; Competition
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



  • pg 1
           Is Competition …
 A powerful motivational strategy?
 An effective quality control device?
 A way to develop positive character
 A fair process that ensures that the
  best team normally wins?
 Good?
 America is a highly cooperative
           Reward Definitions
 Competition: A situation in which
  rewards are distributed unequally on the
  basis of performance by the performers.
 Cooperation: A social process through
  which performance is evaluated and
  rewarded in terms of the collective
  achievements of a group of people
  working together to reach a particular
    Problems w/ Reward Definitions
 For every winner, there has to be one or
  more losers.
 Does not account for differences in
  individual reactions to competition.
 Assumes the „reward‟ to be the same for
  every competitor.
     Intrinsic   vs. extrinsic rewards
    Problems w/ Reward Definitions
   Differences between competition and
    cooperation are emphasized, rather
    than their similarities.
     You have to cooperate in order to
     Competition requires both within-team and
      between-team cooperation.
Competition and Cooperation As
   Competition and cooperation are not
    polar opposites.

   The dynamics of how competition and
    cooperation complement one another
    should be taught.

   Top performers employ a blend of
    competition and cooperation strategies.
         Competition vs. Cooperation
 Cooperative activities produce more open
  communication, sharing, trust, friendship, and
  enhanced performance compared with
  competitive activities.
 Johnson & Johnson (1985)
       Review of 122 studies
          Cooperation improved performance more than
           competition in 65 studies (8 showed opposite
          Cooperation improved performance more than
           individual efforts in 108 studies (6 showed
           opposite effects)
          Questionable tasks and contests however
       Problems Associated with
 „Win-at-all-costs‟ mentality
 Promotes youth sport dropout
 Reduces motivation for those that
  remain involved
 Reduces enjoyment for „unsuccessful‟
 Facilitates a short-term focus only
         Competition as a Process
   Martens‟ Process Model
    4  stages to the competitive process
     Explains why people respond differently to
        Social   comparison process
                   Stage #1:
         Objective Competitive Situation
   Four objective criteria that must be present in
    order to conclude that competition is
       1. A standard of comparison is identified for the
        team or individual
       2. Another person is present
       3. This person knows the standard
       4. This person evaluates whether the standard has
        been obtained
   What are the advantages / disadvantages of
    the Objective Competitive Situation (OCS)?
                  Stage #2:
       Subjective Competitive Situation
   How an athlete perceives, accepts, and
    appraises the OCS.
     SCS is affected by personality traits,
      perceived importance of competition,
      perception of the comparison standard, and
      perceived response capabilities.
   As a result, athletes seek out
    competition, enter it reluctantly, or
    attempt to avoid it.
           Stage #3: Response
   After the appraisal of the OCS, athletes
    experience positive and negative
    adaptations, preparing them for
     Physiologically
     Psychologically
     Behaviorally
         Stage #4: Consequences
   Athletes‟ perception of consequence
    (e.g., success or failure) is more
    important than the actual outcome.
     Athletesperceive positive or negative
      consequences as a result of participation.
     These consequences impact:
        Short and long term emotions
        Perceptions of competence
        Future decisions to compete
          Variable Factors in OCS
   Social Environment
     Presence     of others
        Who?
        How  many?
        Audience or co-actors?

     Attributes   of opponents
        Ability
        Age
        Sex
         Variable Factors in OCS
   Physical Environment
            field conditions
     Playing
     Weather
   Rewards
     Tangible
     Intangible
   Task Characteristics
     Performance  demands
     Rules of contest
            Martens‟ Motto
 “Athletes first, winning second”
 To broaden Martens‟ earlier motto, a
  revised motto, “Personal excellence-
  The foundation for success” highlights
  the relationship shared between
  personal development and success.
     Bringing the Motto to Life
 „Striving to win‟ vs. „Actually winning‟
 Appreciating „the journey‟ vs. „the
 The challenge becomes practicing what
  you preach.
 Community-wide philosophy
         Motivation and Competition


Level of



            Low                                     High
                            Skill Level
           Myths of Competition
   Myth 1: Competition is a powerful
    motivational strategy.

   Truth: Competition provides the greatest
    motivation when the level of challenge is
    moderately difficult and matches the
    current capabilities of the athlete.
          Myths of Competition
   Myth 2: Competition is an effective
    quality control strategy.

   Truth: Competition leads to short-
    sightedness, and athletes sacrifice
    long-term improvement and learning in
    order to achieve short-term success.
          Myths of Competition
   Myth 3: Competition develops positive
    character traits.

   Truth: Winning can be a double-edge
    sword for teaching character
           Myths of Competition
   Myth 4: Competition is a fair process
    that insures that the best team
    normally wins.

