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.

Going on Offense

March 3, 2015

I was a defensive back on my college football team, but I refuse to be put on the defensive about the game of football.

The game is good for students, their schools and our communities. High school football is character-building for students, spirit-building for schools and community-building for cities and towns. Local school football programs ought to be part of the development plans and place-making strategies of all communities of Michigan.

The school-sponsored game has never been safer to play. The equipment has never been more protective, coaches have never had more safety training, the rules have never been more safety-oriented, and game officials have never had more encouragement to enforce those rules. The result is fewer injuries of all kinds – from nicks and bruises to ankles, knees and necks.

When the game of football has faults, we find and fix them. To continue doing so requires that we be honest with ourselves about where the game has weaknesses and be constantly alert to effective ways to improve the game.

Defensiveness gets in the way of discovering ways to go on offense. It blocks innovation and sacks aspirations before they can be launched.

I want our public to know that school-sponsored football is a great game. I also want the public to know that we aspire to keep improving the game and to exceed legal mandates. We will continue to do more than what is required and, in fact, we intend to do what’s unexpected to assure football remains a positive influence on students, schools and communities.