Among the most difficult things to explain within youth sports is the difference between developmental and competitive in a sports world that imagines 10-year-olds to be elite. How does a coach or organization manage development within a competitive environment?
Development and competition often are viewed as incompatible; a league either keeps score and rewards winning or there is no scoreboard and it focuses on development; coaches either play to win or they play to develop. Development does not have to mean no scoreboards or not trying to win, just as competitive does not mean that players cannot improve. However, there are certain things that differentiate development-oriented environments from competitive-oriented environments.
My first tell is tryouts. Generally-speaking, organizations that cut youth players are not developmental. Now, some organizations, such as high schools, have too many players for the available gym space; unfortunately, some players must be cut. The same happens with some club teams.
However, if a high school cuts players without fielding Freshmen, Junior Varsity and Varsity teams, they are competitive — concerned foremost with winning — and not developmental. Similarly, club organizations should make every effort to provide opportunities for every player who shows up to tryouts, regardless of skill level and experience, rather than advertising that they need more players, but only a 6' 11-year-old with experience and a jump shot.
At my club this season, we did not have formal tryouts. My U16 group had 15-16 players, although FIBA allows only 12 players to be rostered each game. We had an U15 team with 10+ players playing in the same age group (the age groups go U12, U13, U14, U16, U18). Finally, we had another group called the "rec" group who practiced and played together; they essentially were cut from the "competitive" teams because of skill, size, or experience, although some played occasionally with the competitive teams. Several "rec" players also were encouraged to referee and keep score. The goal was to keep people involved with the club for as long as possible in as many ways as possible rather than to eliminate those identified as too small or not talented. By season's end, our 8th man was a player who was with the "rec" group in the previous season, so the team designations were not career-ending.
A second tell is playing time. By rule, we could not roster every player for every game because FIBA limits teams to 12-player rosters. Injuries, vacations, illness, missed practice, etc. often determined the team each weekend; it was not until the playoffs that I had to decide who to roster. When we went to our finals for a European league, we took 13 players and rotated each game; the others were absent because of school trips.
We played all 12 players in every half of almost every game. This was not required by rule, but was expected by the club, and nearly every club was the same. The exceptions were 1-2 games at the international tournament finals and the league championship game, in which 1-2 players did not play until the final minute (which I don't count as playing time).
We played to win. We won 4 youth trophies between my 2 teams and the U16 team went undefeated in its league. However, this will to win did not take precedence over playing time. When we traveled to the international league, we could have competed better if we only took our top 8-9 players or only played 8-9 players; some other clubs took this route, only traveling their ideal rotation. It's not unreasonable when traveling to foreign countries to take a few less players to cut costs on a hotel room or two and meals, while also making the team more competitive.
This differentiates the developmental and competitive. We played to win; however, when playing everyone likely hurt our chances to win (not necessarily because our 12th man was bad, but because it meant our top 2-3 players only played 20 minutes instead of 30), we sacrificed the win for the playing time until the finals. This was not mandated by rules; often our best player played 22 minutes, and our opponent's best player played 37 minutes, although most clubs played everyone. When forced to choose between winning (possibly) and playing everyone, we chose to play everyone. That's the difference between competitive and developmental. We played to win, we wanted to win trophies, but the ultimate goal was the future, not the immediate trophy.
Within our league, this was made easier because most clubs took the same approach. Often, their best player played nearly the whole game, but everyone played; our depth was generally better, so no player played a lot more than anyone else. Our U18 was similar in terms of playing everyone, but we had definite divisions between the best players, the good players and the rest, so playing time was skewed much more, although everyone played in every half. Our best players played 25-32 minutes, the middle players played +/- 20 mins, and the lesser players played less than 10 minutes. However, everyone played, even in the cup championship game.
Many high schools play a 6-player rotation; that is a competitive approach. Right or wrong, they value winning over development.
The high-school system and a club system in Europe have different goals. The school system sets fairly definitive markers for the end of one's career. For many, it is the beginning of high school, as they fail to make a high school team. For others, it is later, when they fail to move from the Junior Varsity to the Varsity. For most of the rest, as only 3% play in college, it is the end of high school. European Clubs do not have these specific end dates. Because varsity marks the end of most players' careers, it makes sense to view this level as a competitive level.
Most of my u18 players continue to play; a few quit for other reasons - school, jobs, girls - but they had the opportunity to play for one of the men's teams. Our 1st division men's teams faced players as old as 48 years old; the championship was won by a team with players mostly in their 30s, whereas we fielded a team with nobody older than 21. For our club, the purpose of the youth program was to develop players for the professional team, not to win an U18 cup championship.
In the interest of keeping players involved, when an 18-year-old (last year of high school) did not have a men's team in his club to play for, he was allowed to play on the U18 team. We had one 18-year-old player move to our club because his home club had two options: U18 team or pro team, and the pro coach said he would never play. He did not want to play U18 again, so he joined our 1st Division men's team. We had another player, a potentially late bloomer, who was 18 and not good enough to earn minutes on our men's teams, so he played with our U18s. Again, the rule is not there to help stack teams, but to provide more opportunities for players, as the age groups do not align with the school system (girls play U16 & U19 to match the school system, whereas boys play U16 and U18). This is an example of clubs and the federation working together for developmental purposes, not competitive.
There is a fine line. Did I get too competitive in the championship game by not playing a player until the outcome was decided? Maybe. Was the trophy worth his not playing in a single game out of more than 50 in the season? I don't know. You'd have to ask him, but he seemed pretty happy when we won. Overall, the club has a developmental focus, and despite the desire to win trophies, the approach is best illustrated by finding/starting teams for all of the players who want to play, not just focusing on the best 8-12 at any age group, and by playing everyone in every game. The best part was seeing that almost all the clubs were aligned with this approach too. I rarely saw a game where a player dressed but did not play. In this way, the clubs work together for all the players, not just the exceptional, because the quality of the professional league and the national team depends on the development of many players, not just the best 2-3 players.
