Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Just prior to the Super Bowl in 1993, a news conference was held by a coalition of women’s groups informing reporters of substantial evidence that domestic violence rose significantly (as much as 40 percent) on Super Bowl Sunday. The subsequent flurry of media attention resulted in this news becoming a “fact” (you’ll see why I have added the quotes shortly) in the psyches of professional football fans and detractors alike. It also led many people to affirm their belief, however inaccurate, that football fans were a bunch of knuckle-dragging misogynists who, out of frustration at seeing their team lose, beat their wives and girlfriends. However, several investigations reported by the urban-legend-debunking web site snopes.com demonstrated that “the claim that Super Bowl Sunday is ‘the biggest day of the year for violence against women’” was simply not true.

Now move ahead 18 years and a new scientifically rigorous study conducted by two economists offers compelling evidence that there is a significant link between the outcomes of professional football games and family violence (not the Super Bowl specifically), though only with certain game outcomes. Let me explain.

The researchers compared data compiled from the National Incident Based Reporting System of crime statistics from 750 law enforcement agencies with more than 900 NFL regular season game scores involving six teams (Carolina Panthers, Denver Broncos, Detroit Lions, Kansas City Chiefs, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans) over an 11-year period . But they went behind just wins and losses. They also looked at which team was favored, whether the opposing team was a traditional rival or in playoff contention, and whether the game was at home or away.

The results are disturbing, though not that surprising. The study reported that, in games that ended in an “upset loss” (the home team was favored to win by four or more points by the Las Vegas point spread), domestic violence spiked by ten percent. When the upset winner was a rival, domestic assault calls rose by 20 percent. These researchers are obviously real data hounds because they also reported that the rise in violence occurred when the fans’ teams were in playoff contention, were penalized significantly, and when the quarterback was sacked more than three times. Moreover, increases in reported violence occurred within a window of a few hours following the conclusion of the game.

Close games, away-game upset losses, and “upset wins” (when the home team wasn’t expected to win) didn’t have any impact on the rate of domestic violence. And there were no increases in violence by women against men.

I should note that this ten percent spike domestic violence is not nearly as high as that occurs on major holidays (New Year’s Day shows the greatest increase at 31 percent) and is about the same as occurs on hot days, another high point (or should I say low point) of family violence.

The researchers assert that emotional cues caused by the outcomes of NFL games have a significant effect on domestic violence, specifically the emotional shock and frustration that male fans experience when their team loses a game that it was expected to win. Additionally, they posit that the loss of control that occurs following their team’s unexpected loss can further trigger violent behavior. Though not addressed in the study, it’s also likely that the consumption of alcohol, a well-documented behavioral disinhibitor (sorry for the psych-speak), and the testosterone and adrenaline that often saturates the viewing environments of football games (sorry for the stereotype) may very well contribute to the increase in domestic violence.

What is particularly interesting, and perhaps controversial, is that they assert that “any difference between the rate of family violence following a win or loss as a causal effect (italics added by me) of the outcome of the game.” The researchers aren’t simply arguing that this relationship is just coincidental or correlational, rather they’re saying that the results of professional football games are the direct cause of the increase in domestic violence. They do, however, suggest that any activity that triggers strong emotional reactions, such as getting a speeding ticket, would have a similar effect. In conjunction with the theories they form the foundation of their analysis, they postulate that these scenarios increase the chances of such assaults occurring in families in which conflict is already present.

So what conclusions can we draw from this unsettling study? First, and I say this in dead seriousness, football fans need to get a grip and get a life. What causes the aforementioned emotional cues to have such a significant impact on fans is that they are so heavily invested in their teams. I studied fan violence a number of years ago and found that the line between fan and fanatic is crossed when fans “over-identify” with their teams, meaning their self-esteem becomes inextricably linked to the successes and failures of their team. Indications of this overinvestment may be in evidence when, for example, fans talk about “my” team or how “we” are doing, when their emotional reactions are out of proportion to the impact the team has on their lives, and when, I suppose, fans paint their houses the team colors.

