Travel baseball has become an enormous industry, increasingly attracting outside investment and operating on a scale that mimics college sports.  Perfect Game, for example, announced a 2024 partnership that brought 22,000 additional travel teams into its organization.  Perhaps more revealing is that those teams weren’t all considered “elite.”  Perfect Game specifically identified different competitive levels: AA/D3, AAA/D2, Majors/D1 and showcase.

That raises an interesting question: At what point does travel baseball simply become recreation baseball that travels?

Rec or travel baseball?

In case you haven’t noticed, the economics of youth sports have changed dramatically in recent years. If you operate a traditional select program and 60 kids try out for 12 positions, you choose the best 12.

But if you’re operating a growing youth-sports business, those other 48 players represent something else: potential customers.

Why field one team when you can field four or five?  This doesn’t require anything manipulative, it’s simply how businesses grow.  More players create more teams, which create more tournament entries, facility rentals, uniforms, instruction and travel.

The scale of the modern youth-sports business illustrates the point.  Unrivaled Sports, whose properties include Ripken Baseball and Cooperstown All Star Village, currently reports serving more than 800,000 athletes and two million visitors annually across its network.  Interestingly, the company itself describes its experiences as both “competitive & developmental” and “inclusive & premium.”

Obviously there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, as more kids playing baseball is a good thing.  Better facilities, coaching and competition can provide wonderful experiences.

But there may be an unintended consequence — the hollowing out of recreation baseball

When the best players left recreation leagues for travel baseball years ago, recreation leagues could absorb the loss.  But what happens when increasingly more kids leave year after year?  Eventually, you’re not just removing elite players, you’re removing average baseball players, volunteer coaches and entire families from community programs.

This concern isn’t new, but it is growing.  More than a decade ago, The Washington Post documented communities experiencing the migration of players from local leagues into full-time travel baseball.  More recently, a 2026 examination of recreational baseball in Jasper reported participation declining to approximately 200 players, with the local parks and recreation director identifying the growth of travel and community teams as one contributor.

That can create a powerful feedback loop that looks something like this:

And eventually the word travel itself becomes less meaningful.  Athletic ability still exists on a continuum ranging from exceptional players, good players, average players and beginners.  Expanding the number of travel teams doesn’t change that normal distribution, it simply moves more of that distribution underneath the travel baseball umbrella.

There is also a psychological component.  Saying “My son plays travel baseball” carries a certain status. It sounds selective and advanced, but when nearly every interested family can eventually locate a travel team appropriate for its child’s ability, travel baseball stops describing a level of ability and starts describing a method of participation.

Final thoughts

The problem isn’t that average players want to play travel baseball, it’s what happens to community baseball when the average and below-average players bypass recreation leagues that are more suited to their current talents and abilities.  We are already seeing reports of recreational baseball and lower-level travel baseball contain essentially the same caliber of player — except one costs hundreds of dollars, and the other costs thousands.

drstankovich.com

The post How Travel Baseball Became the New Rec Baseball appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

The post The Future of College Sports: Where Does This All End? appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

The post The Modern Youth Athlete: Much More Than Just Practices and Games appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

The post Swag, Status, and the Changing Psychology of Youth Sports appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

Scouting the perfect athlete

When assessing athletes many analyses take place, but perhaps there is one big question that supersedes the others: Will this athlete excel in the clutch?

Some athletes thrive when the pressure increases.  Conversely, other athletes perform brilliantly when little is at stake, but struggle terribly when the game is on the line.  Sport psychologists have spent decades examining anxiety, confidence, attention, emotional regulation, personality, coping skills, and responses to pressure.  So far, no reliable test can tell us who will thrive under pressure and who will struggle.  But what if someday a biology test could yield those results?

As artificial intelligence continues to develop, we may soon have new ways to assess the relationship between personality and sport performance.  For example, imagine the scouting combine of the future.  An athlete enters a testing room and provides a saliva sample.  That sample is combined with genetic information, hormone levels, heart-rate variability, neurological testing, personality assessments, reaction-time measurements, and years of performance data analyzed by artificial intelligence.  Minutes later, a computer generates a new statistic called a Pressure Performance Score.  Clutch potential: 38th percentile.  The scout looks at the number and immediately crosses the player’s name off the list based on his low score.

As of today, we are not able to assess athletes using a pressure scale like just described.  Genetic testing cannot reliably tell us who will become an elite athlete, much less who will deliver the game-winning hit in the ninth inning.  Human performance is far too complicated for that kind of specificity today, but technology rarely stops because something is complicated.

Professional sports organizations already use sophisticated psychological assessments, biometric measurements, wearable technology, medical imaging, and enormous databases to evaluate athletes.  As artificial intelligence becomes better at finding relationships among seemingly unrelated variables, it isn’t difficult to imagine teams searching for biological markers associated with performance under pressure.

Suppose researchers eventually develop a biological and psychological profile that predicts performance under pressure at a highly accurate rate.  Would teams use it?  After investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a pro sport franchise, it’s hard to imagine teams not going all-in with new testing that reveals the biology behind great clutch athletes.

While finding athletes that stack up biologically is great, what happens to the athletes the algorithm gets wrong?  An otherwise talented athlete might lose an opportunity, not because he failed under pressure, but because a computer predicted that someday he might.

There is also the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Imagine telling a young athlete that his biological profile indicates he performs poorly under pressure.  What happens the next time he steps to the plate with two outs in the ninth inning?  In all likelihood based on his test results, he will perform poorly because he expected to perform poorly.

While it is a worthwhile pursuit to find biomarkers that yield important information relating to future sport (or life) success, it is also important that we understand the effects of self-fulfilling prophecies, as well as confidence, attention, and motivation.  In other words, mentally tough athletes may outperform what their profiles predict, while athletes with less mental toughness may struggle under pressure despite profiles suggesting they should succeed.

Sports analytics began by helping us understand performance. Eventually, they may attempt something much more ambitious: predicting human potential before that potential has an opportunity to reveal itself.  If science someday claims it can tell us who will become clutch and who won’t, should we use that information to decide who gets the opportunity to find out?

Final thoughts

Perhaps the greatest danger isn’t that technology will someday become good enough to predict human behavior, but that we will become too confident in believing that it can.  Athletes are not static collections of genes, biomarkers, personality scores, and statistics.  Analytics can undoubtedly help us understand athletes better, but there are important aspects of the psyche that are incredibly difficult to measure, including focus, motivation, and the will to win.  In the future, there may be a point where prediction begins replacing opportunity.  If a number someday tells us that an athlete isn’t built to be clutch, will we still give that athlete the chance to prove the number wrong?

drstankovich.com

The post From Biomarkers to Box Scores: Can Science Tell Us Who Will Choke Under Pressure? appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

Nearly psychology student eventually encounters Dr. John B. Watson, one of the most influential — and controversial — figures in the history of psychology.  Watson helped establish behaviorism, an approach that moved psychology away from examining hard-to-see internal thoughts and feelings and toward studying observable behavior.  In other words, Watson wasn’t particularly interested in what you were thinking; he was interested in what you actually did.

