should players be playing senior

i dunno i ask myself this alot and i know all you good players get this from ur senior coachs"hey come play senior, u'll play a lot of minutes and get soo much better than playing agianst weak compition" but really is it a big difference? i mean sure they're are alot of more advanced/older/better players in senior buh what business do juniors have playing with them sure it will make u play harder, and sure it will make you more compettitive and cause you to make smarter choices during games , but what about the teh fact that you're playing more bigger/agreesive guy which SOMETIMES means more injuries becuz your body isnt as developed as theirs, or maybe the fact that moving up can cause a real confidence problem to ur game maybe because he doesnt play u as much as he said or you're not playing as good as he hoped. you see to me although people might think that it can do wonders for ur game im not so convinced i think sometimes it can even slow down a players progress and make him even worse the he should have been but thats just me u know. iv'e heard a few coaches say everyone has to have their first bad year in senior ball what kind of STUPIDNESS thats not true you're either ready to ball or not, if u practice over the summer chances are ur ready sure some people might play bad a first few games but thats soft isn't that whats practice for ? to prepare your team for games to come, i mean im no expert on it but this is what i beleive. then they're are coaches that make it seem more difficult then it really is or try to persuade u to play for their senior team but theirs also kids that decide to play and thats your choice so in the end thats either ur mistake or your solution. i guess what i'm trying to say is why so soon, what does it accomplish why not wait that extra year and see what happens, why rush progrees and risk more serious injuries(not saying it will happen)or decrease in confidence due to the coach or maybe players on the team that continuesly tell u what ur doing wrong and make u feel out of the picture (not all the time). juss syaing i think u should think things through whats your opinions?

I've seen it too many times where a young player gets talked into playing Sr. when they shouldn't be there. The coaches tell them how much they're needed, when in fact all the coach is trying to do is fill out the lineup with people that don't totally suck. They have no intention of playing these guys much, but they're good enough to give the other "good" players a rest during a game.

Last year in Loyola a kid named "Oscar W" (don't know how to spell last name) was picked for Sr. He was about 6'4'' at the time, but not very good. He jumped at the chance because the coaches told him how much potential he had. He saw about 20 mintutes ALL SEASON!

This year a kid named Jaylen (not Jaylen Parkingson-Roberts on Jr. team) made the same mistake. He lacks the size, speed and talent to play at the Sr. level. He would have been great as a Jr. though. With him on the Jr. team I think we could have been a top 10 team in the GTA. Instead he's wasted his season warming the bench for the Sr. team.

You're right when you say that it's "STUPIDNESS" to say that your first year on Sr. is supposed to be bad. The reason you're supposed to be picked (as a Jr. to play Sr.) is if the coach truely beleives you can play at that level and make a difference. To be picked for the Sr. team, you should be as good as anyone else on the team and have an equal chance to have playing time. Leo Rautins played Sr. when he was in Gr. 9 and was a "Superstar". He's one in a million though.

Picking a team for Jr. is toally different. You have whatever walks in through the gym door and is the right age. If you're "TRUELY" ready to play Sr. when you're in gr. 9 or 10 then it "CAN" improve your game to play with/against better players. This is totally dependent on the amount of time the coach is willing to give you AND how good you REALLY are.

I have commented on this topic a couple times throughout different posts.

Your first year of senior isn't suposed to be bad it is suposed to be a learning experience. The senior game is bigger, stronger, and faster so most times first year senior athletes take a while to adapt. I think that is what most coaches mean by sayin it is suposed to be " bad". That is not the right way to put it. Learning is never a bad thing.

Most players need atleast one year of junior before they jump into the senior game. Again there is a big difference between grade 8 ball and junior going to senior for MOST players is a shell shock with how the game is played and the amount of games played. There are some exceptions.

There are only a few juniors who should consider moving up. They should be considered for there potential and body type and the amount of minutes they will recieve. A JUNIOR SHOULD NEVER MOVE UP IF HE IS GOING TO RIDE THE PINE! If your going to move up and can get around 10 minutes a game then move up.

Jaylen on the senior squad definatly made a mistake. Game experience at whatever level is key. Riding the bench doesnt help you in grade 9.

Coach Paul why did your son not play senior? I saw him play once and think he would get some minutes on loyolas senior team. Is he atleast playing in some tournaments?

