Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question of play time came up at a MOCO parent meeting and the answer was confusing. Coach Paul said that a team of 12 players (as they have in MOCO) ensures that players get 100% court time. Someone in the audience questioned the percentage because you only have 6 players on the court at a time. In an ideal situation, when you sub all the players in to give everyone equal play time, each player would play 50% of the game (not 100%). But it is unrealistic to believe that the play time can be evenly divided. Each team has a couple of star players who stay on the court, so those may get to play 100% of each game. That arrangement will cut the play time of some other players to well below 50%.

Exactly. Play time is never completely even, and there's no way for 12 girls to be on court all the time. Play time will vary, and based on a range of things from team to team and club to club.

You are right playing time is never equal. But with 12 players you can easily get all players into every match if the coach chooses to do so. Typical lineups are a minimum of 7 players with libero. Most teams run 8-9 player rotations. That leaves 3-4 players to get into a match which is very easy to do by making switches in the starting lineup and/or sub pattern. Even easier if you go three sets. So 100% match participation is possible.

No one promises 100% set participation, because it nearly impossible unless you have a perfect mix of positions.

If you are concerned about playing time, asking questions of the coach/club leadership is always a good idea before hand. Most top level teams will answer “playing time is earned”, but the ones that care about playing time will usually follow it up with what a reasonable expectation is in terms of matches/sets played.

You can also ask for HUDL stats on matches/set participation. Any club that has a playing time focus should be able to give it to you. We’ve had the numbers shared in parent meetings, even for top teams.

What no club will promise is equal playing time in terms of points on court. Besides being hard to measure, it’s impossible to control. Sometimes you get stuck in a rotation for a lot of points. Coaches with playing time consideration will often try to even things out in another set or match as best they can.

So you mean that the 100% coach Paul mentioned was a guarantee that each player will play in each game? That is doable, indeed, but is quite meaningless. With a libero on the court, a DS may only get on the court 2/6 rotations. The club can claim that the player played in the game (with a participation in 100% of the games), but the player didn't really see a lot of court time, especially for a non-starter. Now, if that player only plays the second set, the game participation stays at 100%, but the court time goes even lower. I think claiming 100% participation in games is a pretty meaningless metric.

If you think match participation is meaningless, watch a few varsity matches. It’s not unusual to see 2-3 players on a 12 person roster (5-6 on 15 player rosters) never come into a match.

There is a big, meaningful difference between not playing in a match and playing your position for at least 1 set in a match.

All coaches know volleyball is a positional sport where certain positions generally aren’t in for more than 3/6 rotations (MB, DS excluding the libero). And all positions have a front row/back row option where you can run a 6-2 and get 2 setters in, DS for your OHs or run a 5-1 and DS your right side. If you do all that, you can get 12 players in a set and playing 50% if the roster is perfectly formed (which is very rare, you generally need more hitters than that). But you will run out of subs at some point. Most clubs with a playing time focus choose to play 8-10 players in a set and then rotate the lineup for the second set.

As a result, the average playing time for a player on any team of 10 or more is below 50%. Unfortunately sometimes parents, especially new ones, don’t know this.

FYI, there are lots of ways to get a DS into the game for 3/6 rotations, even with a libero on the court. You can actually get 3 DS in for 3/6 rotations even with a libero by having the DS come in for the OHs and RS and serve for them.

What the coach was likely saying is that the club tries to get players into every match. To do that they usually rotate the starting lineup and sub patterns across sets.

Most parents would consider that a reasonable, meaningful commitment to playing time. And for the top teams in the region it would be very meaningful, especially since some clubs are know for putting players in for just a few rotations in entire tournaments.

Thank you for the suggestion. I watched varsity games and college-level games and I am completely aware that some players don't see the court. However, the situation is different with club: parents pay a lot of money to give their kids opportunities. If they receive an offer to play on a team, they should be able to assume that their player is at the level of that team and they will see the court. They have no way of knowing who else is on the team: the only person with that information is a club owner or the coach.

