A team’s record tells us what happened in the games, but it does not necessarily tell us what happened within the team throughout the season. A team can finish with a losing record and still experience tremendous growth. Players can develop skills, learn how to work together, become more confident, develop resilience, and learn how to respond to adversity. A team can lose more games than it wins while becoming substantially better than it was when the season began.

We know this as coaches. Most of us understand that development is not always reflected in the final record. We know young athletes develop at different rates, teams face different circumstances, and countless variables influence a season’s outcome. We understand that the team we have in November may look very different from the team we have in March. Yet, even with that understanding, we still evaluate success primarily through outcomes. That creates a contradiction.

We tell athletes that development matters, but then we judge the quality of their season by the record. We tell coaches to develop young people, but then we evaluate programs through wins and losses. We tell students that learning is a process, but then place enormous emphasis on a single test score that provides only a snapshot of that process. Somewhere along the way, we have narrowed winning to a very specific outcome. Perhaps we should reconsider that.

The Outcome Is Important, But It Is Not the Whole Story

There is nothing wrong with wanting to win. Competition is an important part of sport, and the outcome provides a tangible way to measure performance. When two teams compete, somebody will win, and somebody will lose. Pretending otherwise does not make much sense, nor does it respect the competitive nature of athletics.

The problem is not the scoreboard. The problem is what we decide the scoreboard means. A 20–5 record tells us that a team won 20 games and lost five. It does not tell us whether those athletes enjoyed the experience, whether they developed as people, whether younger players improved, whether the team developed meaningful relationships, or whether the program created an environment that athletes will remember positively years after they graduate.

Likewise, a 7–18 record tells us that a team struggled to win games. It does not tell us that the team failed. Those are two very different conclusions. The first measures an outcome. The second judges the value of an experience. We have become increasingly comfortable treating those two things as though they are the same. They are not. A team’s record is one piece of information about a season. It should never be mistaken for the entire story of that season.

We Do the Same Thing in Education

This way of thinking is not limited to athletics. Education has increasingly moved toward measuring success through outcomes that can be easily quantified and compared. Test scores are one clear example. Standardized assessments can provide useful information about student learning, and data that helps educators identify areas where students need additional support has value. The problem comes when the measurement becomes the purpose.

A test score provides information, but it does not capture everything that happens during the learning process. A student can make significant academic growth without reaching the same final score as another student. Another student can achieve a high score while making relatively little growth because they began the year already performing at a high level.

If we only examine the final outcome, we can miss the development that occurred along the way. This is where the connection between athletics and education becomes particularly important. Both environments are supposed to involve learning, development, and growth, yet both have increasingly emphasized outcomes that let us quickly determine who is succeeding and who is not. We like numbers because numbers are easy. Growth is much harder.

Growth requires context. It requires understanding where someone started, what obstacles they faced, what resources were available, and how much progress they made over time. It requires us to look at the process, not just the final product. That is considerably more difficult than looking at a scoreboard.

A Different Definition of Success

Sport psychology has spent considerable time examining what happens when athletes operate in environments that emphasize mastery and improvement rather than simply demonstrating superiority over others.

Achievement goal theory, including the work of researchers such as Carol Ames and others, distinguishes between mastery-oriented environments, which emphasize effort, learning, improvement, and developing competence, and performance-oriented environments, which emphasize demonstrating ability and outperforming others. The distinction matters because the environment surrounding athletes influences how they experience competition.

Research has consistently associated mastery-oriented climates with more positive experiences for athletes, including greater enjoyment, engagement, and satisfaction, while excessive emphasis on performance comparison can contribute to less adaptive experiences such as anxiety and burnout. More recent research continues to support the importance of task- and mastery-oriented environments in youth sport, particularly when the goal is long-term engagement and development.

This does not mean that athletes should stop caring about winning. It means that winning does not have to be the only thing they care about. There is an important difference between competing to win and defining your entire experience by whether you won. A healthy competitive environment can tell an athlete, “We are going to work extremely hard to win this game, but your value and our evaluation of this season are not determined solely by the final score.” That distinction may be more important than we realize.

Improvement Is Not Settling

One criticism of this approach is that emphasizing growth can sometimes sound like lowering expectations. If we tell athletes that improvement matters, some may interpret that as meaning the outcome does not. I don’t believe that is what it means. In fact, I think the opposite can be true.

A focus on continual improvement can actually raise expectations because it places responsibility on the athlete and the team to continue developing regardless of the outcome. Winning one game does not mean the work is finished. Losing one game does not mean the work was unsuccessful. The expectation remains the same: identify what needs to improve and continue working toward becoming better. That is a much more sustainable definition of success.

It also aligns with what we know about motivation. Self-determination theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, emphasizes the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in creating environments that support intrinsic motivation and well-being. When athletes feel capable of improving, have some ownership over their experience, and feel connected to the people around them, sport becomes about more than simply achieving an external result.

This matters especially in youth sports. Young athletes are still developing their identities, confidence, relationships, and understanding of what competition means. If we teach them that winning is the primary evidence of success, we also teach them that losing is evidence of failure. That is a dangerous lesson.

Eventually, every athlete loses. Even the most successful athletes and teams in the world experience failure. Championships are won by very few teams, and even championship teams lose games along the way. If an athlete’s understanding of success depends entirely on outcomes, inevitable losses become threats to their identity rather than opportunities to learn.

A development-centered approach gives athletes another way to understand those moments. The question becomes less about whether they won and more about what they learned, how they responded, and what they will do differently next time. That does not eliminate competition. It gives competition a larger purpose.

The Paradox of Winning

There is an interesting paradox here. We often assume that the best way to produce winning is to focus relentlessly on winning. Yet much of what we know about effective development suggests that focusing on the process of improvement can create the conditions that make successful outcomes more likely.

When athletes focus on developing skills, receiving feedback, learning from mistakes, working together, and improving their performance, they do what ultimately contributes to winning. The outcome becomes a consequence of the process rather than its sole purpose. This distinction matters because outcomes depend on factors athletes and coaches cannot fully control.

You can prepare exceptionally well and still lose. You can execute your game plan and still lose. You can have a tremendous season and run into a team that is simply better. You can do everything right and still not win the championship. If winning is the only definition of success, then all of the work that occurred before that outcome becomes almost meaningless. But if success is defined partly through continual growth, the work still has value.

The athlete who becomes a better shooter, defender, teammate, communicator, or leader has achieved something regardless of what the scoreboard says. The team that becomes more connected and resilient has achieved something. The player who learns how to respond to failure has achieved something. Those are not consolation prizes. They are outcomes in themselves.

What Should We Actually Measure?

Perhaps the answer is not to stop measuring outcomes but to expand what we consider an outcome. We should still keep the win-loss record. We should still celebrate championships. We should still recognize exceptional performances. Those things are part of sport, and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging them.

But we should also ask different questions. Some of those questions could be:

How much did the athletes improve from the beginning of the season to the end?

Did younger players develop?

Did athletes become more confident?

Did the team learn how to handle adversity?

Did athletes become better teammates?

Did participation remain enjoyable?

Did athletes feel connected to their teammates and coaches?

Did the experience help them develop skills that will extend beyond the sport?

Did the program leave the athletes better prepared for their next stage of life?

Those measures may be harder to quantify, but that does not make them less legitimate. In fact, they may tell us considerably more about whether we accomplished what youth sports are actually supposed to accomplish.

Maybe Winning Should Be a Process

I have spent enough time around both education and athletics to know that most coaches and educational leaders already understand this. The problem is that our systems don’t always let these measures drive our definition of success.

A coach can understand that a young team made tremendous progress throughout a season, but the final evaluation may still focus primarily on the record. An educator can understand that a student made significant growth, but the conversation can quickly return to a standardized test score. A school can improve its culture and relationships, but rankings and publicly reported outcomes can overshadow those accomplishments.

The tangible measures are easier to communicate. “State champion” fits neatly on a headline. “Improved significantly over the course of a season while developing stronger relationships, resilience, confidence, and technical skills” does not. But perhaps that is the problem. We have allowed what is easiest to measure to become what we value most. I think we can do better; in fact, I know we can.

Winning should not disappear from sports. Competition should not disappear. Outcomes should not disappear. Instead, we should put them back into their proper place. Winning should be one measure of success, but it should exist alongside growth, development, effort, learning, relationships, enjoyment, and continual improvement. Because when we define winning only by the final outcome, most people will inevitably be defined as losers.

Only one team wins the championship. Only a small percentage of athletes will finish their careers with more wins than losses. Only a small percentage of students will achieve the highest test scores. Only a small percentage of schools will consistently produce the outcomes that society celebrates. That cannot be the only definition of success. A healthier definition may ask whether we are better today than we were yesterday.

That definition does not guarantee a championship. It does not guarantee a winning record. It does not guarantee a high test score. What it does provide is something available to everyone: the opportunity to keep improving. And perhaps that is what winning should mean. Not simply being better than someone else, but becoming better than you were before.

If we could shift our definition of winning in that direction, I believe we might actually see better outcomes. But more importantly, we might create athletes and students who understand that success isn’t something handed to them by a scoreboard, a ranking, or a test score. Success is something they keep building through the work of becoming better.

AI Use Statement

The ideas, perspectives, arguments, and concepts presented in this article are my own. I used AI as a writing support tool to help with grammar, organization, structure, and clarity. The content, perspective, and overall message remain my own.

My focus as a coach has always been on the players and creating an experience for them. Of course, I wanted to win games and help players become better basketball players, but my larger mission was always bigger than the game itself. I wanted the athletes I coached to have memories and experiences they could look back on and lean on as they moved forward in their lives, regardless of where basketball ultimately took them.

For the most part, I believe I did that. I know some former players can look back on their time in our program and remember relationships, experiences, challenges, and moments that mattered. At the same time, good intentions and deep care for players don’t mean I always got everything right. In fact, as I reflected on JP’s article, I realized that some of my mistakes may have come from the very thing that drove me as a coach: how much I cared about the athletes I worked with.

Taking Too Much Responsibility for Their Happiness

One of the first points that stood out to me was the idea of taking responsibility for the moment-to-moment happiness of the players.

I cared a great deal about the guys I coached, and I genuinely wanted them to have a positive experience. I wanted basketball to be fun while still challenging them. I wanted them to enjoy being part of the program, develop relationships with their teammates, and feel like their time in our program was something they would remember positively.

At times, I made the mistake of carrying too much of that responsibility myself. If a player was unhappy, frustrated, or struggling, I often felt like it was my job to fix it. I put the weight of their experience on my own shoulders and worried about whether they were enjoying every part of what was happening.

Over time, I realized this wasn’t healthy for me as a coach, but it also wasn’t necessarily what the players needed from me. Part of being an athlete, and really part of life, is learning how to navigate challenges and uncomfortable feelings. Players are going to be frustrated. They’ll be disappointed with playing time, unhappy with a role, struggle with their performance, or have difficult days. Those moments are part of the experience, and they can also help someone grow.

I had to learn that caring about athletes does not mean fixing everything for them. It does not mean making sure they are happy every day or removing every obstacle that makes them uncomfortable. Sometimes caring means allowing them to struggle and supporting them as they figure out how to work through it themselves.

Their ability to develop autonomy and navigate difficult situations is part of their experience too. Looking back, I think this was one area where I didn’t always balance my care for the players with what they needed in the moment.

I also think this is something many coaches struggle with. We care about the athletes we coach, and when we see someone hurting or struggling, our natural instinct is often to make things better. But sometimes the best thing we can do is not fix the situation. Sometimes we need to let them feel the frustration, learn how to respond to it, and eventually discover they can get through difficult moments on their own.

Not Always Being Direct Enough

Another mistake that stood out to me was sugar-coating feedback.

I was direct with plenty of players, but I wasn’t always as direct as I needed to be with everyone. With certain players, I worried that if I was too honest or too direct, I would lose them. Because of that fear, I sometimes approached conversations more softly than I probably should have.

Looking back, I can see how that may not have helped those players in the way I intended. If someone needed to make a significant change, softening the message too much could mean it didn’t really land. My intention was to protect the relationship and keep the player engaged, but sometimes that approach may have prevented the feedback from having the impact it needed.

I think many coaches deal with this today. Modern sports create concerns that didn’t always exist in the same way in the past. Coaches worry about players transferring, leaving programs, or deciding they don’t want to be part of a situation where they are being challenged. When you know a player has the potential to positively impact your team, it can be easy to worry about what might happen if they do not respond well to difficult feedback.

