The Deselection Process in Competitive Female Youth Sport

Abstract

The overall purpose of this study was to examine coaches' views on deselecting athletes from competitive female adolescent sport teams. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 head coaches of Canadian provincial level soccer, basketball, volleyball, and ice hockey teams. Interpretive description methodology (Thorne, 2008) was used. Results revealed deselection was a process that involved four phases: pre-tryout meeting, evaluation and decision-making, communication of deselection, and post deselection reflections. Within the evaluation and decision-making phase coaches made programmed and nonprogrammed decisions under conditions of certainty and uncertainty. When faced with uncertainty coaches relied on intuition.

Full text

141
APPLIED RESEARCH
The Sport Psychologist, 2016, 30, 141 -153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2015-0044
© 2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.
The authors are with the Faculty of Physical Education &
Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Address author correspondence to Kacey C. Neely at neely@
ualberta.ca.
The Deselection Process in Competitive Female Youth Sport
Kacey C. Neely, John G.H. Dunn, Tara-Leigh F. McHugh, and Nicholas L. Holt
University of Alberta
The overall purpose of this study was to examine coaches’ views on deselecting athletes from competitive female ado-
lescent sport teams. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 head coaches of Canadian provincial
level soccer, basketball, volleyball, and ice hockey teams. Interpretive description methodology (Thorne, 2008) was used.
Results revealed deselection was a process that involved four phases: pre-tryout meeting, evaluation and decision-making,
communication of deselection, and post deselection reections. Within the evaluation and decision-making phase coaches
made programmed and nonprogrammed decisions under conditions of certainty and uncertainty. When faced with uncer-
tainty coaches relied on intuition.
Keywords: team selection, coaching, intuition, decision-making, interpretive description
Deselection is the elimination of an athlete from
a competitive sport team based on the decisions of the
coach (Taylor & Ogilvie, 1994). It requires coaches to
make judgments and decisions about the ability of ath-
letes and their suitability for a team. Coaches consider
deselection decisions to be one of the most challenging
aspects of their job (Capstick & Trudel, 2010). Deselected
athletes report a loss in athletic identity and sense of self,
along with feelings of anxiety, humiliation, anger, loss
of connectedness to school, and decreased academic per-
formance (Barnett, 2007; Brown & Potrac, 2009; Grove,
Fish, & Eklund, 2004; Munroe, Albinson, & Hall, 1999).
Deselection may also lead to the termination of potential
careers in sport (Alfermann, 2007). Given the challenges
associated with deselection, it is important to understand
more about how coaches make decisions about eliminat-
ing athletes from sport teams.
Although it is unlikely that sport psychology consul-
tants make deselection decisions, they may be asked to
advise coaches and sport organizations about deselection
policies. For instance, Roberts and Faull (2013) recently
discussed some of the ethical dilemmas a sport psychol-
ogy consultant faced when asked to advise on an Olympic
team selection protocol. The consultant (Roberts) used
reective practice to inform the advice she gave about
how to best design and execute team selection processes.
In this case, reective practice was crucial because, as the
authors noted, there is an “absence of empirical research
in this area that may otherwise provide the required sup-
port” (p. 657). By revealing coaches’ views on deselection
the current study was intended to provide information that
may aid sport psychology consultants who are asked to
advise on deselection policies and to inform coaching
practices research.
In apparent support of Roberts and Faull’s (2013)
view that there is little research to guide the practice of
deselection, only a very small number of studies have
examined deselection from coaches’ perspectives. These
studies have focused on specic aspects of deselection
(e.g., communication strategies) rather than the overall
deselection process. For example, Capstick and Trudel
(2010) interviewed ve community and club level youth
sport coaches to discuss the methods they used to com-
municate deselection decisions to athletes. In addition,
ve athletes and ve unrelated parents were interviewed
about their experiences with deselection. Some coaches
used indirect methods to communicate deselection (i.e.,
posting or reading aloud a list of players who made the
team) to limit their contact with athletes and make the
communication less burdensome. Other coaches used
more direct and personable methods (i.e., phone calls,
face-to-face conversations, and written communication
through a letter or e-mail). Coaches described how direct
methods could be stressful, but they afforded opportuni-
ties for them to provide feedback to athletes. Coaches
made choices about how to communicate deselection
decisions based on what they thought had worked in
the past.
Seifried and Casey (2012) interviewed 15 coaches
of competitive high school boys’ basketball programs in
the US to identify how they deselected athletes. Similar
to the coaches in Capstick and Trudel’s (2010) study,
these coaches used both indirect and direct communica-
tion strategies. Coaches also reported using different
approaches to deselect players depending on the age of
athletes and level of the team. Some coaches attempted to

142 Neely et al.
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
minimize the number of athletes trying out for their team
(so they had fewer players to deselect) by, for example,
not advertising tryouts (i.e., when team selection trials
were being held). These strategies may be permitted in
high school settings, but it does not seem plausible they
could be used at higher levels of competition, and they
certainly do not reect an approach that places the needs
of athletes before the needs of coaches.
Another limitation is that the literature examining
coaches’ perceptions of deselection has rarely involved
the use of theory. However, there are theories that may be
benecial in helping to explain deselection. For example,
a study of deselection conducted with 25 amateur coaches
in New Zealand adapted a model from the human resource
management (HRM) literature (Bradbury & Forsyth,
2012). The adapted HRM model had the following steps:
athlete/position analysis, position description, athlete pro-
le, athlete selection, and athlete debrief. Twenty-three
of 25 coaches interviewed supported the application of
some version of this HRM model in sport.
As the Bradbury and Forsyth (2012) study suggests,
models and concepts from other domains may help
inform the study of deselection. For instance, the judg-
ment and decision-making (JDM) literature focuses on
how individuals make decisions, yet it has not been used
to study how coaches make decisions about deselection.
Several concepts from the JDM literature may be relevant.
Simon (1960) distinguished between programmed and
nonprogrammed decisions. Programmed decisions are
relatively simple and based on repetitive problems that
arise frequently and can be addressed through standard
and clearly dened procedures and policies. Responses to
programmed decisions are guided by past experiences for
problems that are relatively well-structured, present clear
alternatives, and when decision-makers have adequate
information available (Bar-Eli, Plessner, & Raab, 2011).
Nonprogrammed decisions are made about nonroutine,
complex, and relatively novel problems where there are
no preestablished courses of action, established proce-
dures in place, or clear set of alternatives from which
to select (Slack & Parent, 2006). As such, they require
decision-makers to make new and often creative decisions
for each unique specic situation.
Systematic approaches to decision-making are most
appropriate for programmed types of problems (Bar-
Eli et al., 2011). For instance, in the sport organization
literature, Slack and Parent (2006) described a decision-
making model based on the premise that sport managers
act analytically in an economically rational way. They
suggested a ‘rational model’ where decisions be made
using the following steps: monitor the decision environ-
ment, dene the problem, diagnose the problem, identify
decision alternatives, analyze alternatives, select the best
alternative, implement the chosen alternative, and evalu-
ate the decision made. However, Bar-Eli et al. (2011)
argued that in sport settings, leaders (e.g., head coaches)
are rarely this thorough, informed, or precise in their deci-
sion-making. One alternative to the ‘rational model’ is
the ‘administrative model’ (Simon, 1955). Simon argued
that decision-making is bounded by the limited cognitive
ability of decision-makers to process information, their
emotions, the availability of imperfect information, and
time constraints. Hence, decision-makers operate in a
state of ‘bounded rationality’ meaning that in any given
context a decision-maker has only a limited perception,
cannot understand all the available alternatives, and the
limits of the human mind do not allow for all available
information to be processed. Within this model, decision-
makers identify a few criteria to form simplied models to
evaluate complex problems, and the decision alternatives
or outcomes often reect the decision-makers’ personal
preferences. Both the rational and administrative models
of decision-making may be relevant for understanding
how coaches make decisions during deselection.
Whereas programmed decisions involve deliber-
ate thinking and are made under conditions of cer-
tainty, intuition is a main element of nonprogrammed
decision-making, particularly under conditions of risk
and uncertainty (Bar-Eli et al., 2011; Plessner, Betsch,
& Betsch, 2008). Betsch (2008) described intuition as a
process of thinking where the input is mostly provided
by knowledge stored in long-term memory that has been
gained through associative learning. This knowledge is
processed automatically without conscious awareness,
and the output is a feeling that can serve as a basis of
judgments and decisions. It is likely that coaches make
deselection decisions under conditions of certainty, risk,
and uncertainty. Conditions of certainty are when com-
plete information is available and all of the outcomes
(risks and benets) are understood, thus coaches are
reasonably sure about what will happen when they make
a decision (e.g., a coach knows a player very well and is
certain the player has the ability to perform at the required
performance standard in the future). Under conditions
of risk, coaches have adequate information available
but the outcome of a decision is not certain, thus they
lack complete certainty when making a decision (e.g.,
a coach knows a player well, but is uncertain the player
will perform at the required performance standard in the
future because she has been recovering from injury).
Decisions under conditions of risk are often made with
a great deal of subjectivity based on coaches’ past expe-
riences. Under conditions of uncertainty, coaches have
incomplete information, and decision alternatives and
outcomes are relatively unknown (e.g., the coach does
not know a player very well, does not know much about
her past performances, and is uncertain how she will
perform at a higher level). As a result, decisions made
under conditions of uncertainty may be inuenced by a
decision-maker’s intuition, emotions, and gut feelings
(Plessner et al., 2008).
At the current time, it is not known the extent to
which deselection decisions are programmed and/or
nonprogrammed. It is not clear if and when coaches
use more systematic forms of decision-making or rely
on intuition. In framing the current study, we were
interested in how concepts such as programmed and
nonprogrammed decisions, systematic decision-making

