The Way Liberals/Socialists View Self-Esteem

[BeAChooser]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/01/win-a-soccer-game-by-more-than-five-points-and-you-lose-ottawa-league-says/


June 1, 2010

In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default.

The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.

Kevin Cappon said he first heard about the rule on May 20 — right after he had scored his team’s last allowable goal. His team then tossed the ball around for fear of losing the game.


Ahhhhh, the wonders of liberalism.

Maybe they should pass a new rule in the NBA and NFL? :D:

[bit_pattern]

I just love the way that "socialism" has lost all meaning in American political discourse :rolleyes:

[quixotecoyote]

Tell me BaC, what am I thinking right now?

[geni]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/01/win-a-soccer-game-by-more-than-five-points-and-you-lose-ottawa-league-says/



Ahhhhh, the wonders of liberalism.

I know I know but I dont think the supreme court would judge the use of the death penalty for refering to football goals as "points" as constitutional.

[Howie Felterbush]

This is pretty silly.

I'm not sure how it relates to "liberals" and "socialism", but it's still silly. Kids (even Canadian ones) need to learn that sometimes in life you just get your ass whipped. Best thing you can do is suck it up, hit the practice field and next time try to be the whipper rather than the whippee.

[Bob Blaylock]

Two neighboring nations, founded around the same time, somewhat over two centuries ago. One nation was founded in violent rebellion and defiance against a horrendous tyrant; the other founded by groveling and cowering before this same tyrant.

Even now, more than two hundred years later, we can still clearly see the difference that this has made.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Two neighboring nations, founded around the same time, somewhat over two centuries ago. One nation was founded in violent rebellion and defiance against a horrendous tyrant; the other founded by groveling and cowering before this same tyrant.

Even now, more than two hundred years later, we can still clearly see the difference that this has made.

You're right. This kind of stuff only happens in Canada. Never in America.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/06/05/keeping_score_isnt_goal____or_is_it/

[BeAChooser]

You're right. This kind of stuff only happens in Canada. Never in America.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/06/05/keeping_score_isnt_goal____or_is_it/

And what do both stories have in common? Liberal (probably Obama-loving) teachers! :D

[yaaarrrgg]

I think you don't recognize the old "carrot on a string" trick is out of the play book of capitalism. This rule creates an incentive for the kids to run around and burn more fat, even though the game is just as deterministic with or without the rule. All the rule does is provide the *illusion* that victory is always right within reach, cleverly masking the true imbalances of power of the opposing team. Since if the kids knew from the onset they were losing, they stop being part of the determined game, and stop playing essentially. :)

[D'rok]

I play in the Ottawa Old Timers league. We won our opening game 9-1.

In your face, fat middle-aged dudes!

What is good in life? To crush your enemies. To see them driven before you. To waddle through the parking lot after the game and hear the lamentations of their women. Oh, and beer.

[geni]

This is pretty silly.

I'm not sure how it relates to "liberals" and "socialism", but it's still silly. Kids (even Canadian ones) need to learn that sometimes in life you just get your ass whipped. Best thing you can do is suck it up, hit the practice field and next time try to be the whipper rather than the whippee.

Or they learn that there is little point in them playing at all. While the article is hopeless biased it appears that the league has messed up it's division system to the point where there are some hoplessly unabalanced matchups. This means that you get games where teams are not so much getting beaten as not being able to play at all. This rather undermines the point of a recreational soccer league where people are meant to be having fun.

The idea behind the "fix" appears to be less based on protecting self-esteem (kids are not stupid they know when their team has been completely outclassed) and more related to trying to make it posible for players to have fun. It's not a good solution but a good solution (making sure such matchups are uncommon) would have to wait untill the next season.

[BeAChooser]

Now here's the view of a conservative:

http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2010/03/04/self-esteem,_self-destruction


Self-Esteem, Self-Destruction

by George Will

WASHINGTON -- Memo to that Massachusetts school where children in physical education classes jump rope without using ropes: Get some ropes.

… snip ...

Those Massachusetts children are jumping rope without ropes because of a self-esteem obsession. The assumption is that thinking highly of oneself is a prerequisite for high achievement. That is why some children's soccer teams stopped counting goals (think of the damaged psyches of children who rarely scored) and shower trophies on everyone. No child at that Massachusetts school suffers damaged self-esteem by tripping on the jump rope.

But the theory that praise, self-esteem and accomplishment increase in tandem is false. Children incessantly praised for their intelligence (often by parents who are really praising themselves) often underrate the importance of effort. Children who open their lunchboxes and find mothers' handwritten notes telling them how amazingly bright they are tend to falter when they encounter academic difficulties. Also, Bronson and Merryman say that overpraised children are prone to cheating because they have not developed strategies for coping with failure.


Dennis Prager, another conservative, also has a lot to say about unearned self-esteem. For example …

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0205/prager022205.php3


The "self-esteem movement" — now conceded to have been a great producer of mediocrity and narcissism — was entirely a liberal invention based on feelings for kids.

[Robin]

And what do both stories have in common? Liberal (probably Obama-loving) teachers! :D
I am missing the part that says that the organisers were socialists or liberals.

As far as I know sports in socialist countries are highly competitive.

[BeAChooser]

As far as I know sports in socialist countries are highly competitive.

But are teachers? :D

[TraneWreck]

I think you don't recognize the old "carrot on a string" trick is out of the play book of capitalism. This rule creates an incentive for the kids to run around and burn more fat, even though the game is just as deterministic with or without the rule. All the rule does is provide the *illusion* that victory is always right within reach, cleverly masking the true imbalances of power of the opposing team. Since if the kids knew from the onset they were losing, they stop being part of the determined game, and stop playing essentially. :)

I enjoyed this post, nicely done.

[Howie Felterbush]

Or they learn that there is little point in them playing at all. While the article is hopeless biased it appears that the league has messed up it's division system to the point where there are some hoplessly unabalanced matchups. This means that you get games where teams are not so much getting beaten as not being able to play at all. This rather undermines the point of a recreational soccer league where people are meant to be having fun.

The idea behind the "fix" appears to be less based on protecting self-esteem (kids are not stupid they know when their team has been completely outclassed) and more related to trying to make it posible for players to have fun. It's not a good solution but a good solution (making sure such matchups are uncommon) would have to wait untill the next season.

I don't want to sound like Coach Buck here, but "hopelessly unbalanced" matchups are a fact of life in this hard old world in which we live. If you start showing kids that adversity can be overcome simply by using rules to cripple the other guy you end up with a bunch of people like, well, the majority of people today.

