[Rain Man]

Obviously, the best situation is where all of the kids are of similar ability. I've been on teams where I was one of the worst, and that was absolutely miserable, and I've been on teams where I was one of the best, which quite frankly felt good. However, I think it's healthier for a kid to be a solid, valuable contributor with kids at his skill level than to be the "star" of a group of lesser performers. If he's better than everyone else, he has little incentive to keep improving.

The bottom line, though, is that the games are supposed to be fun at that age, and the weak kids won't get better unless they're allowed to play. On most teams, the stronger kids play more, and so they get more playing time, which only increases the difference. My thinking is that if you don't like your kid playing with kids of lesser ability, move him to a team with kids that have more ability. It'll motivate him to keep getting better, and it will make sure he doesn't get "star syndrome." I think the goal would be to move him to a group where he's in the 75th percentile - good enough to get playing time even if the coach thinks only the "good kids" play, but with other people on the team to push upwards against.

I remember in third grade, we used to play football at recess. There was one kid who was a very good football player, but he was a ball hog and had "star syndrome." You didn't want him on your team, because he had to be the quarterback and every play had to be a quarterback run. The bottom line was that half the time we ended up with two teams: him and a bunch of kids who didn't know any better, and the rest of us. It was often a lot of fun anyway, because the rest of us were able to put together a very good team, practice plays on a live basis, and have lots of fun as a pretty high-functioning team. Meanwhile, the "star" was always the MVP of his team, and his team almost always lost.