Cutting Students from Athletics

Author Message Steve Jefferies (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 3 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:54 pm:        It is clear that participation in athletics has many educational benefits. Sport has the power to combat everything from racism, to low self-image, to the high-school dropout rate. In 1997 a North Carolina study of more than a quarter million athletes found that athletes make higher grades, get into less trouble, graduate at a higher rate, dropout less often, and have higher GPAs than non-athletes. And for girls, the Women's Sports Foundation observed that female athletes were 92% less likely to be involved with drugs, 80% less likely to get pregnant, and three times more likely to graduate from high school. Although it is clear that participation in athletics has many educational benefits, many school districts face an embarrassing irony - they accept and support athletic programs that exclude those students who stand to benefit the most from athletic participation - the low skilled, the low self-esteem, the later maturers, and students whose parents did not or could not support AAU and private instruction. By what right can we justify cutting students who want to participate in our school athletic programs, especially when these programs are funded by community tax dollars? Do the benefits outweigh the harm? What do you think? The July "Coaching & Sports" section of the PELINKS4U web site addresses this topic in much greater detail. http://www.pelinks4u.org/sections/coaching/coachin g.htm As the author of this section, I am interested in hearing readers' comments from all perspectives. Please read the July "Coaching & Sports"section and post your opinion to this section of the PE Forum. Be sure to check back to see what others think. Steve Jefferies PELINKS4U & Central Washington University Dept. PEHLS PS. In case you didn't know if you complete a "User Profile" for the Forum you can indicate that you would like to receive automatic notification via email of any new contributions to this section of the Forum. That saves "checking time!" Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:54 pm:        I went to a high school where cutting wasn't allowed, the reason: because we were lucky to get enough people to try out for the team. This past year I coached at a school that had 5 girls and 5 boys basketball teams. The most in the area...we had to cut. If we wouldn't have cut we wouldn't of had enough facilities to accommodate all of the players. Could we have added more people per team? No, we already were at the max...12 people per team, on a sport that only 5 people play at a time. If we would have added more then those that are high skilled wouldn't of received the playing time needed to excel. I believe that is important that everyone does get the chance to play, but should the players that may have the chance to go farther be hurt because we have to accomodate everyone? On my team I had a hard time playing all of my players, I had very high skilled and low skilled and I did try to make it as fair as possible, but I believe that the high skilled still suffered! Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:55 pm:        It was not until recently that I have had the chance to experience both sides of this issue. I was an athlete in high school and took great pride in participating in Fall, Winter, and Spring sports. I was never cut from a team. The teams that I was a member of were actually almost decided before tryouts even began. The girls and I that played for the school all played outside of school together too. We all knew that we would make the team and even laughed behind others backs that tried out because we knew they wouldn't make it. That is something that I am ashamed of. Now, as an adult, I have experienced what I feel to be is the other side of the spectrum. I had the great opportunity to coach last year and was faced with the decision to make cuts to the team. I was told that I had only so many spots on the team due to uniforms. The girls worked so hard during tryouts and I grew fond of each one of them throughout the week. It broke my heart to have to let two of them go. It was difficult to choose because even throughout the week in tryouts, the girls were improving tremendously! When it came down to it, I did what I had to do. The looks on those girl's faces broke my heart and I will never forget how I felt during that moment. In closing I would like to say that everyone's time will come when they will no longer compete. For some, it's sooner than later. Does it matter now that you won the high school district championship in 1995 because you kept the best players and cut the worst? Or does it matter that some people had the time of their life because they were part of something special, even though they didn't have great talent. Ben Zepeda, B. S Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:57 pm:        I am a graduate student in Exercise Physiology - so I make no attempt to understand the "role" of a teacher in molding kids. I suppose, though, that I do have an opinion to the argument of 'no cutting'. I believe that if the coaching staff is not able to contend with every one that WANTS to play and still be able to maximize his/her coaching effectiveness towards the A & B squads then they should be able to cut. Coaching positions, in most areas anyway it seems, are dictated by how successful the seasons are. A losing record looks bad in the eyes of the community and they can, along with the school board, determine who the coaches are (unless I am mistaken). So if the coach is unable to produce winning teams then he/she will be replaced. So we are asking the coaches to do it all, nurture my child who has low self-esteem and yet do not forget if the team does not win then you lose your job. In my experience cutting was unnecessary because we only had enough players for a varsity team and JV team, but at the same time we had enough coaches to have a full staff for both the JV and varsity. If we had had 3rd and 4th teams the coaching staff would not have been able to give all squads ample time to coaching. Therefore their coaching effectiveness would diminish. The statements about sports and grades, dropout rates, etc. and a positive relationship are very feasible, but I seem to look at them in another way. Could it be the opposite that students who have the high self-esteem play sports and that that self-esteem is not built up by the sport but is already in place? And if this were true then would it not follow that these confident individuals would be within these flattering statistics whether or not they played sports? Also, do these statistics say that its only sports that have this positive relationship or do other extra-curricular activities have the same effect? There is also the question that if we do not cut the kids and they are allowed to play, is it any better for them to perform poorly in front of their peers and parents, and be embarrassed in that way? At least being cut is a once a season occurrence that sound parents should be able to help their child deal with, while poor performance is put on display weekly during the game and/or practice. Is it better to be cut or known as the guy on the F squad? Rather than letting cutting or not cutting be a practice that is magnified and related to the self-esteem of children and that that self esteem is either being built up or destroyed by the outcome of that practice, wouldn't time be better spent on why this child has low self esteem in the first place? The simple fact is that few people go on to play college sports and even fewer to Pro sports, so if they need sports to feel good then what will they have when they are no longer in high school and have someone that will let them play sports? Where will they get their self-esteem then? If they are taught too build their self-esteem in other ways then wouldn't that transfer better into their life after high school? In a cushy world where everything was perfect, fair, and nice it would be ideal to have a no cut policy, but lets get real. Adolescents in high school are near adulthood and should be able to cope with disappointments in life. If they can not then lets look at why, not at what caused their disappointment! Ben Zepeda, B. S. Kari Langendorfer Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:02 pm:        Looking back to high school and the sports teams that I participated on, I remember the first two-weeks of tryouts very clearly. Everybody gets nervous the night before. You know that you have to prove your talents and convince your coach that you have the drive to succeed, and (most importantly) you don't want to get cut. I have never questioned the process of cutting, but knew that was just the way teams were chosen. After reading the articles and editorials about no-cutting policies I am beginning to question the practice of cutting, but two questions still arise when I consider the possibility of adopting these policies in our schools. My questions are - will the level of competition and drive of the athlete still arise if the fear of getting cut is not present? And how will coaches handle the increased number of kids? For those of us who have tried out for sport teams, we know the turnout that you can expect to see during the first week of practice. The numbers that show up can be very overwhelming, and if a coach were expected to coach all of these athletes his energies and resources would be pretty well tapped by the end of the first week. Teachers are constantly talking about their increasing class size and their inability to help and teach all of their students. We also know that all the athletes that try out don't deserve to be on a team. Why? They do not show up prepared and ready to