Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

Agreed. Even parents on less competitive or developmental teams want to win. It’s far too simplistic to think the answer is setter 1 plays set 1, setter 2 plays set 2, and so on. It’s a nice thought in theory, but then reality sets in. Even within the same team, parents and players will have very different views of who the team should aspire to be. It’s all complicated and competitive, even in places you would expect to be focused on development. Such is life these days in many places?

Here is an easy way out for the club: if setter 2 is not competitive enough to play, then don't make an offer. Or even better: don't place on the roster any player who is only good enough to ride the bench. Stop blaming the parents and the players. They suffer the consequences of poor club decisions during tryouts.

A club needs more than 1 setter, for example. It makes sense that a club would offer a setter that may not be as good as the other setter and hope that through practice and some game time she will improve. And if the option for setter 2 is riding the bench or not making a team, she may choose to ride the bench.

I personally think that all the players should get playtime during the seeding games at tournaments but not during the playoff brackets. And I don’t know how players or families know which teams are developmental and which ones aren’t. I do think parents and players should familiarize themselves with volleyball rotations and realize that certain positions will always have less playtime than other positions.

For several years now, I see the same Metro players on the court and the same players riding the bench. They clearly know what they are getting into and they are fine. On the other hand, families new to volleyball don't know what they are getting into and it is unreasonable to expect them to familiarize themselves with rotations. It takes the players a good part of the season to learn their rotations (unless they played the same rotation in a prior season). Some parents barely navigate the tournament and need help figuring out the schedule and the court numbers. They try to make it there to see their kids play, not to learn rotations. Again: stop shifting the blame to the parents and players, when the blame is clearly with the poor club decisions during tryouts.

Metro Travel teams are a different type of team than what is being discussed here. They make it very clear that their primary objective is getting open bids and getting players recruited to play in college. Many of the Metro Travel teams have 15 players on the roster, meaning 4 or 5 of those players are probably not getting into matches regularly. But in most cases, players/parents go into the season knowing that is a possibility. If the goal is for a player to get recruited to play in college (especially D1), then being a bench player on a Metro Travel team can be a better option than being a star on a less high profile team. Last year's 18 Travel team had all 15 of their players go on to play D1 in college. Could those players who were on the bench but still got recruited to play D1 have made it that level even without playing for Metro Travel? Probably, but the proven track record of getting players to D1 is hard to dispute and it's understandable why players/parents might make that choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

Agreed. Even parents on less competitive or developmental teams want to win. It’s far too simplistic to think the answer is setter 1 plays set 1, setter 2 plays set 2, and so on. It’s a nice thought in theory, but then reality sets in. Even within the same team, parents and players will have very different views of who the team should aspire to be. It’s all complicated and competitive, even in places you would expect to be focused on development. Such is life these days in many places?

Here is an easy way out for the club: if setter 2 is not competitive enough to play, then don't make an offer. Or even better: don't place on the roster any player who is only good enough to ride the bench. Stop blaming the parents and the players. They suffer the consequences of poor club decisions during tryouts.

A club needs more than 1 setter, for example. It makes sense that a club would offer a setter that may not be as good as the other setter and hope that through practice and some game time she will improve. And if the option for setter 2 is riding the bench or not making a team, she may choose to ride the bench.

I personally think that all the players should get playtime during the seeding games at tournaments but not during the playoff brackets. And I don’t know how players or families know which teams are developmental and which ones aren’t. I do think parents and players should familiarize themselves with volleyball rotations and realize that certain positions will always have less playtime than other positions.

For several years now, I see the same Metro players on the court and the same players riding the bench. They clearly know what they are getting into and they are fine. On the other hand, families new to volleyball don't know what they are getting into and it is unreasonable to expect them to familiarize themselves with rotations. It takes the players a good part of the season to learn their rotations (unless they played the same rotation in a prior season). Some parents barely navigate the tournament and need help figuring out the schedule and the court numbers. They try to make it there to see their kids play, not to learn rotations. Again: stop shifting the blame to the parents and players, when the blame is clearly with the poor club decisions during tryouts.

