ABUSIVE SPORTS PARENTS: Plane Fly-Over Banner a New Low in Parental Behavior - Ask Coach Wolff

Look!! Up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane!! No, it's just Johnny and Billy's parents doing stupid $pit again!!

Nothing should amaze us anymore, and yet it does. It seems like sports parents are having a competition to out-do each other in terms of stupid stunts or abhorrent behavior.

from askcoachwolff.com
http://www.askcoachwolff.com/2018/05/27/abusive-sports-parents-plane-fly-over-banner-a-new-low-in-parental-behavior/

ABUSIVE SPORTS PARENTS: Plane Fly-Over Banner a New Low in Parental Behavior

by Rick Wolff

May 27, 2018
Chances are that you heard about this absolutely bizarre incident that took place last week at a HS baseball playoff game. It was first reported on all sorts of twitter feeds, and a number of you made sure I was aware of it.

In short, at Briarcliff HS in Westchester County (NY), right before the start of a game between Briarcliff and Irvington HS, a small plane flew overhead for several minutes with a banner trailing behind it that read: "Fire Schrader and Kowalcyck"….

As you might have surmised, John Schrader is the head coach, and Walter Kowalcyck is the assistant coach at Briarcliff.

Now, this act of renting a plane to publicly and blatantly urge that HS coaches be fired is, if nothing else, deeply embarrassing to the people who live in that community. That is, instead of the focus being on how the team is having a great season, one parent has selfishly pushed all of that off to the side in order to make his or her point known.

And that, of course, is just not right. Especially if you don't have the COURAGE to step forward and identify yourself – and to explain WHY you felt compelled to do this.
The hard reality is that this is just another progressive step in the increasingly acrimonious friction between sports parents and coaches. And even worse, there's no sense that this kind of alienation is going to decrease.

In short, as we know,  from the parent's perspective, THESE DAYS…it's all about MY KID….not the team…MY KID comes first.

WHO IS THE REAL VICTIM?

That's the sad irony here. Certainly in the small town of Briarcliff, word will soon get out as to who did this. And while that parent will be vilified for sure, the real victim here is the son who's presumably on the team. Of course, it's possible that he's a senior and graduating soon, or perhaps he was cut from the team, or maybe transferred to a different school. We won't really know the underlying reason until the parent steps up.

But regardless, in the end, it's the boy who clearly had some sort of relationship to the team who will be ostracized. Of course, he may be totally innocent in what his parent did, but in the end, that probably won't make any difference.

According to various media reports, the LI-based aviation company which owns the plane, it was a woman – presumably a sports parent – who paid $1250 to have the banner flown over the HS field for 15 minutes.

What is even more amazing is that the aviation company said that they get requests like this routinely. (But if that is true, how come we haven't heard about other similar incidents?)

In any event, at the time of the fly-over, Briarcliff was actually having a terrific season at 19-3 and easily defeated Irvington HS on that day.

That being said, we all know that even when a team is having a highly successful year, there are still usually parents who are disgruntled…that is, they feel that their kid is not getting enough playing time, or is not playing the right position, or they feel the staff is only playing favorites, or whatever reason – and they point to the coaches as the reason why.

Now, the aftermath is that people in Briarcliff are saying that this embarrassing experience has actually brought the team and coaching staff closer together. I sure hope so.

In fact, in the next playoff game for Briarcliff, another plane flew overhead with another  banner – but this one was encouraging the team and the Briarcliff coaches. That banner was signed by the school superintendent who clearly supported the coaching staff.

This entire incident begs the question: what can HS coaches do to defend themselves against unruly parents?

COACHES WHO FILE LAWSUITS

Now, I ask that because  I read where a HS coach in upstate NY fought back against a bunch of parents who basically got him fired by writing nasty letters to the school board. And that coach went to court to fight back; he sued those parents for defamation, and won.

In short, a long-time coach named Mark Storm in a small public school district outside Rochester was let go after 30 years coaching basketball, baseball, and other sports. As mentioned, some parents had sent a letter to the local school board saying that the coach was a bully… that he broke promises to his players… and that he was verbally abusive and had a drinking problem.

Confronted with this parental list of complaints, the local school board decided to let the veteran coach go.

But for Coach Storm, this was the last straw. He was angry at all of these complaints, and especially the false accusation that he had an alcohol problem.

So Storm fought back. He filed a defamation lawsuit against those parents. And last month, he agreed to a $50,000 settlement –he had asked for $150,000. But certainly his point was made. The parents who wrote the nasty letter now have to pay him.

This is not the first time a coach used the legal system. Back In 2005, a HS baseball coach in California won $700,000 in a slander case when a parent accused the coach of ruining his kid's chances of becoming a college or pro player. (That kid, by the way, eventually tried out as a walk-on at the Univ. of San Diego and was cut.)

Now….I'm not necessarily advocating that coaches start to hire lawyers…..but I do think we're at a point where we can certainly understand why HS coaches feel that they have a right to defend themselves.

Sure, getting a lawyer takes time, effort and money to file a lawsuit, but I do sense this may be where we are headed. I sure hope not.