practice. During practice their drive and passion for the game is not apparent and they do not encourage the spirit of the team. Why should these people be allowed to participate in sports? Have they earned the privilege? I think that is an important real world issue - working hard and striving for something that you really want, knowing that the outcome is not certain. Secondly, the fear of getting cut is a very good motivator. Knowing that you are not guaranteed a spot on the team until you have proven yourself is a very important real world issue. It was pointed out in the articles that educational settings are needed to prepare students to deal with real world issues by limiting their exposure to real world consequences until they have the skills to successfully cope. I believe that getting cut from, for example, the soccer team is a great simulation of a possible real world consequence. Not getting what you want is a real world consequence, and learning to deal with it is a very important coping skill. Although these readings have caused me to consider a no-cutting policy, I a not fully convinced. In life you are not given or guaranteed anything, we all learn that anything worth having is worth working for. By adopting a no-cutting policy in such a competitive environment, we are failing to educate out athletes about a very important life lesson and the coping skills necessary to handle it. Kari Langendorfer, B.S. Casie Postma Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:04 pm:        After reading facts and opinions from both sides of this controversy, I am still torn over weather or not a 'no-cutting' policy should be implemented in schools. Some really good arguments have been made that support both sides. For instance, in high school, a person's self-esteem can be easily damaged, also the number of people getting cut is not significant enough to make a difference on the budget. On the other side of the argument, it was brought up that in high school is where you prepare a person for the 'real world' so why not teach what it's really like and make them work for what they want. Every body is going to be turned down for a job once in their lifetime, why shouldn't they be prepared for that? I have played several sports on every level from small town little league to NCAA Division I. I have also seen both sides of this controversy on every level. I have been the 8 year old little leaguer who did not get any playing time, while the coach's kid plays the whole game. I have played on JV teams were I was not good enough to play at the varsity level, but still wasn't cut, and I have been the freshman that comes in and takes the senior's spot on the team, causing them to get cut. I'm not saying that any of these ways of coaching is right or wrong, but there is times where it is appropiate. Until high school, I believe there should be a 'no-cutting' policy. Athletes are still trying to learn new strategies, and skills, and in many times, just starting a new sport and they should have an opportunity to play in games and further develop thier skill. Having a JV team or a 'B' or 'C' team is one way that gets everybody involved in a sport at thier own level, and allows them to improve. In high school, you can unsually tell who is going to get the sport and who just does not have what it takes. I believe high school sports should be allowed to cut athletes under certain conditions. Most schools have varsity and JV teams and many even have freshman and 'C' teams. This allows for everyone to have an opportunity to play without cutting anyone. Even though it would be nice if everyone could stay on the team and play, it's not feasible in all situations. Many sports can only put so many people on thier roster. I seen a situation many times in high school that made me so mad and I feel greatly affected the team. Under most curcumstances a senior cannot play on a JV team. Many people at my high school would go years without playing a sport and turn-out their senior year because they knew they would not cut them, and it was thier one chance to letter in a sport. If there is a limit on the number of players, or uniforms a team has, then this means a person who is more qualified to be on the varsity team loses thier spot on someone who is basically just taking up space on the bench, and many time will not even be subed in until the score is so uneven that it wont matter. This hurts the rest of the team because it is one less person that they have to contribute off the bench. I feel the person who didn't get cut from the team will do nothing but slow a team down. Many times these people are slower, and may not understand the drills as well as their other teammates. This slows the whole momentum of the practice because drills are stopped to explain a play to this person, or the pace of a drill may be slowed to wait for them. This hurts everyone. As a person goes through high school, they are preparing for life. Why do we hand everything to them and treat them like little children? So what if they cut from a team and have their feelings hurt for a day or two. It will just toughen them up for that first job they don't get. If we are so worried about equal opportunities for everyone to improve thier skill in something should we let everyone into the advanced placement calculus class even though they almost failed basic math? I understand the points made on both sides of this argument, and agree with many of them, and even though I am still torn between sides, I have to lean more towards cutting the athlete if they cannot compete at a level that is equal to the teams level. There are many other ways to improve on your own, and many other teams they can compete on. If you are not going to get alot of playing time you are not going to improve, you are just wasting your time. Having a JV team and letting them play would be ideal, but sometimes its just not possible, and you have to let them go. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:05 pm:        My personal experience with "cutting" is very limited. I come from small, private schools that never had cuts because of the lack of athletes within the school. Everyone got to be on the team, but those less skilled hardly ever played. However, this does not mean that I have never seen or experienced what it feels like to be rejected from something that I wanted. The side which states that everyone makes the team raises a question to me of why should we even keep kids on the team if they are not playing and possibly hurting other players by their mistakes and lack of skill. I am not trying to insensitive, but there comes a point when coaches need to decide if they want to cater to every athlete on the team who may not have as much ability for the sport, or weed out the ones who may do better in some other type of activity. By cutting kids from sports that they are not good at, we are simply giving them an opportunity to develop skills somewhere else that may suit them better in the long run. For instance, what if I tried out for the debate team in high school, knowing that I hate to speak in front of large groups or knowing that there would be a lot more kids that truely want to be there. Why would I put myself through such embarressment and stress? It is the same with sports teams. If you know you are not particularly good at something, why force it. I think that most of time, it is the parents anyways who are putting the pressure on their kids to be the next Michael Jordan. Cutting occurs in all areas of life, especially in school. Not everyone is going to be in AP classes, or make the chess team, but these are excepted as suitable areas to descriminate in. The same should apply to sports, where cutting is giving kids a sense of understanding that they will not always get all the promotion or job they want in life. The point was raised on this site that kids who do not participate in sports tend to drop out of school or get pregnant more often in certain cases. I feel that these kids are a different type of child, who generally are not going to tryout for the sports team anyways because it is obviously something that does not interest them in the first place. I think we all know what type of child I am talking about too. The bottom line is that kids are always going to be faced with realities that they do not want to deal with, and cuting is a way of teaching them early on that life isn't always going to go your way. Gina Nasinec Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:06 pm:        Because of my experience as a coach and an athlete I see both sides of this contraversial issue. I commented on this issue on Nov. 1st and posted my comments as anonymous. I'd like to look at my comments now and support them. I stated that having to cut some players from a team broke my heart. This comment may have led you to think that I am supporting a no-cut policy. I am, but only up to a certain age level. I can't give you a specific age at which I believe cutting in sports should be implemented. Maybe it should be High School. Many people have their opinions about that cut off. I can only say that it is appropriate to keep in mind that children are continually growing and learning skills when they try out for a sport. To cut them is to deny them the chance to excell at something they have the potential to excell in. The National Alliance for Youth Sports organization has a wonderful coache's code of ethics. One of the promises on this code states, "I will treat each player as an individual, remembering the large range of emotional and physical development for the same age group." This statement really rings true for what I feel. Each young athlete needs the chance to develop both emotionally and physically in a sport. Cutting children will only deny them that choice. Kelsey Backen