The Sports Doc Chalk Talk

Sports officials sometimes take a lot of heat for missing calls, and rarely get the appreciation they deserve for when they hustle and call a great game.  On this video I delve deeper into what you should expect from amateur sports officials, as well as remind you that these folks are “human” and will occasionally miss calls.  This summer be sure to show your appreciation to the officials that referee your child’s sports games!

www.drstankovich.com

Check out The Parents Playbook, designed to help ALL sports parents maximize the youth sport experience!

Players don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care

That quote is one that has been around for a long time, although the author of it is in question (I have seen it attributed to a number of different people).  Regardless of who first coined the phrase, it’s one that every coach should think about when developing their own unique coaching philosophy (Sport Success 360).  Borrowing from the field of sport psychology, it’s clear that when players feel respected they are far more apt to pay attention to the coach, and they increase their motivation and mental toughness as a result.

Think about it for a moment – people care a lot less about your knowledge in most cases than they do your authenticity and true intentions. Similar to how we often hear the music before we take in the lyrics of a song, human beings more quickly “tune in” to see if you have their better interest in mind before they make an appraisal of your knowledge base.

Some coaches are masterminds of the X’s and O’s, but don’t seem to “connect” with their players.  Other coaches, however, might be light on the strategies of coaching, but terrific at building strong relationships with players on the team – often propelling them to believe in themselves and reach new athletic heights as a result.

How a coach builds rapport with his players is a unique experience, but if he has genuine and true intentions the steps needed to do this really don’t need to be scripted.  What I mean by this is that as human beings, it seems we have a built-in homing device when it comes insincere communication.  With that said, coaches who truly believe in their players don’t really have to do anything except be their genuine, caring selves.

Developing plays and running practice drills are certainly important, but perhaps the biggest job for any coach is to build the trust necessary for his players to believe in him, and more importantly, through that coach-player relationship come to believe in themselves. It is in these moments where players will push out another set in the weight room, run another lap on the track, and study a few more minutes of film.  Players who believe in their coach increase personal motivation, have more fun playing, and develop mental toughness for when times are tough.

Think about the significance of developing strong interpersonal relationships with the players you coach and watch how your team blossoms – if you need some help, check out our popular “Peak Performance for Coaches”audio pro0gram!

www.drstankovich.com

Over the weekend an interesting article ran in the New York Times (How Big Time Sports Ate College Life), highlighting the growing concerns that college sports, especially football and to a lesser degree basketball, are quickly becoming the focal point of many of America’s finest institutions.  The article asserts that increasingly more students are choosing their college primarily based on the success of the football program, often overlooking the supposed real attraction of why people should go to college in the first place – for the the academics. The colleges, on the other hand, seem happy to acquiesce by spending millions of dollars on athletics, as well as building bigger and fancier sport venues.   The question, however, is the same one that seems to come up time and time again — that is, what are American colleges these days, institutions of higher learning or sports entertainment (with some academics on the side)?  Sport and society within the realm of college in America has never been so interesting to dissect.

Reasons to Continue Spending Big $$$ on College Sports

The biggest arguments for the rapid and continued growth of college sports include:

A) they generate excitement, and therefore attract more students, and

B) they generate revenue.

There is no disputing that college athletics can do both of these things, but these arguments become more interesting the deeper you delve into them…

With respect to generating excitement, it seems as though college sports have always done this, even before all the big money. In fact, at Duke, the Cameron Indoor Stadium holds less than 10,000 fans, yet is still one of the most exciting places in America to catch a game.  Interestingly, Duke has decided to not expand their venue over the years and instead keep it small by today’s standards, essentially losing millions of dollars each year as a result.  This is very different than most colleges today who routinely add as many seats as possible in order to generate every last potential dollar.

The truth is that even when college sports were not so glitzy and glamorous, students still went nuts and supported their respective teams fiercely — and students in the past still wanted to go to big-name universities even before they dumped tens of millions more dollars into their programs.

