I need your help. I have a question.

[Safebyahare]

A little time and a little bit light from others brings it to perspective.
I had a hard time grasping that there were that many jerky coaches out there.
Reading another thread made me ponder this subject and that many people do not realize there is a choice.
My conclusion is that most will, but there is a delay process.
They are simply butt hurt, they put time in, the loss of income, the disturbance to team, the tool of commitment, and that no rewards to those who walk away, it reflexs poorly on org/team, ect. ect.
The threat alone is a deterrent to stay and to manipulate the ones on the fringe.
However when the choice is made to leave, and when both parties understand that it is over.
I would guess more coaches than not would sign release forms, all others are ego stubborn and will hold that.

[Sam]

A little time and a little bit light from others brings it to perspective.
I had a hard time grasping that there were that many jerky coaches out there.
Reading another thread made me ponder this subject and that many people do not realize there is a choice.
My conclusion is that most will, but there is a delay process.
They are simply butt hurt, they put time in, the loss of income, the disturbance to team, the tool of commitment, and that no rewards to those who walk away, it reflexs poorly on org/team, ect. ect.
The threat alone is a deterrent to stay and to manipulate the ones on the fringe.
However when the choice is made to leave, and when both parties understand that it is over.
I would guess more coaches than not would sign release forms, all others are ego stubborn and will hold that.

As I explained and you apparently ignored, it has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with the MANAGER'S commitment to the TEAM. Every kid can leave if they aren't happy. The question is whether they should be allowed to play on another team. The player's commitment is to the team and not the manager. Allowing a kid to leave and play elsewhere only feeds the problem and tells all others that they are certainly free to do the same. When managers fail to hold parents to their word, you will eventually just have pickup games........shirts vs skins....with umpires. There is no organization without commitment.

Managers are their own worst enemy. They err on the side of the player, allowing them their release, even when their parents are the real a$$wipes in the situation.

[Safebyahare]

Sam:
I did not ignore what you wrote, it was processed. You say a manager's commitment is to the team.
The manager must sell his product and commitment to the players and parent.
Perhaps he offered more than he was able to accomplish or deliver?
Perhaps the shoe was sold as a one size fits all and is really a size 8 in funny colors.
The question was not about team hopping or buthead parents, it was about releasing a player who is done with a team for whatever reason.
And to let the governing sanction's rules apply.
In regards to your piece on the players commitment to the team....yes and no with some variables.

[Safebyahare]

As I explained and you apparently ignored, it has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with the MANAGER'S commitment to the TEAM. Every kid can leave if they aren't happy. The question is whether they should be allowed to play on another team. The player's commitment is to the team and not the manager.
Allowing a kid to leave and play elsewhere only feeds the problem and tells all others that they are certainly free to do the same. When managers fail to hold parents to their word, you will eventually just have pickup games........shirts vs skins....with umpires. There is no organization without commitment.
Managers are their own worst enemy. They err on the side of the player, allowing them their release, even when their parents are the real a$$wipes in the situation.

Blue-- disagree The commitment is to all parties, Org./team/Mgr./coach/self it is not a one way street and develops into greatness.
Green---disagree, There will always be team hoppers,unhappiness, those envy folks who always look for greener or prestige teams. There are also those that would rather their kid play on a good team and get better, than sit on a team that wins championships.
So what you have conveyed is that some managers will punish a players future play for a season for a commitment that the player made to the team and NOT manager. Who is that kids softball god for a season.

I misspoke when i wrote this "The threat alone is a deterrent to stay and to manipulate the ones on the fringe"
What I ment to say," The threat alone is a deterrent to leave.and to manipulate the fringe.

[jtat32]

A couple of relevant points that I haven't seen addressed:

- The roster release rules aren't set by the teams, they are set by the sanctions. You can probably safely assume that they believe that enforcing these rules is in the best interest of their event. In other words, the rules don't exist for the benefit of vindictive coaches.

- These rules don't prevent you from leaving a team, they just prevent you from playing in the same nats that they are trying to qualify for. This is an agreement that all players/parents voluntarily make. If your situation is untenable, you can always leave and pick up with a team that is going somewhere else.

[jtat32]

Sam:
The manager must sell his product and commitment to the players and parent.
.

