Football 'n' Politics 'n' You

An argument for, and a way to, bring JV football back to the college level

Ah, Junior Varsity Football...  No cheerleaders, limited concessions, bored upper classmen manning the chain gang and scoreboard, referees in mis-matched shorts, friends (maybe) and family only in the stands,  assistant coaches managing the game, and every, every one the players absolutely loving every precious second of the contest.  --Having the chance to wear game uniforms, hearing their name announced to the 'crowd', playing on the game field, and competing against someone, anyone, other than their upper classmen brethren while toiling on the scout squad.

Readers of a certain age (okay, mine) were amongst the last to have had the chance to play college football when a significant number of NCAA Division I and Division II programs still maintained Junior Varsity teams.  Playing on the JV did wonders for the morale and experience level of participating players and provided coaches with an effective lever for managing player behavior off the field; as coaches could withhold JV playing time - which meant everything to the players, while the outcomes of the games were largely immaterial to the coaching staff - for poor performance in the classroom, or the weight room, or out in the community.

Back in the day, Junior Varsity teams most often played other JV teams (duh), Junior College teams or post-secondary prep teams.  The contests between one to two and four-year schools were a boon to recruiting, as both recruited player and recruiting coaching staff had the opportunity to evaluate the other at close range.  In addition to more traditional match-ups, from time to time the JV squads of Division I schools would play or scrimmage the varsity teams of NAIA or Division III schools.  These games tested the maturity of talented Division I players and the talent of mature Division III players; benefiting and providing a memorable experiences for both.

Given the above, and the relatively small (for Division I programs, basically negligible) cost of JV programs - why have they gone the way of the dodo?, or at least the giant panda?

The answer lies is the limits on squad size adopted by many colleges and universities as part of their efforts to comply with Title IX.  Imagine you are the Grand Vizier of a college or university football program.  You have 100 roster spots, as mandated by your athletic department in order to comply with Title IX.  Since you play two-platoon football, and you would never risk any of your first or second team (at a minimum) players in a JV game, 48 of those on the roster (including punters and kickers) would not play on the JV.  In addition, you have approximately 20 red-shirts, who are not eligible to play in any contest, whether Varsity or Junior Varsity.  That gets you up to 68 players on your 100 man roster whom you would not or could not play on the JV, leaving you with only 32 JV players.  Since you need 24 just to fill out a first team, it is pretty obvious you aren't going to want to schedule too many, if any at all, JV games.  And, since you are not the only Grand Vizier in your conference confronting these issues, and since many of your peers will decide to fold up their JV programs all together, you are pretty likely to decide the same.

What's the solution?  (Well, don't get me started regarding two-platoon versus one-platoon stuff - that is a subject for another blog.)  The simplest answer would be to allow red-shirted players to participate on JV teams.  Using our parable above, that one change gets us to 52 JV-eligible players, more than enough to field a viable squad.  Allowing red-shirted players to participate would also improve their focus and alleviate some of the tedium, and consequent lack of discipline, that can accompany a year of in-eligibility.  Also, I cannot honestly think of one reason why red-shirts shouldn't be allowed to participate in JV-level games; so, why not?

Next time on this blog -- toward a play-off system for NCAA Division I Football.

Letting the players call the plays...

The last article in this space suggested that a return to one-platoon football might be an option for some colleges and universities (acting in concert) looking for a creative way to comply with Title IX while preserving non-revenue men's sports and without breaking the bank.  Among the posited additional benefits accruing to participant colleges and universities were:  fewer injuries, a niche for 'tweener sized football players, less social distance between student bodies and football teams, and, for the players, potentially higher football IQ's.

This article expands on that last point and suggests that if folks were to establish such a one-platoon football conference, they might want to go an extra step and adopt rules discouraging direction of the game from coaches on the sideline and instead encouraging that players themselves manage the game and call a majority of the plays.