Central to Watson’s theory of behaviorism was the enormous influence of the environment.  Human behavior, he argued, could be shaped through learning, conditioning, reinforcement, and life experience.  Change the environment and experiences surrounding a person, and you could potentially change the person.

Nature, nurture, or both?

John Watson strictly adhered to the idea that it is indeed one’s surrounding environment that most directly impacts and shapes our lives, and that by changing our environment, we essentially change who we are and what we will become.  In his 1924 book Behaviorism, he issued one of psychology’s most famous challenges:

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select — doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief…”

While completely unethical by today’s research ethics, think about what Watson was proposing in theory.  If you were to give him a group of healthy infants and complete control over their environments, he believed he could largely determine what they would eventually become.  Watson believed inner thoughts and emotions had far less impact on human development than the surrounding world around the individual, especially with respect to behaviors that are continually reinforced.  These days, that sounds extreme.

Fast-forward to today, where we know far more about genetics than psychologists did during Watson’s era.  We now know that children aren’t interchangeable blank slates.  Temperament, intelligence, personality tendencies, physical abilities, genetic predispositions and other biological characteristics all contribute to development in varying degrees.  Modern psychology generally doesn’t frame human development as nature versus nurture, but instead views nature and nurture as continually interacting.

Interestingly, even Watson himself later acknowledged that his famous statement exceeded what he could scientifically demonstrate, writing, “I am going beyond my facts and I admit it.”  But before dismissing Watson entirely, consider a thought experiment.  Imagine two children born with essentially identical biological potential.  One grows up in a safe home filled with books, encouragement, affection and stability.  The child attends prestigious schools, participates in activities, meets with inspiring teachers and coaches, develops friendships with achievement-oriented peers and grows up surrounded by adults who continually reinforce the expectation that effort will eventually produce opportunity.

Now place the other child in a dramatically different environment where there is instability at home, limited educational opportunity, few positive role models, unsafe surroundings and little hope and encouragement.  Instead of opportunities continually appearing, obstacles continually do.  Would we really expect these two children to arrive at adulthood unchanged by those dramatically different experiences?

It is also important to note that “environment” extends far beyond parenting. We are also influenced by teachers, coaches, and friends, as well as our neighborhood and school.  Socioeconomic status impacts our development, as do the number of times we are praised and encouraged by others.  In fact, sometimes it is just one teacher, coach, or friend who changes the direction of someone’s life.

While Watson himself admitted he may have over-estimated the influence of environment and surroundings, he did help us better understand that those factors do indeed have a great influence on human development.  Watson pushed the environmental argument toward its extreme, but the other extreme (also false) would be to assume that it is biology only that is responsible for human development.

Final thoughts

Perhaps the most provocative part of John Watson’s argument isn’t whether he could actually turn any infant into a doctor, lawyer, artist, or thief, but what his claim forces us to consider about ourselves.  How much credit — or blame — should we take for the people we eventually become?  We like to think our personalities, values, interests, accomplishments, and even our failures belong uniquely to us.  But imagine being born into a different family, attending different schools, receiving different encouragement, and encountering entirely different opportunities.  Would you still be recognizably you?  Watson may have pushed nurture much too far, but perhaps his greatest contribution was forcing us to confront an uncomfortable possibility: the line between who we are and what our environment made us may be far more difficult to draw than we’d like to believe.

drstankovich.com

The post Are You Really You — or the Product of Everything Around You? appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

Today, the phone comes out almost immediately when something cool is about to take place.  Record it.  Photograph it.  Post it.  Share it.  Attend a concert and you’ll see thousands of people holding phones above their heads.  Visit a tourist attraction and watch people carefully position themselves for photographs rather than focus on the actual attraction.   A meal arrives at a restaurant and someone photographs and posts it before taking a bite.  Kids do something funny and parents immediately begin recording.   Are we living these moments, or simply creating content to share?

Are we living life, or just creating content?

It is important to note that recording and posting about your life is not inherently bad, but it does provide a stark contrast about the ways in which we live today compared to the time before smart phones and social media.  Psychologically, something very big has occurred relating to how we live moment-to-moment today that begs the question: Are we documenting our experiences — or increasingly having experiences so we can document them?

Developmental psychologists have long described the adolescent “imaginary audience”— the tendency for young people to feel as though others are constantly noticing, watching, and evaluating them (even though they aren’t).  Today, however, the previous imaginary audience has turned into a real audience of fans, followers, and viewers.

Today, our “real” audience of followers and subscribers can potentially watch our vacations, children’s accomplishments, workouts, meals, relationships, opinions, celebrations, and even personal struggles.  Life can begin to resemble an ongoing movie in which we simultaneously become the star, director, camera operator, and publicist.  And when we are creating content, our audience becomes important.  Rather than asking am I enjoying this, another question can quietly enter our thinking:  How will this look?

Does my vacation look amazing enough?  Is the concert I’m attending cool enough to post?  Is my child’s sports highlight awesome enough for a lot of clicks?  Does this dinner look like a chef prepared it so I can take a photo and upload?  And today’s audience provides immediate feedback.  Likes.  Views.  Comments.  Shares.

Over time, we learn which versions of ourselves receive the most attention.  That raises an interesting psychological question: Are we gradually shifting from asking “What do I enjoy?” toward asking “What version of my life performs best?”

If so, there could be real-life mental health consequences:

• Less internal validation. “That was meaningful to me” can gradually become “Other people responded to it.”
• Less presence. Part of our attention is devoted to documenting the experience rather than simply experiencing it.
• Identity becomes performance. Instead of discovering who we are, we may begin constructing the version of ourselves that receives the best response.
• Experiences become transactional. Is this worth posting? Will people notice? Will they respond?
• Ordinary life can begin to feel inadequate. If memorable experiences are the ones worth sharing, what happens to all the quiet moments in between?

The last possibility may be especially important, as most of a meaningful human life isn’t particularly post-worthy.  In a normal world it consists of ordinary dinners, trivial conversations, uneventful weekends, private accomplishments, boredom, and moments nobody else will ever know occurred.

If we’re constantly searching for the next shareable moment, do we gradually become less capable of appreciating everything that happens between them?  The irony is remarkable. We document our lives because we don’t want to forget them, yet sometimes the act of documenting them may prevent us from fully experiencing the moments we’re trying so hard to preserve.

Perhaps the ultimate question isn’t whether we’re sharing too much of our lives, but whether we’ve become so accustomed to performing our lives for other people that we’ve forgotten what it feels like to live a meaningful moment simply for ourselves.