Sent from my iPhone

The Perils of Single-Sport Participation | Changing the Game Project

Patience is a good word. Easy to say, hard to do. You are talking about parents and their children and you can't false them for being passionate about their kids. They just can't allow themselves to be blinded by that passion. It lead to bad relationships.

from the article:

To be an elite level player at a college or professional sport, you need a degree of exceptional athleticism. And the best medically, scientifically and psychologically recommended way to develop such all around athleticism is ample free play and multiple sport participation as a child.

http://changingthegameproject.com/the-perils-of-single-sport-participation/

The Perils of Single-Sport Participation

 For the last few days, my email and social media accounts have been lit up by a simple image first shared with me on Twitter by @ohiovarsity. It is amazing because the image portrays something that is widely known among experts, widely discussed in coaching circles, and has certainly been written about by me and others many times. Yet this excellent blog article on a high school sports site got over half a million shares in the first 3 days it was out because this image touched a nerve

Why? Well, here is the image:

The question I was asked over and over this week was "What do you think of this?"

My answer, over and over was, "Amen, agreed, hopefully now people will start paying attention."

If it takes an infographic of Urban Meyer's football recruits at Ohio State to shift the paradigm in youth sports, then so be it. The image above, which clearly demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of his recruits are multi-sport kids, is not new information, but it has caused quite a stir. Here is what it says in a nutshell:

To be an elite level player at a college or professional sport, you need a degree of exceptional athleticism. And the best medically, scientifically and psychologically recommended way to develop such all around athleticism is ample free play and multiple sport participation as a child.

Why? Well let's see what the experts say:

Coaches and Elite Athletes:

Pete Carroll, former USC and now Seattle Seahawks Football coach, says here "The first questions I'll ask about a kid are, 'What other sports does he play? What does he do? What are his positions? Is he a big hitter in baseball? Is he a pitcher? Does he play hoops?' All of those things are important to me. I hate that kids don't play three sports in high school. I think that they should play year-round and get every bit of it that they can through that experience. I really, really don't favor kids having to specialize in one sport. Even [at USC], I want to be the biggest proponent for two-sport athletes on the college level. I want guys that are so special athletically, and so competitive, that they can compete in more than one sport."

Dom Starsia, University of Virginia men's lacrosse: "My trick question to young campers is always, 'How do you learn the concepts of team offense in lacrosse or team defense in lacrosse in the off-season, when you're not playing with your team?' The answer is by playing basketball, by playing hockey and by playing soccer and those other team games, because many of those principles are exactly the same. Probably 95 percent [of our players] are multi-sport athletes. It's always a bit strange to me if somebody is not playing other sports in high school."

Or in this interview with Tim Corbin, coach of NCAA Champion Vanderbilt

Baseball, on why he chooses multi-sport athletes over single sport kids.

Or Ashton Eaton, world record holder and gold medalist in the decathlon, who never participated in 6 of the 10 required decathlon events until he got to the University of Oregon.

Or Steve Nash, who got his first basketball at age 13 and credits his soccer background for making him a great basketball player, a similar story to the 100 professional athletes interviewed in Ethan Skolnick and Dr. Andrea Korn's Raising

Your Game .
The list goes on and on.

What about the medical experts? 

As I have outlined in my ebook "Is it Wise to Specialize?" and echoed in world renowned orthopedic surgeon James Andrew's book Any Given Monday, there are strong medical reasons for not specializing at a young age:

1. Children who specialize in a single sport account for 50% of overuse injuries in young athletes according to pediatric orthopedic specialists.
2. A study by Ohio State University found that children who specialized early in a single sport led to higher rates of adult physical inactivity. Those who commit to one sport at a young age are often the first to quit, and suffer a lifetime of consequences.
3. In a study of 1200 youth athletes, Dr Neeru Jayanthi of Loyola University found that early specialization in a single sport is one of the strongest predictors of injury. Athletes in the study who specialized were 70% to 93% more likely to be injured than children who played multiple sports!
4. Children who specialize early are at a far greater risk for burnout due to stress, decreased motivation and lack of enjoyment
5. Early sport specialization in female adolescents is associated with increased risk of anterior knee pain disorders including PFP, Osgood Schlatter and Sinding Larsen-Johansson compared to multi-sport athletes, and may lead to higher rates of future ACL tears.

And the sport scientists?

In January 2015, I had the honor of sitting in a lecture with Manchester United Performance Coach Tony Strudwick, winner of 13 titles as the fitness coach for Manchester United's first team. His advice was that a multi-sport background prior to the age of 12 set up soccer players for long-term success by lowering the rates of injuries and making them more adaptable to the demands of elite level play. "More often than not," he stated in a recent interview with SoccerWire.com, "the best athletes in the world are able to distinguish themselves from the pack thanks to a range of motor skills beyond what is typically expected in a given sport." He recommended tumbling and gymnastic movements, as well as martial arts, basketball, and lacrosse as great crossover sports for soccer.
Here are some other advantages I have previously written about:

1. Better Overall Skills and Ability:Research shows that early participation in multiple sports leads to better overall motor and athletic development, longer playing careers, increased ability to transfer sports skills other sports and increased motivation, ownership of the sports experience, and confidence.