Deselection in Competitive Youth Sport 143
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
processes, and intuition may play a role in the ways in
which coaches carry out deselection and make their
deselection decisions. We did not explicitly test these
concepts in a hypo-deductive manner. Rather, we used
these concepts to inform the study conceptualization
and design, and as tools to analyze and interpret the data
(Sandelowski, 1993).
In the current study we focused on the experiences of
coaches who work with female adolescent athletes. This
decision was made on the basis of the following rationale.
First, females are generally underrepresented in the sport
psychology literature (Conroy, Kaye, & Schantz, 2008).
Second, and more related to the current study, as Alfer-
mann (2007) noted, “it is evident that more studies about
career termination (in youth and adulthood) are directed
to and concerned with male athletes” (p. 47). Third, it is
possible that females may face different challenges than
males when it comes to deselection. For instance, it has
previously been reported that females place more impor-
tance on social relationships than males (Smith, 2007),
therefore deselection may ‘rob’ female athletes of impor-
tant social relationships by removing them from friends
on the team. Finally, from a purely anecdotal perspective,
it has been suggested to us that coaches must approach
deselection differently when dealing with female versus
male teams. For these reasons we focused on female
athletes in the current study, while understanding that
this does not discount the need for research examining
deselection among male athletes.
The overall purpose of this study was to examine
coaches’ views on deselecting athletes from competitive
female adolescent sport teams. Given that there is limited
research in this area we initially posed three exploratory
research questions to guide our study. Specically, the
research questions were (1) What procedures do coaches
use for deselecting athletes? (2) How do coaches make
deselection decisions? and (3) Why are these decisions
made when deselecting athletes? As the study progressed
our interpretive analysis moved beyond these questions
and enabled us to create results that illustrated the process
of deselection.
Method
Methodological Approach
Interpretive description (ID) methodology was used
(Thorne, 2008; Thorne, Reimer Kirkham, & O’Flynn-
Magee, 2004). ID is particularly useful when researchers
seek to understand complex disciplinary problems and
want to “generate credible and defensible new knowl-
edge in a form that will be meaningful and relevant to
the applied practice context” (Thorne, 2008, p. 51). ID
was therefore an appropriate methodology for this study
because it could yield ndings that have the potential
to inform sport psychology and youth sport coaching
practices.
This study was approached from an interpretiv-
ist paradigm, which is consistent with ID. Within the
interpretivist paradigm the social world is understood at
the level of subjective experiences. ID acknowledges the
constructed and contextual nature of human experience
that at the same time allows for shared realities (Thorne,
2008). That is, individuals construct their own perceptions
of reality through their experiences and social interac-
tions, but there are commonalties between people. It
is possible that shared aspects of these perceptions and
experiences can be identied and described. Following
this philosophical orientation, we explored the varying
perspectives coaches provided and focused on identifying
the shared aspects of their views on deselection.
ID recognizes the prior knowledge and experiences
the researcher brings to a study as a useful starting place
for developing research (Thorne, 2008). Given that a
researcher is the research “instrument” in qualitative
research, it is important to provide pertinent information
about the researcher to give a sense of how knowledge
was co-constructed. The lead researcher was a 28-year-
old female Ph.D student who had experienced deselection
during her adolescent soccer career. She has also been
an assistant coach involved in deselecting female ado-
lescent athletes, albeit at a lower competitive level (i.e.,
junior high) than the coaches in this study, and never as
a head coach. Given these past experiences, she tried
to identify her preconceptions about deselection (via
reexive journaling), taking care to not unduly impose
her opinions and beliefs about deselection on coaches
during interviews, and monitored her assumptions via
regular discussions with a ‘critical friend’ who was a
coresearcher and supervisor.
Recruitment
Participants were purposefully sampled to identify and
select individuals who could provide the “most” and the
“best” information to address the purpose of the study
(Mayan, 2009). We sought head coaches of female ado-
lescent provincial teams who had experience with dese-
lection. To be eligible for this study participants had to
(a) be current or previous head coaches of provincial level
teams, (b) coach teams of competitive female adolescent
athletes (aged 14–17 years old), and (c) have at least three
years of coaching experience at the provincial level. Head
coaches (rather than assistant coaches) were recruited
because although all members of a coaching staff may be
involved in deselection to some extent, the head coaches
are responsible for making the nal decisions.
Participants were recruited through four provincial
sport organizations (the provincial level being similar
to a state, county, or regional representative level). The
sports of soccer, basketball, volleyball, and ice hockey
were selected because they are among the most popular
and competitive team sports for adolescent females in
the province. Administrators from the sport organizations
emailed an information letter to current and previous
head coaches who had coached within their provincial
program. Coaches who wished to participate in the study
contacted the lead researcher through e-mail or telephone.

