The Question #2

[bigcatdaddy]

I am from the old school and it just turns me upside down when people say "He is talented but won't play much because he is a sophomore or a freshman." Since when did being an underclassman mean you get less playing time than upperclassmen, even if the underclassman is more talented. Now, I know that not all coaches see it this way, i.e. Smyrna started 2 freshmen last year and were 5A state champs. But, this does seem to be an issue with a lot of schools. /excl.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":excl:" border="0" alt="excl.gif" />

[Titanfan99]

I am from the old school and it just turns me upside down when people say "He is talented but won't play much because he is a sophomore or a freshman." Since when did being an underclassman mean you get less playing time than upperclassmen, even if the underclassman is more talented. Now, I know that not all coaches see it this way, i.e. Smyrna started 2 freshmen last year and were 5A state champs. But, this does seem to be an issue with a lot of schools. /excl.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":excl:" border="0" alt="excl.gif" />

 

The way coaching is today a coach would be crazy to play an upperclassman that didn't do as good a job as an underclassman. Also, if a team loses say the first 7 games should a coach go ahead and look to next year and get some experience for his younger players? However, the underclassman would have to be head and shoulders about the senior.

jmo

[bigcatdaddy]

The way coaching is today a coach would be crazy to play an upperclassman that didn't do as good a job as an underclassman. Also, if a team loses say the first 7 games should a coach go ahead and look to next year and get some experience for his younger players? However, the underclassman would have to be head and shoulders about the senior.

jmo

 

What if its just a head above? If they are even, then okay. I will give that much. But "better" still means better doesn't it? /popcorneater.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":popcorneater:" border="0" alt="popcorneater.gif" />

[Rebeltothecore]

Actually, performance should decide who plays. I'm sure that is what you mean by "who's better", but sometimes the better athlete is not the best performer. Then, if the Senior and the Soph (for example) are even---then the Senior should normally get the call. However, there are other circumstances that would justify the opposite (the Soph getting the call)---one being if the season is in the toilet and the coach wants to begin rebuilding by playing underclassmen. It's a difficult subject and can only be answered by considering all the circumstances.

Good topic----interesting to hear different opinions.

[AC44]

i was a 4 year starter for my highschool i started over 2 seniors at my position on both sides of the ball and never came out of the game and bled for my team ,,,i hear these kids today say they dont get to play because they are a underclassman i think that is bull !!! i beleive that the best player should play regaurdless of age or seniority,if the coach tells you that your not better than the person in front of you and its based on talent not age,if the coach only plays upperclassmen and doesnt see raw talent he needs to be let go

[BatmanDB]

I am from the old school and it just turns me upside down when people say "He is talented but won't play much because he is a sophomore or a freshman." Since when did being an underclassman mean you get less playing time than upperclassmen, even if the underclassman is more talented. Now, I know that not all coaches see it this way, i.e. Smyrna started 2 freshmen last year and were 5A state champs. But, this does seem to be an issue with a lot of schools. /excl.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":excl:" border="0" alt="excl.gif" />

 

I'd put who gives me the best chance to win in the game.Most of the time it is the senior who has been in the system much longer,but not in all cases.I'd reward as many players as I could with playing time,but only when the time was right ....