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.

Look Out Below!

March 27, 2018

Here are the kinds of statements that should send chills down the spines of thoughtful leaders of school-based basketball:

  • From Maverick Carter, business manager for LeBron James and CEO of Springhill Entertainment: “... the system is broken at the base, the foundation of it, which is youth basketball ... And if youth basketball is broken, then that’s part of his (NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s) job, too, because those kids are quickly in his league.”
    “... the NCAA has these stupid-ass rules that are so archaic, so you have to fix that whole thing and figure out a way to do it. I own a piece of Liverpool football club, in European soccer, because clubs have a system all the way down to youth.”

  • From Michelle Roberts, NBA Players Association executive director: “... we need to go younger, and we’re now plotting ways to do that.”

  • From Draymond Green, formerly of Michigan State and now of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors: “You talk to the European guys who I’ve played with, and they’ve been making money since they were 15 years old ...”

  • From Michael Singer of the Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN: “... the NBA is indeed exploring avenues to connect with elite high school players and improve the developmental system ... Part of the NBA’s plan could hinge on working with elite prospects throughout high school, whether at tournaments or at summer camps.”

So, at minimum, this is what school-based sports can expect as a result of NBA and NCAA efforts to fix what’s broken in college basketball:

  1. Additional pressures on students to specialize in basketball year-round from a very early age.

  2. Further distraction from the masses of players toward elite players.

  3. An attack on amateur standing rules in school-based basketball.