144 Neely et al.
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
Their eligibility to participate in the study was determined
(all coaches who expressed interest in the study met the
sampling criteria and were eligible to participate) and an
interview was arranged. One week before the interview
coaches were emailed a copy of the interview guide and
asked to think about their previous experiences with
deselection to help stimulate recall and enable them to
provide detailed examples during the interview. Institu-
tional research ethics board approval was obtained and
coaches provided written informed consent before their
interview.
Participants
A total of 22 head coaches (16 male, 6 female, M age
= 41.9 years, SD = 11.6 years, range = 26–71 years) of
Under 15-Under 18 age group provincial female soccer
(n = 5), basketball (n = 6), volleyball (n = 6), and ice
hockey (n = 5) teams participated in this study. Coaches
had an average of 18 years of overall coaching experience
(SD = 17.3 years, range = 8–40 years), and an average
of 11.6 years as a head coach (SD = 7.6 years, range =
3–32 years). Coaches had at least the National Coach-
ing Certication Program (NCCP) Level 2 coaching
qualication. All coaches had completed postsecondary
education (one with a college diploma, 21 with a bach-
elor’s degree), and eight also had a master’s degree. Ten
coaches had full-time employment as a head coach at
a college/university or within a sport organization, and
the remainder had full-time employment in a range of
other jobs outside of the sport sector. Fifteen coaches had
experienced deselection as youth athletes.
We sampled coaches of female adolescent teams in
one Canadian province. We focused on the provincial
level because these teams are the highest level of youth
sport in the province and a pathway to junior national
teams and university/college programs both in Canada
and the US. Coaches of athletes aged 14–17 years were
selected because this is when athletes are likely to be
striving for places on national and university/college
teams and the developmental stage when individuals may
be acquiring a strong sense of athletic identity, which
renders them particularly vulnerable to the negative
consequences of deselection (Barnett, 2007; Brown &
Potrac, 2009; Grove et al., 2004; Munroe et al., 1999). As
noted previously, we also focused on coaches of female
teams because females have been relatively understudied
in the career termination literature (Alfermann, 2007).
Data Collection
Data were collected through individual semistructured
interviews. Informed by guidelines from Rubin and
Rubin (2012), the interview guide (see Appendix) was
comprised of a demographics section followed by intro-
ductory questions, main questions, and a summary ques-
tion. Following a conversational semistructured approach,
interviews were conducted in a exible manner during
which the researcher and participants were free to pick
up and explore various threads of conversation that may
not have been explicitly identied in the interview guide.
Within this conversational format probes and follow-up
questions were also used to seek additional depth, clari-
cation, and to explore the details of specic examples
of deselection (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Interviews were
scheduled at a location and time that were convenient for
the participants. Eleven interviews took place in a private
ofce at the coach’s place of employment, six interviews
were conducted in a research ofce located at the uni-
versity, and the remaining four interviews occurred in a
quiet space at different sport facilities. Interviews lasted,
on average, 55 min (SD = 13.8 min).
Data Analysis
Audio les were transcribed verbatim by a transcribing
service, which produced a rich data set of 403 pages of
single spaced text (196,025 words). Transcripts were
checked with original recordings to ensure accuracy.
Coaches were assigned a number (i.e., C1, C2, C3)
and any identifying information (e.g., names of teams,
athletes) was removed from the transcript to ensure
anonymity. Data analysis began as soon as the rst data
were collected and transcribed, and continued in an itera-
tive process throughout the study. The rst step involved
an inductive descriptive thematic analysis (Maykut &
Morehouse, 1994). Transcripts were read and reread and
meaningful segments of information (i.e., meaning units)
were identied and assigned codes. A list of codes was
produced and these meaning units were then grouped
by content into themes. Two researchers independently
coded the rst three transcripts and initial thoughts about
the ndings and emerging themes were discussed. A
coding scheme and organizing structure was established,
and rules of inclusion were created for each theme, which
is a description of the meaning of the theme and the
data contained therein. Initially the coding scheme was
directed by the three exploratory questions that provided
the starting point for this study.
As analysis progressed, the coding structure was
modied as some themes were collapsed together and
additional themes identied. A data matrix (Miles &
Huberman, 1994) was created to illustrate which coaches
reported which themes and to examine potential patterns
that differed by sport (Table 1). No major patterns by
sport were apparent (other than documentation was not
widely used by soccer coaches), so consistent with our
philosophical approach, we focused on the shared and
common features of the coaches’ perspectives.
The next step involved a more interpretive turn by
identifying patterns and relationships within the data
(Thorne, 2008). At this point we decided that organiz-
ing the themes by the three exploratory research ques-
tions that initially guided this study was not appropriate
because the data could be best represented by depicting
deselection as a process. Accordingly, themes were
grouped into a linear process of deselection ‘phases’ that
accounted for the shared practices among the coaches.

145
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
Table 1 Data Matrix of Coaches’ Responses
The Deselection Process
Pre Try-out
Meeting Evaluation and Decision-Making Communication of
Deselection Post Deselection Reflections
Coach Explaining
Expectations Evaluating
Athletes Documentation
Dealing
with
Certainty
Dealing
with
Uncertainty Informing
Players Providing
Feedback
Dealing
with
Parents
Reflecting
on Athlete
Development
Reflecting
on the
Process
Volleyball
1 X X X X X X X X X X
9 X X X X X X X
15 X X X X X X
18 X X X X X X X X X X
19 X X X X X X X X X
20 X X X X X X X X X X
Basketball
2 X X X X X X X X X X
6 X X X X X X X X X X
16 X X X X X X X X X X
10 X X X X X X X X X X
21 X X X X X X X X X
22 X X X X X X X X X X
Hockey
3 X X X X X X X X X X
7 X X X X X X X
13 X X X X X X X X X X
14 X X X X X X X X X X
17 X X X X X X X X X
Soccer
4 X X X X X X X X X X
5 X X X X X X X X
8 X X X X X X X
11 X X X X X X X X
12 X X X X X X X X
Total 17 22 15 22 18 22 22 20 20 19
Note. The X sign indicates the presence of a coach’s response in the theme.

