Social media in college recruiting

Upon browsing through the Women Talk Sports blog network, I found this post about social media and recruiting. The blogger cites a number of coaches who talk about the issue of TMI (too much information) on recruits' Facebook and Twitter accounts.

This is, to me, quite a fascinating topic as social media sites have become an issue only in the past few years and I am not sure if institutions and coaches -- let alone the NCAA -- quite know how to deal with them.

At my undergraduate institution, we had a strict Facebook policy and at other programs coaches (or other staff) often monitor their student-athletes' Facebook pages to make sure that they are not making complete fools out of themselves or their universities.

But recruits are a completely different category. They are not under direct supervision of the school (yet) and they might not have "friends" or "followers" who would tell them "hey, don't post that." I only spent two years recruiting and even after such a short time, I can certainly say that seeing inappropriate content on Facebook definitely made me question the value system of the recruit.

For some coaches quoted in the above mentioned blog post, social media "drama" was even a deal-breaker. I completely understand that. As a coach, you have to be certain before you commit to mentoring, educating, supervising and being overall responsible for a young athlete for four years.

However, I am concerned that kids are written off based on the goofy things they post when they are 16 years old. The recruiting process starts early (seems like it's starting earlier and earlier.). And I am not quite sure if the kid's high school "mediated" self-presentation is the best predictor of their future success in college.

How about the noble idea that people -- especially college-aged people -- change?

First year students, especially student-athletes, are exposed to an overwhelming number of trainings, orientations, meetings with coaches, meetings with administrators, hours with academic advisors to ensure that they understand the university policies and the responsibilities of being a student-athlete.

It is unfortunate that coaches (or whichever staff members) have to spend time browsing their student-athletes Facebook accounts. It's a complete waste of time that could be spent on other more important aspects of team development, but it is absolutely necessary. I believed that as a student-athlete and I believed it as a coach -- and my former players would tell you that I had no issue with telling them to get the inappropriate postings off of their walls.

But the passive-aggressive approach to recruiting whereby the coach follows the prospective student-athlete's social media sites and determines, as one coach in the blog post said, that they "don't need that kind of person in [their] school" without addressing the problem might not be the way to go.

Rather, coaches need to make sure that the recruit understands that the institution disapproves of the social media "mess" and that they would have to comply with the rules if they want to play for the team.

If kids know that, they might reconsider what they advertise on their "walls." And, perhaps, they will even warn their friends about it. At least, they will still have a chance.

-- Dunja Antunovic

"Killer Instinct" at the Age of 8

In sports, you can never run out of manifestations of hegemonic masculinity. The article by Rick Reilly, an ESPN columnist, brings our attention to a recent example in pee wee football: a masterpiece, as a matter of fact.

Reilly reports about a coach in a pee wee football league who wrote in an e-mail to his 8 and 9 year-old players that he demanded “an aggressive or killer instinct” and a commitment at the summer session conditioning and practices as the team needed to “ramp it up.” 

The complete e-mail is worth reading and so is Reilly’s commentary on the situation. He places this instance in the larger cultural context of sports -- more specifically football -- pointing out that players at all levels (apparently now pee wee too) are pushed to exhaustion, injuries and health risks.

We see this mentality in pro sports; we see it on the college level. (If only I had a publication on my CV for every time I heard that I didn’t have the “killer instinct!”)

But when we see this ideology forced upon kids, where the emphasis should undoubtedly and unquestionably be on participation rather than performance, we really need to worry. How do kids interpret this system of values? Do they even understand what it means to “whole heartedly commit” to a team? 

More importantly, what happens if they don’t “get it?” I dare assume that there are punitive consequences to disobedience (whether this disobedience is intentional or unintentional, that hardly matters). And the punitive consequence will take a form of being yelled at by the coach, extra workouts (e.g.: push-ups) or being benched. 

All for something arbitrary. The kid didn’t pay attention. Or the kid laughed too much at practice. Or talked to a friend. Or found it more interesting to toss the ball in the air rather than to a teammate.

That’s if the kid stays. If the parent pulls the kid out of the activity, just as some of the parents did in this instance, then we can only hope that there will be another, different opportunity for the child to stay physically active and to experience the positive attributes of sports. At least some of these parents saved their children from months of potential abuse. 

Hardly is there a better time to think about “commitment” in sports than during the Olympics when we hear stories about athletes who go through training camps and leave home in a hope for a later professional success. Not uncommon at all.

About 10 or 15 years ago, kids similar to those who were asked to toughen up for tackle football were taught to desire winning, to “go for the Gold.” In the past week, we’ve been hearing about those few who made it, and then we even got disappointed when they finished 4^th (see Christine Brennan’s article here). 

The question of when sports “should” become about performance rather than participation would, I’m certain, stir up a lively conversation among scholars, journalists, athletes, sports workers and fans alike. So would the question of is “killer instinct” even necessary in sports. 

But the time (if ever) is not and must not be when the kids are 8. If an instance such as the one illustrated by Reilly occurs, perhaps it’s not the kids who should quit the team, but the coach. 

-- Dunja Antunovic