DISCOURAGING GAME MANAGEMENT BY COACHES 

The adoption of imited subsitution rules, such as allowing substitution - in the absence of injury - only on change of possession and stipulating that all substitutions remain in place for some number of series, would prevent coaches from sending plays into the game by shuttling players in and out as messengers.  A concurrent reduction of the time allowed between plays from the current 40 or 25 seconds in the college game to say 30 or 15 seconds would likely be sufficient to prevent coaches from trying to signal in a play to the quarterback, have the quarterback then repeat theplay to the team in a huddle, and then line up and execute the play; and, while a coach signalling to the entire team, without a huddle, would remain a possibility, it is likely that most coaches would find it easier, given the time constraints, to let the quarterback call the plays as most teams do while in their hurry-up offense.

(Of course, under the above scenario, defensive coaches could continue to signal defenses in from the sideline; but whereas defensive tempo - and alignment and stunt, gap and coverage responsibilities - are often dictated by the pace and alignment of the offense; it is reasonable to predict that some, if not most, defensive coaches would choose under a continuous 'hurry-up scenario' to signal in only a base defense, thereby leaving checks and adjustments to players.)

BENEFITS OF PLAYERS CALLING THE PLAYS

In addition to being an interesting wrinkle for our imaginary one-platoon conference, the advent (or return, if you like) of having players call the plays would likely have some additional benefits for players, coaches and participant institutions alike:

    For the players, the pace and strain of playing both ways (offense and defense) in a continous hurry-up mode would likely dictate substitution en-masse by quarter or after multiple possessions, as the rules would allow.  The result would be a high percentage of participation by the relatively small one-platoon roster.  (See my previous article for more information regarding roster size in our imaginary one-platoon conference.)  Also, players called upon to decide what plays to run, or to accept without question the decisions of their peers, would need to be exposed to, and most likely involved in, game-plan formation.  The result would be a team whose members gain a broader understanding of football than that garnered by their non-play-calling counterparts.

    For coaches, a uniquely rewarding aspect of coaching in our imaginary conference would be the challenge of imbuing teams with appropriate elements of leadership, follower-ship (itself a key component of leadership) and an understanding of both strategic and tactical thinking.  Coaches would be called upon not so much to win a chess match on Saturday; but to teach the game, and game management, during the week of practice.

    For participant colleges and universies, the benefits of having players call the plays, manage their own game, and therefore learn how to apply critical thinking and to function as a group in periods of stress, elation and routine, should be obvious.  The mission of extra-curricular activities is, after all, to prepare participants for life after college and to impart learning not suited to classroom instruction.

So, anyhow, now there are two thoughts on this site.  I would love to hear any and all comments on either or both. 

Here's a thought for a select few - Bring back one platoon football

Here's a thought for a select few college and university athletics departments out there:  bring back single platoon, or limited substitution, football.

University athletic departments facing the difficult choice of having to either cut football, reduce the number of men's sports being offered, or continually add new women's sports in order to comply with Title IX may wish to consider banding together to form a 'single-platoon football conference.'  Participating schools would be able to half, or nearly half, the size of their football teams, coaching, training and equipment staffs, travel expenses and so on.  Those savings would reduce the disparity between dollars spent on male versus female sports and free up dollars for either retaining men's sports or adding women's sports without breaking the bank.

Single platoon football would likely also result in fewer injuries as the size difference between players would be reduced with players conditioned to play full games and to be equally effective on both offense and defense.  Overall single platoon players would be smaller than their two platoon cousins, providing a spot for those 6'0", 205 lb 'tweeners that used to figure prominately in college football.  As a result, social distance between football players and the student bodies'of participating colleges and universities might be reduced.  (Also interesting to consider, single platoon players, compelled to learn at least one offensive and one defensive position, may end up with higher 'football IQ's' than two platoon players, who sometimes learn everything there is to know about their single, highly specialized, position, but precious little about any other.)

Anyway that's the thought.  It may offer an option for colleges and universities who wish to field a football team while complying with Title IX and offering other men's and women's sports, all without breaking the bank.  Next time on this blog - 'In defense of letting the players (not the coaches) call the plays.'