The Specialty of School Sports
July 24, 2018
(This blog first appeared on MHSAA.com on November 18, 2016.)
There is much finger pointing when it comes to sports injuries, and I’d like to point in a direction that is often missed.
Some people blame equipment – it’s either inadequate, or it’s so good that it encourages athletes to use their bodies in unsafe ways.
Some people say the rules are inadequate, or inadequately enforced by contest officials.
Some people say the pool of coaches is inadequate, or they are inadequately trained.
But let’s not miss the fact that risk of injury is inherent in athletic activities, and at least part of the reason injuries occur is because the participants are developmentally deficient. In fact, this may be the fastest growing contributing cause to injuries in youth sports. It’s not the sport; it’s the lack of development, the lack of physical preparation.
When rushed into early and intense specialization in a single sport, youth may not be ready for the rigors of that sport. Lindsay J. DiStefano, PhD, ATC, of the University of Connecticut, has researched the topic among youth basketball and soccer players and linked higher injury rates to lower sports sampling, and vice versa. Exposure to multiple sports during early childhood positively influences neuromuscular control and reduces injuries.
Do we encourage youth to sample several sports and help them learn basic athletic movements and skills? Do we offer opportunities to train and condition and focus special attention on strengthening knees and necks? Do we provide more time and attention on practice than on competition and assure safe technique is taught and learned?
Early and intense specialization, with excessive attention to competition, invites injury. There is a much healthier way for most youth – and that’s balanced, multi-sport participation – the specialty of junior high/middle school and high school sports.
Eight-Player Options
March 10, 2017
Put this in the category of “No good deed goes unpunished.”
In 2011, the MHSAA provided an additional playoff for Class D schools sponsoring 8-player football. This helped save football in some schools and helped return the game of football to other schools. But now that the number of 8-player programs has expanded from two dozen in 2011 to more than 60, there are complaints:
-
Some complaints come out of a sense of entitlement that all final games in both the 8-player and 11-player tournament deserve to be played at Ford Field.
-
Some complaints come from Class C schools whose enrollments are too large for the 8-player tournament. Class C schools which sponsor the 8-player game have no tournament at all in which to play, regardless of where the finals might be held.
-
Some complaints come from Class D schools which protest any suggestion that Class C schools – even the smallest – be allowed to play in the 8-player tournament.
There are now three scenarios emerging as the most likely future for 8-player football:
-
The original plan ... A five-week, 32-team tournament for Class D schools only, with the finals at a site to be determined, but probably not Ford Field.
-
Alternative #1 ... Reduce the 11-player tournament to seven divisions and make Division 8 the 8-player tournament with 32 Class D teams in a five-week tournament, ending at Ford Field.
-
Alternative #2 ... Conduct the 8-player tournament in two divisions of 16 Class D teams, competing in a four-week playoff ending in a double-header at the Superior Dome on the Saturday before Thanksgiving.
The pros and cons of these options are being widely discussed. Sometimes the discussions have a tone that is critical of the MHSAA, which comes from those who forget that it was the MHSAA itself which moved in 2011 to protect and promote football by adding the 8-player playoff tournament option for its smallest member schools. That Class D schools now feel entitled to the Ford Field opportunity and Class C schools want access to an 8-player tournament is not unexpected; but criticism of the MHSAA’s efforts is not deserved.