Should HS Track Be a No-Cut Sport ?

dddf wrote:

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.

Spoken like a true liberal...everyone's a winner.

Try telling the athletes we've developed into all-americans, state champions, and who have gone on to earn scholarships worth hundreds of thousands of dollars added together. How could a team possibly develop those kids when you don't give them the opportunity for rep work?

I know, because in the past we didn't cut, and it cost those kids who were serious. And it was then and there I thought, why am I costing these kids who work their tails off for the sake of keeping kids who really don't even want to be out there.

As you would have it, they should feel good to be on the team with kids who don't give a rip about track and are only out there to pad the resume for college.

So you are suggesting keeping a 13 foot long jumping first year senior who feigns injury to avoid work, and plagues the team with no work ethic?

And values? Come on, seriously, you can determine my value system because I let that kid go. Wow. Guess I'll stop picking my 800 guy up in the morning for 30 minutes of tutoring by me so he can pass his classes when his parents are too lazy to do it for him. That same afternoon, I guess I will probably go cut my distance runner who's never broken 3 minutes in the 800 because of his physical disability...I'll explain to him that he can't help me as you would have it.

You sir, are clueless.

It's not about everyone being a winner. If they are dedicated and want to improve, they will train. Don't take kids to meets who don't come to practice. Then you could save money or whatever excuse you have to cut people.

WE CUT wrote:

Spoken like a true liberal...everyone's a winner.

Try telling the athletes we've developed into all-americans, state champions, and who have gone on to earn scholarships worth hundreds of thousands of dollars added together. How could a team possibly develop those kids when you don't give them the opportunity for rep work?

There are many schools nationwide that manage to do so. You seem to think that you're one hell of a legendary coach in your own mind, you're saying you can't do something they can do?

Some "winners" are losers

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

It's not about everyone being a winner. If they are dedicated and want to improve, they will train. Don't take kids to meets who don't come to practice. Then you could save money or whatever excuse you have to cut people.

But like it or not, track is a meritocracy. The point of track is not to improve, it is to win. Improvement is merely a means to an end. Too many people involved with the sport forget this important fact.

Runners going from 3:00 to 2:15 in the 800 may make for a heartwarming story, but it doesn't win any meets.

The ultimate goal is to win, but there can only be one winner. You don't usually start as a freshman winning every race. Even pros don't win every race. This is high school.

upstate assistant wrote:

But like it or not, track is a meritocracy. The point of track is not to improve, it is to win. Improvement is merely a means to an end. Too many people involved with the sport forget this important fact.

Runners going from 3:00 to 2:15 in the 800 may make for a heartwarming story, but it doesn't win any meets.

Kids improving will win meets. High school track, for the most part, benefits from numbers and this includes all speeds. I think there is so much more to high school track than winning. The most successful school have as many, or more, of the 3:00 to 2:15 runners that you describe as less successful teams. Numbers create synergy in training, motivation etc.. That leads to success. Unforunately, at the state etc. level, "winning" often depends on having two to four exceptional athletes and less about true team development.

Why don't football teams have six quarterbacks? More quarterbacks would create synergy in training and motivation, right? Where did this notion that the slower runners help the faster runners come from? When I ran 9:30 in high school the guys running 11:00 had no effect on me.

I bet those saying there shouldn't be cuts from high school track are the same people whining about how football teams roster so many players.

Are you saying that 'it's not' anymore? When I ran high school we had a varsity, Junior Varsity and C team,if the #'s warranted it. Nobody was cut or kicked off for 'non talent' reasons.

Most high school football teams don't have six quarterbacks because there are other places where they need those kids. I don't know of any high school football teams that don't keep everyone who turns out though many of the kids are primarily used as cannon fodder at practice.

I don't know where you coach, but most schools that I've seen can find something useful to do with a 2:15 half miler. If you have a meet with a two mile relay that's run close to when the mile is run you're likely going to scramble for bodies. My son's school scored some points in 4 x 800s last year with slower kids than 2:15 running.

I'm defintely on the "don't cut" side of this. But I can see and sort of agree with "WE CUT's" point about the kid who is only on an already large team so they can include it as an extra curricular activity on their college application. But high school is generally the first time most kids participate in track and it's going to take some time for a kid to find his/her event and develop, as several posts here have shown. Kicking someone out of the sport at an early age isn't going to be much good for anyone.

For a large, wealthy high school with plenty of resources (coaches, equipment, uniforms, travel funds, etc.) a no cut policy may be doable. But at my lower middle class high school, we have three coaches (one a volunteer who can only show up twice a week to work with the throwers). The head coach does sprints and vertical jumps, I do distance and high jump, and our vaulters go to a county-wide clinic once a week. I don't have the time to individually coach dozens upon dozens of kids. Would you rather I half-assed my coaching with 30 kids, or gave solid, individual attention to 15 kids?

And we don't have the money to travel more than a busload to meets or buy uniforms for hundreds of kids. Fund raising may be an option for larger schools, but in an area where income isn't high, that's not realistic for my team.

With limited funds, I'm going to fill my team with the best individuals I can. Everyone knows the cut policy going into tryouts, so there are no surprises.

I agree that 2:15 runners are valuable to a team. However, 3:00 runner who might or might not become 2:15 runners are not. Most good runners show some sort of aptitude for the sport early on. There will always be exceptions, but should we stretch our already thin budget to the breaking point just to accomodate someone who might or might not be good?

upstate assistant wrote:

Why don't football teams have six quarterbacks? More quarterbacks would create synergy in training and motivation, right? Where did this notion that the slower runners help the faster runners come from? When I ran 9:30 in high school the guys running 11:00 had no effect on me.