But I have learned that sometimes being direct is necessary, even when we are worried about how someone will react. Sometimes a player may leave, and while that is difficult, it may ultimately be what is best for everyone involved. More importantly, athletes need to learn how to receive honest feedback. That is not just a basketball skill. Throughout life, there will be times when someone tells them something they need to hear, even if it is not what they want to hear.

As I reflect on this now, I think my care for the players sometimes got in the way, but so did my own fear of their reaction. I wanted to keep the relationship strong, and I wanted to keep players in the program. Those are understandable concerns, but they shouldn’t keep a coach from having the conversations that need to happen.

Being transformational does not mean being harsh or tearing players down. It means being honest enough to help them grow, even when that honesty can be uncomfortable for everyone involved.

Building Confidence Through Growth and Mastery

Lastly, JP discussed the mistake of trying to boost self-esteem without requiring effort or mastery. This was another area that made me reflect on my own coaching. I believe I required effort from my players. I expected them to work and encouraged them to spend time developing their skills. We talked about getting into the gym, putting in extra work, and becoming better basketball players.

At the same time, I think I could have done more to emphasize the connection between confidence, improvement, and mastery.

I often used motivational talks, readings, and other activities to help players think about confidence and self-esteem. I don’t think those things were bad, and I still think there is value in helping young people develop a positive mindset. But looking back, I think I could have been more direct about the idea that one of the best ways to build confidence is to work on the things you need to improve.

There is something powerful about struggling with a skill, putting time into it, and eventually seeing improvement. It also has value to keep developing something you are already good at and work toward mastery. The confidence that comes from seeing yourself improve is different from simply hearing someone tell you to feel confident.

Again, this requires direct conversations. Sometimes we have to help athletes identify what they are not doing well and challenge them to address it. We have to be willing to say, “This is where you need to improve, and here is what you can do about it.” Looking back, I can see how my hesitation to be too direct at times may have affected this area of my coaching, too.

I wanted players to feel good about themselves, but sometimes building real confidence means helping them see where they need to grow and then helping them put in the work to get there.

Why Reflection Matters

This reflection also reminded me how important it is for coaches to take time to look honestly at their own work. I am not sure we do enough of that.

Sports move quickly, and modern sports can feel especially focused on outcomes. There is always another game to prepare for, another player to worry about, another parent conversation, another expectation, or another season approaching. It can be hard to find the time to slow down and truly think about how we coached, what worked, what didn’t, and what we might do differently.

But if we want to continue growing and mastering our craft, reflection has to be part of the process.

For me, reading JP’s article wasn’t about identifying everything I did wrong as a coach. It was about being honest enough to recognize that good intentions do not always lead to the best approach. I cared deeply about the players I coached and wanted them to have a positive experience, but sometimes that care caused me to take too much responsibility for their happiness. I wanted to maintain relationships and keep players engaged, but sometimes that led me to soften feedback that needed to be more direct. I wanted players to feel confident, but I could have done more to help them understand how confidence can grow through improvement and mastery.

My goal was always for players to leave our program with experiences and memories they could carry with them long after basketball was over. I still believe in that goal. What I understand better now is that creating a meaningful experience does not mean making every moment enjoyable or comfortable.

Some of the experiences athletes remember most may be the difficult ones. They may be the times they were frustrated and had to figure out how to move forward. They may be the conversations where they heard something they did not necessarily want to hear. They may be the moments when they put in the work, saw themselves improve, and realized they were capable of more than they originally believed.

As coaches, we often talk about wanting to transform the athletes we work with. I think part of becoming a transformational coach is being willing to reflect on ourselves and keep changing our approach.

I certainly made mistakes along the way, and I am sure there are more that I could identify if I continued reflecting. But I also believe that is part of the process. If we want to have a lasting impact on the athletes we coach, we have to be willing to continually examine our practices, learn from our mistakes, and keep growing alongside the young people we hope to impact.

AI Use Statement: AI was used to assist with editing, organization, and grammar. The thoughts, ideas, experiences, and reflections shared in this article are entirely my own.

There is nothing inherently wrong with businesses operating in athletics. The people who organize leagues, train athletes, and create opportunities deserve to make a living. Quality programs require facilities, equipment, time, and people who are committed to providing meaningful experiences for young athletes. The issue isn’t that business exists in youth sports. The issue is what some business models have unintentionally created.

From where I sit, it sometimes feels as though development has become secondary to selling opportunity. I’m not directing this at any one organization because I operate House of Hoops myself. We charge for our programs too. The potential difference is that our mission has always been to keep basketball affordable and accessible so that as many kids as possible have the opportunity to play, improve, and simply enjoy the game. I personally don’t believe youth sports should become something only certain families can afford.

When costs continue to rise, access naturally becomes more limited. Families begin deciding not whether their child wants to play, but whether they can afford to play. That creates barriers, and once barriers exist, the game becomes less about development and more about opportunity tied to financial resources.

I also understand that competition comes in different forms. Athletes develop at different rates, and not everyone needs the same type of coaching. Some athletes benefit from more specialized instruction, and that often requires more time, more expertise, and, yes, a greater financial investment. There is nothing wrong with that. Development should meet the athlete where they are.

Where I think we run into problems is with the expectations that sometimes accompany those investments. Those expectations aren’t talked about nearly enough, but I believe they are one of the unintended consequences of what youth sports have become.

Whether anyone says it out loud or not, an underlying belief can develop that because more time and money have been invested, certain outcomes should naturally follow. Maybe it’s earning a starting position. Maybe it’s making the top team. Maybe it’s receiving more playing time. Whatever the expectation is, it almost becomes an unwritten contract: I’ve invested more, so I should receive more. That makes me wonder where those expectations come from.

Are they simply a natural human response to investing resources? Are families picking up messages from coaches, trainers, or organizations? Or has the current youth sports model unintentionally created the impression that success can be purchased if you’re willing to spend enough? Perhaps it’s a combination of all three. It’s difficult to know, but I think it’s a question worth asking.

I don’t know that we have a clear answer, but I do think it’s a conversation worth having. Rather than pointing fingers at individuals, maybe we should look more closely at the system itself. Most people involved in youth sports have good intentions. Coaches want to help kids. Parents want what’s best for their children. Directors want to provide quality opportunities. Yet sometimes well-intentioned people operate within systems that produce unintended consequences.

If these expectations are, at least in part, products of the system we’ve created, then the solution may not be to blame parents, coaches, or directors. Perhaps it’s to redesign parts of the system itself. The youth sports ecosystem is quite large, so redesigning the whole thing isn’t realistic; instead, it makes sense to focus on a few aspects that directors, athletes, coaches, parents, and other stakeholders can directly control.

If I could rewire some aspects of youth sports, the first thing I would do is make it as affordable and accessible as possible. Every child should have the opportunity to participate regardless of their family’s financial situation. Lowering barriers doesn’t mean lowering standards. It simply means giving more young people the opportunity to experience everything sports have to offer.

Access isn’t only about cost, either. It’s also about transportation, facilities, available programming, and geography. Strengthening parks and recreation programs, school-community partnerships, or private organizations committed to affordable programming can all increase opportunities for families who might otherwise be left out.

At the same time, accessibility doesn’t mean every athlete follows the exact same pathway. There absolutely should be different levels of training because athletes are at different stages of development. Some mature earlier physically, while others need more time. Some are just learning the fundamentals, while others are ready for advanced skill development. Good coaching recognizes those differences and provides the right environment for each athlete to continue growing.

Research on achievement goal theory supports this idea. Athletes are more likely to enjoy sports, remain motivated, and continue participating when coaches and parents create environments that emphasize personal improvement, effort, learning, and mastery rather than comparison with others or simply winning. In other words, matching athletes with appropriate developmental environments isn’t just common sense; decades of research support it.

The final piece, and perhaps the most important one, is resetting what investment actually means. Investing more time and money should increase the opportunity to improve and develop, but it should never guarantee outcomes. It doesn’t guarantee wins. It doesn’t guarantee playing time. It doesn’t guarantee a starting role or a spot on the top team. What it does provide is an opportunity to learn, grow, and improve if the athlete is willing to embrace the process. That is a message directors, coaches, trainers, and parents all need to communicate consistently.

I love seeing families invest in their children. I love seeing athletes who want to spend extra time getting better. That passion should never be criticized. What we should challenge are the expectations that sometimes attach to those investments, because they can create disappointment, entitlement, and unnecessary tension when reality doesn’t match expectation.

Instead of asking, “I put all this time in. Why didn’t we win?” perhaps we should be asking, “I put all this time in. Am I improving? Am I becoming a better teammate? Am I learning? The wins will come.”

That subtle shift changes everything. It shifts the focus away from outcomes athletes can’t fully control and back to the daily process of getting better. Interestingly, this is exactly what the research has shown for decades. Young athletes who experience a mastery-focused environment- one that values effort, improvement, and learning—report greater enjoyment, higher motivation, stronger persistence, and lower stress than athletes who perceive an environment centered primarily on performance and comparison.

If coaches, parents, trainers, and directors can work together to reset that narrative, I think youth sports become healthier for everyone involved. The focus shifts away from trying to purchase outcomes and back toward embracing the process of development.

Perhaps the greatest return on investment in youth sports isn’t a scholarship, a championship, or a starting position. Perhaps it’s the character, resilience, discipline, confidence, and relationships that are built along the way. Those are outcomes that every athlete can earn regardless of what team they make or how many minutes they play.

Ironically, they’re also the very qualities that give athletes the best chance to succeed. When we redefine success this way, winning becomes a byproduct of development rather than its purpose. To me, that’s the youth sports system worth building, not one that promises outcomes, but one that develops people.

AI Transparency Statement: The ideas, opinions, experiences, and conclusions expressed in this article are entirely my own. Artificial intelligence was used only as an editorial tool to assist with organization, formatting, grammar, and style refinement. All analysis, arguments, and final content reflect my own thinking.

This is not about assigning blame or reopening old wounds. It is about recognizing a reality that many coaches are experiencing today. Unfortunately, I have heard countless stories of good coaches being pushed out of their programs because the perceived results simply were not good enough for the communities they served. That reality should cause all of us to pause and ask whether we are evaluating coaches in the right way.

Too often, a coach’s value has become tied almost exclusively to outcomes. We have created a culture where coaches are judged primarily by wins and losses rather than by the impact they have on the lives of young people. That mindset exists at the professional level; it exists in Division I athletics, and increasingly, it has found its way into high school sports.

The question we should be asking is whether that is really what youth athletics are supposed to be about.

If we take a step back, we find there is so much more that athletics can offer. While many people say they value character development, teamwork, leadership, and resilience, those ideals often disappear when their own child’s team isn’t winning enough games. Winning should absolutely be a goal, but it should never become the only lens through which we judge a program or the coach leading it.

The overwhelming majority of high school athletes will never compete in college. Of those who do, only a tiny fraction will ever play professionally. If we know that to be true, why do we continue to evaluate coaches almost entirely on competitive results? Why has winning become the primary measure of a coach’s worth? When winning simply isn’t possible because of the makeup of a roster, what other measures of success should matter?

As I have written before, I understand what it feels like to coach a program that doesn’t consistently win games. My previous teams competed hard, improved throughout the season, and represented our program with pride, but we also were who we were. We could maximize effort, improve skills, build culture, and prepare relentlessly, but we could not magically change the physical makeup of our roster or the level of talent we faced every night.

That reality doesn’t diminish the work that coaches put into their programs. If anything, it makes that work even more important. I think this is what many people in our society are missing today. The part of coaching that remains invisible is where the profession actually lives.

Long before the opening tip, kickoff, first pitch, or first whistle, coaches have already invested hundreds of hours into preparing their teams. Most people see two hours on game night. Coaches live the hundreds of hours that make those two hours possible.

Those unseen responsibilities include:

• Designing meaningful practices that maximize limited time while balancing individual development with team improvement. Every drill, teaching point, and progression is intentionally planned rather than thrown together at the last minute.

• Developing athletes individually through skill sessions, film review, offseason workouts, feedback, and constant adjustments based on the needs of each player. Every athlete learns differently, and great coaching requires meeting players where they are.

• Preparing for opponents by studying film, identifying tendencies, creating scouting reports, and building game plans that give the team the best opportunity to compete.

• Building culture every single day by establishing standards, reinforcing expectations, resolving conflict, celebrating growth, and creating an environment where accountability and trust can flourish.

