I'm the PP. I also really wish that there was something competitive between rec and club to accommodate this group of kids that I think is being discussed here- too good for rec and not good enough for club. These kids should have a place to compete and play. I know that I would have enrolled my DD in that last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going in circles. Every February, this board discovers that their child is not the breakout star they imagined in November, and suddenly, it’s a consumer fraud case. It’s club volleyball. It is competitive at every level ... yes, even on teams that lose.

You absolutely can ask about playing time philosophy before you sign. Clinics, info sessions, offer calls ... that’s when grown-ups use their words.

And if a club truly markets itself as “developmental” but benches half the roster, name it. Say the club. My guess? The silence is because most of these teams aren’t actually “developmental,” they’re just competitive teams, or teams that want to be competitive, that your kid isn’t starting on.

If the fit is wrong, leave next year. But this annual outrage tour because your athlete isn’t playing enough rotations isn’t a conspiracy. It’s sports.

I started this thread in September. My DD was already playing club and she is still playing club on a semi-competitive team (and has her court time). Assumptions that I am complaining about my DD's court time are just a way for some of the people here to brush off reasonable criticism about club practices.

Most families who are beginners to club volleyball don't even know that court time is an issue. Expecting them to ask the right questions and know how to read the answers is unreasonable. Or maybe only reasonable to coaches who feel that everyone should know everything about volleyball and club practices. There are parents without personal experience with competitive sports who want to give their kids something they never had. They have no idea that they must ask questions or even what questions to ask. Not everyone reads these threads or similar forums. Their kids are unlikely to make it on top teams with clear "court time is earned" policies. It's a lot of money to ask a family to pay for the privilege of sitting on the bench during tournaments to watch your teammates lose their games anyway.

Thanks for the follow up, much appreciated. For first year families there is a learning curve that all of us have had to climb. No matter how good a club is at explaining how club volleyball works its no replacement for actually experiencing a club season. These forums are a great resource for getting educated on the questions a first-year player should be asking before they commit to a team. But whether or not someone reads the forums, there has to be some responsibility of the parent to educate themselves and make the best choice you can for your DD and for your $. Accountability is not a one-way street in competitive sports. Clubs, coaches, players and families all have a responsibility.

The club either includes their playing time policy in their contract or they don't. If they do, parents and players should both be accountable for knowing the policy. If the club doesn't adhere to their policy, absolutely talk to them about it and hold them accountable. If they bench your player without any explanation, absolutely have the player talk to the coach and if they don't get a good answer talk to the coach directly or to the club director and hold them accountable.

But the reverse also has to be true. If a player is benched on a developmental team for failure to progress and/or perform, then the player needs to understand why and commit to improving and then the coach needs to hold the player accountable for putting in the effort to improve. If a parent complains about playing time and doesn't understand the club policies, then the parent needs to be accountable for learning those policies before raising issues.

Even on teams where playing time isn't "earned" its still a privilege, not a right. The coach's responsibility is to meet the playing time commitments of the club or explain why the specific player is an exception. After that the responsibility really does shift back to the player and/or the family to address the issue.

Every club our DDs played for had a rules session before the season started. Parents and players had to attend. They handed them out to take home. They explicitly discussed playing time, 48 hour rules, escalation procedures, etc. While we don't know the specifics of the recent case we've been discussing, I'd be surprised if the club didn't have something similar before the season started. If the club did have it and is not adhering to what they said, discuss it with them and get it fixed. If the club did share its policies though, then its its hard to understand the indignation, complete club failure and cries of "we've been wronged" that several of the PP seem to focus on.

You could maybe argue that you should have known that information before you accepted the offer, but I'm not aware of any clubs that publish their rules prior to tryouts. Most don't do it until after contract signing. Should clubs be required to put a a click-through agreement in front of every offer acceptance?

I do understand most of the blow-back on this thread. Most people who are contributing here have at least some experience on the volleyball scene. Their kids were likely pretty successful at getting court time. They were likely wishing that those players who were not very skillful won't make it on the court to ruin the game for their own kid. They like the court time rules and want to keep them in place because they favor their kids. They cannot put themselves in the shoes of the players who are denied court time or their families. It's the kind of bias that can be explained away by club rules and "competitive environment."