B.S Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:07 pm:        The elimination of children or "cutting" from athletic programs is obviously a controversial topic. For the purpose of this assignment, I will look at this issue as it involves high school adolescents. As we all have read, there are many pros and cons to the facilitation of cutting strategies. In order to make a logical conclusion, we must look at the facts. Is there scientific data supporting the benefits of athletic participation (i.e. improved self-esteem, better grades, etc)? Yes. Example: A three-year, statewide study of academic performance of high school student-athletes compared to non-athletes in North Carolina resulted in the attainment of significant data supporting the benefits of athletic. The five criteria used were grade-point average, discipline referrals, attendance rate, dropout rate, and graduation rate. Results: Athletes vs. Non-athletes Grade point: 2.86 vs. 1.96 Discipline Referrals: 30.51% vs. 40.29% Absences(out of 180 days)6.52 vs. 12.57 Dropout Rate .7% vs. 8.98% Graduation Rate 99.56% vs. 94.66% Could I find any scientific evidence proving that cutting was beneficial or that not cutting causes other athletes' developmental potential to be diminished and/or that the athletic program could be weakened? No. This may be due to the difficulty in creating such a study, however, the fact still remains that there is not substantial proof that cutting is mandatory, necessary, or beneficial. So what about the popular concerns against a non-cutting philosophy? -The level of play (competition) will decrease with the low-skilled players. This really shouldn't be a concern; this is what levels of skill are for (C Squad, J.V., etc.). However, this becomes a concern if the facilities, resources, or budget of the school/coach(es) are lacking. In this case, all attempts should be made to accommodate the athletes participating in the activity. Any lack of "attention" or "competition" the more-gifted athletes experience due to the integration of less-gifted athletes is a factor, however is minimal compared to the losses that the less-gifted athlete suffers if he/she is cut. Besides, coaches should be anxious to help the more gifted athletes, and all athletes for that matter, on refining their skills in times other than practice. -Budget restrictions on high school sports programs. This was touched on the last topic. Tax-payers (parents) are paying for the programs, therefore their children should be allowed to play, improve, and receive the benefits that have been shown to occur through involvement in athletics. If lack of resources is something that actually exists, the coaches should seek ways to provide the necessary resources in order to preserve the benefits gained through athletic involvement. -Pressures/importance of winning. Yes, winning is important. Everybody I know wants to win, especially me. However, it is not as important (when looking at the whole picture) as the benefits the athletes get out of sport. Parents want to see their children improve, get an equal chance to play, and if possible win. This goes back to the levels of competition. I believe the only place where winning should have the significance is on varsity athletics. This is where the school pride/recognition comes in and is relatively important to the well being of many people, athletes, coaches, students, teachers, and alumni alike. Although the varsity level of competition deserves its fair share of stress on winning, the JV, C-Squad, and other levels should be exclusively developmental, where kids have a chance to receive every benefit of being included in an athletic program. These are just a few of the concerns associated with a non-cutting philosophy. However, every argument in favor of cutting carries the same amount of weight as the ones that I just stated. The underlining factor is that whatever difficulties, dilemmas, qualms, concerns, and possible disadvantages that exist with the inclusion of less-talented athletes in an athletic program are minimal compared to what the less-talented athletes would lose by being cut. Scientific data shows it and logic infers it. Due to this I take the stance that the cutting of athletes is inappropriate and should be avoided whenever possible. Jami Pottratz Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:10 pm:        In regards to the topic of cutting children from school sports, I am caught in the middle. I grew up in a small community where making the team was a given. There was no such thing as try-outs. I had every opportunity to participate in a variety of sports; some I did well in and some I did not. Dr. Jeffries points out that in areas where a no-cut policy has been implemented "students are choosing to be a part of a program even in the absence of extensive game participation." This is an important point. In my experiences, I did not always get to be a starter, or play in every quarter, but I was part of the team. The point is that I was given the chance to try. "A no-cut policy would simply gurarantee students the right to participate and learn," (No-cut policies: Fancies and Facts). However, my very first experience with have to "try-out" for an activity came with trying out for the cheerleading squad; a sport in itself. When time came to show my stuff I was not prepared and consequently did not make the team. This experience was exactly as Dr. Jeffries described, "humilitating and embarrassing." However, I was taught the importance of practice, and when my chance came around again my skills had improved to the extent that I made the team. In this situation I needed to be cut, my lack of appropriate skills would have been damaging to the team. Opposers of the no-cut policy argue that "cutting students is the best option. Life involves successes and failures. Preparing students for life involves exposing them to the realities of their own abilities." In this situation I needed to be cut in order to learn the necessity of improving my skills. I believe it is important to give students ample opportunities to experience a variety of sports and activities within our public schools, and if there must be limitations then that is for the school boards to decide. "The school board-as an elected body-is entrusted to implement policy that best serves the educational needs of all children in the district," (Ellensburg Co-Curricular Committee). As a parent, I have a responsibility to teach, encourage, and support my child in the activities they show interest in. If my child is in a "cut" situation I again have a responsibility to help my child review their performance to determine what went wrong, how they can improve, and whether or not they want to. Matt Kollman B.S Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:11 pm:        Opinion: To Cut or Not to Cut Kids from sports teams While considering the question of whether or not children should be cut from sports teams, several thoughts immediately leapt to mind. Chief among them was that cutting children from sports teams might well do short-term damage to their fragile egos or collective sense of self worth. May I respond by saying, so what? I would ask Dr. Jeffries to point out to me any other important fields of endeavor where people are not judged by their performance. Athletics are by nature a competitive universe. This should logically tell us that some athletes are going to be better than others. In this way, athletics mirror life. It is a cold hard fact that we are not all given the same abilities. Children should learn that they will not always be the best, and that sometimes there are standards that must be met for them to be included. Of course, I believe that the teaching of these lessons should not be unnecessarily harsh or cruel, and that they should be age-appropriate. Having stated that, the lessons should nevertheless be taught. One of the websites offered for consideration told us that it was a lie that Michael Jordan was cut from any basketball team during his early teens. We were told that he was reassigned or some such other euphemism. I should like to point out that being reassigned from the Varsity team to the Junior Varsity is in fact being cut from the Varsity team. Just as being down-sized still means that you've lost your job, even if it isn't stated quite as bluntly as it might have been. Further, the idea that keeping kids in the program, at say the high school level, will somehow help them develop skills or self-esteem deserves deeper consideration. It is true that JV teams are developmental in nature. Kids who are cut from the Varsity squad may choose to participate at the JV level. My argument with this is that not all kids at the JV level will even play there. A child will not play simply because he/she is on the team. Does it do the child's ever-precious self-esteem any good to simply ride the pine? Doesn't the coach owe it to the team as a whole to field the best players to represent the team? It was my experience that upper class athletes who did not make Varsity would simply choose not to participate on their own. Even in practice, the lesser players will receive little to nothing in the way of instruction because the coaching staff is busy preparing the players who will make the best contributions to the team for the weeks coming opposition. Again, where is the value to the player who probably should have been cut? I must again stress my belief that the cutting policy should be age-appropriate. At the Middle School or Junior High level, schools should allow the maximum number of players to participate that they can afford, even if this means fielding multiple teams. My reasoning for this is that it is at this level that students are working towards their potential and may in fact learn the skills and strategies necessary to continue on to levels of higher competition. However, by