Prospect Communications Inc. (est. 1999) is an industry-leading full-service provider of strategic communications, issues management and media services for all domains of the professional and amateur sports worlds. Michael Langlois is the founder of Prospect Communications. In the communications field since 1976. Michael has established an outstanding reputation as a top independent issues management and communication skills consultant and provider of high-level strategic counsel in both the sports world and corporate sphere. This blogspace is home to Michael’s ongoing commentary regarding the intricate relationship between communications, issues management, the media, and the world of professional and amateur sports.

Friday, December 15, 2006

Big Promises, No Support

Over the past several years, I’ve had the opportunity to work as an advisor to a number of top Major Junior hockey players. Not as an agent, which I’m not, but as a professional who assists young athletes in terms of their off-ice development: attitude, work ethic, goal-setting, task completion, becoming a better team player and developing the qualities that will help them become more professional in their hockey life—and better people off the ice.

The work is stimulating, challenging, rewarding —and sometimes distressing.

I’m not sure if it is ironic or prophetic that, some 30 years ago when I was a young fellow breaking into the broadcast field, I hosted a cable television program in the growing community of Mississauga, Ontario. This is when ‘local cable television’ was truly local community programming.

Weekly, I brought in various guests to discuss sports issues of the day. (As an aside, only 2 individuals ever asked to be paid to appear. One was a legendary writer, the late Dick Beddoes, and the other a successful Canadian Olympic “amateur” athlete. Everyone else appeared without a fee.)

On this particular evening in, I believe, the winter of 1977, I invited guests from Canadian University hockey (Tom Watt), Major Junior Hockey (Dave Draper), Junior B hockey and others to discuss the choices young hockey players faced. My question was: What is the better route to go—Junior hockey, or accepting a scholarship to play in college in the United States?

Keep in mind in those days, the prevailing “Canadian” attitude was still very much that hockey was our game, and that the Americans were well behind us. Junior hockey was seen as the best way, by far, to earn your way to the NHL.

Canadian university hockey was even less likely to see you end up in the pro ranks, but I knew that Tom Watt, the Head Coach of the University of Toronto Varsity Blues at the time, was a passionate hockey guy and would bring a thoughtful dimension to the program.

My interest in the subject was largely spurred by a growing awareness on my part that junior hockey was not always what it was cracked up to be.

This was based to a certain extent on a situation I became aware of in the early 1970’s, when I was attending the University of Toronto. A friend’s younger brother was a rising “star” in junior “A” hockey. He was playing for his hometown team in what was then the Ontario Hockey Association. Life was good for him. At least, it was for a short while.

It’s not hard to imagine a young man, playing a game he loves and is really good at, thinking he will play for his first junior team for his entire 3-4 year pre-professional career. He believes, naturally so, what adults tell him about his potential, his future and his importance to the team.

Suddenly, he was traded at the beginning of his second junior season, at the tender age of 17. Never having been away from home, with no agent or advisor or trusted mentor to guide him (and a family with no experience at all in such matters), his world was turned upside down overnight. He refused to report to the team he was traded to. He sat at home, afraid, confused.

Threatened with what was essentially league banishment by the powers that be, he eventually reported.

He was, in his estimation, treated terribly by his new club. Soon, his confidence was shattered—a particularly tough circumstance for a young goaltender. He was eventually traded again, and played out his junior days as a back-up goalie, an unhappy young man, disillusioned, downcast, hating the game that only two years ago he had loved.

He had no education to speak of, and the league had no interest in helping him out. He had put everything he had into hockey, and only hockey. He was told, and had believed, that it would be his future.

As it turned out, he was just another casualty of the junior hockey world.

Through the years, this troubled me a lot. I argued when I interviewed junior hockey folks in my various radio life incarnations that education was not being taken seriously enough for these young hockey players; that most didn’t make the NHL, that too many were essentially used and abused.

I was always assured things were getting better and better.

Today, I’m told that there are wonderful education packages for virtually all players who give up their opportunity to go to the U.S. on scholarship, to stay and play in what is nowadays called the Ontario Hockey League (or the Western junior or Quebec loops).

Unfortunately, other issues still exist, I’m afraid.