Marcus Hanson at Gonzaga is physically ready to play for his senior team. He is a smart player and is definatly top 12 in the entire school. Making him play junior in his case hinders him in my opinion.

Juwan on Loyola was an exception aswell. Was he not ready to play senior last year? He starts this year on Loyola when they didnt graduate much from last year a mediocre team in peel. He would have gotten good minutes on a senior team that plays in a fair amount of quality tournaments. Atleast they didn't leave him in junior for another year.

That kid NAZ (gr 10) on Goetz starts on the senior team and is going to be an elite player soon.
Kelvin Muamba (gr 10) is the 3rd leading scorer for Mount Carmel coming off the bench and gets atleast 15 min+.

These are just examples of some mistakes and exceptions.

. Players should ask themselevs:
* Will I recieve playing time?
* Am i physically ready to play?
Playin on the Senior team really depends on each kids situation

"Coach Paul why did your son not play senior? I saw him play once and think he would get some minutes on loyolas senior team. Is he atleast playing in some tournaments? ... Juwan on Loyola was an exception aswell. Was he not ready to play senior last year?
"

Nik didn't play Sr. because of the number of returning 18/19 yr old players. 5 starters from last year returned. Most of these guys should be in 1st year university (by age). He has played up a level on AAA Monarchs as a starter for the last 5 years. So he can play at that level. We didn't think the minutes would be there, so he stayed Jr. for highschool.

In my opinion Juwan wasn't ready for Sr. last year. He's playing there this year (one year bigger, stronger, smarter) but still not "lighting it up". He is getting the minutes that he deserves now (which is great for his development). I was disappointed that he was riding the bench at the start of the year, but that has changed.

It really depends on the coaching you're receiving at the Junior level too. If you're at a school that has a strong program at both levels where you're receiving good training, support and access to elite tournaments where you can develop and showcase yourself - you'll be fine.

Look at schools like Pickering, Carr, MT, Vaughan and other feeder programs as examples. They're developing a nice core every year with athletes who understand the package of expectations both on and off the court.

Well stated.

Each case is individual and a poor decision hurts everyone in the program - the Junior coach, the Senior coach and most importantly the player himself.

If a player is going to play and the move helps his development then it is justified. There's no gain when a player is moved up only to occupy a seat on the bench.

Top-level Junior programs do help players to develop into better players, moving forward they are the future of the program.

I feel that if it's a top-level junior program which plays against top level competition, there's not as much of an advantage to playing up.

Alot of times in the GTA you find junior coaches and senior coaches on completly different pages. A player who may be ready to make the jump also must ask himself where will I recieve the better instruction ontop of the questions I stated before.

The elite programs for the most part have a feeding system ie. juniors run the same thing as the seniors with minor differences. So players have no problem playing junior. For the rest of the pack juniors moving up may have to start from scratch again by learning a new offence and defensive principles.

There are all kinds of school systems. Some good, some not so good. People that know me know that when I say something I mean it. I don't sugar coat anything. That's why everyone knows who I am. I have nothing to hide, nor am I ashamed of anything I say or do.

I can't speak for other schools because I'm not there. As far as Loyola goes, there isn't a great basketball infrastructure to move Jr. players on to Sr. (some kind of development program). If I didn't step up to the plate, there would have been NO Jr. team this year. I'll lay it on the line for you. My son Nik, Tremell and one or two other guys made the effort to talk to every teacher in the school to try to get a coach. There were no takers for whatever reason. You CAN NOT blame a teacher for not being a coach. Kids don't understand that teachers are people just like they are and have a life, a family and their own needs. Coaching takes a TON of time and effort and most people just don't have that kind of time to spare.

Again, this is simply from my observations. I know every school and set of players are different. There are 2 teachers at Loyola that have volunteered their time to sit in on practises and games (because a teacher from the school must be present) Tracey Reid and Julia Piccinin . Not one player from our team has told these teachers that they appreticiate the sacrifice of their personal time in order to have a team. Kids just "EXPECT" everything to happen for them by magic (and this includes my son NIK). Because they're soooooo damn goooooood.

The Sr. coaches and me shake hands between games, but don't talk or co-ordinate anything. I'll bet they don't even know my name.

