In Thursday's paper, I wrote a story about a study by the National Athletic Trainers Association that recommends high schools coaches cut down on two-a-day practices, especially during the first week of organized workouts.
Obviously, the subject matter is a complicated one, and it's near impossible to explore every crevice of the story within the space newsprint affords. Luckily for us we have the wonderful, limitless blogosphere with which to do that.
So here are some of the impressions I got from reporting the story, along a few tidbits that didn't make the print product.
1. Time is a factor. The premise of the study is that the first week of summer workouts should include one practice session per day. I think all parties involved would agree that, in an ideal world, this would be the case. But the bottom line is after organized practices start August 17, teams have 18 days until opening night on September 4. That's not a ton of time to get a team ready, especially when you consider for most schools their classes start in late August, and once that happens it's hard to hold two-a-days anyway.
For example, Ron Miller said at West York, in-services start August 19. Once that happens, it's impossible for the team to do two-a-days, unless they did them at night after school ended. There are other schools in the YAIAA that face similar predicaments. For some of these schools, the only week they can run two-a-days is that first one.
2. Coaches care. None of the coaches I talked to outright dismissed the study, or the data it contains. In fact, New Oxford's Matt Muller said he planned on talking to his school's trainer about the study to examine whether some of it could be applied to his team's summer schedule. The bottom line, as West York's Miller said, is everybody has the same thing in mind: The safety of the players.
But there's another school of thought that not having two-a-days leaves players ill-conditioned to play a game. It's one thing to run around without pads in the summer. It's a completely different thing to play 60 minutes with 30-40 pounds of gear on. That was Miller's main point of contention, that perhaps going into week one with ill-conditioned players is more dangerous than not working them hard during the summer.
3. Some of the study's suggestions are already in effect. The NATA study advises against any workouts longer than three hours. The coaches I talked with were already on board with that suggestion. "None of us even like to go more than three hours," Muller said. "I'm of the philosophy that if you can't get it done in two-and-a-half hours, you almost become counter-productive." The days of marathon workouts at high noon are gone, it seems.
But Csillan said there's another concern for teams that do two or -- in South Western's case -- three workouts a day. Athletes can lose around two percent of their body weight in fluid during a workout. And if that isn't replenished between workouts, that fluid loss can accumulate to the point where it doesn't take high temperatures for heat illness to set in.
Muller, Seidenstricker and Central York's Brad Livingston mentioned they help combat that by weighing players before and after practice.
4. Don't underestimate summer workouts. The biggest thing each of the coaches kept mentioning was the increased emphasis on summer workouts. High school sports -- not just football -- are such these days that teams are working out almost year-round in the weight room and in gyms in preparation for the next season. That's a stark contrast to the days when most of these coaches were players, and summer workouts were far more casual. For the majority of players on these teams, they already have gone through their "acclimation period" before the first whistle on August 17, albeit it without pads on.
Csillan also brings up a good point, though. What about the kids who can't make these workouts?
Clearly it's a murky situation, and not one in which anybody is necessarily right or wrong. What I am confident in saying is the coaches I spoke with seemed very concerned about their players' safety and in tune with guarding against heat-related illness. I think they're trying to make the best of the situation -- getting their teams prepared in a relatively short time frame while keeping everybody safe. Trainers are present. Water is readily available. The temperature is constantly being monitored.
Then again, all it takes is one tragedy, one tiny lapse in judgment and this all gets turned on its head. Csillan made the point that now this study is out there, coaches are responsible if anything should happen. And from a legal standpoint, he may be right.
Your turn to chime in. Which side, if any, are you on?
Also, if you're interested in checking out the study itself, you can find it here.
Leave a comment