The Costs of “Selling Out”

When it comes to generating more revenue by bulking up an athletic department, it’s hard to argue that bigger college sport investments usually equal bigger college sport revenues.  The problem, however, are the costs associated with what some would call “selling out” in order to make every last buck.  What are the consequences with students, professors, and alumni who feel the academic pursuit and standards have been terribly compromised just in order to have a better football team?  And how must professors feel when college presidents justify huge coaching salaries by gushing over the money their football coaches bring in, when in fact professors (who make pennies on the dollar in salary compared to coaches) often bring in big bucks of their own to the university through research grants?

Why Not Gambling Casinos, too?

Continuing on with the argument about the good in endlessly dumping money into college athletics is the question of the ‘ole “slippery slope.”  As it becomes more and more clear that colleges seem to be willing to do almost anything to have a good football team, what’s next?  Would placing gambling casinos next to the football stadium be such a bad idea?  Wouldn’t they guarantee revenue if a college decided to put a few around campus?  Gambling is legal in most states today, it generates excitement, and offers odds that only the house can win!

Will We Ever Go Back?

It will be interesting to see if any college presidents in the future decide to put a halt on the growth of college athletics while re-emphasizing that colleges are about academics first and foremost.  Critics have argued that it will be impossible to “put the genie back in the bottle,” and they may be right.  Still, many people would like to see college priorities go back toward emphasizing and supporting academic pursuits before athletic endeavors, even if the odds of this happening appear bleak.

My guess is that the current model of prioritizing athletics before academics in terms of spending will not change until it absolutely has to, and it’s hard to say when that will happen.  In all likelihood, something will eventually happen — some watershed moment where reasonable minds will prevail and begin to discuss going back to a pecking order that more reflects what the word “university” was meant to be.  I say this as I suspect there will eventually be a backlash by university professors, administrators, and students at some point, perhaps through social media efforts to unite or some other concerted way to illustrate their unhappiness with their perceived devaluing of academics.  Will the money in athletics become the primary focus of universities in the future, or will see a shift back to prioritizing academics first?

www.drstankovich.com

Last week Aaron Rogers, star quarterback of the Green Bay Packers, did something many sports fans would like to do.  More specifically, he called out the absurdity of sports “experts” who build their career doing nothing more than finding extreme and shocking ways to build their audience and increase their ratings.  Rogers specifically called out one of the more polarizing ESPN talking heads, Skip Bayless, claiming that his comments are purposely outlandish, specifically designed to get people to tune in to the program.

Today’s sports media landscape could easily consume several chapters in an introduction to sport psychology textbook, as there seemingly as many experts and television/radio shows as there are athletes and sports teams.  In addition to the growing number of sports programs for fans to check out, there’s also a behind-the-scenes battle amongst these experts to drive ratings.  It is at this sad juncture where Aaron Roger’s calling out of Skip Bayless makes perfect sense (and was long overdue).

Why all the negativity, anyway?

The media business is dependent on ratings in order to attract sponsorship for advertising.  So how do you increase ratings?  One way is to be as extreme, controversial, and argumentative as possible.  The more obnoxious the better it seems, as sports fans seem to pay more attention to sports entertainers like Bayless, Jim Rome, Stephen A. Smith, and the Sports Reporters crew than they do the propeller head analysts with far less flare (John Clayton anyone?).

Aaron Rogers said what a lot of people would like to say if they only had the voice, even if he made his comments in a rather subtle way.  Rather than come out and call Bayless a jerk (interestingly, he didn’t even name Bayless), Rogers merely pointed out the absurdity of how desperate Bayless (and ESPN as a network) is to drive ratings, so much so that it only pays today to find the silliest, strangest, or most controversial angle to every story.  One can presume from Rogers’ comments that he would prefer less flash and flare from guys like Bayless, and instead more substance focused on the stories.  Unfortunately, that approach doesn’t seem to attract as many viewers in the minds of the folks in the think tank at ESPN.

More problems – or just more people reporting the problems?