2. Smarter, More Creative Players: Multi-sport participation at the youngest ages yields better decision making and pattern recognition, as well as increased creativity. These are all qualities that coaches of high-level teams look for.

3. Most College Athletes Come From a Multi-Sport Background: A 2013 American Medical Society for Sports Medicine survey found that 88% of college athletes surveyed participated in more than one sport as a child

4. 10,000 Hours is not a Rule: In his survey of the scientific literature regarding sport specific practice in The Sports Gene, author David Epstein finds that most elite competitors require far less than 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. Specifically, studies have shown that basketball (4000), field hockey (4000) and wrestling (6000) all require far less than 10,000 hours.

5. There are Many Paths to Mastery: A 2003 study on professional ice hockey players found that while most pros had spent 10,000 hours or more involved in sports prior to age 20, only 3000 of those hours were involved in hockey specific deliberate practice (and only 450 of those hours were prior to age 12).

Are all sports the same?

No, they are not. They each require specific athletic, technical, and tactical skill sets. Some sports, in order to be elite, require early specialization, such as gymnastics and figure skating.

Other sports are so dependent upon physical prowess (American football, basketball, volleyball, rugby and others) that the technical skills and tactical know how can be developed later. There are many stories of athletes taking up these sports in their teens, even 20's, and playing at a very high level because of the ability to transfer skills learned in one sport to another.

And then there are sports like hockey and soccer, which without a doubt require an early introduction to the sport. There are technical movements and skills that are most sensitive to improvement prior to a child's growth spurt, and it is unlikely that a post-pubescent child is able to catch up if that is their first introduction to the sport.

HOWEVER, there is no evidence that pre-teen athletes in these sports should only play a single sport. As both the hockey evidence and the interview with Tony Strudwick mentioned above demonstrate, playing multiple sports early on sets these athletes up for longer-term success. They can better meet the demands of elite level play. They are less likely to get injured or burnout, and more likely to persist through the struggles needed to become a high-level performer.

If you want your child to play at a high-level, then the best thing you can do is help them find a sport that best suits their abilities, and help create an environment that gives them the best chance of success. 

That environment is a multi-sport one. The evidence is in. It is pretty conclusive.
It is time for our youth sports organizations to not only allow but encourage multi-sport participation. Yes, it is tough on the bottom line. But ask yourself this:

Elite travel baseball and basketball teams make for a youth sports industrial complex

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/keown-110823/elite-travel-baseball-basketball-teams-make-youth-sports-industrial-complex

Keown: Down with the youth sports industrial complex!

Your kid is good, right? Really good? You don't want to brag, but he can do some things on the field that other kids his age won't even try. You played a little ball yourself, and you know the difference.
Make no mistake: There's someone out there for you. He's putting together a team, and he's got a pipeline to the best tournaments. He knows people. He'll have tryouts and he'll tell you what you want to hear. It's expensive, sure, but who can put a price on your kid's future? If he's got a chance to be the best, he needs to play with and against the best, right?

Judging by the direction we're taking preteen youth sports, it appears we have completely lost our minds. Gone crazy -- collectively and individually. It's become something of a hobby for me to read the local sports coverage of the three or four sub-20,000 circulation papers in my area, and I am here to report that the center cannot hold.

The days of simply playing ball with your friends is over. It's a different world out there for the preteen athlete, with "Elite" and "Select" commonly turning up in the names of our youth sports teams and leagues. We're having tryouts for 10-and-under traveling baseball teams, and we've got 10-and-under basketball teams traveling the country playing against other fourth-graders at God knows what cost to the parents' bank accounts and the kids' psyches. All in the name of … what? Trophies?

Exposure? A leg up on a college scholarship? The egos of the parents?

The exploits of these kids, which almost always include tournament championships, national rankings from some little-known organization and perspective-free quotes from the coaches, are dutifully and breathlessly reported. If you didn't know any better, you'd think the 9- and 10-year-olds in my neck of the woods are the most remarkable 9- and 10-year-olds anywhere. But then you could probably say the same about yours. You just have to know where to look.

I found a great nugget the other day: a notice for a 10-and-under baseball team that's having tryouts for its extensive fall tournament schedule. The notice included the following sentence: "The team needs competitive youngsters who are looking to play baseball at the next level."

Let's parse that for a moment. Someone needs to explain to me what the "next level" is for a kid who's 10 or younger. I dare you to define it. Is it 11-and-under? Maybe 12-and-under? And if so, are there really 10-year-olds who are striving to play baseball at the 12-and-under level? Wouldn't it just happen naturally -- you know, with age?

If you think that, you're behind the times. This is the age of the special child. This is the age of the parent who believes his or her kid playing Little League for the neighborhood team is beneath them both. (Despite the talent you see at the Little League World Series, make no mistake: Little League has suffered enormously at the hands of the folks who peddle dreams to the parents of the preteen set. Local independent teams -- most of them touting the supposed benefits of year-round play -- skim top players out of neighborhood Little Leagues.) This is the age of the youth-sports industrial complex, where men make a living putting on tournaments for 7-year-olds, and parents subject their children to tryouts and pay good money for the right to enter into it.

