Truncation Consternation

In Seabury’s early days, the school was so minuscule that any attempt at fielding a sports team would need all the players it could get, and to keep teams afloat the school had to require students to play at least one school sport. Back then, cutting anybody from the team would have made no sense. However, since then Seabury has grown substantially, and most teams have no real shortage of players. Some of the largest sports, such as middle school cross country, even have roster sizes that are comparable to the total enrollment of the school when it was founded. Still, it remains school policy for all teams, both at the middle school and high school level, to be open to anyone who wants to join and not cut any less-skilled players. This policy is different from the norm for most high schools, which hold yearly tryouts to determine which students make the team. While not cutting players makes sports more accessible to the entirety of the student body and encourages students to try new activities that they are not initially good at, it also leads to logistical difficulties and may also put teams at something of a competitive disadvantage. Various members of the Seabury community whom this policy impacts gave their opinions on Seabury’s lack of tryouts. 

Senior Sam Bayliss, who is a captain on the varsity boys’ soccer team, opines that on the whole, Seabury’s no-cut policy is a good idea: “I think it is a good policy for a school of this size to allow everyone an opportunity to play.” However, Bayliss also says that the policy makes it harder for teams to compete against more selective opponents, but that having more players eventually positively affects the team: “[Seabury’s policy] negatively impacts athletics in the short term, but improves them in the long run.” As Bayliss explains, while players at a lower level of skill may not initially be able to contribute as much to the team, giving them a chance to be on the team and practice gives them an opportunity to improve and reach a level at which they can do more for the team. 

Faculty member Eric Nelson, who doubles as the school’s Athletic Director, has a similar opinion to Bayliss. Nelson says, “I like the no-cut policy because it provides opportunities. I also think that the no-cut policy causes problems with travel, uniforms and budgeting, but I think that the positives outweigh the negatives and that the no-cut policy is a good policy.” Nelson went on to state that having no-cut teams made it easier for students who have a main sport to diversify and be multi-sport athletes for the school. As Athletic Director, it is also Nelson’s job to schedule games in advance, and sometimes not knowing how many teams Seabury will field in a sport complicates that. While most would agree that the no-cut policy has a large upside, the consensus seems to be that it provides challenges for everyone involved, from players to coaches to the school administration. 

Though most of those interviewed spoke out in favor of Seabury’s choice not to cut players, most of the responses in an anonymous survey by the Chronicle seemed to differ. Out of 29 responses, 21 said that they were in favor of Seabury moving to hold tryouts for sports, as shown in this issue’s Seabury Statistics. Because this survey was phrased as a simple yes or no question, however, it is not fully clear what other concerns the Seabury community has with the policy. What is clear, though, is that the question of whether or not to hold athletic tryouts is a divisive issue with supporters on both sides, although the interviews did not necessarily reflect this. 

Practically, removing the no-cut policy would not mean holding tryouts for every sport, but only for the ones which consistently have more than enough students on the team every year. For instance, boys’ basketball and girls’ volleyball could realistically hold tryouts, though girls’ high school soccer, for instance, would probably not be able to. It is also possible that tryouts could be held only at the high school level, where being on a team is a more serious commitment. This solution would make it easy for students to try out new things in middle school, but require them to have some consistency in terms of their activities by high school. In the end, the issue boils down to whether those most popular sports should be open to everyone who wishes to play, even if that may mean accepting a competitive disadvantage and logistical problems.