In contrast, there are fewer families who were hurt by lack of court time. They saw the coaches giving up on their kids and not sending them on the court. They saw all the team families rooting against their kid getting court time. They might not even be interested in volleyball anymore. It is unlikely that many of them are still around visiting this thread to share their experience.

So think about your own biases and why you fight against the common-sense idea that kids need to play to get better. And I am not saying that competitive teams need to play everyone. But if you have a lousy team that cannot attract good players, you owe court time to all the players you accept on the roster. "My favorite players didn't accept my offer, so I had to lower my expectation to fill my roster" should not be an excuse. If you lower your expectations during tryouts, you cannot decide that the expectations are different during the season. Because it does look like a money grab.

I don't think this is a fair statement. My kid gets some playtime (more than some, less than others)- but we went into the season knowing that playtime was earned and based on practices, skills, club needs and the position she plays. I wish she got more playtime but she and I both recognize that another player is a better hitter than she is. The club was both upfront with all the parents about the playtime rule and even though this was our first season of club volleyball, I had played travel sports through high school and knew that playtime is not a guarantee. I think it's a hard balancing act between getting everyone enough playtime to improve and being competitive. I do think every player should get play time during tournaments but it can't be equal. Coaches above have explained why it can't be equal and I think their perspective is valuable.

Travel sports are a money grab. Playtime is not guaranteed. Coaches and players want to win balanced with players should get game time to improve. Certain positions (setters, outside hitters) get a lot of play time vs other positions (middle blockers, DS). Players should advocate for themselves with their coaches about their playtime. If any of this is unacceptable to you and you don't want to spend your money, you should do rec. Equal play time and it's much cheaper.

Why will nobody say the clubs they are talking about in this thread?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going in circles. Every February, this board discovers that their child is not the breakout star they imagined in November, and suddenly, it’s a consumer fraud case. It’s club volleyball. It is competitive at every level ... yes, even on teams that lose.

You absolutely can ask about playing time philosophy before you sign. Clinics, info sessions, offer calls ... that’s when grown-ups use their words.

And if a club truly markets itself as “developmental” but benches half the roster, name it. Say the club. My guess? The silence is because most of these teams aren’t actually “developmental,” they’re just competitive teams, or teams that want to be competitive, that your kid isn’t starting on.

If the fit is wrong, leave next year. But this annual outrage tour because your athlete isn’t playing enough rotations isn’t a conspiracy. It’s sports.

I started this thread in September. My DD was already playing club and she is still playing club on a semi-competitive team (and has her court time). Assumptions that I am complaining about my DD's court time are just a way for some of the people here to brush off reasonable criticism about club practices.

Most families who are beginners to club volleyball don't even know that court time is an issue. Expecting them to ask the right questions and know how to read the answers is unreasonable. Or maybe only reasonable to coaches who feel that everyone should know everything about volleyball and club practices. There are parents without personal experience with competitive sports who want to give their kids something they never had. They have no idea that they must ask questions or even what questions to ask. Not everyone reads these threads or similar forums. Their kids are unlikely to make it on top teams with clear "court time is earned" policies. It's a lot of money to ask a family to pay for the privilege of sitting on the bench during tournaments to watch your teammates lose their games anyway.

Thanks for the follow up, much appreciated. For first year families there is a learning curve that all of us have had to climb. No matter how good a club is at explaining how club volleyball works its no replacement for actually experiencing a club season. These forums are a great resource for getting educated on the questions a first-year player should be asking before they commit to a team. But whether or not someone reads the forums, there has to be some responsibility of the parent to educate themselves and make the best choice you can for your DD and for your $. Accountability is not a one-way street in competitive sports. Clubs, coaches, players and families all have a responsibility.

The club either includes their playing time policy in their contract or they don't. If they do, parents and players should both be accountable for knowing the policy. If the club doesn't adhere to their policy, absolutely talk to them about it and hold them accountable. If they bench your player without any explanation, absolutely have the player talk to the coach and if they don't get a good answer talk to the coach directly or to the club director and hold them accountable.

