Psychology of Sport

Should Little League Baseball Be Nationally Televised?

Richard D. Ginsburg, Ph.D. — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:23:19 +0000

I have a hard time watching 11 and 12 year-old boys playing baseball on national television. In fact, I just change the channel. Don't get me wrong. I love the kids, but are they ready for that kind of exposure? Aren't we exploiting the trials and tribulations of children for adult entertainment?

Little League Baseball is a wonderful venue for kids. Playing on a team, having uniforms, and going out for ice cream after the game are all part of this American pastime. I played Little League Baseball. I hope my kids will play as well. But I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the publicity around the Little League World Series.

Sure, some kids say it's a blast, but for others, they are simply not ready for prime time. Children at the ages of and 11 and 12 are just beginning to really understand what it means to win and lose as their abstract thinking is just starting to develop. They are still in the process of developing a broad range of physical, cognitive and emotional skills. Their bodies are still growing at varying rates. They are just beginning to understand what it really means to be a part of the team, to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses with greater accuracy, and begin to deal with their success and failures.

I don't think the average 12 year-old is well-equipped to deal with success and failure while playing for a nationally televised audience. If a young shortstop makes an error to lose the game, is he really capable of shrugging it off and putting it in perspective? And for the player who hits in the winning run, is he able to keep his success in perspective? Might this be the height of his athletic achievements, only to see that he doesn't make the high school or collegiate team and feels like a disappointment?

I'd prefer to see the Little League World Series to continue to occur but off the television and out of the papers. These boys are only kids. Let them experience the highs and lows, the camaraderie, the joy of the game on a smaller scale that they can manage. Let their families and friends attend the games and have a nice, small ceremony afterward that honors both teams. Let's find other ways to entertain ourselves as adults.

Athletic Outliers

Richard D. Ginsburg, Ph.D. — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:35:44 +0000

Malcom Gladwell's Outliers highlights the role that age cut-offs can play in the advancement of elite hockey players. Youth sport athletes born between January and March are at a competitive advantage from an early age because they are the oldest players in their cohort. They experience this advantage each year as they progress through various hockey programs and approach the elite level. It's actually striking when examining the rosters of elite Canadian teams listed by Gladwell. Players with winter birth dates dominate these rosters. Is this a good thing or not?

A growing number of high school hockey players in the United States are waiting longer to apply to college in an effort to leverage their age and physical maturity to increase chances for admission and scholarship to a Division I school. A few years in Canadian Junior Hockey League or United States Hockey League offers opportunity to accomplish this goal. Because the NCAA Division I age limit is 24-years-old, athletes can play in these leagues for several years and actually start college as 21-year-old freshmen.

When examining the rosters of several Division I hockey programs it is compelling to see how many players are coming from these semi-professional leagues. And it certainly makes sense from a performance standpoint that older, bigger, stronger, and faster players with more experience make for, in most cases, a better college hockey player. In fact, for most Division I sports, perhaps with the exception of sports like gymnastics, starting college later makes sense for most athletes, at least from a performance level.

But does it make sense that the average 18-year-old freshman regularly competes with the 24-year-old senior? Won't this eventually lead to college hockey teams becoming progressively older? And where will this take college sports in general? College athletes will start school at 21-years-old, while the rest of the student body starts at 18? Will high school athletes who are interested in pursuing their studies have to delay their college experience in order to play college sports? Will this lead to athletes being even more sequestered from the rest of the student body? As competitive levels rise in collegiate sports, is this age increase inevitable? One has to wonder whether this pattern will continue to trickle down to the Division II and III levels, to high school sports and beyond. Why not start sixth grade as a 15-year-old?

Having an age-limit of 24-years-old at the Division I level allows a broader range of students the opportunity to take less traditional paths to ultimately gain a college education. Yet, it seems to open Pandora's box as to how far it will go? When do we consider other factors such as the importance of balance in a young person's life, including the opportunity for a variety of same-age friendships, educational, experiences, and a broad range of interests?

Thanks to Gladwell's attention to the role age plays in athletic advancement, we have the opportunity to evaluate how to address this potential trend in athletics. Perhaps we need to even the playing field to protect our youth from seeking extremes to attain the competitive edge and outlier status. Without stricter limits, who knows how far this will go?

Economic Correction Factor in Youth Sports

Richard D. Ginsburg, Ph.D. — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:22:49 +0000

While Steven Kotler's recent blog post "High Cost of Playing of Playing Ball" raises questions about the trickle-down effect the economy will have on professional sports, will youth sports also experience a correction factor? At the professional level, Kotler indicates that fewer fans will pay high ticket fees to attend sporting contests. Given this progression, will parents of youth in sports continue to pay high seasonal fees for club and travel teams?