If playing soccer and getting beat isn't fun, then maybe soccer isn't for you. Someone's gotta lose, might as well be you. (I'm not a Republican, by the way :))

[mike3]

This is pretty silly.

I'm not sure how it relates to "liberals" and "socialism", but it's still silly. Kids (even Canadian ones) need to learn that sometimes in life you just get your ass whipped. Best thing you can do is suck it up, hit the practice field and next time try to be the whipper rather than the whippee.

Or even better, to enjoy the game itself, even if you aren't the winner.

[Howie Felterbush]

Or even better, to enjoy the game itself, even if you aren't the winner.

Even better, indeed.

Our JV football team went 0-10 my freshman year. We still had a pretty good time.

[Redtail]

Two neighboring nations, founded around the same time, somewhat over two centuries ago. One nation was founded in violent rebellion and defiance against a horrendous tyrant; the other founded by groveling and cowering before this same tyrant.

Even now, more than two hundred years later, we can still clearly see the difference that this has made.

Gold in hockey?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I am missing the part that says that the organisers were socialists or liberals.

As far as I know sports in socialist countries are highly competitive.

They are. One sports league does not reflect an entire nation.

And I agree that coddling kids is not doing them any favors, and is not preparing them for the real world. I say that as a kid who generally sucked at sports. And I'm not a Republican.

[Jeff Corey]

Blaming the self esteem nonsense on any political viewpoint is idiocy. That crap got started by popular pseudopsychologists like Norman Vincent Peale and Nathaniel Brandon. The whole thing is covered as myth#33 in 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology (2010) by Lilienfeld, et. al.
The statement that, "The "self-esteem movement" — now conceded to have been a great producer of mediocrity and narcissism — was entirely a liberal invention based on feelings for kids." demonstrates that the author is a dumb putz. It also implies that non-liberals have no feelings for kids, which is also dumb.

[geni]

I don't want to sound like Coach Buck here, but "hopelessly unbalanced" matchups are a fact of life in this hard old world in which we live.

The kids can go "blow this for a game of soldiers" and walk away without sanction. This is a bad thing for the league.


If you start showing kids that adversity can be overcome simply by using rules to cripple the other guy you end up with a bunch of people like, well, the majority of people today.

Asian?

Anyway the spartans tried your approach. They were eventualy taken out by the Thebans who worked out how they could change the rules to their advantage. You will sometimes hear this aproach refered to as thinking outside the box.


If playing soccer and getting beat isn't fun, then maybe soccer isn't for you. Someone's gotta lose, might as well be you. (I'm not a Republican, by the way :))

The problem is that the team getting wiped out isn't playing football. They've effectively reduced to spectators. Losing is one thing. You are still playing. You are still able to have some impact on the outcome of the game and your oponent's ability to do what they want. There is fun to be had. But when your opponent is good enough to reduce your role to kicking off and picking the ball out of the net (quite doable if they got a couple of players fast on their feet) there really isn't any posibility of having fun left

[Howie Felterbush]

No, I'm a regular old white guy. Well, not that old. Old enough to have been raised by people who taught me to play fair, not cheat and take my beatings like a man. If the other guy/team kicks my ass but I gave it my best and had fun, then I shouldn't expect any more.

[BeAChooser]

The statement that, "The "self-esteem movement" — now conceded to have been a great producer of mediocrity and narcissism — was entirely a liberal invention based on feelings for kids." demonstrates that the author is a dumb putz.


I rather suspect that Dennis Prager would have no difficulty debating you. :D

[Pardalis]

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Wow, I can't begin to think what went through those people's brains to make them come up with that idea.

[Damien Evans]

Two neighboring nations, founded around the same time, somewhat over two centuries ago. One nation was founded in violent rebellion and defiance against a horrendous tyrant; the other founded by groveling and cowering before this same tyrant.

Even now, more than two hundred years later, we can still clearly see the difference that this has made.

That is quite probably the stupidest post you've ever made.

[geni]

No, I'm a regular old white guy. Well, not that old. Old enough to have been raised by people who taught me to play fair, not cheat and take my beatings like a man.

Thats would be "using rules to cripple the other guy". Translated into the real world what you were taught comes out as "don't use tactics against the powerful that might be effective and don't complain to much when the knock you about a bit".

[geni]

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Wow, I can't begin to think what went through those people's brains to make them come up with that idea.

Probably "our league is going to fall apart because we've completely screwed up our division allocation how can we patch things until the end of the season?"

[Pardalis]

What exactly are they trying to teach the kids?

Won't this encourage kids to stop competing, why not just let the other team score 5 goals? And won't the other team know this and do the same?

I foresee very boring and scoreless games ahead.

[Howie Felterbush]

Thats would be "using rules to cripple the other guy". Translated into the real world what you were taught comes out as "don't use tactics against the powerful that might be effective and don't complain to much when the knock you about a bit".

Untrue.

The kids aren't using any tactics at all. They signed up to play soccer, not participate in guerrilla warfare. In soccer, "tactics against the powerful that might be effective" are limited to "playing soccer better that the powerful players do". If you can't do that, you lose.

[Shalamar]

Two neighboring nations, founded around the same time, somewhat over two centuries ago. One nation was founded in violent rebellion and defiance against a horrendous tyrant; the other founded by groveling and cowering before this same tyrant.

Even now, more than two hundred years later, we can still clearly see the difference that this has made.

Do we need to set your White House on fire again?

[Pardalis]

The problem is that the team getting wiped out isn't playing football.

Yes it is, if your team sucks. If you don' twant that to happen, work harder, train better.

Wipe outs are a part of sport.

And amazing comebacks are always spectacular.

svg9Dx_ID5U

[quixotecoyote]

Untrue.

The kids aren't using any tactics at all. They signed up to play soccer, not participate in guerrilla warfare. In soccer, "tactics against the powerful that might be effective" are limited to "playing soccer better that the powerful players do". If you can't do that, you lose.

Have you seen the same soccer games I've seen? :D

Ioyt2zzm530

[Howie Felterbush]

Have you seen the same soccer games I've seen? :D

Ioyt2zzm530

I forgot, being able to fall to the ground writhing like a tear-gassed hippie when an opposing player gets within ten meters of you is an important soccer skill. :)

[geni]

What exactly are they trying to teach the kids?

Won't this encourage kids to stop competing, why not just let the other team score 5 goals? And won't the other team know this and do the same?

I foresee very boring and scoreless games ahead.

Actualy depending on how the rule is phrased the best options are either:

Score 6 own goals.

Score 4 goals and then shift to the defensive.

[Howie Felterbush]

Actualy depending on how the rule is phrased the best options are either:

Score 6 own goals.