But the reverse also has to be true. If a player is benched on a developmental team for failure to progress and/or perform, then the player needs to understand why and commit to improving and then the coach needs to hold the player accountable for putting in the effort to improve. If a parent complains about playing time and doesn't understand the club policies, then the parent needs to be accountable for learning those policies before raising issues.

Even on teams where playing time isn't "earned" its still a privilege, not a right. The coach's responsibility is to meet the playing time commitments of the club or explain why the specific player is an exception. After that the responsibility really does shift back to the player and/or the family to address the issue.

Every club our DDs played for had a rules session before the season started. Parents and players had to attend. They handed them out to take home. They explicitly discussed playing time, 48 hour rules, escalation procedures, etc. While we don't know the specifics of the recent case we've been discussing, I'd be surprised if the club didn't have something similar before the season started. If the club did have it and is not adhering to what they said, discuss it with them and get it fixed. If the club did share its policies though, then its its hard to understand the indignation, complete club failure and cries of "we've been wronged" that several of the PP seem to focus on.

You could maybe argue that you should have known that information before you accepted the offer, but I'm not aware of any clubs that publish their rules prior to tryouts. Most don't do it until after contract signing. Should clubs be required to put a a click-through agreement in front of every offer acceptance?

I do understand most of the blow-back on this thread. Most people who are contributing here have at least some experience on the volleyball scene. Their kids were likely pretty successful at getting court time. They were likely wishing that those players who were not very skillful won't make it on the court to ruin the game for their own kid. They like the court time rules and want to keep them in place because they favor their kids. They cannot put themselves in the shoes of the players who are denied court time or their families. It's the kind of bias that can be explained away by club rules and "competitive environment."

In contrast, there are fewer families who were hurt by lack of court time. They saw the coaches giving up on their kids and not sending them on the court. They saw all the team families rooting against their kid getting court time. They might not even be interested in volleyball anymore. It is unlikely that many of them are still around visiting this thread to share their experience.

So think about your own biases and why you fight against the common-sense idea that kids need to play to get better. And I am not saying that competitive teams need to play everyone. But if you have a lousy team that cannot attract good players, you owe court time to all the players you accept on the roster. "My favorite players didn't accept my offer, so I had to lower my expectation to fill my roster" should not be an excuse. If you lower your expectations during tryouts, you cannot decide that the expectations are different during the season. Because it does look like a money grab.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going in circles. Every February, this board discovers that their child is not the breakout star they imagined in November, and suddenly, it’s a consumer fraud case. It’s club volleyball. It is competitive at every level ... yes, even on teams that lose.

You absolutely can ask about playing time philosophy before you sign. Clinics, info sessions, offer calls ... that’s when grown-ups use their words.

And if a club truly markets itself as “developmental” but benches half the roster, name it. Say the club. My guess? The silence is because most of these teams aren’t actually “developmental,” they’re just competitive teams, or teams that want to be competitive, that your kid isn’t starting on.

If the fit is wrong, leave next year. But this annual outrage tour because your athlete isn’t playing enough rotations isn’t a conspiracy. It’s sports.

I started this thread in September. My DD was already playing club and she is still playing club on a semi-competitive team (and has her court time). Assumptions that I am complaining about my DD's court time are just a way for some of the people here to brush off reasonable criticism about club practices.

Most families who are beginners to club volleyball don't even know that court time is an issue. Expecting them to ask the right questions and know how to read the answers is unreasonable. Or maybe only reasonable to coaches who feel that everyone should know everything about volleyball and club practices. There are parents without personal experience with competitive sports who want to give their kids something they never had. They have no idea that they must ask questions or even what questions to ask. Not everyone reads these threads or similar forums. Their kids are unlikely to make it on top teams with clear "court time is earned" policies. It's a lot of money to ask a family to pay for the privilege of sitting on the bench during tournaments to watch your teammates lose their games anyway.

Thanks for the follow up, much appreciated. For first year families there is a learning curve that all of us have had to climb. No matter how good a club is at explaining how club volleyball works its no replacement for actually experiencing a club season. These forums are a great resource for getting educated on the questions a first-year player should be asking before they commit to a team. But whether or not someone reads the forums, there has to be some responsibility of the parent to educate themselves and make the best choice you can for your DD and for your $. Accountability is not a one-way street in competitive sports. Clubs, coaches, players and families all have a responsibility.

