THE CZECH IS IN THE MAIL
When it comes to government, socialism looks good on paper but has historically failed when applied in real life.
There has been a system where socialism — or something similar to it — has worked: professional sports.
The salary cap, revenue sharing and other things of the sort have allowed small-market teams such as the Kansas City Chiefs and the San Antonio Spurs to compete against teams from bigger markets including the San Francisco 49ers or Los Angeles Lakers. Each of the aforementioned small-market teams, hailing from cities with media markets outside the top 30 in the nation, have won four or more world championships during their existence.
Another area where competitive balance — or socialism — would work is Little League. Growing up, I was told Little League teams were generally made up of kids from the same neighborhoods.
If that was the case, then why was I rarely on the teams with some of my best friends, whose dads were coaches and tended to be on teams featuring other great athletes? Many of these great athletes did not live in my neighborhood, so I knew something wasn’t right.
Did these dads work for the mob? Did they give a lot of money to the local Little League?
None of my friends’ dads worked for the mob. We lived in Temple, which was less than 50,000 in population then.
They probably gave a lot to the local Little League, but such favoritism toward certain dads/coaches is what is wrong with Little League programs. This is Little League, not Select or Club.
If you want to handpick players and create “All-Star” teams, then sign up to coach Select or Club sports. While there are All-Star teams in Little League — whether it’s picking the best players from each team to compete in an end-of-season All-Star game or to represent your Little League in the playoffs — the regular season needs more parity.
It’s OK to have two to three All-Star caliber players on a team, but make sure every team has that number of All-Stars. Then balance the teams with an equal amount of average and inexperienced players.
Little League teams practice each week, which gives the coaches time to work with the average and inexperienced players. Some kids, especially those who don’t have fathers or other male figures in the picture, need a little extra instruction and positive guidance.
While teams would be more balanced, there would still be winners and losers in every game. But you wouldn’t have teams with two 12-year-olds and nine 11-year-olds losing games by 10 runs or more and only recording one win in a season.
I was on one of those teams. While I was selected for the end-ofseason All-Star game that year, I despised going 1-11 with eight losses by run-rule.
I didn’t play in Little League after that season because I was old enough to play and focus on middle school football and basketball. Not to mention, the questionable selection of Little League teams made me cynical about the program in general.
I didn’t even bother trying to play baseball in high school because many of the Little League power players’ sons were in my age group. I knew I wasn’t going to get playing time ahead of those with “political pull.”
Needless to say, I believe karma came back on those guys — and their dads — our last two years of high school. Those teams failed to reach the playoffs, and one year, they finished last in the District 13-5A standings.
While I am not a socialist, I hope this will be an eye-opener for Little League directors. It’s OK to have socialism — I mean, competitive balance — in Little League.
Chlapek is the area editor of the Taylor Press. He can be reached at jason.chlapek@granitemediapartners. com.