There are palaces built just for the purpose of housing these tournaments. Big League Dreams is a chain of West Coast baseball complexes with multiple diamonds that attempts to replicate different big league ballparks. There's a bunch of 10-year-olds playing in Fenway, the 12s in Yankee Stadium and the 13s in Wrigley Field. (You haven't really lived until you've seen Wrigley's ivy-covered wall painted onto slabs of plywood. There are times you have to pinch yourself.) The fields are spokes that extend from the hub -- an air-conditioned restaurant and bar, where parents can sit inside and watch games away from the infernal heat.

They go through every player's backpack as he enters -- and yes, there's an entrance fee -- to make sure he isn't trying to smuggle in any outside food or drink. PowerBars and Gatorades are confiscated.

There are buzzwords in this business, sure to coax the gullible parent. The big three terms are "elite," "select," and "travel ball." Oh, the power of those words. Waving the prospect of "travel ball" under the nose of the ambitious father of a talented 9-year-old is like wafting a steak under the nose of a sleeping dog. After all, the more you travel and the farther you go to play a sport, the better you must be at that sport, right?

"Travel ball," in this world, is meant as a synonym for "better ball." Parents say, "Oh, he plays travel ball," as a means of separating their kids from the riffraff who don't see fit to spend thousands of dollars to travel all over the place with their 9-year-olds. And if it's "year-round travel ball" -- a red flag across the orthopedic medical community for the dangers of repetitive overuse -- all the better.

It's a status symbol, one promoted by parents and justified by the guys who collect tournament fees, and it's the main reason baseball in this country is widely becoming the province of wealthy suburbia.
Another nugget: A 10-and-under AAU basketball team from my Northern California town got the lead story in the sports section about a week ago. They've won six of seven tournaments, we're told, and they aren't stopping there. The coach is quoted as saying, "I am looking to go to North Carolina and Houston. And there may be a New York tournament."

In the bylined story -- and yes, I remember the days when I had to cover Little League and adult softball (gack) for a local paper -- we are treated to thumbnail descriptions of the team's two best players before we're left with the following walk-off quote from our coach: "Some parents claim they're the best team in [the county]. I must agree with them."

These are 9- and 10-year-olds, which raises a question: What the hell are we doing?

Here's one thing we're doing: We're creating a class of kids who are being labeled with terms such as "elite" and "competitive" and "best of the best." They're being worshipped by their parents and coaches, who keep statistics to post online and send photographs to the local paper. It's organized insanity.

And this is just something to think about, but if there are countless elite and select teams where I live, how elite and select can they be?

We went through a culture shift in American education in which self-esteem became a major focus. Slower kids became "challenged" or "special" as a means of eliminating pejoratives. A lot of good came of it; kids who were branded with demeaning terms found strength in their differences.

Well, the pendulum has sure swung, hasn't it? We're nearing the point in youth sports where we need to stop the "elite" and "select" madness because we're raising a generation with too much self-esteem. They can't handle failure because they've been conditioned to believe they're too good to fail. They're being placed on teams that identify them as better than their peers on the whim of either a parent/coach or a businessman/coach.

Parents line up to have their kids try out for under-10 fall baseball teams, where tiny kids compete for the right to have their arms trashed by pitching in four different games over two days of a weekend tournament put on by a for-profit organization that gives teams 10 minutes between games to warm up.

There is the allure of better coaching (sometimes true), better gear (nearly always true) and better competition (debatable). Still, is there anything dumber than holding tryouts for 9-year-olds? We're not talking about Little League tryouts, which don't include cuts and are intended to place kids at the appropriate level for their ability. No, we're talking about putting 9- and 10-year-olds through an extensive tryout to keep some and cut others.

And then, five years down the line when Little Johnny decides to trade his bat and glove for a skateboard and a piercing, his parents can scream and yell about the travel ball coach who ruined baseball for their son by taking their money and not playing him. It's an over generalization, sure, but the whole operation has a way of surgically extracting the fun out of a sport at an age when fun is all it should be.

Here's what the dream-peddlers don't tell you: Anyone who has spent more than five innings watching 10-year-olds play baseball -- or one half of a basketball game -- knows that athletic ability in a kid that young is directly related to physical maturity. The kid with hair under his arms in sixth grade is going to hit the baseball farther than the prepubescent kid who can't get out of the dugout without tripping over his own feet. It's really not that hard.

When I played youth baseball -- it was called "Fly League" where I grew up -- everyone knew the legend of Buddy Wall. He was the 5-foot-10 guy from the other side of town who struck everyone out, hit mammoth homers and bench-pressed 225 at 12 years old. He was a couple of years older than me, and I lost track of him after Fly League days. Then, when I was 16 and showed up for the first day of practice for a local 16- to 19-year-old team, the coach had all the players introduce themselves. One guy, 5-10 with a full beard, said, "My name's Buddy Wall."