Rogers comments may also serendipitously shed light on an even bigger question in sports today: Are there really more bad stories in sports today than in the old days?  Prior to the ESPN generation of 24/7 sports, there were not media outlets to pounce on every transgression, ethical violation, and police arrest as there is today.  Is it me, or does it seem as though the folks at ESPN sit around the police scanner anxiously awaiting the next athlete to do something dumb, wrong, or illegal so that they can jump all over it from the early morning (Mike & Mike show) through mid-morning (First and Ten) to later in the afternoon when LeBatard hands off to Rome who hands off the Around the Horn, wrapping up with PTI which then segues into ESPN SportsCenter.

As ESPN continues to fan the fire with their strongly opinionated experts, many of the stories they report seem to grow legs of their own, and in some cases become even bigger stories simply because of the increased media attention and absurd histrionics played up by the reporters who talk (scream?) about the stories.

Good for you, Aaron Rogers, for calling out the silliness of what some ESPN experts will do in order to attract viewers and corporate sponsorships (and at the same time make themselves relevant enough to remain on TV).  Some fans have already grown tired of the played up theatrics from guys like Bayless, and it’s likely more fans will feel this way in the future as they try to keep up with sports stories while having to endure through the outlandish folks reporting the stories.

www.drstankovich.com

As the end of summer youth sports nears, many families are nervously awaiting to learn whether their young athlete has been selected to be a member of his or her leagues all-star team.  At the same time, coaches across the country are faced with the dubious task of making critical, often subjective, appraisals about which kids should make the all-star team (AHPS). As with any selection process, errors, oversights, and omissions will occur – sometimes resulting in hard feelings between families and coaches.  The strife some families feel during the all-star selection process is often blamed on the “politics” of sports (Sport Success 360).

The “science” behind all-star selections

While the field of sport psychology has allowed us to learn many powerful skills to enhance athletic abilities, it has yet to yield a cook-book recipe for coaches when it comes to all-star decisions.  In other words, there is no science – only each coach’s own ability to evaluate talent while maintaining a level of integrity in the process.  What this means is that while there are always some statistics to examine, individual comparisons are never “apple-to-apple.”  The “X” factors that include mental toughness are rarely captured in a box score, yet coaches often use these factors when evaluating talent.

Many parents become upset and disenfranchised by the all-star selection process because they subjectively see their child as better than he or she really is — and/or they don’t see the talents of another athlete who was chosen over their son or daughter.  Additionally, while its not the norm for coaches to purposely pick only the kids they personally like (politics), this does occasionally occur (though not nearly to the level upset parents think).

The reality

Selecting all-stars can be a brutal task for coaches and league operators involved in youth sports, as it is inevitable that some deserving kids will be left off teams while other seemingly less talented kids will end up making all-star teams.  Similarly, many parents struggle accepting the news that their child has been left off a sports all-star team, and in some situations feel as though their child was “done wrong” in the process.  Since this disconnect happens so regularly, I have provided a few quick tips for both coaches and parents so that the all-star selection process goes smoothly and with fewer problems around how the kids were selected:

What coaches can do

• Try to use as much objective data as possible.  Statistics like goals scored, batting average, fielding percentage, and stolen bases are examples of data you can use to not only help in the selection process, but also to offer up when people question your decisions.
• Take time to critically evaluate the kids.  Of course, some all-star selections will be quite easy, but after the first couple of kids it usually gets a lot tougher to discern the small differences between kids.  When you consider the heartfelt responses that usually follow all-star team selections, it certainly warrants that you take the process serious and do your homework when making decisions.
• Vote on players.  Leaving the decisions up to just one coach is never a good thing, so be sure to have multiple sources available to offer opinions.
• Be respectful when announcing the team.  Keep in mind that as soon as the team is announced there will be some families who feel as though their child was treated unfairly, and may even let you know about it.  Be sure to prepare for this and try to be understanding if you get approached by a distraught parent, keeping in mind their level of hurt seeing their child left off the team.