The club either includes their playing time policy in their contract or they don't. If they do, parents and players should both be accountable for knowing the policy. If the club doesn't adhere to their policy, absolutely talk to them about it and hold them accountable. If they bench your player without any explanation, absolutely have the player talk to the coach and if they don't get a good answer talk to the coach directly or to the club director and hold them accountable.

But the reverse also has to be true. If a player is benched on a developmental team for failure to progress and/or perform, then the player needs to understand why and commit to improving and then the coach needs to hold the player accountable for putting in the effort to improve. If a parent complains about playing time and doesn't understand the club policies, then the parent needs to be accountable for learning those policies before raising issues.

Even on teams where playing time isn't "earned" its still a privilege, not a right. The coach's responsibility is to meet the playing time commitments of the club or explain why the specific player is an exception. After that the responsibility really does shift back to the player and/or the family to address the issue.

Every club our DDs played for had a rules session before the season started. Parents and players had to attend. They handed them out to take home. They explicitly discussed playing time, 48 hour rules, escalation procedures, etc. While we don't know the specifics of the recent case we've been discussing, I'd be surprised if the club didn't have something similar before the season started. If the club did have it and is not adhering to what they said, discuss it with them and get it fixed. If the club did share its policies though, then its its hard to understand the indignation, complete club failure and cries of "we've been wronged" that several of the PP seem to focus on.

You could maybe argue that you should have known that information before you accepted the offer, but I'm not aware of any clubs that publish their rules prior to tryouts. Most don't do it until after contract signing. Should clubs be required to put a a click-through agreement in front of every offer acceptance?

I think it is still a lot of money even if your kid plays if court time during tournaments is the only thing that you are aiming for. I’d like to think that we are making these investments because we want our kids to learn to set goals, work hard, be a part of a team, and find their voices if they are not on a path to becoming a college or professional athlete. I think a transparent competitive process better enables that compared to a process where everyone is rewarded for showing up and even for not showing up in some cases.

Anonymous wrote:We are going in circles. Every February, this board discovers that their child is not the breakout star they imagined in November, and suddenly, it’s a consumer fraud case. It’s club volleyball. It is competitive at every level ... yes, even on teams that lose.

You absolutely can ask about playing time philosophy before you sign. Clinics, info sessions, offer calls ... that’s when grown-ups use their words.

And if a club truly markets itself as “developmental” but benches half the roster, name it. Say the club. My guess? The silence is because most of these teams aren’t actually “developmental,” they’re just competitive teams, or teams that want to be competitive, that your kid isn’t starting on.

If the fit is wrong, leave next year. But this annual outrage tour because your athlete isn’t playing enough rotations isn’t a conspiracy. It’s sports.

I started this thread in September. My DD was already playing club and she is still playing club on a semi-competitive team (and has her court time). Assumptions that I am complaining about my DD's court time are just a way for some of the people here to brush off reasonable criticism about club practices.

Most families who are beginners to club volleyball don't even know that court time is an issue. Expecting them to ask the right questions and know how to read the answers is unreasonable. Or maybe only reasonable to coaches who feel that everyone should know everything about volleyball and club practices. There are parents without personal experience with competitive sports who want to give their kids something they never had. They have no idea that they must ask questions or even what questions to ask. Not everyone reads these threads or similar forums. Their kids are unlikely to make it on top teams with clear "court time is earned" policies. It's a lot of money to ask a family to pay for the privilege of sitting on the bench during tournaments to watch your teammates lose their games anyway.

Anonymous wrote:It looks like you haven't been reading, so I will mention again that my DD has her court time and this is not about me or my family. So let's avoid the appeal to motive fallacy as we move on into this conversation.

I can see how the less experienced coaches may make a mistake thinking that a player is better than she actually is. I assume that these circumstances are relatively rare on the top teams and they happen most often on the bottom teams. The reason why the coach makes a mistake (whether they misjudge the skills or they hope the player would develop at a faster rate) is quite irrelevant. You have an offer that has been made and a family that pours money into a club. The family has no idea who else is on the team and cannot foresee that the player would be benched for the season. Why would that family pay the price for the coach's decision to extend an offer? I can see you explaining away poor decision by the coach / club and only "sucks to be you" for the family.

