Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had read this thread before accepting Club P’s offer last October. It’s just February, and I’m paying $1,000+ per month while my DD has been benched in most tournaments so far. Part of me wants to encourage my DD to leave the club to save the time and money spent on tournaments, but I know the decision has to be hers. She’s okay with things so far and is hoping for more playing time over the next three months, though I’m not sure that will actually happen. I’m not sure why the club offered my DD a spot if they don’t seem interested in developing her as a player. We feel like we’re just paying fees to support the coaches’ stipends and help cover costs for other players. Part of me wishes my DD would say she wants to stop for the rest of the season. Then at least I wouldn’t have to go to tournaments just to see her on the sidelines, make sure she’s okay, and pretend that I’m handling it all emotionally. Next year, I’ll be sure to check that the roster isn’t larger than 12, that coaches are assigned ahead of time, and that I know who they are. Playing time is very important for players’ confidence and team spirit. Even on a winning team, if some players don’t get meaningful playing time, it can impact everyone—both the benched players and their teammates—because the disappointment and frustration affect team morale. Here’s hoping I survive the next four months without hating this club and its coaches too much .

I think I know what club you are talking about. The club practices like you play, but plays to win at tournaments and will put forth their best players. I have been to the past two tournaments and seen half of the team on the sidelines. It's great to win medals, but not great if your DD is not playing. It's a very long weekend just to clap and cheer.

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had read this thread before accepting Club P’s offer last October. It’s just February, and I’m paying $1,000+ per month while my DD has been benched in most tournaments so far. Part of me wants to encourage my DD to leave the club to save the time and money spent on tournaments, but I know the decision has to be hers. She’s okay with things so far and is hoping for more playing time over the next three months, though I’m not sure that will actually happen. I’m not sure why the club offered my DD a spot if they don’t seem interested in developing her as a player. We feel like we’re just paying fees to support the coaches’ stipends and help cover costs for other players. Part of me wishes my DD would say she wants to stop for the rest of the season. Then at least I wouldn’t have to go to tournaments just to see her on the sidelines, make sure she’s okay, and pretend that I’m handling it all emotionally. Next year, I’ll be sure to check that the roster isn’t larger than 12, that coaches are assigned ahead of time, and that I know who they are. Playing time is very important for players’ confidence and team spirit. Even on a winning team, if some players don’t get meaningful playing time, it can impact everyone—both the benched players and their teammates—because the disappointment and frustration affect team morale. Here’s hoping I survive the next four months without hating this club and its coaches too much .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should play at least half a rotation for one set per game. Ideally, you should also get at least one rotation per set.

That's a low bar, but some clubs would claim that you played 100%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should play at least half a rotation for one set per game. Ideally, you should also get at least one rotation per set.

This is a lot to ask for at the highest levels of competition.

Anonymous wrote:You should play at least half a rotation for one set per game. Ideally, you should also get at least one rotation per set.

Anonymous wrote:You should play at least half a rotation for one set per game. Ideally, you should also get at least one rotation per set.

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had read this thread before accepting Club P’s offer last October. It’s just February, and I’m paying $1,000+ per month while my DD has been benched in most tournaments so far. Part of me wants to encourage my DD to leave the club to save the time and money spent on tournaments, but I know the decision has to be hers. She’s okay with things so far and is hoping for more playing time over the next three months, though I’m not sure that will actually happen. I’m not sure why the club offered my DD a spot if they don’t seem interested in developing her as a player. We feel like we’re just paying fees to support the coaches’ stipends and help cover costs for other players. Part of me wishes my DD would say she wants to stop for the rest of the season. Then at least I wouldn’t have to go to tournaments just to see her on the sidelines, make sure she’s okay, and pretend that I’m handling it all emotionally. Next year, I’ll be sure to check that the roster isn’t larger than 12, that coaches are assigned ahead of time, and that I know who they are. Playing time is very important for players’ confidence and team spirit. Even on a winning team, if some players don’t get meaningful playing time, it can impact everyone—both the benched players and their teammates—because the disappointment and frustration affect team morale. Here’s hoping I survive the next four months without hating this club and its coaches too much .

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just out of curiosity: how do you do research on individual coaches? We tried doing that numerous times with extremely limited success. Some coaches have a short bio on the club website, which is rarely useful. You are lucky if you find any info outside the club website. If you stay in the same club, you can use the word of mouth (this was more successful for us). But this is mission impossible if you decide to jump ships. It is even more complicated when you get on a bottom level team, where the club doesn't even know who the coach is going to be. Even clubs like MOCO don't have all their ducks in a row at the tryouts - they know who will coach teams 1 and 2, but they will tell you that the 3rd team coach could not come to the parent meeting (which could be read as "we have no clue who will coach that team"). Clubs closer to the bottom have even more problems attracting and retaining coaches.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.