Glad we agree. I don’t think any player should be sitting on the bench for most/all of a tournament in club volleyball. Other parents are OK with it.

You can know ahead of time what the situation likely is though:
-The club can tell you their playing time policy and provide stats to back it up if you need proof
- A good coach will usually tell the family if the players is likely to have a limited role at the time of the offer. Then families can make their own call.
- You can ask the coach who has been offered or accepted prior to accepting your offer. A coach that doesn’t provide that info could be a red flag.

Just remember that the average player on a team plays less than 50%. If you want to play more you need to be the top player in your position on the team, which means potentially playing for a lower team to get more playing time. That isn’t inherently a bad or good thing, it’s a personal decision. But a lot of parents and players get caught up in the “best club” and “best team” hype and it can lead to a bad decision.

Anonymous wrote:This is why parents should ask coaches when they’re offered a spot if their will get playing time.
I literally did this when my U14 DD got offered a spot on a travel soccer team. I don’t care if she plays the whole game but she needs to be playing close to half the game or this isn’t the right team for us.
Too many parents care too much about the name of the team, or league their kid is in.
DD will try out for HS soccer next year. I’ll ask tbat coach the same thing. If she’s not playing in games we’re not wasting our time.

Coaches are not always honest and sometimes lie about all sorts of things to get players to commit to the team. We had that experience last year on a club team, as did many other players. All sorts of promises were made in those initial calls during tryout weekend. Our lesson was to do a lot of research on the coach, if at all possible. Individual coaches are so much more important than the name of the team.

This is why parents should ask coaches when they’re offered a spot if their will get playing time.
I literally did this when my U14 DD got offered a spot on a travel soccer team. I don’t care if she plays the whole game but she needs to be playing close to half the game or this isn’t the right team for us.
Too many parents care too much about the name of the team, or league their kid is in.
DD will try out for HS soccer next year. I’ll ask tbat coach the same thing. If she’s not playing in games we’re not wasting our time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question of play time came up at a MOCO parent meeting and the answer was confusing. Coach Paul said that a team of 12 players (as they have in MOCO) ensures that players get 100% court time. Someone in the audience questioned the percentage because you only have 6 players on the court at a time. In an ideal situation, when you sub all the players in to give everyone equal play time, each player would play 50% of the game (not 100%). But it is unrealistic to believe that the play time can be evenly divided. Each team has a couple of star players who stay on the court, so those may get to play 100% of each game. That arrangement will cut the play time of some other players to well below 50%.

Exactly. Play time is never completely even, and there's no way for 12 girls to be on court all the time. Play time will vary, and based on a range of things from team to team and club to club.

You are right playing time is never equal. But with 12 players you can easily get all players into every match if the coach chooses to do so. Typical lineups are a minimum of 7 players with libero. Most teams run 8-9 player rotations. That leaves 3-4 players to get into a match which is very easy to do by making switches in the starting lineup and/or sub pattern. Even easier if you go three sets. So 100% match participation is possible.

No one promises 100% set participation, because it nearly impossible unless you have a perfect mix of positions.

If you are concerned about playing time, asking questions of the coach/club leadership is always a good idea before hand. Most top level teams will answer “playing time is earned”, but the ones that care about playing time will usually follow it up with what a reasonable expectation is in terms of matches/sets played.

You can also ask for HUDL stats on matches/set participation. Any club that has a playing time focus should be able to give it to you. We’ve had the numbers shared in parent meetings, even for top teams.

What no club will promise is equal playing time in terms of points on court. Besides being hard to measure, it’s impossible to control. Sometimes you get stuck in a rotation for a lot of points. Coaches with playing time consideration will often try to even things out in another set or match as best they can.

So you mean that the 100% coach Paul mentioned was a guarantee that each player will play in each game? That is doable, indeed, but is quite meaningless. With a libero on the court, a DS may only get on the court 2/6 rotations. The club can claim that the player played in the game (with a participation in 100% of the games), but the player didn't really see a lot of court time, especially for a non-starter. Now, if that player only plays the second set, the game participation stays at 100%, but the court time goes even lower. I think claiming 100% participation in games is a pretty meaningless metric.

