Massachusetts just needs ~30 young people

A bold proposal from Will Austin

Will Austin writes:

In youth sports today, it is customary for a reasonably active kid who really likes a team sport to just stop playing when he or she hits 13. I respect the need and desire to field competitive squads, but the current system doesn’t cut kids from teams. It cuts them from sports.

That was not the case in previous generations. Churches, neighborhood associations, clubs, and local businesses self–organized and offered opportunities to play, regardless of ability or background, well into the teenage years.

The most competitive, memorable youth sports experience I have ever had was on a St. Greg’s CYO basketball team. I played on “better” teams in basketball and other sports, but nothing matched the fun I had on a team that was no-cut, loose, and everyone had a chance or two to shine. We were even pretty good.

Before we go further, let me tell you about Will Austin.

He was one of the best math teachers I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot. Circa 2005 maybe? Kids would arrive to his classroom with really weak math priors and just…vault up.

Then Will became a school leader, co-leading Roxbury Prep when its co-founder, John King, went off to other things (eventually becoming US Secretary of Education).

He would moonlight for us at Match, coaching young teachers.

And these days he is the go-to guy writing about the Boston education scene.

And Will has a reasoned take here:

Just as we can’t fault institutions for fading, we also can’t cast blame on the youth-sports industrial complex.

You aren’t going to stop parents from spending money on their kids, any less than you can stop a company from taking that money. If some families want to spend more money for their kids to play sports, let them. I bet a lot of them are having fun.

But, hey, blaming corporations for our problems is great rhetoric (just ask Senator Warren and President Trump). It is wrong to conflate real issues of monopoly and exploitation of consumers with market results we simply don’t like. Blaming private equity for ruining youth sports and or even the Red Sox is convenient and sort of funny, but ineffectual.

And Will offers an ambitious yet pragmatic idea here:

Massachusetts just needs ~30 young people.

Out of our many local colleges and universities, the Commonwealth could hire recent graduates, young women and men who just finished competitive athletics, and hope to continue in the field as a career. Maybe they are motivated to give back or create access like USA Soccer’s Tyler Adams.

These ~30 people have one job: make leagues and teams. Leverage the interests and assets of assigned local communities to find out what is missing and what could be expanded or stood up in its place. In one town it may be more flag football; another, it may be tennis lessons.

The real-value add comes recruiting and helping coaches. Volunteer coaches are the limiting factors for community leagues because you can only have as many teams as you have adults that can commit their time (of which parents and guardians have little). It can be an immense amount of work for volunteer coaches to make schedules, communicate, manage car pools, let alone run practices. Some work can come off volunteers’ plates, or even be solved through templates and AI tools. Saving time and providing some guidance and training would go a long way to recruiting the adults needed for a league.

And, of course, you need kids to play. Who better to recruit them than an excited recent college graduate who is giving out free, cool stuff?

With just a nudge of time and relationships, leagues and teams can sprout up. Once up and running, they can be remarkably durable and scalable. One example: Parkway Soccer had its season closing weekend last Saturday. 56 recreational teams played, with kids and families from Jamaica Plain, West Roxbury, Roslindale, Hyde Park, and Mattapan. For $75 you get 20 games, 20 practices, a shirt, and a fun time, with a crowd as diverse as any World Cup watch party.

Plausible? Yes.

Back in 2004, our little charter high school recruited 44 recent college grads for a fellowship year, basically full time tutoring for room and board. Worked well. By 2006 we had 1000+ applications per year (shout out Ross Trudeau!).

It was a different era. Teach For America had spawned a public service ethic among many college seniors. But still. I think that spirit is still there but perhaps latent.

Up2Us Sports does a version of Will’s idea. They run an AmeriCorps program, ~180 coaches across the country, that places young people as coach-mentors at community organizations.

AIR did an evaluation, though non-experimental, and found improvements in fitness, discipline, and positive identity among the kids served.

Different model if I’m reading it right. Up2Us drops a fellow into, say, a Philly rec center that already runs youth basketball. Kids are already there. The outcome variable is something like “quality of experience for kids who were already participating.”

Will’s 30 are doing something different. They are not improving the existing stuff. They are building leagues that do not exist for the 13 year old sports dropouts that Will described. The outcome variable is participation itself, specifically hours of structured sport per year by teenagers…who were otherwise heading to the futon and their phones.

What Will Austin is proposing is both brilliant and plausible. What an experiment. Precisely how many years of joyful and productive and active teen hours can 30 yearlong “Sports Starting Fellowship” people create?