When I grew up, there were very, very few single-sport athletes in high-school.
Most of the athletes seamlessly shifted from their fall-sport to their winter-sport to their spring-sport. This was a process-oriented approach. If there was a "product" it was to graduate a student-athlete well prepared to tackle adult life.
The modern trend seems to be for coaches to pressure the best athletes to commit to a single sport. The beefy lineman is in a weight program year round and is discouraged from playing other sports where he might sprain an ankle or (gasp) decide he likes it better and abandon football. In this case, the "product" is state championships and, perhaps, athletic scholarships at Universities.
I am clearly biased in favor of the athlete who samples many different sports during their high school years. They might gain a sense of egalitarianism and stamina in cross-country in the fall, grit and toughness in wrestling in the winter and a chance to flirt with the girls in track. Or he might learn make-a-plan/execute-a-plan in football, fluid exploitation of opportunities in basketball during the winter and how to swing a weapon in baseball.
Specialization, especially at a young age, is for insects.
What do you guys think?