Final thoughts

There is nothing wrong with taking pictures, recording special moments, or sharing parts of our lives with others.  The concern begins when sharing the experience becomes more important than actually having it.  A meaningful life shouldn’t require an audience, applause, likes, or proof that it happened.  Some of our best moments may be the ones nobody photographs, nobody posts, and nobody else ever knows about.  Perhaps one of the healthiest things we can occasionally do is experience something wonderful — and resist the urge to post about it.

drstankovich.com

The post The Performative Life: Are We Living, or Just Posting Online? appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

While all of these advances are impressive, there’s an interesting contradiction developing alongside all of this medical progress: At the same time we’ve gotten remarkably good at treating injured young athletes, we’ve created a sports culture that may be giving them more opportunities to become injured in the first place.

Youth sports & injuries today

Kids experiencing overuse injuries are now a major issue in pediatric sports medicine.  The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned about excessive training loads, inadequate recovery, and year-round participation.  Kids with growing bodies are particularly vulnerable because bones, muscles, tendons, and growth plates are still developing.

This news is not surprising when you consider the schedule of some young athletes today.  A baseball player might move from spring baseball into summer travel baseball, then fall ball, followed by winter pitching or hitting instruction before starting over again.  A basketball player may move from the school team to AAU and then directly into camps and private training.  A wrestler might compete in summer wrestling tournaments until his or her traditional winter school season begins. The reality is most sports go year-round, and the “offseason” has become a thing of the past.

Sport specialization adds another observable concern.  Recent research continues to associate high levels of youth sport specialization with greater injury risk compared with multi-sport participation.  With more kids specializing today, the threat of injury becomes even more concerning.

But are kids actually suffering more injuries today, or are we simply much better at finding them?  The answer might be a little of both.

An injury that might once have been dismissed as simply a “bad knee” or “sore shoulder” 20 years ago can now be precisely diagnosed through modern-day imaging and specialist evaluation.  Greater awareness of the danger of concussions has similarly changed what we recognize as an injury, as well as the frequency in which we assess for concussions.

Still, certain serious injuries among young athletes, including ACL injuries, have generated increasing concern.  And repetitive-stress injuries make intuitive sense when children repeatedly perform the same movements for increasingly long seasons.

Then comes another interesting question: Has modern medicine changed our attitude toward injury itself?  Our healthcare providers have become extraordinarily good at getting athletes back onto the field — but “return to play” can subtly become “return as quickly as possible.”

While it’s not always witnessed directly, there can be tremendous pressure surrounding an injured young athlete to get back on the field as quickly as possible.  The injured athlete doesn’t want to lose a starting position, and often feels the pressure that the team needs him back.  Some injured athletes worry about how much money their parents have invested in the season, or all the effort coaches make in order to compensate for the injured athlete’s absence.  The athlete sits idle and watches teammates continue playing, often resulting in even greater motivation to get back out there (even if not fully recovered).

Suddenly, recovery itself becomes a competition.  Returning in five weeks when doctors initially predicted eight can become a badge of honor and earn respect from teammates, coaches, and even parents.  Playing through pain becomes evidence of strength and toughness.  And missing games can feel like failure — even if missing games is medically warranted.  Putting it all together and we see more serious injuries, better medical care, and greater pressure than ever before for kids to return to playing as fast a humanly possible.  Is this new sports landscape good for kids?  Or have we created a situation worthy of much more attention and scrutiny?

Final thoughts

There is nothing wrong with wanting young athletes to compete, improve, and return to the sports they love after experiencing an injury.  But perhaps our modern-day advances to repair injured bodies has made it easier to overlook why so many young bodies need repairing in the first place.  Better medicine shouldn’t give us permission to demand more from children; it should give us better information about how to protect them.  Maybe the real measure of progress isn’t how quickly we can get a 13-year-old back onto the field, but whether we can create a youth sports culture in which fewer 13-year-olds need MRIs, orthopedic surgeons, and months of rehabilitation.

drstankovich.com

The post Youth Sports Injuries: Are We Better at Treating Them — or Creating Them appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

I have encountered some parents at my office who seem less like parents of their teenagers, and more like fans of them.  These parents aren’t simply accepting of their kids, they almost seem impressed by them — even when the behavior they are admiring isn’t particularly admirable.  Is it cool to be in awe of your kids as though you are on their level, or should parents be clear with family roles and who’s in charge — specifically with the parent-child dynamic?

What some parents tell me…

I have heard many stories at my practice over the years, including some parents who marvel at the trouble their kids find.  One parent casually mentioned to me knowing that his teenage son and friends were drinking in the basement, but he thought it was kind of cool so he decided not to bother them.  Another parent laughed while describing how his teenager snuck out of the house, only to be caught by police sneaking back in during the wee hours of the night.  And several parents have shared with me that underage drinking is out in the open at their graduation parties, with the assumption kids won’t drive after drinking.  I have been told many stories about parties, drinking, breaking rules, or getting away with something told with an unmistakable hint of pride.  Some parents have even told me they have bought alcohol for their kid and his/her friends!

The message for parents who only casually parent almost becomes: My kid is really cool.

But why do some parents feel this way?  One possibility is that parents sometimes experience their children’s social lives vicariously.  If my teenager is popular, invited to parties, dating, socially confident, and accepted by the “cool kids,” perhaps some of that status psychologically rubs off on me.

Psychologists have long recognized our tendency to derive satisfaction from association with successful or popular people and groups.  We readily understand the parent proudly announcing that his daughter made varsity, or his son was accepted into an elite university.  But perhaps reflected status can operate socially as well.

Everybody knows my kid.  Everybody likes my kid.  My kid gets invited everywhere.

There may also be an element of identification and nostalgia.  Hearing about a teenager’s adventures can take parents back to their own adolescence.  “We did the same thing at that age” becomes an amusing justification for behavior that should deserve a considerably different response from a parent.

None of this means parents need to become authoritarian or react hysterically every time a teenager makes a poor decision.  Adolescence involves experimentation, mistakes, boundary testing, peer influence, and increasing independence.  Simply put, teenagers are going to screw up.  But that’s precisely why they still need parents.

With brains still not fully developed, teenagers aren’t supposed to possess mature adult judgment.  Part of adolescence involves testing boundaries, and parents are supposed to model and provide some of the boundaries being tested.  In doing so, it requires accepting one of the least enjoyable parts of parenting: sometimes your child isn’t going to like you very much.

A friend might laugh about the drinking story.  A fan might admire the rebelliousness.  A parent occasionally needs to say, No, that’s not acceptable.

There’s an important distinction between being in your child’s corner and being in your child’s fan club.

Being in your teenager’s corner means loving him whether he succeeds spectacularly or screws up badly.  It also means defending him when appropriate, encouraging him when he’s struggling, and making certain he knows that one bad decision doesn’t define him.  But loving the person doesn’t require celebrating the behavior.  In fact, sometimes the most loving response is accountability by means of disappointment, correction, consequences, or simply saying no.

Teenagers will eventually have plenty of friends, fans, followers, and people willing to laugh along with their bad decisions.  What they have far fewer of are adults who love them enough to occasionally disappoint them, challenge them, and establish boundaries. Your teenager absolutely needs you in his corner.  But sometimes the best thing you can do for him is step out of the fan club and be his parent.