Recently, in the Boston Globe, a youth sports facility director said that many families are continuing to enroll in their sport programs and offerings because youth sports are still an affordable and healthy way for families to spend time together on weekends. Yet a sizable group of parents report spending thousands of dollars seasonally to support the travel, equipment and playing costs of their children's travel teams. Families with several children in youth sports are spending much more.

For some parents, they may simply decide that the cost is not worth the potential benefit and resort to playing for less expensive and demanding recreational teams. I wonder how many parents are making these decisions now. Clearly, many children derive great enjoyment and benefit from their travel sporting experiences, but perhaps these times are taking us toward more community play as opposed to regional or even national competition. And while some kids may miss out on a higher level of play or more exposure to potential college recruiters, they may also benefit from more time at home, greater rest, and opportunity to enjoy school and neighborhood friends.

But this is also another and perhaps more important correction factor to consider. With various examples of poor leadership and decision-making among our business leadership, youth sports offers a key arena to teach the values of fair play, hard work over time, and respect for the rules and the integrity of the games they play. Clearly, winning at the expense of values is not really winning at all in the end.

Tiger Wins at a Cost

Richard D. Ginsburg, Ph.D. — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:41:19 +0000

I am still marveling at Tiger Wood's incredible victory at the US. Open. His physical and mental toughness is practically unparalleled in professional sports. Yet, I wonder whether his victory was worth the cost.

Tiger publicly admitted that although he was told by his doctors that playing would risk further injury, he chose to play anyway. As a result of his decision, the viewing public was able to relish in one of the great golf championships of the past few decades, perhaps one of the best ever. Interest in the sport of golf most likely skyrocketed, improving ratings and corporate sponsorships. Athletes and spectators of all ages and levels of experience were inspired by how sheer strength of mind and determination can help overcome adversity and lead to glory.

Yet, questions linger. Are Tiger's golfing days diminished by his choice to play? Is it worth it to jeopardize one's career to win a tournament? Should athletes follow Tiger's lead and ignore the advice of medical professionals to pursue the short-term gain of the event at hand while risking further injury?

There are many examples of this "playing with injury" dilemma in professional sports. Most recently in the NBA and NHL championships, players sustained significant injuries and returned back to play to support their teams. Would the Boston Celtics have won the NBA finals if Paul Pierce opted not to play on account of his knee injury? Probably not. But, where do we draw the line?

Overtraining and over-use injuries in today's youth are on the rise as sport participation becomes increasingly popular (Brenner et. al., 2007). Whether it is winning a championship, trying out for that crucial travel team, or being seen by an important college recruiter, we are seeing athletes of all ages push themselves harder than ever before. The importance of winning that particular game becomes hyperbolized. Most of us, and particularly our children, aren't playing in world championships. Playing through serious injury is not likely to win a championship or wrap up a college scholarship. Yet, we are seeing many athletes play while injured when rest is the safer alternative.

Playing with an injury can lead to even riskier decisions. Some athletes at the professional level, who become dependent on using medication to numb their pain in order to play, may rationalize risking their bodies because they are playing for a contract. Sadly, these choices can lead to addiction, destruction of their personal and family lives, and crippling of their bodies. Earl Campbell, the great running back from the Houston Oilers, can hardly walk because of injuries sustained in his NFL career as a dominating and tough running back. As great as he was, I wonder what he would have to say about the choices he made or felt forced to make.

Tiger Woods is not the norm. His genetic gifts as an athlete combined with an intense and unusual form of early specialized training are an anomaly. Many athletes who drive themselves for as long and as hard as Tiger either burn out, become injured, or simply fail to play at a higher level because of lacking athletic talent. What Tiger Woods demonstrated in the U.S Open is a freak of nature. Only a handful of athletes in the world can perform at that level while injured and be successful. Tiger's performance is truly extraordinary. But let's simply call it that. It is not the standard. It is not the role model for athletes. And let's hope that the cost of his decision to play is only a small adversity in the course of a long and storied career.

When Winning Is Peanuts and Cracker Jacks

Richard D. Ginsburg, Ph.D. — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:29:30 +0000

Last Sunday, I took my three-year-old son to a Red Sox game. Given his fascination with Red Sox hats and T-shirts as well as baseball players in general, I was certain this was going to be a big occasion for him. As we walked up the ramp and caught a glimpse of the perfectly manicured green field at Fenway Park, we heard, "Batting third, designated hitter, David Ortiz" followed by the roar of the crowd. I thought to myself, "Wow, he will remember this day for the rest of his life."

