Evaluating when or if to bring a JV kid up to varsity

Sometimes there are evergreen topics you find yourself revisiting on a regular basis.

One that I revisit is JV level student-athletes playing on varsity team. Sophomores making
the move are the most common but occasionally there are freshmen that play varsity for
four years. If the school does not offer the sport at the JV level, well, anything goes but for
now I focus more on freshmen and sophomores where their JV sport is offered.  

In my 18 years as a sports reporter, primarily in the Napa Valley (CA), I most readily recall
St. Helena’s Maddy Densberger and Vallejo turned Sheldon (Sacramento) transfer DeMarcus
Nelson. Densberger played four years of varsity basketball for the Saints and had the ability
to do such in volleyball, a sport that she later starred at Sonoma State. Nelson played three
years of varsity basketball at Vallejo before transferring to Sheldon. Nelson went on to play
basketball at Duke University. There was also Hogan High’s Katie Layne and Vintage’s
Ricci Robben, both dominated in four years of varsity softball before going on to play at the
University of Wisconsin. Justin-Siena’s Vicky Dealy starred for four years of varsity
basketball for the Braves before heading off to UC Davis. For all I know, I’ll think of other
examples after I post this entry. Currently, Napa High freshman Brock Bowers is on the
Indians varsity boys basketball team and playing very well I might add.

When American Canyon High first opened in 2010, there were only freshmen and
sophomores. The junior class was added one year later with the first senior class coming
in 2012-2013. As a result, with no senior class in 2011-2012, varsity rosters had an
assortment of sophomores.

Conversely, I saw a couple of juniors play on the JV team. The one I most readily recall is
Kate Conover playing on the JV girls basketball team as a junior in the late 2000s at St.
Helena. That pattern, though less common, is more likely to happen at the small school
level. Why would a junior play on the JV? Well, perhaps because he or she might not get
enough playing time worth their while on the varsity. It takes a special person to do that
because of the social ramifications that may happen, which is why I commend Conover to
this day for being willing to do such.

JV and freshmen sports are more about development, whereas with varsity, winning takes
precedence. How many high school athletic programs are judged by JV and freshmen
records? You couldn’t even get to one finger if you counted.

I remember the 2011 American Canyon High football team that had Ian MacMillan
coaching varsity and Larry Singer coaching the JV. The varsity had no seniors but five
sophomores — Malik Beachum, Jomon Dotson, Michael Rapacon, DJ Hughes and Robert
Wilkes. Dotson plays football for the University of Washington.  

All have made an impact on the varsity team that went 4-6. The JV team went 2-8 but I
firmly believe that if the aforementioned varsity sophomore quintet played JV, that team
might have gone closer to 8-2 than 2-8. I know that is a speculative assumption but you
get the point. Their elevation to the varsity allowed those on the JV to get the playing time
they need in order to hopefully become viable contributors as varsity players. In the long
run, that approach served a good purpose.  

Some parents insist that their son or daughter that is a freshman or sophomore not go to the
varsity team even if they are good enough. My philosophy has always been that you play
your best players on varsity, period. Key word “play.”

If the freshman is better than the senior, he or she should start. Having four years in the
program should not get them a hall pass.

However, if a freshman or sophomore is going to be brought up to the varsity, he or she
should at least be a starter or get similar playing time that a starter would get. For example,
in basketball, the player should be no lower than No. 7 in the rotation. In football, the player
should be playing at least one-third of the offensive and/or defensive snaps.

After all, you brought that player up to the varsity because presumably you believe that
player can make an impact.

I have an acquaintance who has a youngster in my kids’ third grade class. This person also
has an older son playing high school basketball. He is a freshman on the varsity. In the
interest of protecting their privacy, I will not use names. However, I would use the term
“play” on the varsity as a loose definition. Translation, his playing time equals less than ten
minutes of a 32 minute game. My first thought is, “what the hell is this coach thinking?”
and I don’t think my beliefs are unfounded.

