For those who know me well, my stance on this issue is nothing new. I have always believed that the earliest that colleges and universities should be allowed to offer student athletes an athletic scholarship is the beginning of 9th grade. One function of High School is to prepare teenagers to become productive adult citizens, and a college scholarship can be a factor in that. However, prior to that time, I think that as adults we owe it to kids to allow them to enjoy their childhoods without unneeded pressures from influences outside of family and friends. A scholarship offer to a middle schooler (or elementary schooler) creates a false sense of security, and causes many student-athletes to misplace their priorities.
I wrote this particular post as a response to the fact that the one program which I actively cheer for, the University of Washington Football program, had just taken a commitment from a 14 year-old quarterback from San Diego, who was about to enter the 8th grade. I am a UW alumni and at that point was a strong supporter of our coach at the time. There are currently no NCAA rules against making the offer, but I think in this case our head coach was in the wrong.
Imagine peaking at 14. Imagine that at 14 years of age you were once considered the best, and you never were again. I'm not saying this is going to happen to this particular child, but it could. This can lead to many mental health issues like anxiety and depression as well. As a society, unfortunately we have accepted it. USC constantly offers scholarships in basketball (football has as well) to athletes before they reach high school, and nothing is done about it. A lot can happen in five years, and as other athletes develop, then either side can lose interest in the agreement. I understand the argument about commitments being non-binding, but at that age, why commit at all? Rival schools are not going to back off because a 7th grader made a specific school choice. Everyone knows that the commitment probably won't last that long, and the child will become enamored with other schools, or he fails to live up to his 'athletic potential.' He will spend much of the rest of his life failing to live up to what he once was, which will be a cause of a less than happy childhood or adult life (See: Ryan Leaf, Demetrius Walker, Brian Bosworth, Michael Avery, etc...). Additionally, a student-athlete that goes through their childhood expecting to be a great sports star will most likely be lacking in many educational opportunities that youth provides. This sort of thing doesn't need to happen to kids, and the negative impacts far outweigh the positive benefits. If a student-athlete is still good enough, he will be there to be offered when they reach 9th grade. If they still like your school, they can commit then.
Consider this, what negative impacts would there be if the NCAA began allowing Universities to begin offering scholarships to student athletes after the beginning of their high school careers? Would schools have a better understanding of how the kid will develop and turn out? Yes. Would this take pressure off of middle schoolers to be perfect and exceptional? Yes. Would this keep student athletes from reaching their 'glory days' before they can drive? Most likely, yes. Does the NCAA have anything to lose by doing this? No. No school will rescind membership and flee to the NAIA because they can't get a verbal from Johnny the 7th grader. As you can see, there is nothing to lose and a lot to gain by proposing an age rule for offering scholarships.
However, that will lead us to our next problem. Parents (like the one of the 2017 UW commit), will begin homeschooling their kids and holding them back in middle school so they can become more physically mature. In actuality, they want their kids to play against and be compared to younger kids in order to make their child look better. If that happens pre-high school, the NCAA can't do anything about it.
Either way, the NCAA needs to step forward and set the right example. Set a minimum grade limit for when Universities can offer scholarships, and set it at the beginning of 9th grade. Like I said, there really is nothing to lose.
For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels
I wrote this particular post as a response to the fact that the one program which I actively cheer for, the University of Washington Football program, had just taken a commitment from a 14 year-old quarterback from San Diego, who was about to enter the 8th grade. I am a UW alumni and at that point was a strong supporter of our coach at the time. There are currently no NCAA rules against making the offer, but I think in this case our head coach was in the wrong.
Imagine peaking at 14. Imagine that at 14 years of age you were once considered the best, and you never were again. I'm not saying this is going to happen to this particular child, but it could. This can lead to many mental health issues like anxiety and depression as well. As a society, unfortunately we have accepted it. USC constantly offers scholarships in basketball (football has as well) to athletes before they reach high school, and nothing is done about it. A lot can happen in five years, and as other athletes develop, then either side can lose interest in the agreement. I understand the argument about commitments being non-binding, but at that age, why commit at all? Rival schools are not going to back off because a 7th grader made a specific school choice. Everyone knows that the commitment probably won't last that long, and the child will become enamored with other schools, or he fails to live up to his 'athletic potential.' He will spend much of the rest of his life failing to live up to what he once was, which will be a cause of a less than happy childhood or adult life (See: Ryan Leaf, Demetrius Walker, Brian Bosworth, Michael Avery, etc...). Additionally, a student-athlete that goes through their childhood expecting to be a great sports star will most likely be lacking in many educational opportunities that youth provides. This sort of thing doesn't need to happen to kids, and the negative impacts far outweigh the positive benefits. If a student-athlete is still good enough, he will be there to be offered when they reach 9th grade. If they still like your school, they can commit then.
Consider this, what negative impacts would there be if the NCAA began allowing Universities to begin offering scholarships to student athletes after the beginning of their high school careers? Would schools have a better understanding of how the kid will develop and turn out? Yes. Would this take pressure off of middle schoolers to be perfect and exceptional? Yes. Would this keep student athletes from reaching their 'glory days' before they can drive? Most likely, yes. Does the NCAA have anything to lose by doing this? No. No school will rescind membership and flee to the NAIA because they can't get a verbal from Johnny the 7th grader. As you can see, there is nothing to lose and a lot to gain by proposing an age rule for offering scholarships.
However, that will lead us to our next problem. Parents (like the one of the 2017 UW commit), will begin homeschooling their kids and holding them back in middle school so they can become more physically mature. In actuality, they want their kids to play against and be compared to younger kids in order to make their child look better. If that happens pre-high school, the NCAA can't do anything about it.
Either way, the NCAA needs to step forward and set the right example. Set a minimum grade limit for when Universities can offer scholarships, and set it at the beginning of 9th grade. Like I said, there really is nothing to lose.
For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels
No comments:
Post a Comment