Why do girls play in Boys Leagues???

Its Me wrote:My issue with it is:
You're telling me that this DD is so good that she is still unchallenged when playing up a year in the Girls brackets? I wasn't really impressed with the talent to be playing in boys division. In the 00's girls you have Solar Red that has an excellent set of girls or why not play for one of the top U12 girls teams.

It's more of a bragging right for the kids and parents. Also, it could be that the parents are making demands that coaches will not put up with therefore you're only option is a girls team.

norwich city wrote:

Its Me wrote:My issue with it is:
You're telling me that this DD is so good that she is still unchallenged when playing up a year in the Girls brackets? I wasn't really impressed with the talent to be playing in boys division. In the 00's girls you have Solar Red that has an excellent set of girls or why not play for one of the top U12 girls teams.

It's more of a bragging right for the kids and parents. Also, it could be that the parents are making demands that coaches will not put up with therefore you're only option is a girls team.

Well said!!

soccer23 wrote:

norwich city wrote:

Its Me wrote:My issue with it is:
You're telling me that this DD is so good that she is still unchallenged when playing up a year in the Girls brackets? I wasn't really impressed with the talent to be playing in boys division. In the 00's girls you have Solar Red that has an excellent set of girls or why not play for one of the top U12 girls teams.

It's more of a bragging right for the kids and parents. Also, it could be that the parents are making demands that coaches will not put up with therefore you're only option is a girls team.

Well said!!

First, me's post doesn't make much sense--"girls team"? did you mean boys team? Second, the rest of it, and norwhich's seconding of the same, sounds like sour grapes. Why do you care if your son plays against a girl? Or with a girl for that matter? Why does it matter to you where a girl chooses to play? It is not effecting your kid. Or, at least it shouldn't be. (But clearly it has bothered the two of you). People choose what is the best for their individual kid. Boy or girl. You choose what is the best situation for yours. Quit worrying about what others choose for their children. It is 2010 (yesterday was the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment), not 1910. There are 5 women in the presidential line of succession (including 2nd and 4th). It is a brave new world. Welcome to it.

soccer23 wrote:

norwich city wrote:

Its Me wrote:My issue with it is:
You're telling me that this DD is so good that she is still unchallenged when playing up a year in the Girls brackets? I wasn't really impressed with the talent to be playing in boys division. In the 00's girls you have Solar Red that has an excellent set of girls or why not play for one of the top U12 girls teams.

It's more of a bragging right for the kids and parents. Also, it could be that the parents are making demands that coaches will not put up with therefore you're only option is a girls team.

Well said!!

First, me's post doesn't make much sense--"girls team"? did you mean boys team? Second, the rest of it, and norwhich's seconding of the same, sounds like sour grapes. Why do you care if your son plays against a girl? Or with a girl for that matter? Why does it matter to you where a girl chooses to play? It is not effecting your kid. Or, at least it shouldn't be. (But clearly it has bothered the two of you). People choose what is the best for their individual kid. Boy or girl. You choose what is the best situation for yours. Quit worrying about what others choose for their children. It is 2010 (yesterday was the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment), not 1910. There are 5 women in the presidential line of succession (including 2nd and 4th). It is a brave new world. Welcome to it.

Its Me wrote:

soccer23 wrote:

norwich city wrote:

Its Me wrote:My issue with it is:
You're telling me that this DD is so good that she is still unchallenged when playing up a year in the Girls brackets? I wasn't really impressed with the talent to be playing in boys division. In the 00's girls you have Solar Red that has an excellent set of girls or why not play for one of the top U12 girls teams.

It's more of a bragging right for the kids and parents. Also, it could be that the parents are making demands that coaches will not put up with therefore you're only option is a girls team.

Well said!!

First, me's post doesn't make much sense--"girls team"? did you mean boys team? Second, the rest of it, and norwhich's seconding of the same, sounds like sour grapes. Why do you care if your son plays against a girl? Or with a girl for that matter? Why does it matter to you where a girl chooses to play? It is not effecting your kid. Or, at least it shouldn't be. (But clearly it has bothered the two of you). People choose what is the best for their individual kid. Boy or girl. You choose what is the best situation for yours. Quit worrying about what others choose for their children. It is 2010 (yesterday was the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment), not 1910. There are 5 women in the presidential line of succession (including 2nd and 4th). It is a brave new world. Welcome to it.

