B teams

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

I have a bit of a conflict and would like some input -
We at NKC have 4 really dedicated players on our A/varsity team. The other people we have so far this year are last years JV captain who comes in a fair amount but has been doing it too long for me to really think she should be doing JV, and a few other freshmen and sophomores who sporadically attend practices and who are not bad but since they don't come in much they aren't amazing either. There's a tournament next week at Smithville HS which is nearby, and I've continually tried to get our coach to take those kids as a B team so that they get some experience, and in the hopes that playing some more tournaments will maybe get them a little more motivated and interested. I don't think the tournament would be that inappropriate for them since its on speed questions that are fairly basic and the teams in Kansas City are in general very poor. However, my coach is refusing to take them because he doesn't want them to be a doormat. I guess my question is which is more important, taking the really inexperienced B team and risking their poor performance and the possibility that they could be deterred by being beaten a lot, or not taking it and not dealing with it, instead risking their further loss of interest and running out of good players as soon as our A team players are gone (granted, that will be in 2010, but still, I think it's a valid concern).
I should note that this has kind of been a pattern on our team since our coach only took our non-A team out to, like 2 tournaments (both of which were JV) last year. Also, how can I convince him that it is much better to take them to more tournaments as a B team (assuming, of course, that taking them is the right decision).

[Howard]

It's my firm belief that players who wish to play should be afforded the opportunity to play. Besides, what's the real difference between being the doormat in practice and the doormat in a tournament.

A good coach, unless he's one of the few with a top team, knows that there are games that his team cannot win. Although winning should always be a goal, the more important goal should be team improvement. This is much easier when actually games are played.

[ragnarok2012]

I would say to the doormat theory that they have to start somewhere. If everyone was afraid of losing, no one would be playing. Its better to be a doormat in your earlier years instead of getting crushed when it counts. I remember after our team was blown out, our coach motivated us to get better.

If your B team players are motivated, then they will look beyond one tournament, although they might be disappointed at first.

[TheCzarMan]

Unless a player is really good, most likely you'll go through the doormat phase unless your school is so deep (Charter) that A-F is good. They need experience, if they get deterred then QuizBowl wasn't for them in the first place.

[Djibouti]

As a sophomore, Perry Hall A (and B) were the doormat at nearly every tournament (less than a win per six matches for the "A" team). I, motivated by my competitive nature and annoyance with losing, chose to study devotedly, believing I had to do my part in order for the team to improve (although the team didn't the rest of the year). The following year, some of the past members chose to study (3), some new members joined (5), and still others (3) quit because they didn't like the shift towards winning. For the members who endured the heavy losing, the poor records provided the motivation for self and team improvement, and the winning was even sweeter. And, in fact, 2/3 (and the two alternates) on the 2006 It's Academic Baltimore Finalist team, and 3/4 members on last year's "A" team that broke through to PACE were on the doormat teams of 2004-05.

What I glean from that: (1) some people simply don't enjoy winning, feeling secure on a team that does not win; (2) those who do want to win will be motivated to improve (nobody quit because of the lack of winning); (3) the losing members provide the basis for the teams of the future that do win. Although it's much preferred to always win, that almost never happens (unless you're Dorman thus far; MW A experienced a few last year, and even 2005 TJ A lost once?). Losing will occur some of the time; it builds character and hardens the mind. For those who endure the extreme, they will form the leaders, and they will better understand losing.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

even 2005 TJ A lost once?

Not when their full team was there.

[the return of AHAN]

I'm all for B teams playing whenever possible. Our school puts a big emphasis on participation, so any extra expense incurred by entering a B team is a non-issue, too.
When I schedule non-conference meets (not tournaments) for my middle school team, I will only do so if the other coaches promise to field B-teams. This is no small consideration as getting my conference brethren to play B matches in conjunction with our regular conference matches can be like pulling teeth. Exhibit A: A certain, Lake County middle school with >1000 students that has 20 kids on their scholastic bowl team, yet won't field a B team.
Great fun when we play them as up to FIFTEEN of their subs sit and watch.

[The Atom Strikes!]

B-teams going to tournaments is necessary for training the future heirs to your current A-team. They may lose, but everyone is somewhat bad when they first start. They need to go to tournaments to learn to stop sucking.

[Bigfoot isn't the pr]

B-teams going to tournaments is necessary for training the future heirs to your current A-team. They may lose, but everyone is somewhat bad when they first start. They need to go to tournaments to learn to stop sucking.

Agreed. I know I wouldn't be 1/5th of the player I am now if I only played while on the "A Team"

[No Sollositing On Premise]

In 2002 TJ B (Alex Levy, Dan Wright, Steve Yang, and myself) only won a single match at PACE, and only by a single question. In 2004 TJ B was almost the exact same group of players, but we only lost a single match at PACE that year, to the 2004 Gov team. A lot can happen in two years if a team is properly motivated. I guess you could say we worked it harder, made it better, did it faster, made us stronger.