FYI-On an anonymous message board you can't tell who made a prior post. There is no way of knowing that you are the poster unless you include identifying info in every post you make. Also, let's keeps thing civil -- there's no reason to come back with accusations of "you haven't been reading" to PP whose tone is reasonable and understanding, especially when the previous post clearly both quotes what they were responding to and references language used by other posters inline in their comments.

Having been around club volleyball a long with DDs playing everything from beginner development club volleyball all the way up to top-level club and now into college, there's a lot more nuance to this situation.

The end of what I think was your post was:

So you want people to believe that a player can have such a strong showing at tryouts that she can fool the coaches, but then she is so bad when the season starts that she needs to be benched. And that sounds totally reasonable to you and in no way you are trying to shift the blame from the poor club decisions during tryouts.

Multiple other posters (including a coach) said the same thing: not only does the scenario you described happen, it happens often. It happens all the way up to the top teams in the region, including Metro, Paramount, etc. Its not "shift[ing] the blame from the poor club decision" its just stating a fact -- no club can perfectly determine any players ability in a 90 minute tryout window with 100 other players on the court. The top teams can see players dozens of times before they make the decision to offer them, specifically to minimize the risk of the exact scenario you describe as being unlikely, and it still happens to them virtually every year. Sometimes its a bad read on the players ability, but other times the team composition shifts during offers and a player they thought would be good gets displaced by an even better player that decides to play from them. The same scenarios happen with developmental teams but they don't have the luxury of watching players before tryouts, so its even more likely they make a mistake on evaluating player ability level.

When the club hasn't seen a player before tryouts they make a decision based on limited info. The primary argument in this thread has been "only the club knows the players who have accepted an offer" and if they make an offer to a player who can't keep up, that's 100% their fault and no responsibility lies with the player or the family. That's not true.

From the coaches standpoint, think about how the offers are made. Tryouts happen, coach sends out their first round of 12 offers. They hope all 12 will accept because they represent their best team. 11/12 accept, a 12th offer is sent to the first waitlist player. By definition the first waitlist player wasn't perceived to be as good as the other 12, they are already "below average" compared to the rest of the team. But what if the decline happens first, the waitlist player gets their offer and accepts and then the other 11 offers accept? What happens if 6 players decline? The waitlist player could be the potential worst player on the team or they might not be. The first waitlist player moved from "below average" to average solely because of the decisions made by other families -- with no control over those by the coach.

If you are the first waitlist player, at the time of your offer the coach has no idea who has made the team yet - all they can do is tell you the offers they made. And once they make an offer they cannot rescind it. This rule is in place to protect the player. Without it coaches could offer everyone they want, wait until they get acceptances and then revoke offers to players they don't really want on the team. That's a terrible situation because by the time the coach makes the decision all the other teams a player could play for will likely be full.

All of the above scenarios also completely ignore what happens after the team is formed. Even if everyone on the team starts at the same level, everyone progresses at different speeds. A player could start practice with their team as an average player and by the time of their first tournament be either the best or the worst player on the team, especially at the youngest ages.

Beyond the offer process, there is a responsibility for the family and player to have an active role in the choice they make. They do not have to be passive subjects to the club or coaches actions.

For the family, they are investing thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of their time. Just like any investment or large purchase they need to do their research ahead of time. Ask questions and make sure you know exactly what you are getting into. Do so before accepting an offer. If a coach won't tell you their playing time philosophy or doesn't have one, run away -- there won't be a good outcome.

For the player, if she was benched for inability to play volleyball at the necessary level then its up to her and her coach to improve her so she can play. Club volleyball is competitive at all levels, even developmental. Putting a player on a court in a match that can't perform at the level of the team has an negative impact on both the player and the team. The coach has a responsibility to both and sometimes balancing that responsibility means taking the good of the many over the good of the few. Even on a developmental team. That doesn't absolve the coach from fixing the situation.