the time High School rolls around the policy should become increasingly more strict for the reasons previously stated. The issue of the educational nature of school sports is often raised when discussing this subject. My question is exactly what lesson are the students to learn? Isn't it educational to teach some real-world lessons regarding competition and disappointment? Regardless of what your parents may have told you, you cannot be anything you want to be. We are all born with certain talents. While some of us may have what it takes s to be competitive athletes at the High School level, others of us may not. There are no guarantees, and a policy of no cutting from school sports will not change that. My second thought is more of a question that sticks in my mind. Why is this lovey-dovey thinking we are discussing only applied to school sports? I wonder if Dr. Jeffries might feel that the same rationale should be applied to academics. On the basic information website provided, several statistics were provided to show that student-athletes often have lower incidences of various social ills. These facts were used to argue that perhaps we should allow more children to participate in sports and then more of our children would fall into these more acceptable categories. If we apply the same argument to academics, it could be argued that students with certain specialized degrees or advanced education are more likely to get better jobs, have a higher income, have a higher net worth, and have better access to health care. Well, I suppose we'd better not have any standards for college or program admissions. It really doesn't matter if you don't score high enough on your placement tests, we'll let you into CALC II anyways. After all, we don't want to hurt your feelings or hamper your future. Everyone should have the chance to get a Doctorate degree. The only prerequisite to do so should be the simple desire to participate in the program. Obviously these ideas do not hold the proverbial water in this case. Why? Because in the reality we must all, at some point, face, it would be realized that student may have his advanced degree in Computer Science, but he does not possess the skills one would expect of such a person, and he would be terminated from his position. In other words, he would be cut from the team. Similarly, I believe that a child who cannot play his or her instrument with sufficient proficiency would not be allowed in the school's Jazz Quartet. He would audition, and then be (you guessed it) cut from the team. In conclusion, children do not have the right to participate in school athletics, any more than they have the right to passing grades in the classroom or to participate in other extracurricular activities for which the commensurate skills are not present. There are many other options available for children who wish to play sports. Not all sports are school- oriented. There are private leagues, club teams, and activity groups. I believe it is important for all children to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. This may or may not mean school sports. Andrew P. Jenkins, PhD Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:12 pm:        Young Bobby a marginal student and a lonely outsider from a broken family, has developed a passion for basketball. He watches the NBA games every weekend, buys trading cards, memorizes player statistics and dreams of dribbling, shooting, scoring and defending with all the other boys he goes to school with. He eagerly anticipates the team tryouts and practices shooting baskets on his own in his driveway. His mother encourages him to turn out as in hopes that he'll make new friends, watch less TV, play less video games, and learn the values of fair play and competition. The turnout day finally comes and he shows up at the gym with his spindly legs sticking out of a baggy pair of shorts. The coach, a school hero who played college ball before becoming a youth coach runs the candidates through a series of drills and mock games. After three days of practice he announces to Bobby that he's simply not good enough to play for Hogdodge High School. He explains to Bobby that he only has so many positions to fill and he must fill them with skillful players. He tells Bobby to practice a lot on his own and to come back in a year and maybe then he can play if he's good enough to survive the cuts. As a parent, Health Educator and strength and conditioning coach, I find the practice of cutting children from school sponsored athletics to be incompatible with the goals of raising children to be healthy, fit, and active adults. A recent Report of the Surgeon General (Centers for Disease Control, 2001) provided some gripping statistics: Nearly half of American youths aged 12-21 years are not vigorously active on a regular basis. This prevalent inactivity is in diametric contrast to their conclusion that adolescents and young adults, both male and female, benefit from physical activity. This statement may seem trite and obvious to health and physical educators who have long touted the necessity of fitness as part of a healthful lifestyle. Nonetheless, we acknowledge and appreciate the late but no less welcome support of the US government with what to some among us is a lifelong crusade. The conclusion of the CDC is further supported by the very health goals for our nation outlined in Healthy People 2010 (US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 2001) that stipulate that we increase the proportion of adolescents who engage in vigorous physical activity that promotes cardio respiratory fitness 3 or more days per week for 20 minutes or more per occasion. Healthy People 2010 reports our current baseline of adolescent vigorous exercise at 65% with a ten-year goal of raising this level of participation to 85% or more. Further, longitudinal research has demonstrated the physical fitness activity levels of pre and early pubescent children is a reliable indicator of their activity level in post adolescence and quite possibly adulthood as well (Janz, Dawsen, and Mahoney, 2000). One might be tempted to point out that it is the job of physical educators and their classes to meet the fitness needs of adolescents but obviously, PE programs, while helpful and perhaps necessary, are inadequate in many if not most school districts. PE is rarely a daily requirement and often is required only 2 or 3 days per week. The President's Council on Physical Fitness recently reported that only 19% of all high school students were physically active for 20+ minutes 5 days per week. This declivity away from regular physical education is increasing. Daily enrollment for high school students in physical education classes dropped from 42% to 25% according to the President's Council on Physical fitness and Sports. Active, enthusiastic and widespread involvement in youth sports may be the most logical place for our children to establish and maintain healthful activity levels. Clearly, it is our extracurricular sports programs that need to pick up the adolescent fitness ball. School sponsored sports programs pick up where physical education programs leave off. School sponsored programs offer inexpensive opportunities for children to learn, play, and appreciate sports and therefore may be the best conduit for channeling kids into lifelong activity. This conclusion is supported by Healthy People 2010 wherein it is stated that communities should provide a range of extracurricular programs in schools to meet the needs and interests of specific adolescent and young adult populations. Obviously, creating a sports program and then purposefully and systematically limiting participation to the program is not in compliance with this recommendation in action or spirit. Healthy People 2010 also recommends that communities create opportunities for physical activities that are enjoyable and promote adolescent's and young adults confidence in their ability to be physically active. It is hard to believe that being cut from a sport fosters a child's confidence in any way, let alone being physically active. Do our children really need to be told by coaches and athletic directors that they don't measure up? Does cutting really prepare them for disappointments in adult life? Should that be the goal and purpose of school athletics? Is there a shortage of disappointing learning opportunities for our kids these days? I think not. Is it our duty as coaches to foster confidence in our young athletes? I say yes, and the professional vocation of youth coaching supports this ethic. The National Alliance for Youth Sports (NAYS, 2001) has published a code of ethics for its members. Among these is the pledge that, I will remember that I am a youth sports coach and that the game is for children and not adults. While proponents of cutting propose that the practice is very similar to what professionals encounter in their careers in the way of being passed up for promotion we must acknowledge that children are not adults and should not be presumed to have the same ability to walk away from disappointment unshaken and with their self esteem intact. Children are either helped or harmed by their sports experiences--they are never unaffected. The winning of games is not the only determinate of a child's positive experience with sports yet proponents of cutting argue that the practice is necessary in order to win games and thus (presumably) make sports a positive experience for kids. Cutting kids in order to improve overall team performance and thus improve the experience for the remaining players is an erroneous assumption. This notion is not supported by the literature and may only be a weak guise to mask the parent's, coach's or athletic director's desire to boost their own egos by their association with a winning team. This self-serving practice is