Score 4 goals and then shift to the defensive.

Wouldn't scoring six own goals give six goals to the other team, meaning you win by default since they have more than five goals? :)

[quixotecoyote]

Wouldn't scoring six own goals give six goals to the other team, meaning you win by default since they have more than five goals? :)

Ah do believe that was his point, Howie...

[Howie Felterbush]

Ah do believe that was his point, Howie...

Sorry. I thought the other four goals had something to do with it.

I'm not really soccer literate.

[geni]

Yes it is, if your team sucks. If you don' twant that to happen, work harder, train better.

Wipe outs are a part of sport.


Not on a regular basis. That is one of the reasons why we have divisions. Even Hull are not going to get wiped out by Chelsea on a regular basis. However the average Hellenic League team would be. This gets even worse at the junior level where the gaps tend to be rather bigger.

[Pardalis]

Maybe this could be applied to the winter olympics. Finally Japan might have a shot at the gold medal for ice hockey.

[quixotecoyote]

Maybe this could be applied to the winter olympics. Finally Japan might have a shot at the gold medal for ice hockey.

There's a reason there's a separate special Olympics.

[qayak]

A coach in that league could still have some fun with the new rule. Have your team decimate the other by 10 goals and then have them spend the last couple of minutes kicking the ball into their own net five times.

That'll make the opponents feel so much better about themselves. :D

[themusicteacher]

What's that smell? Could it be that special blend of douchebaggery that likes to conveniently (mis)attribute isolated events to an entire group of people so as to discredit and make them look ridiculous. Strawmen are sooooo foul-smelling.

[KingMerv00]

I didn't support this rule at first but then I remembered I'm liberal.

[qayak]

What's that smell? Could it be that special blend of douchebaggery that likes to conveniently (mis)attribute isolated events to an entire group of people so as to discredit and make them look ridiculous. Strawmen are sooooo foul-smelling.

What? Are you trying to say teachers don't have complete control over every activity that every kid is forced to participate in?

Who woulda thunk it? :eye-poppi

[Jeff Corey]

I rather suspect that Dennis Prager would have no difficulty debating you. :D

I don't debate the brain dead.
http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/05/dennis_prager_i.html

[The Painter]

A coach in that league could still have some fun with the new rule. Have your team decimate the other by 10 goals and then have them spend the last couple of minutes kicking the ball into their own net five times.

That'll make the opponents feel so much better about themselves. :D

I was thinking the same thing. Also if your team is losing by 5 goals, kick 1 in your own goal. Now you are losing by 6 goals and you win by default.

[DC]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/01/win-a-soccer-game-by-more-than-five-points-and-you-lose-ottawa-league-says/



Ahhhhh, the wonders of liberalism.

Maybe they should pass a new rule in the NBA and NFL? :D:

arent the Drafting systems in the US sports pretty socialistic? NHL for example.
isnt its goal to prevent the creation of unbeatable teams and that the whole league is closer together?

[DC]

I was thinking the same thing. Also if your team is losing by 5 goals, kick 1 in your own goal. Now you are losing by 6 goals and you win by default.

lol true.

[uk_dave]

Golf is a socialist game

[DC]

Golf is a socialist game

we knew that already :rolleyes:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/lenin-golfing.jpg

Removed hotlinked image. See Rule 5.


http://www.marxgolf.com/

[D'rok]

Have you seen the same soccer games I've seen? :D

Ioyt2zzm530
Liberals. All of 'em.

[Cleon]

And what do both stories have in common? Liberal (probably Obama-loving) teachers! :D

Wow, you really hate teachers. I kinda feel sorry for you now.

[sgtbaker]

Even better, indeed.

Our JV football team went 0-10 my freshman year. We still had a pretty good time.

My Jr. High track team was so bad we used to make jokes about leaving the hoods on our sweatshirts up when we ran so no one would see our faces. I was so slow, I was third heat even if there was only enough runners for 1st heat :p. I didn't even care all that much for running but the track team was hurting so much for players that they were the only sport in the school that didn't have cuts. We had a blast though.

[sgtbaker]

What's that smell? Could it be that special blend of douchebaggery that likes to conveniently (mis)attribute isolated events to an entire group of people so as to discredit and make them look ridiculous. Strawmen are sooooo foul-smelling.

Isn't that poisoning the well? Attempting to invalidate a perfectly logical claim by suggesting that the source is a douchebage :D.

I am just kidding. I failed to see how stupid measures to keep kids from that life ending experience of losing a game can be equated to politics.

[Fnord]

It's all about economics. Boosting a child's self-esteem with a pat on the head and a few gold star stickers is cheaper than paying for more effective teachers, better athletic equipment, computers for the classroom, trophies, transportation to state finals, and scolarships. And as long as you're making the winners smile, why not spread the joy among the losers, as well? It doesn't cost anything.

More money for politicians and school administrators...

[BeAChooser]

Wow, you really hate teachers.

No, I dislike the blind and hypocritical politics of teachers.

Didn't you hear? I was just told by a poster they are really conservatives.

They just vote democrat. "For The Children." :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

Boosting a child's self-esteem with a pat on the head and a few gold star stickers is cheaper than paying for more effective teachers, better athletic equipment, computers for the classroom, trophies, transportation to state finals, and scolarships.

Lack of money is not the problem.

[skip]

I don’t know that this rule has anything to do with the childrens self esteem.. We have a similar rule for the local childrens soccer league; the rule was implemented for the adults.
Some parents and couches whose only motivation in the league was to win at all cost. Their kids played and many others sat the bench and never played one game. The kids were not competing the couches were.

As a result of this behavior many parents didn’t sign up for the league anymore, why pay the league fees and uniform cost if your kids never going to play.

The last year before the rule came in they hardly had enough kids to field teams. Now at least all the kids get to play in just about every game.. You can still put in your best players and run the score up, then back off and let some of the other kids kick the ball around for a while. No harm done.

So in a way implementing such a rule was a completely capitalist thing to do. The league with the rule will have more kids paying fees, and the league without the rule will soon die out for lack of participation. Free market in action.

[BeAChooser]

I don’t know that this rule has anything to do with the childrens self esteem.. We have a similar rule for the local childrens soccer league; the rule was implemented for the adults.

Ahhhh, then it was for the parent's self-esteem. I see. :rolleyes:

[D'rok]

No, I dislike the blind and hypocritical politics of teachers.
As opposed to your clear-sighted and honest politics?

I can't roll my eyes high enough.

[uk_dave]

I can't roll my eyes high enough.

You could if you were a chooser instead of constrained by socialist dogma to not excel at eye rolling.

