FB: Empire 8

[Jonny Utah]

But those are interesting numbers.  I wonder how much the specialization of other sports have to do with the decline as well.  When I played HS sports back in the early 1990s, everyone played 3 sports no matter how good you were at one specific sport.  Now it seems that many kids play one sport only.  I see it more in Boston with Hockey, lacrosse, baseball, and basketball.  And the concussions no doubt have an impact on these numbers as well.

Specialization in sports at the high school level fascinates me. I was a three sport athlete in high school, like most of the other athletes in the school (I graduated in 2000), but there has been a significant decline in the number of three sport athletes at my high school since then. The football numbers are actually up for the football team, but those kids are no longer playing basketball, baseball, lacrosse, etc.

It is interesting you mention hockey, as USA Hockey has actually made a big push for playing multiple sports. The idea is to build athletes that play hockey, instead of hockey players who we hope are athletes. US Soccer on the other hand wants kids to be playing soccer 3/4 of the year, and to start specializing in soccer around age 12-13. Without any knowledge of what USA Basketball, or football coaches suggest I wonder if they take a stand one way or the other?

There was a really good article in ESPN the magazine about USA Hockey's new ADM model for player development recently, and the push back from parents about these types of decisions. Parents seem to want to specialize their kids when they see any shred of talent.

Specialization must have something to do with a drop in sports participation overall, but I wonder if it is better for a kids development to pick one sport to focus on? I think specialization is more of a parents way to feel like they are giving their son/daughter the best possible chance to succeed. As a coach for Soccer and Hockey at the youth level I would argue it is detrimental to not only the kid but the sport as well, but that is just me.

Yea, Hockey is a breed of its own in terms of specialization.  And I can see how a little bit because of the ice-time issue during the year.  It's tough to play hockey from December 1st to April 1st, then take 8 months off and expect to compete with guys who play 10 months of the year.

What I find funny are the parents who take their kids out of public schools and send them to a 3rd rate juniors program for 2 years.  Listen, if your kid isn't getting playing time on your public HS hockey team, he isn't making the NHL and he isn't getting a college scholorship!

[jknezek]

Great post sjf. I'll say this, the trend toward specialization is probably not in the kids best interest, but it is in the best interest of the professional and national teams. European soccer, and other sports, has long shown that professional academies, starting at a young age, and specializing kids in one sport, is the best for developing those extremely rare top tier talents. I think USA Hockey is really bucking some commonly accepted practice and evidence.

However, I think limiting your kid to a narrow path that most have no hope of actually reaching the end (a professional career) is one of the dumber things a parent can do. One of the reasons it works so well in European soccer is because there are literally thousands of professional soccer teams at various levels across Europe. Think of minor league baseball but even bigger. England alone has something like 5 levels of professional soccer each with 20-30 teams, plus another couple tiers of semi-pro teams.

Most American sports don't have that same structure (excepting baseball, and even that doesn't reach the saturation of professional soccer) and even our college system does not provide as many opportunities for pay (a "free" or reduced education) as the European soccer model. Football, with pretty much no minor league system, soccer's very limited USL and NASL plus the 20 MLS teams, basketball has a small minor league system plus the development league... your kid's odds of making these, regardless of how much they specialize, is pretty much nil.

So it makes no sense to force specialization at an early age, but that is the ongoing trend and for a variety of factors, mostly the expense of P2P at both the high school and travel levels, and I don't think it's going to go away any time soon.

[AUPepBand]

Pep was coaching (and Pep uses that term liberally) Biddy Basketball (ages 10-12) at the Hornell YMCA a few years back and was delighted with his first round draft pick, with whose father Pep had played soccer in an amateur league back in the late 1970s. The kid as a 10-year-old led the team in scoring and was an outstanding "team" player. Just a great kid. Pep looked to build the team around him the next couple of years...but after a chat with his father, Pep learned that the promising player would not return to the basketball court as his focus would be soccer. While Pep was assured it was the kid's decision (and not the father forcing him out), what good kid won't take his father's counsel?

His father contended that the reason Americans did not excel in international competition was because American youth played multiple sports and therefore did not train year-round in one sport and thereby becoming highly skilled.  Pep contends that there are kids born to play soccer but there are also kids born to excell in multiple sports. Ironically, the kid of which Pep speaks ended up playing basketball again his senior year in high school along with some other soccer players and, quite remarkably, the team that finished 0-20 the season before...went to the finals of the Section V Class D Tournament!

Incidentally, Pep's dismal coaching career at the YMCA (first year was 1-13, best season was 5-7) ended when he was abruptly FIRED as the number of players declined from 100+ on ten teams to about 60 players on six teams. 

On Saxon Warriors!

[Knightstalker]

I see the specialization happening around 7th or 8th grade here where I live in NJ.  With some of the kids even sooner.  Everyone is paying for their kids to go to the batting coach, the pitching coach, the fielding coach.  It is regoddamndiculus, the Stalkerette is not going to all those coaches, KS can't afford that.  KS is teaching the kid how to hit, she started to listen to him towards the end of the season and started to hit the ball.  KS is teaching her how to make a layup and a foul shot.  KS is teaching her how to post up, KS lets the basketball coaches handle dribbling, the only dribbling KS is good at is out of the corner of his mouth.

