First time head coach (MS) and A/D here, and I want to try to get some feedback on an issue our program faces routinely and a potential approach to dealing with it.

We're a medium sized church program that can usually field MS, JV, and Varsity teams for girls and boys. We play similar church programs and many private schools in the area. It is an informal network, there is no sanctioning league or common organization to work through.

We have a Coach/Parent/Player handbook that specifies that each player plays for ONE team, and is expected to be committed to that team. Likewise, the handbook says that coaches are to be committed to their players. Therefore, we do not allow age-eligible JV players to play down in MS games, nor age-eligible Varsity players to play down in JV games. There is an exception for genuine shortages (<8), but the stipulation is that substitutes playing down are there to support the team in need, on the far end of the bench, NOT to push the regulars off the floor.

Perhaps it's needless to say, but the norm for our MS and JV games is to encounter age-eligible down-playing players either: (1) dominating the game resulting in a rout or (2) standing by to guarantee the win if it's a close game.

It's natural that my coaches are tempted to respond in kind (we have two match-ups with each opponent per season). However, that would contradict the policy we have already agreed is best for our kids, and suck us into that mentality. I have some emotional parents whose kids are on the losing end of 40-50 point routs because they are in effect playing some teams a level up. It just happens that in our normal cycle of strong/weak years, we have very green MS and JV teams, so the effect of this kind of behavior is magnified this year.

The term "No Hedge Pledge" popped into my mind as I was thinking about this.
I was thinking of creating a statement that we would commit to and present it as an invitation to our opponents when we are scheduling next seasons games, something along the lines of:
"We are committed to competitive MS and JV games. We will not bring down advanced players from higher level teams, regardless of age-eligibility as a hedge to gain the win, thereby affording kids the opportunity to play with the team they practice with, at their level of talent, and not be displaced from the floor to make room for players from a higher team just to gain the W for the coach".

It would not be my intention to only schedule with others who take the pledge (maybe we wouldn't have a season). It's just a public statement of our commitment and an invitation to do likewise. If they won't do it and it grinds on their conscience, so much the better.

I would like to know what other coaches, parents, and A/D's think about this approach.
Is it likely to flop with our opponents? Will we be "frozen out" if I essentially confront them with this?

Couple thoughts...

1) Has anyone politely talked to the other schools? Explained what you're trying to do, reasons for it, and see if they'd be interested in doing the same. Maybe by posing the question to them and giving the rational... to see if they are "interested"... they might be more open to the idea. Or maybe even discussing the pros and cons they come up with the idea on their own and most people are are accepting of change if it's "their own idea"... or at least they think it is.

From my perspective their kids aren't benefiting from beating you by 40-50. Maybe it's just how they always do things so nobody has thought to change? Or maybe there are other reasons you are not aware for them to want to move players in this way?

The only way to find this out is by talking with them in a non-confrontational way.

2) In many states, I see the high school structure go something like this, which I like:

* Varsity - this is the best team you can put together... 9th - 12th grade. Could be all 9th graders or all 12th graders. Anyone in high school is eligible.
*JV - this is the 2nd best team.... 9th - 12th grade.
* JV reserve - this is for juniors, seniors, and possible sophomores that don't get to play JV or varsity.
* 9th-10th grade... this is best 9th/10th grade team you can put together from the players that are left.

Biggers schools have a 9th grade and 10th grade team. Small to medium combine as explained above.

This seems to work pretty good... giving every player the appropriate challenge and opportunities.

BTW. I don't think you're pledge idea is a bad idea. I'm not sure if it would work though? Hard to say but if I were the AD at the other school I'm not sure that would sway me to change. I guess it depends on the situation... like maybe I had no idea that was the understanding I might change... if I already knew I probably would not and just be a little put off.

Just thinking as I type here.

This is what most leagues do for the reasons you're pointing out in the bulk of your post. They create levels and players are not allowed to "play down" once they've committed to the higher level, regardless of their age.

That might need to change. Even if you were able to get an informal board together for a quick meeting each year, that would be a great place to bring up concerns like the one in your post.

Currently, who organizes the schedules and end of season tourney? Who coordinates the gym times and makes sure the refs are available?

Are there are other leagues in your city or is this the only game in town?

Personally, I think your best chance of changing things is through some type of board or coaches meeting where you can vote/agree on certain items. I wouldn't present the idea as though you have an agenda though, I'd go more with some possible other benefits of having a meeting once a year. Maybe float the idea out to a few other coaches in your league that have a similar mindset? It would help if you have a handful of coaches who liked the idea of a once a year meeting to get more on board.

Thanks for the inputs.

We're in a small town with only two private school opponents in town, and the rest ranging from 10-70 miles away. Many are schools already in leagues that add us as non-conference games.

Some of our folks are worried we're going to lose opponents if we bring this up with them (ie, they'll be offended). I'm frustrated by that way of thinking, but I have a acknowledge I'm a bit wary of being the AD that destroyed our opponent list that has existed for decades and I'm brand new on the scene.

Thanks for the clarification, it helps. That's a tight spot to be in as it sounds like you don't have many options regarding leagues or opponents. Plus, being known as the AD who single-handedly destroyed our basketball league with a plaque in the school hallway doesn't sound appealing.

I remember way back in kindergarten at the YMCA we had colored wristbands to match up on defense. Without fail, I always ran into the coach who would look for my weakest kid and change his strongest kid's wristband to that color. So, I'd get the refs attention and change the colors, so we matched up again giving the other coach a nod.

You already know this, but you won't be able to make everyone happy. If you have a conviction that your handbook is the way things should go (and I agree with your principles there), then you'll have to live with the outcomes based on your current crop of players. Trying to get other teams in your league to "see the light" is a big undertaking without some governing oversight and a venue to express your opinions.

The sticking point is your handbook. You guys are playing by a different set of rules than the other teams. I'm assuming the reason behind not allowing your players who are playing up to move down is to make the regular players better, correct? If so, then explaining that to the players and parents before each season would probably help matters. Still will have blow-outs and overly excited parents, but you can point back to your handout at the beginning of the season. Controlling your team and program is a much better use of energy than worrying about the other teams.

I applaud your willingness to go against the tide.