Quote:
Originally Posted by ma-skis.com
I see this as a way to keep more kids involved for a longer period of time.
|
I actually think that it would do the opposite. At 12, if I had a choice to play in a league where competition was frowned upon and one where it was encouraged, I know exactly which one I'd be playing in. I'm not an overly competitive person either, but I honestly don't see the point of playing sports if there's no incentive to excel. At that age, you're well aware of how many goals went in the net and whether you won or not, even if the league insists that nobody did.
Sportsmanship and team building are very important, don't get me wrong, but these elements of the game can be taught without pretending that 12-year-olds can't handle winning and losing. How can you teach respect for your opponent when, quite literally, they're not actually your opponent?
I've played on some terrible teams in soccer, hockey, etc. Even my high school football team was brutal most of the time because we were a small high school. The rare victories on those teams were sweeter than anything else, although we had no choice but to learn to lose graciously most of the time.
I'd rather lose honestly and learn how to handle it than to be sent onto the field aimlessly. I can say that, without a doubt, if my parents registered me into this league when I was 12 I would have been telling them to put me into another sport instead. Tim bits hockey, young kids soccer are much different, but pandering to the fragile parents is going to deter those that want their kids to experience all of the benefits of sport, including losing.
Like I said earlier, if they are going to do this, they should give parents the choice to register them in the watered down version or the real version. If they impose the scoreless version on everyone at that age, they're going to lose people to other sports. I'd be interested to see how many people would actually want a 12-year-old playing in a meaningless kickaround each week. My guess is not many.