Logo

The Student Effect

January 7, 2014

The key to assuring an activity is educational is to consider the effect on the student of every decision made. For example, what is the effect on a student who ...

  • gets cut from the team?
  • never gets in a game?
  • never experiences a win, or never a loss?
  • frequently hears vulgarity or profanity?
  • is taught how not to get caught breaking a rule?

If one student’s participation is at the expense of another student’s self-esteem, whether opponent or teammate, we can’t justify the program. It’s not consistent with the educational mission of schools.

If we ridicule those who fail, or if we lavish too much praise on those who achieve, we can’t justify the program. It’s not educational athletics.

If we direct or pressure students to specialize in only athletics or non-athletic activities, or in just one sport or activity, we can’t justify the program. It’s not educational.

If we miss or misuse the teachable moments of school sports – split seconds of time and circumstance in which to teach values like commitment, discipline, integrity, hard work and teamwork, we can’t justify the program. It’s not educational.

We assure the program is educational when we consider the effect on the student and when we seize the positive purposes of teachable moments that permeate the program.

None of this means we can’t have rules that, when violated, remove the privilege of participation. And none of this means we cannot have teams with both starters and substitutes, and contests that determine wins and losses. It means that there are objectives that go much deeper and outcomes that go much further.

Sportsmanship and Success in Soccer

August 16, 2012

Ralph Polson, president of the National Soccer Coaches Association of America (NSCAA), reports in the July/August 2012 Soccer Journal that there is a strong statistical link between sportsmanship and success in intercollegiate soccer.  He cites the work of Tim Lenahan, head men’s coach at Northwestern University, who compiled total fouls, yellow cards and red cards for the 2011 season to create a “Fair Play Rating” (FPR).

Polson reports that 12 of the 20 teams with the top FPR made the NCAA tournament, while only one of the teams in the bottom 20 did.  Of course, this is a statistical link, not necessarily cause and effect.  But here’s how Mr. Polson concludes his column:

“How should we interpret this data?  One direction is toward more disciplined teams.  It seems to me the more a culture of sportsmanship and fair play is established, the more likely any team is to demonstrate the consistency needed for success.  The data suggests those teams without entrenched standards, with respect to on-field behavior, should anticipate a higher likelihood of failure in today’s highly competitive environment.

“Play within the spirit of the game and more than just a win may be gained; play against the spirit of the game and much more than just a game may be lost.”

Dr. Brian Crossman, chair of the NSCAA Ethics Committee, contributes this to the discussion in the same issue of Soccer Journal:

“A five year study from 2007 to 2011 of almost 4,700 intercollegiate soccer matches in which only one player was red-carded during the match showed a strong likelihood that the player’s team would lose.  Teams that had one player red-carded lost 67 percent of the matches, tied 10 percent of the matches and won 23 percent of the matches.  In other words, a team that had a player red-carded at any time during the match was three times more likely to lose the match than win it.  Taking steps to encourage clean and fair play, and thus to reduce the likelihood of having players ejected, will pay dividends in sportsmanship and should improve your team’s won-loss record.”

For more, go to www.nscaa.com.