[DC]

No, I dislike the blind and hypocritical politics of teachers.

Didn't you hear? I was just told by a poster they are really conservatives.

They just vote democrat. "For The Children." :rolleyes:

i had no clue that the teachers in the USA are a Homogeneous group.

[RockNroll]

Guh, team sports... I've always hated those. And they're all communistic by default, anyway :)

The best way to boost kids' self-esteem would be to offer more individual sports in schools. Preferably combat sports (they can be practiced as safely as anything else, particularly grappling-based ones).
Victory or defeat rests 100% on your shoulders, unlike in that team crap ;) And I don't see how you could bend the rules in the loser's favor, short of tying the better competitor's right hand behing their back or something.

That view is pretty common in my group of friends. All of us are very socially liberal, by the way (wouldn't be much point in me hanging out with social conservatives, since they would whinily disaprove of pretty much everything I do and enjoy :) ).

[KingMerv00]

Ahhhhh, the wonders of liberalism.

Maybe they should pass a new rule in the NBA and NFL? :D:


BAC,

I don't like this rule and I'm liberal. Has your head a-sploded?

[D'rok]

You could if you were a chooser instead of constrained by socialist dogma to not excel at eye rolling.But then I'd damage the self-esteem of all the kids who couldn't roll their eyes as high as me!

[BeAChooser]

As opposed to your clear-sighted and honest politics?

Now I've actually demonstrated the hypocritical politics of teachers:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5992993&postcount=151

You, on the other hand, are just engaging in personal attack and ad-hominems.

[RockNroll]

By the way, with the recent paradigm shift, isn't it now the conservatives' specialty to bitch and whine about the evil "elites" who strive for self-improvement and elevate themselves over the unwashed masses? ;)

[D'rok]

Now I've actually demonstrated the hypocritical politics of teachers:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5992993&postcount=151

You, on the other hand, are just engaging in personal attack and ad-hominems. Edited for rule 12.
Oh, and America is the paradigmatic example of liberalism. Your country was explicitly created as the actualization of liberal ideology. It must gall you to live in the world's most liberal country. That makes me happy. Edited for rule 12.

[GlennB]

Actualy depending on how the rule is phrased the best options are either:

Score 6 own goals.

Score 4 goals and then shift to the defensive.

Or if you are 5-0 down, score an own goal thus winning the match.

But if you are 4-0 up score an own goal (4-1) so that you can now score a normal goal (5-1), and so on ... **

(the catch is you daren't go 5-0 up, because the opps will kickoff straight back to their goal for an own-goal)

Don't they teach kids cunning and trickery these days?

If someone has said this already then, well, just suck it up and deal with it you bleeding heart liberal pansies :p

p.s. I've only just realised that the only action logically possible is an endless series of own-goals , so whoever wins the toss chooses to kick-off and thus win. Nobody need show up really, except two captains and a coin-tosser. Perfect for the ol' self-esteem :D

[BeAChooser]

i had no clue that the teachers in the USA are a Homogeneous group.

Where did you get that silly idea? I never suggested there aren't conservative teachers or teachers who think policies such as that evident in the OP aren't plain stupid. But you'd have to be brain dead to think liberals haven't been in control of determining education curriculum and promoting un-earned self-esteem policies for a long, long time. Why the largest educational research organization in the country has none other than William Ayers in charge of it's division on curriculum. Liberals/democrats clearly control the education boards of most large cities and determine what will or won't be taught and determine policies such as that typified in the OP. Likewise, teachers and their unions, who are by and large demonstrably liberal/democrat leaning, are involved in that process and act as the enforcers. :D

[Fnord]

Lack of money is not the problem.
It may not be the problem, but after application of Self-Esteem policies, it is certainly the result. If a school system no longer has to spend money on equipment, teachers, and services that support merit-based policies, then there is more money for administrative perks and political cronyism. Those elitists can certainly get used to it, and will surprisingly fight and scream "What about the children?" as soon as their free rides on the cash cow are threatened.

But again, that's just my opinion ... one that I'll be taking to the polls this coming Tuesday ...

[D'rok]

Or if you are 5-0 down, score an own goal thus winning the match.

But if you are 4-0 up score an own goal (4-1) so that you can now score a normal goal (5-1), and so on ... **

(the catch is you daren't go 5-0 up, because the opps will kickoff straight back to their goal for an own-goal)

Don't they teach kids cunning and trickery these days?

If someone has said this already then, well, just suck it up and deal with it you bleeding heart liberal pansies :p


There is a precedent.

ThpYsN-4p7w

[BeAChooser]

It may not be the problem, but after application of Self-Esteem policies, it is certainly the result.

Then isn't the solution to stop the application of self-esteem policies? Stop the brainwashing of our kids? Not just give the brainwashers more money?

[Suddenly]

arent the Drafting systems in the US sports pretty socialistic? NHL for example.
isnt its goal to prevent the creation of unbeatable teams and that the whole league is closer together?

Revenue sharing, salary caps, roster limits, restricted free agency, etc. US sports are way socialistic. The leagues even strongly control potential competition by limiting franchises. The Pittsburgh Pirates can continue losing and sopping up revenue sharing with no fear of relegation and can even extort local government subsidies with the threat of movement as it would be unclear if the league would allow for another club in Pittsburgh.


The losing when winning by five goals thing is a bit daft though...

[DC]

Revenue sharing, salary caps, roster limits, restricted free agency, etc. US sports are way socialistic. The leagues even strongly control potential competition by limiting franchises. The Pittsburgh Pirates can continue losing and sopping up revenue sharing with no fear of relegation and can even extort local government subsidies with the threat of movement as it would be unclear if the league would allow for another club in Pittsburgh.


The losing when winning by five goals thing is a bit daft though...

yeah happy to see im not the only one that spottet that hidden "Marxism" inside the USA.
but no wonder that NHL, NBA and NFL are the crappiest leagues in their sport :D

[DC]

Where did you get that silly idea? I never suggested there aren't conservative teachers or teachers who think policies such as that evident in the OP aren't plain stupid. But you'd have to be brain dead to think liberals haven't been in control of determining education curriculum and promoting un-earned self-esteem policies for a long, long time. Why the largest educational research organization in the country has none other than William Ayers in charge of it's division on curriculum. Liberals/democrats clearly control the education boards of most large cities and determine what will or won't be taught and determine policies such as that typified in the OP. Likewise, teachers and their unions, who are by and large demonstrably liberal/democrat leaning, are involved in that process and act as the enforcers. :D

i think most are thankful for this.
imagen you teaching Children.

[Cleon]

No, I dislike the blind and hypocritical politics of teachers.