in direct opposition to the National Alliance for Youth Sports Code of Ethics that (2001) states, I [as a youth coach] will place the emotional and physical well being of my players ahead of my desire to win. This ethic is echoed in Great Britain where the Irish Sports Council (2001) has pledged The importance of participation for each child, best effort and enjoyment rather than winning should be stressed. Perhaps American athletic directors could learn a bit from the Irish who regard soccer with near religious fervor. The undermining effect of the insidious thirst for vicarious victories of coaches and parents are well-known, well-documented, and thus are beyond the scope of this essay. We must not, however, ignore the influence it has on cutting policies. Lastly, as coaches and physical educators we must remember that children do not develop in a linear fashion individually nor as a group. Today's klutzy kid may be next year's Athlete of the Year. It is through coaching, guidance, and practice that children develop into skillful movers and lifetime athletes. Cutting them from the sport they have an interest in is the surest way to NOT develop skills or reach their full potential. Without the knowledgeable guidance and organized practice the hidden stars and "sleepers" we cut will never shine on the playing field. We must, as the NYSCA Coaches pledge (NAYS, 2001), to Treat each player as an individual, remembering the large range of emotional and physical development for the same age group. Sport skills and fitness habits have never been shown by research to be inherited but have always been shown to be developed through participation, practice and guidance. With the rising rates of child and teen obesity, gang involvement, and self-destructive behaviors can we really afford to cut kids from the very thing that may guide them toward a healthful, active lifestyle? Sincerely, Andrew P. Jenkins, PhD References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001) A Report of the Surgeon General, Physical activity and health: Adolescents and young adults, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity. Found at www.cdc.gov Irish Sports Council (2001) Code of ethics & good practice for children's sports. Found at http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/html/home.htm Janz, K.F., Dawsen, J.D., & Mahoney, L.T. (2000).Tracking physical fitness and physical activity from childhood to adolescence: the Mustain study. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, (32) 1250-1257. National Alliance for Youth Sports (2001) Code of Ethics. Found at www.nays.org/coaches/code_of_ethics.cfm President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports (2001) Found at http://phs.os.dhhs.gov/ophs/pcpfs.htm and http://www.fitness.gov/ US Department of Health and Human Services (2001) Healthy People 2010 Found at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/default.htm Mike Taylor Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:14 pm:        Mike Taylor PEHLS 510 Dr. Jefferies raised some interesting points to the pros and cons of cutting kids from extracurricular activity programs. I agreed with points of interest covered on both sides of the issue. Kids that get cut do have some self-esteem and depression problems. I can remember when I was cut from the freshman football team. I was overweight and not in good condition. I was depressed and almost thought of giving up. But then I sort of got angry, and I found this drive from deep within to train hard for the next year and show them I was capable. This is what I did and I almost made the varsity team, but ended up in JV. I look on that experience and discovered a motivation to prove I was as good as the other player. This is why I think, along with other reasons, cutting should not be eliminated from school programs. Dr. Jefferies raised the point that Jordan was not cut, just simply moved back. I saw a documentary on Jordan and he claimed this experience made him depressed and angry. He used this energy to train hard and make the varsity team the next year, to show everyone he could. Cutting kids allows them to realize that maybe they are not the best at the particular sport, but the extra drive from being cut will allow them to work hard and make the team the next year. Cutting kids from sports does portray how unfair the real world can be. It is good to shelter kids in early ages, such as elementary and grade school. But when kids get into middle and high school, they should be starting to experience that the real world can be unfair and it will take extra effort to succeed. Cutting is an example of the real world. Just as people are currently losing their jobs at Boeing, the people who work the hardest and do the best job will keep their job. To stay on the team, a kid must work hard to succeed and avoid being cut. Kids in high school apply for jobs all of the time, and not everyone gets the job. It is unreasonable to allow all kids to join the kid, just as it is unreasonable to allow all kids to get the job, it is not economical. Take football for example. If everyone is allowed to play, everyone needs gear, which is expensive. If there is too many on the team, the coach has to spend time with those who are not at the desired ability level. Those who are at the right levels are not receiving enough attention to improve. These are just a few of my thoughts, I am saving some for class. I appreciate Dr. Jefferies views and arguments. It is a hard topic to justify concretely either way. I my case, I think I will need a lot of convincing to acknowledge cutting as negative. I am sorry I could not find any research data to reinforce my points. Bryan Contreras Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:15 pm:        In all honesty I might never have given the no cut issue any thought if it were not for the fact that I was told to submit a posting to the PELINKS4U discussion forum concerning the no cutting issue. However, the fact that the assignment caused me to read and think on the topic was not as bad as I thought it would be. In fact, I am glad that I had to study the topic despite the obvious opinion driven nature (at least until some real studies are done) of the no cut issue. The first thought I had when I heard the idea of a no cut policy was, that is ridiculous! How is a coach to develop the best possible team if the athletes know that no matter how underdeveloped their skills are they will never be cut from the team? It reminded me of the socialist economy (unless I am mistaken) where all employees within a working sector are treated and paid the same amount of money no matter how much real work they do. Where is the incentive to excel if you know that no matter how well or poorly you perform you will still not be cut from the team? However, upon reading Dr. Jefferies editorial article No-Cut Policies: Fancies and Facts (1) it became clear to me that, at least in Dr. Jeffries case, the no-cut policy simply ensures that all interested students will be afforded the opportunity to practice and develop their skills. But, those athletes competing (or on the team), during a game or meet will still be determined by the skill level of the individual athletes. Any advancement made by those not on the team will be made when improvement is demonstrated during practice or some lower level B team competition. Under these conditions I believe that a no cut policy is a valuable asset to any sports program, assuming the coaching staff is big enough to handle the load. However, I realize that in various sports (gymnastics, diving, basketball, baseball, football, etc.) that require a high level of mechanical skill it may be more productive and perhaps safer when the athlete-to-coach ratio is smaller, so that more attention can be given to perfecting the skills (in a safe manner) needed to be competitive. This Idea fits in nicely with the National Youth Sports Coaches Association's Code of Ethics for Coaches(2). Within this code of ethics it is stated that the coach will put the emotional and physical well being of the athlete above a personal desire to win as well as providing a safe playing situation for each athlete. With this in mind the school district must take into consideration the ability of the coaching staff to safely divide their time amongst a large group of athletes before implementing a no cut policy. For example, in the sport of football there are inherent dangers that the coaching staff must contend with and if the athlete numbers become to large it may become increasingly difficult to prevent injuries or pauses in practice sessions while a coach is giving time to another athlete or group that is having difficulty learning a skill or play. In sports such as track and field (field events exempt in most cases) and cross-country the only actual skill needed to compete is the ability to run and jump. Therefore, the athlete-to-coach ratio can be much larger without a slowing of the learning process. In fact, in these sports coaches often relish the chance to get as many athletes as possible. By increasing the numbers the coach will increase the probability that an athlete that is both physiologically and anatomically suited to running will turn out. Therefore, I believe that the no cut issue has validity but it may not always be a viable solution in all sporting situations (i.e. low coaching numbers due to budgeting concerns). In conclusion, I feel that if given the chance any athlete can at least become a respectable participant in any sport and therefore should not be cut on the basis of apparent skill. However, my biggest concern is the physical safety of those athletes participating in inherently dangerous sports where high levels skill acquisition is needed to be successful. I would hate to see a school district adopt the no cut policy and