You don’t bring a freshman or sophomore up to varsity just to be a practice dummy. In my
years of covering St. Helena High football, specifically in the early-to-mid 2010s, I found
head coach Brandon Farrell’s approach to be very compelling. Like most varsity coaches,
Farrell would elevate a fair number of JV players to varsity during the playoffs to give
them a taste of varsity competition after their season. There were JV players called up that
made key contributions such as Tony Navone, Jackson Graff, Jack Preston, and Austin
Cia to name a few. Those guys ended up being key contributors later on the Saints varsity
team.

So when should a freshman or sophomore be brought up to the varsity? When should a
junior be left down on the JV?

It’s about looking at the landscape of your program and asking yourself, will this player
get the playing time he or she needs to develop sufficiently? How much of an impact will
the youngster make?

Sometimes you can have a talented JV player that is ready to make an impact on the varsity
as a freshman or sophomore, but he might play a position where the varsity team is already
stacked with talent.

Also, if a junior is going to ride the pine on the varsity team, he or she would be best suited
to playing and dominating as a JV player, if for no other reason than to increase their
confidence.

Another question is, say a freshman or sophomore is ridiculously dominant on the JV level
— will that player become disinterested because success comes so easily? Maybe you bring
that player up to varsity.

It’s a crapshoot, but one common denominator I keep coming back to is that if a freshman
or sophomore gets elevated to the varsity, he or she should not just be along for the ride.

At the JV level, winning is all well and good, but coaching the JV teams are more about
getting players ready for varsity by developing fundamentals and the right approach to the
game.

If winning and proper development are happening, then you’ve got the best of both worlds.
However, if a JV team is winning the majority of its games but getting away with
fundamental mistakes against inferior competition, then success is Fool’s Gold.

By no means am I diminishing the importance of JV sports programs because, after all,
they are the future.

One common argument I hear is that “JV kids work just as hard as varsity kids.”

True, they indeed do work hard, but athletic programs are not judged on JV success.

MLB Hall of Fame voters delusional about PED era

Another year of injustice has come and gone. Specifically, another year of two legends
(Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens) not getting enshrined into the Major League Baseball
Hall of Fame.

The case against them gets weaker every year even though they and a number of others
starred in what is known as The Steroid Era.

Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, Vladimir Guerrero and Trevor Hoffman were rewarded
Wednesday, easily elected in the newest class headed for Cooperstown, New York.

Jones and Thome made it 54 players elected in their first year of eligibility by members
of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. Players must be retired for five years
to be eligible. Jones drew 97.2 percent (410 of 422) of the vote and Thome was at 89.8
percent — 75 percent is needed for election.

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, both involved in baseball’s steroids scandal, edged up
but again fell far short.

Clemens, winner of seven Cy Young Awards, got 57.3 percent after drawing 54.1 percent
last time. Bonds, the career home run leader and a seven-time MVP, reached 56.4 percent,
up from 53.8 percent. Clemens and Bonds each get four more attempts.

While I believe the four aforementioned inductees are deserving and understand that every
voter and/or person is entitled to his or her own principle over players taking Performance
Enhancing Drugs (PED), can we really be honest with ourselves? Being in favor of Bonds
and Clemens along with PED users being Hall of Fame worthy is not about condoning their
use of such enhancements.

For openers, these PEDs were not against the rules at the time players of this era used them
so where does the cheating part come into the equation? The time frame in which the use
began and ended is far from definitive.

Who are we to say that some players used but never got caught? If such a player earns a
plaque, it hardly seems fair to deny the honor to players who confessed their guilt. Even
if they did not confess any guilt, who gives a damn. It’s as if these voters are electing guys
based on their public relations skills.

Sure Bonds, and to a lesser extent Clemens, were prickly personalities but is Hall of Fame
enshrinement about honoring great players or great people? Ty Cobb is one of the most
bigoted people on planet Earth and he is in Cooperstown. And please don’t come at me
with the, “setting an example for kids” argument, which is cop out parenting at its finest.

