OP said: still want to play.

So looking for that option, it would seem. Is Field an option? Others?

My DS had low muscle ton, medical issues, and generally isn't interested in sports. The sports requirement, however, has been great. He found a new activity that he loves. He lags way behind the other players in skills, but the school still puts him on the field, and he has improved a tremendous amount. More importantly, he loves it.

So it depends on the school. I was worried too, but it worked out well.

Most private schools have a mix of cut and no cut teams and some independent alternatives to team sports), and a few have a culture of no pressure, let's learn and have fun at this, where even the kids who excel are helpful and supportive of the novices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of the mandatory sport requirement / no curd policies.

Neither DS nor DD are stellar at sports. And my impression is that rec sports go away after that. It’s all travel, club, or HS teams which are competitive due to school size.

Why are you so dismissive of their abilities? They are young. A lot of athletes mature into their skills late.

My rec-level, lowest travel team benchwarmer at 8 is playing college next year. Passion and work ethic outweigh early skill.

Some of us know. When you are spending thousands a month for a therapist to teach your child how to hold his head up, sit, crawl, walk, run, skip, roll a ball .... you know.

Anonymous wrote:Never knew there were mandatory sports anywhere. My kids are athletes so it never occurred to me but I don't think its a good policy.

Anyway it depends on the size of the school. Smaller schools and even medium sized schools actually have to beat the bushes to field teams in many sports. (Maybe thats why mandatory?). Big schools or "sports schools" good luck getting on anything but no-cut teams (track/XC, maybe crew).

It's less of a good policy for the high school student who is in theater and also dedicated to orchestra with private lessons. Sports can create a lot of time dedicated to something you don't want to be doing, while taking away from your primary interests and talents, all of which adds up to less time at the books. Luckily, most schools have less time consuming sports options that are not team sports.

Anonymous wrote:Never knew there were mandatory sports anywhere. My kids are athletes so it never occurred to me but I don't think its a good policy.

Anyway it depends on the size of the school. Smaller schools and even medium sized schools actually have to beat the bushes to field teams in many sports. (Maybe thats why mandatory?). Big schools or "sports schools" good luck getting on anything but no-cut teams (track/XC, maybe crew).

Sports are mandated at Episcopal HS

Edmund Burke also has a no cut policy. It is great for kids who just want to play sports but are not necessarily great at them.

Anonymous wrote:Because of the mandatory sport requirement / no curd policies.

Neither DS nor DD are stellar at sports. And my impression is that rec sports go away after that. It’s all travel, club, or HS teams which are competitive due to school size.

Why are you so dismissive of their abilities? They are young. A lot of athletes mature into their skills late.

My rec-level, lowest travel team benchwarmer at 8 is playing college next year. Passion and work ethic outweigh early skill.

Rec sports can go through HS, OP. Soccer does for several clubs.

Field School has no cut sports, at least in middle school.

Anonymous wrote:Never knew there were mandatory sports anywhere. My kids are athletes so it never occurred to me but I don't think its a good policy.

Anyway it depends on the size of the school. Smaller schools and even medium sized schools actually have to beat the bushes to field teams in many sports. (Maybe thats why mandatory?). Big schools or "sports schools" good luck getting on anything but no-cut teams (track/XC, maybe crew).

Crew is a cut sport at many schools. My friend's daughter was cut this year at St. Johns. There are cuts at NCS--good luck getting a spot--it can get political.

Never knew there were mandatory sports anywhere. My kids are athletes so it never occurred to me but I don't think its a good policy.

Anyway it depends on the size of the school. Smaller schools and even medium sized schools actually have to beat the bushes to field teams in many sports. (Maybe thats why mandatory?). Big schools or "sports schools" good luck getting on anything but no-cut teams (track/XC, maybe crew).

It's a numbers game. In a school with 3000 students, the cuts are going to be much harsher than a school with 500.

My kids go to two different high schools with "mandatory sports requirements" and there are are plenty of cuts. In fact, most sports cut. But there is at least one sports option each season that doesn't cut.
I've seen cuts (JV and Varsity) in: soccer (many), basketball (many), baseball, crew, and lacrosse.
The sports that don't cut tend to be cross country, track and I think swimming?

Then playing time is a different thing entirely. I have seen many, many kids make rosters and get zero or very low playing time.

If you have kids who really hate sports, a school with a sports requirement may not be the best fit.

Because of the mandatory sport requirement / no curd policies.

Neither DS nor DD are stellar at sports. And my impression is that rec sports go away after that. It’s all travel, club, or HS teams which are competitive due to school size.