   Truth: The playing field is rarely level,
    and even when it is, winning is very
    uncontrollable and often pursued via
    unfair methods.
       Association Model of Competition

                 Cooperative games
                 Frisbee                       Sport
                 Assembly lines

Noncompetitive                                                     Competitive

                  Hermit                       War with no rules

      Competition: Good or Bad?
   Competition is neither good nor bad.
    Rather, it is simply a neutral process
    and depends on the athletes‟
    appraisal of the OCS, response, and
    perception of consequences.
        Taking a Hint from Recess
   Coakly (1997)
     Unorganized  games result in increased
      cooperation, decision making, creativity,
      and action… things that rule-centered
      organized sport stifles.
     Coaches, teachers, and sport directors
      should take a hint from the behaviors of
      children when games are spontaneous.
       Taking a Hint from Recess
   Coakly (1997)
     Unorganizedsport behaviors: Kids modify
      games to maximize cooperation, success,
      and enjoyment.
        Increased action and scoring opportunities.
        More constant involvement during the game.
        Closely-matched teams.
        Friendship development and maintenance.
        Competitive Engineering
   The competitive engineering process
     Modifying  the structure, rules, facilities,
      and equipment of a particular sport to
      enhance athletes‟ competitive
     Benefits include enhanced skill
      development, improved enjoyment,
      better competitive balance, and reduced
           Competitive Engineering:
               Basic Premises
1.    Increased action and scoring will make
      sport more enjoyable.
     -- Equipment and rule modifications.
2.    Create high levels of personal involvement.
     -- Increase playing time and opportunities to play
          „glamour‟ positions.
3.    Keep scores close to maximize interest,
      enjoyment, and motivation.
     -- Equalize talent across teams.
             Competitive Engineering:
                 Basic Premises
4.    Competition should promote positive
      relationships between all participants.
     -- Utilize joint practices, socialization rules,
         and social events.
5.    Use multiple-level program and
      pyramid-based community models to
      better meet the needs of a diverse
      group of athletes.
Pyramid-Based Model

    V: Regional Travel Team

        IV: Local Travel

    III: Competitive Leagues

    II: Recreational Program

     I: Instructional Program
           Examples of Competitive
           Engineering: Basketball
   Facilities
     Smaller courts
     Shorter free throw line
     Shorter 3 point line
     Lower basket
     Bigger goal

   Equipment
     Smaller ball
     Colored wrist bands to help players know who
      they are guarding
               Examples of Competitive
               Engineering: Basketball
   Rules
       Playing time rules
       Position rotation rules
       Limitations on when pressing is allowed
       No zone defense
       Limit timeouts
       Place a cap on the number of points 1 player is
        allowed to score
       Catch-up rules
            Use press entire time, keep possession following a
             score, opponent must sit top player
            Examples of Competitive
             Engineering: Baseball
   Facilities
       Shorter bases
       Shorter fences
       Lower fences
       Closer pitching rubber
   Equipment
     Batting tee or pitching machine
     Softer balls
     Helmets with face masks
     Bat modifications: barrel size, weight
              Examples of Competitive
               Engineering: Baseball
   Rules
     Playing time rules
     Position rotation rules
     Modification to ball and strike limits
     Pitching machine and tee combinations
     Place a cap on runs scored each inning
     Everyone bats
     Innings pitched limitations
     Catch-up rules
           4 outs per inning, raise the run / inning limit
          Examples of Competitive
         Engineering: Flag Football
   Facilities
     Smaller fields
     Lower goal posts
     10 yard 1st down markers and chains

   Equipment
     Smaller  ball
     Velcro flags on both streamers and belts
             Examples of Competitive
            Engineering: Flag Football
   Rules
     Playing time rules
     Position rotation rules
     Limit timeouts
     All players are eligible receivers
     Screen blocking only
     Cap scoring by 1 individual player
     Limit rough contact on defense by calling fouls
     Modify downs and distance requirements
     Slow the defensive rush by requiring a waiting
     Catch-up rules
           Maintain possession when score, remove rush limitations
          Examples of Competitive
            Engineering: Soccer
   Facilities
     Smaller fields
     Larger goals

   Equipment
     Softerball
     Shin guards required
              Examples of Competitive
                Engineering: Soccer
   Rules
     Playing time rules
     Position rotation rules
     Limit timeouts
     Free kicks instead of throw-ins
     Remove goalie
     Modify offsides rules and hand ball rules
     Cap the number of goals allowed by 1 player
     Modify placement of ball on corner kicks
     No penalty kicks
     Catch-up rules
           Maintain possession when score, sub out the leading
            teams‟ two top players
         Competitive Philosophy
   Your competitive philosophy guides
    your everyday actions and helps you
    to make the right decision for you by
    deciding what‟s important ahead of
       Developing Your Competitive
   1. Self-awareness
     Monitor thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
     Ask others

   2. Prioritize competitive objectives
     Personal   development versus winning
        How much importance do you place on each of
        those objectives?
    John Wooden‟s Competitive Philosophy

   John Wooden

To top