Logo

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.

Wakeup Call

January 8, 2016

For many years we have observed and heard about the negative effect of non-school basketball on the high school game – the emphasis on offense more than defense, competition more than practice, fast-breaks more than fundamentals, etc.

It has also been widely reported that the atmosphere surrounding non-school basketball feeds undue influence and athletic-related transfers that trouble high school basketball and tarnish the trophies of some of the teams advancing in MHSAA tournaments.

We also observe that an increasing number of high school games are being arranged in a format that is typical of non-school basketball. It’s a steady stream of games from early morning to late at night, arranged by outside entities who spare local high school athletic directors the work of administering the game, but who retain all of the revenue for themselves, sharing none with schools.

The promoters say they don’t need to provide revenue to the school because they are providing a platform for the players. So, as with non-school basketball, it’s becoming less about school and team and more about a few star players and the next level.

This is not really school-sponsored, educational athletics. It’s becoming a recruiting service.

Schools better wake up, and take back their program!