146 Neely et al.
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
The nal stage of analysis was writing (Richardson, 1994)
with the intention of presenting a “coherent conceptual
description that taps thematic patterns and commonalties
believed to characterize the phenomenon that is being
studied” (Thorne et al., 2004, p. 4). During the writing
process, how coaches’ responses t with concepts from
the JDM literature were considered, paying particular
attention to how different concepts were relevant at dif-
ferent phases of the deselection process.
Methodological Rigor
Methodological rigor was addressed during and following
analysis using several techniques (Morse, Barrett, Mayan,
Olsen, & Spiers, 2002). Concurrent data collection and
analysis helped to establish when themes were adequately
saturated and therefore when data collection could end
(Morse, 1995). Specically, after 15 interviews were
analyzed we wrote the rst summary of the ndings and
then decided additional interviews were needed to satu-
rate certain themes (hence another seven interviews were
conducted to reach saturation). The coding scheme was
initially created through independent analysis completed
by two researchers, and both researchers engaged in regu-
lar discussions about the emerging themes, categories,
and temporal structure of the deselection process, which
provided a sense of analytic balance (Mayan, 2009).
A member-checking protocol was completed.
Coaches were e-mailed a summary of the results and
practical implications drawn from the ndings. They
were asked to provide feedback by answering the follow-
ing questions: (1) Do you think the deselection process
described is similar/fairly representative of the process
you use to cut [deselect] athletes? Do you agree with
the process described? (2) How relevant do you think
the implications for coaches are and will you modify
your deselection process based on any of the study nd-
ings? (3) Do you have any other comments or feedback
based on the summary (results and academic literature)
provided?
Nineteen coaches responded to the e-mail and agreed
that the deselection process described was a fair repre-
sentation of the process they used. Seventeen coaches
commented on the implications provided, stating they
were both pertinent and straightforward. Thirteen coaches
said they would modify their deselection process based
on the ndings, six specically indicating that more
thorough documentation on their part was necessary. One
volleyball coach stated, “I think the implications are very
relevant. I will try to incorporate more documentation or
statistics in my tryouts so that I have something in writ-
ing to back up my decisions. All ve of the implications
described appear accurate and relevant” (C20). Although
agreeing the implications were relevant, four coaches
specically said they were unlikely to make any changes
to their deselection process. For instance, one basketball
coach replied, “I think the implications are relevant to
coaches, however, I won’t have to modify my deselection
process based on the ndings.” (C16). In response to the
third question, eleven coaches had no further comments,
four coaches provided positive general comments about
the research, and four coaches commented on nonpro-
grammed decision making within the deselection process.
Results
Deselection was identied as a process that involves four
phases: pre-tryout meeting, evaluation and decision-
making, communication of deselection, and post deselec-
tion reections. Within the four phases of the deselection
process, coaches described the procedures they used for
deselecting athletes, and explained how and why they
made certain decisions about the process as well as their
actual deselection decisions. Each phase of the deselec-
tion process and decisions made therein is explained
below and supported by direct quotes from the coaches.
Pre-tryout Meeting
Explaining expectations. Coaches held meetings
before the tryout (or “trials” that involved training ses-
sions, practices, and/or games during which athletes’
performances were evaluated) as a matter of routine
practice. During these meetings coaches explained the
logistics of the tryout along with their selection crite-
ria (e.g., size, speed, attitude) and expectations (e.g.,
effort, costs/team fees, parental involvement). Although
coaches met with athletes, the primary audience for
these meetings was the parents. As one ice hockey coach
explained, “the communication aspect with parents is
very valuable so that there is no confusion about what the
process is going to be. And after the releases are made
[there have been] minimal times we have conicts with
the parent” (C3). C22 (basketball) explained he held
meetings to explain his expectations to parents “so it
doesn’t cause a big asco [later].”
Coaches also tried to convey the criteria by which
they would evaluate athletes. As one soccer coach said,
“it needs to be clear what you’re lookin’ for. Okay, so
whatever criteria you’re using to evaluate the players,
that needs to be clear” (C5). Again, there was a strong
emphasis on communicating the evaluation criteria to
parents. C16 (basketball) said:
I also always tell the parents something to the extent
of ‘there are different ways to coach basketball and
different coaches see things differently…I’m not
telling you that we’re gonna denitely choose the
12 best players. I’m telling you that we are gonna
choose the 12 players that we think will best t into
what we’re trying to do this summer.’
This was also echoed by a soccer coach who said:
The best players are not always the most skilful but
the best players for the team. They’ll [parents] tell
us that they [their children] were the top goal scorer
in the league, they should be on the team and they

Deselection in Competitive Youth Sport 147
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
don’t understand that we’re not looking for the best
players always…They see their kid is a fast runner
and strong. But that’s not what we look for. So it’s
do they understand what we’re looking for? (C11)
Hence, while coaches addressed athletes during these
meetings their messages were actually targeted at parents
in an attempt to reduce conicts and disagreements later.
Evaluation and Decision-Making
Evaluating Athletes. All coaches in this study
wanted to have a thorough, fair, and what they typi-
cally described as an ‘objective’ evaluation of athletes.
Coaches wanted to ensure the tryouts they ran provided
opportunities to evaluate athletes based on the criteria
they had laid out during the pre-tryout meetings. C21
(basketball) said:
So how are you going to evaluate these things?
Here’s your criteria…Then make sure that in your
selection process that you have set up situations that
you can observe those things. So you wanna make
sure that there’s congruency between the criteria
and the training session to see those things as best
you can.
Coaches wanted to ensure that all athletes in the
tryout had the sense they had been closely observed and
given sufcient opportunities to demonstrate their ability.
C19 (volleyball) said it was important to “make yourself
visible, make yourself active in the selection process so
that all athletes that are involved know that you’re there
observing them and spending time working with them.
Don’t let any athlete feel like they’re being left out.” To
achieve this, head coaches tried to ensure that several
other coaches were involved in the tryout sessions. In fact,
in addition to involving their assistant coaches, many head
coaches brought in other coaches they trusted and felt
had sufcient expertise to evaluate players. For example,
C17 explained that in ice hockey, “we have about ve to
seven other evaluators and they all have a say and then
obviously the head coach has the nal say, but you take
all the information from everyone.” It seemed that, to
some extent at least, involving multiple coaches in the
evaluation of players was reassuring for the head coach.
Documentation. Most coaches (with the exception of
soccer coaches) paid a great deal of attention to docu-
menting their decisions. This meant making a ‘paper
trail’ that included notes on strengths and weaknesses
of athletes, ranking players, and evaluation decisions.
Coaches explained that written documentation provided
‘evidence’ for how decisions were made. A volleyball
coach said it was important to:
Take time taking notes and if you feel it’s difcult
to do when you’re walking around doing the drills
and that kinda stuff, make sure that you’re taking
time after the session is done because there is time
to pull out the list and write down one or two key
words about that athlete because the paper trail will
save you in the end (C19).
C19’s comment that the paper trail will “save you in
the end” was telling, because the documentation appeared
to be a way coaches protected themselves from potential
problems later. C16 (basketball) explained she kept a
paper trail “obviously to protect the coaches … denitely
it could be a situation where the parent is now calling
and saying ‘[coach] told my kid that she sucks and she’s
terrible’ and if it’s either written down or recorded, then
you have that kind of information.” So, while documenta-
tion may have helped coaches to make decisions about
players, it mainly provided a paper trail to protect coaches
against complaints they may receive.
Dealing With Certainty. Coaches made some deselec-
tion decisions that reected a great deal of certainty.
For instance, coaches said it was relatively easy to pick
the very ‘best’ (i.e., most skilled) players on any given
team. C16 (basketball) explained that, “everybody in the
gym should be choosing the same top seven [players].”
Likewise, coaches showed a great deal of certainty in
their ability to identify the ‘worst’ (i.e., least skilled)
players. For example, a basketball coach explained,
“when the athlete hasn’t met the criteria you’re looking
for, she doesn’t shoot the ball well enough, or she’s not
a good ball handler” (C6), it was an obvious decision
that he could make with certainty. Similarly, C21 said,
“obviously insufcient skill would be quite easy in terms
of either technical skills or physical skills …Those are
easy decisions to make. It’s just more clear cut, not as
contentious as some other ones might be.”
In addition to judgments about skill level, coaches
were also quite certain in their decisions based on ath-
letes’ attitudes. C10 said an easier cut is “attitude right off
the bat. So if you see someone obviously being negative
to teammates, or not taking instruction, or not listening to
instruction, that type of thing, not taking feedback, that’s
gonna be easy obviously.” Finally, coaches were condent
and “a lot more sound with my [deselection] decisions”
(C22) when they had support from other coaches. For
example, C6 explained, “it’s easy when there’s consensus
on the staff, so when everyone’s seeing the same things,
when you don’t have arguments about who to pick.”
Dealing With Uncertainty. Coaches also faced uncer-
tainty in making their deselection decisions. C21 (bas-
ketball) said: “We try to make the decisions that are
best on that day. Do we always hit a home run [make
the correct decision] and get it right? Not always, but
we’re trying to… So we’re trying under restrictions of
the amount of evaluation periods to make a very dif-
cult decision.” Coaches faced the greatest uncertainty
when dealing with fringe players who were among the
last to be deselected for a team. For instance, C17 (ice
hockey) said, “the last cuts and last players you choose
to the team, you always have those doubts, that ‘what
if?’ ‘What if we would have taken that player instead?’”

