Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 15663
Youth sports: Is the deck stacked against 1/3 of our kids?
11/19/2008 at 9:52 AM
The new book "The Outliers - The Story of Success" came out yesterday. Having read Malcolm Gladwell's other two, I had to get this one.
The first chapter broaches a topic that can really get one thinking.
In it they profile the 07 WHL Champion Medicine Hat Tigers and make note of the fact at the jaw dropping percentage of their players that were born in the early months of the year.. January, February, March and April.
He goes on to dissect things further, examining how in youth hockey kids are divided up by birthyear. He makes the very plausible case that at younger ages, a kid born in January can be a lot more mature than a kid in the same age group born in December. Often that January-born kid stands out more, gets the advantages that better players get and has a better chance at developing and eventually earning that hard-to-get WHL/OHL/QMJHL spot.
It's hard to argue with him when you look at the rosters of WHL teams. This year's Wheat Kings for example have 14 players born in the first 4 months of the year, 11 combined over the other 8. And the kicker... only one born after September (Matt Calvert). The top team in the league, the Calgary Hitmen.. 12 of their 23 players are from Jan-April and only 1 after September. Vancouver Giants, 3 after September. There are exceptions (Spokane Chiefs have 6 after September), but if you look back historically there is an unmistakable trend. This is not to reflect on these teams since all they can do is pick from the most advanced, WHL-ready players that the system provides to them. It would be tough to blame youth sports organizations too since they're only doing things the way they've been done for decades.
He goes on to suggest that we (and not just us, but European soccer and other sports) are wasting a lot of potentially good athletes by unintentionally stacking the deck against them. His suggestion is that at younger ages, we should be dividing kids further than just by year.
What do people think about this?
Is this a problem in the first place? If it is, what do you think is the best way to address it? Is the author's suggestion worth the extra administrative costs?