Final thoughts

Being your child’s biggest supporter doesn’t mean being a fan of everything your child does.  In fact, some of the most important moments in parenting occur when support looks nothing like cheering — when it means setting a boundary, expressing disappointment, imposing a consequence, or simply saying no.  Teenagers will have plenty of friends willing to laugh at their bad decisions and plenty of peers impressed by their rebelliousness.  What they need from their parents is something different: someone who loves them enough to risk being temporarily unpopular.  Sometimes being your child’s biggest supporter means refusing to be their biggest fan.

drstankovich.com

The post Parent or Pal? When Being the Cool Parent Goes Too Far appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

The reasons why so many kids specialize in one sport today

Sports are no longer confined to the traditional 3-4 months when they are “in season.”  Today, the baseball player may have fall workouts, winter lifting, indoor hitting, pitching programs, camps and summer baseball.  Basketball has open gyms, off-season workouts and AAU.  Football has weight training, seven-on-seven, camps and summer practices.  Soccer and volleyball have extensive club seasons.

While nobody necessarily tells the athlete, “You can’t play another sport,” they don’t have to. Why?  Because kids aren’t choosing among three sports, they are choosing among three year-round programs.

Perhaps one of the most interesting words in modern high school athletics is optional.  An off-season workout may technically be optional, but when your teammates are attending, your coach is watching and someone else wants your position, the word “optional” no longer sounds like a voluntary decision devoid of potential negative consequences.  In fact, it’s quite the opposite that kids pick up on — if you don’t attend “optional” workouts, you will pay a price for that decision.  When kids feel this way, it creates anxiety and leaves them in impossible situations trying to find ways to play multiple sports throughout the year.

There is an important psychological distinction between truly having a choice and feeling like you have a choice.  The problem isn’t necessarily created by bad coaches with unreasonable intentions.  In many cases, coaches are responding rationally to the competitive environment around them, as well as some parent expectations.  If a neighboring soccer program is training throughout the winter, your program feels pressure to do the same.  If basketball players are competing in AAU throughout the spring and summer, taking several months off may feel like falling behind.  As other schools and leagues do more, everyone else does the same.

Eventually, we have something resembling an athletic arms race.  And the casualty may be the multi-sport athlete.

Different sports require different skills, movements and ways of thinking.  Baseball demands patience and the ability to handle a lot of individual failure.  Basketball requires constant movement, immediate decision-making and continuous interaction with teammates on the floor.  Football requires athletes to accept highly specialized roles while functioning within a larger coordinated system.

There are mental health benefits to playing different sports as well.  Playing multiple sports exposes kids to different teammates, coaches, leadership styles and social environments.  Perhaps most importantly, it allows kids to occupy different roles.  The star midfielder in soccer might come off the bench in basketball.  The starting quarterback might simply be another player on the baseball team.  There is something developmentally valuable about sometimes being the best player in the room — and sometimes clearly not being the best player in the room.

Multiple sports can also broaden an athlete’s personal identity.  When a teenager’s entire world becomes I am a football player, struggles in football can threaten something much larger than athletic performance.  Playing other sports provides additional friendships, experiences and opportunities to feel competent.  These broadened experiences and relationships also contribute to better mental health, too.

None of this means young athletes should be prohibited from specializing in a chosen sport if they so desire. Some kids genuinely love one sport and want to pursue it year-round.  But we should also ask whether we’re making that choice for others without realizing it.  It’s easy for coaches and athletic programs to say they support multi-sport athletes.  The more meaningful question is whether their expectations, schedules and off-season demands actually make multi-sport participation possible.

Perhaps the multi-sport athlete isn’t disappearing because kids suddenly stopped wanting to play multiple sports.  Maybe we’ve simply built a sports culture in which every sport increasingly wants to be the athlete’s only sport.

Final thoughts

Perhaps the real issue isn’t whether the three-sport athlete is actually disappearing, but whether we’re making it unnecessarily difficult for that athlete to exist.  We continue to praise the benefits of playing multiple sports while simultaneously creating year-round (“optional”) expectations that make doing so increasingly challenging.  If we truly value multi-sport athletes, then coaches, schools, parents, and sports organizations may need to do more than simply encourage them — we need to create an environment that actually allows them to play.

drstankovich.com

The post The Disappearing Multi-Sport High School Athlete appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

Developmental changes related to smart phone usage

Before smartphones filled every empty moment, kids spent considerably more time observing and interacting with the world around them.  Kids watched other people, noticed facial expressions, and made eye contact.  Kids also initiated conversations, learned how to enter groups, handle silence, read a room, deal with boredom and entertain themselves.  None of these experiences appear to be very important individually, but collectively, they help us grow and develop important social skills and improve our mental health.

The reality is that kids don’t learn sophisticated interpersonal skills from an instruction manual — they develop them through thousands of authentic, in-person repetitions.  When should I speak?  Is that person serious or joking?  Did I offend someone?  Does she seem interested in what I’m saying?  How do I politely join this conversation?  What does that facial expression mean?  What do I do after saying something awkward?

The reality is that kids don’t learn sophisticated interpersonal skills from an instruction manual — they develop them through thousands of authentic, in-person repetitions. 

Face-to-face interaction provides an extraordinary amount of information through facial expressions, eye contact, posture, tone of voice and timing.  Phones provide social interaction, but it’s a very different kind of interaction, one that is far more limiting than what can be developed communicating in-person.

Think of this another way — we wouldn’t expect a child to become a great soccer player without repetitions.  Why would we expect kids to develop sophisticated face-to-face social skills while potentially removing thousands of their social repetitions?  Reading or watching videos how to communicate with others isn’t anything close to actually communicating in-person.

There may be emotional consequences as well to smart phone overload.  Previous generations had considerably more unavoidable time alone with their thoughts.  Waiting meant waiting.  Boredom meant figuring out what to do with time on your hands.  An awkward moment sometimes meant sitting with the awkwardness and and developing problem-solving solutions.

Today, uncomfortable feelings can often be interrupted instantly.  If you are bored, anxious, lonely, or embarrassed, just pick up your phone and divert your attention somewhere else.  That doesn’t mean smartphones cause mental health problems, but emotional regulation develops partly through real life experience.  Kids need opportunities to tolerate boredom, frustration, uncertainty, disappointment and social discomfort — and discover that those feelings eventually pass.  But if distraction is always immediately available (smart phone), are some of those developmental repetitions disappearing?

Human attention presents another interesting question.  The truth is the real world doesn’t operate like a smartphone.  Books don’t change subjects every 15 seconds.  Coaches sometimes give mundane instructions.  Conversations occasionally drag on far longer than needed.  Friends tell stories that take five minutes instead of 10 seconds.  Learning to remain engaged when something isn’t immediately stimulating is itself an important developmental skill.

We may not understand the full consequences of these developmental changes for years.  Smartphones haven’t existed across enough generations for us to know exactly what happens when screens occupy so much time and so many of childhood’s previously empty spaces.  It is possible the effects won’t be dramatic, but instead appear in subtler ways: less comfort with boredom, difficulty sustaining attention, fewer spontaneous conversations, greater dependence on external stimulation or less confidence navigating face-to-face interactions.