The Missing Ingredient in US Talent Development | Changing the GameProject

16 year -old Gareth Bale at Southampton

http://changingthegameproject.com/the-missing-ingredient-in-us-talent-development/

The Missing Ingredient in US Talent Development

In 2005, the coaches at one of the top English Premier League Youth Soccer Academies held one of their semiannual meetings to decide upon which players they would keep for the upcoming cycle, and whom they would let go. As they were evaluating their players –many of whom would go on to star not only in the EPL, but internationally as well – they were stuck on one particular 15 year old boy. He had been a good player when he first entered their Academy, but recently he had grown a bit and was no longer scoring well in their physical testing, nor playing like he had a few years earlier. In fact, the once speedy player was now only the 7^th fastest kid on the team!

These incredibly qualified and highly respected coaches were torn; some wanted to keep him and offer him a scholarship to continue his training; others thought they should let him go. It was touch and go.

To break the tie, the coaches brought in their chief scout, a man named Rod Ruddick, to help them decide. Ruddick was the scout who had found the boy play at age 9 and had first invited him to join. He also had a hunch that the player was going through a difficult time as he grew, and that soon the kid he remembered would reemerge. He cast his tie-breaking vote to keep the player (read more about Ruddick here)

Within two years the player would make his first team senior debut for the club, and become the youngest international player in his country's history. In 2013, that speedy winger proved that the staff at Southampton were right to keep him, as he became the most expensive signing in world soccer history when he was bought by Real Madrid for $120 million.

His name was Gareth Bale.

The story of Gareth Bale, and other late developing athletes such as Danish international soccer player Simon Kjaer (whom I have written about here), Michael Jordan, or NFL QB Steve Young, are worth retelling because they beg the question "Would these kids have made it today in the US?"

Would we keep a player who seemed to be declining in ability? Would we keep a player that did not help us win today? Can we identify not just the talent that shines bright, but the talent that whispers?

Currently, in many places the answer is no, we would not keep a player who is not helping right now, because American youth sports is missing the most important prerequisite of talent development.

PATIENCE!

READ MORE HERE:
http://changingthegameproject.com/the-missing-ingredient-in-us-talent-development/

Your kid and my kid are not playing in the pros | Guest Voices | NUVO News | Indianapolis, IN

Presented without editing, one of the all-time best articles I've ever read. This was presented to me one evening by Mrs. The Slav after she finished convulsing in laughter. If you see yourself in any of the following examples, check yourself before you wreck yourself.

http://m.nuvo.net/GuestVoices/archives/2014/03/18/your-kid-and-my-kid-are-not-playing-in-the-pros

Your kid and my kid are not playing in the pros

                                                                                                                              

I don't care if your eight year old can throw a baseball through six inches of plywood. He is not going to the pros. I don't care if your twelve-year-old scored seven touchdowns last week in Pop Warner. He is not going to the pros. I don't care if your sixteen-year-old made first team all-state in basketball. He is not playing in the pros. I don't care if your freshman in college is a varsity scratch golfer, averaging two under par. He isn't playing in the pros. Now tell me again how good he is. I'll lay you two to one odds right now — and I don't even know your kid, I have never even see them play — but I'll put up my pension that your kid is not playing in the pros. It is simply an odds thing. There are far too many variables working against your child. Injury, burnout, others who are better — these things are just a fraction of the barriers preventing your child from becoming "the one."

So how do we balance being the supportive parent who spends three hours a day driving all over hell's half acre to allow our child to pursue his or her dream without becoming the supportive parent that drives all over hell's half acre to allow our child to pursue OUR dream? When does this pursuit of athletic stardom become something just shy of a gambling habit? From my experience in the ER I've developed some insight in how to identify the latter.

1. When I inform you as a parent that your child has just ruptured their ACL ligament or Achilles tendon, if the next question out of your mouth is, "How long until he or she will be able to play?" you have a serious problem.

2. If you child is knocked unconscious during a football game and can't remember your name let alone my name but you feel it is a "vital" piece of medical information to let me know that he is the starting linebacker and that the team will probably lose now because he was taken out of the game, you need to see a counselor.

3. If I tell you that mononucleosis has caused the spleen to swell and that participation in a contact sport could cause a life threatening rupture and bleeding during the course of the illness and you then ask me, "If we just get some extra padding around the spleen, would it be OK to play?" someone needs to hit you upside the head with a two by four.

4. If your child comes in with a blood alcohol level of .250 after wrecking your Lexus and you ask if I can hurry up and get them out of the ER before the police arrive so as not to run the risk of her getting kicked off the swim team, YOU need to be put in jail.

I bet you think I'm kidding about the above patient and parent interactions. I wish I were, but I'm not. These are a fraction of the things I have heard when it comes to children and sports. Every ER doctor in America sees this. How did we get here? How did we go from spending our family times in parks and picnics, at movies and relatives houses to travel baseball and cheerleading competitions? When did we go from being supportive to being subtly abusive?

