Final in overtime.

Ballard must have played juniors. :walk:

Ballard must have played juniors. :walk:

 

Don't ALL 6-A teams have juniors that don't see the field on Friday?

I bet they used Freshman too.

Who QB'd for X?

Don't ALL 6-A teams have juniors that don't see the field on Friday?

I thought so

What were the season records for these respective JV squads ???

I thought so

We're 4-A with only 38 players and we STILL have juniors (2) that don't see the field on Friday nights. :lol:

What were the season records for these respective JV squads ???

 

According to the X website, the JV team is now 4-5 after this game.

We DEFINITELY played Juniors. The alternative (playing Sophomores only) would've meant we'd have had to cancel the JV game due to not having enough players at each offensive and defensive and special teams positions (something I know Coach Glaser -- or any other HS coach -- would not have wanted!)

 

And yes, we even played 2 juniors that see the field in limited action on Friday nights...how else do we get them valuable game experience if we don't? One of them is a running back that rarely gets carries this year due to having more experience backs ahead of him (he will be our work-horse next year; why throw him to the wolves as a ball-carrier for the first time ever in a varsity game?). The other is a RECEIVER kid who rotates on Fridays that we also want to be able to help us at SLOT BACK some. So, we get to see him in a game situation (about 500% better than anything done in practice when assessing whether he can do the job or not) doing something needed on Friday nights in a MUCH less-vital Monday afternoon game.

 

I've never understood this by some on this board: is it that some of you want St. X to play Sophomores-only in JV for the pride of being able to say "our Sophomores beat your Sophomores-and-Juniors, hah hah!" when you WIN, but if you lose you want to be able to say, "yeah, but it took you playing JUNIORS to beat our poor little Sophomores!"

 

(BTW, I know ZERO St. X COACHES would have this kind of attitude. They play Sophomores-only because they've carefully assessed it's what's best for their PROGRAM. I envy their ability to field a full JV team with only one class of kids and APPLAUD them for taking some 'short-term lumps' to achieve a greater 'long-term goal,' i.e., the toughening up of their kids by making them play against older competition.)

 

Also BTW, we do the same thing as much as we can in a different way -- 3 FRESHMEN that had earned the right due to doing what we ask on the field, in the classroom, and otherwise with good character got to play SIGNIFICANT roles in the win last night...playing against OLDER kids in St. X's Sophomore class...and this time, getting the feeling of a WIN against a GREAT program (something we'll celebrate right now at ANY level).

 

And to answer the question, our JV's went 4-5 this season...they were competitive in the 4th quarter in all but one of those games (which is our standard right now -- baby steps!).

They play Sophomores-only because they've carefully assessed it's what's best for their PROGRAM. I envy their ability to field a full JV team with only one class of kids and APPLAUD them for taking some 'short-term lumps' to achieve a greater 'long-term goal,' i.e., the toughening up of their kids by making them play against older competition.

 

That's X's dirty little secret. They play juniors as well. :sssh:

Congrats to Ballard on the win.

We DEFINITELY played Juniors. The alternative (playing Sophomores only) would've meant we'd have had to cancel the JV game due to not having enough players at each offensive and defensive and special teams positions (something I know Coach Glaser -- or any other HS coach -- would not have wanted!)

 

And yes, we even played 2 juniors that see the field in limited action on Friday nights...how else do we get them valuable game experience if we don't? One of them is a running back that rarely gets carries this year due to having more experience backs ahead of him (he will be our work-horse next year; why throw him to the wolves as a ball-carrier for the first time ever in a varsity game?). The other is a RECEIVER kid who rotates on Fridays that we also want to be able to help us at SLOT BACK some. So, we get to see him in a game situation (about 500% better than anything done in practice when assessing whether he can do the job or not) doing something needed on Friday nights in a MUCH less-vital Monday afternoon game.

 

I've never understood this by some on this board: is it that some of you want St. X to play Sophomores-only in JV for the pride of being able to say "our Sophomores beat your Sophomores-and-Juniors, hah hah!" when you WIN, but if you lose you want to be able to say, "yeah, but it took you playing JUNIORS to beat our poor little Sophomores!"

 

(BTW, I know ZERO St. X COACHES would have this kind of attitude. They play Sophomores-only because they've carefully assessed it's what's best for their PROGRAM. I envy their ability to field a full JV team with only one class of kids and APPLAUD them for taking some 'short-term lumps' to achieve a greater 'long-term goal,' i.e., the toughening up of their kids by making them play against older competition.)

 

Also BTW, we do the same thing as much as we can in a different way -- 3 FRESHMEN that had earned the right due to doing what we ask on the field, in the classroom, and otherwise with good character got to play SIGNIFICANT roles in the win last night...playing against OLDER kids in St. X's Sophomore class...and this time, getting the feeling of a WIN against a GREAT program (something we'll celebrate right now at ANY level).

 

And to answer the question, our JV's went 4-5 this season...they were competitive in the 4th quarter in all but one of those games (which is our standard right now -- baby steps!).

 

Coach;

 

Unless I am sadly mistaken (which would not be the first time) the Xaverians are the only folks on this Board who raise the "Jr.'s JV Issue."

 

Pretty much everyone else feels that JV's are for the kids who do not get significant PT on Friday night. Have known of Frosh. who play on JV's. Who cares....its all about experience and competition.

 

Being able to compete --being in the game. Congrats on a big win.:thumb:

Coach;

 

Unless I am sadly mistaken (which would not be the first time) the Xaverians are the only folks on this Board who raise the "Jr.'s JV Issue."

 

Pretty much everyone else feels that JV's are for the kids who do not get significant PT on Friday night. Have known of Frosh. who play on JV's. Who cares....its all about experience and competition.

 

Being able to compete --being in the game. Congrats on a big win.:thumb:

 

Great win for Ballard, congrats! I don't think the "Xaverians" believe there is any "issue" with juniors playing JV. Typically this comes up in the X/T JV discussion. As a Xaverian, I don't care if juniors play...but it is worth mentioning in the X/T JV discussion if one team plays predominantly plays juniors who are for the most part 2nd team varsity versus a team that is predominantly sophmore non-varsity players. It should be mentioned not as a criticism of the team playing juniors but as a "truth in winning" disclosure. I know last year X played quite a few juniors in the JV contest vs. T and this year several have played JV as well. I suspect X's QB in the JV game vs. Ballard was either jr. Jay Hayden or Luke Brohm but I don't know for sure. I'm all for getting kids playing time and getting them better for varsity competiton on Friday nights.

I should have openned before with Congrats to Ballard for the win. Out of curiosity, when was the last Ballard JV win over X? I don't have problems with Jrs on JV when necessary, as apparently here, or with any other team that needs to. My issue is when Jrs. play who ARE contributing to the varsity, not the ones who need some experience. There is a difference. And yes, I do know that X plays some Jrs. down.