," and so on.

Yeah, I'm feeling very frustrated with that too. Yes, yes, we know that's how most of American society feels. Can we please move on.

I'd like to hear more discussion on this -- and, again, please let me know if you'd rather I leave my experiences, which aren't actually sports-related, out of it.

Oh, if it's analogous, by all means share!

[Kessed]

Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds

Third, I've stated in plain English what the intent of the thread is several times, and so have others. I said: "I'm lamenting the death of playing-just-for-fun sports in our culture, and the schooliness of kid sports."

This is where my problem with what you're saying is.

As someone who LOVES playing sports and as someone who could play VERY high level soccer - but chooses to play on a low level rec team, what you're saying really makes my blood boil.

Having structure and some basic team based rules - does not mean that the kids aren't playing "just for fun". That's a fallacy.

I have seen over and over that kids have fun playing sports when they are well prepared to play and 'even' as a team. Having 1 or 2 kids who are below the average in terms of skill or fitness levels - really brings the rest of the group down. They depend on each other. If a couple kids run out of gas near the end of the game - then it's like the team is playing short. And that's not fun for anyone.

Having to run a bit to increase their stamina isn't ruining the fun of the game.

Also - there IS value to doing something as a group. I don't particularly believe that school is that place (hence why I lurk on this forum). However - I fully believe that team sports is one of those places.

*****

Here's something about me. I believe what I just wrote. But... I also really enjoy playing pick up soccer. The kind where we just show up - and people loosely choose positions and we play for fun. I also helped run them for the older kids in the neighborhood when I coach U16 youth soccer. And that was the kind of games where people came, warmed up on their own, and then just played.

The difference???? It wasn't a TEAM thing.

[cottonwood]

Why did you change my post? What I wrote was that I was lamenting the dearth of just-for-fun sports, not the death. Meaning, there's very little of that left anymore. Kids aren't hanging out on the streets and in vacant lots anymore putting games together. They're not allowed to. So where is the opportunity to play on a "low level" team? There is some of this for teens and adults, but not for kids. It just doesn't exist. It didn't even exist when I was a kid. Which is why we are having to advertise to try to find people who are interested in the same thing, who may be willing to plan to meet us. This is the way we have to do it because it's just not something that our culture supports anymore. Most kids do not *ever* have the opportunity to have the experience that my kids did recently (see post #17), which was playing sports without adult supervision and adult-imposed rules that *must* be obeyed or else. There was a *huge* difference between that and what I've seen of mainstream adult-controlled kids' sports.

Maybe the terms that I've been using are not making clear to you what it is I'm actually talking about. When I talk about "just for fun" sports, I'm not saying that it and structure and rules are mutually exclusive, nor did I say that kids can't have fun in organized sports. You put those words in my mouth. There is a qualitative difference between community/just-for-fun sports (or whatever you want to call it) and institutionalized/managed/authority-driven sports (or whatever you want to call it.) All I'm saying is that one has the monopoly, and it serves only part of the population and is primarily adult-driven, not kid-chosen. Those who are better served by a less strict authoritarian approach don't have much choice if any.

Originally Posted by Kessed

Having to run a bit to increase their stamina isn't ruining the fun of the game.

And I did not say that, nor has it *ever* been the issue anywhere on this thread.

Also - there IS value to doing something as a group.

Okay. Did you think anyone was saying any differently?

Here's something about me. I believe what I just wrote. But... I also really enjoy playing pick up soccer. The kind where we just show up - and people loosely choose positions and we play for fun. I also helped run them for the older kids in the neighborhood when I coach U16 youth soccer. And that was the kind of games where people came, warmed up on their own, and then just played.

The difference???? It wasn't a TEAM thing.

You're entirely ignoring the point that has been made throughout this thread, that different manifestations of TEAM are possible, and your preferred one is valid, but it isn't the only valid one.

[Kessed]

Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds

Why did you change my post? What I said was I was lamenting the dearth of just-for-fun sports, not the death. Meaning, there's very little of that left anymore. Kids aren't hanging out on the streets and in vacant lots anymore putting games together. They're not allowed to. So where is the opportunity to play on a "low level" team?

At the playground across the street from my house - there are ALWAYS kids out there playing basketball, soccer and other 'games'. I'm serious. Kids show up - they make teams, and then they play. We were at the playground earlier today and there were 2 separate soccer games going on. One with older kids and one with younger kids. There were 2 half court basketball games which merged into 1 full court game when they got enough people - that one had both adults and kids playing together. These games were self governed. There weren't any expectations. Many of the adults warmed up and stretched as they arrived at the playground. Most of the kids did not.

There is also pick up slo-pitch twice a week. People show up - they make 2 teams and then play. I think you need to be 14 for liability reasons.

You're entirely ignoring the point that has been made throughout this thread, that different manifestations of TEAM are possible, and your preferred one is valid, but it isn't the only valid one.

No. You are trying to force your idea of what you want your son to play onto a pre-existing structure. One of the primary pillars of 'team' sports is that a coach is in charge.

Wanting your son to have special exceptions while playing on a team is like wanting him to go to public school and having the teacher let him unschool in the regular classroom.

I'm sure you'd agree that the latter isn't reasonable - so why do you think the former is?