What parents can do

• Understand just how difficult all-star selections are for coaches!  At every level of sport competition we see criticism around what players make the team and what players don’t.  Keep in mind all the unseen variables coaches often take into account (i.e. hustle, team needs, particular position needs, etc.), and try not to immediately use the excuse that “politics” were to blame.
• Talk to your child (if he or she didn’t make the team) about stress, failure, and adversity – and how they can be used for motivation and future success.  Many kids come back the following year and make the all-star team because of the motivation they developed after missing the team a year earlier.
• If you feel it’s important to learn more about why your child didn’t make the team, be sure to remain respectful and considerate toward the coach.  It’s always better to ask about what areas your child can improve in for the future rather than argue why your child should have made the team over another kid who was selected.

Help your child succeed on and off the field – check out our ever-expanding line of peak performance products for student athletes, coaches, and parents!

www.drstankovich.com

Bruce Pearl is out as the head basketball coach at Tennessee, a decision made by the university after it was revealed that Pearl had previously lied to NCAA compliance investigators about his communication with recruits. Jim Tressel, head football coach at Ohio State, is currently in a very similar situation, as he has recently admitted to withholding information from the OSU compliance department that would have led to the suspension of several key players for the start of the 2010 college football season. Interestingly, while Tennessee has found Pearl’s actions to be worthy of terminating his contract, Tressel has instead been lauded with hearty praise from both his university president (Gordon Gee) and Athletic Director (Gene Smith).

These stories are puzzling to the sport science world, including sports psychology leaders, sports sociology experts, and various sports leadership personnel – not to mention fans.Why has Pearl been dropped by Tennessee while Tressel has been maintained by Ohio State? While their charges are not exactly the same, they are considered by experts to be similar enough to make reasonable comparisons about their respective punishments (by the NCAA and their individual schools). Both coaches have now admitted to their actions – yet one man is now unemployed, while the other is still overwhelmingly backed by his superiors.

All this leads to the “million-dollar” (pun intended) question: How can one coach be fired, while another coach commits a similarly serious offense and is maintained by his university?  Reasonable minds would assume that either both coaches should have maintained their coaching positions, or both would have been relieved of their jobs.Admittedly, I don’t fully understand the discrepancies that exist when it comes to coach misconduct and the severity of penalties that follow.  So, in my best scientific attempt to try and make sense of this puzzling question, I offer the following theoretical algorithm to assess the likelihood a coach will be maintained in the aftermath of admitting to NCAA violations:

Things that help a coach keep his job (add one point for each of the following):

• Winning – Conference and national championships go a long way, as do victories against your arch-rival (see OSU-Michigan results for the last 10 years).

• Revenue – College teams that win usually help with ticket sales, as well as profits in apparel sales, too. Coaches who make the university money stand a much better chance of being retained in the midst of NCAA violations.

• Public appearances – Coaches who take time to speak at luncheons, visit hospitals, and do other types of charitable work often cultivate big fan bases – leading to more people who will attend games and spend money.

• Distinguished look and strong communication skills – Coaches with clean cut images who speak well in interviews are generally liked by the public — which again leads to a greater fan base, and more revenue for the school.

• Emphasis on “life skills” and academic success – Even though everyone knows that coaches get paid to win games (not graduate students, unfortunately), fans still like to hear buzz words like “life skills development” and “improved graduation rates.” While I have never witnessed a coach get a pay raise for helping with personal growth development and academic success, fans do like to think that the players they root for are “good guys” who will later go on to properly represent their university once their playing days have ended.

Things that work against a coach keeping his job (subtract 2 points for each of the following):

• Losing – A pretty obvious factor when it comes to coaches keeping their jobs. While a winning coach might weather an NCAA compliance storm, a coach who has been losing of late (or playing below expectations) will almost always serve as the sacrificial lamb (enter Bruce Pearl). Losing programs lose fans, and when fans stop attending games and buying team gear the college loses money.