No, you dislike teachers. You simply label them as "democrat" to justify (to yourself, anyway) your hatred.

It's really pretty obvious, and kinda sad.

Cases in point:

And what do both stories have in common? Liberal (probably Obama-loving) teachers! :D


Didn't you hear? I was just told by a poster they are really conservatives.

They just vote democrat. "For The Children." :rolleyes:I find it rather unlikely that Canadian teachers vote democrat. I also find it unlikely that they're Liberals, for that matter.

But since the soccer league in question is not associated with any school, teachers (Liberal or otherwise) don't seem to be involved in this in any way.


In short, it's pretty obvious you're just using this story to reinforce your existing bias, whether or not said bias actually applies to the situation.

[Fnord]

Then isn't the solution to stop the application of self-esteem policies? Stop the brainwashing of our kids? Not just give the brainwashers more money?
Yes, yes, and yes.

Unfortunately, when the funding is reduced, the first things those admin types start cutting is ... what? Their own jobs and favorite programs?

No, they start by cutting back on funding for school lunch programs, library staff, janitorial services, and after-hours tutoring. Then they go after teachers without tenure and guidance counselors.

Then they ask for more money.

[Tricky]

OMG! Diana Moon-Glampers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron)is here, and she's going to handicap all the athletic kids!!

:tragedy:

[JCL]

And what do both stories have in common? Liberal (probably Obama-loving) teachers! :D

Liberal - nothing in either article about that

reality 2 - BaC 0

Obama Loving - nothing in either article about that

reality 4 - BaC 0

Teachers - nothing in either article about that

reality 6- BaC 0

6 own goals, reality is up by 6, guess you win BAC. Way to play the system.

[BenBurch]

Blaming the self esteem nonsense on any political viewpoint is idiocy. That crap got started by popular pseudopsychologists like Norman Vincent Peale and Nathaniel Brandon. The whole thing is covered as myth#33 in 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology (2010) by Lilienfeld, et. al.
The statement that, "The "self-esteem movement" — now conceded to have been a great producer of mediocrity and narcissism — was entirely a liberal invention based on feelings for kids." demonstrates that the author is a dumb putz. It also implies that non-liberals have no feelings for kids, which is also dumb.

Right On.

[TraneWreck]

In the political sense, I'm about as liberal as they come, and I had such a competitive disorder when I was a kid (er, until I was about 22) that I have no doubt that I would get kicked out of that league after one game. I wanted to DESTROY people I competed against.

I really don't understand what any of that has to do with politics. Despite what blowhard coaches and idiot sportswriters claim, athletic competition fails miserably as an analogy to real life.

I would imagine the source of this "liberals hate competition and want everyone to get a medal" has something to do with economics. It's wonderful to overwhelm your opponent in sports. It's not such a great idea when total victory leaves the competitors unable to feed their family/

[joobie]

yeah happy to see im not the only one that spottet that hidden "Marxism" inside the USA.

it's not hidden. there's even red stripes in the flag!

;)

[Twiler]

Another opinion here:

http://trueslant.com/bobcook/2010/06/03/ottawa-soccer-leagues-blowout-rule-raises-fears-of-generation-of-weenies/

One loophole here: Couldn't a team win by scoring 5 own goals? I suppose they'd have to make further adjustments.

Personally, I hate sports.

[plumjam]

Clearly, the beginners of the self-esteem movement have nothing to be proud of.

(BTW, it's goals, not points. And what's to stop a team scoring 6 own-goals and winning like that? :p)

[Ricomise]

I don’t know that this rule has anything to do with the childrens self esteem.. We have a similar rule for the local childrens soccer league; the rule was implemented for the adults.
Some parents and couches whose only motivation in the league was to win at all cost. Their kids played and many others sat the bench and never played one game. The kids were not competing the coaches were.


Ding, ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! In my experience officiating youth sports, (mostly baseball) the kids know when they've done enough to win, and that they can "cruise" to the victory. It is almost invariably the parents or coaches who cajole and browbeat their children into "destroying" an opponent.

I figure the rules were implemented because of these irresponsible Conservative adults, who espouse the horrid Conservative idealogy of "selfishness" and the Conservative philosophy of destroying the environment by playing sports games on our precious fields, and who follow the Conservative paradigm of not caring about other people's feeling, especially if they're children.

Conservatives, I say, will be the downfall of us all, as this article makes crystal clear!!!!!!!!!

[DC]

it's not hidden. there's even red stripes in the flag!

;)

yeah the red stripes are a total giveaway


http://www.freeulysses.com/uploaded_images/socialist-flag-barack-765885.jpg

Removed hotlinked image. See Rule 5.


;)

[jakesteele]

I am missing the part that says that the organisers were socialists or liberals.

As far as I know sports in socialist countries are highly competitive.

I don't know about the socialist part, but the emotionally dysfunctional, politically correct,neo-liberalism is right on the money. You know dam well it wasn't conservatives who came up with that insane ****.

[jakesteele]

I don't want to sound like Coach Buck here, but "hopelessly unbalanced" matchups are a fact of life in this hard old world in which we live. If you start showing kids that adversity can be overcome simply by using rules to cripple the other guy you end up with a bunch of people like, well, the majority of people today.

If playing soccer and getting beat isn't fun, then maybe soccer isn't for you. Someone's gotta lose, might as well be you. (I'm not a Republican, by the way :))

I concur wholeheartedly. The only thing I ever hear about are physical things like soccer or dodge ball, never chess clubs or debate clubs or trying out for the school play. I say in all fairness they should give the strategy impaired chess players two moves to every one the strategically advanced player gets.

[KingMerv00]

BAC? Hellooooo?

The liberals in here don't support this rule. What do you think of that?

[Eddie Dane]

I forgot, being able to fall to the ground writhing like a tear-gassed hippie when an opposing player gets within ten meters of you is an important soccer skill. :)

I give you points for the 'tear gassed hippy' remark.

How on earth did soccer become the sport of choice for almost the whole world?
Haven't these people heard of rugby and K1?

[Tatyana]

Two neighboring nations, founded around the same time, somewhat over two centuries ago. One nation was founded in violent rebellion and defiance against a horrendous tyrant; the other founded by groveling and cowering before this same tyrant.

Even now, more than two hundred years later, we can still clearly see the difference that this has made.


I know this movie, isn't it 'The Patriot' with Mel Gibson?

[dudalb]

Bob Blaylock seems to be a little ignorant on Canadian history.