PED use did not make the playing field unlevel because pitchers as well as hitters were
using them. I could stick a needle in my ass today and it’s not going to make me a better
hitter nor will it make me stronger. For openers, you still have to put in the work at the
gym. You can’t just sit on your couch and eat Bon Bons. Secondly, hitting a baseball is
not about strength, it’s about hand-eye coordination. PED use might be the difference
between a warning track out versus a ball clearing the fence by say 8-10 feet but when I
look at those linked to PED use such as Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Jose Canseco,
Jason Giambi, etc., I don’t remember many of their home runs barely clearing the fence.

In addition, there were several marginal players that used PEDs did not benefit them.
More than half the players listed on the Mitchell Report were scrubs.

In every aspect of professional sports, people have been doing things to gain an edge
since the beginning of time whether it was Gaylord Perry doctoring baseballs, players
using greenies (aka amphetamines), Fred Biletnikoff and Lester Hayes using Stickum
just to name a few.

Another hypocrisy is that the same commissioner, Bud Selig, that presided over The Steroid
Era is in the Hall of Fame and he did nothing but benefit financially from that time. In the
meantime, the players on the field did the work to increase business.

Let’s not forget that Selig’s era included a strike that cancelled the World Series in 1994.
Gee that speaks well of MLB’s then fearless leader. Fan interest had taken a precipitous
drop as a result, then 1998 and 2001 happened. The latter included a spirit chase at the
single-season home run record between McGwire and Sosa. Both broke Roger Maris’
long-standing mark of 61, which stood since 1961. Sosa hit 66 and McGwire 70 in 1998.
In 2001, Bonds eclipsed the mark with 73.

The home run chase brought back fan interest. That meant better attendance at games and
increase in television ratings. Fans, media and Selig chose to turn a blind eye as business
was booming. They knew full well what was going on and now they are appalled? And
please, spare me the puke inducing verbiage of “but that doesn’t make it right.”

I also rake the BWA over the coals for this as well. By no means do I lump everyone in
this category. There are many good ones. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we are
blessed with a first-rate columnist in Bruce Jenkins. Henry Schulman and Susan Slusser
do a brilliant job covering the Giants and A’s respectively as beat writers for the San
Francisco Chronicle.

Some BWA members, and fans that share similar views, fail to realize that industry
benefited from the Steroid Era in the form of TV and radio ratings and newspaper circulation
increasing.

OK, so Bonds and Clemens did not make many friends in the media. In all walks of life,
do you ever make apologizes on whether or not people like you? Yet there are media
members so butthurt because they were not good to them.

Who cares? This is sports, not the Boys Scouts. Bonds and Clemens being in the Hall of
Fame is such a no-brainer it kills me.

The people that make arguments against Bonds and Clemens’ qualifications for
enshrinement are only letting you know how unworldly they really are and how they only
think sports works in a perfect vacuum with nothing but choirboys pulling all the strings.

I was a sports reporter for 18 years until changing careers. Most of my time was spent
covering high school athletics in the Napa Valley with a smattering of freelance work for
an Oakland Raiders fan magazine.

As a high school sports reporter, I was part of all-Napa County selection team for various
sports. I can tell you with a straight face that I never voted against a youngster’s candidacy
because I did not like him or her, the parents or the coach. If their performance said, “no
brainer all-county,” they got my vote.

For Coach of the Year votes, I never voted against someone because I had issues with
them. The coach that was the biggest pain in the butt for me was a girls basketball coach
whose name I won’t mention. Fortunately, said coach’s team won only about 34 percent
of their games so it was a non-issue.

By no means am I comparing an All-Napa County vote to a MLB Hall of Fame vote but
it’s about principle.

Bottom line, Bonds and Clemens belong in the Hall of Fame.

Good alternatives to ball and stick sports

When it comes to glamorizing sports, many times we get hung up on the traditional
“ball and stick” sports.

True, football Friday nights are fun because those events are as much social as they
are sporting. Since football is generally not competing with other sports at that particular
time frame, the social aspect that comes into the equation is that some people that attend
the games might not be football fans per se. They are there because it is the thing to do.

However, when you take into account the non-revenue sports like cross country, track and
field and wrestling to name a few, those sports can indirectly have an impact for those who
compete in football, basketball or soccer.