• Leading assistant coaches so that every member of the staff teaches the same philosophy, reinforces the same standards, and provides athletes with consistent leadership.

• Communicating with athletes and families through meetings, emails, phone calls, schedule changes, eligibility questions, transportation issues, and conversations that often happen well outside the normal workday.

• Mentoring young people beyond the sport by helping athletes navigate academic struggles, confidence issues, family challenges, friendships, leadership opportunities, and the many ups and downs that come with adolescence.

• Managing the countless logistical details that keep a program functioning, including scheduling facilities, ordering equipment, coordinating travel, organizing uniforms, managing budgets, fundraising, and ensuring every event operates smoothly.

• Developing the future of the program by supporting youth coaches, building relationships with younger athletes, mentoring volunteers, and creating consistency from the youth level through varsity competition.

• Continuing to learn and improve by attending clinics, studying the game, reading research, collaborating with other coaches, and searching for better ways to teach, lead, and connect with athletes.

• Helping athletes navigate adversity by responding to injuries, disappointment, reduced playing time, mistakes, conflict within the team, and difficult losses while keeping everyone focused on continued growth.

When you step back and look at that list, coaching begins to look very different than what most people experience from the stands. The game itself is only the public performance. The real work happens in the hours that almost no one sees.

None of that happens under the lights on game day.

Most head coaches at the high school level spend hundreds of hours each year doing work that very few people ever notice, often for financial compensation that barely reflects the time invested. Yet when the season ends, much of that work disappears from the conversation because the final record becomes the headline. The scoreboard is visible. The preparation is invisible.

The unseen hours don’t need to be broadcast, but they do need to be acknowledged. Parents and stakeholders are understandably emotional when the lights come on, and the game begins. They see every made shot, every turnover, every substitution, and every final score. What they often don’t see are the hundreds of hours that led up to that moment. Perhaps if we talked more openly about those unseen hours, we could begin to shift the conversation.

That doesn’t mean games don’t matter. They absolutely do. Competition is part of athletics, and every coach wants to win. Personally, I hate losing and have always been highly competitive. However, after spending years in coaching, I have also learned that building a highly competitive team requires many factors coming together, and some of those factors simply fall outside a coach’s control.

Games matter, but they are also limited in what they can measure. A game tells us what happened over the course of thirty-six minutes, ninety minutes, or however long the contest lasts. It does not tell us how much a team improved over four months. It does not tell us whether athletes became more resilient, more accountable, or better teammates. It certainly doesn’t tell us how much a coach poured into helping young people grow outside of athletics.

Coaches also operate within constraints that are often overlooked. We cannot control the size, speed, or athletic ability of our opponents. We cannot control injuries. We cannot control every decision a player makes during competition. What we can control is the environment. We can create standards. We can teach. We can prepare. We can communicate. We can build relationships. We can create the conditions that give young people the best opportunity to succeed.

Sometimes those conditions lead to championships. Sometimes they lead to modest records. The quality of the coaching is not always reflected by the final score.

I should point out that I am not saying this simply to defend myself. I am well aware of my own shortcomings as a coach, and I have always tried to improve them. None of us are perfect. In many ways, coaches ask the very same thing of themselves that they ask of their athletes: continue learning, continue growing, and be better tomorrow than you were today.

Reading through everything coaches do behind the scenes, someone might reasonably ask why anyone would choose to coach at all. The answer is remarkably simple. Coaches don’t stay because of the paycheck or the recognition. They stay because they believe in the power of sport to change lives. They remember the coach who believed in them, and they hope to become that person for someone else. Those moments rarely make headlines, but they are the reason so many coaches continue to return year after year.

I believe one of the reasons coaching has become increasingly difficult is because we have narrowed our definition of success. Winning has become the primary, and sometimes only, metric that matters. When that happens, everything else that athletics is capable of teaching begins to fade into the background.

Winning should always remain a goal because competition deserves our best effort. However, winning should not be the only standard by which coaches are evaluated. The winning-only perspective, in my opinion, is very short-sighted. While winning is important, it should not be the only element used to evaluate a coach because teams, humans, parents, coaches, and everyone involved are more than a number. Some questions we could ask are:

What if we also measured player satisfaction? What if we looked at whether athletes felt respected and valued? What if communication within a program mattered just as much as the final standings? What if we celebrated measurable skill development, stronger team culture, and growth in character alongside victories?

Those outcomes matter because they are the outcomes that most athletes will carry with them long after they have played their final game. If we truly believe that high school sports exist to prepare young people for life, then our evaluation of coaches should reflect that mission.

I also think coaches need to become more willing to tell these stories. When criticism comes, many coaches retreat inward. We isolate ourselves, convince ourselves that no one understands, and quietly carry the weight alone. I know I have done exactly that.

Maybe the answer is the opposite. Maybe we need to talk more openly about what coaching actually requires. Maybe we need to make the unseen hours visible. Maybe communities need a clearer understanding of what coaches do before they ever see a game.

The more those stories are shared, the more people may begin to understand that coaching is far more than managing a game. It is teaching. It is mentoring. It is leading. It is investing in young people every single day, often without recognition and sometimes despite criticism.

The scoreboard will always matter because competition matters. Every coach wants to win, and every athlete deserves a coach who pursues excellence. But if the scoreboard becomes the only thing that matters, then we have misunderstood the purpose of education-based athletics.

The scoreboard will always tell us who won the game on that given night. Records will only tell us about the games within a given season. Neither will tell the story of the lessons learned or the memories created. Those items will also never tell us who changed a life.

The unseen hours matter because, in many ways, they are where the real coaching happens.

At the same time, youth sports have undergone a transformation of their own. Increasingly, athletics are viewed as a vehicle to reach a destination rather than as a vehicle for personal growth. Families invest significant amounts of time and money in travel teams, private instruction, and year-round competition with the hope of earning scholarships, making elite teams, or reaching higher levels of competition. While there is certainly value in pursuing excellence, this shift has unintentionally moved our attention away from one of sport’s greatest purposes: helping young people learn how to become part of something greater than themselves.

Because of these societal changes, I no longer believe we can assume athletes naturally understand what it means to be a good teammate. Building teams, contributing to a shared purpose, and sacrificing for others are qualities that increasingly require intentional teaching. They are no longer lessons that simply emerge from participation alone.

When I began coaching more than twenty years ago, I believed my responsibility was straightforward. My job was to teach basketball. Looking back, I realize how incomplete that understanding was. Coaching certainly involved teaching offensive and defensive systems, skill development, and game strategy, but the social environment surrounding young people was also very different. While athletes certainly experienced adversity, they were not navigating the same level of constant comparison and digital distraction that exists today.

The athletes we coach now live in a world where nearly every aspect of their lives is visible to others. Social media constantly invites comparisons with teammates, classmates, and competitors. Successes are celebrated publicly, while disappointments often feel equally public. It should not surprise us that loneliness continues to rise when many young people feel connected to hundreds of people online while simultaneously struggling to experience genuine belonging in their everyday lives.

I believe these societal realities have changed the work of coaching. Coaches are still responsible for teaching their sport, but they are also responsible for helping young people understand relationships, navigate disappointment, embrace different roles, and contribute to something larger than themselves. In many situations, coaches also help parents better understand what healthy team dynamics look like and why individual success cannot always take precedence over the needs of the group.

Throughout my coaching career, I have worked with athletes who struggled to accept their role on a team. Some believed they deserved more playing time because of the countless hours they invested outside of practice. Others questioned why their commitment had not translated into greater opportunities during games. Those emotions are understandable, and they should not be dismissed. Families make tremendous sacrifices to support their children, and athletes who dedicate themselves to improvement deserve recognition for that effort.

However, skill development alone cannot define the athletic experience. Becoming a better player should occur alongside becoming a better teammate. Learning how to contribute regardless of role, supporting teammates during adversity, and recognizing that collective success sometimes requires personal sacrifice are lessons that may ultimately have a greater impact than any individual athletic achievement.

This is particularly important because the ability to work effectively with others remains one of the most valued characteristics in nearly every profession. Employers consistently seek individuals who can collaborate, communicate, solve problems collectively, and contribute to organizations larger than themselves. There are few environments better suited to teaching those lessons than athletics, provided we intentionally create cultures that value them.

When we examine championship teams across sports, we rarely find groups composed solely of extraordinary talent. Instead, we find teams made up of individuals who understand their responsibilities, embrace their roles, and commit themselves to a common purpose. That does not mean every athlete enjoys every role they are asked to play. Rather, successful teams are often built by individuals who recognize that their contribution still matters even if it looks different from someone else’s.

One of the healthiest experiences young athletes can have is playing different roles on different teams. A player may be the primary scorer during an AAU season while serving as a role player on a varsity team during the winter. Those contrasting experiences expose athletes to different perspectives and often help them develop greater empathy for teammates whose responsibilities differ from their own. Rather than viewing those changing roles as setbacks, they should be viewed as opportunities to grow both as players and as teammates.

Lately, I have been thinking about the concept of developing a “Teammate Score.” It is still very much an evolving idea, and part of me wishes such a measure were unnecessary. In an ideal world, being a good teammate would simply be an expectation embedded within every athletic program. Yet I continue to wonder whether our current environment requires us to intentionally teach, reinforce, and perhaps even assess the behaviors that contribute to healthy team cultures because they are no longer developing as naturally as they once did.

My concern extends beyond wins and losses. If we fail to intentionally cultivate environments where athletes genuinely feel valued regardless of their role, the loneliness that already exists throughout society will inevitably find its way into our teams. That may be one of the greatest ironies in modern athletics. Sports have historically been one of the strongest sources of community, belonging, and shared purpose. Yet without intentional leadership, they can become another environment where individuals feel overlooked, disconnected, or valued only for what they produce.

I do not pretend to have a simple solution. These reflections come from years of coaching, observing, and thinking about how youth sports continue to evolve. When I refer to youth sports, I mean every level, from elementary athletics through varsity competition. Even our oldest high school athletes are still developing into adulthood. They are learning who they are, where they belong, and how they contribute to the communities around them.

For that reason, I believe our responsibility as coaches, parents, administrators, and leaders extends beyond teaching technical skills. We must intentionally create environments where athletes understand that every role carries value. Not every player will lead the team in scoring, score the winning touchdown, or receive public recognition. Nevertheless, every athlete contributes something meaningful to the team’s success, and every athlete deserves to experience the dignity that comes from knowing their contribution matters.

Simply telling athletes that everyone is important is not enough. We must intentionally build environments where every player genuinely feels that importance through consistent actions, shared expectations, and a culture that values relationships as much as performance. If we can accomplish that, sports can become one of the most powerful responses to the loneliness affecting so many young people today. Athletics will always involve competition, but perhaps their greatest contribution is not found in championships, scholarships, or trophies. Perhaps their greatest contribution is providing young people with something they desperately need: a genuine sense of belonging.

AI Disclosure

The ideas, experiences, and opinions expressed in this article are my own. I often use voice dictation to capture my thoughts and then use artificial intelligence as an editorial tool to improve grammar, organization, and readability. AI does not generate the ideas or arguments presented here; it simply assists in refining how they are communicated.

As important as skill development is, I believe another form of development receives far less attention: learning how to be a great teammate.

At first glance, that may sound like something athletes should naturally know how to do. My experience as both a coach and a parent, however, has led me to a different conclusion. Being a good teammate is not an innate quality. It is a skill that must be intentionally taught, modeled, practiced, and reinforced just like shooting, passing, defending, or any other aspect of athletic performance.

Today’s athletes are growing up in a culture that increasingly rewards individual recognition. Social media highlights personal accomplishments, rankings, and highlight reels. Recruiting platforms emphasize individual performance, while youth sports often celebrate statistics, awards, and exposure. None of these are inherently negative, but they can unintentionally shift an athlete’s focus from How can I help my team succeed? to How can I stand out?

The irony is that many of the qualities that make someone an exceptional teammate—encouraging others, communicating effectively, embracing a role, demonstrating selflessness, and placing collective success ahead of individual recognition—are often the same qualities that contribute to sustained team success. Research consistently shows that teams characterized by high levels of cohesion, trust, and prosocial behaviors perform better while also providing more positive experiences for athletes (Carron et al., 2002; Eys & Kim, 2017).

If we intentionally measure vertical jump, shooting percentage, sprint speed, and strength, perhaps we should devote equal attention to developing the skills that make someone an exceptional teammate.