If you think match participation is meaningless, watch a few varsity matches. It’s not unusual to see 2-3 players on a 12 person roster (5-6 on 15 player rosters) never come into a match.

There is a big, meaningful difference between not playing in a match and playing your position for at least 1 set in a match.

All coaches know volleyball is a positional sport where certain positions generally aren’t in for more than 3/6 rotations (MB, DS excluding the libero). And all positions have a front row/back row option where you can run a 6-2 and get 2 setters in, DS for your OHs or run a 5-1 and DS your right side. If you do all that, you can get 12 players in a set and playing 50% if the roster is perfectly formed (which is very rare, you generally need more hitters than that). But you will run out of subs at some point. Most clubs with a playing time focus choose to play 8-10 players in a set and then rotate the lineup for the second set.

As a result, the average playing time for a player on any team of 10 or more is below 50%. Unfortunately sometimes parents, especially new ones, don’t know this.

FYI, there are lots of ways to get a DS into the game for 3/6 rotations, even with a libero on the court. You can actually get 3 DS in for 3/6 rotations even with a libero by having the DS come in for the OHs and RS and serve for them.

What the coach was likely saying is that the club tries to get players into every match. To do that they usually rotate the starting lineup and sub patterns across sets.

Most parents would consider that a reasonable, meaningful commitment to playing time. And for the top teams in the region it would be very meaningful, especially since some clubs are know for putting players in for just a few rotations in entire tournaments.

Thank you for the suggestion. I watched varsity games and college-level games and I am completely aware that some players don't see the court. However, the situation is different with club: parents pay a lot of money to give their kids opportunities. If they receive an offer to play on a team, they should be able to assume that their player is at the level of that team and they will see the court. They have no way of knowing who else is on the team: the only person with that information is a club owner or the coach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question of play time came up at a MOCO parent meeting and the answer was confusing. Coach Paul said that a team of 12 players (as they have in MOCO) ensures that players get 100% court time. Someone in the audience questioned the percentage because you only have 6 players on the court at a time. In an ideal situation, when you sub all the players in to give everyone equal play time, each player would play 50% of the game (not 100%). But it is unrealistic to believe that the play time can be evenly divided. Each team has a couple of star players who stay on the court, so those may get to play 100% of each game. That arrangement will cut the play time of some other players to well below 50%.

Exactly. Play time is never completely even, and there's no way for 12 girls to be on court all the time. Play time will vary, and based on a range of things from team to team and club to club.

You are right playing time is never equal. But with 12 players you can easily get all players into every match if the coach chooses to do so. Typical lineups are a minimum of 7 players with libero. Most teams run 8-9 player rotations. That leaves 3-4 players to get into a match which is very easy to do by making switches in the starting lineup and/or sub pattern. Even easier if you go three sets. So 100% match participation is possible.

No one promises 100% set participation, because it nearly impossible unless you have a perfect mix of positions.

If you are concerned about playing time, asking questions of the coach/club leadership is always a good idea before hand. Most top level teams will answer “playing time is earned”, but the ones that care about playing time will usually follow it up with what a reasonable expectation is in terms of matches/sets played.

You can also ask for HUDL stats on matches/set participation. Any club that has a playing time focus should be able to give it to you. We’ve had the numbers shared in parent meetings, even for top teams.

What no club will promise is equal playing time in terms of points on court. Besides being hard to measure, it’s impossible to control. Sometimes you get stuck in a rotation for a lot of points. Coaches with playing time consideration will often try to even things out in another set or match as best they can.

So you mean that the 100% coach Paul mentioned was a guarantee that each player will play in each game? That is doable, indeed, but is quite meaningless. With a libero on the court, a DS may only get on the court 2/6 rotations. The club can claim that the player played in the game (with a participation in 100% of the games), but the player didn't really see a lot of court time, especially for a non-starter. Now, if that player only plays the second set, the game participation stays at 100%, but the court time goes even lower. I think claiming 100% participation in games is a pretty meaningless metric.