So, for all you guys reading this - beware. Things are NOT layed out for you on a bed of roses. You need to managed your own career along with your parents. Don't expect SANTA or a coach to do everything for you. Cocahes are only people after all.

Coach Paul are both the senior coaches teachers?

I ask this because if both are teachers I wonder why they wouldnt split up and one do junior and one do senior?

[quote="stevelogan92"]Coach Paul are both the senior coaches teachers?

I ask this because if both are teachers I wonder why they wouldnt split up and one do junior and one do senior?[/quote]

None of the coaches for Loyola this year are teachers . There was going to be no team for the defending Peel Tier 1 champions (Jr. team) because no teacher wanted the job as coach. I became the Jr. coach because I wanted my son to be able to have a season without having to be one of 16 players on the sr. team. Now, go ahead and ask me if I'm hiding anything behind my intentions! Do you still think I'm hiding something of "snaking" the other players on the team?

I have WAAAAYYYYY better things to do than coach.

The Sr. coach has been doing this for several years. He'll probably continue for many years to come.

This is my first AND LAST year as coach for Loyola. This does not mean that I don't care. As the assisant coach of the AAA Monachs, I'm used to winning all the time. Losing is not in my vocabulary. If I though that the Loyola guys were a pack of losers then beleive me when I tell you that I wouldn't bother wasting my time coaching them.

I truely beleive that the guys I picked for Loyola have a "fighting" chance at any championship. Do I expect them to win? NO! But they're good enough to have an outside chance at any time.

If any of you guys take down your guard and admit to how games "really" unfold you'd agree with me that soooo many games are decided by one or two "crappy" ref calls and not on how good your team is! There are too many games decided by 1 or 2 points! It's not that one team is "REALLY" that much better than another. Outside of the top 5 teams in the GTA, I truely beleive that any team can win any game on any given day.

Coach Paul, i am sorry to say but you should not be calling yourself a coach. A coach is someone who motivates and inspires their players.

1) You said that "if I thought Loyola guys were a bunch of losers then I wouldn't be wasting my time". You also keep mentioning that you coach for the AAA monarchs. You are no coach. A coach is the guy in tier II who teaches his kids an offensive set and they execute it. A coach is the teacher that teaches life lessons before basketball. You are a guy who volunteered his time to a good team. Ask yourself this question: How many skills have you taught the guys on the AAA or Loyola team? Did you teach them to play defense, how to double team, how to make v-cuts, how to play man defense? You probably did nothing of that. It is very easy to coach 12 studs on an elite rep team or to coach 12 transfers to your high school team. A real coach takes kids who want to learn the game and makes them better. All you do is show up to the games and rip the benefits of your team. If Loyola does win a championship I bet it is not because you taught them anything.

2) You said that games really unfold because of crappy ref calls. Ever try to teach your kids to play through adversity. Ref calls even out in a game. One bad call for you and one for the other team. What do you teach your kids when you admit that? excuses, that's what you admit.

Sorry for the attack, but people need to realize that coaching is not showing up to the game and putting a starting line-up on the floor.

Teachers who coach should be given way more credit. They coach losers (as coach paul would say) and they provide opportunities to kids to feel good about themselves. They coach who ever shows up to the try-outs and they teach the kids life lessons and basketball skills. There are probably over 300 school teams in the gta, and most of them coached by teachers who do not turn their backs to "losers".

Everyone is all into scholarships and getting recognized. Reality check. If you get a scholarship and fail to get a useful degree out of it what will you be doing when you are 30? How will you raise a family after basketball?

USE BASKETBALL AS A MEANS TO AN EDUCATION AND THUS SUCCESS OFF THE BASKETBALL COURT.

That is my advice to the young men on this web site.

[quote="tart11"]Coach Paul, i am sorry to say but you should not be calling yourself a coach. A coach is someone who motivates and inspires their players.

1) You said that "if I thought Loyola guys were a bunch of losers then I wouldn't be wasting my time". You also keep mentioning that you coach for the AAA monarchs. You are no coach. A coach is the guy in tier II who teaches his kids an offensive set and they execute it. A coach is the teacher that teaches life lessons before basketball. You are a guy who volunteered his time to a good team. Ask yourself this question: How many skills have you taught the guys on the AAA or Loyola team? Did you teach them to play defense, how to double team, how to make v-cuts, how to play man defense? You probably did nothing of that. It is very easy to coach 12 studs on an elite rep team or to coach 12 transfers to your high school team. A real coach takes kids who want to learn the game and makes them better. All you do is show up to the games and rip the benefits of your team. If Loyola does win a championship I bet it is not because you taught them anything.