Rethinking Teammate Development

What if we viewed an athlete’s ability to elevate those around them as another domain of athletic development? We devote significant time to improving strength, speed, skill, and decision-making because we believe those abilities can be developed through intentional practice and feedback. I believe the same is true of being a great teammate. Although teammate behaviors are more difficult to quantify than athletic performance, they can still be intentionally defined, observed, and developed.

The first step is defining what it actually means to be a good teammate. What behaviors consistently contribute to the success and well-being of a team? Once those behaviors are clearly identified, coaches, teammates, and leaders can intentionally observe them, provide feedback, and reinforce their development. We already evaluate athletes because we believe performance improves through feedback. The same mindset should apply to teamwork. If we value it enough to define it, we can teach it. If we can teach it, we can develop it.

Sport psychologists have spent decades studying concepts such as team cohesion, leadership, communication, and prosocial behaviors. Instruments such as the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) have helped researchers better understand how connected teams are, while other studies have examined how supportive teammate behaviors influence both performance and athlete satisfaction. Collectively, this research demonstrates that positive interpersonal relationships are associated with stronger team performance, greater athlete satisfaction, and more meaningful athletic experiences (Carron et al., 2002; Eys & Kim, 2017).

Despite this growing body of research, these findings have had limited translation into everyday coaching practice. Most coaches still rely primarily on performance statistics and informal observations when evaluating athletes. Those measures provide valuable information about physical performance, but they offer little insight into an athlete’s ability to elevate teammates, strengthen team culture, or contribute to the collective success of the group.

If we accept that being a great teammate is a skill worth developing, then coaches need a practical way to define it, teach it, observe it, and provide meaningful feedback. To accomplish that, I would like to propose a developmental framework that I call the Teammate Score.

The Teammate Score is not intended to rank athletes or reduce teammate behaviors to a single number. Rather, it is a developmental framework that helps coaches intentionally identify, teach, observe, and reinforce the behaviors that make athletes exceptional teammates. The score itself is simply a reflection of an athlete’s growth over time, much like any other performance metric used to guide instruction and improvement.

There is no universal definition of what it means to be a good teammate, nor should there be. Every team has its own culture, values, and expectations. As a result, the characteristics one coach prioritizes may differ from another’s. The purpose of the Teammate Score is not to create a one-size-fits-all formula. Instead, it provides a process for helping teams intentionally define, observe, and develop the teammate behaviors they value most.

Building Your Team’s Teammate Score

The Teammate Score begins by allowing each program to define what being a great teammate means within its own culture.

Step 1: Identify teammate characteristics

Bring coaches, team leaders, and athletes together to discuss one question:

What behaviors define a great teammate in our program?

Record every response without evaluating or eliminating ideas.

Step 2: Organize the responses

Group similar responses into common themes. For example, “sacrifice,” “putting the team first,” and “selflessness” might all become the category Selflessness. Continue grouping responses until several broad teammate characteristics emerge.

Step 3: Prioritize what matters most

Share the categories with everyone in the program and ask each person to identify the three characteristics they believe are most important to team success. This collaborative process creates ownership while ensuring the final characteristics reflect the team’s shared values rather than only the coach’s perspective.

Step 4: Operationally define each characteristic

Each characteristic should be translated into observable behaviors.

For example, if one characteristic is Selflessness, observable behaviors might include:

• Accepts and embraces a role for the benefit of the team.

• Celebrates teammates’ success.

• Volunteers to help with team responsibilities.

• Encourages teammates during difficult moments.

• Places team goals ahead of individual recognition.

The more observable the behaviors, the more consistently they can be taught and evaluated.

Step 5: Observe, assess, and provide feedback

During practices and games, coaches intentionally observe these behaviors using a simple developmental rubric.

0 – Behavior not observed

1 – Behavior observed once

2 – Behavior observed consistently on multiple occasions

3 – Behavior consistently demonstrated throughout practice or competition

The resulting Teammate Score should never be viewed as a label or a judgment of an athlete’s character. Instead, it serves as a conversation starter and a developmental tool. Just as coaches use statistics and film to improve athletic performance, the Teammate Score provides a structured way to help athletes grow in the interpersonal skills that contribute to healthy teams and successful programs.

For decades, coaches have embraced the idea that what gets measured gets improved. We measure strength because we want athletes to become stronger. We measure shooting because we want athletes to become better shooters. We measure sprint speed because we believe faster athletes gain a competitive advantage. Yet one of the most influential aspects of team success—the ability to make those around you better—is often left to chance. If we truly believe being a great teammate matters, then we should be just as intentional about developing it as we are every other aspect of athletic performance.

The Teammate Score is far from a finished product. Like any coaching framework, it should continue to evolve through research, coaching experience, and athlete feedback. My hope is that this idea sparks discussion among coaches about measuring what has always mattered but has rarely been intentionally developed.

If athletics truly exist to develop young people, then perhaps one of the most important skills we can teach isn’t simply how to perform better; it is how to make everyone around them better.

To promote transparency, I want readers to know that artificial intelligence (AI) was used as an editorial assistant in the creation of this article. AI helped refine the writing, improve organization, suggest relevant research, and generate the accompanying visuals. The ideas, framework, concepts, and opinions, including the Teammate Score, are entirely my own. AI served only as a tool to enhance the presentation of those ideas.

Throughout my coaching career, I’ve had the privilege of working in several schools across different districts. Despite the differences in communities, programs, and athletes, there has been one constant that seems to appear at nearly every preseason parent meeting. At some point, usually led by the athletic director or coach, the conversation turns to the ride home after games and what parents choose to discuss with their athletes.

I’ve always found that interesting because the fact that this topic continues to surface, regardless of the school or community, suggests that it matters. The fact that this topic continues to surface, regardless of the school or community, suggests that it matters. Coaches and athletic directors wouldn’t continue bringing it up year after year if it didn’t have a meaningful impact. Over time, I’ve come to believe that those conversations, whether they happen in the car immediately after the game or later that evening around the dinner table, may be some of the most influential moments in an athlete’s development. They deserve more attention than they often receive.

When the message at home consistently aligns with the values a coach is trying to instill, athletes receive a clear, consistent picture of what matters. However, when the message at home consistently runs counter to those values, it can quietly undermine even the healthiest team cultures. Often, those conversations shift the focus away from what is best for the team and toward what is best for the individual. Over time, athletes begin to view their experiences through the lens of “me” rather than “we.” While coaches may spend countless hours emphasizing sacrifice, trust, and collective success, conflicting messages at home can slowly erode those lessons without anyone realizing it.

To be clear, this isn’t an argument that parents should always agree with their child’s coach. That would be unrealistic, and frankly, unhealthy. Coaches make mistakes. Parents will naturally see situations differently. Disagreement is part of youth sports.

The question isn’t whether parents should disagree. The question is how those disagreements are communicated and what message athletes ultimately take away from those postgame conversations. Those moments present an opportunity to either reinforce resilience, perspective, and growth or unintentionally encourage comparison, entitlement, and individualism.

That is why I believe the ride home or the post-game conversation deserves far more attention than it often receives.

I think part of the reason these conversations matter so much is that they happen at a unique moment. After competition, athletes are processing emotions, replaying mistakes, celebrating successes, and trying to make sense of what just happened. Whether they had the game of their life or struggled through every minute, they often ask themselves questions like, “Did I play well?” “Did I help my team?” or even, “Am I good enough?” The first meaningful conversation they have after a game often becomes the lens through which they interpret that experience. Parents may not realize it, but the questions they ask and the messages they reinforce can shape what athletes carry with them long after the final buzzer.

The messages we send to our children after they compete matter. They don’t just influence how an athlete feels about one game or one performance. Over time, they begin to shape how athletes see themselves, how they define success, and how they view their role within a team. If the consistent message is that they are being overlooked, not getting enough opportunities, or that they deserve more than everyone else, those ideas don’t simply disappear before the next practice. They become part of the lens through which athletes interpret every drill, every coaching decision, and every game. Those messages can quietly influence not only performance, but also an athlete’s ability to trust teammates, accept coaching, embrace a role, and contribute to something bigger than themselves.

Now, I don’t want to suggest that conversations after a game are a bad thing. In fact, I think they are incredibly important. Taking time to reflect with your child can be one of the healthiest parts of the athletic experience. Those moments provide opportunities to process emotions, celebrate successes, work through disappointments, and reinforce lessons that extend far beyond the game itself.

That reflection also doesn’t require you to agree with every decision a coach makes. It is perfectly okay to see situations differently or even disagree with strategic decisions, playing time, or coaching choices. The goal isn’t blind agreement. Rather, it is teaching our children how to navigate disagreement in a healthy and productive way. Learning that you can disagree with a coach while still respecting them, supporting your teammates, and remaining committed to the team may be one of the most valuable life lessons youth sports can offer.

So what should these conversations include? There isn’t one right answer, and every family will have discussions that fit their child and their values. The goal isn’t to follow a script. The goal is to create opportunities for reflection, critical thinking, and meaningful conversation.

The questions we ask are powerful because they shape the direction of the discussion. Rather than immediately focusing on statistics, playing time, officiating, or what someone else did wrong, we can ask questions that encourage athletes to think about their own experience. Questions such as, “What was fun about today?” “How do you feel you competed?” “What did you learn?” “What is something you wish had gone better?” “What would you like to improve before the next game?” or “How can I best support you?” invite athletes to reflect rather than simply react.

You may also notice that these are open-ended questions. They can’t be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Instead, they encourage conversation. They ask athletes to think about their experience, articulate their thoughts, and begin making meaning from both success and disappointment. Over time, those conversations don’t just help athletes become better competitors. They help young people better understand themselves, build resilience, and develop the ability to reflect long after their playing days are over. In fact, research in education has long demonstrated that open-ended questions promote deeper thinking because they require learners to reflect, explain, and evaluate their own experiences rather than simply provide a correct answer.

Now you may be wondering, “What if I disagree with the coach?” How can I have that conversation with my child without undermining their experience or their ability to be a positive member of the team?

This is where the conversation becomes a little more nuanced, but I would argue the same principle still applies: ask open-ended questions. Rather than immediately validating frustration or criticizing the coach, encourage your athlete to think through the situation. You might ask, “What did you like or dislike about the coach’s decision?” “Why do you think that decision was made?” “Have you talked with your coach about how you’re feeling?” “If not, how could you communicate your perspective respectfully?” or “Even if you disagree, how can you continue to be a great teammate?”

Notice that these questions don’t require an athlete to agree with the coach. Instead, they encourage reflection, perspective-taking, and problem-solving. Disagreement is a natural part of sports and life. Learning how to navigate those disagreements with respect, communicate effectively, and continue contributing to something bigger than yourself is a skill that will serve young people long after their athletic careers have ended.

Whether you choose these questions or others, remember that the conversations you have after the competition matter. They shape how young athletes view themselves, respond to adversity, and understand their role within a team. Those conversations don’t just affect your child. They can influence teammates, coaches, families, and ultimately the culture of an entire program.

As parents, we have an opportunity to make the ride home more than a recap of the game. We can make it a space for reflection, curiosity, and growth. Keep those conversations centered on critical thinking rather than criticism. Your child won’t always agree with a coach, and neither will you. That’s okay. What matters is helping young people learn how to navigate disagreement, communicate respectfully, and continue contributing to something bigger than themselves. Years from now, few athletes will remember every score. Many will remember the conversations they had on the ride home.

Imperfection is part of human nature. None of us are perfect, and I would argue that is one of the things that makes us human. If we were perfect, what would there be to learn? What would motivate us to keep improving? It is our imperfections that create opportunity because they challenge us to grow, to learn, and to become something we were not yesterday.

In sports, we often hear words like elite and excellent. Organizations proudly market elite teams, coaches talk about pursuing excellence, and parents invest countless hours and resources because they want to provide opportunities for their children to become the best athletes they can be. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this. In fact, I believe those aspirations come from a good place. We should want athletes to pursue excellence and become the best version of themselves.

However, I think there is something we sometimes forget.

When those elite teams step onto the court or field, they are anything but perfect. They miss shots, turn the ball over, miscommunicate on defense, strike out, miss tackles, make poor decisions, and lose games. If perfection was truly the standard, then none of the teams we call elite would actually meet it. That should cause us to pause and ask an important question. If the best athletes in the world are still imperfect, then maybe perfection was never the goal in the first place.

