Logo

Lacrosse Leads Again

November 13, 2012

US Lacrosse is once again a voice of reason in the sometimes irrational world of amateur sports.  Following up its Oct. 30, 2011 Position Statement cautioning against premature sports specialization (see March 6, 2012 blog), US Lacrosse issued on Oct. 18, 2012 the following statement on recruiting:

“US Lacrosse shares the concern of many lacrosse players, parents and coaches that the college recruiting process is not structured or timed in the best interests of high school student-athletes.  A growing number of private clubs and recruiting events – which operate throughout the calendar year and whose motivation remains in question – have created a confusing landscape for young players, who are being encouraged to specialize in lacrosse.

“An increasing number of young student-athletes are choosing to forego a well-rounded high school experience based on unrealistic expectations and misperceptions about playing college lacrosse.  Parents are being led to believe that college coaches are only looking at children who play year-round lacrosse for “elite” club programs and attend multiple, expensive recruiting events held during the summertime and the school year.

“Recruiting camps and tournaments for players as young as age 14, particularly those events that conflict with school or occur outside of the traditional lacrosse season, threaten the well-being of student-athletes with incidents of injury and burnout.  This intense recruiting culture also has eroded the work-life balance of college coaches.

“US Lacrosse will continue to work with the Intercollegiate Men’s Lacrosse Coaches Association (IMLCA) and Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association (IWLCA) to provide the information, resources and leadership necessary to enable high school student-athletes and their parents to make the best decisions about their lacrosse experience.

“US lacrosse also encourages men’s and women’s collegiate lacrosse coaches to exert their considerable influence to lead reform of the NCAA recruiting calendar, limit the age at which student-athletes begin the recruiting process, and agree not to attend or participate in recruiting events that infringe on the academic calendar of student-athletes.”

Program Priorities

January 10, 2014

Many school districts face more requests from their constituents for sports programs than they have the resources to accommodate, so they are forced to make very difficult decisions. For three decades, when I’ve been consulted, I have offered and stood by this advice.

First, I advance the premise that if the activity is educational, there is just as much potential for the education to occur at the junior high/middle school and subvarsity levels as at the varsity level. Just as we would not discriminate against one race or gender, we should not disadvantage one age or ability level. In fact, with a little less pressure to win, it is likely to see more education at subvarsity levels and more reason to sponsor them.

Second, I advocate the position that schools should avoid sponsorship of any activity for which a qualified head coach cannot be secured. Qualified personnel are, in order of priority:

  1.  a teacher within the building who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  2.  a teacher within the district who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  3.  a teacher in another district who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  4.  a certified teacher from the community who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
  5.  a non-certified person who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.

I urge schools not to descend lower than this for program leadership. Coaches are the delivery system of the education in educational athletics; they are the critical link in the educational process. More problems occur than are worth the effort if the program is in the hands of an unqualified coach.

Next, I urge that schools rank sports on the basis of cost per participant, and give higher priority to sports that spread funds over the greatest number of participants.

Next, I urge that schools place lowest in priority the sports that cannot be operated on school facilities and create transportation, supervision and liability issues, and give higher priority to those conducted at or very near the school.

Next, I urge that schools place lowest in priority the sports which are most readily available in the community, without school involvement. If resources are precious, then duplicating school programs should be a low priority; doing what the community can’t do or doesn’t do should be given a much higher priority.

While I’m a fan of school sports, I recognize that an athletic program has as much potential to do harm as to do good. Programs without qualified coaches that are conducted for small numbers of students at remote venues and without comprehensive school oversight and support may create more problems for schools than the good they do for students.

Bare bones budgeting will require brutally honest assessments based on priorities like these.