2) You said that games really unfold because of crappy ref calls. Ever try to teach your kids to play through adversity. Ref calls even out in a game. One bad call for you and one for the other team. What do you teach your kids when you admit that? excuses, that's what you admit.

Sorry for the attack, but people need to realize that coaching is not showing up to the game and putting a starting line-up on the floor.

Teachers who coach should be given way more credit. They coach losers (as coach paul would say) and they provide opportunities to kids to feel good about themselves. They coach who ever shows up to the try-outs and they teach the kids life lessons and basketball skills. There are probably over 300 school teams in the gta, and most of them coached by teachers who do not turn their backs to "losers".

Everyone is all into scholarships and getting recognized. Reality check. If you get a scholarship and fail to get a useful degree out of it what will you be doing when you are 30? How will you raise a family after basketball?

USE BASKETBALL AS A MEANS TO AN EDUCATION AND THUS SUCCESS OFF THE BASKETBALL COURT.

That is my advice to the young men on this web site.[/quote]





tart11

well put buddy!!!!

USE BASKETBALL AS A MEANS TO AN EDUCATION AND THUS SUCCESS OFF THE BASKETBALL COURT.
^
thats a greezy statement

[quote="CoachPaul"][quote="stevelogan92"]Coach Paul are both the senior coaches teachers?

I ask this because if both are teachers I wonder why they wouldnt split up and one do junior and one do senior?[/quote]

None of the coaches for Loyola this year are teachers . There was going to be no team for the defending Peel Tier 1 champions (Jr. team) because no teacher wanted the job as coach. I became the Jr. coach because I wanted my son to be able to have a season without having to be one of 16 players on the sr. team. Now, go ahead and ask me if I'm hiding anything behind my intentions! Do you still think I'm hiding something of "snaking" the other players on the team?

I have WAAAAYYYYY better things to do than coach.

The Sr. coach has been doing this for several years. He'll probably continue for many years to come.

This is my first AND LAST year as coach for Loyola. This does not mean that I don't care. As the assisant coach of the AAA Monachs, I'm used to winning all the time. Losing is not in my vocabulary. If I though that the Loyola guys were a pack of losers then beleive me when I tell you that I wouldn't bother wasting my time coaching them.

I truely beleive that the guys I picked for Loyola have a "fighting" chance at any championship. Do I expect them to win? NO! But they're good enough to have an outside chance at any time.

If any of you guys take down your guard and admit to how games "really" unfold you'd agree with me that soooo many games are decided by one or two "crappy" ref calls and not on how good your team is! There are too many games decided by 1 or 2 points! It's not that one team is "REALLY" that much better than another. Outside of the top 5 teams in the GTA, I truely beleive that any team can win any game on any given day.[/quote]

Coach Paul I asked about the senior coaches because I wanted to know why there are two senior coaches who were gonna allow Loyola not to have a junior team. I never implied that you had intentions of snaking anyone on the team. I don't understand why your so defensive.

Tart11....
GET A LIFE, all you do is argue with people
and try to put them down thinking you are always right.
If he's not a coach, what is he then?
a teacher? a bus driver? a ref?
what do you call a coach? cause to me a coach is a person who
is a instructor to a team. If coach Paul wasnt a coach, would he be
"COACHING" the Loyola Jr team?.
Like i dont understand how young people are so disrespectful to
to adults like that.

I all ready explained what a coach should be, didn't you read my post... and I only argue with people who say stupid things.

[quote="tart11"]Coach Paul, i am sorry to say but you should not be calling yourself a coach. A coach is someone who motivates and inspires their players...........

I send a response and it got lost. So if it re-appears excuse the duplication of effort.


If you ask any of the guys on the Loyola team I'm sure that they'll tell you that I'm very enthusiastic and motivational. I take every opprotunity I can to stop play during a practise to show players what they're doing wrong and how they can improve. Ask Keyon Mayers (Sr. Loyola) for example. He's shooting during a Jr. practise and I notice that his shot is flat. I help him out for 5 minutes and he starts hitting way more shots (with a smile on his face). Why would I do something like that if I'm not trying to motivate, help and inspire?