then get sued when an athlete gets seriously injured during a practice session because the coaching staff was not big enough to handle the athlete load. This some may say is not a valid argument because perhaps the coach was negligent in his/her approach. However, it is clear that the probability of an injury whether accidental or preventable is higher when the athlete population is higher relative to the existing coaching staff. This does not mean that the least talented athlete is the one getting hurt but it would be and is always a shame to see an athlete become injured and it is even more of a shame if that injury could have been prevented by allowing an athlete more one-on-one time with the coach. A scenario, which may not occur if a coach, is expected to teach a set of skills to an incredibly large number of athletes. References 1. Jefferies, S. (2001). No-cut polices: Fancies and facts. http://www.pelinks4u.org/archives/coaching/070201. htm 2. National Youth Sports Coaches Association (2001). http://www.nays.org/coaches/index.cfm davina Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:18 pm:        To Cut or Not? Before I discuss the controversial topic of whether to cut or not, lets first look at the definition of a coache's philosophy for teaching and providing a learning environment for children. Richard Roades, author of Basic Coaching Skills describes that a successful coach isn't one that concentrates on the task of winning, but instead adopts the philosophy of providing each child with an equal learning environment to develop and improve their skills and enjoy team-participation. His coaching style is adopted from the American Coaching Institute that develops coaching certification programs for athletic coaches. The Institute focuses on the positive coaching philosophy, teaching basic skill fundamentals, and good sportsmanship. Perhaps the most important question to consider is what happens if the philosophy is to provide an equal opportunity for children to learn and develop their skills. Won't their learning environment be inhibited if there are too many players per coach? In the article about the pros and cons of implementing cutting strategies in public schools, there is a valid point opposing a not-cut policy and it takes its shape as analogous to what occurs in the academic setting. If there are too may students in a class, some students are asked to move up or down a level based on the teacher's subjective view of who is performing well and who isn't. Just like not all children can make the advanced math class, being cut does not mean they will never be able to understand the material. They could find a club team where learning might be more encouraging then staying in a place where they are not wanted. If a no-cut policy is employed the coach may show favoritism to some athletes, leading to the kid who would normally have been cut becoming disinterested in the sport. Indeed this presents an interesting facet to the argument, but the child would still be participating. The obvious counter to this line of reasoning then becomes the concept of trying something else; the coach should encourage them to look for another team or activity, and then should encourage trying out again. If the coach making the cut shows the kid that they would love them to try out gain next year and gave then some advice, it could prevent the child from never wanting to participate. In the article about progress and keeping kids in youth sports by Dr. Darrell J. Burnett, a nine-year-old boy states, "what's the use in trying, no matter what I do it'll never be enough." My coach is never satisfied and I can't compete against other kids who are much better than I am. This quotes supports the premise that if a child is in an environment where they are not wanted, they will associate negative feelings with the support and become disinterested. Research by Jeziorski, 1994 has shown that kids who stay in sports tend to stay in school, get better grades, and show better behaviors. Therefore, I fell that these results are the best defense of keeping kids in sports, regardless of which ones. If they are cut from one sport because numbers are too large, they should be encouraged to try something else. This is not to say that they could never try the initial sport again. Therefore, cutting is necessary due to ensure learning and participation, and that each child receives the full benefit of attention. Although it may not be fair, it could serve as a motivator, and could lead to a sense of achievement in finally making the cut. If cutting wasn't employed the sense of achievement and honor of making a team would be lost. By Davina Strauss Dean Koberna Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:19 pm:        My name is Dean Koberna and I am a Physical Education student at Kent State University. Cutting Students in Athletics is tough. It is hard on the coaches as well as the student who is trying out. I know from personal experience. From my 10th-12th grade year I got cut from the High School Basketball team. I love the game of Basketball but I never once gave up I always came back the next year to try out. It hurts being cut from the team. It is a moment you will never forget. It feels like getting picked last for a team in Physical Education class. My issue of getting cut from the team goes deeper than not making the team because of my lack of skill according to my High School Basketball Coach/teacher for PE. In my firmest opinion I think choosing someone to be on the team and cutting someone is politics. Getting cut does hurt and students will all handle it in a different way. Now I never once stopped liking the game and playing the game so I looked at it as an advantage to work harder and play harder. Other students will look at it as they are a failure and will give up not only on that sport but maybe on their education as well. My take on cutting a student in athletics is it can be done in different ways. I think the best way is always have a developmental squad. A student gets cut from the team you can have after school or night practices for these students and when someone from varsity gets hurt you can bring the kid up to fill the roster spot or when a student will become ineligible due to grades a student can fill in that spot as well. This is giving that student a chance-telling him/her that they are not a failure and that they have a chance to be successful if they continue to work hard at their sport. This is giving them a lesson in life as well as sport. If anyone is to reply to this posting I just want to add one final thought, please be courteous to one's feelings in cutting someone because it can be really hard on a student and it can affect not only their participation in sport but their education as well. I just ask that you evaluate the student more and when you are cutting the student from the sport encourage him/her to do better the next time and tell them what to work on or what they could do to make them better or more successful in their sport. Lauren Caminati Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:20 pm:        Athletics is about hard work, determination, success, and failure. Getting cut from a team is part of the game, it builds character, it's how that individual bounces back. Do they work harder and practice on their own to make the team next year, or do they quit and give up? Getting cut from teams is just facing reality, sometimes in life you don't always get what you want. For example, people get rejected from jobs and even laid off of certain jobs, but that's acceptable. Athletics isn't always about winning and competing but that is a huge factor of the game. Through athletics school reputations are built and for the elite individuals bright athletic futures are created. Being able to compete is essential in athletics, therefore the best of the best must be selected for the team. For those that get cut from teams, they need an alternative. I believe that schools should offer intramural leagues that allow everyone equal opportunity to participate. This will allow all that what to participate and be active in athletics that chance. Melissa Gay Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:20 pm:        In regards to the cutting or no cutting issue in athletics I am caught in the middle. I feel that athletics gives tremendous opportunities for students to learn about teamwork, respect, hard work and discipline. I also believe that these qualities can be learned in other experiences besides athletics. Cutting in athletics, I believe, is here to stay regardless of how unfair it is to many non-skilled students. School districts do not have enough money to fund all students that want to participate in athletics, this is nearly impossible. As a future physical educator, it is my responsibility to make sure there is a variety of different types of activities or games that appeal to all different types of students. With this idea in mind, it is crucial that physical educators, school districts, and communities work together so that we can broaden the opportunities that students receive, to get them interested in activities besides the typical school sports. As a physical educator it is my responsibility to show students different ways and concepts to keep them active throughout life. School athletics is not the only way to be physically active. There are several options for these students including after school programs to get students to participate in physical activity and recreation leagues in the community. Overall, cutting has many negative aspects, but I believe that as a teacher we can find ways to get students involved in physical activity without it necessarily being school athletics. Marcella Prince Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:21 pm:        With the issue of cutting or