Logo

The Curse of Cutting

July 22, 2016

The current cover story for the summer issue of a national magazine for coaches and athletic directors tries to make “The Case for Cuts.” The author, from a private school in New England, fails the task.

He argues, for example, that cutting kids can be beneficial because athletes who sit the bench build resentment and that “keeping kids can lose kids.” Not true for good coaches.

He flippantly says that other opportunities are available to kids who get cut. Not true in most places.

The calling of a coach in school-sponsored sports is not to make things easy for himself or herself and to make it hard for kids to find healthy peer groups. The calling of a coach of educational athletics is to reach, engage and motivate as many students as possible in learning life lessons and developing interests and skills for physical activity that will last a lifetime.

School sports is not “The Apprentice” where kids get fired for a poor tryout. School sports is more often a safety net to help young people get fired up for school and life.

Every student we can keep engaged in school sports is a future advocate for school sports, as are these student-athletes’ parents.

Every kid we cut, and his/her parents, will more likely become our critics. If the school sports program has no time for me, or for my son or daughter, then I’ll have no time for it – no time to attend events or volunteer, much less the inclination to donate funds or vote for tax increases.

Coaches who cut teams for their convenience today cut the connection with people who most want to be involved. As much as anything, this threatens the future of school-sponsored sports.

Occasionally, facility limitations may require great creativity or, as a last resort, cutting; but almost always for outdoor sports and generally for indoor sports, cutting is an avoidable curse – one that should be exorcised from educational athletics.

Ready for Some Football

August 12, 2014

How seriously should we take public criticism of tackle football when that public promotes boxing or cage fighting? Or how seriously should we take public criticism of football played with helmets when that public allows motorcyclists to ride without any helmets at all?

This fickle if not hypocritical focus on football deserves to be exposed. 

However, and more importantly, this does not reduce our obligation to rise above the obvious questions of fair and balanced criticism and keep pressing for a safer environment for schools’ most popular participation sport.

In Michigan this has led to new limitations on head-to-head contact in football practices that began for more than 600 high schools this week. Specifically, no team or individual may participate in more than one collision practice per day before the first game, and no more than two collision practices per week after the first game.

The new policies promote instruction in proper blocking and tackling technique. It is full speed head-to-head contact that is further reduced, not full speed shoulder contact with sleds, shields and dummies nor slow speed contact between players.

Last month, and perhaps two years too late to be helpful, the National Federation of State High School Associations hosted a high-profile, high-powered summit to discuss practice policies of the kind that we developed, debated and adopted during the past school year to be ready for this 2014 season.