The three sport athletes are definitely disappearing, especially among the star players.  Back when KS was in high school when we took notes on stone tablets.  Our All Conference starting QB was our All Conference starting PG was our All State starting SS.  Even guys like KS who sucked played two or three sports every year, almost every boy wanted to be a wrestler at KS old HS, not anymore.  Wrestling is still big but not like it was around here.  KS blames it on the decline in the number of farms in the sending district.  If they had allowed girls to wrestle back when KS was a kid, he knows a couple of farm girls who would have been state champs.

[sjfcards]

Great post sjf. I'll say this, the trend toward specialization is probably not in the kids best interest, but it is in the best interest of the professional and national teams. European soccer, and other sports, has long shown that professional academies, starting at a young age, and specializing kids in one sport, is the best for developing those extremely rare top tier talents. I think USA Hockey is really bucking some commonly accepted practice and evidence.

However, I think limiting your kid to a narrow path that most have no hope of actually reaching the end (a professional career) is one of the dumber things a parent can do. One of the reasons it works so well in European soccer is because there are literally thousands of professional soccer teams at various levels across Europe. Think of minor league baseball but even bigger. England alone has something like 5 levels of professional soccer each with 20-30 teams, plus another couple tiers of semi-pro teams.

Most American sports don't have that same structure (excepting baseball, and even that doesn't reach the saturation of professional soccer) and even our college system does not provide as many opportunities for pay (a "free" or reduced education) as the European soccer model. Football, with pretty much no minor league system, soccer's very limited USL and NASL plus the 20 MLS teams, basketball has a small minor league system plus the development league... your kid's odds of making these, regardless of how much they specialize, is pretty much nil.

So it makes no sense to force specialization at an early age, but that is the ongoing trend and for a variety of factors, mostly the expense of P2P at both the high school and travel levels, and I don't think it's going to go away any time soon.

I am all for specialization at some point, but like you mention, at an early age seems crazy. What that age is will change with each sport, but I can't see any benefit before puberty and the bodies natural development is well behind the athlete. If anything I would want my son to play as many sports as possible, and learn as many athletic movements as possible, while his body is changing.

[D3MAFAN]

Great post sjf. I'll say this, the trend toward specialization is probably not in the kids best interest, but it is in the best interest of the professional and national teams. European soccer, and other sports, has long shown that professional academies, starting at a young age, and specializing kids in one sport, is the best for developing those extremely rare top tier talents. I think USA Hockey is really bucking some commonly accepted practice and evidence.

However, I think limiting your kid to a narrow path that most have no hope of actually reaching the end (a professional career) is one of the dumber things a parent can do. One of the reasons it works so well in European soccer is because there are literally thousands of professional soccer teams at various levels across Europe. Think of minor league baseball but even bigger. England alone has something like 5 levels of professional soccer each with 20-30 teams, plus another couple tiers of semi-pro teams.

Most American sports don't have that same structure (excepting baseball, and even that doesn't reach the saturation of professional soccer) and even our college system does not provide as many opportunities for pay (a "free" or reduced education) as the European soccer model. Football, with pretty much no minor league system, soccer's very limited USL and NASL plus the 20 MLS teams, basketball has a small minor league system plus the development league... your kid's odds of making these, regardless of how much they specialize, is pretty much nil.

So it makes no sense to force specialization at an early age, but that is the ongoing trend and for a variety of factors, mostly the expense of P2P at both the high school and travel levels, and I don't think it's going to go away any time soon.

I am all for specialization at some point, but like you mention, at an early age seems crazy. What that age is will change with each sport, but I can't see any benefit before puberty and the bodies natural development is well behind the athlete. If anything I would want my son to play as many sports as possible, and learn as many athletic movements as possible, while his body is changing.

Puberty plays a portion, but the menal knowledge is something that goes unnoticed at times. If you can focus a kid on one sport after the age of ten, that understanding of the game goes a long way. It is fact (which is subject to change) that in sports, that sports are '90% mental 10% physical,' however I would argue that with players getting bigger, stronger, and faster those percentages are somewhat closer now.

[bman]

Where did we forget as a society about balance...
If you eat 1 food only and not anything else, you become sick...
If you focus on 1 thing only, other aspects of your life wither...
Expecting children (who don't always know what's best for them) to pick a sport an focus on it only, is short sighted and stupid, regardless of how good they will become in that sport. 
Our goal as parents, coaches and mentors should be to prepare these kids for Life, and sports become a great aid in that...but to bastardize that and turn it into a potential for profit thing (which at it's base it is) is sad to me...and to a degree another variant of exploitation of children...

[D3MAFAN]

Where did we forget as a society about balance...
If you eat 1 food only and not anything else, you become sick...
If you focus on 1 thing only, other aspects of your life wither...
Expecting children (who don't always know what's best for them) to pick a sport an focus on it only, is short sighted and stupid, regardless of how good they will become in that sport. 
Our goal as parents, coaches and mentors should be to prepare these kids for Life, and sports become a great aid in that...but to bastardize that and turn it into a potential for profit thing (which at it's base it is) is sad to me...and to a degree another variant of exploitation of children...

