Playing Time: Paying It Forward
February 23, 2018
(What follows is an excerpt from an article by Jon Solomon of the Aspen Institute. Find the full article here.
There’s a time to sort the weak from the strong in sports. It’s not before kids grow into their bodies, minds and true interests.
Through age 12, at least, the Aspen Institute’s Project Play recommends that sports programs invest in every kid equally. That includes playing time – a valuable developmental tool that too many coaches assign based on player skill level and the score of the game. You will see this recommendation reflected in our Parent Checklists and companion videos.
The argument is simple for equal playing time: Research shows that what kids want out of a sports experience is both action and access to the action. Getting stuck at the end of the bench does not foster participation. And we all know greater participation is sorely needed in youth sports. Only 37 percent of kids ages 6 to 12 regularly played team sports in 2016, down from 45 percent in 2008, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association in the Aspen Institute’s State of Play 2017 report.
Kids who quit sports often do so because of lack of playing time, which can be a result of lack of confidence. Confidence is a byproduct of proper preparation and adults who believe in the players, according to IMG Academy Head of Leadership Development James Leath.
“From a small child to the world’s greatest athlete, those who are confident are confident because they have taken thousands of shots, tried and failed many times, then tried again and got it right,” Leath said.
Playing time shouldn’t be earned at younger ages. It should be paid forward to develop a future athlete.
Wrong End of the Microscope
October 14, 2016
Those who love and lead high school football in Michigan may be looking through the wrong end of the microscope.
Attention to large schools, varsity programs and the postseason is a waste of time if we fail to closely examine smaller schools, lower level programs and the start of the season.
Are we adequately nurturing our roots and promoting the future of the game? Do high school coaches spend more time with civic and parent groups describing the benefits and defending the safety record of school-sponsored football than they do airing their grievances against other coaches in the media?
Do we understand how increasing the number and enrollment ranges of 8-player football programs affects our smallest schools, whether they conduct 11- or 8-player programs? Do we see where and how the same proposal can serve one school very well but another school terribly?
Do we understand what's happening in junior high/middle school programs? Do we play enough games to be attractive to kids and their parents, and do the practice policies and playing rules of this level promote an extra degree of participant health and safety?
Do we understand how starting practice so much earlier than academic classes in the fall may turn off kids and parents, especially at lower levels of play; and are we keeping up with rapidly changing calendar changes of member schools?
Ultimately, the future health of varsity high school football programs depends on the outcome of these kinds of questions, answers and efforts ... and has little to do with the size and system of the postseason playoffs. And positive efforts will be negatively affected by coaches airing dirty laundry in public.