It’s not shifting the blame. Parents and players should do their due diligence before spending $3000+. Clubs should be more upfront about things but my kids club for example told parents and players about no guaranteed playtime and there are still complaints. It’s on all the parties. Buyer beware and make sure you understand before you spend $3000+.

I would completely understand a "play time is earned" policy for clubs in the top 25% because it makes perfect sense. Those clubs have top players who have been playing for a while and they understand the policy. I would be willing to drop the 25% percentage to another random number like 33% or even 50%. Such a policy makes no sense for teams that are in the bottom of the rankings. If your rankings are so low, the majority of players are still developing for their age group. Of course, you have your starters and your all around players, but everyone on the team should see the court. You should not have players riding the bench unless they are injured. It's nice to talk about due diligence in theory, but parents should not pay that much money to see their kids benched on developmental teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

Agreed. Even parents on less competitive or developmental teams want to win. It’s far too simplistic to think the answer is setter 1 plays set 1, setter 2 plays set 2, and so on. It’s a nice thought in theory, but then reality sets in. Even within the same team, parents and players will have very different views of who the team should aspire to be. It’s all complicated and competitive, even in places you would expect to be focused on development. Such is life these days in many places?

Here is an easy way out for the club: if setter 2 is not competitive enough to play, then don't make an offer. Or even better: don't place on the roster any player who is only good enough to ride the bench. Stop blaming the parents and the players. They suffer the consequences of poor club decisions during tryouts.

Sounds nice in theory, but the types of teams being discussed here don’t always have strong options to fill every spot. While 10 players is probably a decent roster size for a team that isn’t super competitive (definitely no more than 12), every team needs a certain number for each position. On a team with 10 players, you’d probably want 2 setters, 2-3 middles, 1-2 L/DS, and then a mix of pin hitters, hopefully at least 2 that can play all 6 rotations and 1-2 that can play right side.

Setters in particular are in high demand, so a coach might not have 2 equally strong options to pick from during tryouts. And having only 1 setter can be a disaster if that player gets hurt, sick, or otherwise becomes unavailable.

I also agree with the observation that even for teams that have a lot of newer or less skilled players that should be focused on development, there is always pressure to try to win, particularly from parents. The reality is that letting everyone gets reasonable amounts of playing time and trying to win are not always compatible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

Agreed. Even parents on less competitive or developmental teams want to win. It’s far too simplistic to think the answer is setter 1 plays set 1, setter 2 plays set 2, and so on. It’s a nice thought in theory, but then reality sets in. Even within the same team, parents and players will have very different views of who the team should aspire to be. It’s all complicated and competitive, even in places you would expect to be focused on development. Such is life these days in many places?

Here is an easy way out for the club: if setter 2 is not competitive enough to play, then don't make an offer. Or even better: don't place on the roster any player who is only good enough to ride the bench. Stop blaming the parents and the players. They suffer the consequences of poor club decisions during tryouts.

A club needs more than 1 setter, for example. It makes sense that a club would offer a setter that may not be as good as the other setter and hope that through practice and some game time she will improve. And if the option for setter 2 is riding the bench or not making a team, she may choose to ride the bench.

I personally think that all the players should get playtime during the seeding games at tournaments but not during the playoff brackets. And I don’t know how players or families know which teams are developmental and which ones aren’t. I do think parents and players should familiarize themselves with volleyball rotations and realize that certain positions will always have less playtime than other positions.

For several years now, I see the same Metro players on the court and the same players riding the bench. They clearly know what they are getting into and they are fine. On the other hand, families new to volleyball don't know what they are getting into and it is unreasonable to expect them to familiarize themselves with rotations. It takes the players a good part of the season to learn their rotations (unless they played the same rotation in a prior season). Some parents barely navigate the tournament and need help figuring out the schedule and the court numbers. They try to make it there to see their kids play, not to learn rotations. Again: stop shifting the blame to the parents and players, when the blame is clearly with the poor club decisions during tryouts.

