I'm not a Crab parent (not that you will believe me), but I find this entire "reclass" thing very amusing. My son didn't reclass (he's in college now), but I get why it upsets people. I will say that once your sons are in HS, this thing will not seem as life and death as it does now.
The Crabs have always fielded excellent teams, and I understand they have a lot of kids who've reclassed. I get that they get the brunt of the abuse because they are very successful. My question is: what is the threshold in terms of reclassed kids? I ask because we know a lot of our friends with 8th graders, and all of those top teams have reclassed kids. Some more than others, of course.
My point is if it's unacceptable to allow the Crabs to field teams with reclassed kids, what about FCA, Looney's and others who also have reclassed kids? Is it ok if they only have 1-2 reclassed kids, but not ok if a team has more than 2? What exactly is the number that escapes scrutiny?
I am not a big fan of the Crabs owner, but if all the youth teams have reclassed kids, how does one decide to single one out more than another?
Again, I don't have a problem if people dislike the holdback phenomenon (it wasn't a big deal when my kids was a youth player). My first suggestion is to only enter tournaments that do not allow holdbacks.
But unless a team has zero holdbacks, I find it hard to understand why some teams are singled out for holdbacks and others aren't.
Can some of you guys chime in here? So what is the threshhold? 2 or fewer holdbacks is fine and exempt from criticism? 4? 1?
My stance is if the Crabs are fair game to get killed, any team should get the same level of vitriol if they have one holdback. Or at least clubs with comparable numbers of holdbacks like Madlax and FCA.
Reply
Quote