Perhaps what makes someone elite is not the absence of imperfections but the willingness to continually improve them. The best athletes do not ignore the areas where they struggle, nor do they allow those struggles to define them. Instead, they recognize those deficiencies as opportunities to become more complete performers. Their imperfections become the very things that give direction to their practice and purpose to their work.

Unfortunately, I think youth sports sometimes send a very different message. When the word elite becomes attached to a team, parents, coaches, and sometimes even athletes begin expecting performances that match the label. Mistakes become something to avoid, deficiencies become something to hide, and athletes can begin believing that struggling in one area says something about who they are instead of simply identifying something they have not yet learned.

I wonder if we have this backwards. What if we stopped looking at deficiencies as evidence that someone is not good enough and started looking at them as opportunities for growth? What if we valued the things athletes are not good at yet just as much as we value the things they already do well? I believe both research and experience suggest that this shift in perspective has the potential to change not only performance but also confidence and long-term participation in sports.

Research in sport psychology consistently shows that confidence is not built by ignoring weaknesses, nor is it built by constantly pointing them out. Confidence develops when athletes experience themselves improving. Psychologist Albert Bandura referred to these as mastery experiences, meaning confidence grows because athletes accomplish things that were once difficult. Research on mastery-oriented coaching environments has similarly found that athletes are more motivated, more resilient, and more likely to continue participating when coaches emphasize learning, effort, and improvement rather than comparison or perfection. Carol Dweck’s work on growth mindset reinforces this idea by reminding us that today’s weakness does not have to become tomorrow’s identity.

That research caused me to rethink something I had believed for a long time. Maybe our job is not to eliminate imperfections as quickly as possible. Maybe our job is to help athletes understand what those imperfections are teaching them. To me, that is a very different conversation, and I believe it is one that youth sports desperately needs to have.

Imagine a basketball player who is an outstanding scorer but struggles to make quick decisions with the basketball. Does struggling to make quick decisions suddenly make them a poor player? Of course not. We have already established they are an excellent scorer, so why do we allow one area of growth to overshadow everything else they bring to the game? Just because they struggle to make quick decisions does not mean they cannot score or positively impact their team. It simply means there is another skill that can be developed.

What if we looked at that struggle differently? What if we viewed it as one of the greatest opportunities that player has?

Because they struggle to make quick decisions, they have something meaningful to work on every day. Every practice provides another opportunity to improve, and every repetition gives them another chance to become a more complete player. Their scoring ability is already a strength, but their decision-making provides direction for future growth. Their imperfection is not evidence that they are falling behind; it is evidence that they still have room to become even better.

I believe this idea extends far beyond basketball. In many ways, I think the same perspective applies to education. Imagine if a student who struggled in mathematics was viewed not as someone who was “bad at math,” but as someone who had an opportunity to become better at it. Too often, both students and athletes are conditioned to believe that difficulty means deficiency, when in reality difficulty often signals that meaningful learning is taking place. That subtle shift in mindset can be incredibly empowering because it changes the question from, “What’s wrong with me?” to, “What can I learn next?”

Every athlete, every student, and every human being has strengths, and every one of us has areas where we can improve. The goal should never be pretending weaknesses do not exist, nor should it be reminding people of them every chance we get. Instead, perhaps our responsibility as coaches, parents, administrators, educators, and leaders is to help people recognize those areas for what they really are: opportunities to grow.

I also think this changes the way we provide feedback. If we truly believe imperfections are opportunities rather than verdicts, then our conversations after practices and competitions should reflect that belief. What if, after every game, we celebrated improvement just as much as outcomes? What if we spent as much time discussing what we learned as we did what we won? What if missed assignments, turnovers, or mistakes became information rather than judgment? The mistake itself is not something we celebrate, but the opportunity it provides certainly can be.

When athletes begin seeing improvement instead of deficiency, something interesting happens. Their confidence grows not because someone continually tells them they should be confident, but because they experience themselves becoming more capable. Confidence is built through competence. It develops through the small victories that happen every day in practice when something that was once difficult slowly becomes routine.

I know this idea has challenged me as both a coach and a parent. There have been times when I focused too much on correcting mistakes instead of helping young people understand why those mistakes mattered. Looking back, I wonder how many opportunities I missed to help athletes see their imperfections differently. Over time, however, I began framing areas for improvement as opportunities rather than deficiencies, and I noticed something began to change. Athletes became more willing to take risks, more resilient after setbacks, and more eager to embrace challenges rather than avoid them. Interestingly, the more they focused on improving their weaknesses, the more confidence they developed, not only in those areas but also in the things they were already doing well.

Perhaps that is the paradox of excellence. The athletes who ultimately become great are not the ones without imperfections. They are the ones who understand that imperfections are not permanent, that mistakes do not define who they are, and that every area of growth represents another opportunity to learn. Maybe that is what being elite really means. It is not about being perfect. It is about never running out of opportunities to improve.

I can say with certainty that the vast majority of my interactions with parents have been positive. I have always tried to make it clear that I will put the team first while also doing what I believe is best for each individual player. The reality, however, is that putting the team and program first often requires coaches to consider a wide range of factors that may not always be visible to others. Those considerations lead to difficult decisions, and that is often where friction begins.

In many cases, parents naturally view situations through the lens of their own child rather than through the lens of the entire program. While this can be frustrating for coaches, it is also understandable. Parents want what is best for their children. They want opportunities for them to succeed, grow, and enjoy their experience. The challenge arises when parents and coaches begin working toward different goals or interpreting situations in fundamentally different ways. When that happens, trust can erode, culture can suffer, and coaches can become frustrated enough to consider walking away from the profession altogether.

I believe there are several ways coaches and parents can work together to reduce some of this friction. These ideas are not based on research or formal studies. Rather, they come from my own experiences as a coach who has spent more than two decades navigating these relationships.

For Coaches

The first responsibility of coaches is to be as transparent as possible in their decision-making. When information is limited, people naturally fill in the gaps with assumptions. Those assumptions often become conversations at home that may not align with the goals or intentions of the program. Coaches should explain what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what they hope to accomplish. Not everyone will agree with every decision, and that is perfectly acceptable. However, when families understand the reasoning behind decisions, confusion decreases and unnecessary tension can often be avoided.

Second, coaches need to be approachable. I understand why many coaches build walls around themselves. Coaching often comes with criticism, second-guessing, and scrutiny. It can feel easier to limit interaction than to invite difficult conversations. However, the more approachable a coach is, the more opportunities there are to build relationships and establish trust with families and other stakeholders.

Being approachable does not mean every topic is open for debate. Coaches should establish clear boundaries around discussions. Playing time and game strategy, for example, are coaching decisions. Topics such as culture, player treatment, communication, and the overall team environment are appropriate areas for discussion. Even when parents approach a coach about playing time, an approachable coach can respectfully remind them of established boundaries while still listening to their concerns.

Third, coaches should create mechanisms for families to share concerns that do not always require face-to-face conversations. In one of my previous coaching roles, we utilized a culture concerns form. The purpose of the form was not to debate playing time or strategy. Instead, it provided families with an avenue to raise concerns related to culture, communication, player treatment, or the overall experience within the program.

Not every parent is comfortable initiating a direct conversation with a coach. Providing additional pathways for feedback can help identify concerns before they grow into larger issues. More importantly, it demonstrates that the program values communication and is willing to listen. Coaches may not always agree with every concern that is shared, but having a process in place creates opportunities for productive dialogue rather than frustration, assumptions, and speculation.

The common theme throughout these ideas is communication with boundaries. Coaches need to make communication a priority while also establishing clear expectations about what is and is not open for discussion. I have experienced both extremes. At times, I have been too available and found myself overwhelmed. At other times, I have created too many barriers and limited communication to the point that relationships suffered. In my experience, there is a healthy middle ground, and the ideas above can help coaches move closer to it.

It is important to acknowledge that coaches are not blameless in these situations. Poor communication, inconsistent expectations, and a lack of transparency can create many of the same frustrations that coaches often attribute to parents. Just as parents should seek understanding before making assumptions, coaches should reflect on whether they have provided enough clarity and context for families to understand the decisions being made. Healthy relationships require effort from both sides, and neither side benefits when communication breaks down.

For Parents

First, understand that the coach has an entire program to oversee, not just your child. If possible, try not to view your child’s experience exclusively through your child’s perspective. Instead, consider the broader context of the team and program. This does not mean ignoring concerns when they arise. Rather, it means asking questions before making assumptions.

Assumptions often create emotional reactions that are not helpful for your athlete, the coach, or the program. Asking questions, gathering information, and seeking clarification can lead to a more productive understanding of a situation. While your child is naturally your primary concern, it is important to remember that coaches are making decisions while considering the needs of an entire roster and program.

Second, if there is a grievance procedure within the program, follow it. Doing so not only respects the process but also demonstrates to your child that concerns should be addressed through established channels. The exception, of course, would be situations involving legitimate concerns about athlete safety or maltreatment. Outside of those circumstances, issues involving playing time, strategy, or role definition are generally not matters that need to be immediately elevated to the highest level.

Following established procedures also creates an opportunity for athletes to learn valuable life skills. Encouraging your child to communicate, advocate for themselves, and participate in problem-solving helps prepare them for challenges they will encounter long after their playing days are over.

Third, cheer for all athletes and celebrate growth wherever it occurs. When enjoyment of the experience becomes tied exclusively to your child’s performance or the outcome of a contest, it can narrow your perspective. It may lead you to focus more on what a coach is or is not doing, or on perceived shortcomings of other players, rather than appreciating the growth taking place throughout the team.

When parents embrace the development of the entire group, they contribute to a healthier environment for everyone involved. They help reinforce the values that sports are capable of teaching, including teamwork, perseverance, accountability, and resilience. Ironically, focusing on these process-oriented aspects of sports often creates the conditions that lead to winning as an outcome.

These ideas are certainly not an exhaustive list, nor are they intended to be universal solutions. Every coach, parent, athlete, and program is different. However, they are ideas that have emerged from my own experiences and observations over the years. If coaches and parents can improve communication, establish appropriate boundaries, seek understanding before making assumptions, and remain focused on the development of young people, I believe many of the tensions that exist today can be reduced.

At the end of the day, parents and coaches generally want the same thing. They want young people to grow, succeed, and have a positive experience. Most disagreements do not stem from a difference in values or intentions. Instead, they often arise from misunderstandings, assumptions, or a lack of communication.

The challenge is not aligning on the destination. The challenge is finding ways to work together on the journey. When parents and coaches view one another as partners rather than adversaries, the experience improves for everyone involved, especially the athletes we are all trying to serve.

What I don’t remember very well are the wins and losses.

I was a pretty good athlete growing up. During the 1990s, when I was competing, there were only a handful of opportunities available. You either made the traveling team or played in the local in-house league. The traveling team was considered the more competitive option, while the in-house league provided an opportunity for anyone who wanted to play. Outside of those experiences, there were very few organized opportunities. Most of us improved by spending hours at the park, shooting in our driveways, or finding pickup games with friends.

How Youth Sports Changed

I am not suggesting we should return to the “good old days.” Youth sports have evolved in many positive ways. Athletes today have access to better coaching, more training opportunities, and more chances to compete than ever before. However, I do think we need to take an honest look at how youth sports have changed and consider whether there is value in combining some of the best aspects of the past with the opportunities available today.

One of the biggest changes has been the explosion of competitive opportunities. Today, it seems as though every athlete can find a spring or summer team with words like “elite,” “premier,” or “select” attached to its name. The problem is that these labels often tell us very little about the actual developmental needs of the athletes participating. Somewhere along the way, we began to equate higher levels of competition with greater value, as though every athlete should be striving for the same destination.

The reality is that youth sports participants have always been diverse. Some young athletes dream of playing in college or beyond. Others simply enjoy being part of a team, staying active, and competing with their friends. Most fall somewhere in between. Yet our current system often treats these athletes as though they all should be pursuing the same path.

The research suggests otherwise.

There Is No Single Path to Success

There is a growing body of evidence indicating that there is no single “right” pathway for young athletes. Children develop at different rates physically, emotionally, socially, and psychologically. Some thrive in highly competitive environments from a young age, while others need time to build confidence, discover what they enjoy, and develop a broad athletic foundation before deciding how much they want sports to be a part of their lives.