[gnome]

I don’t know that this rule has anything to do with the childrens self esteem.. We have a similar rule for the local childrens soccer league; the rule was implemented for the adults.
Some parents and couches whose only motivation in the league was to win at all cost. Their kids played and many others sat the bench and never played one game. The kids were not competing the couches were.

As a result of this behavior many parents didn’t sign up for the league anymore, why pay the league fees and uniform cost if your kids never going to play.

The last year before the rule came in they hardly had enough kids to field teams. Now at least all the kids get to play in just about every game.. You can still put in your best players and run the score up, then back off and let some of the other kids kick the ball around for a while. No harm done.

So in a way implementing such a rule was a completely capitalist thing to do. The league with the rule will have more kids paying fees, and the league without the rule will soon die out for lack of participation. Free market in action.

Seems a convoluted way to do it. As long as you don't mind making rules... why not have a rule that says every member of the team must have a chance to play?

[gnome]

In the political sense, I'm about as liberal as they come, and I had such a competitive disorder when I was a kid (er, until I was about 22) that I have no doubt that I would get kicked out of that league after one game. I wanted to DESTROY people I competed against.

I really don't understand what any of that has to do with politics. Despite what blowhard coaches and idiot sportswriters claim, athletic competition fails miserably as an analogy to real life.

I would imagine the source of this "liberals hate competition and want everyone to get a medal" has something to do with economics. It's wonderful to overwhelm your opponent in sports. It's not such a great idea when total victory leaves the competitors unable to feed their family/

It becomes all about politics when you see the other side as so evil, that they become the embodiment of everything you hate.

[Howie Felterbush]

I give you points for the 'tear gassed hippy' remark.

How on earth did soccer become the sport of choice for almost the whole world?
Haven't these people heard of rugby and K1?

Can redeem the points for valuable prizes? :)

[Pardalis]

If it hadn't been for BeAChooser's gratuitous and nonsensical political spin, this thread could have triggered an interesting discussion about a really weird and stupid news item.

Anyone has any idea what went through those peoples' minds? I still can't seem to fathom what the hell they were trying to achieve.

[Jeff Corey]

If it hadn't been for BeAChooser's gratuitous and nonsensical political spin, this thread could have triggered an interesting discussion about a really weird and stupid news item.

Anyone has any idea what went through those peoples' minds? I still can't seem to fathom what the hell they were trying to achieve.

The self esteem shysters have been around for a while and they have managed to con a number of people with low critical thinking skills that infest education departments at a number of universities. These cretins spread a number of half baked ideas, like teaching styles must match learning styles, without empirical evidence. In my experience, as many of these cretins have been rightwingnuts as flaming lefties.

[KingMerv00]

BAC? Hellooooo?

The liberals in here don't support this rule. What do you think of that?

Still there, BAC?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

My take on this:

Yes, it is a bit ridiculous to "even out" sports games for children. Yes, they should be taught that you sometimes lose. Yes, they shouldn't be coddled like babies. They should play by the rules. Yes, they should deal with losing. Yes, they should be taught to deal with losing by being made to (gently) feel it. Yes, they can take it.

However!

It's a silly game for children, not the NBA. It's not even a serious high school game. It's an excuse to get the little buggers to run around on the grass and get some fresh air, instead of staying home and playing video games all day. And for their parents to eat sandwiches, drink soda, smoke, chat with the other parents and get some sun while taking a two hour a week break from the children. It's not a serious game. Who cares if the scores for it are slanted? It's a children's league! Ok, let them coddle them a little. They aren't playing real soccer or real sports anyway. It isn't about winning or losing anyway. They are there to go outside, make friends and run around.

Just as childrens' games shouldn't be ridiculously protected, they shouldn't be ridiculously pressured. People treat them so seriously, especially boys and their fathers. So it's good when the refs tell them to cool it and get over themselves, like they've done here. And institute rules that make it clear to both the kids and the parents that it isn't about winning and losing but having fun and it ain't A Roman Victory! when you win and it isn't The End of the World! when you lose.

These macho dads treat these games like they are gladiator duels or wars between nations. They want to teach! little junior by making him kick the other kids' asses! When the others lose, they behave like they've triumphantly claimed their manhood.

When the children lose, these obnoxious smug self serious macho ******** want them to "Feel the sting of rejection and feel the pain of losing to harden them and prepare them"- like it's a freaking life test or rite of passage on the level of a job interview or a first romantic relationship! :confused: Like it's a major life lesson! And not a silly stupid backyard game.

Allright, yes, they should know how to lose- but it's not a "life lesson". It's not a test of skill. It's not a test of manhood. It's not a test of value. It's ten snot nosed kids running around on a patch of grass with a dirty ball to kill an hour or two.

So I'm for these obnoxious idiots- Adult men who are so invested in a game between 7 year olds! What is wrong with them? How are they not ashamed of themselves? What big babies!- being told to shut up, sit down and enjoy the game. And not treat it like a contest between two waring armies.

ETA: Oh yeah, and the kids take it too seriously, too. When they win, they behave like they've won the freaking NBA championships. They treat their minor athletic achievements over another group who is just as talentless as they are in the scheme of things like they've just won at the Olympics by 20-1. They behave like they've vanquished an enemy, just like the adults there do. The children- particularly the boys- are taught to be arrogant, petty, classless, selfish, egotistical bullies when they should be taught to shrug it off when they win something that does not matter, congratulate the others, invite them for pizza later on, no hard feelings, mate. So I'm for taking the wind out of their sails and putting them in their place, too.

Really, what kind of a petty, egotistical and insecure jerk do you have to be to not only want to win but insist on winning with that large of a margin? It's not enough for you that you've already won? You have to insist on winning by an enormous amount of points? Against someone who is clearly a lot less capable than you are? You have to "beat them to a pulp"?

[dc1971]

Yes! Leave it to BAC to enlighten us and lead us down the path to salvation!

Thank you, BAC!

...:rub:

...Thank you... :bigclap

[bpesta22]

JC link me to that myth study!

[Redtail]

My take on this:

Yes, it is a bit ridiculous to "even out" sports games for children. Yes, they should be taught that you sometimes lose. Yes, they shouldn't be coddled like babies. They should play by the rules. Yes, they should deal with losing. Yes, they should be taught to deal with losing by being made to (gently) feel it. Yes, they can take it.

However!

It's a silly game for children, not the NBA. It's not even a serious high school game. It's an excuse to get the little buggers to run around on the grass and get some fresh air, instead of staying home and playing video games all day. And for their parents to eat sandwiches, drink soda, smoke, chat with the other parents and get some sun while taking a two hour a week break from the children. It's not a serious game. Who cares if the scores for it are slanted? It's a children's league! Ok, let them coddle them a little. They aren't playing real soccer or real sports anyway. It isn't about winning or losing anyway. They are there to go outside, make friends and run around.