If you think match participation is meaningless, watch a few varsity matches. It’s not unusual to see 2-3 players on a 12 person roster (5-6 on 15 player rosters) never come into a match.

There is a big, meaningful difference between not playing in a match and playing your position for at least 1 set in a match.

All coaches know volleyball is a positional sport where certain positions generally aren’t in for more than 3/6 rotations (MB, DS excluding the libero). And all positions have a front row/back row option where you can run a 6-2 and get 2 setters in, DS for your OHs or run a 5-1 and DS your right side. If you do all that, you can get 12 players in a set and playing 50% if the roster is perfectly formed (which is very rare, you generally need more hitters than that). But you will run out of subs at some point. Most clubs with a playing time focus choose to play 8-10 players in a set and then rotate the lineup for the second set.

As a result, the average playing time for a player on any team of 10 or more is below 50%. Unfortunately sometimes parents, especially new ones, don’t know this.

FYI, there are lots of ways to get a DS into the game for 3/6 rotations, even with a libero on the court. You can actually get 3 DS in for 3/6 rotations even with a libero by having the DS come in for the OHs and RS and serve for them.

What the coach was likely saying is that the club tries to get players into every match. To do that they usually rotate the starting lineup and sub patterns across sets.

Most parents would consider that a reasonable, meaningful commitment to playing time. And for the top teams in the region it would be very meaningful, especially since some clubs are know for putting players in for just a few rotations in entire tournaments.

For a player new to the team/club, coaches may see good potential during the clinics/try-outs (or pick someone because of height), but once the games start, that player just isn't getting it done. They are likely to see more bench time than originally anticipated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question of play time came up at a MOCO parent meeting and the answer was confusing. Coach Paul said that a team of 12 players (as they have in MOCO) ensures that players get 100% court time. Someone in the audience questioned the percentage because you only have 6 players on the court at a time. In an ideal situation, when you sub all the players in to give everyone equal play time, each player would play 50% of the game (not 100%). But it is unrealistic to believe that the play time can be evenly divided. Each team has a couple of star players who stay on the court, so those may get to play 100% of each game. That arrangement will cut the play time of some other players to well below 50%.

Exactly. Play time is never completely even, and there's no way for 12 girls to be on court all the time. Play time will vary, and based on a range of things from team to team and club to club.

You are right playing time is never equal. But with 12 players you can easily get all players into every match if the coach chooses to do so. Typical lineups are a minimum of 7 players with libero. Most teams run 8-9 player rotations. That leaves 3-4 players to get into a match which is very easy to do by making switches in the starting lineup and/or sub pattern. Even easier if you go three sets. So 100% match participation is possible.

No one promises 100% set participation, because it nearly impossible unless you have a perfect mix of positions.

If you are concerned about playing time, asking questions of the coach/club leadership is always a good idea before hand. Most top level teams will answer “playing time is earned”, but the ones that care about playing time will usually follow it up with what a reasonable expectation is in terms of matches/sets played.

You can also ask for HUDL stats on matches/set participation. Any club that has a playing time focus should be able to give it to you. We’ve had the numbers shared in parent meetings, even for top teams.

What no club will promise is equal playing time in terms of points on court. Besides being hard to measure, it’s impossible to control. Sometimes you get stuck in a rotation for a lot of points. Coaches with playing time consideration will often try to even things out in another set or match as best they can.