I’m all for rooting for the home team. Following a favorite team is an exciting and bonding experience. And reveling vicariously in the team’s victories and mourning their defeats can be equally engaging. But when the line between being a fan and being a fanatic is crossed, that level of fandom strikes me as being pretty darned unhealthy. It should, at a minimum, be a sign to such fans that they may need step back, take a hard look in the mirror, and reflect on the role that watching football plays in their lives. At a maximum, these fans might consider finding fulfilling activities in which they can actually participate rather than just spectate.

Before I move on, I want to make it clear that I am not an authority on domestic violence, so the following suggestions are simply offered as common-sense steps for a very sad situation. Women whose husbands and boyfriends (or, for that matter, fathers, brothers, and uncles) are prone to violence should take this research to heart and ensure that they aren’t home for that short window of time following upset losses. It sure seems unfair that the onus has to be on the potential victims (e.g., find out who the team is playing, check the point spread, etc.) to avoid such egregious behavior; they shouldn’t have to live in fear of their significant others’ inexcusable behavior. But better control and proaction than falling victim to domestic violence.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

The New York Times Magazine had a cover story a few weeks ago that posed the question: Does college basketball matter? In answer to this rather existential question, I thought, well, it depends to which college basketball they are referring.

Are they talking about the game that’s “all about the Benjamins,” including exorbitant coaches’ salaries and shoe contracts (why, for heaven’s sake, should the coaches, not the schools, profit from these deals?), the sponsors of every item or space that could be sold, and the television contracts?

Are they talking about the shady recruiting practices that serve the coaches, the bottom-dwelling and predatory scouts, AAU coaches, summer camps, and boosters?

Are they talking about the fans who, in my view, care far too much about something that is really just a game?

Are they talking about the universities that seem to worry little about the graduation rates of its players (other than those enforced by NCAA rules and regulations), yet have tremendous concern for their piece of the conference and NCAA revenue pies?

Are they talking about college basketball that is about the one-year visit to a college campus by a wannabe NBA superstar because the NBA no longer allows players to turn pro out of high school, unlike every other sport, I might add (these players, who may have prodigious talent, but often lack the technical and tactical fundamentals of the game, are akin to the 40% of incoming college students who need remedial classes because they lack the basic skills to succeed in college)?

In other words, are they talking about a system that cares little about the student-athletes who actually play the game?

If that’s the college basketball that the article is referring to, then my answer is: Never has, never will. That game of college basketball doesn’t deserve my attention or interest, much less my fanatical absorption, even during March Madness. To devote my time and energy to such a corrupt game would be to legitimize and validate its worth in a world where my time and energy are needed elsewhere.

Or, are they talking about the game that allows young basketball players to pursue their dreams, whether a career in the NBA or a seat at the end of the bench on 68^th team to make it to the Big Dance?

Are they talking about the mid-major conference teams, such as Butler and VCU, that have been crashing the party and sending the big-name, much-hyped teams home with their tails between their legs?

Are they talking about the unsung heroes, such as Matt Howard, who show that fundamentals and selflessness can trump solo ball and ESPN highlight slam dunks?

Are they talking about the heart-stopping misses (and makes), the come-from-behind victories, the overtime wins, the nail-biting finishes that keep college basketball fans on the edge of their seats?

Are they talking about the wonderful experiences, powerful challenges, and life lessons that college athletics can add to students’ university lives (I can speak first-hand about its tremendous value)?

Are they talking about college basketball that understands its place in the grand scheme of life as a sometimes-compelling, though ultimately unimportant, form of entertainment and vicarious involvement that can be appreciated and enjoyed by anyone who chooses.

If that’s the college basketball that the article is referring to, then my answer is: always has, always will. That game of college basketball deserves my interest and attention. Though as someone who would rather participate than spectate, that interest will only be periodic and short-lived. But for real fans of this game of college basketball, more power to them and may the best team win.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Have you heard the name Mikaela Shiffrin? Not likely, unless you’re a big fan of alpine ski racing, a sport that only grabs America’s attention every four years during the Winter Olympics. Over the last decade, alpine ski racers have gotten their fair share of media coverage, thanks to the gold medals won by Bode Miller, Julia Mancuso, Ted Ligety, and Lindsay Vonn, the 2010 AP Female Athlete of the Year (and recent Sharon Stone impersonator).