For generations, growing up involved looking around — at other kids, adults, classrooms, neighborhoods, sports fields, dinner tables and eventually the larger world.  Today’s kids have access to more information about that world than any generation before them.  Perhaps we should spend less time asking kids what they’re seeing on their phones and more time asking what they aren’t seeing, practicing, experiencing and learning while they’re looking at them.

Final thoughts

Maybe the greatest developmental cost of smartphones won’t ultimately be traced to any single app, post, or hour of screen time, but instead be found in the thousands of ordinary moments that quietly disappeared — the conversations that never started, the faces that weren’t studied, the boredom that wasn’t tolerated, the surroundings that weren’t noticed, and the uncomfortable feelings that weren’t worked through.  Childhood development has always occurred partly through these seemingly insignificant experiences.  Kids today may have unprecedented access to the entire world in the palms of their hands, but growing up still requires occasionally putting that world down, looking up, and experiencing the one directly in front of them.

drstankovich.com

The post Look Up: What Smartphones May Be Taking From Childhood appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

• “You Won’t Believe What Happened Next!”
• “Scientists Issue SHOCKING Warning!”
• “This Changes EVERYTHING!”
• “Nobody Saw This Coming: New Research Reveals a Disturbing Trend That Could Affect Millions of Americans”

Clickbait formula is pretty simple — make something sound frightening, crazy, outrageous, surprising, controversial or unbelievable, and people are more likely to click.  Next, the creator of clickbait is positively reinforced for the clickbait, gets paid for the volume of traffic that clicked, and is encouraged to go back and — you guessed it — create more clickbait!

But instead of wondering why so much online content has become sensationalized to be clicked on, maybe we should ask something considerably more important: Where does all of this eventually lead us?

Are we better informed, or more prone to misleading information that can have a direct effect on our mental health and overall well-being?

The impact of clickbait

The internet created an economy in which attracting human attention has enormous value.  Websites, social-media platforms, influencers, and news organizations need readers.  Algorithms then learn what attracts us and provide more of it.  Unfortunately, human beings aren’t naturally attracted to thoughtful, nuanced or important information, but we are drawn to novelty, danger, conflict, outrage, scandal and surprise.

And therein lies the problem.  The information most likely to capture our attention isn’t necessarily the information most deserving of it.

Perhaps the most concerning of our attraction to scandalous clickbait is the illusion that all this information makes us better informed.  Someone can spend hours scrolling through news headlines, TikTok videos, X posts, Facebook stories, YouTube clips and other online content and feel extraordinarily knowledgeable about what’s happening in the world.  But exposure to information isn’t the same thing as understanding it, or validating it as authentic and truthful.

Knowing that 50 supposedly outrageous things happened today doesn’t necessarily mean all of it is true, or that we understand any of the stories we read.  We may be consuming more information than any generation in human history while vetting less of it, and understanding increasingly less about what we consume.

That doesn’t necessarily mean clickbait is making us less intelligent.  The greater concern may be that it encourages shallower thinking: reading headlines instead of articles, reacting before investigating, forming conclusions without context, and allowing emotional responses to substitute for careful thought.

There is another potential consequence.  When people repeatedly discover that sensational headlines exaggerate what actually happened, healthy skepticism can gradually become cynicism.  Eventually, instead of questioning questionable information, people may simply conclude that nothing can be trusted.

Assuming all information is the same, or that no information is credible, leaves us in a very dangerous spot.  When credible journalism, scientific research, political propaganda, influencer speculation, satire, misinformation and outright fabrication now compete for our attention on many of the same screens are all jumbled together it requires us to distinguish what is legitimate, and what isn’t.  This requires patience and critical thinking, but none of that is needed when we just click away on sensational headlines.

With clickbait, it’s rather easy: Don’t investigate. Just react.

Final thoughts

There may be a psychological cost to living in an information environment constantly telling us that something is wrong, dangerous, outrageous, or urgently deserving of our attention.  Even when individual stories are relatively insignificant, the cumulative effect can leave us feeling more anxious, angry, overwhelmed, and pessimistic about the world around us — hardly a recipe for good mental health and well-being.  Perhaps the most uncomfortable part is that we’re not merely victims of clickbait culture — we’re helping create it.

Every click teaches an algorithm something about what captures our attention.  We click sensational content, platforms give us more of it, creators become increasingly sensational, and thoughtful information struggles even harder to compete.  Clickbait began as a strategy for getting people to open a story, but its ultimate consequences may prove considerably larger.

Maybe we aren’t becoming a less informed society, but instead becoming something equally troubling: a society with unprecedented access to information and a diminishing ability to determine which information actually matters.

drstankovich.com

The post The Psychology of Clickbait: When Attention Becomes More Important Than Truth appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

While it’s easy to blame Lane Kiffin for trying to expand what “amateur” means in this moment, it might be more appropriate to blame us.  Human beings have an interesting relationship with success.  We say we want it, but once we achieve it, we rarely seem capable of simply enjoying it.  Success quickly establishes a new baseline, and before long we begin asking the inevitable question:  What else can we do?  The success we enjoyed with college football apparently wasn’t enough, so here we are today exploring ways to tweak the game yet again — this time, with pro players coming back to college.

Why can’t we leave a good thing alone?

College football offers a fascinating case study — for generations, Saturday afternoons gave us packed stadiums, marching bands, historic rivalries, regional traditions, exciting bowl games, and athletes representing universities they actually attended. As college football grew, players certainly deserved a greater share of the enormous revenue they helped generate, and some longstanding rules clearly needed modernization.  Unfortunately, modernization became complete transformation.

In just the last 10-15 years we have witnessed massive change in college football, including NIL, the transfer portal, non-geographical conferences sometimes stretching across the country, expanded playoffs teetering on absurdity, and transactional rosters.  In fact, college football today looks like pro football, with a burdensome university attached.

And still we keep tinkering.

Today’s debate started by Lane Kiffin is whether athletes who signed NFL contracts should be able to return to college.  LSU’s controversy became so significant that the SEC adopted a rule against adding such players, and the dispute has escalated into litigation and an extraordinary confrontation between LSU and its own conference.

The guess here is that former players will be allowed to return, and before too long it will seem normal to see a carousel from college to pro back to college football again.  The bigger question is what comes next?  Could eligibility eventually become unlimited?  Could the academic component become increasingly irrelevant — and possibly removed entirely?  Could college athletes eventually become university employees who barely resemble traditional students?  With gambling already surrounding sports culture, what other boundaries that once seemed obvious will eventually be reconsidered?  Is there anything that college football wont consider that could add to their revenue?

The fan experience, while important to a degree, really pales in comparison to the money to be gained thorough more television revenue, more playoff games, more NIL opportunities, more roster flexibility, and more content.  Today’s college football decision-makers seem to hardly care about tradition, and they appear quite determined to not leave a single nickle on the table of potential future revenue.  Is this type of leadership good for the game?  Is it good for fans?