148 Neely et al.
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
Coaches made their judgments about fringe players
based on ‘intangible’ characteristics. C14 (ice hockey)
stated, “the personality stuff really becomes important
and their mental toughness, their drive, and their determi-
nation, and how they get along with others. [They] tend
to be the determining factors.” Coaches also considered
how these players would accept their role on the team if
they were selected. As C2 (basketball) explained, “You
have to try and get a read on whether the player will be
accepting if they have less playing time because presum-
ably if they’re your last two or three choices they might
not get as much playing time.”
Given the uncertainty around these nal decisions,
coaches often went with their ‘instincts’ or ‘intuition.’
When asked how he makes his nal decisions on fringe
players, C5 (soccer) replied, “I don’t know, is it a hunch?
If you have two players that are pretty well equal I guess
you go on a hunch.” Similarly, C14 (ice hockey) said:
We’re gonna go with our gut and take the 20 play-
ers that we think are gonna ice [be] the best team.
. . You have all the information in front of you and
you make a decision and sometimes the decision
isn’t black and white. . . I think there’s always an
element of ‘am I making the right decision?’ I think
for the most part you feel it’s the right decision, but
I think there’s always an element of uncertainty,
which makes it tough.
Communication of Deselection
Informing Players. Coaches said informing athletes
of their decision to deselect them was “the tough part
of communication, I think the toughest part for me…
is communicating that they’re not gonna make the team
and seeing the tears and emotion” (C22). Most coaches
believed the most appropriate and respectful way to
communicate their deselection decisions was through
an individual face-to-face meeting. An ice hockey coach
explained, “I’ve done everything from email, depending
on the level, email to telephone calls to letters in the
mail. Yeah, but I think the best way is to be able to talk
to somebody directly” (C13). C16 (basketball) thought
a face-to-face meeting:
…allows both parties to be involved. For the girl
that’s being cut to be able to ask questions and get
some kind of feedback, plus I feel like it’s the most
respectful way to acknowledge the courage that it
took for that girl to actually come to tryout and to
put herself on the line that the least the coaches can
do is actually talk to her face-to-face.
However, some coaches were mandated by their
sport organizations to follow a specic protocol. C4
(soccer) explained that, “the way that the provincial
program wants it [deselection] done is by letter, by email.
And I’m not 100% onboard with that…I think you should
be tough enough to face somebody to cut them.” Within a
different sport organization, C17 (ice hockey) said when
making cuts “the process works that you do that over the
phone. You don’t do it face-to-face. I would like to do
it face-to-face but the process doesn’t work that way.”
Coaches emphasized the importance of informing
athletes of their deselection in a private space. They also
ensured an exit route for athletes that would eliminate
the athletes from having to go back into the tryout space
(i.e., gym, eld, or rink) and be seen by other athletes.
Coach 2 (basketball) explained, “we always set it up so
that it’s somewhere where you can walk out of the gym,
go through your meeting, and then leave, you don’t have
to go back into the gym because some people are pretty
emotional, and you don’t wanna have all the girls see
you crying.”
Providing Feedback. Coaches tended to prefer meeting
athletes face-to-face because it gave them a chance to
provide feedback. This was important because coaches
wanted athletes “to go away with something to focus on
other than just being cut” (C12, soccer). When providing
feedback, C14 (ice hockey) said, “You have to let them
know why you made the decision.” And as C11 (soccer)
expressed, “You can’t just leave someone hanging, for
me that’s wrong. Tell me what I did wrong. Explain
your rationale.”
One issue that coaches deliberated was whether
to let athletes know the decision rst and then provide
feedback, or provide athletes with feedback rst and then
communicate the decision. Coaches agreed that, “because
of stress levels, I’m not even sure if in advance of telling
them if they’re hearing what we’re saying ... they probably
aren’t processing a lot of what we’re saying. It’s just am I
cut? Did I make it?” (C1, volleyball). C15 expressed the
same concern about volleyball players not hearing any
of the coaches’ feedback. “They’re coming in the room,
they sit down, they just wanna know. If they didn’t make
the team, I don’t know if they hear anything after that that
you say. But I also don’t know if they hear it prior because
it’s really hard.” Despite the uncertainty around when to
provide the feedback, coaches still felt it was necessary to
give athletes justication for their decisions and thought
it was an important aspect of demonstrating respect.
Coaches also tried to end deselection meetings on
a positive note, recognizing the accomplishment of the
athletes because they thought this would help them put
deselection in perspective. For example, C5 (soccer) said
his message to athletes after being deselected is:
You’re a quality player, you have to throw that at
them, you’re one of the elite, you’re one of the top
girls in the province. If you think about it, how many
girls are playing soccer, thousands, how many girls
are here? Thirty, so you’re among 30 of the top
players in the province. So you always emphasize
the positives.
Dealing With Parents. In some respects coaches were
more concerned about the backlash from parents rather
than the emotional reaction of players. C21 (basketball)
said:

