I was at my daughter's track meet the other evening and saw two kids, a boy and a girl, former teammates of my daughter. Both had quit their college track and cross country teams after having been extremely dedicated -- almost obsessive -- runners in high school. The girl quit because of injuries, the boy because he didn't want to make the year-round time commitment to the sport.
Track and swimming -- and many other Olympic sports -- can be extremely limiting. If you're constantly concerned with getting enough sleep so you'll be fresh for the next morning's workout, if you have to constantly monitor your diet, if you have to shy away from drinking and partying (every college student's minor), you're going to miss out on a lot. Especially at a time when you should be trying new things.
And if you try to party as well as be an athlete, chances are you're not going to be a successful athlete.
Every student has to make choices. If you get heavily involved in drama, or the college newspaper, or the chess club, it means you have less time for other activities. But serious athletics require a time commitment and use of energy that dwarfs those of other activities. You're going to have to choose a career after college: why not be a dilettante while you can?
This logic of course doesn't apply to athletes who might effectively go on to professional sports careers. For them, an entirely different set of incentives applies. But for the rest of us -- and I'm speaking from experience -- extreme dedication just means putting on the blinders for limited rewards.
I congratulated both of those kids on their newfound freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
On the other hand.... As an athlete that didn't compete at the highest levels of collegiate athletics - I loved it. Working out every day, giving every ounce of energy in practice, sleeping like a rock, the camaraderie with the teammates (and the team was the social life, but that was fine with me) - it was all great. It probably seems contradictory but the time taken out of each day for workout made me more efficient and focused during time I spent studying.
I can see how it could become a chore to athletes who hammered their sport through high school, maybe under pressure from their parents to score a scholarship. Then go to a higher level college athletic program and continue to be pressured to train extremely hard and perform well. The extremely talented with a 'gamer' personality (Lochte in swimming for example) thrive. It could be tough for those a little less talented and with less love of their sport.
Maybe the moral is that a middle level athletic program would be better for many college athletes.
I've also seen that college students today are under so much financial pressure that they don't continue to compete so that they can hold down a low paying job, which is too bad in my opinion.
- Ed
Ed --
All true. But I'm guessing that you were swimming 6-7000 yards a day rather than 10,000+, and that you didn't have to do two-a-day workouts, which a lot of swimmers do. I did doubles my freshman and sophomore years, and suffered accordingly. My junior and senior years I just swam in the afternoons, and both swam and studied better as a result. Plus swimming is a one season sport, at least at the scholastic level. One of the kids I was referring to in this post ran track, and at his college, you were required to run all three seasons (cross country, indoor track, and outdoor track) if you wanted to compete at all. He wasn't on a running scholarship, and didn't want that constant pressure, so opted out. I don't blame him.
Being a college athlete does give you an identity of sorts, and it can give you a sense of camaraderie with your teammates, but it can also become all-consuming if you let it (as I did), and I don't think that's healthy.
Post a Comment