Should HS Track Be a No-Cut Sport ?

But to see that kid work his ass off, maybe get down to 2:39 by the next year and then ask you if you thought running cross would make him even better.....priceless! Every bit as rewarding as the 2:19 kid getting down to 2:06.

Yes, it should remain a no-cut sport.

The marginal cost for supporting that additional boy is negligible. Plus, watching a sophomore run a 2:20 isn't any more thrilling than watching a sophomore run a 2:53. What would be the "improvement" of cutting the 2:53 kid.

Do you think it make you more of a hit with the girls to wear your high school track jacket?

If they didn't cut you, they're not going to cut anyone.

the great thing about HS T&F is that anyone and everyone can participate. There are plenty of kids that ran great times as seniors that absolutely sucked as frosh. Especially boys, many of whom don't have their growth spurt until soph/jr year.

As a frosh, I ran a 2:48 800, as a sr, I ran a 2:02. Not great, but I certainly wouldn't have run that (or still be running now) had I been cut or not made the tryout.

---

Boring wrote:

Would it imrprove high school track to make it a try-out sport rather than the no-cut sport that it is?

I watched a miserable dual meet today between two relatively large teams and I wondered why any expense was made to coach, outfit and transport a sophomore boy running 2:53 for 800. He should be at home playing video games. Track is not PE.

---

That idea is wrong in so many ways that it's hard to know where to begin.
Kids mature at different rates. It's unlikely that the 2:53 sophomore is going to be a 2:03 senior or better but that sort of thing happens enough that you can't rule out the possibility. But whether he ends up as a 2:03 senior, a 2:23 senior, or finds that he's more suited to javelin throwing, cutting him reduces the likelihood that he'll attain whatever potential he has. Yes, he could train on his own and maybe make the team next year but he loses the social benefits of being part of a team and the friendships that come with it and is much less likely to do that.
We rail here all the time about lazy Americans who do nothing but play video games. That 2:53 sophomore boy needs and deserves the chance to do something that enhances his fitness as much as a 1:58 sophomore does. High school sports should be non-cut whenever feasible.

As to expense, many high schools now charge user fees for kids who play a sport so it's actually in the school's interest to keep that 2:53 sophomore. And even if the school charges no fee, the coach's salary, cost of hiring officials, busses, etc. is pretty much a constant so you aren't saving anything by getting rid of less able athletes except in the unlikely event that your team is so big that it needs two busses to travel to away meets in which case you could simply have the slower kids run only at home.

That's what my first 800 was at the beginning of indoor track my freshman year. By the end of the year I could run that pace for a mile. By the end of my senior year, I got my 800 down to 1:58.

---

Boring wrote:

Would it imrprove high school track to make it a try-out sport rather than the no-cut sport that it is?

I watched a miserable dual meet today between two relatively large teams and I wondered why any expense was made to coach, outfit and transport a sophomore boy running 2:53 for 800. He should be at home playing video games. Track is not PE.

---

I wouldn't have made the team as a freshman if there had been cuts. My first two races freshman year were an 800 in 2:37 and a 1600 in 6:18. Awful, I know. By my junior year I ran 4:46 for 1600 and 10:39 for 3200. Now I'm running in college (26:03 for 8k). If I'd been cut as a freshman I can guarantee I would not be running in college, and I most likely wouldn't have tried out again in high school.

We had over 180+ sign up for just boys track this year, and over 100 girls sign up. The fact is we are limited on our space, and in the number of coaches on our staff to monitor that many kids.

We do not cut from distance, unless they are first year juniors or seniors who are just trying to fill out the college resume...we're talking 7+ minute milers after three weeks of training. Most of our cuts occur in the sprints, jumps, throws, and hurdles.

We cut because there are only 2 runways for the horiz. jumps, one shot circle, one discus circle, 8 lanes, one HJ pit, etc.

