‘ Participation trophy’ argument spoils healthy debate

About 30 years ago, I played one season in the old Leroy Youth Basketball league on a team sponsored by Sam and Tommy’s Tavern in Painesville Township.

Admittedly, I was not good at all.

If my foggy memory serves, I scored three points in that season in games played at Buckeye Elementary School.

Hard as it is to believe, there is a point to bringing up 1989 youth hoops.

Nowhere in a box in my house or my mother’s house is a trinket that signifies I played, nor should there be.

Chances are strong that applies to anyone who played in that league. Even in a youth league, you’ve got to do something to merit awards or titles.

So that’s why irritation is inevitable, amid an argument about haves and have nots in high school sports, with one counterpoint.

It’s a six-word phrase that grates at my nerves: “Let’s give everyone a participation trophy.”

Ah yes, that old chestnut.

Last week in this space, I wrote perhaps it was time to take a deeper look at St. Ignatius’ current place as part of the Ohio varsity high school hockey state tournament. The Wildcats, fielding their prep team for the postseason the last two winters, won their fourth straight state title this past weekend, defeating Sylvania Northview in a semifinal and Dublin Jerome in the state final by a combined score of 14-2.

A sustained effort was made on my part to note it’s nothing against St. Ignatius. It’s a classy, respected, fantastic program that, because it now fields a prep team and doesn’t play fellow Ohio high schools as a varsity entity anymore, has simply graduated from Ohio high school hockey.

A pattern is clear. That is to the Wildcats’ utmost credit. It’s not outside the rules. It’s re-imagining high school hockey in Ohio, and if the means and justification are available, it should be pursued.

Unfortunately, though, such a hot-button topic does elicit strong feedback. Sure enough, I heard it a couple times on Twitter:

“Let’s give everyone a participation trophy.”

It is an argument that has seemingly become popular in the last 10 years.

All it does is guarantee a measured debate about haves and have nots is impossible.

Arguing a select few programs in their sports have rendered their postseason an exercise in habit — even if the intention is to note new blood occasionally wouldn’t be the worst thing — makes supporters of those programs defensive.

To some of those supporters, believing a level playing field should — with talent and drive — be accessible to more programs means others believe that opportunity should be available to every program. So one team wins a title, but everyone should feel valued.

Thus ... “Let’s give everyone a participation trophy.”

It’s jumping from one extreme to another and solves nothing.

The issue is people are sometimes incapable of viewing these arguments with a wide lens. They will instinctively argue for their side – if you’re going to do it for one, then do it for everybody.

But it isn’t about doing it so one program can thrive on a big stage. The “one” is a sport itself.

What is so awful about wanting to see a sport build off competition? Is raising the bar really that bad?

Even suggesting everyone should get a participation trophy is a slap in the face to anyone who works diligently at their craft.

Not everyone can be a state champion. They just want a fair shot at it, some with a better shot than others of course.

There can be instances in which that shot can become unrealistic because rules and structure are rendered obsolete.

Let’s try to find some common ground by eliminating extremes entirely.

If St. Ignatius hockey, St. Edward wrestling, Brecksville-Broadview Heights gymnastics, Hawken girls swimming or others of that ilk is a trendsetter, it doesn’t mean that trend should stop. They’re great programs, and they should continue to be as great and traditionally powerful as they desire.

Suggesting more programs should aspire to and compete with that level of greatness doesn’t mean everyone in that sport should expect that same chance. They should have to work to get there like everyone else, and not everyone will or can. That’s perfectly fine.

Not that there is obviously, but it also doesn’t mean, at the start of a postseason, there should be a ceremony in which every athlete in a given sport walks past a table of participation trophies and gets one.

Common ground isn’t a sign of defeat. It’s an indication of an open mind.

Great programs should want competition. They should want to be concerned with how talented someone elsewhere is.

The better question to ask isn’t, “What can be done to knock the great programs down a peg and level the field?”

It should be, “What can be done to make my sport better?”

“How can we build my sport so it’s in better shape than I left it?”

“Why can’t my sport be a shining example for everyone on how to build competition and make us and others better as a result?”

The notion of participation trophies is a step too far for high school sports and beyond.

Some athletes are great for something other than talent – academics, character, poise, insight, knowing their role, being a teammate. There’s nothing wrong with that.

You can acknowledge and admire success while also arguing for inclusion within reason and without it becoming silly or unnecessary.

So have the debate about how and why. Tell anyone who will listen why your side is correct. Present evidence that reinforces that perspective.

But don’t reach for extremes.

“Let’s give everyone a participation trophy” is an extreme that guarantees there will never be solutions.