• Blatantly breaking NCAA rules* - Actually, this is a “maybe,” depending on whether your school is on the NCAA black-list, or if it appears as though your school responsibly stepped up to the allegations once they became public. Currently, Ohio State is receiving a lot of heat pertaining to this, as most fans feel as though OSU’s initial self-penalty hardly fit the crime.

• Personal misconduct* - Again, this is another “maybe” when you think about it. While it would seem pretty obvious that coaches who break the law, get arrested, or act out in irresponsible ways would be fired immediately upon receiving additional NCAA compliance charges — if the coach is a winner he or she may still survive an NCAA scandal. Remember, winning = money.

So thats my rough math — its now up to you to decide the consequences each coach should have faced.

www.drstankovich.com

The Sport Success 360 online coach training course is now live, and is designed to conveniently help youth sports coaches learn and respond to a variety of on and off-field psychosocial issues and concerns.  The course was designed using the Sport Success 360 sports leadership curriculum, and will help coaches prepare for a variety of issues they are likely to face, including youth sport burnout, playing time, role modeling, performance supplements, hazing, playing time, controlling emotions, communicating with parents, travel leagues, plus much more!

Advantages of Sport Success 360 Coach Education Certification Course:

• A comprehensive training course that uses a unique psychosocial approach to help build positive interpersonal relationships with kids, parents, and coaches.
• Easy to understand tips, insights, warnings, and advice — practical training coaches can use every day for on and off-field success
• Unlike other training courses that are time-intensive and cost-prohibitive, Sport Success 360 can be completed in less time and at an affordable price.
• Leagues can have their entire coaching staff certified easily from the comfort of their homes.
• Can be used as a great compliment to league background checks on coaches.
• Sport Success 360 training course also includes a free download to Sport Success 360 (the book), as well as Sport Success 360 Plus (the advanced audio program).  This means that coaches will be able to reference the educational material not only at the beginning of the season, but throughout their entire coaching career.
• Reduces league exposure and may qualify for league insurance discounts

As youth sports leagues continue to face new and emerging trends, it is important to equip coaches with the skills and knowledge needed to appropriately handle negative and dangerous situations.  Sport Success 360 allows entire leagues to develop a healthy and positive sports culture — leading to healthy and positive experiences for kids.

www.drstankovich.com

Today is Martin Luther King Day, and ESPN has already begun running stories looking at the progress, or lack thereof, of black athletes in sports (including management). Racial equality is a very important issue in the field of sports sociology, and ESPN is to be commended for making efforts to raise awareness of sport diversity issues and help minority athletes and front office personnel have the same opportunities as white people do.

While we as a society have made tremendous progress since the days of segregation, there is still much work to be done. The good news is that since Jackie Robinson first broke the color line in baseball, black athletes have continued to make positive progress in sports, as evidenced by their increased presence both on the field as well as in management. Of course, things are far from perfect today, but there is a very visible, positive trend since the 1950’s that shows much better efforts being made to ensure all people, regardless of skin color, have opportunities to compete on the field and eventually one day in the front office. Still, continued efforts in professional sports must happen if the ultimate goal is total equality.

As a research scientist, I enjoy analyzing empirical research studies so that I may evaluate objective data and better understand current situations, trends, and likely future events. One of the great things about examining scientific studies is the objectivity that is used when measuring things, like the attitudes people hold of certain issues. It is in this spirit that I actually have a major concern about how ESPN is currently using some data pertaining to race and attitudes in their current MLK programming.

In my opinion, the Hart Research Associates online survey that ESPN is currently referencing has a major, fatal flaw in research design that may have a dramatic effect when evaluating how sports fans will respond to their findings. I don’t have any problems with the demographic data they report (like the number of minority owners in sports), as those numbers are derived by simply counting how many times something occurs. Where I do have serious concerns, however, is how the study portrays the attitudes that whites and blacks hold toward various white and black athletes.