If we had 30 boys and 30 girls involved in the horizontal jumps, how would your top kids get any reps at all? It's simply not fair to your best kids. We ask those who we are going to cut if they want to move up to distance (not limited by space) or try vaulting (since our numbers are low in that event).

Cutting has helped our team tremendously, and when we have numbers over 100 we'll cut.

Having slower athletes on the team is great.

Back in school, my small public high school had an enormous track team. When the girls and boys went to meets together, we always needed two buses.

1. Larger team camaraderie.
2. Larger cheering section.
3. Opportunities for novice field events meets, JV/Frosh/Soph races at XC invitationals.

There was a kid a year younger than me who as a sophomore ran 27/28 for 5K. By his senior year he ran 17:20 and ran at two state meets -- cross and outdoor 4x8 relay. Had we cut him, he never, ever, would have dropped 10 minutes for 5K, become a team captain, or turned into the emotional bedrock of the cross-country squad.

That, and it's always fun to have the best JV cross team around.

And that's appropriate. "Citius, Altius, Fortius." Swifter, higher, stronger. This sport is about competition, but it's also about improvement. Why do we have youth races? Masters races?

---

WE CUT wrote:

If we had 30 boys and 30 girls involved in the horizontal jumps, how would your top kids get any reps at all? It's simply not fair to your best kids.

---

---

u r blind wrote:

---

WE CUT wrote:

If we had 30 boys and 30 girls involved in the horizontal jumps, how would your top kids get any reps at all? It's simply not fair to your best kids.

---

If your arguing about fairness, how fair is it to the kid that gets cut?

---

You sound like a win-at-all cost coach who does not care about the sport, just about the top kids who help you shine so you get your accolades. HS track and XC is about the experience of participating in something bigger than a single person, but that message is apparently lost on you, since by your own words you only care about your best guys. Your athletes are not your "product" and it says tons about you that you even use the term. You are not a coach I would want my kids running for, since you are demonstrating all the wrong values. You would prevent participation because someone is not good enough, when it hardly matters how good they are at all? How can they improve if you deny them that chance. There is a reason XC and track are usually no cut, as opposed to basketball or baseball with its limited team numbers. If you are not willing to help anyone who comes out, you do not deserve to coach at the HS level.

On the other side of the coin, if your team is "no cut" and you have 100 athletes, how are you supposed to give any kind of individual attention (which all Letsrun users seem to want)?

My team cut in middle school because we did not have enough buses and uniforms for all of the athletes who wanted to run.

I think the coach's approach and reasoning with the sprinter group is logical given the school size. Otherwise, track and field should be no-cut.

I have more of a problem with kids who run 14-15 min 3200's thus dragging on a meet. Work their tale of in practice, put them in the 800 or 1600 and give the rest of us a chance to go home (particularly a mid-week meet).

Maybe you need to have multiple practices for a varsity, jv and freshman team. Then your top kids could get their reps and you could also work on developing future talent.

Also you the 180 kids and their parents to lobby the school board for more facilities and more assts.

And as for moving kids to other events, i don't have any problem with that as long is you are doing it based on some assessemnt of abilities, not just putting some 300 pounder on the distance squad, just because he is not the best thrower. I think a lot of times, kids don't know where their true abilities are.

actually dddf , you're the one who sounds like an asshole.

There is only so much attention to give in Track, and usually limited facilities at most HS's. Almost anyone can coach XC with 100's of kids - look at the York program, half the battle is just getting the kids out.

Also, this is the problem with school track in the US in general, too many HS situations that can't handle the development of large numbers of athletes. If there was a better club system in place overall, and sometimes there is in specific areas, then ALL athletes could be developed to each individual's potential.
Unfortunately this is often frowned upon, so that far too few athletes are properly developed. Just look at the limited number of places on College teams, and yet few are encouraged to look elsewhere, unless the individual talent level is commensurate with a Hanson's-like ability.
I like the fact that this coach recognizes his limitations and tries to do the best for a reasonable number of kids, not waste the development of others. Hopefully alternative arrangements can be made for other interested athletes - like with local clubs.