I write a lot about my distaste for early sports specialization here on the blog, and I like to think I’ve examined it from a number of different angles. That said, I usually focus on the decision of an athlete and his/her parents in this context, but I rarely discuss the situational factors that may govern these decisions. Two perspectives to which I haven’t paid much attention are the significant impacts that school size and geography have on young athletes’ likelihood of specialization. This is something I’ve been pondering more and more as we open the new Cressey Sports Performance in Jupiter, FL.

Mike Robertson pointed out the school size aspect in his Elite Athletic Development Seminar DVD set, and it really got me to thinking. If you go to a small school and are a good athlete, chances are that you are going to “automatically” be a starter on three different sports teams during the academic year, as they might need you to actually be able to even field a team. Thinking back, my high school graduating class had about 180 kids. One sport athletes really couldn’t exist if we wanted to be competitive over all three high school seasons. Not surprisingly, I never had a classmate go through Tommy John surgery, and I can count the number of ACL injuries I saw in my high school years on one hand.

Conversely, if a kid goes to a school with 800 kids in his graduating class, specialization is much tougher to do. If you’ve got 150 players trying out for the baseball team (and budget cuts are eliminating freshmen and JV teams left and right), you better be spending more time preparing for baseball, if that’s your long-term aspiration. The “reward” is higher (more exclusive), but the risk has to be higher as well. In a situation like this, we almost have to ask whether it’s better to have a kid that tries out for – and proceeds to get cut from – three teams, or if we’d rather have guys specialized along one course so that they can at least stay involved in organized athletics by actually making a team. I don’t think there is an easy or even correct answer, but I do think we have to be cognizant of the challenges facing kids at larger schools.

Geography certainly plays into this as well. As an example, it’s much easier for baseball players in northern states to play basketball, too, because basketball season simply takes place while the snow is on the baseball fields. In Massachusetts, the high school baseball season starts on the third Monday in March, which is several weeks after basketball wraps up, in most cases. Conversely, high school baseball actually gets underway in Florida during the month of January; playing basketball is virtually impossible logistically. And, if fall sports go all the way until Thanksgiving, we’re really dealing with a situation where kids might only get an eight-week off-season to work on their fitness and more sport-specific preparations.

We might not be able to change these factors, but we find ways to work around them. It might mean getting an athlete to play recreational basketball instead of “official” school hoops, if schedule won’t allow the “real thing” to happen. And, it might mean that we need to work harder in our strength and conditioning programs to create an even richer proprioceptive environment where athletes are exposed to a wider variety of movements if these scenarios “force” them toward increased specialization.

As hackneyed a phrase as it might be, “Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it.” I’d say that geography and school size certainly fit in the 10% category when it comes to early sports specialization; we all need to continue to improve on the 90%, though.