|
Post by Tom on Jul 27, 2013 14:34:15 GMT -6
I've always wondered how much of a correlation there is between success on subvarsity teams (JV, freshman, even middle school) and the varsity team down the road.
It seems a lot of people make a big deal out of it, but I haven't seen any confirmation of it. I would think that in some programs, the players would see more growth after their freshman and sophomore years.
|
|
|
Post by FB fan on Jul 27, 2013 16:23:02 GMT -6
I've always wondered how much of a correlation there is between success on subvarsity teams (JV, freshman, even middle school) and the varsity team down the road. It seems a lot of people make a big deal out of it, but I haven't seen any confirmation of it. I would think that in some programs, the players would see more growth after their freshman and sophomore years. Winning is better than losing but winning at the sub varsity level does not always translate as much as losing does.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jul 27, 2013 16:38:10 GMT -6
I've always wondered how much of a correlation there is between success on subvarsity teams (JV, freshman, even middle school) and the varsity team down the road. It seems a lot of people make a big deal out of it, but I haven't seen any confirmation of it. I would think that in some programs, the players would see more growth after their freshman and sophomore years. Winning is better than losing but winning at the sub varsity level does not always translate as much as losing does. I think this is probably correct. It's definitely a bad sign when a subvarsity team is going 0-10 as that's probably a year that's devoid of talent. But there's probably not much difference between 8-2 and 6-4 or even 4-6. Coaching makes more of a difference in those situations.
|
|
|
Post by gpking on Jul 27, 2013 17:25:00 GMT -6
When all you Tallent from sophomore and freshmen are on varsity I believe it doesn't say much!
|
|
|
Post by sotex on Jul 27, 2013 18:05:36 GMT -6
I think it is somewhat of importance that your sub varsities are successful, after all they are the future. @ King, I hope you not are impying that G.P. had a bunch of sophomores on your team last year.
|
|
|
Post by cochino on Jul 27, 2013 18:10:41 GMT -6
I think it is somewhat of importance that your sub varsities are successful, after all they are the future. @ King, I hope you not are impying that G.P. had a bunch of sophomores on your team last year. lol not only is he implying "sophomores" but "freshmen" as well.
|
|
|
Post by rock90 on Jul 27, 2013 19:46:07 GMT -6
Just to set the record straight: GP only had 2 sophs and 1 freshman on their varsity last year. The fish wasn't moved up until later in the year and hardly played.
Winning is always better than losing, but it also depends on how the staff treats the sub varsities. You can have good talent/bad record if the intent is to experiment with kids in various positions to try and find their best spot for when they are on varsity.
|
|
|
Post by sotex on Jul 27, 2013 19:58:36 GMT -6
Just to set the record straight: GP only had 2 sophs and 1 freshman on their varsity last year. The fish wasn't moved up until later in the year and hardly played. Winning is always better than losing, but it also depends on how the staff treats the sub varsities. You can have good talent/bad record if the intent is to experiment with kids in various positions to try and find their best spot for when they are on varsity. Total B.S.
|
|
|
Post by sandcrabs04 on Jul 27, 2013 20:50:20 GMT -6
Just to set the record straight: GP only had 2 sophs and 1 freshman on their varsity last year. The fish wasn't moved up until later in the year and hardly played. Winning is always better than losing, but it also depends on how the staff treats the sub varsities. You can have good talent/bad record if the intent is to experiment with kids in various positions to try and find their best spot for when they are on varsity. Total B.S. I concur
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jul 27, 2013 21:04:24 GMT -6
Just to set the record straight: GP only had 2 sophs and 1 freshman on their varsity last year. The fish wasn't moved up until later in the year and hardly played. Winning is always better than losing, but it also depends on how the staff treats the sub varsities. You can have good talent/bad record if the intent is to experiment with kids in various positions to try and find their best spot for when they are on varsity. I've pointed out before that Guyer's last senior class (i.e. the one that won the state championship as seniors) went 5-5 as freshmen, so yeah, I can see the merit of this argument. I would bet that the most successful programs treat their sub-varsity squads the same way that MLB teams treat their minor league teams: the emphasis is on player development, not so much on winning (though winning is nice.) Experiment with players at different positions, open up the playbook, etc. If you have a really talented RB on the freshman team, you can probably win just by giving him the ball 20-30 times a game; that's fine if that's your offense, but you might want to develop your QB and receivers if you intend on throwing the ball on varsity.