Deselection in Competitive Youth Sport 149
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
… it’s not the athlete that I have a difculty with,
it’s the response from adults, the parents usually
and how they handle it, sometimes not as good as
they should or you think they would. Parents can
sometimes make the process even more challenging.
Similarly C13 (ice hockey) said:
The parent interaction is one that denitely stresses
me out. I don’t often know the parents as well as I
know the kid, and so I don’t know what interaction
they might want to have, and they’re usually way
less reasonable than the athlete is. The athlete often
knows where they sit, they might be upset about the
decision but they often know where they sit in the
scenario, and the parent has jaded views.
C16 (basketball) said that after telling the athletes of
her decision, she often wondered, “are parents going to
be outside the door waiting to talk to me as soon as this is
done, and screaming and yelling about it?” Some coaches
even had a rule in place to deal with disgruntled parents.
For instance, another basketball coach explained he and
his coaching staff, “have a policy where we say we won’t
talk to you [parents] for 24-hours, and try the 24-hour
rule, and try to bring down emotion” (C10). When
coaches did interact with parents, they again explained
the importance of having a fair evaluation process and
documentation for their decisions:
We just make sure we got all our ducks in a row so
that if they do come back and they challenge the
decision then we can say here’s the information. So
we feel that based on this information we feel we
made the best decision, you can choose to accept
it or choose not to accept it but we’re not gonna
change our minds. So I think it’s just ensuring you’ve
prepared yourself effectively for that potential con-
frontation (C14, ice hockey).
Post Deselection Reflections
Reflecting on Athlete Development. Most coaches
reported that their main goal after cutting athletes was
that they stayed involved in the sport. Coaches explained
that they tried to convey this at the end of deselection
meetings with athletes. For C18 (volleyball), her goal
was to “make them not want to give up is easily number
one.” As another coach put it, “when girls get cut that
they get so heartbroken that they then don’t want to
try out for a provincial team again. So I would say my
number one goal is probably to not end up discouraging
players from discontinuing basketball” (C16). Particu-
larly for coaches of some of the younger adolescent
athletes, there was a stronger emphasis on continued
involvement because they would have chances in the
future to be selected and play for the provincial team.
C3 (ice hockey) explained:
…we encourage [athletes] to retry in future events
and making them understand that it’s not the be all
end all, and we [coaches] really do that at the U16
level as well, helping them recognize that OK, just
because you don’t move from the U16 camp to the
U18 your very rst time you get released, doesn’t
mean it can’t happen the year after. So really trying
to make sure that they don’t stop participating, don’t
stop trying in subsequent years.
Coaches also hoped the athletes would improve as
a result of the feedback they had been given. C10 (bas-
ketball) explained it was critical for coaches to provide
feedback to athletes because “if they just say no you
didn’t make the team you’re not really helping them try
to get better, giving them a chance to get better.” Provid-
ing feedback could also be seen as a way to motivate and
challenge athletes, to almost prove to coaches they made
the wrong decision.
Reflecting on the Process. When coaches reected
on the process they were often unsure about the effec-
tiveness and appropriateness of their approach. C10
(basketball) said, “maybe what I’m doing is completely
wrong. If I knew that the vast majority of athletes just
want a yes or no on a list, then, well that would make
it a hell of a lot easier for me right.” Coaches largely
based their reections on the process on the responses
of athletes and parents. One volleyball coach said, “if
I don’t hear from them, I like to assume, okay, I didn’t
make their life absolutely miserable. I’m not getting a
phone call from the mom at all and saying you’ve dam-
aged my daughter… no word, I assume is a good word”
(C18). C21 (basketball) perceived his process was effec-
tive too because “if you’ve really messed it up, you’re
gonna hear about it.” Another source of information
coaches used for reection was their later interactions
with deselected athletes. C2 (basketball) thought that,
‘”if you can cut a kid and have them thank you then
you’ve gone through a process that’s good.” Similarly,
C16 thought future encounters with athletes they had
cut was suggestive of an effective deselection process.
“I would also say having girls continually come back
and try out even when they have been cut in the past by
you… I think it’s denitely a good sign if the kids are
still able to come back and do that.”
Discussion
The overall purpose of this study was to examine coaches’
views on deselecting athletes from competitive female
adolescent sport teams. We identied deselection as
a process that involved four phases and described the
procedures coaches used for deselecting athletes. In each
phase of the process how coaches made and communi-
cated decisions to athletes, and the reasoning behind their
decisions, was explained. Deselection was remarkably
similar across all of the coaches and sports. By establish-
ing distinct phases of the deselection process we were
able to isolate specic details of coaches’ responsibili-
ties, concerns, and decisions at different times. This adds

150 Neely et al.
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
to the literature because previous research has largely
focused on athletes’ responses to deselection (Barnett,
2007; Brown & Potrac, 2009; Grove et al., 2004; Munroe
et al., 1999) and ways in which coaches communicate
deselection decisions (Capstick & Trudel, 2010; Seifried
& Casey, 2012) rather than considering deselection as a
process.
Three exploratory research questions initially drove
this research project. Our interpretative analysis moved
beyond merely reporting responses to each question,
but it is nonetheless useful to identify which of the
reported themes relate to each research question. For
instance, the question ‘what procedures do coaches use
for deselecting athletes?’ was addressed by the themes of
explaining expectations, documentation, informing play-
ers, providing feedback, and dealing with parents. The
question ‘how do coaches make deselection decisions?’
was addressed by the data contained in the themes of
evaluating athletes and dealing with uncertainty. Lastly,
for the question of ‘why are these decisions made when
deselecting athletes?’ the themes of providing feedback,
dealing with parents, reecting on athletes development,
and reecting on the process provided some insights into
the reasons why coaches made decisions.
Coaches wanted to create a thorough and fair dese-
lection process. They were concerned about parents’
reactions, which is consistent with concerns highlighted
in the youth sport literature where parents are often cited
as a stressor for youth sport coaches (e.g., Knight & Har-
wood, 2009). Alternatively, parents report stressors aris-
ing from a lack of communication and poor organization
from coaches (Harwood & Knight, 2009). To enhance
communication and organization coaches in the current
study held pre-tryouts meetings to explain their selection
criteria and expectations to parents. They did so, in part,
to avoid later conicts. This is consistent with practical
advice provided by Smoll, Cumming, and Smith (2011),
who suggested a preseason meeting is critical for reduc-
ing the chance of “unpleasant experiences” with parents
(p. 21). Furthermore, the pre-tryout meeting likely gives
athletes and parents a sense of fairness if they know a
comprehensive selection process is in place (Bradbury
& Forsyth, 2012).
Most coaches documented their player evaluations
and deselection decisions, which was another way of
protecting themselves from disgruntled parents and
even litigation. This is consistent with recommendations
suggested by Seifried and Casey (2012). Similarly, the
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC)
highlights the need to have clear documented criteria so
that athletes can learn and understand each step of the
selection process. Whereas the SDRCC reports that team
selection/deselection issues account for the majority of
disputes it adjudicates, litigation that leads to legal action
against a coach is rare. In fact, legal action from parents
and athletes appealing being deselected from teams have
been labeled ‘disappointment lawsuits’ and are most often
dismissed because they are deemed frivolous (Epstein,
2005). Therefore, the threat of receiving complaints or
being sued, rather than the cost per se, seemed to be a
concern for coaches because complaints and claims can
have a “devastating effect” on coaches and organizations
(Greeneld, 2013, p. 120).
Many of the decisions coaches made t within the
rational model of decision-making (Slack & Parent,
2006), which is based on conditions of certainty and
involves programmed decisions (i.e., decisions that are
relatively simple, repetitive, and based on clearly dened
procedures; Betsch, 2008) such as when coaches were
certain about the skill level and attitude of the athlete.
Similarly, coaches in other research have reported ‘per-
formance’ and ‘attitude’ as the most important selection
criteria when evaluating athletes (Bradbury & Forsyth,
2012). Yet, coaches also had to make nonprogrammed
decisions (i.e., decisions that are relatively complex,
unique, and with no preestablished procedures or guide-
lines; Betsch, 2008) such as decisions that involved fringe
players. These nonprogrammed decisions are made with
a considerable amount of uncertainty and are best rep-
resented by the administrative model, which is based on
the concept of bounded rationality. Simon (1955) argued
that mangers (or coaches in this case) often identify a
limited number of criteria to create a simplied model
to help them make decisions about complex problems.
Our ndings indicate that coaches did this by narrowing
their selection criteria to ‘intangibles’ to help them make
difcult decisions. This strategy allowed coaches to limit
the number of decision alternatives because they were
focused on specic qualities and characteristics athletes
may bring to a team. These athlete qualities and charac-
teristics likely reect the coaches’ personal preferences,
emotions, and past experiences (Slack & Parent, 2006).
Intuition was an important aspect of decision-
making for many coaches, whereby their nal decisions
about fringe players came down to ‘gut’ feelings. Our
ndings contradict research from a study conducted in
New Zealand, in which coaches were wary of acknowl-
edging the use of intuition because they felt using it could
threaten their credibility (Bradbury & Forsyth, 2012).
Yet, the importance of intuition in decision-making has
been emphasized in the JDM literature. Betsch (2008)
explained intuition “can yield highly accurate judge-
ments and decisions if the prior sample of experiences
is representative for the current task” (p. 6). Professional
intuition is also a critical component of contextual intel-
ligence, which is the tacit knowledge acquired through
everyday activities and reects the practical ability to
learn from experience (Sternberg, 2000). Therefore,
it appeared that the coaches in our study (who had, on
average 11.6 years of head coaching experience) had
high levels of contextual intelligence when it came to
their intuitive feelings regarding deselection decisions.
Furthermore, Phillips, Klein, and Sieck (2004) demon-
strated that it is possible to train and develop expertise
in intuitive decision skills. It may be worthwhile to
incorporate intuitive decision skill training in coach
education programs given that our ndings highlight
the importance of intuition for making nonprogrammed

