Shame on Arlington County HS Volleyball Coaches

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

Okay. But, that’s what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This absolutely happened with the Yorktown baseball team. The long-time varsity coach owns PrimeTime, a baseball training facility that also has its own club teams. It is well known that if you want to do well at Yorktown, you need to play (and pay) PrimeTime. This coach retired from Yorktown a year ago but this relationship went on for years. Many (most?) of the current Yorktown coaches also coach at PrimeTime and it's still a pipeline to the Yorktown team.

Instead of complaining it here, you should bring lawsuits against Yorktown Administration for doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

Okay. But, that’s what happens.

DCUM folks like to make sh_t up. No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For putting multiple 8th graders on Arlington County high school JV teams (not even freshman teams!) and bumping hardworking sophomores/juniors who now can’t play for their *actual* school.

13-year-olds shouldn’t be on a high school JV team when there are only 12 spots.

And shame on the coaches for enabling this.

Is this Yorktown?

Reports are that this happened this week. Several sophomores/juniors cut from JV and replaced by 8th and 9th graders. 9th, okay I get it. But 8th? Put them on the freshman team.

There is a group of 8th and 9th grade girls that are very good at VB and soccer. Many of these girls are also on that really good flag football team. Watch out for this to happen in soccer in the spring as well.

No dog in this fight, but this really should not be allowed - 8th graders playing on JV. I understand 9th graders playing for their home school at any level or 8th graders potentially playing on the Freshman team, but my heart goes out to the Sophomore and Junior girls who were cut and replaced by 13-year-olds. Especially when volleyball teams are small to begin with.

The Arlington Coaches should know better and do better.

Absolutely takes away from community and shows winning is everything. Disgusting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

Okay. But, that’s what happens.

DCUM folks like to make sh_t up. No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

didn't write it was a policy on that it happens...But, DCUM posters also lack reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

Okay. But, that’s what happens.

DCUM folks like to make sh_t up. No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

didn't write it was a policy on that it happens...But, DCUM posters also lack reading comprehension.

DP- you lack communication skills. You wrote pretty definitively here trying to support your argument, but you were wrong. “ JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. ”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

Okay. But, that’s what happens.

DCUM folks like to make sh_t up. No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

didn't write it was a policy on that it happens...But, DCUM posters also lack reading comprehension.

DP- you lack communication skills. You wrote pretty definitively here trying to support your argument, but you were wrong. “ JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. ”

Is it explicitly written in the VHSL or school rules?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

Okay. But, that’s what happens.

DCUM folks like to make sh_t up. No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

didn't write it was a policy on that it happens...But, DCUM posters also lack reading comprehension.

DP- you lack communication skills. You wrote pretty definitively here trying to support your argument, but you were wrong. “ JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. ”

Is it explicitly written in the VHSL or school rules?

No. What the PP stated emphatically is not a rule. It is not documented. It is their opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

If by junior year a kid is only good enough to compete against kids 1-3 years younger, it’s time to move on from any team that’s even remotely competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

Okay. But, that’s what happens.

DCUM folks like to make sh_t up. No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

The team represents the high school. The 13 year olds don’t attend the high school. Not that hard to grasp, dipstick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

Okay. But, that’s what happens.

DCUM folks like to make sh_t up. No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

The team represents the high school. The 13 year olds don’t attend the high school. Not that hard to grasp, dipstick.

It's your opinion that it represents the high school. The team also represents students from option schools and 8th graders for whom that would be their home HS. In reality it represents students in the HS boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

If by junior year a kid is only good enough to compete against kids 1-3 years younger, it’s time to move on from any team that’s even remotely competitive.

Arlington teams are not usually competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

Okay. But, that’s what happens.

DCUM folks like to make sh_t up. No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

The team represents the high school. The 13 year olds don’t attend the high school. Not that hard to grasp, dipstick.

It's your opinion that it represents the high school. The team also represents students from option schools and 8th graders for whom that would be their home HS. In reality it represents students in the HS boundary.

Or for W-L HS specifically, many athletes are the students bussed in for the IB magnet program. . . . I think this is one of the first years high school students have been bumped for 8th graders. Typically (in the past) the 8th graders from the feeder school(s) would make the high school team, as there were always open spots at the JV level. But now the high schools are larger with more students. So competition for limited spots is more intense. It’s an unfortunate problem. I don’t know if a possible solution could be worked out with VHSL or the school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors shouldn’t be playing JV.

Why not?

JV is for freshman and sophomores. Not juniors. Unless there is some weird dynamic that all the varsity players are seniors.

Because if you can't make varisty junior, then you likely won't make it as a senior (or must be at that back end of the bench as a token ). Regardless of what many think on here, playing sports has many functions with the biggest one winning. Sorry if that offends anyone here but it is the truth. Part of winning is developing players on the varsity level (that includes having talented kids playing on the JV to step up in roles on varsity). One aspect of developing players is to get kids playing experience. All things being equal if a coach has to decide between playing a sophomore or a senior that just made the team as a senior for key playing time. 98% of the time that coach is going to go with the sophomore. There is more to gain by that player getting time in key moments that can be used in future years.

No where in any policy does it state that JV is for freshmen and sophomores.

If by junior year a kid is only good enough to compete against kids 1-3 years younger, it’s time to move on from any team that’s even remotely competitive.

Arlington teams are not usually competitive.

For volleyball, within the district, and occasionally the region, they are competitive. For some of the other sports, all the APS high schools have won at the region and state levels within the past few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For putting multiple 8th graders on Arlington County high school JV teams (not even freshman teams!) and bumping hardworking sophomores/juniors who now can’t play for their *actual* school.

13-year-olds shouldn’t be on a high school JV team when there are only 12 spots.

And shame on the coaches for enabling this.

ITA. This is when many Sophomore/Junior players start recruiting and the JV high school coaches should have used more common sense.

Do many juniors who play JV and are worse than 8th graders get recruited? This is a surprise to me.

Exactly. If an 8th grader beats out a 9/10th grader, then it's an unlikely that kid will get in front of a recruiter. And what recruiters go to JV games anyway?
Full disclosure: my DD was an 8th grader on a JV softball team at YHS. I do think it's odd that they aren't restricted to the freshman team if there is one, but it just sounds like a lot of sour grapes. The 8th graders that came after my DD were a killer group and we knew that some of them would make varsity ahead of her.

NP here and I have boys who are in elementary school so I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I do try to keep up on this type of issue because mine love sports and will go to Yorktown someday.

My feeling is that these teams do not need to be (and shouldn’t be) prioritizing recruitment and winning to this extent. There are many other benefits to HS sports.

I find it sad that girls who are good enough to make a JV team but not necessarily good enough to go on to college level play are having their sports careers cut short in order for 13 year olds to make the team (who btw can already play competitive club sports and will likely make JV, varsity, and college teams if they’re “so” amazingly good to cut older players).

I will never have a daughter playing volleyball, but I am sad for the girls who were enjoying their sport, getting exercise, and felt part of a team now losing that opportunity. Do we really need to teach kids this young that they are expendable the moment someone younger/better comes along?

What next? Should we have talented middle schoolers taking spots in the HS play? Or the math team? And so on …

I think current HS kids should get to take advantage of HS programs and the MS kids will get their turn someday. Playing up to a 9th grade team could make sense in some cases, but I hate that the adults are losing track of what HS sports should be about.