Embracing the now in a future-focused sports world

For whom is the development system developing athletes?

Over and over, we hear only 5% of high-school players will play in college, and most college athletes will go pro in something other than their sport. This creates an important, but often ignored question: For whom is the development system developing athletes?

The United States’ sporting advantage is the size and wealth of the population, which affords more opportunities for children and teenagers to participate, at least in aggregate, if not per capita. High-school sports allow millions of teenagers to participate in relatively-affordable competitive sports. Of course, the limited professional opportunities mean few players move beyond high-school (youth) basketball.

College and NBA coaches have the greatest influence within the basketball ecosystem, as they are well-paid, appear on television, and are presumed to be experts. They view the levels below them as preparatory for the real (college and professional) basketball.

High-school basketball prepares players for college and professional basketball. This makes sense, as most see high school itself as little more than preparation for college. Not everyone matriculates to colleges or universities, but few people in the United States view high school as an end; high school is a step on the path to college, or other paths such as the military or a trade school. Viewing high-school sports similarly appears appropriate.

Of course, how developmental should high-school sports be when it represents the competitive end for 95% of participants? Should we create expectations, programs, guidelines, and more for the 95% or for the 5%? If only 5% of high-school students matriculated to colleges and universities would we view high school as more of an end than a stepping stone?

I recruited a 6’2 post player who played primarily on the junior varsity because her varsity high-school coach employed a full-court press with a 5’8 center. The 5’8 center was more effective at that point than the 6’2 player, and the team was successful. Was the decision to play the shorter player with no college future as a post player correct because of the high-school success? Was the decision incorrect because the lack of playing time stunted the taller player’s development? Is there an absolute answer? Should high-school coaches select and play players who are better now or who may have more potential to play beyond high school? Should the high-school coach focus on the present or the future?

Every day, coaches post as though the purpose of youth and high-school sport is the development of future college players. Many criticize playing a 5’8 center over a 6’2 player because it benefits neither in terms of any college basketball aspirations. AAU coaches criticize players for skipping a game to attend prom, suggesting they do not care enough about their futures or take the game seriously enough to play in college. Coaches post motivational quotes about outworking their peers, 4 A.M. workouts, Mamba mentality, and more. Coaches implore players to train more and play less, and suggest college coaches do not care about a team’s record or a game’s outcome. Everything is centered around the future, not the present.

Why train more than play when players are unlikely to compete beyond high-school? We sign up for sports to play games, not to practice. We want to compete. We want to score. We want to be on a team. Why ignore the outcome? Why not switch teams to receive more playing time when the player may have only one or two years of competitive basketball remaining? Why spend them on the bench waiting for something to happen in the future?

Who do we have in mind when discussing the best development system? Our society is future-focused, but what happens to the 95% who will not play beyond high school? What happens when one spends his or her high-school years delaying gratification in pursuit of college basketball, but it does not happen?

We criticize parents for living vicariously through their children and chasing unrealistic scholarship goals, while also imploring players to play less and train more, skip prom, be in the weight room at 6 A.M. and more. Society sets these expectations, then vilifies parents for supporting them.

There are benefits to making commitments, lifting weights, sacrificing, and more that go beyond playing college basketball. Players hopefully learn lessons they can apply to other aspects of their lives. However, can we teach these lessons while also creating an environment that meets the players’ needs now rather than justifying anything as preparation for the future? Would creating a better environment for the 95% hinder the progress of the 5%?

After I wrote Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development in 2005, coaches reached out to tell me their high-school players did not know how to play pickup; they could not organize and start games on their own. I quit working as an individual skills coach shortly thereafter partially because two players said they preferred training with me to playing with their teams. The point of playing a game should not be training. Children should be able to start their own games and play on their own without adult interference.

In our rush to develop better skills and more professional players, we replaced the development of the person with the development of the specialized player, and still bemoan the fundamental inadequacies of these players. We lost many of the virtues we valued in sports and youth sports participation. We commodified the experience. We justified everything with the future, delayed gratification, scholarships, and more. We ignored the present. We de-emphasized the experiences of the majority to produce elite players with slightly better skills.

A basketball trainer recently wrote we should develop players as in Europe, which included not keeping score in youth basketball. Youth was undefined, but Spain, amongst others, crowns an U12 Spanish Champion, if not younger. What if the problem (if there is one) in the United States is not too much competition, but the lack of a unified champion at various age groups because of the desperate organizations running sports league, the size of the country, and the adherence to the school calendar and three sports seasons? What if we should embrace competitions and trophies because most children quit sports by 14, and the majority of the rest are cut by 18, rather than minimizing competition in an attempt to retain more players?

What constitutes development? A growing sentiment suggests playing games or trying to win stunts the development of players. Ultimately, however, players learn through playing games. How does replacing games — whether structured or unstructured — with individual workouts with a trainer develop better players or retain more players in the sport? What lessons are learned individually that cannot be learned in groups at team practices, competitive games, or pickup games?