Research from sport development experts such as Jean Côté has consistently found that many successful athletes participated in multiple sports during childhood before specializing later in adolescence. Early diversification has been associated with improved motor skill development, greater enjoyment, reduced burnout, and longer participation in sports. In other words, the pathway to long-term success is often very different from the one many adults assume is necessary.

Research on early specialization raises additional concerns. Studies have linked early specialization to increased rates of overuse injuries, burnout, and sport dropout. Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the International Olympic Committee have encouraged youth sports leaders to reconsider the idea that more participation, travel, and training automatically lead to better outcomes.

Perhaps most importantly, athlete development is not linear. Some children dominate at age ten and stop playing by age sixteen. Others develop later physically, emotionally, or athletically and ultimately surpass many of their peers. When we become overly focused on identifying talent early, we risk overlooking athletes whose developmental timelines simply look different.

Why I Created House of Hoops

The more I coached and worked with young athletes, the more I became convinced that many youth sports organizations were trying to serve only one type of athlete. Programs were often designed for the athlete seeking the highest level of competition. There seemed to be very little space designed for athletes who wanted to compete while also playing other sports.

That realization was one of the driving forces behind my creation of House of Hoops.

My vision was never to create another basketball program that simply chased wins, rankings, or exposure. Instead, I wanted to create opportunities for athletes to participate in basketball in ways that matched their individual goals and interests.

For some athletes, House of Hoops serves as an opportunity to continue playing basketball while also participating in other sports. These athletes enjoy competing, improving, and being part of a team, but basketball may not be their primary focus. They might be football players, baseball players, volleyball players, or track athletes who still want a meaningful basketball experience without feeling pressured to specialize.

At the same time, House of Hoops can provide opportunities for athletes with higher performance aspirations in basketball. These athletes may choose to invest additional time in skill development, competition, and training to pursue basketball at a higher level.

The important distinction is that neither experience is viewed as more valuable than the other. Both are legitimate pathways. Both allow athletes to compete, develop relationships, and enjoy the game.

In many ways, House of Hoops was built around a simple belief: youth sports should adapt to the needs of young athletes rather than forcing them to fit a single model of participation.

A Different Way to Think About Development

This is why I believe we need clearly defined pathways within youth sports. Not because one pathway is better than another, but because different athletes have different goals, interests, and motivations.

The Recreational Pathway

The first pathway is the recreational pathway. This pathway is designed for athletes who simply enjoy playing the game. They participate because sports are fun, they enjoy being active, and they like being around their friends. While they still compete and want to do well, sports are not a major focus of their lives. These athletes are unlikely to spend significant time outside of practices and games working on their skills, and that is perfectly okay. Recreational leagues, community-based programs, and in-house opportunities provide an important outlet for these athletes and should be viewed as valuable experiences rather than lesser alternatives.

The Competitive Pathway

The second pathway is the competitive pathway. These athletes want more from their experience. They enjoy competing, challenging themselves, and improving their skills. They may spend time outside of practice working on their game and often take pride in their development. At the same time, they frequently participate in multiple sports and maintain interests beyond athletics. Many future varsity athletes fall into this category. They may not always be stars, but they become valuable contributors, teammates, and leaders. Their enjoyment comes not only from playing the game but from the process of improvement and competition.

In my view, most athletes should remain within either the recreational or competitive pathway until at least age fourteen. This allows them to experience multiple sports, develop a broader athletic foundation, and make more informed decisions about their future participation.

The Performance Pathway

The third pathway is the performance pathway. This pathway is designed for athletes who aspire to compete at the highest levels available to them. These athletes often invest significant time outside of their regular seasons developing their skills and may eventually choose to focus primarily on one sport. The commitment required is substantial, and the sacrifices are real. This pathway is not for everyone, nor should it be.

What is important to understand is that the performance pathway is not inherently better than the other two pathways. It is simply different. The athletes who belong in this pathway genuinely enjoy the additional work, the challenges, and the pursuit of mastery. They find satisfaction in the process itself.

At the same time, athletes and families need to understand that no outcome is guaranteed. Scholarships, roster spots, and future opportunities can never be promised. That is why I believe athletes should not enter this pathway until at least age fourteen whenever possible. Exposure to multiple sports and varied athletic experiences provides benefits that extend far beyond athletic performance and helps young people make more informed decisions about the level of commitment they truly want.

What All Three Pathways Have in Common

What stands out to me about all three pathways is that they share a common characteristic: each allows athletes to enjoy sports, albeit in different ways. Not every athlete finds joy in highly competitive environments. Not every athlete enjoys year-round training. Not every athlete dreams of playing college sports. Likewise, not every athlete wants sports to be purely recreational.

The goal should not be to push every child toward the same destination. The goal should be to help every child find the pathway that best aligns with their interests, abilities, and goals. When I think back on my own experiences as an athlete, I do not remember where I fit on some competitive hierarchy. I remember the people. I remember the relationships. I remember the experiences. Those are the things that stayed with me.

If we truly want youth sports to serve young people, we need to stop assuming there is only one path to success. A healthy youth sports system should provide opportunities for athletes who want to play for fun, compete, or pursue high-level performance. When we create space for all three pathways to exist and be valued, more athletes will thrive, more athletes will stay involved, and more athletes will have the opportunity to create the kinds of memories that last long after the final score is forgotten.

This week, however, this message is for the athletes.

Similar to my own experience, I believe many athletes find themselves caught in the same struggle. Too often, athletes begin to believe their worth is determined by how many points they score, where they are ranked, how much attention they receive, or the number of likes and followers they accumulate on social media. If you weren’t featured in the tournament highlights last weekend or didn’t make the latest top-50 list, it can feel like you somehow came up short.

You didn’t.

Those things do not define who you are as an athlete, and they certainly do not define who you are as a person. They are not a true representation of the greatness that exists within you. Your worth is not tied to how many games you win, the medals you collect, the gear you wear, the team you play for, your ranking, or the college coaches who contact you. Your worth is found within you.

Self-worth can be difficult to navigate, especially in a society built on comparison. Every day, we are exposed to highlight reels, rankings, statistics, and carefully curated versions of other people’s lives. It becomes easy to believe that our value is connected to external achievements and recognition. The problem is that when we tie our worth to things outside of our control, we place our confidence and identity on an unstable foundation.

Trust me, I understand that trap.

Even after 25 years of coaching, I found myself believing that my worth was tied to the number of games I won. I allowed outcomes to determine how I felt about myself and the work I was doing. It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true for you now.

If you are looking for something to measure yourself by, focus on the things you can control: your effort, your attitude, your work ethic, how you treat others, and the character you display when no one is watching. Those things reveal far more about who you are than any stat line ever could.

Is winning fun? Absolutely. Competing matters. Pursuing excellence matters.

However, how you define excellence matters even more.

Is excellence something that only exists in outcomes, rankings, and awards? Or is excellence found in the habits you build every day? Is it found in showing up when you don’t feel like it, being a great teammate, treating people with respect, and continuing to work when nobody is watching? Is it found in how you respond when things don’t go your way?

I would argue that those things are a far more meaningful measure of success.

Your character should not rise and fall with the result of a game or the number of likes on a post. You are worth more than a score. You are worth more than a ranking. You are worth more than a record.

The greatest gift you can provide to your team, your community, and society is not found solely in your ability to perform on a court or field. It is found in how you treat others, how you respond to disappointment, and how you bounce back from setbacks. It is found in your willingness to learn, grow, and help others do the same.

Use whatever game you play to help teach those lessons. Then, if you are fortunate enough to compete at the collegiate level or beyond, continue using what you have learned to serve others, your family, your community, and the people whose lives you touch along the way.

Sport offers something far more valuable than trophies and recognition. As an athlete, you have the opportunity to grow through competition. You learn commitment, sacrifice, resilience, teamwork, discipline, and how to push yourself beyond limits you never thought possible. These are the lessons that carry far beyond the court and field, yet they often receive far less attention than wins, rankings, and awards.

Just because society doesn’t always recognize these things as “wins” doesn’t mean they are not victories. In many ways, they are the most important victories of all. They help you succeed long after the ball stops bouncing, the final whistle is blown, and your playing career comes to an end.

Long after the scores are forgotten, the rankings change, and the trophies collect dust, those lessons will remain. The character you built, the relationships you formed, the adversity you overcame, and the person you became through the process will stay with you for the rest of your life.

If you are going to place value on anything, place it on those lessons. Place it on the growth that occurred through the process. Place it on the person you became through competition.

That is where the real value is.

Never confuse what you do with who you are.

First, I love coaching. I love basketball. More importantly, I loved the players, families, and communities I had the opportunity to work with.

Looking back, however, I can see that my love for coaching was often clouded by something else: pressure. The pressure to win and produce outcomes stemmed from the fact that those outcomes became the primary indicator that things were going well.

I got caught up in the rat race that youth sports has become. The constant pursuit of more wins, more recognition, more validation, and more proof that what we were doing was working. The pressure was not only something I felt as a coach. I felt it as a parent as well.

Both of my sons are good athletes and good basketball players. As I reflect now, I can see moments when I pushed them not entirely for their benefit, but for mine. Fortunately, I do not believe any lasting harm was done, and I am grateful for that. Still, it is an uncomfortable realization. It forced me to ask an important question: Who was I really trying to satisfy?

Since stepping away from coaching, at least for now, I have spent a great deal of time reflecting on my experiences. What I have come to realize is that many of the things that felt overwhelmingly important while I was immersed in coaching are not nearly as important as I once believed.

Winning matters. Competition matters. Success matters. However, the definition of each of those things is relative to the situation you are in. More importantly, they are not the only things that matter.

My overall record as a head coach was 103-160. At my last coaching stop, we went 76-131. By traditional standards, those records are not particularly impressive. They are certainly not the type of records that draw headlines or earn praise.

Yet focusing only on those numbers ignores much of the story.

Even as I write those records, I find myself wanting to explain them. I coached at two schools that were not traditional basketball communities. I want people to understand the circumstances, the challenges, and the context behind those numbers. The truth is, context matters. But the fact that I still feel compelled to defend those records reminds me how deeply I internalized the idea that my worth as a coach was tied to outcomes. That realization has been one of the most uncomfortable parts of this reflection process.

As stated, I was not coaching in traditional basketball communities. My goal was never simply to win games. My goal was to build programs capable of winning games. There is a difference. Building a program means creating systems, establishing standards, developing young people, fostering relationships, and laying foundations that can outlast any one season. It means teaching athletes how to work, persevere, support one another, and handle adversity. Those things do not always show up in the standings.

At the time, I struggled to see that. Or maybe a better way to put it is that I struggled to see it once the pressure started pulling me in. I knew those things were important. They were exactly what we wanted to be doing. But comparison culture slowly crept in.

In the beginning, we compared ourselves to ourselves. Were we getting better? Were we making progress? Were we moving the program forward? As we improved, those internal comparisons began to disappear, and external comparisons took their place. How did we stack up against everyone else? Why were they winning more? Why weren’t we producing the outcomes that others expected?

I was just as guilty of this as anyone. The pressure I felt became tied almost entirely to outcomes. Did we win? Did we lose? What was our record? What would people think?

As a result, every loss felt heavier than it should have, and many of the meaningful victories that happened away from the scoreboard went unnoticed. The growth we experienced as a program was often overshadowed by the fact that we were not delivering the traditional outcomes others desired.

When you are deep inside that vacuum, outcomes become your definition of success. Everything else fades into the background. That vacuum pulled me in deeper than I realized, and eventually I could no longer see what was actually happening right in front of me.

Only after stepping away did I begin to see the fuller picture. We may not have won as many games as we wanted. We may not have achieved every competitive goal we set out to achieve. But we built something. We created opportunities. We developed athletes. We established a culture.

Those things matter too. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if they matter more.

Ironically, much of my writing and research over the last few months has confirmed what I was already starting to feel. What we were doing was developing athletes. We were creating a culture of belonging. We were building something that extended beyond basketball. Yet I allowed the scoreboard and the outcomes to overshadow those accomplishments.

My worth as a coach became tied to results because that is often how society defines a good coach. If you win, you are doing a great job. If you lose, people start asking questions.

Sure, there were positive outcomes along the way. I was fortunate enough to be voted Section Coach of the Year one season. We had some significant wins. We celebrated some memorable moments. But those things were never the whole story. The reality is that I allowed the pressure to create a vacuum that stole some of the joy from coaching because I became consumed by things largely outside my control. Now that I see the picture more clearly, I find myself becoming more proud of what we accomplished with each passing day.

