I love sports. I always have. But not all do. Why don’t they? Sometimes prima donnas, ball hogs, and “hot dogs” are the problem. Those more gifted or athletic (or aggressive) players tend to take over the games and turn others into mere bit pieces of the team, or even left out of the scheme altogether.
There’s an old saying, “Sports builds character.” That may be true sometimes, but it’s also true that Sports reveals character. I could make this a long, rambling article, but I’m going to make it short by suggesting a way more people can enjoy sports, and where esprit de corps (which will be useful in other areas of life, now and in the future) can be developed. This “team building” exercise is not just for the benefit of the previously ignored, but also for those whose inclination is to want to be “the straw that stirs the drink” (apologies to my townsman Reggie Jackson, who I actually think is a pretty good dude, based on a documentary about him that I watched). All can learn how to be better teammates and better people. This is my suggestion:
Rather than having the team that scores the most points win a game, have the winner be the first team for which each player on it has scored at least once. For example, in softball or baseball, once each member of a team has scored a run, the game is over, and that team wins. “Everyone scoring” means all the “bench players,” too — which tactic reminds me of something I heard Bruce Springsteen say once: “Nobody wins unless everybody wins.”
So it would still be the case that one team would win the game, but it would be the team that found a way to support all team members in the best way, finding ways to get all involved and putting them in a position to contribute to the victory. In the case of softball/baseball, this might mean putting someone in as a pinch runner (when the existing runner has already scored in the game) in a situation where they will be likely to score (somebody makes it to third base and a good hitter is coming up, for example). Perhaps an adjustment could be made to the rules where you can put players back into the game (pulling them out wouldn’t necessarily require them to have to sit out the rest of the game).
The same could be done for other sports: in football, everybody scores at least once, whether it be kicking an extra point or a field goal, getting a safety, or scoring a touchdown; in basketball, everyone scores once, whether it be a free throw, a “regular” basket, or a three-pointer. Soccer? I don’t know the rules of soccer, but I’m sure it could be done, and for just about any sport, whether it’s Dodgeball, Pickleball, Tennis, Tiddlywinks, or what have you.
I’ll leave the specifics up to others, but that’s my proposal: competition remains part of sports, but in a way in which the team comes first, not just certain individuals on it.
Choosing Teams Vs. Assigning Teams
Here’s another thing that can be soul-crushing for some kids: When two captains are selected (or appoint themselves as such), and then choose teams. The person chosen first is happy (unless he thinks he or she should have been one of the captains); the person chosen second may be happy about that, unless they’re jealous of the person picked first, etc., on down to “Mr. [or Ms.] Irrelevant” who is chosen last and may feel embarrassed about that “consolation prize.”
How to prevent the awkwardness and enviousness that can result from this picking order/pecking order? “Randomize it” — perhaps go by alphabetical order, by last name once, then by first name another time. Or by birth date (those born on the 1st to 15th on one team, the others on the second team). In other words, you could have those whose names start with A through M on one team, and all the others (N through Z) on the other team. If the numbers aren’t equal (say there are seven on one team and only five on the other), make the necessary adjustment to even things up. The same methodology could be used if going by birth dates (using just the day of the month, not the month or the year — make whatever adjustment is necessary to have an even number of players on each team). Or you could mix it up by having people line up based on some criteria (such as the aforementioned given name, surname, birth date, or something else appropriate) and have every other one be on either team (the first person is on team one, the second person is on team two, the third person is on team one, etc.).
Or you could “randomize” the makeup of the teams in some other way. If you wanted to, you could even work it out so that everybody played with everyone else on the same team at some point. This would also help prevent “cliques” from forming while promoting camaraderie and a feeling that everyone is, at least sometimes, one’s teammate.
ADDENDUM
As an example of someone who exhibited this type of sportsmanship (wanting others to also enjoy contributing to the team's success rather than always hogging the limelight himself), consider Fred Lavaroni, a man I was acquainted with for many years. I didn't know him well, but it was always nice to see him. His family owns a grocery store in San Andreas, California, the county seat of Calaveras, where I lived most of the thirty years between 1968 and 1997. He was always warm and friendly, and his welcoming spirit was not put on or fake just because he was the proprietor and you were a customer. He naturally exuded warmth and human kindness.
Although Fred Lavaroni was a large man, and quite tall (6’7”), I didn't know until not too many years ago that he had been a standout basketball player in his youth. In his life tribute, it was said of him: “Fred was a good friend to many and was especially devoted to his family. He had a big heart, and an even bigger smile that would light up any room he walked into. He was a gentle soul, kind and compassionate.”
That’s what I was trying to say.
Another article had this to say about him: “Fred was a talented basketball player in high school and led the CHS boys basketball team to back-to-back undefeated MLL championship seasons in 1968 and 1969. He averaged 25 points and 20 rebounds per game while at CHS. His hard work earned him a full ride scholarship to Santa Clara University. ... Fred was drafted by the San Francisco [now Golden State] Warriors in the 10th round of the 1973 draft. He went to training camp with the Warriors and was cut after the team decided that they needed a shooting guard more than a power forward. From there he traveled overseas to Belgium where he played professional basketball for two years with a team called Bus Lier. In his second season, Fred helped carry the team to the Belgium championship.”
The reason I think of Mr. Lavaroni in connection with this post of mine, though, is that he was known for being a team player. In fact, some people might say he was “too nice” in that he would, for example, rather than make an easy layup, pass the ball back to a trailing teammate in order to give that player an opportunity to score the points.
It seems to me that Fred Lavaroni embodied the egalitarian team spirit I am herein promoting.
So which is preferable: to promote and elevate oneself, or to support and enable (in a good way) those around you? Is it better to have “the eye of the tiger” (which is, admittedly a beautiful — yet rapacious — beast) or the heart of a lamb?
For those who want to research this question, I refer you to two poems by William Blake: The Tyger and The Lamb.