not cutting the children from the teams, I feel that the children should not be cut until a certain age. As I grew up, I played in sports from the time I was three. I started out in gymnastics, and worked my way up to volleyball, basketball, and track. Being that I played in all these sports I have never been cut from a team. When I was in 8th grade or earlier I would go to the list to see who would make the team and the girl standing beside me would be crying because she didn't make it, I felt bad. But as I went on to high school the kids would not feel so bad because they knew they were going to make it or not. The child knows if they are good at a sport or not. They are just trying something new. They would say well I just wanted to try. I feel that children in the 8th grade or below they should not have any cuts. Let them learn how to play the sport and let them decide if they are good or not. But in high school they are old enough to know if they have what it takes and are emotionally stable to be cut from a team. But I feel that the schools should have a program for students who want to play sports. Maybe intramurals teams that would play after lunch or after school. They can play up until tournaments. This could work for many sports that the students want to play. Josh Mordarski Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:22 pm:        I have played high school sports and I have also coached many different levels of sports with young athletes where I have had to ãcutä players. So I will be speaking from some personal experience. I was never cut from a team in high school and I don't know what it feels like to be ãcutä, but I can say that it was not a good feeling whenever I had to ãcutä an athlete as a coach. This is a very delicate area to deal with in today's society. The problem that I have seen is that the high school sports of today have evolved into a "business" instead of a school tradition. The importance put on winning and being the state or has become the only goal of most schools. The coaches of the teams are now hired to do just one thing, win. If the coach does not win a lot of games or produce a championship team within a few years, then they are fired and a new coach is hired. A coach has no choice but to cut the less skilled players to keep his/her job. It is no longer about the student athletes, its about putting us on the scoreboard, and only your best athletes can help achieve that goal. Sports have become such a political tool in society that the best interest of the student athletes has been tossed aside. Cutting athletes is not a nice or fun thing for any coach at any time, but it must be done to protect students from injury from other student athletes and also from his/her peers. Sadly, it is also used to keep the winning ãspiritä alive, along with the coach's job. I love high school sports and participated in many when I was in school, I have just recently seen and dealt with the effects that cutting student athletes has had on people, including myself. Adrienne Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:24 pm:        From the age of five to twenty one yrs old, I have been actively involved in sports such as; basketball, softball, track, cross country, swimming, and ice skating. I have always done well at cross country and track and continue the sport at the college level. I have always enjoyed the other sports even though I was not the best because I was given the opportunity to participate without cuts, it was fun, my friends were there and I learned useful information about team work. In discussing the topic to cut or not to cut children, I think that there should be absolutely no cuts in elementary level sports. Cutting children in elementary level sports can demolish a child's self esteem as they are left out and separated from there friends. Most would feel down and basically just quit all sports and choose to never participate. Not all children have the same experience so therefore allowing a child to participate at an early age and not cutting them can help them build the skills to make a great athlete and a great person. If there are too many children signed up for the sport, make two teams and give the child every chance. In looking at the high school level I feel the same. Yes, high school is the secondary level and one is expected to be a better athlete at this level but again not everyone has the same experience and skill level. Given the chance to participate on varsity or junior varsity level they can achieve goals, self confidence, and build skills. Michael Jordan, one of a greatest athletes of all time was cut in high school. Michael Jordan who could of easily given up did not give up and now is a spectacular to watch. Not everyone has great determination as Michael did. Most children would have given up the sport and maybe all sports as his or her confidence level decreases. Therefore not cutting and allowing children to play will let them learn determination and dedication. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:25 pm:        Cuts are good because it will show the best of the team. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:25 pm:        I coach several sports, and I feel that cutting is important. I coached cross country at a middle school level with 38 runners (boys and girls) on my team. It was too many kids for one coach, even for a sport where everyone can participate at each meet. Even though we did very well, I would not coach this many again, and next year I am making cuts. I was not able to coach the way I wanted to because of the number of kids. As a PE teacher, I deal with huge class sizes in half of a gym all day long. My passion is coaching, and if I'm not able to coach a team with a reasonable number of athletes on it, then I'm not going to coach at all. That's called babysitting. Anonymous   Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 9:04 pm:        I can see this from three viewpoints ... as the athlete that always got to play ... as the parent of a child that always gets to play and another child that got cut and feels like a failure ... and as a coach who works in a school system the requires cutting. And with all things considered I have to say that although it's not fun for the coach, the parent, or the student; cutting is best if you don't have ample coaching staff and available facilities. I coach volleyball and basketball and have no assistant staff available to me ... keeping double the number of athletes needed to fill the court seems the ideal number in my mind ... efficient and effective practices can be had in the time available to each team ... in basketball, for instance, our one middle school gym has to accomodate a 7th grade girls team, a 7th grade boys team, an 8th grade girls team, an 8th grade boys team, and a couple freshman boys and girls games and practices every week ... there is no extra time or space to have B-squad practices or games; although we do have a informal intermural program at the middle school level where any child can play if they desire (1/2 hour after school in a class vs class format per grade with double elimination tournament format - better than nothing, but not much, imho) I didn't get the opportunity to coach basketball again this year ... it seems my attempts to give equal playing time to the 14 girls I kept on the team last year didn't make anybody happy .. not the kids, not their parents, not the board .. we only won about 1/3 of our games but the girls learned a lot of plays and worked hard on fundamentals, which was what I was told my job was .. I hope to coach basketball again - when I do I will be keeping fewer players and all will get playing time but getting greater amounts will require greater effort and skill being shown .. I think I have a lot to teach and I care very much about the kids and want the opportunity to help as many as I can, even if that means only 10-12 a year rather than 15-20. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 11:29 am:        Like many who have posted so far, I have multiple veiws of this topic. I have played sports and been cut and I am a coach. I started sports before I was at an age to play in a formal setting. When old enough I played baseball. It was always fun and everyone got to play. Then I got into middle school baseball and football. There was plenty of teams for every one to play, but that didn't insure playing time. In fact you can sign-up and play, but every one except one teams worth of players got cut...All-stars. This is a point that wouldneed to be contested from early sports to the professional level. Cutting will always take place when dealing with an All-stars team, but according to some that have posted this practice should not be used. It takes the best athletes from the entire group/division, primarily based on performance. Same with college atheletes and professional. I played sports until injuries kept me from participating during high school. In total I was cut every year, in theory, because I didn't make the varsity team or the A team. As a coach for the football team at a local high school I am part of a no cut policy for making the team. We do, however, cull those players that are not ready for the privilage to play. Playing a High school sport requires more time, effort and discipline. If a student-athlete becomes deliquent in either responsibilities to their education or the sports team that student-athlete is not allowed the privalage to play a sport. If a no cutting policy was in place then there would only ever be one team, per sport, per school. In closing I would like to point out the negatives to having a 'no-cut' policy in one word, Liability. To further explain, look at the liability of allowing an intelecutally challenged student/athlete compete, look at allowing an underdeveloped student/athlete