So you mean that the 100% coach Paul mentioned was a guarantee that each player will play in each game? That is doable, indeed, but is quite meaningless. With a libero on the court, a DS may only get on the court 2/6 rotations. The club can claim that the player played in the game (with a participation in 100% of the games), but the player didn't really see a lot of court time, especially for a non-starter. Now, if that player only plays the second set, the game participation stays at 100%, but the court time goes even lower. I think claiming 100% participation in games is a pretty meaningless metric.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question of play time came up at a MOCO parent meeting and the answer was confusing. Coach Paul said that a team of 12 players (as they have in MOCO) ensures that players get 100% court time. Someone in the audience questioned the percentage because you only have 6 players on the court at a time. In an ideal situation, when you sub all the players in to give everyone equal play time, each player would play 50% of the game (not 100%). But it is unrealistic to believe that the play time can be evenly divided. Each team has a couple of star players who stay on the court, so those may get to play 100% of each game. That arrangement will cut the play time of some other players to well below 50%.

Exactly. Play time is never completely even, and there's no way for 12 girls to be on court all the time. Play time will vary, and based on a range of things from team to team and club to club.

You are right playing time is never equal. But with 12 players you can easily get all players into every match if the coach chooses to do so. Typical lineups are a minimum of 7 players with libero. Most teams run 8-9 player rotations. That leaves 3-4 players to get into a match which is very easy to do by making switches in the starting lineup and/or sub pattern. Even easier if you go three sets. So 100% match participation is possible.

No one promises 100% set participation, because it nearly impossible unless you have a perfect mix of positions.

If you are concerned about playing time, asking questions of the coach/club leadership is always a good idea before hand. Most top level teams will answer “playing time is earned”, but the ones that care about playing time will usually follow it up with what a reasonable expectation is in terms of matches/sets played.

You can also ask for HUDL stats on matches/set participation. Any club that has a playing time focus should be able to give it to you. We’ve had the numbers shared in parent meetings, even for top teams.

What no club will promise is equal playing time in terms of points on court. Besides being hard to measure, it’s impossible to control. Sometimes you get stuck in a rotation for a lot of points. Coaches with playing time consideration will often try to even things out in another set or match as best they can.

If you have 12 kids on a team, you could set it up so you have two different lineups, with the better lineup playing the first set and the lesser lineup playing the second set. The better lineup can come back in for the third tiebreaker set. That’s one way to give everyone equal playing time. I doubt anyone would stick to that but it is possible, especially in developmental teams.

Anonymous wrote:The question of play time came up at a MOCO parent meeting and the answer was confusing. Coach Paul said that a team of 12 players (as they have in MOCO) ensures that players get 100% court time. Someone in the audience questioned the percentage because you only have 6 players on the court at a time. In an ideal situation, when you sub all the players in to give everyone equal play time, each player would play 50% of the game (not 100%). But it is unrealistic to believe that the play time can be evenly divided. Each team has a couple of star players who stay on the court, so those may get to play 100% of each game. That arrangement will cut the play time of some other players to well below 50%.

Exactly. Play time is never completely even, and there's no way for 12 girls to be on court all the time. Play time will vary, and based on a range of things from team to team and club to club.

The question of play time came up at a MOCO parent meeting and the answer was confusing. Coach Paul said that a team of 12 players (as they have in MOCO) ensures that players get 100% court time. Someone in the audience questioned the percentage because you only have 6 players on the court at a time. In an ideal situation, when you sub all the players in to give everyone equal play time, each player would play 50% of the game (not 100%). But it is unrealistic to believe that the play time can be evenly divided. Each team has a couple of star players who stay on the court, so those may get to play 100% of each game. That arrangement will cut the play time of some other players to well below 50%.

New this year for club are three extra subs per set (max of 15 now). For clubs that care about playing time for players, that should help players get more court time. Clubs/teams that only run lineups of 7-10 players but carry 13+ on the roster won't see much difference at all though.

Even at the top CHRVA levels (top 15 teams or so) there is a wide variation in playtime philosophies. You can be on a great team that makes sure everyone plays, or you can be on a great team that doesn't care about individual player playing time. Roster size does influence it and rosters of 13-15 players make it very difficult to get everyone meaningful playing time. But even teams of 11-12 players can have issues if the club's philosophy is that its OK for players to spend most of the tournament on the bench. Its up to the player and the family to determine if they are OK with that philosophy. FYI, there are a number of very good teams/clubs where everyone does play regularly on those top teams. It won't be an even split between all players but it will be significantly more than you would see at clubs who don't focus on it.

