Len Stevens is a former men's college basketball coach (Washington State and Nevada) and high school coach who is now executive director of the Reno-Sparks (Nev.) Chamber of Commerce, and he has an idea about what to do regarding high school sports: kill them.

Stevens doesn't hate high school sports. Instead, he sees the growing importance of club and elite sports outside of school as a means to getting a college scholarship, and what he believes to be more student apathy toward attending games while more parents are more strident about their kids getting playing time in them. He sees fewer coaches also employed as teachers in school, and while the piece in the Reno Gazette-Journal where Stevens explains all this doesn't mention them, he also could have mentioned pay-to-play fees squeezing out students, too.

From Dan Hinxman's column in the Reno-Gazette Journal:

The solution, Stevens thinks, is to go to the European model. There are virtually no high school sports in Europe, just club sports. (England has a high school sports program but it is highly overshadowed by club sports, and the rest of Europe has very limited, almost intramural-level prep sports.)

Club sports have been growing in the U.S. for years, and Stevens believes if we go to club sports that would answer a lot of problems and put the high school focus back where it belongs, on education.

In this format, high schools would still have intramural sports and physical education, which would turn the attention to recreation, diet and exercise.

Families that want the experience of high-end competition, perhaps parents who believe the road to a college education is through sports, will get more attention and more control through club sports.

While Stevens' ideas are defensible, and certainly encompass the realities of high school sports today, I think his analysis falls short on a few points:

1. I firmly agree with him that strong intramurals and physical education would be a boon to students who can't make their high school teams but still want to play sports. He seems to assume, however, that schools have these -- especially P.E. My state, Illinois, and Massachusetts are the only two that require daily physical education in grades kindergarten through 12. Presumably, with the money saved from sponsoring sports, schools could give the advice to students that former Colorado football coach Dan Hawkins famously proffered: "Go play intramurals, brother." They would have to commit to doing that, though.

2. I'm not sure perceived student apathy at going to games -- the article refers to Stevens using an unsourced study to show only 10 percent of high schoolers do -- is an argument for ending sports. High schoolers are busy people. I know because I have one in my house. He might go to more games, but he's too busy participating in activities, including his own sports, to have the time. In fact, there are more high school students than ever playing sports. That seems healthier, in all senses of the word, than having students sitting in the stands.

3. I think Stevens, as told by the Gazette-Journal, underestimates the bond high school sports (or other activities) can provide between students and their schools. Let's put it this way: if high school sports didn't mean so much, then why are people in some states trying so hard to get home-schooled kids the right to play on the local high school team? When backers of such a bill (which was ultimately not passed) in Virginia put forth an athlete to testify on its behalf, it was a soccer player with a ton of experience in club play, who had a scholarship in hand to the University of Virginia, but who spoke of how much it pained him never to have the chance to play for the glory of the local school. The reason there are conflicts between club sports and school sports is because plenty of young athletes still like the idea of playing with their friends with the name of the school on their jerseys. Club sports can provide better opportunities for scholarships, but they can't replicate that feeling of playing for something bigger than yourself.

4. Stevens explains in the piece that, for the best athletes, club sports might cut down on their notoriously high costs. That might be true, but what about kids who are good but not great, and whose families don't have money? What about kids who want to try a sport, and whose families don't have the money? Or forget the money -- but what those who come from families who don't have the time to dedicate?

 I appreciate that Stevens sees a system that needs changing to work best for young athletes. So while I quibble with some of his specific thoughts, I don't think he's wrong to bring up the idea of whether high school sports are still serving a purpose. I just happen to think they are.