The “specialize vs. diversify” argument usually generates a lot of passion.

There are those who espouse that there is no way a kid will get better at a sport unless he or
she plays year-round. I say nonsense. And I will continue to say nonsense to these schnooks.

Look at any random NFL or NBA media guide and you’ll see plenty of guys that played more
than one sport in high school.

I have always been of the belief that whether a kid plays one sport or three, I have no problem
as long as the kid makes the choice. Of course, there are times a youngster plays one sport and
they will say it is his or her choice but the shmuck adult in their life pressures them to play one
sport.

When a youngster gets pressured from an adult to go either direction, I have issue with that
approach.

I do, however, believe that for example if a kid is only passionate about football or soccer, he or
she should consider wrestling in the winter and running track in the spring or cross country in
the fall. I believe the coaches should similarly endorse such.

If a kid is solely passionate about basketball or wrestling, he or she should consider running
cross country in the fall or track in the spring.

Why? No. 1, there is technique overlap in football, soccer and wrestling, soccer to a lesser
degree. Also, with the possible exception of golf, every sport involves running and aerobic
conditioning, therefore it only makes sense to try cross country or track.

Now don’t get the wrong idea — if you have a kid that plays what is known as the traditional
“Big Three” by all means he should continue on that path if he so chooses.

Besides conditioning, there is also technique involved with running. It is true that there is more
technique involved with field events, and some people are more blessed with more God-given
speed than others, but improper running technique can make seconds tick away from your
stopwatch time.

Having competed in track when I was in high school, my coach was always driving the point
home the importance of 1) Looking ahead, 2) Keeping your shoulders relaxed, 3) Pumping
arms forward and backward — not laterally, 4) Push off with the balls of your feet and 5) Lift
your legs.

Competing in those sports will also sharpen an athlete’s competitive edge. With sports like cross
country and track and field, worrying about lack of potential success should not be a deterrent for
a youngster. Based on my experience, I have discovered maybe one or two kids out of every 10
where track and/or cross country is their first love.

Perhaps the best example I can give is a former Vallejo High wrestler I covered 15 years ago
named Bobby Gonzalez (135 pounds).

Gonzalez’s first love was wrestling. He placed fourth at the CIF state meet in 2002 as a junior.
When his senior year began, Gonzalez opted to compete in cross country as well as wrestling.
He did not decide to make this move because he was going to kick butt in cross country.

He did it because would have done a lot of running on his own anyhow so why not do it in a
competitive environment? Gonzalez went on to become a state champion wrestler as a senior.

True, he won the state title because he is a great wrestler, but I also am inclined to believe that
competing in cross country helped him not only from a conditioning perspective but also in
sharpening his competitive edge.

Rooney Rule is about the illusion of fairness

Do you ever have those topics where you have an opinion but never discuss at length
until there is a time-sensitive story?

Insert the Rooney Rule, which was implemented in 2003. The rule is an NFL policy
that requires teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football
operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, though there is
no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates. Variations of the rule
are now in place in other industries. The rule is named after former Pittsburgh Steelers
owner Dan Rooney, who was the chairman of the league’s diversity committee.

The rule became a heavy topic of conversation this past week after the Oakland Raiders
hired Jon Gruden as head coach to replace Jack Del Rio, who was fired after the team’s
season finale. Gruden coach from 1998-2001 with the Raiders before being traded to the
Tampa Bay Buccaneers, where he coached from 2002-2008. Gruden was an ESPN
commentator from 2009 until this past season.

The Fritz Pollard Alliance, however, believed the Raiders did not comply with the Rooney
Rule and requested the NFL investigate whether the team interviewed minority candidates
before reaching an agreement with Gruden. The FPA works to promote diversity and equal
job opportunity in the realms of coaching, front office and scouting staffs. The NFL
announced on Friday that it reviewed the hiring of Gruden and deemed that the Raiders
complied with the Rooney Rule.