IMHO, if you aren't at that level there is little reason to play on a team where you aren't going to see the court. Lots of research supports the fact that playing time in game situations matters for player development. Sitting on the bench on a mid-level team won't do much for you and could just lead to frustration that ultimately leads to leaving the sport.

Good coaches are usually very clear about what their playing time philosophy is and what a player needs to do to play. Its one of the best questions you can ask prior to tryouts in fall clinics.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that clubs share some of the blame here. Clubs should be forthcoming about the level of a team and where the player fits in. That said, with so many girls trying out these days, it’s a little surprising that clubs would be offering spots to players that aren’t at the same level as the rest of the team.

For clubs that aren’t super competitive, one thing they should do is limit roster size to a max of 12, and 10/11 would be even better. With 6 players plus a libero in the lineup at any given time, having a smaller bench of 4-5 players that need to get playing time is a lot easier.

For newer players/families, look for clubs/teams that have some amount of guaranteed playing time. While not perfect, clubs that claim to have this generally at least make some effort to get everyone into matches.

Maybe they offer those spots to players that are are at the same level as the rest of the team, but those players decide to accept a different offer. Now the club Has the option to offer the spot to an alternate (who may not be at the same level), pull someone up from the team #2 (who - again - may not be at the same level), or limit the roster size. Limiting the roster size does not make sense financially, so you may end up with a weaker player on the top team roster.

I agree that clubs share some of the blame here. Clubs should be forthcoming about the level of a team and where the player fits in. That said, with so many girls trying out these days, it’s a little surprising that clubs would be offering spots to players that aren’t at the same level as the rest of the team.

For clubs that aren’t super competitive, one thing they should do is limit roster size to a max of 12, and 10/11 would be even better. With 6 players plus a libero in the lineup at any given time, having a smaller bench of 4-5 players that need to get playing time is a lot easier.

For newer players/families, look for clubs/teams that have some amount of guaranteed playing time. While not perfect, clubs that claim to have this generally at least make some effort to get everyone into matches.

I see players being benched both on our team and on other teams. In many cases I feel sorry for the benched players, but especially for their parents, who would travel to tournaments to see their kids riding the bench.

But - if you think about it - is it really the players' fault that they end up being benched? It is easy to think that they don't have the same skill level as other players on the same team, so they should play less or just ride the bench. Maybe they don't work so hard, so they are left behind. In some cases (see Metro or Paramount), they know what they are getting into. They know who the other players on the team are and are probably aware that they would play only in case one of the starters gets injured. But things are different on most other teams. Players accept an offer without really knowing who else made the team. They don't know that better players were also offered spots on the roster for the same position. They end up on a team where they have no chance of playing by no fault of their own.

I would argue that the coach who selects their team during tryouts has some responsibility in offering viable spots to all players. It is easy for coaches to say that the court time is earned and avoid responsibility for poor decisions during tryouts. If a player is not good enough for the team they are offered a position on, this is a poor club / coach decision. If the bench is too deep for players to play in tournaments, that's another poor club / coach decision. We cannot only blame the benched players for the situation they are in. Coaches and clubs need to take some responsibility for their tryout decisions as well. Families pour a lot of money into club volleyball and it is not fair to travel to tournaments and see your kids benched.

To avoid any "appeal to motive" questioning, I will say that my DD was relatively lucky so far with her court time. She was never a star player on any of her teams, but she got decent play time anyway (her position was never crowded). But I've seen players on the team who were clearly out of their league and - of course - they were benched most of the time. You could say that they were fairly benched because they were not playing at the same level as the other players on the team. But again: they had no idea who else was going to be on the team when they accepted the offer. Their parents were upset that they pay so much money to see their players sitting on the bench in a club that is clearly more developmental than competitive. They won't return to this club for the next season and they are warning others about their experience. The club ends up with poor retention and poor reputation.