Mounting Evidence

October 10, 2014

On three occasions over the last three months alone, I’ve posted opinions and statistics about the downsides of sports specialization, often citing the work and words of others because, frankly, I’m expected to oppose sports specialization – it’s in my DNA and job description – and anyway, the experts always come from some other place.
  • 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.

Economic Indicators

July 19, 2016

We don’t need the Federal Reserve Bank chairwoman to tell us about economic indicators; we have our own way of knowing at the Michigan High School Athletic Association office when the state’s economy is bad or good.

In bad economic times, we experience an increase in those registering to become MHSAA officials. When jobs are lost or hours are cut, a little extra income from officiating can make a big difference to people.

In good economic times, we see a decline in the number of registrations. We lose the officials who are in it for the money and retain the 10,000 hard core, committed officials whom school sports depends on in Michigan.

Another economic indicator is litigation. In bad economic times, fewer people resort to courts to solve disputes; while in good economic times, more people have more money to spend on lawyers to settle their squabbles.

So, what do those indicators tell us about today’s economic news?

Officials registrations in 2015-16 were the lowest in 29 years. And 2015-16 was the busiest year of litigation since 2010.

So, the good news is that the economy is improving. That’s also the bad news.