Following in their footsteps is the 15-year-old Shiffrin. At least on paper, Mikaela may be the most phenomenal phenom ever. What, you ask? Greater than the young LeBron James? Comparatively better than the 16-year-old Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Martina Hingis, or Maria Sharapova? The only athlete whom I can compare Mikaela to is Tiger Woods who, at the same age, was overwhelmingly better than his peers (though other comparisons are best avoided!).

I realize I’m making a bold statement, but Mikaela may have the stats to support such an outrageous claim. She entered the international ski racing stratosphere last year at the Topolino Championships, a yearly event held in Italy that brings together the best 13- and 14-year-old racers from around the world. Now here’s where things get freaky and where my declaration may not seem so far fetched. Mikaela won the slalom (Lindsay Vonn won the same race in 1999) by an otherworldly margin of more than three seconds. For those of you not well versed in the sport of alpine ski racing, most races are won by hundredths of a second. More than three seconds against a field of the best young racers in the world? That’s an eternity in ski racing! Mikaela also won the giant slalom, but by a more pedestrian .11 seconds. At the Eastern US J3 Olympics (junior championships that attract the best American racers in that same age group from the East Coast) later last winter, she won the slalom by more than 11 seconds. Yes, you heard me right, 11 seconds! For those of you who know even a modicum about ski racing, that means she had crossed the finish line while the next fastest competitor was still five gates from the finish.

This season, being eligible to race in international competitions against an open field (any age group) for the first time, Mikaela’s has been nothing less than “en fuego,” placing in the top 15 in her first seven races against some of the best racers in the world, followed by four top-3 results that included two victories. What made these results all the more remarkable is that, unlike other sports where competitors compete under the same conditions (e.g., a tennis court is the same for both players), those in ski races don’t compete on a level playing field. Lower-ranked racers like Mikaela have to start farther back in the field, in her case, as far back as the 70s, when the snow conditions deteriorate from so many competitors skiing down the course. What this means is that it’s far harder to ski fast and be competitive against the top-ranked racers who have low start numbers and who benefit from near-ideal course conditions.

Undoubtedly, Mikaela, who is currently a student at Burke Mountain Academy in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont (my alma mater), is considered the “next big thing” of women’s alpine ski racing. But this post isn’t about anointing Mikaela as the next female superstar of alpine ski racing. We can’t place the crown on her head until she actually reaches the pinnacle of the sport. And, let’s be realistic, there are no guarantees; sports are strewn with “can’t-miss” kids who, well, missed.

Though her results at such a young age are astonishing to say the least, given my background as a former international-level ski racer (I was a “could-miss” kid who did) and my professional involvement in sport psychology, what fascinates me is what enabled her to rise so quickly and how she is so different from many phenoms from other sports, such as basketball, football, tennis, and golf, that we constantly hear about.

Additionally, though few young athletes will be phenoms or genuine superstars, I believe that much of what has made Mikaela successful can be of value to all young athletes (and students and performing artists) and their parents to help them fully realize their ability and achieve their goals. And, importantly, success-obsessed parents driven by the win-at-all-costs culture in which we live can learn some real lessons from Mikaela and her parents about how to raise a superstar athlete and great person.

I’ve been fortunate to get to know Mikaela in recent years. As a Burke Mountain Academy alum, I’ve worked with BMA racers on the mental side of ski racing of which Mikaela has been a part. Additionally, I’ve known Kirk Dwyer, Burke’s headmaster and her long-time coach (Adam Chadbourne has taken over her coaching this year), for many years. In writing this post, I draw on my own observations and interactions with Mikaela as well as several lengthy discussions with Kirk, Mikaela, and her mother Eileen.

The words that come to mind when I think about Mikaela are mature, humble, deliberate, calm, and grounded, not adjectives you would normally associate with a 15 year old, much less an athletic phenom. In fact, the words that seem to best describe so many phenoms we read about these days are cocky, spoiled, entitled, and irresponsible. It’s clear that who she is now is not only a reflection of her parents’ attitude toward her ski racing, but also their values and the way they have raised Mikaela.

