As a student athlete I have both experienced and observed the effects of Clayton athletics’ “no-cut” policy. Unlike nearly all other schools in the area, all students are allowed to participate in sports without the added stress of the possibility of being cut. This unique system, which was established many years ago, has caused a divide in the community.

Those who would argue for the system would most often cite the fact that the system allows students to try new sports without the pressure of being cut. It gives students the opportunity to try new extracurricular activities and broaden their high school experience.

On the other hand, those against would argue that the “no-cut” policy eliminates the competition that results from the threat of being cut. Those more experienced and serious athletes may suffer from the inexperience of new players and lack of competition caused by the policy.

Yet, as a student athlete who has experienced this policy for the past three years it seems to me that the system falls into the gray area between these two arguments. Clearly the policy allows students to try new things while at the same time it may eliminate the competition caused by the possibility of being cut.

There is a truth to the claim that competition is weakened by the “no-cut” policy. Without the fear of being cut from the team, some players simply go through the motions in practice and lack true dedication. These actions, which may cause the player to be cut in other circumstances, affect the team in multiple ways. This player’s attitude may infect other players like a disease causing them to become lazy and unmotivated.

However, the competition is instilled by coaches who are not required to play all players, thus there is no guarantee for playing time.

There is also no guarantee that any one player will start in a game. Therefore players must compete in practice in order to earn their spots and their minutes. Coaches are able to encourage a desire for excellence and the will to win by utilizing the almighty power of the bench. If players do not meet the coach’s expectations, it is very easy for a coach to get the message across by simply not letting them play.

Although coaches have the tools to encourage players to work harder, it is far more difficult to get players to become more dedicated. This lack of dedication is part of the reason CHS athletic teams are not very successful.

This is not to say that CHS has no talented or dedicated athletes, it certainly does, but most students, fitting into the Clayton standards, are more into the academic aspects of school, which is shown through the continued success of CHS academic teams.

For many students sports are simply an extracurricular activity either for enjoyment or for the purpose of putting it on a college transcript. Thus, the “no-cut” policy gives these students the perfect opportunities to pursue such activities. It allows students to try new things simply for the fun of it without the pressure caused by a cut policy.

Ultimately, the “no-cut” policy offers benefits to all students, whether they are all-star athletes or simply playing for the enjoyment. The policy is not to blame for a team’s failure or the lack of competition and dedication. There are many reasons CHS athletics are not superior and from my experience the biggest culprits are the players on the team. A lack of drive and dedication can be found in all of Clayton athletic teams. It is the simple fact that there are not enough truly dedicated athletes to lead CHS teams to success.

So it seems, CHS athletics is not defined by its victories, but by the opportunities made available to the students to participate. And it is how they choose to participate that dictates the team’s success.