Coach, I was responding to an analogy that compared this to a DOC taking over a coach's team at the last minute before a state cup game and I said not many coaches would continue to coach under those conditions. I just meant to be saying that if the conditions were that bad, players would be leaving and they are not.
I have coached in several state cups and teams I coached won two. I have added players mid-season but not just before the roster freeze so they could play at the State Cup. But I have taken guest players to tournaments and I think both situations are similiar in that it really depends on how it is handled. Players do not like to have guest players come in and take their playing time unless they see a benefit in it for them and they feel that it is being done fairly. When there is a shortage of players due to injuries or other absences, they are usually happy to have the assistance as long as they don't feel they would get less playing time than they would if their injured/absent teammates were there. So I don't think we should out-and-out comdemn players being added or guest players being used across the board. It is a case-by-case situation that has to be handled by the coach hopefully in a way that is beneficial to all involved.
But I do feel like it is a demand driven situation. If these types of things are being mis-handled to the point of mass disatisfaction, players will leave and either changes will be made or the program will fail to be prosperous.
I agree with what you're saying, Coach P; I was just concerned about how it may have been interpreted, and thanks for the clarification. Most teams (including mine) have used guest players for tournaments, and in situations where teams are short-handed, they are usually welcomed for providing some relief and a better chance for the team to be successful--which is not the same as having a full boat and benching players who have been with the team the whole time in favor of "ringers."
Not sure if players leaving or not leaving is always an accurate measure of their feelings about a policy; as long as the product or service that the club is providing is seen as one they need or aren't willing to part with, people are willing to put up with a lot of negatives in order to reach what they perceive as the positive. As Jefferson said, "mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Doesn't make it right; just makes it feasible without loss of players. (I'm not saying this applies to the current discussion of adding players to the roster--having guest players to help a team over a hurdle in order to gain more exposure for everyone can be seen as a good thing for all in the long run--just the "if they're not leaving, it must be ok" idea in general.)
Just as a matter of general philosophy, I've always felt that unless there are debilitating holes in the roster due to unexpected or uncontrollable losses in personnel, teams should, as the old-timers would say, "dance with them that brung ya to the ball"--in other words, let the players who got the team through the season be the ones to compete for the crown. That way, when a team and its club earn a title, naysayers don't have as much opportunity to suggest that it was because of players whose difference-making training and experience took place somewhere other than the club that takes credit for the win.
