Logo

Balance

May 12, 2015

Recently, there has been a lot of sports talk banter, as well as texting, tweeting and blogging, about the preferred value that major college football coaches place on the multi-sport high school athletes during the recruiting process.

Ohio State’s Urban Meyer tweeted that 42 of his first 47 signed recruits at OSU were multi-sport high school athletes. Utah’s football coaching staff followed with a report that 37 of 47 players on their two-deep roster last season played at least two sports in high school. Other programs have produced similar statistics.

College coaches from coast to coast report a preference for high school athletes who have competed in multiple seasons and who have developed, for example, greater quickness and agility during wrestling or basketball season, or better speed during track season.

Against these preferences are the pressures of youth sports organizations which program year-round as well as the misguided impressions of parents who believe single-sport focus is essential to obtaining a college athletic scholarship. Escalating college costs add fuel. And sometimes nonfaculty high school coaches who are hired for a single sport overemphasize the single-sport experience in students’ lives.

Those who lead school sports know the score – the foolishness of chasing college financial aid on the playing field. The chances of getting any financial aid based on participation in a single sport – much less a full “scholarship” – are extremely low. It’s closer to a gamble than a good investment.

As is the case with so much in life, good balance is best.

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.