I am proud of the young people we coached. I enjoy seeing the things they are doing now. The crazy thing is that many of those athletes are now out in the world living successful lives after basketball. Even those who experienced losing seasons are doing well. Many are thriving. They may remember some wins. They may remember some losses. I honestly do not know for sure.

What I do know is that they appear to be enjoying life, and that is what matters most. The lack of traditional outcomes did not diminish their ability to live happy, healthy, and meaningful lives. In some cases, those setbacks may have even helped shape who they became. What I hope they remember most are the other things: the relationships, the standards, the sense of belonging, and the culture we built together.

For any coach who feels trapped in the vacuum, this is my reminder of what is truly important. The culture you build. The relationships you develop. The lessons you teach. Wins and losses will come and go. Records will eventually be forgotten. How you make people feel and the impact you have on their lives will last much longer.

I lived it. I was deep in it. I did not see things clearly, and it affected not only how I coached but also how I viewed myself. Now that I am out, I can see it much more clearly.

While I miss coaching, I know I will get another opportunity someday. When that day comes, the lessons I learned while trapped in that vacuum will help guide how I serve the next group of athletes I am fortunate enough to lead. If nothing else, this experience has reminded me that coaching is about people first and outcomes second. Somewhere along the way, I lost sight of that.

I do not intend to make that mistake again.

While my decision to resign prompted reflection, this article is not about my departure from the profession. Rather, it is about a trend I have observed for years as a coach, educator, and observer of interscholastic athletics.

Over the past two decades, I have watched talented, dedicated coaches leave the profession for reasons that often have little to do with their ability to teach, lead, or positively impact young people. Rising parental pressure, growing expectations, time demands, public scrutiny, and a lack of support have created an environment that many coaches no longer find sustainable.

My own experience simply reinforced what I had already been seeing. The circumstances surrounding my departure were unique to my situation, but the broader themes were not. Across the country, coaches are leaving the profession at alarming rates. Some retire early, while others walk away because the demands have become overwhelming. Many ultimately decide that the rewards of working with young people no longer outweigh the constant pressure that comes with the role.

What concerns me most is not my own story. It is the growing awareness that my experience is far from unique.

The Data Behind the Coaching Exodus

The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) and related research have identified several troubling trends that help explain the rise in coaching turnover nationwide.

First, coaching has become increasingly difficult. Many educator-coaches describe it as a second full-time job. Between practices, games, film study, family communication, fundraising, transportation, supervision, and administrative responsibilities, the workload can be immense. Coaches often invest hundreds of hours in their programs while receiving relatively modest compensation. While most coaches do not enter the profession for financial gain, the disparity between the time commitment and compensation cannot be ignored. The reality is that coaching requires significant sacrifices of personal and family time, making it increasingly difficult to sustain over the long term.

Second, parent pressure continues to be a primary reason coaches leave the profession. Coaches consistently report that concerns about playing time, team roles, scholarships, and competitive success contribute significantly to burnout and turnover. To be fair, most parents are simply trying to advocate for what they believe is best for their child. However, parents naturally view the athletic experience through the lens of their individual son or daughter, while coaches must make decisions based on what they believe is best for the entire team and program. As families invest more time, money, and emotion into youth sports, expectations often rise alongside those investments. When those expectations are not met, frustration can develop, and coaches frequently become the focal point of that disappointment.

Third, administrative support matters. Research consistently shows that coaches are more likely to stay in their positions when they feel supported by athletic directors and school leaders. Conversely, when coaches feel isolated during conflicts with parents or community members, attrition rises. School administrators often face the difficult challenge of balancing support for their employees with concerns from families and the broader community. In some situations, administrators may feel pressure to address visible concerns quickly to reduce conflict or preserve community relationships. While these decisions are rarely simple, coaches who perceive a lack of support are significantly more likely to leave their positions, regardless of their effectiveness or commitment to student-athletes.

Finally, coaching turnover has significant consequences for athletes. Research suggests that frequent coaching changes can create uncertainty, reduce team cohesion, diminish athletes’ confidence, and disrupt the culture programs spend years building. Strong athletic programs are not built overnight. They are developed through relationships, trust, consistency, and a shared vision that evolves over time. When turnover is frequent, athletes often lose not only a coach but also a mentor, role model, and trusted adult who has played a meaningful role in their development.

These findings should concern anyone who cares about educational athletics. If schools hope to retain quality coaches, they must recognize that coaching is increasingly complex and demanding. Addressing issues such as workload, parent expectations, administrative support, and program stability is not only about retaining coaches; it is about preserving the educational value athletics can provide to young people.

Minnesota Is Not Immune

The trends identified by the NFHS are not isolated to other regions; they are occurring in communities across the country. Minnesota offers a compelling example of how these national challenges are unfolding at the state level.

Recent data from the Minnesota State High School Coaches Association revealed staggering rates of coaching turnover over a three-year period.

• 72% of girls’ hockey head coaching positions had coaches who changed.

• 52% of girls’ basketball head coaching positions had coaches who changed.

More importantly, the reasons cited by Minnesota coaches mirrored the concerns identified in national research:

• Parent pressure

• Expectations to win

• Long hours

• Burnout

• Low compensation

• Lack of administrative support

As a Minnesota coach, I immediately resonated with these findings because they reflect many of the same challenges I have witnessed throughout my career. While the statistics represent only a snapshot of a much larger issue, the numbers are worth pausing to consider.

In girls’ hockey, for example, a 72% turnover rate over three years means many athletes may encounter multiple head coaches during their high school careers. A freshman could realistically have a different coach by the time she is a senior. Such instability can significantly affect an athlete’s experience, relationships, and overall development.

I witnessed this firsthand during my coaching career. In my first season as a head coach in my previous role, I was already the third head coach those athletes had experienced in their high school years. Frequent turnover disrupts more than leadership positions. It undermines culture, relationships, trust, and the long-term vision that successful programs require. Consistency matters. Relationships take time to develop. When coaching changes become routine, both athletes’ experiences and program outcomes can suffer.

If more than half of the head coaching positions in a sport turn over every three years, that is not an individual coach problem; it is a systemic problem. The issue extends beyond any single school, district, or community. Minnesota simply provides a visible example of a challenge occurring throughout educational athletics nationwide.

Part of the challenge is that youth sports have increasingly evolved into an industry. What was once primarily viewed as an educational and developmental experience has, in many cases, become a marketplace driven by outcomes, exposure, rankings, scholarships, and visibility. As a result, athletics are often evaluated through a transactional lens rather than a transformational one. Success and value become measured by wins, statistics, and accolades rather than personal growth, character development, leadership, and relationships.

In this environment, the true value coaches bring to young people can be overlooked. Coaches are often judged by outcomes, while the less visible aspects of their work- mentoring athletes, building culture, teaching resilience, fostering accountability, and helping young people navigate adversity-receive far less attention. Yet these are often the very contributions that have the greatest long-term impact on the lives of student-athletes.

To address the coaching turnover crisis, we must first recognize that the problem is larger than any individual coach, school, or community. It is rooted in a broader system that has gradually shifted away from athletics’ educational purpose and toward a model that too often prioritizes outcomes over development.

The Real Disconnect

Perhaps the most important finding from the research is the growing disconnect between coaches’ beliefs about their purpose and the expectations of many outside stakeholders for educational athletics.

Most coaches enter the profession to help young people grow. They want athletes to develop their skills, compete at a high level, and experience success. Winning matters. Yet for many coaches, the purpose of athletics extends far beyond the scoreboard. Coaches strive to help young people develop resilience, work ethic, accountability, leadership, cooperation, communication, and the ability to persevere through adversity. These lessons often endure long after an athlete’s playing career has ended.

This is especially important given that only a small percentage of high school athletes will continue competing at the collegiate level. Estimates suggest that about 6% of high school athletes go on to participate in NCAA athletics. For the vast majority of participants, the most lasting benefits of sports are not championships, rankings, or scholarships, but rather the transferable skills and life lessons gained through the experience.

For many coaches, winning is not the ultimate goal; it is the byproduct of consistently doing the right things. Programs that emphasize discipline, accountability, teamwork, effort, and personal growth often find that success follows. However, when coaches continually leave, are pushed out, or choose to walk away from the profession, the consistency needed to develop those values is disrupted. Relationships are severed, cultures are reset, and young athletes lose mentors who may have played a significant role in their development.

The unintended message can also be troubling. When coaching turnover is driven primarily by dissatisfaction with outcomes, young people may come to believe that results are all that matter. This creates additional pressure to perform and reinforces the notion that value is determined by wins, rankings, statistics, or accolades. Yet these measures are often temporary. Very few people remember conference standings or rankings ten years after graduation. What they remember are the relationships they formed, the lessons they learned, and the experiences that helped shape who they became.

Many of the external pressures surrounding athletics, however, tend to focus on a different set of priorities:

• Wins and losses

• Playing time

• Scholarships

• Rankings

• Individual recognition

When these priorities clash, conflict becomes inevitable.

The coach often seeks to create a transformational experience that develops the whole person and prepares young people for life beyond sports. Others may view the experience through a more transactional lens, focusing solely on the items identified above.

One perspective asks, “What is this experience teaching my child?” This question focuses on the development of character, leadership, resilience, and other skills that will benefit young people long after their athletic careers end.

The other asks, “What is my child getting from this experience?” This perspective often focuses on tangible outcomes, such as playing time, statistics, recognition, scholarships, rankings, or competitive success.

Neither question is inherently wrong. Parents naturally seek opportunities and positive outcomes for their children. However, when the pursuit of outcomes overshadows the developmental purpose of athletics, tensions arise between what coaches aim to build and what some stakeholders expect to receive.

Those are fundamentally different questions. Understanding that difference may be one of the most important steps in addressing the coaching turnover crisis in educational athletics today.

What Happens If We Continue Down This Path?

If current trends continue, schools will increasingly struggle to find qualified coaches willing to lead athletic programs. This is not speculation; it is already happening. As experienced coaches leave the profession, younger, less experienced coaches will be asked to step into leadership roles earlier than ever. While many will rise to the challenge, they will also inherit the same pressures that have driven others away: parent complaints, unrealistic expectations, increasing demands on their time, and a growing disconnect between the educational purpose of athletics and the outcomes many stakeholders seek. Without adequate support, some of these coaches will eventually leave as well, creating a cycle of turnover that becomes increasingly difficult to break.

If we do not continue to have honest conversations about the state of coaching and youth athletics, I am concerned about what the future holds. The greatest loss will not be felt by coaches but by the athletes.

Athletes deserve opportunities to grow, compete, learn, and create meaningful memories through sports. They also deserve coaches who are invested in their development and who stay in their lives long enough to build trust, establish culture, and form lasting relationships. I often think about the first group of athletes I coached as a head coach in my previous role. I was their third head coach during their high school careers. The instability they experienced before I arrived undoubtedly shaped how they viewed athletics and their connection to the program. Frequent coaching turnover makes it difficult for athletes to develop a sense of continuity, belonging, and identity within a team.

Young people need coaches who are willing to invest in them, challenge them, mentor them, and help them navigate some of the most formative years of their lives. Equally important, they need environments that enable those coaches to stay. When quality coaches leave, relationships disappear, cultures reset, and opportunities for growth diminish. Over time, athletes may come to accept constant turnover, instability, and outcome-driven decision-making as normal. The danger is that the transactional culture surrounding youth sports becomes self-perpetuating, passed from one generation to the next.

The irony is that many of the coaches leaving are the very people who entered the profession because they cared deeply about young people. They chose coaching to teach, mentor, and make a positive impact on young people’s lives. As these individuals leave, educational athletics risks losing some of its strongest advocates for growth and development. In their place, the system may increasingly reward approaches that prioritize short-term outcomes over long-term development.

Yet the purpose of educational athletics has never been solely about winning. It has always been about growth, learning, relationships, and preparing young people for life beyond the game. Even at the highest levels of sport, the most successful coaches understand that sustained excellence rests on culture, development, and a commitment to the process. The scoreboard matters, but it should never be the sole measure of success.

If we truly want athletics to remain a transformational experience, we must create environments that support coaches, value relationships, and recognize that the greatest victories are often those that cannot be measured by a final score. Doing so is not simply about retaining coaches; it is about protecting the experiences of the young people they serve. When coaches are unsupported, continually replaced, or driven from the profession, athletes lose trusted mentors, consistent leadership, and relationships that often shape their growth long after the playing field. The future of educational athletics depends not only on finding good coaches but also on creating a system that enables them to stay. If we fail to do so, the greatest cost will not be borne by coaches, schools, or communities; it will be borne by the athletes who deserve the very best that educational athletics has to offer.