Deselection in Competitive Youth Sport 151
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
decisions. From a practical perspective, it is useful to
consider deselection as a process that involves pro-
grammed and nonprogrammed decisions. We suggest
coaches should use systematic decision-making proce-
dures for programmed decisions but have condence in
using intuition for nonprogrammed decisions.
The sample of twenty-two experienced coaches
in this study viewed intuition as a necessary aspect of
their decision-making and relied on their intuition to
make difficult deselection decisions. Although they
were experienced coaches who had developed practices
for deselection, whether intuition is the single ‘right’ or
‘best’ strategy for making deselection decisions about
fringe players cannot be established from our study
because we did not measure the effectiveness of their
decisions (in fact, we did not even establish how effec-
tive deselection should be dened). Future research may
involve establishing a denition of effective deselection,
which will facilitate the analysis of whether factors such
as intuition and contextual intelligence are features of
good decision-making in deselection. It would be useful
to obtain organizational, coaches’, and athletes’ perspec-
tives in such future research.
The communication of deselection decisions to
athletes was a critical phase in the deselection process.
Other studies have shown coaches prefer to use indirect
forms of communication (e.g., posting a list, having
athletes voluntarily cut themselves; Capstick & Trudel,
2010; Seifried & Casey, 2012). Alternatively, work with
Olympic-level athletes shows they want to be informed
of their deselection from the national team through indi-
vidual, face-to-face meetings (Roberts & Faull, 2013).
Whereas the coaches in the current study preferred to use
face-to-face communication, they were constrained by
the protocols mandated by the sport organizations. Our
ndings suggest that sport organizations should encour-
age coaches to conduct face-to-face meetings in a private
location to inform athletes of deselection decisions.
Applied implications arising from this study may be
useful for coaches and for sport psychology consultants
who are asked to advise on deselection decisions (see
Roberts & Faull, 2013). A highly structured process was
useful for the coaches. Practically, it is important to hold
pre-tryout meetings with parents and athletes to explain
selection criteria and expectations. It may also be worth-
while to identify the benets of being part of a program
and acknowledge the meaning of being the top athletes
in the province to help put deselection in perspective.
Coaches should involve additional coaches as evaluators
to provide a sense of fairness but also provide support
for coaches’ decisions. Our ndings further suggest
that sport organizations should also enable coaches to
provide private face-to-face feedback to athletes. Given
the emotional state of many athletes following deselec-
tion, we recommend coaches consider providing written
feedback to athletes. Sport organizations may also want
to consider having procedures in place to protect coaches
when it comes to parent interactions to deal with parents
once deselection has been communicated.
Findings regarding the use of intuition have some
important applied implications that may be useful for
sport psychologists. When faced with uncertainty,
coaches relied on intuition, which is actually an important
and valuable part of making decisions under conditions of
uncertainty. Experience is important for developing intui-
tive decision skills, but how one learns from experience,
rather than experience per se, is what results in increases
in professional intuition. As such, sport psychologists
may be able to play a role in helping coaches develop
the skills needed to learn more effectively from their own
experience. Reective practice may be particularly impor-
tant for the deselection process (Roberts & Faull, 2013).
Interestingly, the coaches in this study reected on their
deselection procedures at a very supercial level (based
on their interactions with parents and athletes). A more
rigorous and systematic approach to reective practice
could improve coaching practice (Cushion & Nelson,
2013; Knowles, Gilbourne, Cropley, & Dugdill, 2014;
Roberts & Faull, 2013). For example, sport psychology
consultants could teach coaches to engage in immediate
reection-in-action during the deselection process and
engage in delayed reection-on-action after the deselec-
tion process took place (cf. Knowles, Gilbourne, Borrie,
& Nevill, 2001).
Limitations of this study include that the sample size
was small and relatively homogenous, and ndings cannot
easily be generalized to other youth sport populations at
different competitive levels. The ndings also only pertain
to female adolescent athletes and the deselection process
may differ if the study was conducted with coaches of
male adolescent provincial teams. We used a retrospective
approach, and in the future it may be possible to reveal
more precise information about coaches’ views at distinct
phases in the deselection process by using longitudinal
research designs (e.g., multiple interviews). In addition,
while the decision to sample coaches was appropriate for
this study, it is necessary to gain better understandings
of athletes’ responses to deselection to minimize the
potential negative consequences they experience. Finally,
given the extent to which coaches were concerned about
parents, it is clearly important to generate more detailed
understandings of parents’ perspectives on the deselection
process. Despite these limitations, the results of this study
provide new insights into the deselection process and
offer several applied implications for coaching practice
and applied sport psychologists who may be required to
assist in creating deselection procedures.
References
Alfermann, D. (2007). Causes and consequences of sport
career termination. In D. Lavallee & P. Wylleman (Eds.),
Career transitions in sport: International perspectives
(pp. 49–58). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Bar-Eli, M., Plessner, H., & Raab, M. (2011). Judgement,
decision making, and success in sport. Oxford, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781119977032