Too often, the young athletes I work with still face the reality that they are chattel; paid a nominal gratuity every week to subsist while they travel daily to games and practices. They can be traded at a moments notice (how being traded in mid-season—and usually mid-semester in high school—is beneficial to them is still a puzzle to me after all these years.)

They are basically playing in a professional, for-profit league, but not receiving any of the benefits—other than a select few who are drafted and may some day earn a very handsome income in professional hockey. Statistically, the vast majority of elite young players at age, say, 15, never make it to the pro ranks, and even fewer for any length of time.

The bigger issue, for me, though, is that these young players—yes, sometimes too coddled and very immature in some ways—are the victims of terrible communication methods still utilized by their coaches and team management.

The adults often act like children, it seems, and the young player is left confused, uncertain and, again, disillusioned.

They are not sure how they should approach their coach. They wonder, “if I speak with him, will I end up benched, or with a one-way ticket out of town….?”

Almost weekly in junior hockey, we see players leave their teams, go home to sit and await a trade they have requested, or sit and stew on the bench as they see their burgeoning careers spiral seemingly downward.

Thankfully, more than ever, these young athletes nowadays have the benefit of more education in most instances, and access to information and off-ice support that simply wasn’t available when some of these issues were first brought to my attention back in 1972, when I myself was a university student.

I’d like to think junior hockey has the interests of its young athletes at heart. Too often, I find it very hard to believe.

I would imagine many parents, and many current and former young players could share a story or two with me about how things went off the rails for them.

Wednesday, November 1, 2006

Size is Not All That Matters

One thing is clear at seemingly all levels of competitive sports, in virtually all sports.

Size matters.

At least it seems to matter a great deal to scouts, analysts and those who too often make decisions—including in the youth sports world—about who is deserving of playing on a certain team, or at a certain level.

An interesting study out of the University of Saskatchewan reminds us that size may be over-rated.

Various media outlets have commented on the study, conducted by University of Saskatchewan researcher Lauren Sherar, which will be published in the November issue of the Journal of Sports Sciences.

The Toronto Star quotes Sherar in a story reviewing his findings:

"All coaches would agree they want to pick the best team but they also need to consider how best to foster future talent," Sherar said in an interview. "By selecting only the biggest kids they are possibly ignoring the smaller, more talented kid who is small because they are late maturing or have a birthday late in the selection year."

This assessment, while important and perhaps newsworthy to some, should not shock any of us who have been around for a while.

While the study seems to focus largely on the late-year birthday factor, too often in sports, from the youngest ages to the professional ranks, players are often dismissed as potential candidates because they simply aren’t “big enough”.

Indeed, a player with skills, determination, a great work ethic and an outstanding attitude who also happens to have good size would seem to have an advantage of sorts over the “small” player with similar attributes. (Yet Dave Keon, to cite but one hockey example at the professional level, competed against Jean Beliveau very well for many years, despite his relatively small stature compared with the much larger Montreal captain. Keon compensated by utilizing his own unique traits.)

But size should not be the key determining factor, especially in youth sports.

Youth coaches often miss players, in hockey and soccer especially, who lack only size to be considered capable of playing at the highest levels.

As the study suggests, if we lose kids at early ages simply because they were weeded out as a result of their size, when in fact (as the study indicates) many of these young athletes often catch up later on in their development, this is surely not a good thing.

And what if some athletes don’t catch up in size?

That should not be the end of their opportunity to compete, either.

If David Eckstein (a major-league baseball player who stands about 5 feet 7 inches, who helped the Angels win the World Series in 2002, and was justifiably named MVP of the 2006 World Series as the shortstop for the St. Louise Cardinals) had listened to those who dismissed him over the years because of his size, lack of arm strength, and other “failings” he would never had made it to the highest levels of his chosen athletic profession.

Ecsktein has made it on determination, work ethic, and attitude.

Not because he was “big” enough to make a team.

Imagine all the people along the way who must have told him he’d never make it.

Tuesday, August 1, 2006

Staying "On Message" Can Send a Bad Message

There is a field of work in the public relations industry that is referred to as “media training”.

