It's not my homework, it's your career. I don't particularly care if you can defend it adequately or not- but I'm open to learning.

"We compared the win rate performance of Division 2 NCAA Women's basketball teams which had access to a professional sports psychologist against those who didn't, controlling for the size of school and the amount of funding available to the teams. We found statistically significant improvements (p < .05) among the teams that provided access to a sports psychologist.

"We examined the batting average and fielding average among Division 1 baseball players who had made the decision to visit a sports psychologist. Their performance was controlled against those who had been recommended to a psychologist but had chosen not to attend any sessions. Of the study's participants (n = 74), 64 showed improvement within one season (p < .15) with 72 showing improvements over two seasons (p < .03). This was a stark contrast against continued negative improvement (p < .05) among those who had been recommended but chosen not to attend.

"We analyzed the performance of 214 professional hockey teams over the first ten years from when they hired an athletic psychologist. These teams were controlled against both their prior performance, as well as 214 similar teams who did not staff an athletic psychologist at any point. We found statistically significant improvements (p < .01) in win rate among the teams which had hired psychologists, with a moderate win rate improvement (p < .05) occurring in just the first year.

There a few examples of things I would expect to see as utterly basic evidence of legitimacy in pretty much any accepted science.