Hedonic adaptation describes our tendency to adjust to improvements in our circumstances.  What initially feels extraordinary eventually feels normal — then we want something more.  Perhaps college football is experiencing this right now.  Instead of enjoying what had been created, everyone began searching for the next opportunity to make it bigger, richer and supposedly better.

Final thoughts

Not every change in college football has been bad, as some were long overdue (i.e. paying student athletes in addition to scholarship money).  But change often produces unintended consequences, and when you fundamentally restructure an institution in a remarkably short period, you shouldn’t be surprised when previously unimaginable ideas suddenly become imaginable.

Lane Kiffin didn’t create this new world of college football, but instead looked at the new college football landscape we’ve created and asked how far he could go.  Is the current controversy around pro players coming back to college a Lane Kiffin issue, or instead a reflection of a much bigger picture of greed, instability, shortsightedness, and an inability to ever be fully satisfied if there is another dollar to be made?

drstankovich.com

The post College Football Wasn’t Broken — So Why Did We Fix It? appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

Most people who have spent time around youth leagues have experienced seasons where everyone seems to know which teams will dominate before the first game is played.  One team is loaded with experienced players, while another is filled primarily with beginners.  The predictable result is a steady diet of run-ruled blowout baseball games, basketball games over before halftime, or soccer matches where one team can barely get the ball across midfield.  Some might simply shrug and say, “That’s sports.”  But is that really the best way to develop young athletes?

Parity isn’t about guaranteeing equal outcomes — it’s about creating meaningful competition.

To begin, there should absolutely be winning and losing in youth sports.  A healthy youth sport league should include good teams, struggling teams, upsets, winning streaks, and disappointing losses.  The goal isn’t for every team to finish with the same record, but leagues should instead strive to create enough competitive balance that most teams enter most games believing they have a legitimate chance to win.

Consider what athletes learn from competitive games. They experience:

• Performing under pressure when the outcome is uncertain.
• Playing from behind and protecting a small lead.
• Responding to mistakes when those mistakes actually matter.
• Learning how to win appropriately by remaining humble and respectful — and how to lose gracefully with sportsmanship and learning from the experience.

The lessons above are much harder to learn and appreciate when the game is over within minutes of starting.

Interestingly, parity benefits the stronger teams as well.  Constantly overwhelming weaker opponents may feel good temporarily, but how much development actually occurs in blowouts?  The best athletes need adversity too — they need situations where the opponent pushes back, where failure is possible, and where their physical and psychological skills are tested.

Psychologically, children also tend to remain engaged when challenges feel difficult but achievable.  If winning feels impossible, frustration and helplessness can develop.  If winning becomes virtually automatic, boredom and complacency can follow.  Somewhere between those extremes exists the competitive “sweet spot” where athletes are challenged, engaged, and motivated to improve.

Youth leagues themselves play an important role in creating that environment.  Stacked teams, poorly constructed drafts, excessive teammate requests, travel players clustering together, and strong rosters remaining intact year after year can unintentionally destroy competitive balance.  Individually, each decision may seem harmless, but collectively they canquickly result in a league of haves and have-nots.

Another threat to parity can occur when youth programs intentionally divide children into “A” and “B” teams based on talent.  While there may be legitimate developmental reasons for occasionally grouping athletes by ability, problems arise when those teams compete in the same league or against similar competition.  The strongest players become concentrated on one roster while the remaining players are left to compete with an obvious disadvantage.  The “A” team may enjoy winning, but often against opponents that cannot realistically compete, while the “B” team can experience repeated losses that quickly become discouraging.  Worse yet, the labels themselves can send an unnecessary message to young athletes about who is considered good and who isn’t — often at ages when physical development, confidence, and athletic ability are still changing dramatically.

Ironically, professional sports understand the importance of competitive balance remarkably well.  Draft systems, scheduling procedures, salary structures, and other mechanisms exist partly because leagues recognize a basic truth: the product becomes less interesting when everyone already knows who’s going to win.

Final thoughts

Youth sports should recognize the same principles pro sports leagues have discovered, but for an even more important reason.  The goal for youth sport leagues should not be to manufacture equal results, but instead to provide a reasonable opportunity to compete.  Kids don’t need guarantees that they’ll win — they need reason to believe they can.

When youth leagues create that possibility, games become more competitive, victories become more meaningful, losses become more instructive, athletes develop more fully, and — perhaps most importantly — kids are more likely to keep coming back to play.  Parity isn’t the enemy of competition. It’s what allows genuine competition to exist.

drstankovich.com

The post The Competitive Sweet Spot: Why Parity Matters in Youth Sports appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

What does winning & success really mean?

Consider the case of college football today.  Imagine being a fan of a program with financial resources so substantial that it can essentially assemble a roster of many of the best 5 star players available.  If your team dramatically outspends its competition and eventually wins a national championship, celebrating is certainly understandable — but what exactly has the championship demonstrated?  To be clear, winning still required coaching, preparation, execution, and plenty of hard work.  But if you’ve stacked the deck so heavily that losing becomes increasingly unlikely, shouldn’t that context influence how we interpret the accomplishment?

The same question increasingly applies in education.  A student receives an A on a paper and feels the satisfaction that traditionally accompanies academic achievement.  But suppose the student “wrote” the entire paper using AI — the A grade is real, but is the accomplishment represented by that A grade equally real?

Psychology offers some insight into why we may not spend much time contemplating such questions.  Human beings have a tendency toward self-serving attribution.  When things go well, we readily attribute success to our natural dispositions including intelligence, talent, preparation, or hard work.  When things go poorly, surrounding circumstances suddenly become why we failed (ironically, when outside factors work substantially in our favor, we’re often remarkably good at minimizing them).

Other examples include the successful businessperson who describes himself as “self-made” while barely mentioning family inheritance money or important insider networking connections.  A youth baseball team celebrates another tournament championship without acknowledging that it recruited many of the area’s best players specifically to dominate weaker competition.  Someone celebrates winning a competition while conveniently overlooking that the strongest competitors weren’t there.

None of these outcomes are necessarily fraudulent.  What’s distorted is the story we tell ourselves about what produced them.  That’s because people don’t simply want favorable outcomes, we want those outcomes to mean something favorable about us.  Winning demonstrates ability.  Good grades demonstrate intelligence.  Financial success demonstrates industriousness. Athletic success demonstrates talent.  Simply put, these things make us feel good about ourselves.

Perhaps this is why difficulty is such an important and underappreciated component of genuine accomplishment.  Part of what makes running a marathon meaningful is that traveling 26.2 miles on foot is incredibly difficult.  If we drove 25 miles and ran the final 1.2, we could still cross the same finish line, but few people would consider it the same accomplishment.  That’s an exaggerated example, but it illustrates an important distinction:  When we remove too much difficulty from achievement, we may preserve the outcome while quietly removing much of the accomplishment.