It’s not shifting the blame. Parents and players should do their due diligence before spending $3000+. Clubs should be more upfront about things but my kids club for example told parents and players about no guaranteed playtime and there are still complaints. It’s on all the parties. Buyer beware and make sure you understand before you spend $3000+.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

Agreed. Even parents on less competitive or developmental teams want to win. It’s far too simplistic to think the answer is setter 1 plays set 1, setter 2 plays set 2, and so on. It’s a nice thought in theory, but then reality sets in. Even within the same team, parents and players will have very different views of who the team should aspire to be. It’s all complicated and competitive, even in places you would expect to be focused on development. Such is life these days in many places?

Here is an easy way out for the club: if setter 2 is not competitive enough to play, then don't make an offer. Or even better: don't place on the roster any player who is only good enough to ride the bench. Stop blaming the parents and the players. They suffer the consequences of poor club decisions during tryouts.

A club needs more than 1 setter, for example. It makes sense that a club would offer a setter that may not be as good as the other setter and hope that through practice and some game time she will improve. And if the option for setter 2 is riding the bench or not making a team, she may choose to ride the bench.

I personally think that all the players should get playtime during the seeding games at tournaments but not during the playoff brackets. And I don’t know how players or families know which teams are developmental and which ones aren’t. I do think parents and players should familiarize themselves with volleyball rotations and realize that certain positions will always have less playtime than other positions.

For several years now, I see the same Metro players on the court and the same players riding the bench. They clearly know what they are getting into and they are fine. On the other hand, families new to volleyball don't know what they are getting into and it is unreasonable to expect them to familiarize themselves with rotations. It takes the players a good part of the season to learn their rotations (unless they played the same rotation in a prior season). Some parents barely navigate the tournament and need help figuring out the schedule and the court numbers. They try to make it there to see their kids play, not to learn rotations. Again: stop shifting the blame to the parents and players, when the blame is clearly with the poor club decisions during tryouts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

Agreed. Even parents on less competitive or developmental teams want to win. It’s far too simplistic to think the answer is setter 1 plays set 1, setter 2 plays set 2, and so on. It’s a nice thought in theory, but then reality sets in. Even within the same team, parents and players will have very different views of who the team should aspire to be. It’s all complicated and competitive, even in places you would expect to be focused on development. Such is life these days in many places?

Here is an easy way out for the club: if setter 2 is not competitive enough to play, then don't make an offer. Or even better: don't place on the roster any player who is only good enough to ride the bench. Stop blaming the parents and the players. They suffer the consequences of poor club decisions during tryouts.

A club needs more than 1 setter, for example. It makes sense that a club would offer a setter that may not be as good as the other setter and hope that through practice and some game time she will improve. And if the option for setter 2 is riding the bench or not making a team, she may choose to ride the bench.

I personally think that all the players should get playtime during the seeding games at tournaments but not during the playoff brackets. And I don’t know how players or families know which teams are developmental and which ones aren’t. I do think parents and players should familiarize themselves with volleyball rotations and realize that certain positions will always have less playtime than other positions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

Agreed. Even parents on less competitive or developmental teams want to win. It’s far too simplistic to think the answer is setter 1 plays set 1, setter 2 plays set 2, and so on. It’s a nice thought in theory, but then reality sets in. Even within the same team, parents and players will have very different views of who the team should aspire to be. It’s all complicated and competitive, even in places you would expect to be focused on development. Such is life these days in many places?

Here is an easy way out for the club: if setter 2 is not competitive enough to play, then don't make an offer. Or even better: don't place on the roster any player who is only good enough to ride the bench. Stop blaming the parents and the players. They suffer the consequences of poor club decisions during tryouts.