I bet those saying there shouldn't be cuts from high school track are the same people whining about how football teams roster so many players.

Obviously there is a point where a slower athlete doesn't benefit a fater athlete training wise. There is also a point where because of resources, some schools will have to cut. However, generally speaking I think the more athletes the better in high school track. More so than other sports it is harder to judge the ultimate potential of high school track athletes. Having athletes, right behind you pushes every athlete, and that works its way up the food chain (although again I realize there is a cutoff point here). Training in track, particularly distance, is different than team sports like football and basketball. In most cases, I see no reason why cuts in high school track are good for the team. My greatest joy as a coach is watching an athlete of any level improve. Not that wins aren't important, but track is not the sport to take an elitist attitude that you're only interested in the high level athletes. Long term I don't think that is best for the team or the athletes.

guys, please stop with this argument.

i ran 6:18 in the mile as a sophomore at a JV meet at the end of the year.

I broke 4:00 11 years later.

that is all.

my first mile race ever was a 6:43 (I'm a girl) I didn't start running till 10th grade (hadn't run over a mile until then-) based on that first race I probably would have been cut from most teams. Now I'm in under-5 shape. It took two years of running very slowly and getting very injured before I even figured out how to run. There's a big learning curve in the sport, and sometimes not everything comes together for a few years.

In short, there should not be cuts. People develop in strange and surprising ways during adolescence. It would be hugely irresponsible to encourage kids to "go home and play video games" just because they are not initially good at running, and even if they still suck after a year or two. Maybe that fat kid running a twelve minute mile would kick your ass once he shed some weight by doing track practice every day. High school is not the place to start filtering based on perceived talent, despite a marginally increased workload for coaches.

I guess one of my main questions is why track has to be different than other sports. "It just is" is not a valid response.If your average high school kid showed up at basketball practice every day for four years and gave above average effort, he would get better. Some might even turn into great players. But we don't have basketball rosters with 40-50 kids. Why? Lack of resources.

sykes wrote:

It would be hugely irresponsible to encourage kids to "go home and play video games" just because they are not initially good at running, and even if they still suck after a year or two.

Then encourage them to run on their own time and to try out for the team next year. Just because they're not able to run for the high school team doesn't mean they can't run at all.

I remember a lot of times in high school kids who were pretty good would do track just because their friends, who were absolutely terrible, were doing it. Whether it is good or bad, a lot of people join the track team in high school for social reasons, and some of them turn out to be very good athletes. If the team had a policy of cutting those who were not 100% committed from the beginning you would lose a lot of these athletes who might eventually come to love the sport and prosper in it in.

I coached for five years at a school with a limited budget and one paid assistant. We managed just fine. Had over 100 kids, and won districts and big meets every year. Now I coach at a big budget school, and we still manage just fine, with only one more paid assistant.

Maybe it is the coaching....maybe you are just not good at it. While the first few weeks are insane, I have no trouble at all devoting enough time to the good or the not so good athletes. Time management. No one likes a coach who only focuses on the ones that are already good....a really good coach is the one who molds the ones that are awful into something pretty special.

Track is sometimes the only sport that some kids can participate in, so why cut?

upstate assistant wrote:

I guess one of my main questions is why track has to be different than other sports. "It just is" is not a valid response.

If your average high school kid showed up at basketball practice every day for four years and gave above average effort, he would get better. Some might even turn into great players. But we don't have basketball rosters with 40-50 kids. Why? Lack of resources.

sykes wrote:

It would be hugely irresponsible to encourage kids to "go home and play video games" just because they are not initially good at running, and even if they still suck after a year or two.

Then encourage them to run on their own time and to try out for the team next year. Just because they're not able to run for the high school team doesn't mean they can't run at all.

Come on! Get with it. Track is the sport that has different development rates and the more determined athletes will get better and better as years go on. Other sports are restricted by numbers allowed to play, size of fields, practice time. Track is not. You can practice 200 kids a day. You may not be able to get them all in a meet, but if the coach is smart and inventive, use some one meet and the rest the next meet. Don't worry about winning. The kids will eventually take care of that. As all the athletes want to improve, and do improve during the season, their desire to "win the meet" will surface and will happen. Have the better athletes sit out meets where they would "run away with the race", and let those who would benefit from the race, race.

Keep them on the team. Comment to them "nice practice" learn their names, call them by name, keep them interested, and they will keep working hard and have that desire to improve.

hscoach wrote:

Track is sometimes the only sport that some kids can participate in, so why cut?

But I want to know why. Why is track different from other sports? Why is it okay to cut in football or soccer, but not in track? Why is it okay for a kid to slowly improve in track but not in other sports?

I feel like everyone is jumping around the issue and either questioning other coaches' ability or providing anecdotal evidence. And for those who have 100 athletes on the team, I really doubt you're giving each and every athlete your full attention.

We Cut misses the point. What is really going on is that he has not figured out how to manage his team when it is larger than he might like. Instead, I see him deciding to simply get rid of the immediate lesser talents (who later might blossom if they are actually coached). Someone mentioned York, which of course I know a lot about. Somehow, they manage 100+ kids every season without problem- but it takes assistants to do it right. So, We Cut, get some assistants to help you out. But I would recommend you let those who wish to participate do just that.