Final thoughts

The truth is that nobody succeeds entirely on their own.  Athletes have coaches, students use technology, and successful people benefit from mentors and inside connections.  Taking advantage of opportunities isn’t inherently wrong, in fact, it’s generally a wise life move.  The more important issue may be whether we’re intellectually honest about how much those advantages contributed, and if the success we enjoy is actually earned, or experienced directly due to outside advantages that the competition doesn’t have.

drstankovich.com

The post If You Stack the Deck, Does Winning Still Feel Like Winning? appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

Sports culture is saturated with rankings.  Who is the #1 recruit?  What is the best travel team?  Who has the highest rating? Which program sends the most athletes to college?  What are the odds of making varsity, earning a scholarship, or playing professionally?  We even nationally rank athletes who haven’t reached puberty.  When kids regularly experience mental health concerns around anxiety and depression as a result of constant pressure to be the best, is it time to re-calibrate the youth sport experience?

Competition & growth

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be the best.  Competition can motivate people to work harder, prepare more effectively, and discover abilities they didn’t know they possessed.  Winning definitely matters.  And striving for excellence can be tremendously rewarding.  But has our obsession with identifying who is best begun to overshadow everything else competition is supposed to provide?

For generations, sports have taught lessons that have very little to do with finishing first.  Athletes learn to work with teammates, accept coaching, manage frustration, fulfill commitments, respect opponents, and persevere when things aren’t going well.  They also learn something increasingly difficult to accept in our success-obsessed culture: Sometimes someone else is better than you.  That’s not a flaw in competition, but instead one of its greatest lessons.

The problem with constantly ranking and evaluating young athletes is that social comparison can gradually replace personal growth as the definition of success.

• Instead of asking, Am I getting better? we ask, Am I better than him?
• Instead of, Did our team improve? it becomes, Where are we ranked?
• Instead of, Does my child love playing soccer? we wonder, Is he playing on the best team where he will get the most looks from college coaches?

There is also a psychological price to living under constant evaluation.  For young athletes, every game, tryout, ranking, statistic, social-media post, and recruiting list can become another opportunity to measure their worth against someone else’s. When success becomes synonymous with being exceptional, simply being good can begin to feel like failure.  Herein is where many mental health issues begin, specifically with anxiety that often accompanies efforts to not just be good — but be the best.

A child who once worried about striking out may now worry about falling behind, losing a starting position, dropping in a ranking, disappointing parents, or jeopardizing some imagined future opportunity.  Sports, which can be an extraordinary outlet for stress, can instead become another source of it.

Final thoughts

Healthy competition teaches perseverance precisely because sometimes we lose.  It teaches humility because someone may be better.  It teaches resilience because things don’t always go our way.  And it teaches respect because our opponent isn’t an obstacle to the experience — the opponent makes the experience possible.  When kids are taught these things, competition generally improves their mental health rather than creates mental health problems.

None of this means we should stop keeping score, eliminate rankings, or discourage kids from dreaming about being the best.  Competition without the desire to win isn’t really competition.  But winning should be part of the experience, not the only thing that validates it.  Maybe the lesson young athletes need isn’t that being #1 doesn’t matter, it’s that they don’t have to be the best for competition to bring out the best in them.

drstankovich.com

The post Ranked, Rated, and Compared: The New Pressure of Youth Sports appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

Today, here’s a reasonable question: Does anyone actually know who’s eligible anymore?

Major changes in amateur sports

College athletics has undergone such dramatic change that athletes seemingly appear for fifth, sixth and occasionally even longer years.  Transfers are commonplace, and COVID eligibility extensions have lingered for years.  Court decisions have challenged traditional NCAA restrictions, and athletes can now make substantial money through NIL, work with agents under certain circumstances, explore professional opportunities and, depending on the sport and situation, and return to college afterward.

And now the NCAA is changing eligibility itself.  Beginning with athletes entering college in fall 2027, Division I is moving away from the familiar four-seasons-within-five-years model.  Under its newly adopted age-based system, student athletes who enroll on the traditional timeline can potentially compete throughout a five-year eligibility period. For current student athletes and those entering during 2026-27, schools may apply either the previous rules or the new model, whichever is more favorable to the athlete.

Think about that for a moment.  For generations, four seasons was one of the fundamental assumptions of college athletics.  Now even that is changing.

Professional opportunities have become more complicated as well.  Division I men’s basketball players, for example, can receive advice from NCAA-certified agents while evaluating NBA opportunities without necessarily sacrificing their remaining college eligibility.  And beginning in 2026, certain prospective athletes can enter an opt-in professional draft once, withdraw by the required deadline and still retain college eligibility.

None of this means student athletes are doing anything wrong, it’s the entire system that has dramatically changed.  For student athletes, if the rules provide another year of eligibility, why wouldn’t an athlete use it?  If transferring creates a better opportunity, why wouldn’t someone transfer?  If athletes can make money or explore professional opportunities without forfeiting college eligibility, they would be foolish not to consider those options.

The problem isn’t the athletes — it’s the system trying to define what college athletics is anymore.

And there is considerable irony in watching the NCAA struggle to come to terms with the new landscape.  The NCAA is an organization that historically became synonymous with rules — sometimes absurdly specific ones.  For decades, schools worried about improper benefits, contact with agents, recruiting violations and whether relatively trivial advantages might jeopardize an athlete’s eligibility.  The NCAA seemingly had a rule for everything.  Today, however, NCAA rules are inconsistent, change regularly, and when implemented lack consistency.  We now regularly watch court decisions, settlements and challenges force changes to many of the boundaries the NCAA once controlled.  Even transfer-related restrictions have resulted in additional eligibility relief for some athletes.

Final thoughts

While college athletics seem to be quite the mess today, the NCAA appears to recognize the problem.  In announcing its new eligibility system, it specifically described the goal as creating standards that are simpler, clearer and more predictable.  Many would argue college athletics desperately needed modernization, and that student athletes deserved greater freedom, mobility and the opportunity to benefit financially from the enormous industry they help create.  For decades, the NCAA was criticized for having too many rules, but today we may now have the opposite problem.

drstankovich.com

The post The NCAA Used to Have a Rule for Everything. What Happened? appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

Doctors wear white coats.  Judges wear robes.  Police officers wear badges.  Obviously, these people aren’t pretending to be something they aren’t.  But the clothing, titles, symbols, and accessories associated with their roles communicate something important to everyone around them — and perhaps just as importantly, to themselves.  Psychologists have even studied something called “enclothed cognition,” the idea that what we wear can influence how we think, feel, and behave.  Clothing can reinforce identity, confidence, belonging, and expectations — and nowhere is this more obvious than sports.

To look good, or play good?

There was a time when joining a youth baseball team might have meant receiving a T-shirt and a hat.  Today, particularly in competitive youth sports, joining a team can mean multiple uniforms, custom helmets, batting gloves, arm sleeves, team backpacks, warm-up gear, personalized water bottles, and perhaps even a professionally designed social-media announcement.  Before playing a single game, a 10-year-old can look remarkably like a professional athlete.