In one section of the survey results, dramatic differences were reported regarding how differently athletes were viewed between races. For example, Michael Vick reportedly had only a 25% favorable rating from white fans, but was liked by 65% of black fans. These figures were mirrored in other black-white athlete comparisons, with black athletes consistently ranked higher by black fans. Herein lies my issue with the current study.

Please keep in mind my following observations of this study have nothing to do with the actual participants, but are instead based on what I believe to be a critical flaw with how the data for this study was collected. In other words, you could substitute the terms “red and blue” or “x and y” for black and white — my hope is that readers will, for the moment, put aside all the qualities and characteristics that exist between whites and blacks, and instead look deeper at the issue that I have found with this study.

The ESPN study clearly shows that there are major differences between how white fans and black fans view white and black athletes. According to their statistics, white fans appear to have far less interest in cheering on black athletes than they do athletes of their own skin color – but is this assumption really accurate? One thing that jumped out to me when looking over this report was the fact that black fans didn’t dislike any black athletes, something that would certainly catch the attention of savvy researchers. In other words, the generalizability of this data may be terribly compromised if one set of subjects (i.e. black fans) do not show any disliking of athletes of their own skin color, but an over-interest in black athletes. What this could mean is the seemingly lower percentages of favorability white fans show toward black athletes may not be that dramatic, and that the over-identification and favoritism black fans show black athletes may be what is at play in making white fans look biased in their fan support. Interestingly, white fans polled in the survey showed both a liking to some white athletes (i.e. Tom Brady) and a dislike to others (i.e. Ben Roethlisberger), but the lowest ranked black athlete by black fans was Terrell Owens – and the difference between black fans and white fans was still quite dramatic!

Research findings must be closely analyzed before jumping to big conclusions, which is my fear when it comes to the current ESPN survey. To illustrate how easily research findings can be misunderstood and interpreted, take the following two examples:- What if you just read that 90% of American people did not believe in marriage? Would you have second thoughts about one day getting married? How about if you learned that the sample of people used for this study were all divorcees? Would you change your mind, and think maybe the people being surveyed had bad marriages, therefore prompting them to have strong negative feelings about marriage? This example shows how important it is to have unbiased samples.

Using a second example, how would you feel if you just read that 2 out of 3 dentists recommend a specific type of toothpaste to ward off cavities? Assuming those figures represent 66% of dentists, most would agree that the toothpaste they recommend must be really good to use, right? OK, but how would you feel if only 3 dentists were used in the study – would that lessen your trust of the results some? Studies that use a small sample size can throw off reality, as you can see in this example.

There is no doubt race equality is an incredibly important topic in America today, and people of all racial backgrounds should have equal opportunities to pursue employment. The ESPN study, while admirable in one sense in that it raises awareness, also concerns me deeply because of the sampling procedures used. I am concerned that some of these figures will actually fan a fire that may not be there, and actually exacerbate problems that may not exist. Their data would be much more believable if there were examples of black athletes that black fans disliked, which would offer more credibility and objectivity to the findings. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case — and because of this it is likely more Americans will see white fans as having prejudice toward black athletes, which may or may not exist (meaning the current study certainly doesn’t prove or disprove that assertion). Similarly, it’s hard to believe all black fans like all black athletes – instead, it is likely a knee-jerk reaction by the subjects polled to defend their own, which led to the unusual differences between groups.

Ironically, the statistics provided in the Hart study may actually reveal deeper, equally meaningful information.  For example, if black fans really do favor all black athletes, is this a knee-jerk response to strong feelings held against white people?  One way to interpret the data of the study is to assume white fans like black athletes a lot less than black fans do, while another way to examine the same data is to assume that black fans like black athletes at a disproportionate rate because of other, outside factors.  Admittedly, this is a tough subject to broach with so many people having strong feelings about race relations, but it is still important that we do have these conversations.  If the goal is to treat all people fairly, then we must continue this dialogue with the hopes of fixing the things that are broken, while at the same time being careful when interpreting data so that we dont add more problems that might not even be there in the first place.

www.drstankovich.com

These days nearly every student athlete has a Facebook page, and for most kids the content they choose to post is fun, harmless, and safe (Sports Success 360). When kids use Facebook to talk about the events in their lives (including sports), and upload game pictures and video files, the idea of social networking can be a really enjoyable endeavor. Unfortunately, not all kids think through the impact and negative consequences of posting information that others might find offensive and degrading, and as a result run into future problems stemming from the content they posted on their social networking page.  When this occurs, coaches begin to question and doubt the leadership style and role modeling abilities of the student athlete.