When any coach picks a team, they don't pick 10 guys that can't chew bubble gum and walk at the same time do they? They pick the best guys that they can and then work with that. It's not a coaches job to pick the least talented kids and try to make basketball players out of them. This is not play time at the YMCA. At this level of play, its not a coaches job to kiss knees when someone gets a "boo-boo". If you ask the players on your team how many of them think they're going to the NBA or at least D1, I'll bet at least 50% of them put up their hand. This is how serious these kids are. But, how realistic is that? Our job as coaches is not to stroke egos and give kids false hope. Telling a kid exactly how good/bad he is, is the only way that they'll improve.

"It is very easy to coach 12 studs on an elite rep team or to coach 12 transfers to your high school team." ..... You obviously don't know anything about Monarchs, Loyola or me if you've made this comment. When we finished making our picks for the Monarchs last year we had 5 kids - that's it. 4 of them were returning from the previous year. Other kids that I've never heard of before started to ask if they could play for us in the weeks after our try-outs. We put together the team with what we had. Oh, and I forgot - we won the OBA's because we're crappy coaches and all of our players were "studs". As far as Loyola goes, I put together the team with whatever players walked in through the gym door. There was no reruiting or "transfer" players coming in. We're the #1 team (points for/against) in PEEL . I suppose that this is due to the fact that I have Kobe,Lebron and Wade on my team. It obviously has nothing to do with coaching.

"Teachers who coach should be given way more credit. They coach losers (as coach paul would say) and they provide opportunities to kids to feel good about themselves. They coach who ever shows up to the try-outs and they teach the kids life lessons and basketball skills. There are probably over 300 school teams in the gta, and most of them coached by teachers who do not turn their backs to "losers".
" ....... I totally agree that teachers who donate their time need to be given a lot of credit. I've said this sort of thing on previous posts. You've also taken what I've said out of context. I said that "if I thought that the Loyola guys were a pack of losers then I wouldn't bother trying to coach them". I'm a parent like any other parent in the school. I've got a job, kids (one that I drive to/from some sort of basketball practise/game 4 or 5 days a week), a wife and aging parents. I've got all kinds of important things to do with my time. Forgive me if I don't want to spend 20 hours a week coaching kids that don't know how to dribble or tie their shoes. I'm at the stage in my coaching life where I only want to coach players that have a potential (however slim) to go further in basketball. By the way I have coached kids from the age of 7 up until now (total of 8 years). So, I've had my fair share of teaching the basics, seeing kids cry, etc. I've simply moved past that now, that's all. It doesn't mean I don't care.

[Stevelogan92 - "Coach Paul I asked about the senior coaches because I wanted to know why there are two senior coaches who were gonna allow Loyola not to have a junior team. I never implied that you had intentions of snaking anyone on the team. I don't understand why your so defensive."]

Thats the problem with boards like this. When you read it, it sounds like I'm mad or something. I'm never mad. I like making a point, having a discussion/debate. To answer your question, the Sr. Loyola coaches are a father/son team. They obviously like/want to coach together, so that's the way it is.

Coach Paul,

I do beg to differ with one thing - you can't say that most or even some games decided by a few points are BECAUSE of bad ref calls. Bad ref calls work both ways. Assuming that a ref is or a team of refs are 'equally' bad, a one point win is still a one point win, and a win by any number of points is just that: a win. In our league, the main thing that determines standings is points based on 2 for a win, and 0 for a loss. Point differential only comes to play in the sake of a tie, and that's after looking at the results of head to head competition.

Here Here Coach Imgrund. Sounds like you know what you're doing.

Every game has its share of bad calls. I'm not suggesting that ever single game is decided like that. All I said was that most of the teams in the league are very evenly matched. When a game is decided by 1 or 2 points it doesn't mean that one team is better than another. When you think about the game you can usually remember one or two calls that you though were bad (sometimes it works for you and sometimes against). These calls could determine the outcome of the game.

A win is a win, a loss is a loss. I totally agree. I've had my share of losses and wins that were very close.

