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.
Volleyball Faceoff
July 14, 2015
The 96th Annual Summer Meeting of the National Federation of State High School Associations overlapped dates and shared hotels, restaurants and sidewalks with the USA Volleyball 2015 Girls Junior National Championships during late June and early July in New Orleans.
This mega-tournament drew fields of 24 to 72 teams in each of 30 divisions, with each of the approximately 1,000 teams paying from $650 to $900, providing an attractive payday for USAV. In addition, this was a dreaded “stay and play” tournament that required teams to book rooms at the designated hotels that provided kickbacks to the organizers.
USAV raked in the dollars which the parents I spoke to seemed only mildly distressed to pay because they had bought into the fantasy that this sort of extravagance is necessary to help their daughter reach the “next level.”
Next level? Some of these parents couldn’t even find the next court for their daughter’s match among the 80 courts on which competition was held, and missed parts of matches they had paid hundreds of dollars in club and travel expenses to attend. This was about quantity of teams, much more than quality of experience.
And what, after all, is the next level for a girl playing on an “Under 13 Team” ... Under 14?
If the “next level” means college volleyball, then parents haven’t been told of the lottery-like odds they face. Making any college team that offers any financial aid based on volleyball skill is a mere fantasy for almost every girl and it’s a futile strategy for those parents to fund their daughter’s college education.
In sharp contrast, I’m reassured that we’ve got it right in school-based volleyball, where the focus is on scholarship in high school, not athletic scholarships to college; on learning in many practices more than competing in many tournaments; on local events, not national travel; where MHSAA tournaments are free to enter, and matches are conducted one at a time on the arena’s one and only court, with the school’s student section cheering the team on.