|
|
|
Post by sotex on Jul 27, 2013 21:42:02 GMT -6
Just to set the record straight: GP only had 2 sophs and 1 freshman on their varsity last year. The fish wasn't moved up until later in the year and hardly played. Winning is always better than losing, but it also depends on how the staff treats the sub varsities. You can have good talent/bad record if the intent is to experiment with kids in various positions to try and find their best spot for when they are on varsity. I've pointed out before that Guyer's last senior class (i.e. the one that won the state championship as seniors) went 5-5 as freshmen, so yeah, I can see the merit of this argument. I would bet that the most successful programs treat their sub-varsity squads the same way that MLB teams treat their minor league teams: the emphasis is on player development, not so much on winning (though winning is nice.) Experiment with players at different positions, open up the playbook, etc. If you have a really talented RB on the freshman team, you can probably win just by giving him the ball 20-30 times a game; that's fine if that's your offense, but you might want to develop your QB and receivers if you intend on throwing the ball on varsity. Tom, I wonder how many of Guyer's freshman were playing on the J.V. that year.
|
|
|
Post by warcat82 on Jul 28, 2013 5:51:35 GMT -6
I have seen first hand a few programs that could care less about their subvarsity teams and it showed big time in varsity because the skill set was not established early on. But I also know that TM has had success at the subvarsity level a few teams even beat Cal in the past, but nothing was built on it at the varsity level to make them successful at that level..
|
|
|
Post by mustangfootball on Jul 28, 2013 7:05:16 GMT -6
Ingleside usually keeps its freshman team intact and their junior varsity team is a usually a handful of player who are clearly not varsity ready yet that lose most of their games, us being a 3a school we tend to have more under classman on varsity, just a few years ago we had a freshman who was our starting QB and a sophomore who was our starting RB, this year that freshman is entering his senior season as a four year starter...about 5 years ago we had 3 freshman starting on varsity, and last year we had none but we had 4 sophomores starting...this year I believe there is one freshman who will see plenty of playing time but not sure if he will start. I don't think you have to be dominate at the JV level to be a good varsity team.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jul 28, 2013 10:34:25 GMT -6
I've pointed out before that Guyer's last senior class (i.e. the one that won the state championship as seniors) went 5-5 as freshmen, so yeah, I can see the merit of this argument. I would bet that the most successful programs treat their sub-varsity squads the same way that MLB teams treat their minor league teams: the emphasis is on player development, not so much on winning (though winning is nice.) Experiment with players at different positions, open up the playbook, etc. If you have a really talented RB on the freshman team, you can probably win just by giving him the ball 20-30 times a game; that's fine if that's your offense, but you might want to develop your QB and receivers if you intend on throwing the ball on varsity. Tom, I wonder how many of Guyer's freshman were playing on the J.V. that year. Probably none. Guyer usually doesn't play freshmen on JV... if they're that good they would move straight to varsity rather than going to JV. But even THAT doesn't happen much.
|
|
|
Post by sotex on Jul 28, 2013 12:55:18 GMT -6
Ingleside usually keeps its freshman team intact and their junior varsity team is a usually a handful of player who are clearly not varsity ready yet that lose most of their games, us being a 3a school we tend to have more under classman on varsity, just a few years ago we had a freshman who was our starting QB and a sophomore who was our starting RB, this year that freshman is entering his senior season as a four year starter...about 5 years ago we had 3 freshman starting on varsity, and last year we had none but we had 4 sophomores starting...this year I believe there is one freshman who will see plenty of playing time but not sure if he will start. I don't think you have to be dominate at the JV level to be a good varsity team. I can see you point in the lower classifications. There are not enough kids to go around, but when you get to the 4-A-5-A level, you typically won't see many sophomores, much less freshman starting at the varsity level. Our program is large enough to have two freshman and two J.V. teams. A good program should have their players at the position they will be playing by the 9th grade. Granted, their may be a few position change, but not much. Here is a good read on our youth football in Alice. www.alicetx.com/sports/article_3fb3be35-46cb-5938-a3db-f383486342af.html
|
|