Why are we spending our entire weekends schlepping from county to county, town to town, state to state to play in some bullshit regional, junior, mid-west, southeast, invitational, elite, prep, all- state, conference, blah, blah, blah tourney? We decorate our cars with washable paint, streamers, numbers and names. We roll in little carpool caravans trekking down the interstate honking and waiving at each other like Rev. Jim Jones followers in a Kool-Aid line. Greyhounds, Hawks, Panthers, Eagles, Bobcats, Screaming Devils, Scorching Gonads or whatever other mascot adorns their jerseys.

Somewhere along the line we got distracted, and the practice field became the dinner table of the new millennium. Instead of huddling around a platter of baked chicken, mashed potatoes and fruit salad, we spend our evenings handing off our children like 4 x 200 batons. From baseball practice to cheerleading, from swimming lessons to personal training, we have become the "hour-long" generation of five to six, six to seven, and seven to eight, selling the souls of our family for lacrosse try-outs. But why do we do this?

It's because, just like everyone else, we're afraid. We are afraid that Emma will make the cheerleading squad instead of Suzy and that Mitch will start at first base instead of my Dillon. But it doesn't stop there. You see, if Mitch starts instead of Dillon then Dillon will feel like a failure, and if Dillon feels like a failure then he will sulk and cower in his room, and he will lose his friends because all his friends are on the baseball team, too, and if he loses his friends then he will start dressing in Goth duds, pierce his testicles, start using drugs and begin listening to headbanging music with his door locked. Then, of course, it's just a matter of time until he's surfing the net for neo-Nazi memorabilia, visiting gun shows and then opening fire in the school cafeteria. That is why so many fathers who bring their injured sons to the ER are so afraid that they won't be able to practice this week, or that he may miss the game this weekend. Miss a game, you become a mass murderer — it's that simple.

Suzy is a whole other story, though. You see, if she doesn't make the cheerleading squad she will lose a whole bunch of friends and not be as popular as she should (and she's REAL popular). If she loses some friends, she will be devastated — all the cool kids will talk about her behind her back, so then she'll sit in her room all day, eating Ding Dongs and cutting at her wrists. Then, of course, it is only a matter of time until she is chatting on the Internet with fifty-year-old men and meeting up with them at truck stops. And that is why every mother is so frightened when her daughters have mononucleosis or influenza. Miss cheerleading practice for a week, and your daughter is headed for a career in porn. It's that simple.

We have become a frightened society that can literally jump from point A to point Z and ignore everything in between. We spend so much time worrying about who might get ahead — and if we're falling behind — that we have simply lost our common sense. Myself included.

There was a time when sick or injured children were simply sick or injured children. They needed bed rest, fluid, antibiotics and a limitation on activity. They just needed to get better. They didn't NEED to get better.

I know, I know. Your family is different. You do all these things because your kid loves to compete, he loves the travel basketball, she loves the swim team, it's her life, it's what defines him. Part of that is certainly true but a big part of that isn't. Tens of thousands of families thrive in this setting, but I'm telling you, from what I've seen as a clinician, tens of thousands don't. It is a hidden scourge in society today, taxing and stressing husbands, wives, parents and children. We're denying children the opportunity to explore literally thousands of facets of interests because of the fear of the need to "specialize" in something early, and that by not doing this your child will somehow be just an average kid. How do we learn to rejoice in the average and celebrate as a whole society the exceptional? I'm not sure, but I know that this whole preoccupation is unhealthy, it is dysfunctional and is as bad as alcoholism, tobacco abuse, or any other types of dependency.

I would love to have a son that is a pro athlete. I'd get season tickets; all the other fathers would point at me and I might get a chance to meet Sandy Koufax. It isn't going to happen, though. But you know what I am certain will happen? I'll raise self-reliant kids, who will hang out with me when I'm older, remember my birthday, care for their mother, take me to lunch and the movies, buy me club level seats at Yankee Stadium on occasion, call me at least four times a week and let me in on all the good things in their life, and turn to me for some comfort and advice for all the bad things. I am convinced that those things just will not happen as much for parents of the "hour-long" generation. You can't create a sense of family only at spring and Christmas break. It just won't happen. Sure, the kids will probably grow up to be adequate adults. They'll reflect on how supportive you were by driving them to all their games and practices and workouts. They'll call the ER from a couple states away to see how mom's doing but in time you'll see that something will be missing, something that was sacrificed for a piano tutor, a pitching coach, a travel soccer tournament. It may take years, but in time, you'll see.

Dr.Louis M. Profeta is an Emergency Physician practicing in Indianapolis, Indiana. He is the author of the critically acclaimed book, The Patient in Room Nine Says He's God.
Feedback at louermd@att.net is welcomed.

Sent from my iPhone

Estimated probability of competing in professional athletics | NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA

I wonder sometimes if all the sports parents who spend considerable sums on their prodigies in order to "get exposure" for a coveted college scholarship understand the risk/reward ratio.

"Professional opportunities are extremely limited and the likelihood of a high school or even college athlete becoming a professional athlete is very low."

This study just looks at the odds of a college athlete going pro. The odds of a HS athlete going to college and then the pros is exponentially greater, as is the odds of a youth player going from that level. Think about a pyramid shape, more competitors at the lower levels trying to claw up to the limited spaces at the higher levels.