Just as childrens' games shouldn't be ridiculously protected, they shouldn't be ridiculously pressured. People treat them so seriously, especially boys and their fathers. So it's good when the refs tell them to cool it and get over themselves, like they've done here. And institute rules that make it clear to both the kids and the parents that it isn't about winning and losing but having fun and it ain't A Roman Victory! when you win and it isn't The End of the World! when you lose.

These macho dads treat these games like they are gladiator duels or wars between nations. They want to teach! little junior by making him kick the other kids' asses! When the others lose, they behave like they've triumphantly claimed their manhood.

When the children lose, these obnoxious smug self serious macho ******** want them to "Feel the sting of rejection and feel the pain of losing to harden them and prepare them"- like it's a freaking life test or rite of passage on the level of a job interview or a first romantic relationship! :confused: Like it's a major life lesson! And not a silly stupid backyard game.

Allright, yes, they should know how to lose- but it's not a "life lesson". It's not a test of skill. It's not a test of manhood. It's not a test of value. It's ten snot nosed kids running around on a patch of grass with a dirty ball to kill an hour or two.

So I'm for these obnoxious idiots- Adult men who are so invested in a game between 7 year olds! What is wrong with them? How are they not ashamed of themselves? What big babies!- being told to shut up, sit down and enjoy the game. And not treat it like a contest between two waring armies.

ETA: Oh yeah, and the kids take it too seriously, too. When they win, they behave like they've won the freaking NBA championships. They treat their minor athletic achievements over another group who is just as talentless as they are in the scheme of things like they've just won at the Olympics by 20-1. They behave like they've vanquished an enemy, just like the adults there do. The children- particularly the boys- are taught to be arrogant, petty, classless, selfish, egotistical bullies when they should be taught to shrug it off when they win something that does not matter, congratulate the others, invite them for pizza later on, no hard feelings, mate. So I'm for taking the wind out of their sails and putting them in their place, too.

Really, what kind of a petty, egotistical and insecure jerk do you have to be to not only want to win but insist on winning with that large of a margin? It's not enough for you that you've already won? You have to insist on winning by an enormous amount of points? Against someone is clearly a lot less capable than you are? You have to "beat them to a pulp"?
^This.

[KingMerv00]

^This.

Having refereed child soccer, I would like to say that sport parents are awful awful people. Yes, every last one of them.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Having refereed child soccer, I would like to say that sport parents are awful awful people. Yes, every last one of them.

Oh yeah.

A lot of parents live through their children in some way and want their sons and/or daughters to accomplish what they didn't.

All parents, even if they don't live vicariously through their kids, have their egos inflated through their children's accomplishments and feel a lot of pride when they succeed and shame and disappointment when they fail.

These people, however...holy hell. They take it to another level. What kind of a terrible person do you have to be to make a helpless and defenseless 7-year-old boy (or girl) play soccer or hockey games against other 7-year-olds and purposefully make those children feel bad about themselves on your wishes and all for your benefit and feel validated through it? :mad:

Not that this is limited to sports. Parents behave the same way when it comes to academics, arts, piano, dancing, etc. When I was 18 years old, I visited a friend/boyfriend's home (the first time I had ever been there and the first time I had ever laid eyes on his father and sister- and only the second time I had ever met his mother) and stayed for dinner with his parents and 11 year old sister. The kid sister was an aspiring artist and was a really nice, shy and quiet girl. Think she was going for arts school at the time. The father, over dinner, right in front of me, loudly chewed her out for not having worked on her art that day. And I mean chewed her out. Gave her a browbeating.

What kind of a bastard do you have to be to talk to an 11-year-old like that? And especially in front of a stranger who is a guest in your home! Whom you have never seen before in your life! To air your dirty laundry like that...absolutely zero propriety...didn't he realize how rude and inconsiderate that was towards me? How uncomfortable he made me feel?

[Jeff Corey]

JC link me to that myth study!

Voila! http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pdf/pspi411.pdf
Note the the authors are most likely screaming liberal woosies, all are academics at universities and some are female. You know what that means.

[skip]

Seems a convoluted way to do it. As long as you don't mind making rules... why not have a rule that says every member of the team must have a chance to play?

I believe that is a rule in our local league.. I would think that it would be typical in many youth sports leagues. The rule was mostly ignored because there were no consequences for ignoring it. The couches that did follow that rule and let the kids play were usually the ones that lost the games 20 to 0.

[Suddenly]

I believe that is a rule in our local league.. I would think that it would be typical in many youth sports leagues. The rule was mostly ignored because there were no consequences for ignoring it. The couches that did follow that rule and let the kids play were usually the ones that lost the games 20 to 0.

That was a rule in every youth sport I ever played in, coached, or officiated. Simple enforcement: you don't satisfy the rule by playing every player the required amount, you lose.

Then again, whether it was a different era or a regional thing, I never had or played against a coach in youth sports that would try to put weaker sides to the sword. A coach that did would have been socially ostracized.

If nothing else, trying to run up a score is dumb because it wastes a chance to get other players experience, allow the players to maybe try a different position, etc.

[TraneWreck]

My take on this:

[...]

Really, what kind of a petty, egotistical and insecure jerk do you have to be to not only want to win but insist on winning with that large of a margin? It's not enough for you that you've already won? You have to insist on winning by an enormous amount of points? Against someone who is clearly a lot less capable than you are? You have to "beat them to a pulp"?

I couldn't agree with this more.

The problem with youth sports in America, which are becoming more and more "militarized" every day, is the parents and assorted handlers (coaches, trainers...etc.), not the kids.

I'm not sure this specific rule is the best way to deal with overbearing parents, but given how young these kids are, this really isn't the end of the world. There will be plenty of time to cultivate a killer spirit, making sure they aren't morbidly obese by the time they enter middle school is the primary goal.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I couldn't agree with this more.

The problem with youth sports in America, which are becoming more and more "militarized" every day, is the parents and assorted handlers (coaches, trainers...etc.), not the kids.

I'm not sure this specific rule is the best way to deal with overbearing parents, but given how young these kids are, this really isn't the end of the world. There will be plenty of time to cultivate a killer spirit, making sure they aren't morbidly obese by the time they enter middle school is the primary goal.

Exactly.

It's not that competitiveness is bad, it is that it is bad over something that does not matter.

Olympians being competitive- all right. They are all champions who are taking on people of their own size in a competition that carries real weight. That is a serious competition where it is a question of winning and losing and how large of a margin you win by is very important.