Kids competing in youth sports get excited about the swag they receive, and that’s perfectly normal.  Uniforms create belonging, and wearing team colors strengthen team and individual identity.  Getting that first great-looking jersey can make a kid feel really great about himself.  Simply looking like an athlete may even help a young person begin thinking and behaving like one.

But there’s also an interesting psychological question worth asking:  At what point does looking the part become more important than actually doing the part?

Because the real work of being an athlete usually isn’t nearly as exciting as a colorful sports bag.  It’s practicing fundamentals over and over.  It’s showing up when you don’t feel like it and sitting on the bench sometimes.  It’s losing games, working on weaknesses, and practicing when nobody is watching.  There’s no swag bag for any of that.

Perhaps this is where our modern version of cosplay becomes problematic — not when we enjoy the symbols associated with an identity, but when those symbols begin substituting for the behaviors that supposedly define it.

Final thoughts

Maybe all of us engage in a little identity cosplay.  We surround ourselves with clothing, titles, credentials, possessions, and symbols that tell the world something about who we are.  Most of the time, there’s nothing wrong with that.  These things can strengthen confidence, create community, and remind us of roles that genuinely matter.  The problem comes when displaying the identity becomes more rewarding than living it.  With youth sports today, would as many kids still play if there were no swag bags, social media posts, and expensive gear?  Does an empty court/field, ball, and opportunity to play still outweigh all the fancy apparel kids receive today?

drstankovich.com

The post When Looking Like an Athlete Matters More Than Being One appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

Today’s major college sports have many of the characteristics we traditionally associated with professional sports.  Athletes can make money through endorsements, appearances, social media and other name, image and likeness (NIL) opportunities.  College athletes can use agents and marketing professionals to help manage those opportunities.  And following the House v. NCAA settlement, participating Division I schools can now provide substantial financial benefits directly to athletes.  At some point, we have to ask an obvious question: When does college sports simply become professional sports?

Are college and pro sports the same?

Consider how the college “amateur” system now operates.  Universities compete vigorously for talented athletes.  Players consider financial opportunities when deciding where to attend school.  The transfer portal allows athletes greater freedom to move between programs, sometimes multiple times during their college careers.  Schools can assist athletes with NIL opportunities, and athletes who satisfy academic requirements generally have much greater freedom to transfer and compete immediately.  The similarities to professional free agency are difficult to ignore.

If an athlete chooses one university partly because the financial opportunity is substantially better, how different is that from an NFL or NBA free agent player choosing another franchise?  If schools compete for talent by promoting the financial opportunities (i.e. NIL) surrounding their programs, is that still traditional recruiting—or has it become professional free agency?  And if athletes are increasingly encouraged to make decisions based upon their own economic interests, should fans continue expecting the old-fashioned concept of loyalty to a particular school — even if the college athlete has more lucrative deals from other schools?

None of this necessarily means paying college athletes is wrong.  In fact, there was always something contradictory about the old system.  Universities, conferences, television networks and coaches could participate in an enormous commercial enterprise while the student athletes responsible for the on-field product faced significant restrictions on their ability to profit from their own popularity.  Coaches could leave for better opportunities and enormous contracts.  Universities could sign lucrative television and sponsorship agreements.  Athletes, however, were expected to view their participation primarily through the lens of amateurism, and gladly accept their partial/full-academic scholarship as more than enough in exchange for helping the university make millions of dollars directly from their on-field contributions.

Perhaps what we are witnessing isn’t the destruction of amateur college sports as much as the inevitable conclusion of what college sports had already become:  A second professional sport league.

Final thoughts

Universities wanted the television contracts, corporate sponsorships, luxury facilities, enormous coaching salaries, merchandising and massive audiences associated with professional sports.  Eventually, it became increasingly difficult to justify maintaining that enormous commercial enterprise while insisting that the people actually playing the games remain amateurs.  In other words, continue to work for free.

Perhaps college sports have not changed dramatically on the field, but the college economic model has fundamentally changed.  Maybe that’s neither good nor bad, but simply reality.  But if college sports look like professional sports, generate money like professional sports, recruit like professional sports, compensate athletes like professional sports and increasingly operate according to the same market principles as professional sports, perhaps the more interesting question isn’t whether college sports are becoming professional.  Maybe it’s time to acknowledge that they already are.

drstankovich.com

The post College or Pro Sports? The Line Has Never Been Blurrier appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.

There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this. Team gear creates excitement, travel tournaments produce lasting memories, and wearing matching apparel helps athletes feel connected to something larger than themselves.  The question is whether those things have quietly become the main reason why some kids choose to play.

Gear, or the game?

Would your child still want to play if there were no custom hoodie?  No personalized backpack?  No flashy uniforms?  No out-of-state tournaments?  No social media photos showing off the latest team apparel?

If the answer is yes, wonderful.  If the answer is no, perhaps it’s worth asking what exactly the child is signing up for.

Psychologists have long understood that people naturally seek belonging, identity, and status.  Uniforms, logos, and team apparel help satisfy those needs and tell the world, “I’m part of something.”  Travel sports organizations understand this as well, and have adopted marketing strategies similar to premium consumer brands.  The uniforms become more stylish, the gear more exclusive, and the overall experience more attractive.  Increasingly, some organizations appear to be selling not just baseball, softball, soccer, or volleyball — but a lifestyle.

Somewhere along the way, youth sports became an experience to wear rather than simply a game to play.

Think about what often appears on social media after a tournament weekend.  More often than not, the photos highlight the airport, the hotel, the team hoodie, the championship ring, or the new backpack.  Rarely do we see posts celebrating the countless practices, the slow improvement of skills, or the quiet satisfaction that comes from simply becoming a better athlete.

None of this suggests that team gear is the problem — the concern may be one of priority.

Imagine two travel programs with two very different offerings:

Program A:  offers outstanding coaching, strong player development, and experienced instructors—but older uniforms and fewer extras.

Program B:  offers average coaching but incredible uniforms, endless team gear, destination tournaments, and a strong social media presence.

Which program would most families choose?  Are fancy uniforms and hype social media posts more important than great coaching and instruction?

Final thoughts

The irony is that the things young athletes tend to remember most years later rarely involve the backpack or the hoodie.  They remember the friendships they built, the coach who believed in them, the lessons they learned after losing, the excitement of improving, and the joy of competing with teammates they cared about.  The gear eventually wears out.  The memories don’t.

Perhaps the best youth sports experiences are the ones where the uniforms, travel, and swag simply enhance the experience rather than define it.  After all, the greatest reward from youth sports shouldn’t be what’s hanging in the closet after the season ends, but instead the love of the game, life skills learned, and amazing memories that remains long after the jersey no longer fits.

drstankovich.com

The post Are Kids Playing for the Game…or the Gear? appeared first on The Sports Doc Chalk Talk with Dr. Chris Stankovich.