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.

Classification Trends

April 14, 2015

Every year, just as winter tournaments are concluding, MHSAA staff are already pointing to the following school year, including finalizing and publishing the classifications and divisions for MHSAA tournaments for the next school year.
For 2015-16, there are 754 member schools classified, an increase of five over 2014-15.
The sports with the largest increase in school sponsorship are girls soccer (+11), girls competitive cheer (+8), wrestling (+7) and boys bowling (+6); while the sports with the greatest decline in school sponsorship are girls softball (-8), girls skiing (-6) and boys skiing (-5).
The enrollment range between largest and smallest school is at historical lows in Classes B and C and near historical lows in Class D. The enrollment range in Class A increased for the third consecutive year; it’s now 259 more students than five years ago, but 718 fewer students than 10 years ago.
These statistics undermine arguments by some who opine that the enrollment ranges are too large and that more classifications and divisions for MHSAA tournaments are needed today.
Even in Class A, which is the only classification for which the enrollment range has been increasing in very recent years, it’s the schools in the mid-range of Class A that are most successful. For example, in this year’s Class A Boys Basketball Tournament, the average rank of the 16 Class A Regional finalists was 85th of 185 Class A schools in the tournament. And the four teams in the Class A Semifinals at MSU ranked 72nd, 75th, 94th and 171st in enrollment among the 185 schools in Class A basketball.
No, Class A schools get little sympathy from those of us who crunch the numbers and manage the tournaments. Even though the enrollment of the largest Class D school keeps declining, it is the very smallest of our member schools which must actually climb the largest mountains to MHSAA titles.