The young minds at an average Ottawa public school being "competitive"- now that's just bullying.

[gnome]

I disagree.

Children (people, natch) are naturally quite competitive, and instinct may lead that competitive urge into violence if not otherwise steered into less destructive channels with rules and structure. That's part of what civilization is for. It is also a powerful urge to harness, driving us to excel.

I hate sports bullies. And sport bullying parents. But I won't scoff at the idea of competitive activities for kids.

[Dorian Gray]

Now I've actually demonstrated the hypocritical politics of teachers:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5992993&postcount=151

You, on the other hand, are just engaging in personal attack and ad-hominems.
Be careful with calling BeAChooser any names. If you use his arguments against him, he will tell on you. For example, if you point out that he doesn't seem to have a problem with rules designed to handicap those who are better players at, say, debating, he will tattle and you will get modded, thus proving your point implicitly; but since you have been modded, it's a default win in his favor. But as he has pointed out, such rules are only supportive of the weenie mindset of the liberal scum. Fortunately, his type of conservatism allows one to hold a variety of viewpoints that to liberal idiots are seemingly contradictory, but in great conservative minds (like Palin and Bush) are actually a sort of soft omniscience.

What I am having a problem with is that every single person from Europe is a goddamn progressive socialist liberal limp-wristed treehugging kumbaya-fest, and yet all their sports are not only highly competitive on the field - you could rack up 100 goals over the other team if possible - but the fans are just as competitive in the stands, utterly unhindered by laws and rules. In other words, they are nearly libertarian or even conservative. This obviously means that allowing teams to run up goals leads to changes in their brains that lead to them having better ideologies, that in turn will lead to the conversion of all Europeans to conservativism! This is a hard concept to get my moronic lying liberal mind around! OMG!!!!!

[Dorian Gray]

yeah the red stripes are a total giveaway

http://www.freeulysses.com/uploaded_images/socialist-flag-barack-765885.jpg

;)
Hooray, beer!

[Dorian Gray]

Where did you get that silly idea? I never suggested there aren't conservative teachers or teachers who think policies such as that evident in the OP aren't plain stupid. But you'd have to be brain dead to think liberals haven't been in control of determining education curriculum and promoting un-earned self-esteem policies for a long, long time. Why the largest educational research organization in the country has none other than William Ayers in charge of it's division on curriculum. Liberals/democrats clearly control the education boards of most large cities and determine what will or won't be taught and determine policies such as that typified in the OP. Likewise, teachers and their unions, who are by and large demonstrably liberal/democrat leaning, are involved in that process and act as the enforcers. :D Why don't conservatives care about education?

[funk de fino]

i had no clue that the teachers in the USA are a Homogeneous group.

Everyone except BAC seems to be in that homogenous group at times.

I love the use of "points" and "toss the ball around" in the OP. It's goals you morons and if you toss a football around you get penalised for hand ball.

[Dorian Gray]

Then isn't the solution to stop the application of self-esteem policies? Stop the brainwashing of our kids? Not just give the brainwashers more money?Help me understand something: If liberals have been brainwashing kids for decades, then wouldn't everyone be a liberal? But clearly that's not the case. I mean, either liberals are not brainwashing kids, in which case someone pooped on the carpet, or liberals are completely ineffective at brainwashing kids, in which case there's not really that much of a problem.

[Rairun]

If this is done so kids aren't hurt, I think it's ridiculous. They have to learn how to lose. And I'm a liberal.

But if the problem is that only 11 kids play while the rest rot away on the bench, then the solution is simple: stop focusing on the league. Maybe have a short one once a year, if you're so inclined, and only let your very best players participate. But for the rest of the year, just get all the kids together and let them play.

When I was young, we'd play football several times a week. If we didn't have a football, we'd play with smashed coke cans. We divided the teams more or less evenly, and then we did our best to win. So we were only competitive in the context of the match. We tried hard to beat the opposing team, but there was no pressure to only allow great players to join in, because there was no league.

Playing a league should be kind of like playing the world cup. If you aren't selected, it isn't that big a deal. You keep playing every day like you always have, because the football world isn't centered around it. The idea that some kids quit because they are not good enough for a league just puzzles me. Is the rest of the time dedicated solely to training for the competition? If that's the case, that's pretty sad. And you can't even say that kind of mentality produces better players, or else Brazil wouldn't be 5 times world champion.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

If this is done so kids aren't hurt, I think it's ridiculous. They have to learn how to lose. And I'm a liberal.

It's not about having their feelings somewhat hurt. It's about preventing bullying from the other kids and the absolutely out of control sports parents. There's a big difference between just losing and feeling the light sting and behavior from the winners that crosses the line.


Playing a league should be kind of like playing the world cup. If you aren't selected, it isn't that big a deal. You keep playing every day like you always have, because the football world isn't centered around it.

That is not the mentality of childrens' sports. That's what it should be- but not what it is.

The idea that some kids quit because they are not good enough for a league just puzzles me.

Apparently, that was the problem, or part of it...that this attempted to address...

[Rairun]

It's not about having their feelings somewhat hurt. It's about preventing bullying from the other kids and the absolutely out of control sports parents. There's a big difference between just losing and feeling the light sting and behavior from the winners that crosses the line.

That is not the mentality of childrens' sports. That's what it should be- but not what it is.

Apparently, that was the problem, or part of it...that this attempted to address...

But that's the thing. I was severely bullied when I was a kid. I was also one of the worst football players among the ones who cared to play. Yet I was never bullied because I sucked at it. There were plenty of reasons why I was bullied, but sucking at sports was never one of them.

Basically, when you say that's not the mentality of childrens' sports, you mean that's not the mentality of childrens' sports in the US and Canada. And I was suggesting that the difference between those countries and the place where I grew up is the focus on leagues. The problem isn't competition per se. If you don't keep scores, there's no point in playing. It's kind of like playing chess without checkmates--it just doesn't work. The problem is making a tournament the be-all end-all of playing.

We would usually play 5 a side football. We had enough kids for 3 teams (selected evenly). So we created a rule: if you conceded 2 goals, the third team would replace you. So we played for hours on end, and our reward for winning was to keep playing. Our parents never watched us. It was great.

I'm not suggesting that leagues should be banned. There's a place for them, and I actually think only the best players should play. The whole point is to win the trophy, so it makes no sense to pick a sub-par player, or to make an inferior team seem less inferior. If you're going to do that, you might as well cancel the whole thing. My point here is only that there should be more to the sport than that sort of competition.

[Harpyja]

I've found that kid's sports games go downhill not because of the desire of the kids to win, but because of the coaches making a big fuss over whether they win or lose.