[Mick]

A very undervalued reason for football participation rate decline is mentioned in that article. That is the focus on sports specialization, which people who understand body physiology and exercise science, believe to be unwise.  Oh the irony.

Another in my old-guy list of peeves. It is delusional in almost all cases to think your kid is going to get a scholarship by playing soccer (or fill in the blank) 12 months a year with practice, camps and travel teams. The vicarious living by these parents is also pretty ugly.

I don't know that I'd agree.  In my day (late 1970s), I played on a bad high school football team, a bad high school basketball team and a bad high school track and field team.  I was marginally competent in all of them, though even at the time I wondered what skill level I would achieve had I stuck to one sport year-round.

I am one of those weirdo parents who paid for my sons to play a club sport year round.  The practices, camps and travel teams in non-revenue sports serve a variety of purposes, scholarships are just a small part.  In that sport, there are about 100 partial scholarships per year between NCAA D1, D2 and NAIA teams.  While there are 13,000 senior boys who play high school ball, the 700 (give or take) who play club volleyball as seniors are the athletes who make up the college teams.  

There's an enormous difference between a club player and a high school player.  I guarantee you that most Stanford athletes participated in club sports year round in high school.  In fact, the high school season is relaxing, it's less work and the competition level isn't as great. Club players and high school players really aren't comparable.  

But it isn't just about the scholies. There are other considerations.  In part, it's gaining admittance.  The cliche in my sons' sport is that the first 100 (scholie) athletes get recruited, the next 500 recruit themselves.  I knew my son wasn't going to get a scholarship, but I knew he could play at that level.  For his sport, the following schools had programs: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, NYU, MIT, USC, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz.  I contacted every coach at those teams when my eldest was in 8th grade; every coach except the Harvard coach responded positively with an e-mail and instructions on how to position my son going forward.  That meant my son sent two emails each year to the college coaches.

By the time he was a junior and had some success, he was recruited by Stanford, Harvard, Princeton and UC-San Diego.  He would have been the absolute last guy off the bench at Stanford.  He didn't click with the UCSD coach.  Harvard wanted him, but couldn't give him a "likely" letter (basically a letter of intent at the Ivies) because they were reserving those letters for a different position than the position my son played.  So...Princeton.  And my younger son went through the same rigmarole and also wound up at Princeton.

There are also financial considerations. Many colleges offer significant discounts to athletes.  One of my son's club peers paid $17k for a $51k education at a California private school, as long as he played.

BTW, I agree that concentrating on one sport can lead to repetitive stress injuries.  My son had one, had surgery, fixed it up. Younger son had back and knee injuries.  Without the sport, they don't go to Princeton.

As far as the nut job parents, yes there are a few of those.  I'm fairly certain I saw one in the mirror every morning... ;) .

For me, the worst part was the club owners. But that's a story for another time.

[Mick]

A very undervalued reason for football participation rate decline is mentioned in that article. That is the focus on sports specialization, which people who understand body physiology and exercise science, believe to be unwise.  Oh the irony.

Another in my old-guy list of peeves. It is delusional in almost all cases to think your kid is going to get a scholarship by playing soccer (or fill in the blank) 12 months a year with practice, camps and travel teams. The vicarious living by these parents is also pretty ugly.

I don't know that I'd agree.  In my day (late 1970s), I played on a bad high school football team, a bad high school basketball team and a bad high school track and field team.  I was marginally competent in all of them, though even at the time I wondered what skill level I would achieve had I stuck to one sport year-round.

I am one of those weirdo parents who paid for my sons to play a club sport year round.  The practices, camps and travel teams in non-revenue sports serve a variety of purposes, scholarships are just a small part.  In that sport, there are about 100 partial scholarships per year between NCAA D1, D2 and NAIA teams.  While there are 13,000 senior boys who play high school ball, the 700 (give or take) who play club volleyball as seniors are the athletes who make up the college teams.  

There's an enormous difference between a club player and a high school player.  I guarantee you that most Stanford athletes participated in club sports year round in high school.  In fact, the high school season is relaxing, it's less work and the competition level isn't as great. Club players and high school players really aren't comparable.  

But it isn't just about the scholies. There are other considerations.  In part, it's gaining admittance.  The cliche in my sons' sport is that the first 100 (scholie) athletes get recruited, the next 500 recruit themselves.  I knew my son wasn't going to get a scholarship, but I knew he could play at that level.  For his sport, the following schools had programs: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, NYU, MIT, USC, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz.  I contacted every coach at those teams when my eldest was in 8th grade; every coach except the Harvard coach responded positively with an e-mail and instructions on how to position my son going forward.  That meant my son sent two emails each year to the college coaches.

By the time he was a junior and had some success, he was recruited by Stanford, Harvard, Princeton and UC-San Diego.  He would have been the absolute last guy off the bench at Stanford.  He didn't click with the UCSD coach.  Harvard wanted him, but couldn't give him a "likely" letter (basically a letter of intent at the Ivies) because they were reserving those letters for a different position than the position my son played.  So...Princeton.  And my younger son went through the same rigmarole and also wound up at Princeton.

There are also financial considerations. Many colleges offer significant discounts to athletes.  One of my son's club peers paid $17k for a $51k education at a California private school, as long as he played.

BTW, I agree that concentrating on one sport can lead to repetitive stress injuries.  My son had one, had surgery, fixed it up. Younger son had back and knee injuries.  Without the sport, they don't go to Princeton.

As far as the nut job parents, yes there are a few of those.  I'm fairly certain I saw one in the mirror every morning... ;) .

For me, the worst part was the club owners. But that's a story for another time.