Anonymous wrote:I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

Agreed. Even parents on less competitive or developmental teams want to win. It’s far too simplistic to think the answer is setter 1 plays set 1, setter 2 plays set 2, and so on. It’s a nice thought in theory, but then reality sets in. Even within the same team, parents and players will have very different views of who the team should aspire to be. It’s all complicated and competitive, even in places you would expect to be focused on development. Such is life these days in many places?

Anonymous wrote:I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

I agree. Both players and parents would like to win some games and they don't like when players with much lower skill level make it on the court. That happens even at rec level. Early on we had a middle who made it on the roster because she was tall. Other than that, she was extremely slow and had two left hands. She still got court time, even though another middle was the starter. She was contributing almost nothing and in many cases was in the way. We lost points because she could not read the court and she was just standing there between the setter and the ball without getting out of the way. The setter had to find a way around her, but in some cases she would simply block the setter's access to the ball. The players were visibly going down when she was on the court and the parents (including myself) were very frustrated. But I don't blame the player or her family: the mistake happened at the tryouts - that player should have received a spot on a lower team, along with players at the same skill level. It is the club's fault that they extended an offer that was clearly not a good match for her skill level.

I think the competitive pressure even for developmental teams is not only coming from the club but also from parents and even players themselves. There is typically a larger aspirational imbalance. I don’t think it is as straightforward to manage all these tradeoffs as we may think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the issue is just about every club aspires to be competitive, not just developmental.

It's one thing to aspire and another to be competitive. If you are ranked in the top 25%, go ahead and ask your players to earn their court time. But if you are a low ranked team that pretends to be competitive, then you are just delusional. Giving all the players court time will not change your rankings too much.

OK, but do the club directors and coaches agree that they aren't trying to be competitive, or only pretending to be competitive? I think what we're talking about is simply mismatched expectations. When I think "developmental", I think rec teams, along the lines of SYA, DYS, McLean Youth, etc., not USAV or CHRVA.

What you are calling "developmental" is usually considered "rec" and there is very little between rec and club. You may find players in rec that transition to club and they are fantastic, but that's the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of players need to develop into club players and they never reach the skill level to be part of truly competitive teams. That's where "development" comes in: you give them a chance to experience club volleyball and real tournaments. If you don't let them experience the court because they are not good enough, why did you offer them a position on the roster in the first place? Either place them on a lower team (if available) or don't make an offer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the issue is just about every club aspires to be competitive, not just developmental.

It's one thing to aspire and another to be competitive. If you are ranked in the top 25%, go ahead and ask your players to earn their court time. But if you are a low ranked team that pretends to be competitive, then you are just delusional. Giving all the players court time will not change your rankings too much.

OK, but do the club directors and coaches agree that they aren't trying to be competitive, or only pretending to be competitive? I think what we're talking about is simply mismatched expectations. When I think "developmental", I think rec teams, along the lines of SYA, DYS, McLean Youth, etc., not USAV or CHRVA.

Anonymous wrote:But the issue is just about every club aspires to be competitive, not just developmental.

It's one thing to aspire and another to be competitive. If you are ranked in the top 25%, go ahead and ask your players to earn their court time. But if you are a low ranked team that pretends to be competitive, then you are just delusional. Giving all the players court time will not change your rankings too much.

But the issue is just about every club aspires to be competitive, not just developmental.

I started this thread with no specific club in mind. I know that court time is valuable and I agree that it must be earned in highly competitive teams. However, when we talk about less competitive teams, the focus should be development. If you keep the kids off court when they make mistakes (and they all do), they will try to play as safe as possible to avoid losing court time. The fear of making mistakes will affect those who get very little play time every time they get on the court. That's when they make more mistakes and - as a result - they get even less court time. This is counter-productive on every level you can imagine. Give the kids their court time no matter what because they need it to learn the ropes. For example, if you have two setters, alternate them as starters (the strongest one could start set 1, the other one could start set 2, then you have the first one available for set 3 in case the game goes there). If some players don't develop at the same rate as the rest of their team, replace them at tryouts. If you took them on a developmental team, you have no excuse to keep them on the bench.