technology, engineering, and math) education. STEM jobs are growing at a faster rate than non-STEM jobs in America, but the US education system is not producing a sufficient number of graduates in the field (Rosen 2013). American students are far below many of their foreign counterparts in math and science performance. Losing in this important education race cannot be entirely blamed on the overemphasis of athletics and their place within the US educational model, but the athletic-centric model does have an impact, and its role in undermining education at all levels can no longer be ignored.
In their groundbreaking book The Game of Life, Shulman and Bowen (2001) found that college athletes participating in all types of sports tend to underperform academically and that this is even more pronounced in higher-profile sports like football, basketball, and ice hockey, most notably in the NCAA’s lower divisions. While the more notorious academic issues are usually at the top Division I level, this study showed that even the more participatory and allegedly less athletically competitive levels in college sports also show numerous academic deficiencies. Meanwhile, this has not changed in the top division, as the most recently reported NCAA trends show lower graduation rates in high-profile sports: consistently, high-profile academic scandals almost always involve high-profile sports.7
The cost of increased spending on athletic programs at all levels of education in America has put severe stress on many institutions in their efforts to deliver effective academics. America’s overall health and well-being are dependent on educational leadership that can help promote an educated and skilled citizenry. Can removing or reducing the stress on our academic infrastructure caused by an emphasis on competitive athletics increase academic primacy and effectiveness? This book offers that it can and will, but in order to remove or reduce that stress we must provide sports development opportunities outside the educational system.
HOW DIFFERENT SPORTS DEVELOPMENT AND SPORTS DELIVERY SYSTEMS WORK FOR THE ELITE ATHLETE
Both the US and European systems can produce elite athletes who go on to very prominent athletic careers. How athletes navigate through the two systems is different, yet many of the outcomes are the same. For example, Dennis Schröder and Jabari Parker are young, talented basketball players who each ultimately made it to the National Basketball Association (NBA), for the Atlanta Hawks and Milwaukee Bucks, respectively, but came from entirely different sports development and educational backgrounds.8 Schröder started his career in the German sports club system, whereas Parker was a product of the American educationally based model.
Parker played basketball at all levels of the education system in Chicago, Illinois, most notably at Simeon Career Academy, a public high school in the city’s South Side neighborhood that has long been noted for its ability to produce elite basketball talents such as Parker, Nick Anderson, Ben Wilson, and Derrick Rose, to name a few.9 Parker only played one year of college basketball as what is now commonly called a “one and done” player—usually a highly elite prospect who will play college basketball for one year to make it to nineteen, the minimum age to declare for the NBA draft. This minimum was instituted in 2005, ostensibly to prevent high school players going directly to the NBA, as was increasingly being done by influential young superstars like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. The thought behind the rule was allegedly to encourage, if not mandate, that elite basketball athletes go to college even if only for one year, in order to have some exposure to higher education before jumping to the NBA. What cannot be ignored is that this is also a prime year of athletic development and maturity for many athletes. Theoretically, this NBA rule was governed by the most recent collective bargaining agreement between the National Basketball Players Association (the NBA players’ union) and the owners. While that is technically correct, it is hard not to notice the monetary and competitive benefits for both the NCAA and NBA to having a rule like this. The NCAA gets superstars, if only for a year, and the NBA gets players one year older and one year better after playing in a very good and competitive development system.
Incidentally, this basketball development system is both cost-free to the NBA and a massive revenue source for the NCAA, considering that almost 96 percent of the NCAA’s national office budget comes from television and corporate sponsorship revenues generated from the hugely popular NCAA Division I men’s basketball tournament, also known as “March Madness.”10 How the absurdity of a rule like this impacts elite sports development and what little integrity may remain in American educationally based sports, while at the same time preventing an athlete like Parker from being able to maximize his earning potential, is discussed more fully in later chapters. In my opinion, rules like this are a major example of why our current systems need to be changed, to evolve, and to provide more choices for both the elite athlete and our citizenry.
Schröder, on the other hand, developed his skills through the German club sports system, not in his local school system, on a path similar to what is offered elsewhere in Europe and in other countries. Identified as a potential elite athlete shortly after taking up basketball at a young age, he moved from the mass-participation sports clubs in the area around his hometown of Braunschweig, Germany, to the elite developmental basketball teams that serve as feeders for the top divisions of Bundesliga basketball. As an elite athlete he was able to focus on basketball at a time when his skills were at their peak. He still attended school while working his way up through the feeder clubs, and advanced schooling was often provided on-site at his clubs (a very common arrangement in Europe for higher-level clubs). Thus, education was still an important part of his total development package. For Schröder, the main difference from the US model was that he was not constrained by arbitrary academic standards that could have limited his ability to compete, or that could have led him into a substandard educational experience just to maintain his eligibility. In European systems, success (or failure) in academics is really up to the individual. There is no motivation on the part of either players or teams to violate academic standards because academic eligibility is not a requirement—nor is it needed, as the bulk of the sports development system lies completely outside formal educational borders.
Schröder eventually played his way to the top club basketball team in Braunschweig, the Bundesliga first division Phantoms, before being drafted in the first round of the 2013 NBA draft, the same as Parker. While Schröder did not attend college in the United States or university in Europe, he was still able to reach the highest level of professional basketball competition in the NBA. If Schröder wants to attend college at some point in his life, he can certainly do it after his playing career is over. In the meantime, the separation of club sports from the German secondary school and university systems was not an inhibitor to his education.
These two players present similar outcomes for two elite players from two different systems, with this one specific difference: one sports development system is embedded in the education system, with specific academic requirements needed to compete, and the other is separate and distinct from the educational model. Both systems have their benefits along with their negative points. In many ways, it is difficult to say which model is better for producing elite athletes or for presenting athletic, exercise, and entertainment opportunities to the masses. There could be a healthy debate, if one were forced to make an absolute choice between one or the other, but that is not the focus of this book. Instead, I intend to explore several alternative sports delivery models for both elite athletes and citizens in the United States, both inside and outside the current educationally based model.
LACK OF OPTIONS
Currently, American sports development is essentially governed by an educational system that is highly restrictive for the athlete but beneficial to many others. Many athletes, most notably in football and men’s basketball, are virtually forced into this model to maximize their development and potential advancement to the big-money world of professional sports. While there are some alternative paths in other sports, such as baseball and hockey, educationally based sports are still the primary “feeder” system for participation at higher levels. This has helped create a situation where a few organizations and people—highly paid coaches, conference offices, television networks, corporate partners—control the narrative for many athletes in the United States,