I really don't care who she or he plays for. Do I have a problem with girls playing with boys? No.
I don't have a problem with my son playing against a girl or girls team. Just like I don't have a problem with teams playing up an age in tournaments. If they have the skills and the size to play and compete that's good. However, in North Texas I wouldn't have my daughter on a boys team. Just my personal opinion and why would I have "sour grapes". Stupid statement.

Soccer23, so you're telling me that in North Texas there are "NO" qualified teams for a DD to play on? And the only option is to play with boys? That's Bull!

Again well said.

95/98mom wrote:My two cents (as a mom of DD's and BB's)...If there are no leagues or teams available for girls, they should be allowed on boys' teams, and those teams should be properly termed co-ed. Where leagues and teams are available for each, I don't think children of either sex should be allowed to choose to play on the opposite sex teams. Since we have high quality coaches, teams and leagues for boys and girls in most of NTX, there appears to be no purpose other than for girls (or their parents) to "prove themselves" against the boys. Considering that girls mature earlier, there's really little to prove. From U-7 to U-12 or so, quite a few girls are faster, stronger, more skilled, and especially more tactically aware than many boys of the same age. Of course they can compete with the boys. The girls get an additional edge because they get an "atta girl" when they play aggressively against a boy, while boys may shy away from playing aggressively against a girl or be called for very questionable fouls when a girl goes down.

jlussi wrote:I've coach co-ed as recent as the summer (indoor U15), the kids had a great time and they did well and yes they recieved plenty of blue cards for hard fouls.

R1 wrote:

jlussi wrote:I've coach co-ed as recent as the summer (indoor U15), the kids had a great time and they did well and yes they recieved plenty of blue cards for hard fouls.

Nobody's talking about coed leagues.

Talking about girls playing in boys leagues. Which is ok for the girls at age 9-12 or so, especially since girls are bigger and heavier than boys (on average) at that age. But I agree that they have about twice as many girls teams out there than boys teams, so you would think they could find some good competition out there in this area.

But I bet if a really good boy player wanted to play on a girls team (in a girls league - not coed), at age 15-19, just for fun for a season or two, the parents on the girls team opponents would have total freak out fits about it. Boys are bigger, stronger and faster at those ages (sounds familiar), so the girls parents wouldn't stand for it.

Boys parents at age 9-12 stand for it, they just bitch about it. Sounds like a double standard despite all the talk of equality and the 20th century, etc.

95/98mom wrote:My two cents (as a mom of DD's and BB's)...If there are no leagues or teams available for girls, they should be allowed on boys' teams, and those teams should be properly termed co-ed. Where leagues and teams are available for each, I don't think children of either sex should be allowed to choose to play on the opposite sex teams. Since we have high quality coaches, teams and leagues for boys and girls in most of NTX, there appears to be no purpose other than for girls (or their parents) to "prove themselves" against the boys. Considering that girls mature earlier, there's really little to prove. From U-7 to U-12 or so, quite a few girls are faster, stronger, more skilled, and especially more tactically aware than many boys of the same age. Of course they can compete with the boys. The girls get an additional edge because they get an "atta girl" when they play aggressively against a boy, while boys may shy away from playing aggressively against a girl or be called for very questionable fouls when a girl goes down.

Yak Attack wrote:
And the smaller player always get the sympathy calls...

Both my dd and bb have played opposite sexes many times over the years. Some in practice/scrimmages, some indoor, ... can't say it would have worked that well in the outdoor leagues. It almost always came down to some advantage the girls needed to keep up as a team. For example my dd's U12 team would play a U11 boys team. Both were D1 and even with the year advantage, the boys were faster. It was far more beneficial for the girls as they were forced to play a quicker game than normal (or just use their size to hip check those little speed demons right off the ball).