I played in spring and summer leagues after our school seasons when I was young (14-16). Nobody discussed college scholarships; we were aware they were there, we knew players who earned them, but they were not a daily discussion or obsession. Nobody played or decided on their training schedules because of scholarships or the future. We played because we loved to play basketball, and we wanted to compete against players outside our school, league, and neighborhoods.

The spring leagues were 10-week leagues with games every Saturday until the playoffs. We played one game every Saturday from mid-March until late May. The leagues had no practice times. We did not even have a coach one year. We showed up at our designated time, played our game, and left. We often stopped at a park on our way home to play more games, 21, or 1v1 because it was an hour drive each way for a game that lasted about an hour in real time.

I played in the summer leagues before I had a driver’s license. My mom dropped me off at the recreation center about 25 minutes from my house and returned a few hours later to pick me up. There were four sets of games each morning, Monday through Thursday. The coaches were there to substitute players and coached more than one team. We did not even have uniforms; we just wore pennies. We never practiced. We played for six weeks, then the playoffs.

Both leagues were all games, no practices. We never had individual trainers or shooting coaches. Our high school had a guy function as a strength coach, but he had no idea what he was doing, and we only lifted when the coach kicked us out of the gym and made us lift before we could play pickup games. We did not train for the future; we played for the day. We played after school because basketball is what we did, not because we were trying to make a team, impress a coach, or earn a scholarship. We played more, and practiced less.

The belief today is players do not know how to play the game (debatable) and lack fundamentals (debatable), and the proposed solution is always more practice, especially individual practice with trainers, and fewer games. Nobody questioned our fundamentals or knowledge of how to play the game when I was young, and we spent our entire offseason playing games. We virtually never practiced. Our high-school coaches were allowed only six or eight weeks during the summer; no fall or spring practices or games. Our high school played in a local summer league twice per week and never practiced; our varsity practiced, travelled to team camps and tournaments, and more for most of the six weeks.

I practiced with the local public high school down the street one summer, and their practices were basically warmup shooting drills and pickup games. There were no drills, no instruction, no feedback from coaches. We played. And they sent multiple players to various college teams, as did my high school. I did not go to their practices because I wanted extra training or an edge; I went because it meant I could play for two hours in a gym close to my house.

Everything now is focused on the future. Often, this future-focus is described as too competitive, and in some ways, this is true. Certainly, the environment created by parents and coaches at games and tournaments has deteriorated from when I was a child and a single parent yelling at the referee would be considered an out of control crowd. Parents and coaches create an almost palpable stress at these games, and I suppose the future-focused, development-only faction may be in opposition to these behaviors and environments.

However, why approach everything as preparation for a level of competition that 95% of players will never reach? These players will fall short of this level not because they lack skill or talent, but because there is a limit. College scholarships and professional roster spots are a zero sum game, regardless of the generation’s skill and talent. We lose 95% of athletes around 18 years old because roughly 25,000 high-school sports programs graduate players for fewer than 4,000 colleges. Improving skills will not increase roster spots.

We maintain a future-focused sports system despite the stable scholarship numbers, with every level focused on preparing players for the next level rather than maximizing the experience now. We see the developmental focus as the best approach to retain more younger athletes rather than losing so many by the age of 14 (which likely is due to the transition to high school as much as anything else), but the best approach to retaining players likely is to maximize the experience in the present. This does not mean focusing on winning above everything, but it likely means not fearing competition. It also means playing, not just training, ideally in unstructured environments, not just structured leagues and organizations. I will never understand how we as a society decided to combat the over-seriousness of youth sports by replacing too many games with private, individual shooting coaches and less overall play.

Return the game to the children. Coach less. Play more. Playing a sport should be about the present, not the future. Forget the head start or the 10,000 hours. Concentrate on the next hour or two in the gym or at the park and maximizing the experience today so the child wants to return to play more tomorrow. Focus youth sports on the needs of all children, and especially the 95%, not just the 5% who eventually play collegiately and professionally. Youth sports should be more than preparation for college and professional sports because it is the end for so many. Embrace play for play’s sake. Keep children active and healthy.

In a Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD) model, participation in sports would continue for most even after their careers in the competitive stream discontinue. Some basketball players play intramural basketball or join adult recreation leagues; others continue in pickup games at the park or 24-Hour Fitness. The majority quit. There is little between the elite (NCAA/NBA) and purely recreational (parks and rec, pickup games).

How would development and participation change if there were levels of amateur and semiprofessional basketball for post-high school, non-professional players? Would more players persist in sports? Would this create a healthier, more active society? Ultimately, what are the goals for youth sport and do we have a system set up to meet those goals? Who is our development system set up to benefit: The young athletes or the colleges and professional franchises who eventually inherit the best and most talented?