Raiders general manager Reggie McKenzie interviewed two minority candidates, Bobby
Johnson and Tee Martin. The former was Oakland’s tight ends coach on Del Rio’s staff.
The latter is USC’s offensive coordinator. Perhaps the skepticism stemmed from Gruden’s
introductory press conference when Raiders owner Mark Davis indicated he met with
Gruden on Christmas Eve in Philadelphia and felt pretty confident he was “all in” after
the meeting. Gruden was broadcasting the Christmas Night game between the Eagles and
Raiders for ESPN. Despite the Raiders having interviewed Johnson and Martin, the FPA
continues to disagree with the NFL’s ruling. Had the NFL deemed the Raiders were not in
compliance with the Rooney Rule, the organization would have incurred a fine.

There are a couple things that come to mind:

The Raiders history with minorities

Former Raiders owner Al Davis, who is the father of the aforementioned Mark, was
known as a maverick. The elder Davis died in 2011.

The Raiders were hiring minority coaches long before the Rooney Rule was on anyone’s
radar. Tom Flores, who was the Raiders head coach from 1979-1987, was the first minority
coach to lead his team to the Super Bowl title. Flores, who is Mexican, accomplished that
feat twice (1980 and 1983). Art Shell, who was a Raiders Hall of Fame offensive tackle,
became the second black coach in the history of professional football but the first of the
modern era. The aforementioned Pollard, who was black, served as a player-coach for
the Hammond (Ind.) Pros from 1923-1925. Shell had two coaching stints with the
Raiders, 1989-1994 and 2006.

Davis also hired Amy Trask to be the Raiders’ CEO, which was a role she served from
1997-2013. More recently, McKenzie, who is black, was hired as the general manager in 2012.

The illusion of fairness

Though the rule appears well-intentioned, it has created unintended issues. For openers, I
think most every reasonable person is in favor of everyone regardless of gender, race, creed,
etc. having the same opportunity for a job. I hesitate to use the term “best qualified” because
such a term means different things to different people, thus it involves much subjectivity.

We have graduated past the point to where a team hiring a minority coach is news, which is
a good thing. I remember when the Raiders hiring Shell was considered a major
groundbreaking.

Those in favor of the Rooney Rule would argue that if there was no such rule, minority
coaches like Pittsburgh’s Mike Tomlin might have never gotten an interview. I don’t agree
with that argument. If you are a viable candidate, teams will find you. Plus, since hiring a
minority is more mainstream, teams are less reluctant to go that direction thus de-emphasizing
the Rooney Rule.

The cynics of the Rooney Rule point to many scenarios where the minority candidate is a token
interview just so the organization can say it went through the motions before hiring its desired
candidate. The rule only states that a team must interview a minority candidate, it does not
measure the likelihood of said candidate being hired. Which begs the question for the minority
candidate to ask, “Are you interviewing me as a coaching candidate or are you interviewing me
as a minority coaching candidate?”

The minority candidate is not stupid. They know when the are being played like a fiddle.
Problems with this rule were apparent when it was established in 2003. The Detroit Lions had
minority candidates, including an experienced one in Dennis Green turn down opportunities
for an interview because it was generally assumed the franchise would hire Steve Mariucci,
who was the San Francisco 49ers coach from 1997-2002 and a native Michigander. The Lions
ultimately hired Mariucci.

On one hand, I think the token minority interview has run its course. However, the reality is
that the rule is here to stay until further notice. I’m not saying it’s right, it’s just reality. Be
that as it may, if a minority candidate is a coordinator looking for his first head coaching job,
it behooves him to interview even if it is received he has little chance at getting the job. After
all, there are 32 teams in the NFL. Ownership is like a fraternity in that they talk amongst
themselves. Perhaps, the minority candidate is not the best for for the job he interviewed
but if he presents himself well enough, he can draw a good recommendation for another job.

Most of all, I think the Rooney Rule needs to be redefined. Is it meant to be fair to minority
candidates or is it a career networking mechanism? The same people that want the rule in
place because of perceived fairness are also the same ones that say, “the Raiders brought in
Johnson and Martin but they had no intention of hiring anyone other than Gruden so let’s
just be honest about it.”

That idea is known as talking out both sides of your mouth. You can’t have it both ways.