It was never about anything other than looking for a good competitive match for our girls, although I'd get a laugh when the tough girls would knock a boy into the boards at Spectrum. Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.

Blitzed wrote:

Yak Attack wrote:
And the smaller player always get the sympathy calls...

Both my dd and bb have played opposite sexes many times over the years. Some in practice/scrimmages, some indoor, ... can't say it would have worked that well in the outdoor leagues. It almost always came down to some advantage the girls needed to keep up as a team. For example my dd's U12 team would play a U11 boys team. Both were D1 and even with the year advantage, the boys were faster. It was far more beneficial for the girls as they were forced to play a quicker game than normal (or just use their size to hip check those little speed demons right off the ball).

It was never about anything other than looking for a good competitive match for our girls, although I'd get a laugh when the tough girls would knock a boy into the boards at Spectrum. Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.

It isn't about looking for a good competitive match for the girls. If it was, playing up a year in the girls league would suffice. It is about the parents patting themselves on the back when their girls knock the boys into the boards and screaming bloody murder when the reverse happens. "(Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.)"

What a joke for the boys teams. They should just ask for a refund and play somewhere else. There is nothing in it for the boys.

Blitzed wrote:

Yak Attack wrote:
And the smaller player always get the sympathy calls...

Both my dd and bb have played opposite sexes many times over the years. Some in practice/scrimmages, some indoor, ... can't say it would have worked that well in the outdoor leagues. It almost always came down to some advantage the girls needed to keep up as a team. For example my dd's U12 team would play a U11 boys team. Both were D1 and even with the year advantage, the boys were faster. It was far more beneficial for the girls as they were forced to play a quicker game than normal (or just use their size to hip check those little speed demons right off the ball).

It was never about anything other than looking for a good competitive match for our girls, although I'd get a laugh when the tough girls would knock a boy into the boards at Spectrum. Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.

It isn't about looking for a good competitive match for the girls. If it was, playing up a year in the girls league would suffice. It is about the parents patting themselves on the back when their girls knock the boys into the boards and screaming bloody murder when the reverse happens. "(Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.)"

What a joke for the boys teams. They should just ask for a refund and play somewhere else. There is nothing in it for the boys.

Blitzed wrote:

Blitzed wrote:

Yak Attack wrote:
And the smaller player always get the sympathy calls...

Both my dd and bb have played opposite sexes many times over the years. Some in practice/scrimmages, some indoor, ... can't say it would have worked that well in the outdoor leagues. It almost always came down to some advantage the girls needed to keep up as a team. For example my dd's U12 team would play a U11 boys team. Both were D1 and even with the year advantage, the boys were faster. It was far more beneficial for the girls as they were forced to play a quicker game than normal (or just use their size to hip check those little speed demons right off the ball).

It was never about anything other than looking for a good competitive match for our girls, although I'd get a laugh when the tough girls would knock a boy into the boards at Spectrum. Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.

It isn't about looking for a good competitive match for the girls. If it was, playing up a year in the girls league would suffice. It is about the parents patting themselves on the back when their girls knock the boys into the boards and screaming bloody murder when the reverse happens. "(Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.)"

What a joke for the boys teams. They should just ask for a refund and play somewhere else. There is nothing in it for the boys.

You have missed my points so I will reiterate them.

#1-You can get better competition by playing up a year in the girls leagues, you don't need to play in the boys leagues. The fact that you aren't even the top girls team in your age group is evidence of this.

#2-There is nothing in this for the boys. I don't care that you placed second in league. I don't care that the games were competitive. When boys play girls, if they win it's no big deal because the beat a bunch of girls. If they lose though, it is a big deal because they lost to a bunch of girls.

You think just because some of the girls teams can be competitive with the boys means the girls should play in boys leagues however, it has nothing to do with whether the games are competitive or not. There simply isn't anything to gain for a boys team playing girls teams. Girls teams in boys leagues are an annoyance to the boys teams.

If you are really hot to play boys teams then set up a scrimmage with some boys teams. At least then they would know what they are getting into before they play. It is unfair to the boys teams to sign up for a league and then have to play a girls team. Do you really think the boys teams you beat benefited from having you in their league?