So going from the youth level to college level would seem to be almost as difficult (two level jump) as from HS or college to pros, which is to say "very low".

I wonder sometimes why they don't take the now large sums of money invested in that dream of going to college via scholarship and take the virtually guaranteed route of saving that money and paying their kids own way through college.

They can still walk-on and compete in a chosen sport. In the current environment, especially in baseball with 13.1 scholarships that needs to accommodate 25 players, coaches would appreciate a "freebie" every now and then.

IDK, maybe the glory is worth rolling the dice, but it's not even a double or nothing wager in my opinion.

from NCAA.org
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics

Estimated probability of competing in professional athletics

More than 460,000 compete as NCAA athletes, and just a select few within each sport move on to compete at the professional or Olympic level.

The table presents of how many NCAA athletes move on to professional careers in sports like basketball, football, baseball and ice hockey.  Professional opportunities are extremely limited and the likelihood of a high school or even college athlete becoming a professional athlete is very low.
In contrast, the likelihood of an NCAA athlete earning a college degree is significantly greater; graduation success rates are 84% in Division I, 72% in Division II and 87% in Division III.

	NCAA Participants	Approximate # Draft Eligible	# Draft Slots	# NCAA Drafted	% NCAA to Major Pro*	% NCAA to Total Pro^
Football	71,291	15,842	256	255	1.6%	3.7%
M Basketball	18,320	4,071	60	47	1.2%	11.6%
W Basketball	16,319	3,626	36	32	0.9%	4.7%
Baseball	33,431	7,429	1,216	638	8.6%	--
M Ice Hockey	3,976	884	211	60	6.8%	--
M Soccer	23,602	5,245	76	72	1.4%	--

* Percent NCAA to Major Pro figures are based on the number of available draft slots in the NFL, NBA, WNBA, MLB, NHL and MLS drafts only.  See methods notes for important details on the definition of NHL draftee in men's ice hockey.  Column percentages were calculated as (#NCAA Drafted) / (Approximate # Draft Eligible).

^ Percent NCAA to Total Pro takes the number of pro opportunities from the "% NCAA to Major Pro" calculation and adds in some additional professional opportunities that we were able to quantify.  So, for football, this calculation includes NFL, Canadian Football League and Arena League slots available to first-year professionals.  For men's basketball we accounted for NBA, NBA D-League and international opportunities.  For women's basketball, we assessed WNBA and international roster slots.  See methods notes for details on these calculations.  Data on full-time international professional opportunities available in baseball, men's ice hockey and men's soccer were not analyzed here.

Methodology and Notes

General

• College participation numbers are from the NCAA's 2013-14 Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report.  These college numbers account for participation in college athletics at NCAA-member schools only.    
• To estimate the number of NCAA student-athletes in a sport eligible for a particular year's professional draft, the total number of NCAA student-athlete participants in the sport was divided by 4.5.  This figure was used to provide a general estimate of the number of student-athletes in a draft cohort (single draft class) in a given year, accounting for redshirting, degree completion delays due to transfer, etc. that extend the average time to graduation to just beyond four year in all sports.  In other words, we observe a year-to-year departure rate (whether due to graduation, dropout or departure for a professional sports opportunity) of just below one-quarter of the total number of student-athletes in each sport.  Because the sports examined (M/W basketball, football, baseball, men's ice hockey and men's soccer) have dramatically different rules for draft eligibility, these calculations should be treated as estimates only.
• ​Data on available professional opportunities are described below for each sport.

Baseball

• MLB draft data from 2013.  There were 1,216 draft picks in that year; 638 of those picked were from NCAA schools (source: NCSA Athletic Recruiting website).  Of the 638, Division I student-athletes comprised 552 of those chosen, Division II provided 72 and Division III had 14.  382 high school athletes were chosen in 2013 (some of whom went on to play in college instead of turning pro) along with 154 from junior colleges, 38 from NAIA schools and 4 from other sources. 
• Percent NCAA to Pro calculated as number of NCAA student-athletes taken in the draft (n=638) divided by approximate number draft eligible.  Not all of the student-athletes drafted go on to play professional baseball and many draftees fail to reach the Major League.

Men's ice hockey

• NHL draft data from 2013.  There were 211 draft picks in that year.  Only 4 players from NCAA rosters were selected in that draft.  However, this is not indicative of the likelihood of going from a college team to a professional team due to the nature of the NHL draft, where players are typically selected prior to turning college-aged. 
• In examining the subsequent hockey pathways of 2013 draftees, we determined that 60 of the 211 (source: hockeydb.com) had attended an NCAA college for any period of time through February 2015 (or in two cases had committed to a college for 2015-16). These numbers, although not fully comparable to those used in the other sports examined, were used to calculate an approximate NCAA to Major Pro percentage.  Note that only a small subset of the players drafted ever play in an NHL game.  Undrafted college players may go on to sign contracts with NHL teams after completing college (those numbers are not part of the current NCAA to Major Pro calculation). 
• Currently, 31% of players on active NHL rosters played college hockey, up from about 20% in the year 2000 (source: collegehockeyinc.com).  Of the 1,437 hockey players under contract with any NHL team in 2014, 27% were former NCAA student-athletes (all but one from Division I ice hockey programs).  Thanks to Nate Ewell at College Hockey, Inc. for providing these data.