But he's three. I knew that he would be unable to follow the game much less see it from our seats in right field. I thought he might be fascinated by the players or perhaps seeing a real live baseball. But he could care less. The only thing that captivated him besides the friendly older kids sitting next to us and the music was the peanuts and cracker jacks I bought for him. He was perfectly happy snacking but unimpressed by all facets of the game. And he had no idea about the score.

Some argue that when children reach age four or five, they start to become competitive. Many parents will report this as well about their children. They say that their kids cry when they lose and therefore must really care about winning and losing. Researchers indicate that children become aware of competitive tasks by age four and five, but do children really understand winning and losing? Are tears after losing really about the game or about those who are watching them play? Or maybe these children are simply frustrated in their drive to learn a new skill.

Recently, I was speaking to a coach who was a former college athlete. He told me a story of how both he and his best friend believed that their T-ball teams were undefeated, even though they played on different teams in the same league. But in their eyes, they actually were undefeated. They got to hit the ball and run to first base. They celebrated their small successes as they developed a comfort with the game. This was winning.

So when does a child truly understand what competition is all about? Some sport specialists argue that children do not fully understand the meaning of winning and losing until they reach adolescence when they are capable of abstract thought. If this is true, think of how many children are unsuited for the intensely competitive environments in which they play.

In the past few years, new movements have developed across the country where no score is kept, where cheering is not allowed. But the problem is not the score, nor is it about cheering or competition. Anyone working with children in sports recognizes that while most kids may keep score, the outcome of the game is gone from their minds shortly after the game is over. After the last out, their concerns lie in plans with their friends and a trip to their favorite ice cream joint. Not so with the adults. The outcome of the game often plays into our ambitions and fears about our kids' development as athletes and happy people. We want to ensure that they feel good about themselves and win in the process. It is hard for many of us to focus on skill development and joy of the game when our kids lose. Each game is a step toward making that next team, solidifying our kids' self-esteem while perhaps increasing the likelihood that sports will be a vehicle for college acceptance down the road.

The problem lies with us and our culture. We are influenced by the belief that we must start early and often with our children in sports - we must push and challenge them. And in our efforts to provide what is best for our children, we engage them prematurely in overly competitive and demanding tasks that fail to mesh with their developmental readiness to play and compete. I was reminded of this very fact when taking my son to the game. Without question, he absolutely enjoyed himself. Yet, winning wasn't about how well the Red Sox played or whether he saw Jason Varitek. Winning was about peanuts and cracker jacks and time alone with his father.

Bad Sports or Not Enough Sports: What’s the real problem?

Richard D. Ginsburg, Ph.D. — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:35:39 +0000

Did anyone read Robert Lypsyte's article, "Jock Culture' permeates life" in USA Today (4.10.08)? His central point is: "A ‘winning is everything' notion starts in the littlest of leagues. Lessons of hard work and fair play give way to ‘gain the edge at any cost.' But what happens when this type of thinking is adapted by CEOs, police officers, or politicians?" Is the desire for immediate gratification permeating all aspects of our culture? Are the some of the negative lessons of sports stronger than the values of families and schools?

These are particularly worrisome questions as we are seeing parents with young children in sports devote most weekends to games and travel looking to provide for their children and gain the "competitive edge." But as Lipsyte recognizes, his most significant point is about the kids who are "weeded out" of sports at young ages. Many sport experts suggest that youth will drop out of sports at high rates by the time they are 13-years-old. Often the number one reason for dropping out is that children no longer are having fun. In fact, the elephant in the room is that not enough kids are playing! Mahoney and colleagues (2006) conducted a social policy report on organized activities and revealed that in contrast to what many folks believe, an alarmingly large majority of young people are not engaged in any form of organized activities at all. Many of us know that the highest rates of delinquency in children and adolescents occur between the hours of 2 and 6 PM. The biggest problem for our country's youth is that we don't have enough teams, fields, coaches, teachers, and activities available for them. Either the programs are too competitive, too expensive, or simply nonexistent. Physical education alone has been dropped from many public school programs.