Coach Paul, you say some things for which I agree with. One thing I blatently disagree with is your statement that sooo many games are decided by 1 or 2 crappy ref calls and not how good your team is. Games are decided by decision making by the players at all facets of the game and as a fellow coach, what decisions we make. I have taken the full brunt of the blame for close losses due to what I felt was a bad decision on my part. No excuses about officials. So, in my opinion so many games are decided by 1 or 2 decisions I make. That is what makes coaching interesting. Blaming officials is taking the blame off of yourself and also influencing your kids to make excuses and not admit to their mistakes. This is not what we are here to teach.
I also believe that it is much tougher to coach a team of so called "studs" than anything. You have a lot of players who are use to being the guy and you are in the position to try to teach them to buy into a team system. This means lesser individual stats for the betterment of the team.
I believe that your heart is in the right place. I just think you have posted it in a negative way. Trust me, both Coach Imgrund and myself have come on here and been very contraversial and even have battled one another. At the end of the day, I respect what he has to say and I also do with yourself. You make great points but people will always look at the few negative things that are in there and you have to be prepared for it. You seem to be a good coach and I would definately encourage you to continue to do what you are doing because the basketball community needs people like you. I am also a community coach who has a family and 2 jobs who fits coaching basketball into my daily routine. I do it because I love it. I don't get paid nor do I think about it. I am saying all this because I want you to know that there are many, many coaches like us so this makes us no better nor any worse than any other coach out there but we are just as influential than any teacher who coaches. Keep that in mind!

Good luck on your season!

Like I said before, discussion boards leave too much to interpretation. What I write and what I meant to say are sometimes confused.

Beleive me when I say that I admire and respect all coaches and teachers who donate their time to help kids out. There are teachers who love teaching gr. 2, while others only want highschool. The same holds true for coaches (I think). You're one of those guys that could coach a 5 year old girl's team and still get the same thrill out of it as coaching a boy's highschool team. I commend you for that. I personally don't fit that mold any more. I've done that for many years and find myself only wanting to help at higher levels now.


The whole "cappy" call thing has gotten way out of control here. I know that coaching and the way your team plays determines the outcome of the game. When one team blows another team out by 20 points then it becomes obvious that one team is better than another. When you lose a game in overtime by 1 point - who is the "better" team? Yes, one team won and another lost - it's black and white. But do you really think that the team that won by that slim a margin is "better"? I don't.

This is where refs can determine the outcome of the game. We're not dealing with professional refs here. They make bad calls all the time. Some go for you and some against. All I'm saying is that when any team in this league wins or loses by 1 or 2 points, many times (not always) it comes down to a handful of calls a ref makes.

We can agree to disagree on this point. In my opinion there are quite a few close games that I've seen where the outcome could have gone either way and the "better" team didn't necessarily always come out on top.

Merry Christmas - Happy New Year to everyone!

Thats why this game is so great! Any team can win on any given day. That is why the kids play the game. The better team IMO always wins because they were the better of the two on that day. Some teams are more talented than others, but that doesnt mean they will always win.

If you were the " better" team and let a ref decide the game then you didnt take care of business as a team on the court. There are so many ways to lose a game and a ref is the last to blame.

[quote="CoachPaul"]But do you really think that the team that won by that slim a margin is "better"? I don't.[/quote]

Definitely I do.

Without thinking this way, why even bother calling a win by 1 point a win? Why not call it a tie, if it doesn't make a team 'better' than the other?

I'll even use the STL and Loyola game as an example. We won by 1 point. Do I feel that our team received our fair share of bad calls? Definitely. Was it unfair? I didn't think so.

For example, in the first quarter a player from Loyola knocked the ball out of bounds in front of our bench with his back to ref #2. Ref #1 made a call giving us the ball, a player from Loyola complained to ref #2, who, as a result, overturned the call. Shouldn't this have been a technical to Loyola for arguing a call? If not, why did the ref who couldn't see the play overturn the ref who did? This was a terrible call, in my opinion. I asked the ref why he was letting a player make the call, and I was given a technical.

Later on in the game, Loyola was driving in for a lay-up and a charge was called. It was questionable from where I was and that call benefited my team!

In the end, the 'bad' calls were equalized, as they are in 99% of all games.

As a coach, I never expect perfection from a ref (we're all human) but I do expect fairness.

Bad calls happen, but if your team is in the position that they suffer that much from one bad call, they weren't the better team on that day.