Men's soccer

• MLS SuperDraft data from 2014.  There were 77 draft slots in that year, but only 76 picks made.  Of the 76 picks, 72 were NCAA student-athletes (68 from Division I programs, 3 from Division II and 1 from Division III).  Percentage NCAA to Major Pro calculated using the 72 NCAA selections. (Source: mlssoccer.com).
• These calculations do not account for other domestic or international professional soccer opportunities.

Men's basketball

• NBA draft data from 2013.  There were 60 draft slots in that year, but only 47 went to NCAA players (others chosen were international players not attending U.S. colleges).  Percentage NCAA to Major Pro calculated using the 47 NCAA selections. Since 2006, 12 international players have been drafted on average each year.
• On 2014-15 opening day NBA rosters, former NCAA players filled 81% of roster spots (all but one player from Division I schools).  (Source: Jim Sukup, College Basketball News).
• Data on other professional opportunities in men's basketball were collected by NCAA staff with the assistance of Marek Wojtera from eurobasket.com.  It was determined that an additional 424 former NCAA student-athletes from the 2013 draft cohort played internationally or in the NBA D-League in 2014 (307 from Division I, 90 from Division II and 27 from Division III).  These numbers were combined with the NBA draftees to calculate an NCAA to Total Professional opportunities proportion (calculated as [47 + 424] / 4,071).   
• We estimate that 3.9% of draft-eligible Division I players were chosen in the 2013 NBA draft (47 / 1,210).  However, in total, 29% of draft-eligible Division I players competed professionally (NBA, D-League, or internationally) in their first year after leaving college (calculated as [47 + 307] / 1,210). Approximately 15% of draft-eligible players from the five Division I conferences with autonomous governance (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) were drafted by the NBA in 2013 (33 / 222), while 52% played professionally somewhere in their first year post-college (calculated as [33 + 82] / 222).

Women's basketball

• WNBA draft data from 2013.  There were 36 draft slots in that year's draft, 32 of which went to NCAA players (other 4 chosen were international players not attending U.S. colleges).  All 32 NCAA selections came from Division I colleges.  Percentage NCAA to Major Pro calculated using the 32 NCAA selections.
• Data on international professional opportunities in women's basketball were collected by NCAA staff with the assistance of Marek Wojtera from eurobasket.com.  It was determined that an additional 139 former NCAA student-athletes from the 2013 draft cohort played internationally in 2014 (129 from Division I, 8 from Division II and 2 from Division III).  These numbers were combined with the WNBA draftees to calculate an NCAA to Total Professional opportunities proportion (calculated as [32 + 139] / 3,626).   
• We estimate that 2.9% of draft-eligible Division I players were chosen in the 2013 WNBA draft (32 / 1,089).  However, in total, 15% of draft-eligible Division I players competed professionally (WNBA or internationally) in their first year after leaving college (calculated as [32 + 129] / 1,089). Approximately 12% of draft-eligible players from the five Division I conferences with autonomous governance (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) were drafted by the WNBA in 2013 (26 / 222), while 31% played professionally somewhere in their first year post-college (calculated as [26 + 43] / 222).

Football

• NFL draft data from 2014.  There were 256 draft slots in that year's draft, 255 of which went to former NCAA players (1 player drafted from a Canadian university).  NCAA to Major Pro figure calculated using these data.
• NCAA divisional breakdown of the 255 NCAA players selected in the 2014 NFL draft: Division I FBS (230), Division I FCS (19), Division II (6), Division III (0).  The top 5 conferences accounted for 172 of the 255 draft picks (SEC=49, ACC=42, Pac-12=34, Big Ten=30, Big 12=17).
• Data on Arena League and Canadian Football League opportunities were collected by NCAA staff via rosters on each organization's website (sources: cfl.ca and arenafootball.com) in February 2015.  It was determined that an additional 327 former NCAA student-athletes from the 2014 draft cohort were listed on a roster (190 in the CFL, 137 in the Arena League).  Across these two leagues, there were 203 former Division I FBS players, 74 from Division I FCS, 44 from Division II and 6 from Division III.  These numbers were combined with the NFL draftees to calculate an NCAA to Total Professional opportunities proportion (calculated as [255 + 327] / 15,842). 
• We estimate that 4.0% of draft-eligible Division I players were chosen in the 2014 NFL draft (249 / 6,153).  Limiting this calculation to FBS players, 7.0% were estimated to be drafted (230 / 3,275).  Narrowing further to the five Division I conferences with autonomous governance (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC), we estimate that 10.1% were drafted (172 / 1,709).  Accounting for Arena League and CFL opportunities, the NCAA to Total Professional figures are estimated as 8.5% for Division I ([249 + 277] / 6,153), 13.2% for FBS ([230 + 203] / 3,275) and 16.4% for the five autonomous conferences ([172 + 108] / 1,709).

Last Updated: April 14, 2015

Sent from my iPhone