Good use of the word.

[sjfcards]

Where did we forget as a society about balance...
If you eat 1 food only and not anything else, you become sick...
If you focus on 1 thing only, other aspects of your life wither...
Expecting children (who don't always know what's best for them) to pick a sport an focus on it only, is short sighted and stupid, regardless of how good they will become in that sport. 
Our goal as parents, coaches and mentors should be to prepare these kids for Life, and sports become a great aid in that...but to bastardize that and turn it into a potential for profit thing (which at it's base it is) is sad to me...and to a degree another variant of exploitation of children...

I think the turning point for any parent between supporting your child's passion for a sport, and something darker is when parents start to think of the costs associated with sports as an investment. Once you cross that line as a parent I think you are missing the mark for what sports are about.

I totally agree that sports at any youth level (rec to the highest level of travel) should be about preparing your kids for life. Sports can be great for that (teamwork, problem solving, health & fitness, etc.) Thinking in terms of investment in the future makes it all too easy to "bastardize" the experience into something that is not productive for anyone involved.

[Jonny Utah]

One of the great things about football is that you don't need to "play" it year round.  Playing other sports actually helps you on the football field if you are working hard at those sports. 

[D3MAFAN]

Congrats to Andre Carter, Sr., Salisbury on making the pre-season All-American Team. Only one out of the E-8.

[Bombers798891]

So Forbes came out with their "top colleges" list yesterday, and something interesting they included was the percentage of students who were varsity athletes. Here are the numbers for the schools in the E8 in football, and some other area schools:

St. Lawrence: 36%
Hartwick: 29%
Union: 28%
Alfred: 28%
Fisher: 27%
Elmira: 25%
Hobart: 24%
Ithaca: 16%
RPI: 12%

Now, this list doesn't include schools not in Forbes' rankings, (Sorry Cortland!) but it's interesting to see Ithaca and RPI so low. Some of this is undoubtedly due to school size—after all, there's only so many sports a school can have—but it's still surprising. If Elmira adds football, they could rise even higher

[ITH radio]

So Forbes came out with their "top colleges" list yesterday, and something interesting they included was the percentage of students who were varsity athletes. Here are the numbers for the schools in the E8 in football, and some other area schools:

St. Lawrence: 36%
Hartwick: 29%
Union: 28%
Alfred: 28%
Fisher: 27%
Elmira: 25%
Hobart: 24%
Ithaca: 16%
RPI: 12%

Now, this list doesn't include schools not in Forbes' rankings, (Sorry Cortland!) but it's interesting to see Ithaca and RPI so low. Some of this is undoubtedly due to school size—after all, there's only so many sports a school can have—but it's still surprising. If Elmira adds football, they could rise even higher

I think it has more to do school size (i.e., enrollment) as the denominator and the fact there may be more teams at these small colleges than we realize. 

For example, Hobart (and WS) has around 2,000 total students.  If 24% are student athletes, that's around 480 kids spread across 23 teams - 11 men's and 12 women's w/ two more women's sports (Ice Hockey and Volleyball) coming on next year. 

This averages out to around 20 kids per team, (with sports like football obviously having more), which doesn't seem that high to me.  XC teams for example usually have around 15-20 kids, same with other sports like sailing, tennis, etc. 

Cool / interesting stats though.

[sjfcards]

Interesting stats for sure. What makes SLU's percentage so high? Do they have more sports than others, or less students?

[Jonny Utah]

So Forbes came out with their "top colleges" list yesterday, and something interesting they included was the percentage of students who were varsity athletes. Here are the numbers for the schools in the E8 in football, and some other area schools:

St. Lawrence: 36%
Hartwick: 29%
Union: 28%
Alfred: 28%
Fisher: 27%
Elmira: 25%
Hobart: 24%
Ithaca: 16%
RPI: 12%

Now, this list doesn't include schools not in Forbes' rankings, (Sorry Cortland!) but it's interesting to see Ithaca and RPI so low. Some of this is undoubtedly due to school size—after all, there's only so many sports a school can have—but it's still surprising. If Elmira adds football, they could rise even higher

I think it has more to do school size (i.e., enrollment) as the denominator and the fact there may be more teams at these small colleges than we realize. 

For example, Hobart (and WS) has around 2,000 total students.  If 24% are student athletes, that's around 480 kids spread across 23 teams - 11 men's and 12 women's w/ two more women's sports (Ice Hockey and Volleyball) coming on next year. 

This averages out to around 20 kids per team, (with sports like football obviously having more), which doesn't seem that high to me.  XC teams for example usually have around 15-20 kids, same with other sports like sailing, tennis, etc. 

Cool / interesting stats though.

It looks like Liberal Arts vs. Tech schools may have something to do with it too.

Williams is at 45% while MIT is at 20%

In related news, I saw the Hobart coed sailing team competing in the 2013 sailing championships last weekend down in Tampa (On Tv).  I guess they won it all last year (sounds like there is only D1).  Some teams were coed and some weren't though.  Kind of fun to watch though.