It is generally done in a workshop format, whereby executives are prepared to interact with the media by putting them through their paces in terms of trying to get a sense of how the media operates. They are pushed to anticipate the kinds of questions spokespersons from a given company may face when they make a particular announcement or respond to an issue that has arisen.

No doubt someone has documented when this kind of ‘media preparation’ first took place in a formal sense (perhaps the Kennedy-Nixon TV debates leading up to the 1960 U.S. Presidential election, when both candidates when through a number of rehearsals), but this has been going on informally for generations.

Spokespeople going through this training process are routinely told to focus on delivering “three key messages”.

The notion of focusing on delivering a select few messages makes sense, as the struggle to effectively deliver a laundry list of important ideas can end up diffusing the impact a spokesperson or organization is aiming for.

Unfortunately, part of the process usually involves telling the “trainee” they should stick to their messages no matter what.

That is, even if they are asked a fair and reasonable question, if it is one they don’t want to answer, they should either ignore the question and simply “deliver their message” anyway, or say something such as, “I’m not here to talk about that, I’d like to talk about our new plans for….”

This brings to mind the recent Hall-of-Fame weekends in both Major League Baseball and the National Football League that brought forward the imminent prospect of Mark McGuire being up for consideration for Cooperstown. (The results of the Hall-of-Fame voting will be released in January, 2007.)

It’s brought to mind because it was McGuire who appeared before a Congressional committee last year and kept “sticking to his message” (as he was no doubt told to do by either lawyers or his PR advisors) and repeating, when pressed about whether he had used performance-enhancing drugs: ”I’m not here to talk about the past…” before launching into his rehearsed message track about how he would like to positively influence young people in the future, etc.

A very nice message, to be sure.

Unfortunately, it was almost completely obscured by – and quite properly so—his ill-advised attempt to not answer questions directly, to avoid revealing anything about his own actions that could have indeed set baseball on a more honest and straightforward path.

By choosing the old, worn tactic of “sticking to his message”, ignoring the questions he was being asked, and so obviously not answering questions directly, he wavered badly off the high road. He left a horrible impression in the minds of the public and the media, and lost all credibility.

Based on his statistical accomplishments (assuming he was “clean”, which his testimony did nothing to affirm), McGuire indeed deserves induction into the prestigious baseball Hall.

But taking the advice given to too many politicians over the years, to “stay on message” no matter what, has put him in the same class in most people’s minds as the vast majority of political-types: they are seen as being untrustworthy, evasive and as lacking integrity and credibility.

A missed opportunity to communicate truly effectively may have not only cost McGuire an opportunity to make a real difference to our youth through taking an opportunity to acknowledge his errors and seek forgiveness. It may well keep him out of the Hall in 2007, and well beyond.

Saturday, July 1, 2006

Too Much Rooney

After watching Wayne Rooney play at the World Cup throughout June, it is beyond dispute that he is a world-class player—perhaps one of the finest young soccer players in the world.

That he came back so quickly from a serious injury—suffered only weeks prior to the biggest tournament in sports—is a testament to his toughness and sheer determination.

The unfortunate flip side of the Rooney coin is that he is not, in some other important ways, a great role model for young soccer players.

The play that saw him red-carded at a critical time for the English squad in the quarter-final World Cup game seemed to be reflective of his approach to that game—and to others:

He’ll do what he wants, when he wants, and expects, it seems, no consequences.

He seemed stunned that he would be penalized for his ill-timed and selfish act, just as he seems continually perplexed when he is called for often deserved infractions during his play with Manchester United in the English Premier League. (In light of his agitated on-field demeanor, is it any wonder impressionable young players are so often seen throwing their hands up whenever a referee makes a call that goes against them?)

Some observers suggest Rooney did no wrong in “stepping on” a sensitive part of his opponent’s body. They claim he did so inadvertently.

That view might hold water, if Rooney’s career had not been filled to this point with many other angry outbursts and well-earned yellow cards.

Oddly, much of the media reaction to this most-recent Rooney incident was to blame Cristiano Rinaldo for lobbying the referee to throw Rooney out of the game.

Rather than lay the blame for uncontrolled behavior at the feet of the person who acted in a childish manner, the press sought to vilify Ronaldo, who was not otherwise even involved in the play in question.