He already did, and at this point the parent/player has already bought it. The purchase agreement (official roster) clearly states "no refunds".

[Sam]

Sam:
I did not ignore what you wrote, it was processed. You say a manager's commitment is to the team.
The manager must sell his product and commitment to the players and parent.
Perhaps he offered more than he was able to accomplish or deliver?
Perhaps the shoe was sold as a one size fits all and is really a size 8 in funny colors.
The question was not about team hopping or buthead parents, it was about releasing a player who is done with a team for whatever reason.
And to let the governing sanction's rules apply.
In regards to your piece on the players commitment to the team....yes and no with some variables.

You have made my point. It has nothing to do with a manager's ego and everything to do with the parental ego.

OBTW: the manager doesn't have to sell anything. Kid try out for a team. The manager selects players. The kid is selling her playing ability.

OBTW II: The kid who is done with the team for whatever reason IS the team hopping but thread parents' offspring.

[Sam]

As I explained and you apparently ignored, it has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with the MANAGER'S commitment to the TEAM. Every kid can leave if they aren't happy. The question is whether they should be allowed to play on another team. The player's commitment is to the team and not the manager.
Allowing a kid to leave and play elsewhere only feeds the problem and tells all others that they are certainly free to do the same. When managers fail to hold parents to their word, you will eventually just have pickup games........shirts vs skins....with umpires. There is no organization without commitment.
Managers are their own worst enemy. They err on the side of the player, allowing them their release, even when their parents are the real a$$wipes in the situation.

Blue-- disagree The commitment is to all parties, Org./team/Mgr./coach/self it is not a one way street and develops into greatness.
Green---disagree, There will always be team hoppers,unhappiness, those envy folks who always look for greener or prestige teams. There are also those that would rather their kid play on a good team and get better, than sit on a team that wins championships.
So what you have conveyed is that some managers will punish a players future play for a season for a commitment that the player made to the team and NOT manager. Who is that kids softball god for a season.

I misspoke when i wrote this "The threat alone is a deterrent to stay and to manipulate the ones on the fringe"
What I ment to say," The threat alone is a deterrent to leave.and to manipulate the fringe.

The manager gets to enforce the terms of the commitment. Certainly the player can go play rec ball if they don't like the terms imposed by the travel organizations. If you consider the enforcement of terms in a signed agreement to be a threat, well...I guess you'll get "threatened" quite a bit in life.

[Pale Rider]

I agree with the Rabbit...

[Safebyahare]

The manager gets to enforce the terms of the commitment. Certainly the player can go play rec ball if they don't like the terms imposed by the travel organizations. If you consider the enforcement of terms in a signed agreement to be a threat, well...I guess you'll get "threatened" quite a bit in life.

[/quote]

I love you Sam, your my best friend in the whole world.
WTF What is this crap. If we are talking 12u you are asking a 12u player to make a real time commitment for a year to an older person of authority. Perhaps you should do the recruiting for the PAC 10.
Now let's be real. It is the parents that make the commitments from 8u to 18gold, the parents do the shopping the kid does a blind draw. Sometimes they chose a team for name, sometimes they have friends on a team, sometimes the player doesn't even get a choice, it is the parents..
THEN it is the parents that make the commitment. They pay the bills, they work the snack bars, they get their kid to practices and lessons and games.
The parent not only has a right to do what is best for their child they have the obligation. They are old enough to know what a real commitment or contract is. (you would think)

The managers job is to manage a team or organization. That's it;.(that is big and hard work)
It is not the managers job to interfere with a player that is no longer on their team. No matter how big an asswipe the parents are. If they paid and are current, it should not be a managers job to dictate the way or avenue that player or parent choses to go.
The sanctioning bodies have the rules.
It is the managers signature that releases a player, please tell me again whos ego prevents the pen from touching the paper.
You said "OBTW II: The kid who is done with the team for whatever reason IS the team hopping but thread parents' offspring." Little info, my dd is in college, and after 3yrs rec. and 6yrs TB she only left a team during a season once. If that is a team hopper, well,,,that is what wabbits do. (the right move for the right reasons, no regrets)
PS,,,,,I love a good roll in the mud now and them. thx.
PSS....If a friend says "I'll see you later" THAT is a threat my speed.