So many parents of phenoms I have met had this maniacal look in their eyes, expressing their obsession with finding that pot of gold at the end of the sports rainbow. These parents’ lives become singularly devoted to realizing their children’s (and their own) athletic dreams. Like most early successes, Mikaela’s parents Eileen and Jeff were active in guiding her development. But, unlike many sport parents, my discussions with Eileen, a practicing nurse, found her to be unusually grounded in her attitude toward her daughter’s development as both a ski racer and, more importantly, as a person. And being a good person is more important to her parents than being a great ski racer (really!).

Yes, she and Jeff, an anesthesiologist, expect a lot of Mikaela, but those expectations are based in having a healthy attitude and giving her best effort. There’s almost no talk in the Shiffrin household of results, rankings, or future goals. Okay, Mikaela admits that she does have big goals, for example, winning World Cup races and Olympic gold, but they’re mostly unspoken, just running in the background of her psyche.

For many phenoms, their heads are so high and obscured in the clouds, thanks to parents, coaches, and other enablers, that they couldn’t see terra firma if they wanted to. In contrast, Mikaela doesn’t have a prayer of her feet becoming dislodged from the ground. When I asked Mikaela how she stays so grounded, she said that her parents are strict, they have a very close family and live a “small town” life, and she was always expected to be respectful and appreciative. Burke Mountain Academy has also played a big role in keeping her feet on the ground. Even with all of her successes, when she returns to campus, she’s just another student who has to attend classes, clean her dorm, and do kitchen duty. Unlike young superstars in other sports, Mikaela receives no special treatment and lives a pretty normal life. And, not surprisingly, she’s universally liked at Burke and on the racing circuit; she’s considered a good friend, a good teammate, and a good sport.

In our recent conversation, I asked Mikaela what her greatest strength as a ski racer is and, much to my pleasure, she said her mental approach (her coach and mother agreed). Mikaela owns her ski racing and her parents are only there to support her. That ownership gives her incredible motivation to achieve her goals; she’s the first one on the hill and the last one off. Rare among young athletes in my experience, neither Mikaela’s attitude nor work ethic has been tainted by her remarkable success. She is voracious for knowledge and improvement, and she’s a real student of the sport. Despite her great successes, she never rests on her laurels and is always looking for ways to go faster. As a result, Mikaela is eminently coachable and a joy to work with.

Not surprisingly, Mikaela is incredibly confident, never harboring doubts about her ability to ski fast. But her confidence is based not on her past results, but rather her past preparations.  And, remarkably, Mikaela has no ego; she’s humble, respectful, and considerate. Quite a contrast from other phenoms we encounter who are so full of ‘tude, bluster, and self-aggrandizement (all of which actually indicate a profound lack of confidence).

So, will Mikaela Shiffrin be the next female superstar of alpine ski racing? We’ll surely find out in the next few years. But as someone who has been involved in this and other sports at a high level for many years, I can say unequivocally that Mikaela, her parents, and her coaches are doing all the right things to help her realize her dreams. And one last thing I know for sure: whatever level of success she attains in her ski racing career, when it’s over, Mikaela will be who she is today: a great athlete and a great person.

Follow me on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. Watch my 2010 Winter Olympics Discovery Channel interview on fear in high-risk winter sports here.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

With the Wimbledon Tennis Championships just concluded, it is a joy to bask in the reflected glory of such superstars as Rafi Nadal, Andy Murray, Serena Williams, and Vera Zvonareva. Their stories are truly inspiring; the early commitment, the years of hard work, the difficult sacrifices to achieve their Herculean dreams.

The media place these stars, and the many young prodigies who preceded them — Andre Agassi, Monica Seles, Martina Hingis, Lleyton Hewitt, and Maria Sharapova — on a pedestal and the public worships them. Yet people don’t understand that these success stories are, for most children and their parents, a fairy tale that will never be told and, in many cases, a nightmare from which children may not awake until it’s too late. Tennis fandom and the world at large rarely see the other side of this relentless quest for the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of youth sports stardom. People don’t realize that, for every precocious talent, there are thousands of young prodigies in tennis (and other sports) with “unlimited potential” who never reach the pinnacle and often pay a severe price in its pursuit.