Interestingly, the departing English National coach has publicly implored the English media to go easy on Rooney and support him. Understandable sentiments on the one hand, as Rooney will clearly be a key figure in future English World Cup efforts.

But if Rooney is not ultimately responsible for his actions, and does not have to fear any consequences, what is his motivation to alter his attitude and behavior?

And what example, again, does this set for young athletes? You can disrespect fellow players, behave any way you want, as long as you are a top player?

No person is perfect. No athlete can be the perfect role model, to be sure. And particularly in this day in age of greed and excess and media exposure, expecting or even hoping for ‘role-model’ behavior on and off the field may not be at all fair or realistic in any event.

Rooney is only 20. He is a wonderful and talented footballer. Like many before him, he may, over time, grow in wisdom and maturity while still maintaining his elite level of play.

But in the interim, it is unfortunate that he seems unable or unwilling to make certain attitude adjustments—and unfortunate that those coaching and advising him are willing to look the other way.

Rhonaldino, another immense talent, did not have the best World Cup in 2006, and seemed to miss the drive in big games that would have positively marked his career forever. But he at least presents on and off the field as someone who truly enjoys what he is doing and loves the gifts and opportunities he has been given.

Rhonaldino with a bit more grit; Rooney with a lot less anger.

That would seem to add up to the near perfect soccer player.

And maybe one worthy of aspiring young people looking up to.

Saturday, April 1, 2006

When Leadership Doesn't Lead, This is What You Get...

In early April, local newspaper stories reported that a 15 year-old high school hockey player from New Brunswick scored a goal in double-overtime to help her team win a high-school playoff game.

While she had her hands raised in celebration, an opposing player allegedly cross-checked the young girl.

The 15 year old has spent time in hospital, suffering from a lacerated spleen.

The 18-year old senior who evidently pushed, shoved or hit the younger girl has been suspended indefinitely.

Unfortunately, these incidents, while relatively isolated, are not all that rare, and they speak to a disconcerting attitude that afflicts ‘competitive’ sports, including youth sports.

We all say youth sports should be for the kids; should be about having fun; should be about getting a chance for all kids to play, regardless of ability.

Perhaps we are simply fighting human nature, as many people tend to be competitive to varying degrees, but the moment we “keep score”, playing a game for fun becomes almost impossible.

From supposedly casual so-called recreational or house-league sports programs to the various levels of competitive ‘rep’ or ‘elite’ sports, the demands and expectations placed on kids, teenagers and young adults is sometimes overwhelming.

As adults, we offer conflicting messages. We encourage our kids to have fun, and some people even suggest winning is truly unimportant, and mean it. Yet we put our kids in games, leagues and situations where there are so-called winners and losers.

In a society where we unfortunately still put a significant emphasis on who is bigger, faster, stronger or tougher, the moment a youngster shows a bit of skill, they are often encouraged to try out for a ‘higher’ level of competition. Pressure grows as expectations rise. (For some, it leads to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, but that’s a story for another day.)

Where does all this come from?

Well, we as parents certainly are part of the problem. Hockey Canada aimed a series of public service announcements at parents over the last couple of years, dealing with this very issue of parents taking youth sports more seriously than their kids do. The leading hockey organization in Canada was seemingly hoping to encourage people to look in the mirror and do a little self-reflection, and perhaps recognize that certain behaviours as parents and spectators were in fact harmful to kids. All this in the hope that we may all start to put the emphasis back on fun.

Yet in the same breath, Hockey Canada bent over backwards this year to ensure that Todd Bertuzzi was named to Team Canada for the 2006 Winter Olympics—despite his alleged assault on Steve Moore in an NHL game two years ago, an unquestionably dirty hit from behind that has been seen countless times by millions of kids across the country.

Bertuzzi can do that, and still be granted the greatest honour available to hockey players in this country, less than two years after the incident.

What messages does this send to parents—and to their kids?

If that kind of behaviour – and Steve Moore still is not healthy enough to play hockey to this day-- is not only tolerated and goes virtually un-punished by Hockey Canada (the NHL purports to have “punished” Bertuzzi with what amounted to a minimal suspension), what should hockey parents think?