Yes, as Lipsyte and many others suggest (me included), our efforts should be directed to the teaching of character in the context of sports to build strong leaders for the future. But even at a more base level, we need to fund programs and resources so our children have a place to play and are coached by character-driven adults. As we mention in our book and my colleague Dr. Steve Durant often says, "Sports don't build character - People do" (Ginsburg, Durant, and Baltzell, 2006). But until there are resources for more kids and their coaches, we will continue to see a sharp split between those who are good enough to play and able to afford it and those who lack either the talent or opportunity.

Psychology of Sport - Will playing sports get our kids into college?

Richard D. Ginsburg, Ph.D. — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:03:09 +0000

What if playing sports had absolutely no influence on college acceptance? What if playing for THE elite travel team meant only that our children were playing more games at a higher level with no free time for weekend relaxation? Would playing youth sports hold the same importance it does in present day culture?

I think not. Families across the nation would be relieved. They could have their weekends back to go to church or synagogue, have a barbeque in the neighborhood, spend time together as a family, save money on gas, and limit the number of hours in the minivan. Everyone would sleep more. Parents might actually have time to do something for themselves. Downtime might return as a realistic option.

The more I speak on this topic to parent groups and schools, the more I come to understand that the number one driving force behind the youth sport frenzy is the hope that athletics will help our children get a scholarship or at least give them a competitive advantage over another child with equal or better academic standing.

The chances our children will play college sports are slim. Less than 5% in most cases as estimated by the NCAA and the National Alliance of Youth Sports. Do the math. Most of our children aren't going to play college sports. It's unlikely they will get a "leg up" in the college application process through sport activities. And scholarships are even more remote. As Bill Pennington wrote in the New York Times a few weeks back, full scholarships are rarely given. In fact, most scholarships fail to match the years of annual youth sport bills that include membership fees and extensive travel bills. Is it really worth our time, energy and dollars to invest in such an unlikely outcome?

Early sport training, early sport specialization, and travel teams do not guarantee success. In fact, there is no solid research evidence that early specialization helps performance. But there is plenty of evidence about the risk of burnout, over-use injury and stress from early specialization and over-training. Ask any pediatrician or sports medicine doctor, and they will tell you that their practices are inundated with child over-use-in-sport injuries.

So why play sports? Why are we enrolling our kids in Little League baseball or encouraging them to try out for the high school team? There are countless reasons why children should play sports. Studies reveal that the benefits range from increased cardiovascular health and reduced risk of obesity to improved social skills and overall mental health, just to name a few. Sports are an opportunity to cultivate character in our young people so that they may be versatile adults capable of independent thought and leadership. Physical activity helps them become more comfortable and confident in their own bodies.

When it comes down to it, I am going to take a leap that these are the reasons most parents want their children engaged in sports. The powerful current of our win-at-all-cost culture plays off of our fears. We worry that our children will miss out and fail to reach their full potential if we don't push them hard enough.

If this were the stock market, would we continue to devote hard-earned dollars to a long-shot of athletic scholarship? And it is not only our pockets that are at risk. Some children pushed to the extremes in sports either become injured, burned out, or even worse, turned off from sports entirely. The safest investment is in our children's overall health which entails a balance in their sport, and academic and artistic activities. There is nothing wrong with encouraging excellence in athletics, but sports are more likely a vehicle to build life skills applicable to life after college as opposed to a ticket to college.

Psychology of Sport - From the games of youth to the big leagues

Richard D. Ginsburg, Ph.D. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:09:05 +0000

Playing youth sports has drastically changed in the last twenty years. When I was young, we played pickup games in my neighborhood. Basketball, wiffleball, and touch football - without the involvement and supervision of adults - were our games until dark. Presently, neighborhood, unstructured play has dropped off. Both parents work. Many of us worry, "Who will take care of our kids? Will they be abducted if we give them freedom to play?" Organized sports seem to assuage these concerns.

But, I am seeing increasing numbers of burnout and overuse injuries among our youth. I am seeing parents under great financial and emotional strain trying to keep up with an overwhelming sports' schedule that overtakes family dinners and dominates weekend activities. And for what? It's unlikely any of our kids will receive athletic college scholarships, despite all of our fantasies (mine included).

The physical and emotional health benefits from playing sports are being undermined by extreme training and intense adult pressures. Among our teen athletes, I am seeing increasing demands on them to perform at exceedingly high levels. Cheating, steroid use, overtraining and rage are rearing their ugly heads in the service of achieving that savored "competitive edge."

In this blog, I hope to address these concerning issues related to youth sports and their connections to the collegiate and professional sport world. I hope to facilitate a dialogue among parents about what is healthy and edifying for their children in a fast-paced, win-at-all-cost sporting world.