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.

Seeding Thoughts

December 9, 2014

The 2014 MHSAA Update Meeting Opinion Poll asked for constituent attitudes about two ideas for seeding MHSAA tournaments; and each idea received support from approximately two-thirds of more than 500 survey respondents.
The slightly more popular idea is to seed at the highest level of team tournaments where all finalists are gathered in one place, as we do at present for the MHSAA Team Wrestling Tournament.
Nearly as popular is the idea to seed at the lowest or entry level of team tournaments, placing the best two teams of each of the geography-based entry level tournaments (usually the District level, sometimes the Regional level) on the top and bottom lines of the tournament bracket, followed by a blind draw to fill the other bracket lines.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about seeding. It’s possible that seeding is good for one sport, but not another. If it can be done without too much controversy and if it has the potential to increase crowds without increasing travel costs for schools and the MHSAA, then seeding may make sense.
The constituents involved in one sport may see value in seeding, while those in another sport may not. Different decisions have been made in boys lacrosse and girls lacrosse; the same may occur in softball vs. baseball, for example.
The route to seeding is through the MHSAA Classification Committee for general review and through each respective sport committee for detailed analysis and development of specific proposals to the Representative Council.