play a contact sport. These are areas that would become a major liability and risk managment issue when in a 'no cut' policy is in place. andrew r beardsley (Arb0340) New member Username: Arb0340 Post Number: 1 Registered: 9-2005 Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 12:37 pm:        This is an issue that will vary from school to school district. Also, this issue should be treated differently in accordance to the age of the athletes. Many people see cutting students as a harsh way of telling them they are not good enough, or do not belong. This is a common feeling to the child that is cut. So, in the circumstance of dealing with children at the middle school level and down, all students should be allowed to participate in practice and make the team. Within every community, there are enough parents, coaches, or volunteers to make a change. Fundraising, donations, and help should always be available. People must be aware of the benefits of physical education, also the concerns if there is not enough time, money, or facilities for there children to play. An effort should be made for those students, they are willing to better themselves and skill level should not decide their fate. However, at the Jr. Varsity, and Varsity level, students should be cut. Teams demand to put the best players on the court, field, or mat. Facilities may limit participation and capacity, and affect those students who do not get the chance to make the team. That is not an issue of morality or an issue of harming the students. Statistics do show an increase in overall “well being” for those who are a part of athletics, and should be recognized and pushed to expand the athletic programs. Better athletes in return produce better results and force the competition to rise. Steve Jefferies (Admin) Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 44 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 9:04 pm:        A fundamental misunderstanding by many in discussing cutting vs no-cutting is the assumption that a no-cut policy means that everyone gets to play on the team. That is not what most proponents of not cutting intend. No cutting means that everyone (who meets the school and participation rules) gets a chance to LEARN by practicing. Fundamental to any school program is the focus on learning. Schools should not be in the business of worrying about medals, trophies, titles, etc. These are nice rewards for athletic teams that perform well but the major benefit of athletics is in the process (of being a part) not in the results of competition. We are muddling our mission in schools when we are not focused on getting all of our students to do their best and finding a way for all to play some kind of role that ensures they enjoy the educational benefits of athletics. Jane Crans (Jane_c) Junior Member Username: Jane_c Post Number: 2 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 7:59 pm:        What does everyone think of this? About 5 years ago I was asked to coach 8th grade girls Volleyball (I just moved to this new school - I already had 14 years of varsity volleyball coaching experience under my belt). This school has both a 7th grade and an 8th grade team. Another person coached the 7th grade team. The modified program was under the supervision of the varsity coach. We were told to keep I believe 12 players on each team- that came from the AD and the head coach. We did our try-outs together, but, made our selection separately. The other coach was a non-teacher. One of the girls that the coach cut was a HS PE teacher's daughter. She was very weak in skills and unathletic. HER father to this day (5yrs) holds a grudge because HIS daughter was cut and I (not the other coach of the team she didn't make) did not extend a "professional courtesy" (in his words) by keeping her on the team. He seems to think that she was the only one cut. I have never been a "political" person, I believe it is important to treat every child the same and by keeping her on the team and cutting a more skilled player that would be sending the wrong message. Kids are smart- they would have picked up on that right away. Matthew Thomas (Mrt8669) Junior Member Username: Mrt8669 Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 1:12 pm:        Back in high school i can remember being the captain of the varsity soccer team for two years, and one thing i can remember not being able to stand was working with kids who didn't know what they were doing or didn't deserve to be there. Although I enjoyed having a soccer coach who also happened to be the nicest guy in the world, it brought problems onto the soccer field when he wasn't able to cut anyone from the team because he wanted everyone to try out and stick with the team even if they didn't get playing time. Now some of the kids that would come and try out weren't even serious about what they were there to do which as always is to have fun, but many of us were there to also win. I think cutting students from sports teams is just something you have to do to keep the best in mind for the whole team and what they are trying to accomplish. Now just because you cut a player does not mean he/she cannot still be active in that sport if they are truly interested in being physically active. Intramural sports are a great way for students to be able to compete at a sport and also get the necessary physical activity we want our students to have. Dan Godshall (Dpg6017) Junior Member Username: Dpg6017 Post Number: 2 Registered: 9-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 11:57 pm:        At my high school there were cuts only if there were to many athletes to bring to the games. I think cutting is alright. If there is too many athletes then some wont get to play anyway, And they will become discuraged and not love their sport as much. Cutting does bring out the best players in a school, and should put the best team on the field. And for staying in shape/ getting in shape, there are other ways a student can do this, and not be on a team. I stopped playing football my sophmore year, and that did not stop me from lifting and staying in shape. In conlusion, cutting does not hurt anyone, the students cut hurt themselves by not finding another way to stay in shape. Jon Scharpenberg Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:47 pm:        I would like some clarification on cutting kids from sports. When there is sufficient numbers for participation, is there intramural programs being offered in addition to interscholastic athletics. And, if so, are we doing a good job teaching skills, learning the game at the intramural level. I think we need to look at fixing our intramural programs (not simply rolling out the ball). You might find that students are smarter than we give think. It seems to me that we do need to change our thinking and make sure we are putting quality programs together both interscholstically and at the intramural level. There is a way to have our cake and eat it to. But we need to address a fundamental question of what do we value. Do we value participation (if so, run a quality intramural program in addition to a quality interscholastic program. If you value equal experiences for all, then we need to change mor e than just athletics ryan scott (Skooter_113) Junior Member Username: Skooter_113 Post Number: 3 Registered: 3-2006 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:57 am:        I feel cutting kids is appropriate, once they hit a certain age. By the time most children are 12 or so you are starting to see the better athletes stand out and the weaker ones not so much. At this age most athletes mentality is that they are playing to win, not to have fun anymore. They still play for fun, but winning is first priority. If you are trying to win then you are going to pick the best team possible, which means you are going to have to cut players. You are not going to keep a terrible player on a team just to keep him happy and have him risk losing a game or the season. So I feel cutting is great and acceptable, as it will allow the best players to build and grow off of one another. Becki Prosser (Sanchez12) New member Username: Sanchez12 Post Number: 1 Registered: 4-2007 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 3:05 pm:        When I was in school there were not many sports that cut athletes. I feel that cutting athletes from that sport is wrong. When you cut an athlete that makes them feel like they aren't good enough to do that sport and some times that person will quit and won't do anything then. And people out there wonder why students are over weight. Well maybe if they weren't cut from a team then they wouldn't be over weight. Self-esteem plays a big real in this. If someone is cut their self-esteem goes down and there for sometimes kids will eat and then they get over weight. I know that some sports cut because they just don't have enough room on the roster well it's high school not the pros you make room. So I feel cutting kids from sports is wrong. Ryan Gibson (Rgib38) New member Username: Rgib38 Post Number: 1 Registered: 4-2007 Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 5:33 pm:        I believe that the only need to cut an athlete should come from constant conflicts with team rules. You do not want to cut a player just becasue he or she does not have the physical atributes to play for you. Puberty varies for each individual. I my self did not peak untill after nineth grade. My biggest growth spurt came after my freshman year. Like many have said, you dont' want to regret cutting a kid and then having them hit a big growth spurt. Of course I am mostly refering to public school sports. With private organizations it differs. So in the end you really need to cut a player if he or she breaks a team rule repeatidly.

Administration Log Out   Previous Page Next Page