152 Neely et al.
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
Barnett, L. (2007). “Winners” and “losers”: The effects of being
allowed or denied entry into competitive extracurricular
activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 39, 316–344.
Betsch, T. (2008). The nature of intuition and its neglect in
research on judgment and decision making. In H. Plessner,
C. Betsch, & T. Betsch (Eds.), Intuition in judgment and
decision making (pp. 3–22). New York: Erlbaum.
Bradbury, T., & Forsyth, D. (2012). You’re in; you’re out:
Selection practices of coaches. Sport, Business and Man-
agement. International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), 2, 7–20.
Brown, G., & Potrac, P. (2009). You’ve not made the grade
son: De-selection and identity disruption in elite
level youth football. Soccer & Society, 10, 143–159.
doi:10.1080/14660970802601613
Capstick, A.L., & Trudel, P. (2010). Coach communication of
non-selection in youth competitive sport. International
Journal of Coaching Science, 4, 3–23.
Conroy, D.E., Kaye, M.P., & Schantz, L.H. (2008). Quantita-
tive research methodology. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances
in sport psychology (pp. 15–30). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Cushion, C., & Nelson, L. (2013). Coach education and learn-
ing: Developing the eld. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J.
Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching
(pp. 359–374). New York: Routledge.
Epstein, T.L. (2005). Splinters from the bench: Feasibility
of lawsuits by athletes against coaches and schools for
lack of playing time. Virginia Sports & Entertainment
Law Journal, 4, 174. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1324880
Greeneld, S. (2013). Law’s impact on youth sports: Should
coaches be ‘concerned about litigation’? Sports Coaching
Review, 2, 114–129. doi:10.1080/21640629.2014.900990
Grove, J., Fish, M., & Eklund, R. (2004). Changes in athletic
identity following team selection: Self-protection versus
self-enhancement. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
16, 75–81. doi:10.1080/10413200490260062
Harwood, C., & Knight, C. (2009). Understanding parental
stressors: An investigation of British tennis parents.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 339–351. PubMed
doi:10.1080/02640410802603871
Knight, C.J., & Harwood, C. (2009). Exploring parent-related
coaching stressors in British tennis: A developmental
investigation. International Journal of Sports Science &
Coaching, 4, 545–565. doi:10.1260/174795409790291448
Knowles, Z., Gilbourne, D., Borrie, A., & Nevill, A. (2001).
Developing the reective sports coach: A study exploring
the processes of reective practice within a higher educa-
tion coaching programme. Reective Practice, 2, 185–207.
doi:10.1080/14623940123820
Knowles, Z., Gilbourne, D., Cropley, B., & Dugdill, L. (2014).
Reective practice in the sport and exercise sciences:
Contemporary issues. London: Routledge.
Mayan, M.J. (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative
research. Washington: The Falmer Press.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis. London: Sage.
Morse, J.M. (1995). The significance of satu-
ration. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 147–149.
doi:10.1177/104973239500500201
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olsen, K., & Spiers, J.
(2002). Verication strategies for establishing reliability
and validity in qualitative research. International Journal
of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1–8.
Munroe, K.J., Albinson, J.G., & Hall, C.R. (1999). The effects
of non-selection on rst year female varsity athletes.
Avante, 5, 63–81.
Phillips, J.K., Klein, G., & Sieck, W.R. (2004). Expertise
in judgment and decision making: A case for training
intuitive decision skills. In D.J. Koehlerer & N. Harvey
(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and deci-
sion making (pp. 297–315). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch15
Plessner, H., Betsch, C., & Betsch, T. (2008). Intuition in judg-
ment and decision making. New York: Erlbaum.
Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roberts, C-M., & Faull, A.L. (2013). Building a successful
Olympic team selection protocol in women’s handball: A
case study examining the benets of employing reective
practice. Reective Practice, 14, 648–659. doi:10.1080/1
4623943.2013.835719
Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The
art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sandelowski, M. (1993). Theory unmasked: The uses and
guises of theory in qualitative research. Research in
Nursing & Health, 16, 213–218. PubMed doi:10.1002/
nur.4770160308
Seifried, C., & Casey, T. (2012). Managing the selection of
highly competitive interscholastic sport teams: Recom-
mendations from coaches on cutting players. Journal of
Sport Administration & Supervision, 4, 79–96.
Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.
doi:10.2307/1884852
Simon, H.A. (1960). The new science of management decision.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. doi:10.1037/13978-
000
Slack, T., & Parent, M.M. (2006). Understanding sport orga-
nizations: The application of organization theory. Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Smith, A.L. (2007). Youth peer relationships in sport. In S.
Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport
(pp. 41–54). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Smoll, F.L., Cumming, S.P., & Smith, R.E. (2011). Enhancing
coach-parent relationships in youth sports: Increasing
harmony and minimizing hassle. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 6, 13–26. doi:10.1260/1747-
9541.6.1.13
Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. (no date). Selection
criteria for major events in sport: Guidelines and tips.
Available from http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/documents/
SDRCC_PolicyDoc_Selection_ENG_web.pdf
Sternberg, R.J. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J., & Ogilvie, B. (1994). A conceptual model of adapta-
tion to retirement among athletes. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 6, 1–20. doi:10.1080/10413209408406462
Thorne, S. (2008). Interpretive description. Walnut Creek, CA:
Left Coast Press.
Thorne, S., Reimer Kirkham, S., & O’Flynn-Magee, K. (2004).
The analytic challenge in interpretive description. Inter-
national Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1–21.
Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta. ca/index.
php/IJQM/index.

Deselection in Competitive Youth Sport 153
TSP Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016
Appendix
Coach Interview Guide
I am doing a study to nd out about coaches’ views on
deselection in youth sport. Your participation is voluntary.
If you do not want to answer a specic question, that is
ne. There are not right or wrong answers to these ques-
tions. I want to understand what is it like for you as a
coach to cut athletes.
Before we start I just have a few quick demographic
questions I need to ask.
- How old are you? Where are you from? What is
your education background? What are your coaching
qualications? Is coaching your full-time job? If no,
what do you do? How long have you been coaching?
How long have you been head coach?
Introductory Questions
1. Please describe your involvement in sport as an
athlete? Were you ever cut from a team? What was
that like?
- Follow-up: As a coach? How did you get involved
in coaching? Where have you coached/what teams?
What is your current coaching involvement?
Main Questions
2. In general, what criteria do you use when deciding
which athletes to keep and which athletes to cut?
Probe for specic examples (e.g., specic factors,
actual descriptions)
3. What are your goals when you cut an athlete? Probe
for goals related to least harmful to athlete vs least
stress for coach
4. I would like to talk to you about the ways you actu-
ally communicate your decisions with athletes: What
is your strategy for communicating deselection to
athletes? What has worked for you? Have you used
different strategies? How do you deal with the ath-
letes’ parents? What about their club coaches?
5. What is it like to cut an athlete? Tell me about an
instance you remember when you had a particularly
hard time cutting an athlete and it didn’t go very
well? (What was your toughest cut?). Can you tell me
about an instance when you had a relatively simple
time cutting an athlete? Probe for specic details of
these experiences (thoughts, emotions, behaviors).
6. I am interested in how coaches handle any stress
they might experience when having to cut athletes.
So, could you rst explain any instances of cutting
athletes that have been particularly stressful for you
personally? (If same example as before, go back
and focus more specically on stressful aspects for
coach)
7. Do you use any strategies to help manage the stress-
ors you have experienced?
8. What would you tell new or less experienced coaches
to help them deal with deselection?
9. I am also interested in trying to establish some ‘best
practices’ for cutting athletes. Could you recap by
telling me more about the strategies that seem to
have worked the best for you? Why do you think
they were effective? Probe for specic examples
10. Similarly, could you tell me about the strategies that
did not seem to work for you? Why do you think
these strategies were less effective? Probe for specic
examples
Summary Question
11. Finally, is there anything else about deselection and
cutting athletes that you want to tell me that we have
not covered or you think I need to consider asking
other coaches?