ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, October 26, 1996 TAG: 9610280007
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: HARRY F. HAMBRICK JR.
YOUR NEWS article (Sept. 30, ``Middle school sports: a tough call'') about the athletic programs in Roanoke city middle schools reports about a policy with which many people involved in local youth sports, including myself, disagree. This policy in effect takes the competition out of competitive team sports and establishes equal participation, regardless of ability, for middle-school athletic teams.
The policy is wrong. It was adopted, I believe, without broad-based input from the community. It promotes weak athletic teams in the middle schools, and it will inevitably weaken high-school athletic programs and diminish the chances of young athletes to win athletic scholarships. It hinders the morale and school spirit that is fostered by school teams that are permitted to be as good as they can be.
The rationale for this policy appears to be that our children at this age may be unduly troubled, their development arrested, if they don't "make the team'' or if they don't play as much as other kids. There doesn't appear to be any psychological or sociological evidence to that effect. The truth is most children of this age bear such disappointments much better than do their parents because children are very aware of the differences among them in athletic ability. It's also true that athletic development is a function of natural ability and practice, and isn't promoted by artificially equating playing time among players of unequal ability.
I doubt the thought would even occur to many academics to suggest that this anti-competition policy should apply equally to the academic world. Yet surely far more children are troubled by their inability to make grades that meet their or their parents' expectations than by inability to make a team.
Should we encourage "participation rather than competition" in academics? If a child attends school every day, and does his homework and schoolwork, should he or she make the same grades as everybody else who similarly participates? Of course not. So, why has this anti-competition policy even been suggested for team sport, an educational endeavor that is also by its nature competitive?
Opposition to competitive sports is advanced in part by parents who have good intentions but perhaps expect too much for their children. Many of these parents promote an environment that produces children who can effectively compete for grades. This same environment often offers so many opportunities that it spreads children thin, leaving them less able to compete in athletics. Time spent in front of the television, playing computer games, at music lessons or other social or extracurricular activities is time not spent playing ball, developing strength and hand-eye coordination.
The point isn't that those other activities are less important than sports. But if a child or parent wants to include or emphasize those activities, one cannot reasonably expect that child to be as good as a child who has athletic ability, and who spends his or her time on the playing fields. And a parent does a child no favor by supporting artificial rules of participation that ignore that other child's ability and effort.
More importantly, it's grossly unfair for the kids who have athletic ability. Athletics may be their only chance to shine. These athletes not only want to shine individually, but they want to be part of teams that have a chance to excel. At age 13 or 14, these athletes have already been involved in sports for years. They want and deserve real competition, not some kind of participatory playfest.
Those who attack competition at this age level talk about the "win at all costs" attitude. They are right to oppose this attitude, but wrong to suppose that it predominates in competitive sports. The point isn't winning at all costs but trying to win. The point is the preparation, effort and the process of trying. This teaches our children valuable lessons about life - the satisfactions that come from ability and effort, team play, being able to accept losing when you have done your best.
Playing a competitive team sport is about putting your best players on the field to enable the team to try to win the game. It's about players of lesser ability contributing when and if their talent helps the team to try to win. When it all comes together to produce a good team, it can be an experience that kids will remember for the rest of their lives.
I agree that kids with low or undeveloped athletic ability should have an opportunity to play, but not at the expense of the integrity of the sport, and not at the expense of the kids who have athletic ability that they wish to develop. If there is that much demand in the middle schools for team sports, then the schools should consider an A team and a B team. And those parents whose children are on the B team should accept and support that in the same way that parents whose children aren't in Governor's School continue to support their children's academic education.
One reason why people love competitive sports is that, at its best, it's a true merit system. Unlike the worlds of politics, business or academe, ability in competitive sports is measured in ways we can all understand. The ability to hit or throw a baseball, to shoot a three, to work magic with a soccer ball - these athletic abilities are there for the world to see, and they are every bit as wonderful as the accomplishments of a young mind. We should promote and respect ability in sport for the very reason that it's true, and cannot be purchased or artificially created by changing the rules of fair competition.
Harry F. Hambrick Jr., a Roanoke lawyer, has coached youth sports and has been involved in sponsorship of youth teams.
LENGTH: Medium: 95 linesby CNB