Your second point is so true,well said.

Blitzed wrote:

Blitzed wrote:

Yak Attack wrote:
And the smaller player always get the sympathy calls...

Both my dd and bb have played opposite sexes many times over the years. Some in practice/scrimmages, some indoor, ... can't say it would have worked that well in the outdoor leagues. It almost always came down to some advantage the girls needed to keep up as a team. For example my dd's U12 team would play a U11 boys team. Both were D1 and even with the year advantage, the boys were faster. It was far more beneficial for the girls as they were forced to play a quicker game than normal (or just use their size to hip check those little speed demons right off the ball).

It was never about anything other than looking for a good competitive match for our girls, although I'd get a laugh when the tough girls would knock a boy into the boards at Spectrum. Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.

It isn't about looking for a good competitive match for the girls. If it was, playing up a year in the girls league would suffice. It is about the parents patting themselves on the back when their girls knock the boys into the boards and screaming bloody murder when the reverse happens. "(Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.)"

What a joke for the boys teams. They should just ask for a refund and play somewhere else. There is nothing in it for the boys.

You have missed my points so I will reiterate them.

#1-You can get better competition by playing up a year in the girls leagues, you don't need to play in the boys leagues. The fact that you aren't even the top girls team in your age group is evidence of this.

#2-There is nothing in this for the boys. I don't care that you placed second in league. I don't care that the games were competitive. When boys play girls, if they win it's no big deal because the beat a bunch of girls. If they lose though, it is a big deal because they lost to a bunch of girls.

You think just because some of the girls teams can be competitive with the boys means the girls should play in boys leagues however, it has nothing to do with whether the games are competitive or not. There simply isn't anything to gain for a boys team playing girls teams. Girls teams in boys leagues are an annoyance to the boys teams.

If you are really hot to play boys teams then set up a scrimmage with some boys teams. At least then they would know what they are getting into before they play. It is unfair to the boys teams to sign up for a league and then have to play a girls team. Do you really think the boys teams you beat benefited from having you in their league?

clueless wrote:This is a tough debate.
I do believe this is nothing but chauvinism.
I also think there is very little to gain by playing younger or opposite gender teams.

Funny how if you substitute 'younger team' with "girl's team" - there is very little discussion. We all know, well, most of us know, that boys and girls are different. Those who are female or only have female children may think otherwise.

This is a never-ending battle between those who feel the need to prove something and those who are too insecure to risk the loss. You can see both in almost every post.

There are legitimate reasons for seeking the tougher/better competition, as well as reasons for not wanting to play - but, imo, rare is a valid reason for dodging an opponent. The kids can learn from an upset loss as well.

My DD's team plays boys teams occasionally and I often wonder, as mentioned above, why would the teams agree to do that? - it's the total catch 22 of an older brother playing a younger brother (the win is expected, anything else is a huge deal - to both parties really, even if they don't want to admit it). It might make one team and destroy another.

Most coaches don't want the doubt introduced into the team's minds following an upset loss/tie - so, it's just not worth the risk to them. Especially in academy - you risk losing players as parents see a single loss or upset as the end of the world. My bb's team is one of the better in the area and they lost to girls teams in academy - as well as destroyed countless coed teams - these are just kids, let them play. Perhaps they need an ego drop box at the door of Inwood and Spectrum.

moveyourfeet wrote:

Blitzed wrote:

Blitzed wrote:

Yak Attack wrote:
And the smaller player always get the sympathy calls...

Both my dd and bb have played opposite sexes many times over the years. Some in practice/scrimmages, some indoor, ... can't say it would have worked that well in the outdoor leagues. It almost always came down to some advantage the girls needed to keep up as a team. For example my dd's U12 team would play a U11 boys team. Both were D1 and even with the year advantage, the boys were faster. It was far more beneficial for the girls as they were forced to play a quicker game than normal (or just use their size to hip check those little speed demons right off the ball).

It was never about anything other than looking for a good competitive match for our girls, although I'd get a laugh when the tough girls would knock a boy into the boards at Spectrum. Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.

