Mounting Evidence
October 10, 2014
- On July 15 (“Misspent Money”), the Chicago Tribune’s William Hageman was the reporter and Utah State University provided the research. The message was that sports specialization is a serious waste of family resources.
- On July 18 (“Specialization Risks”), the renowned David Epstein was the writer and Loyola University of Chicago provided the work. The message was that serious health risks make specialization counterproductive to successful sports careers.
- On Sept. 5 (“More Than a Myth”), I reported that the Lansing State Journal picked a three-sport male and four-sport female as its 2013-14 high school athletes of the year – practical proof that the reports of the death of the multi-sport athlete are greatly exaggerated.
Last month, Athletic Business recalled its August 2013 interview with the often quoted Dr. James Andrews, the orthopedic surgeon and injury consultant and author of “Any Given Monday: Sports Injuries and How to Prevent Them for Athletes, Parents and Coaches – Based on My Life in Sports Medicine.” In this interview, Dr. Andrews reiterated his earlier statements (some quoted in earlier postings here) that there is a “dramatic increase in overuse injuries ... due in large part to kids participating in one sport all year ...”
Athletic Business editor-in-chief Dennis Van Milligen added in his September 2014 editorial:
“Parents are ‘investing’ outrageous amounts of money into their children’s athletic development, because the fear is that they will not reach the level they need to without specialization, a notion constantly disproved.”
For multiple reasons, the multiple-sport experience is best. We must strive continually to make that experience possible for most of our student-athletes.
News Unfiltered
July 12, 2017
During the first summer after my college graduation, I was the campaign advance man outside of the Milwaukee and Madison areas for a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Wisconsin. A great job.
Sometime during that summer, I met the head of the campaign in a café. He was reading a newspaper as I arrived; and as I sat down at the table, I asked him what he was reading. I’ll always remember his response. He said, “I’m looking for what could go wrong today?”
It was the campaign manager’s job to think about worst-case scenarios and consider how the campaign might get taken off message by the news of the day.
I was young and impressionable, and I soon began to consume the daily news through the same filter.
It was not difficult to do so in the 1970s. The daily newspaper was printed and delivered to my door every day. Television had just three networks, and each provided brief news reports two or three times a day.
Today, what passes as news comes from hundreds or thousands or millions of sources and it is changing constantly, 24/7/365. Only a small portion of those sources is professionally operated with accountability for the substance and/or style of the so-called reporting.
Today it drives me nuts to consume news – that is, to really think about what I’m reading or hearing the way I did in the 1970s. Today, meaningful matters often get buried in trivia while the most inane and inaccurate stories and comments can go viral overnight.
I’ve always said you can get too much of a good thing – too much food; too much free time; and certainly, too much sports. And clearly, we have too much “news” about sports.