Facebook and other social networking tools are terrific in many ways – at minimum they give users the freedom to show their personality to the world, and communicate with people they might not otherwise if it weren’t for social networking. Kids usually enjoy sharing their lives with friends, and Facebook allows for so many interesting and unique ways to do just that. Problems can occur, however, when kids don’t think through the ramifications of some of the content they post, as the impressions others develop of them may be compromised if irresponsible content is posted. Consequently, some kids may lose future college athletic opportunities, scholarships, or relationships with others due to poor oversight of their social networking page.

Kids today need to know that many people see their daily activities and sports leadership abilities on social networking pages, even if they are not aware of this. In fact, it is quite common today for college coaches to do Google searches on student athletes they are recruiting, as well as check out their Facebook page. While on-field athletic potential is a big part of earning an athletic scholarship, character plays an equally important part — meaning that a youngster with questionable comments and pictures on his Facebook page will likely lose future opportunities because he is viewed as a “high risk.” While this may not be fair, it is a reality.

If you are a coach, parent, athletic administrator, or student athlete, please keep in mind the following tips when it comes to social networking:

Language. Probably the biggest problem kids have when it comes to Facebook is the graphic and slang language that is often used. While most kids would never speak with coarse language in front of their parents, teachers, or coaches, with Facebook it is easy to use whatever language you want. It should be no surprise, then, that kids often use curse words, controversial and suggestive acronyms, and various other sexual/alcohol/drug references and innuendo. Always keep it clean and stay away from rude language, racist or other stereotypical remarks, or any other comments that portray a negative self image.

Pictures. Similar to language, visual images can cause big problems for kids as well. Again, kids will often post pictures of things they would never want their parents or other adults in their lives to see, including sexually-charged images, drug/alcohol party pictures, hazing, and a variety of additional pictures that most would find to be in poor taste. Be sure that the pictures you post are of good taste and portray you as a responsible and goal driven individual!

Drug/alcohol comments. Many kids think it’s cool to post comments and pictures that reference drugs and/or alcohol. In some instances, blatant pictures and references are posted, while in other examples references are made (like seeing a group of kids cheering with plastic cups that are commonly associated with keg parties). Aside from the fact that it is illegal for kids to use, party pictures will never win over future college coaches when they sit down to examine personality traits pertaining to leadership, responsibility, and decision making.

Bullying/hazing. In some instances kids have been found to post images and written entries pertaining to bullying and hazing on their Facebook pages. This is a very big issue today, as bullying in schools is receiving more attention than ever before. Similarly, hazing is also a big problem and can lead to school and legal consequences. While kids might think it is funny to post pictures of another student athlete being taped to a goal post, or posting threatening messages on their Facebook wall, both of these examples can lead to big problems – as well as future missed college athletic opportunities.

It is vitally important that you comb through your social networking pages and try to look at your page content through another person’s eyes. Would you see things differently? Does your content suggest that you might not have the maturity needed to succeed at the next level? Is there content posted that could come back to haunt you, or possibly lead to family, school, or legal problems? Could some of your content be taken the wrong way, or give the impression to others that you live a wild and out-of-control life? Perhaps most important, does your page accurately show all the good things about you, like your success in the classroom, volunteer efforts, sport success, or other activities you are involved in at school?

It is imperative that parents have access to their child’s social networking pages to ensure appropriate content is being posted. The consequences today are great when it comes to potentially lost or missed opportunities simply because of poorly thought out Facebook posts, making it important to take social networking seriously.

www.drstankovich.com