The weekend also included countless miles of driving, hotel stays, admission fees, gas station stops, concession stand purchases, packed schedules, and constant movement from one venue to another. Financially, emotionally, and physically, youth sports now demand a tremendous amount from families. From my perspective, the purpose behind all of it is still rooted in the athlete experience: helping kids grow, learn commitment, develop resilience, build relationships, and experience the process of improvement over time. The value, at least to me, is supposed to be found in the journey.

Yet increasingly, that perspective does not appear to be universally shared.

At nearly every tournament this weekend, I witnessed parents yelling at officials, criticizing coaches from the stands, reacting emotionally to playing time, and filming nearly every moment of their 11-year-old child’s game as though each possession carried long-term significance. Families were paying anywhere from $60 to $130 in admission fees for a single weekend tournament, often before accounting for travel, food, lodging, team fees, or training costs. While this is only one weekend and certainly not representative of every family involved in youth sports, it is also not an isolated experience. In many ways, it has become normalized.

The more I reflected on it, the more I realized the issue may not simply be youth sports itself. Youth sports may instead be reflecting something much larger happening within society. The pressure, emotional intensity, comparison, commercialization, and constant pursuit of achievement that increasingly surround athletics are not unique to sports. They mirror many of the same anxieties, values, and cultural pressures that exist throughout modern life. Perhaps the growing tension in youth sports says less about athletics and more about us.

The Transactional Shift in Athletics

The commercialization of youth sports is something I have watched steadily intensify over time. Even the language we now use, referring to youth sports as an “industry”, does not always sit well with me. At its core, athletics were traditionally viewed as a developmental and transformative experience: a place where young people learned discipline, resilience, teamwork, leadership, and perseverance through shared struggle and growth. Increasingly, however, sports are being reframed through a transactional lens, and in many ways, this mirrors broader shifts occurring throughout society.

As a culture, we increasingly pursue improvement not simply for growth, mastery, or becoming better people, but for the external rewards tied to achievement. Success is often measured through scholarships, rankings, financial gain, social status, or visibility rather than through the developmental process itself. Research has shown that modern environments shaped by social media, performance culture, and constant comparison have intensified the focus on external validation and measurable outcomes (Twenge et al., 2020). When those outcomes are not achieved, frustration and disappointment often follow, even if meaningful growth occurred throughout the experience.

This dynamic is becoming increasingly visible in athletics, where participation is sometimes viewed less as a developmental journey and more as an investment expected to produce measurable returns such as exposure, elite opportunities, scholarships, or recognition. Recent research on youth sport specialization and burnout has found that highly outcome-driven sport environments are associated with increased anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and reduced enjoyment among young athletes (Jayanthi et al., 2019). In many cases, the core developmental benefits of sports, resilience, teamwork, leadership, discipline, and personal growth, become overshadowed by the pursuit of measurable success.

Research on motivation and athlete development further supports these concerns. Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) suggests that individuals experience greater psychological well-being, intrinsic motivation, and long-term engagement when environments support autonomy, competence, and relatedness rather than relying primarily on external rewards and pressures. Similarly, research on motivational climates has consistently found that mastery-oriented environments focused on effort, learning, and personal growth yield healthier developmental outcomes than climates primarily centered on performance, comparison, and winning (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 2006). Yet many modern youth sports settings increasingly emphasize rankings, exposure, statistics, and public recognition at younger and younger ages, reinforcing the very pressures that research suggests may undermine long-term athlete well-being and enjoyment.

The Loss of the Collective

In many ways, athletics now reflect the broader societal tendency to equate measurable outcomes with personal value. In sports, success is often reduced to wins, rankings, scholarships, playing time, or statistical production. In society, financial status is frequently used as a measure of success and personal worth. Within education, grades and standardized test scores are often treated as definitive indicators of intelligence, despite research suggesting that test performance frequently reflects a student’s familiarity with testing structures, environmental factors, and access to support rather than wisdom, creativity, or overall capability (Kohn, 2000). Across multiple domains, performance metrics increasingly shape how value is assigned.

At a deeper philosophical level, modern society also appears to be shifting toward greater individualism and personal gain at the expense of collective responsibility and connectedness. Sociologists such as Robert Putnam (2000), in Bowling Alone, have argued that American society has experienced a significant decline in social capital, civic participation, and communal engagement over the past several decades. Similarly, Twenge and Campbell (2009) identified increasing cultural trends toward individualism, self-focus, and external validation, particularly among younger generations growing up in highly competitive and digitally connected environments. While individual achievement and self-expression are not inherently negative, the growing emphasis on personal advancement, status, and visibility can weaken the sense of shared responsibility and belonging that healthy communities require.

This shift creates tension within athletics because sports fundamentally depend on interdependence. Successful teams are not built solely on talent or individual recognition, but on sacrifice, trust, accountability, role acceptance, and shared purpose. Research on team cohesion consistently demonstrates that athletes perform better and report greater satisfaction when they feel connected to teammates and committed to collective goals rather than purely individual outcomes (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). In fact, cohesion within athletic teams has repeatedly been linked to improved performance, stronger motivation, and increased athlete well-being.

Something Bigger Than Ourselves

The most meaningful athletic experiences often emerge when individuals commit themselves to something larger than their own personal advancement. Positive youth development research has found that sports can foster empathy, leadership, resilience, social responsibility, and emotional growth when athletes experience strong relationships, supportive team cultures, and opportunities to contribute meaningfully to a group (Fraser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2005). These findings align closely with Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which emphasizes relatedness, the human need to feel connected and valued within relationships, as one of the three foundational psychological needs necessary for healthy motivation and development.

Yet many modern sport environments increasingly reinforce individual achievement over collective growth. The rise of rankings culture, personal branding through social media, transfer culture, highlight culture, and constant comparison can subtly shift the focus away from team identity and toward individual visibility. In many ways, athletics are beginning to reflect a broader societal struggle: balancing personal success with connection, community, and shared responsibility..

However, if society increasingly emphasizes individual achievement above collective growth, it is unsurprising that this mindset begins to surface in sports as well. We see this through the prioritization of personal branding over team identity, exposure over development, rankings over improvement, and outcomes over relationships. Early specialization, transfer culture, social media highlight culture, and year-round competition often reinforce the idea that athletics are primarily about individual advancement rather than shared growth and community.

Ironically, the research remains remarkably clear on this issue. Athletes consistently report greater enjoyment, motivation, emotional well-being, and long-term participation when they experience a sense of belonging, supportive relationships, autonomy, and meaningful growth within their sport environments (Fraser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2005). In other words, the very things that have historically made sports transformative still matter most. The challenge is that many modern systems surrounding athletics increasingly pull attention away from those foundational developmental experiences.

Perhaps that is why youth sports feel increasingly tense, emotional, and transactional at times. Athletics may not be creating these societal dynamics as much as they are reflecting them.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161–176). Human Kinetics.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.2.168

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898042000334890

Jayanthi, N. A., Post, E. G., Laury, T. C., & Fabricant, P. D. (2019). Health consequences of youth sport specialization. Journal of Athletic Training, 54(10), 1040–1049. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-380-18

Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Heinemann.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. Free Press.

Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2020). Trends in U.S. adolescents’ media use, 1976–2016: The rise of digital media, the decline of TV, and the (near) demise of print. Psychology of Popular Media, 8(4), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000203

My purpose was never simply to win games.

I wanted to help young people grow. I wanted to teach responsibility, resilience, accountability, and teamwork. I wanted athletes to leave our program better people than when they entered. Most importantly, I wanted to create experiences they would remember long after the final buzzer sounded or the final race was run.

For a long time, I thought I was succeeding in that mission.

Then something happened.

I got caught in the trap.

The trap is difficult to recognize because it rarely announces itself. It doesn’t arrive all at once. Instead, it slowly works its way into your thinking. It creeps into conversations, expectations, social media posts, community discussions, and sideline commentary. Eventually, you begin to feel it everywhere.

For me, the pressure felt like a vice grip around my throat.

While we won games, improved each year, and built a competitive program, it never seemed enough for some people. The expectations of others always seemed just out of reach. The pressure was palpable. I could feel it from the stands. I could hear it in conversations. I could sense it in how people evaluated success and failure.

The strange thing was that I knew better.

I knew athletics were about more than wins and losses. I knew developing character mattered more than a final score. I knew helping young people become healthy, confident, and connected adults was the true purpose of educational athletics.

Yet despite knowing all of that, I still got pulled into the chase.

I began to feel that winning wasn’t simply important; it was necessary for validation. Necessary for approval. Necessary to prove worth.

Win, or you are not good enough.

Win, or you are failing.

Win, or none of the other work matters.

Looking back now, I can see how dangerous that mindset became.

I wasn’t coaching as freely as I could have been. I wasn’t fully myself. While I still cared deeply about development, I became increasingly focused on outcomes because they were what everyone else could see.

The reality was that we were growing.

I measured growth consistently. We tracked improvement. We developed athletes. We built relationships. We created memories. We became more competitive over time. In many ways, we accomplished exactly what we set out to do.

The problem was that growth is often invisible.

The scoreboard is not.

When the public’s primary measure of success is the scoreboard, it becomes easy to lose sight of everything else, even when you know better.

As I have stepped away from coaching, earlier than I would have preferred, though that is a story for another day, I have gained perspective that was hard to find while standing in the middle of the storm.

The fog is beginning to clear.

I now recognize how much energy I spent chasing things that ultimately mattered less than I thought. Status. Recognition. Validation. Wins.

Winning matters. Competition matters. Pursuing excellence matters.

But they are not the purpose.

The purpose is growth.

The purpose is relationships.

The purpose is to create experiences that young people remember for the rest of their lives.

The purpose is to help athletes become better teammates, better leaders, and better people.

Ironically, these are also the things athletes consistently tell us they want from their sports experiences. They want connection, belonging, and improvement. They want meaningful relationships with coaches and teammates. They want to be challenged and to compete.

Yes, they want to win too.

But winning alone is not what stays with them.

I know this because when I think back on my own athletic career, I rarely remember the scores. I remember the people. I remember the bus rides, the practices, the laughter, the setbacks, and the moments of shared struggle and triumph.

That is what lasts.

That is what matters.

The trap of modern athletics is that it convinces us that outcomes are the experience.

They are not.

They are only a small part of it.

If there is one lesson I am taking away from more than twenty years in coaching, it is this:

Never allow the pressure to become greater than the purpose.

To every coach and parent reading this, remember what truly matters. Create environments where young people can compete, grow, connect, and make memories that last a lifetime.

Pursue excellence. Challenge athletes. Maintain high standards.

But do not lose sight of the big picture.

Winning is not always possible, but growth, relationships, and meaningful experiences are always within our control.

And in the end, those are the things that matter most.

When I reflect on my years as an athlete, my memories are not primarily centered around wins and losses. While there are certainly games and moments I remember, most of them have faded with time. What remains are the experiences surrounding the game itself. I remember going to Denny’s after games and ordering a French Slam. I remember sitting in the backseat of my coach’s car on the way to watch a local college practice. I remember the bus rides, the hard practices, the disappointments, the triumphs, and simply being around my teammates. Those moments stand out far more than any final score from over a decade and a half of competitive athletics.

Now, as a coach and educator, I find myself viewing athletics from the other side. The environment I once knew as a player has evolved into something noticeably different today. Modern athletics increasingly revolve around outcomes, rankings, exposure, and individual advancement. In many cases, the question has shifted from What can I contribute to my team? to What can this sport do for me? As a result, athletes are burning out at higher rates, coaches are leaving the profession, or being pushed out altogether, and the experience itself often feels less centered on growth and more focused on achieving a specific outcome.

This Substack exists to begin and continue an important conversation about where athletics are headed and where they should be going. We owe it to young athletes to create experiences that are not only challenging and competitive, but also meaningful and memorable. There is certainly a place for elite competition, advanced development, and high-level performance. However, that pathway is not the reality, or desire, for every participant.

The purpose of this publication is not to diminish competitiveness or ambition. Rather, it is to explore how athletics can maintain high standards while also returning the experience itself—relationships, growth, character development, belonging, and lifelong memories—to the center of sport for participants at all levels.

At their best, athletics do far more than produce wins and losses. They help shape people.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now