These young stars-in-the-making have parents who have a dream — perhaps better called a fantasy or an obsession — that their children can be one of the chosen few to gain the riches and celebrity of sports success. Their children are groomed from an early age to be superstars, but, whether because of a lack of talent, absence of desire and determination, or angry rebellion against their controlling parents, they don’t “make it.”

Having worked with hundreds of young athletes in tennis and other sports, some who reached the dreamt-about heights and most who didn’t, I have seen first hand the “dark side” of this relentless pursuit. I have seen a nine-year-old and her mother from a former Soviet state arrive at a Florida tennis academy with similar dreams as Maria Sharapova and her father. Over the next few years, she never attended school, trained up to six hours a day, and rarely smiled. When she lost practice matches, she cried inconsolably. When she played poorly, her mother would punish her by forcing her to skip rope for an hour in the evening or withholding dinner from her. At age 18, she is currently ranked in the 300′s on the women’s pro tour and has accumulated less than $20,000 in career earnings.

I worked with a 16-year-old internationally ranked player whose mother, during the course of a summer of tournaments, broke five of her racquets in a fit of rage following a loss, abandoned her after a loss at another event, and didn’t speak to her for a week after another loss.

I also worked with a player who had been one of the top juniors in the world and was touted as a future star. Driven maniacally by her father, she once asked me, “How can I possibly become successful at something that I hate so much?” After bouts of eating disorders and thoughts of suicide, she left the game, earned a law degree from an Ivy League university, is now clerking for a federal judge, and has never been happier.

Children should be allowed to dream big and to pursue those dreams with vigor. If children don’t reach for the stars, they won’t even get to the top of the mountain. And there are wonderful life experiences and lessons to be gained regardless of how far young athletes go. But parents and aspiring athletes should also know how incredibly unlikely it is that they will become superstars. Research has shown that there is about a 6-in-1,000,000 chance of their becoming professional athletes; children have a much better chance of becoming doctors and lawyers. Whether children should pursue sports stardom depends on whether they are the hopeful aspirations of the children themselves or the vicarious yearnings of their unfulfilled parents.

Too often, it seems the latter. A survey of the best-known tennis parents doesn’t paint a very rosy picture: Stefano Capriati, Damir Dokic, Jim Pierce, and Richard Williams. Williams raised his daughters (some have even said that he conceived them) for the sole purpose of making them tennis superstars. As Serena Williams said after her first U.S. Open victory in 1999, “It was my father’s dream and now it’s mine.” Are these parents ill intentioned? Probably not. They love their children and want the best for them. Are they misguided and perhaps themselves troubled? Quite possibly, as their own needs and dreams take precedence over the health and welfare of their children.

Though you rarely hear about them, there are good tennis parents out there, for example, those of Pete Sampras, Lindsay Davenport, and Roger Federer. Interestingly, their parents have been rarely seen throughout their long and successful careers. What makes these parents different are the reasons their children played tennis and the perspective that they have about their aspirations. The Samprases, Davenports, and Federers never had grand dreams for their children and they never put pressure on them to get results. They wanted their children to enjoy themselves, give their best effort, and be good sports and good people. Not surprisingly, all three have not only been tremendously successful, but they have also been some of the most respected and well-mannered players on the circuit.

What is the best way for parents to ensure that their children’s pursuit of athletic greatness will be worthwhile, regardless of the level that they ultimately achieve? Foremost, parents need to GET A LIFE! If parents have a life of their own that’s meaningful and satisfying, they won’t have to place the burden of their happiness on their children’s shoulders. Parents should also go under the assumption that their children will never be superstars in anything. This belief doesn’t mean that their children can’t achieve greatness (someone has to play on Wimbledon’s Centre Court), but it relieves them of the pressure that they must. If they have the ability and the desire, they actually have a better chance of becoming stars because they will play for themselves and for the love of the game. Finally, parents should ensure that, regardless of how far their children go in a sport, the end result of all their efforts is not victories and earnings, but rather essential life lessons that will serve them well in the “real world,” and, most importantly, joyful memories of their athletic experiences.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

So what do Tom Brady, LeBron James, Serena Williams, Tiger Woods, Usain Bolt, Annika Sorenstam, Michael Phelps, Lance Armstrong, and Lisa Leslie have that you don’t?