Is it any wonder a youth hockey coach was allegedly grabbed around the neck in the fall of 2005 by an angry parent? Is it any wonder a young girl is hit violently enough after scoring a goal that she is seriously injured? We can talk about these things being isolated incidents, or suggest it’s just a matter of a few adults or kids with anger management issues. But it goes deeper than that.

Yes, parents have a huge role here. Parents teach and model the values of ethical thought, sportsmanship and acceptable social behaviour. No question.

Many people don’t like to lose. And many people spend a lifetime learning to accept defeat in life’s many forms, whether sports-related or not. Many never do adjust.

But reacting violently to the success of another is never acceptable, and it certainly isn’t acceptable in a youth hockey game.

You can spend millions of dollars on advertising in an effort to spread a positive message. But as many have said before, words are just that-- words. It’s what a person -- or in this case an organization in a position of leadership-- does that actually matters.

Hockey Canada dropped the ball on the Bertuzzi matter, when they had a chance to really send an important message. Instead they decided that trying to win an Olympic medal was more important than doing the right thing.

And they are the ones in charge of hockey in this country?

With that kind of leadership, should we wonder why we face the problems we do in the youth hockey world?

Sunday, January 1, 2006

Never the Hall for Jack?

Given the work that I do as a communications advisor to many professional athletes and coaches, you might think I would never use former Detroit Tiger ace Jack Morris as an “example” of how an athlete should interact with the media.

The veteran right-hander won more than 250 games in his outstanding career, and continued to pitch complete games into the 1990’s when that had become a lost art. Perhaps more noteworthy, he was utterly superb in the post-season, helping lead the Tigers in 1984, the Twins in 1991 and the Blue Jays (to a lesser degree) in 1992 to World Series triumphs.

Does Morris deserve to be in the Hall-of-Fame?

Without question. It will soon be the case that the former 300-win criterion will be obsolete, as no one of the new generation will be able to achieve those heights. And at present, such criteria can certainly be massaged when voters see fit. Sandy Koufax and Whitey Ford did not win close to 300 games, but were considered dominant pitchers in their eras and earned entry into the Hall.

Morris was a dominant— and feared— pitcher, particularly good at crunch time.

But Morris was, with the press, caustic and acerbic, by most accounts. And it is the press who cast the key ballots for entry into the Baseball Hall-of-Fame.

Would a writer not vote for Morris because the writer resented Morris’ attitude as a player?

Who knows?

Ted Williams had a miserable relationship with many reporters, but had no problem earning entry into the so-called hallowed halls.

In more recent years, pitchers Bob Gibson and Steve Carlton rarely, if ever, spoke with the media as their careers progressed.

They made it to the Hall.

But sometimes reporters do have long memories.

All this leads to a simple point. Gibson and Carlton, and of course Williams, were surefire Hall-of-Fame players regardless of how some reporters might have felt about them personally.

What happens if you are seen as a borderline Hall-of-Fame candidate?

Like Jack Morris.

Had Morris perhaps been a little more patient, a little more accessible, a little more Gary Carter-like (Carter was also seen as a borderline Hall-of-Fame candidate by many, but was very accessible to the media throughout his career) in his demeanor through those great years he had, he may be celebrating a phone call from the Hall-of-Fame selection committee this January.

The call might have come years ago, for that matter. Morris has been eligible for a long time.

From what one hears, it doesn’t sound as though Jack Morris worries about all this, or regrets his actions. He was no doubt his own man, and likely would not have had it any other way.

But as much as one can admire his stubborn individuality on some level, it’s a shame the relationship between he and the media was never repaired.

He deserves to be in the Hall.

If nothing else, perhaps some young athlete will read this and realize that he can still be an individual, but show respect for the media. They have a job to do. Ignoring them, or picking a fight with them, rarely helps, during — or after— your career.

Take the time to learn to interact thoughtfully with the media. Do it because it’s the right thing to do, because all your professional relationships should be based on mutual respect and understanding for the job others have to do.

But if you don’t do it for that reason, at least do it out of self-interest.

It may just help you down the road.