It isn't about looking for a good competitive match for the girls. If it was, playing up a year in the girls league would suffice. It is about the parents patting themselves on the back when their girls knock the boys into the boards and screaming bloody murder when the reverse happens. "(Oh the look on that boys face, priceless.)"

What a joke for the boys teams. They should just ask for a refund and play somewhere else. There is nothing in it for the boys.

You have missed my points so I will reiterate them.

#1-You can get better competition by playing up a year in the girls leagues, you don't need to play in the boys leagues. The fact that you aren't even the top girls team in your age group is evidence of this.

#2-There is nothing in this for the boys. I don't care that you placed second in league. I don't care that the games were competitive. When boys play girls, if they win it's no big deal because the beat a bunch of girls. If they lose though, it is a big deal because they lost to a bunch of girls.

You think just because some of the girls teams can be competitive with the boys means the girls should play in boys leagues however, it has nothing to do with whether the games are competitive or not. There simply isn't anything to gain for a boys team playing girls teams. Girls teams in boys leagues are an annoyance to the boys teams.

If you are really hot to play boys teams then set up a scrimmage with some boys teams. At least then they would know what they are getting into before they play. It is unfair to the boys teams to sign up for a league and then have to play a girls team. Do you really think the boys teams you beat benefited from having you in their league?

We do scrimmage boys teams, as well as some of the other girl's teams. If the boy's teams get nothing out of it, then why do the coaches agree to do so?

As a matter of fact, we have scrimmaged the boys team that beat us in indoor. Twice actually, in an outdoor setting. Both matches were initiated by the boy's coach. Why would he do that if he was getting nothing from it? Must be a dumb coach, because you seem to know better.

Just because there are weaker girl's teams playing in your indoor league, don't throw a blanket over the entire girl's league.

When my DD's team played in the boys league, not one parent of ours was all proud about it because we beat boy's teams. Who cares? Indoor is just glorified scrimmages anyway. Those games mean absolutely nothing. Of course if your only experience is in Academy, then you may think otherwise. Woohoo! we won the Blue Sky Championship!!! Give me a break.

We played in the boys league only because there were not enough competitive teams in the girls division. The other teams were lower level teams and we did not want to go in and win by 10 every game. So we moved to the boys division. As for the boy's team that beat us twice, that was my favorite games we played. The girls were challenged, and it was a tough fight by both sides. I was actually a little disappointed in a number of the other boy's teams we played in indoor that season. There were some unskilled, untouched boys just trying to bully their ways to wins. Well, it didn't work.

During the second game against the better boys team, a dad from the that group saw my club shirt and talked to me about our girls. He said he was very impressed with their ability, aggressiveness, etc. and admitted that he was pissed off at first when he found out they had to play girls. But he also admitted that he was glad that we played. He said to me, "This is the type of games we need to play more of."

When my BB played a girls team last fall, he was bummed. He kept telling me how we shouldn't be playing girls. I just smiled and let him vent.

Then at halftime when we were down by 1, he had a different attitude about playing girls. They were more aggressive and more skilled than our boys. My little one learned a lesson that day even though we came back and tied it.

It's a shame that you have to introduce chauvinism to your kids at such an early age. But heck, I guess you have the next Pele living in your house. Can't have him playing against girls.

clueless wrote:This is a tough debate.
I do believe this is nothing but chauvinism.
I also think there is very little to gain by playing younger or opposite gender teams.

...

Perhaps they need an ego drop box at the door of Inwood and Spectrum.

moveyourfeet wrote:

You will see parents complain that they had to play a girls team, won by a handful of goals and got "nothing out of it." Woe is me.

Yet that same team will play another boys team next week, beat them by 10 or more, and you hear no complaints. Apparently they get something out of walloping a lesser team of their own gender.

my2cents wrote:Blitzed you assumed moveyourfeet is a guy so you ARE a chauvinist. Sorry dude had to out you. OOPs, did I call you dude? Oh shoot, I guess I am too.

my2cents wrote:Blitzed you assumed moveyourfeet is a guy so you ARE a chauvinist. Sorry dude had to out you. OOPs, did I call you dude? Oh shoot, I guess I am too.