This question has been on the minds of many people of late with the recent publication of Malclom Gladwell’s Outliers and Daniel Coyle’s The Talent Code. If you have read these books, you might conclude that greatness has little to do with innate abilities – intelligence or inborn physical capabilities – and everything to do with motivation and circumstance. However, both authors are missing the obvious, particularly as it relates to sports: all of the mental strength and opportunity in the world won’t help if you’re not physically capable of performing at the highest level of sport. A teenage boy may have the best hook shot on Earth, but if he has only 5’ 10” genes, he will not be posting up in the NBA. As the former Utah Jazz coach Frank Layden noted, “You can’t teach height.”

But, of course, innate physical ability isn’t enough either. History is littered with “can’t miss” kids who, well, missed – “Did someone say Ryan Leaf or JaMarcus Russell?” Yes, you can get pretty far without it, but to be truly great, you must have it all: physiological gifts, opportunity, and, finally, the psychological capabilities to take full advantage of them. If you look at these three contributors to performance, you really only have control over the last one: your mind.

In my work with athletes, I’ve been able to identify the five most important psychological qualities that distinguish the Wayne Gretzkys and the Candace Parkers from the rest of us.

Drive

The problem with superstar athletes is that you see the final result – greatness – but not all of the hours they put in on the court, field, track, or road. Whether you call it motivation, determination, or commitment, the great ones have it in spades. They just work as hard as they possibly can. And that drive is usually propelled by intense passion for their sport; they just love playing the game. Maria Sharapova, for all her seemingly natural talent, was the first on the court and the last off when she was a kid.

Confidence

I’m not talking arrogance, cockiness, or ‘tude (Do you hear me, TO?). I’m talking about a deep and resilient belief in the great ones’ ability to achieve their goals. They just know they will succeed even though they don’t always. Back in the ‘80s, there was a poster of Michael Jordan taking a last second shot. The caption read something like: “I was given the ball 27 times with ten seconds left in the game and the winning shot in my hands…and I missed.” That didn’t stop him from wanting the ball and taking the shot. MJ believed he would make the next shot.

Calm

It’s obvious, the great ones know how to handle pressure; they stay cool, calm, and collected when others around them are freaking out. Imagine taking an exam or giving a work presentation in front of 80,000 people who are letting you know in no uncertain terms they want you to fail. Remember “The Drive” by the 49ers against the Bengals in Super Bowl XXIII in 1989? The Niners, down 16-13, had 3:10 to move the ball 92 yards to win the game. Quarterback Joe Montana looked at his teammates in the huddle, smiled, and asked if anyone had noticed John Candy in the stands, ESPN reported. Everyone laughed, the pressure was taken down a notch, and Montana completed what was perhaps the most famous of his 31 fourth-quarter comebacks in an NFL game. Montana definitely earned his nickname, Joe Cool.

Focus

You can see it in eyes of great athletes, like laser beams locked onto whatever they need to concentrate on to get the job done. They are totally focused, blocking out distractions, whether competitors, expectations, fans, nerves, conditions, past mistakes, or future results. Can anyone focus better than Tiger? In big tournament after tournament, against the best golfers in the world, when everyone expects him to win, Tiger puts his head down, his eyes on the ball and the ball in the cup.

Emotions

Ah, emotions: the last and most misunderstood piece of the athletic greatness puzzle. Emotions impact the great ones in obvious and surprising ways. First, what emotions come to mind when you think of Peyton Manning? Probably none. Ahead or behind, the guy is as stoic as Socrates. It’s as if he’s had his emotions (and his personality; sorry Peyton) surgically removed. He is an emotional master.

Then, there was John McEnroe. Now wait a minute, I know what you’re thinking: “You can’t be serious!!” He seems like the antithesis of Peyton Manning – and an emotional basket case. Yet, he too mastered his emotions on the tennis court, using them to fire himself up and unnerve his opponent. Remember all of those times when he seemed to emotionally lose it over a bad call or raged against an umpire or himself. Did you ever notice what happened after he settled down? He usually won.