While I personally disagree that any player should be benched on a truly developmental team there are situations where doing so is best both for the player and for the rest of the team. Players should be asking their coaches what they need to do to improve, to see the court more, etc. Coaches like those conversations and every one we played for genuinely put in the effort to improve players as much as they could. But its not black and white. Does a player who makes a team then progresses slower deserve their playing time anyway? What if its the players fault because they aren't working hard or aren't focused in practice? What happens if they fall so far behind that they have a measurable impact on the teams performance (e.g. can't get a serve in, shank most serve receives, make an error most of the time when they hit) when compared to other players who have improved? Does a coach have an obligation to play a player who can't perform a skill at the required level in a tournament, even after the coach has worked hard to try to fix the situation? The coach certainly has an obligation to help players improve, but when does that responsibility shift to the player?

Bottom Line: Clubs and coaches are accountable for the offers they make and the playing time decisions they make. Players are responsible for working hard to improve and keeping up with the performance of the team. And families are responsible for researching their decision before committing their time and money. Its much more nuanced than it appears.

We are going in circles. Every February, this board discovers that their child is not the breakout star they imagined in November, and suddenly, it’s a consumer fraud case. It’s club volleyball. It is competitive at every level ... yes, even on teams that lose.

You absolutely can ask about playing time philosophy before you sign. Clinics, info sessions, offer calls ... that’s when grown-ups use their words.

And if a club truly markets itself as “developmental” but benches half the roster, name it. Say the club. My guess? The silence is because most of these teams aren’t actually “developmental,” they’re just competitive teams, or teams that want to be competitive, that your kid isn’t starting on.

If the fit is wrong, leave next year. But this annual outrage tour because your athlete isn’t playing enough rotations isn’t a conspiracy. It’s sports.

If you want meaningful playing time, you basically have to be one of the top two players at your position.

If you are a great outside hitter but are the third best outside on your team, you still won’t get meaningful playing time unless one of the other outsides is out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think I know how averages work, but since you brought up stats, we can go more in depth. You definitely have a distributions of skills and abilities in any team and nobody disputes that. You can do the stats for each player and come up with solid numbers of who is at the top, who is average, and who is below the average. You can even point out to a p-value that makes this one player unfit to make it on the court, so you have a good reason to bench her. But there is a bigger issue here: why didn't the club realize that during the tryouts? Why did the club make an offer to this player if her skills and abilities are so poor compared to the rest of the team? Most players new to a club have no idea what team they are going to end up on until they see their teammates at practice. How would they know that they are at the bottom with p-values that give them no chance to see the court?

Presumably you know how crazy tryouts for club usually are every year, given that you're commenting on this forum. There are also any number of reasons for that. Sometimes a player has a really strong showing at tryouts that it turns out is out of character for their usual performance. Sometimes they don't get the best evaluation because they have more than 100 girls to sift through. Sometimes the club wants each roster to have a certain number of players (typically 12), and depending on the age/location of the club and their tryouts, they might have to work pretty far down the waitlist because players took other offers and the coaches had to scramble. I have mostly coached 14s and 15s in my club career, and three different years have not been able to fill out my roster until the "everybody is a free agent" portion of the tryout window, simply because that's how much movement there is in that age range in general (the most popular years to try club) and my area in particular. As I said earlier, I personally DO attempt to play everyone in every pool play match, but playing time expectations are also something I lay out before our first practice (as every coach should). Still, I can imagine a lot of variables from tryouts, practices, and tournaments that could definitely affect an athlete's court time depending on the coach, and the OP never really shared anything that would eliminate even some of the more obvious options.

So you want people to believe that a player can have such a strong showing at tryouts that she can fool the coaches, but then she is so bad when the season starts that she needs to be benched. And that sounds totally reasonable to you and in no way you are trying to shift the blame from the poor club decisions during tryouts.

Not the PP, who honestly sounds like they were just trying to help.

The scenario you describe happens at every club and at every level of competition (not just developmental). Its common at the younger ages and up through U15 or so, less common at U16+. The younger the team and the more developmental the team is, the bigger the risk is for both the club and the family that a player that everyone hoped would be good ends up not as good.

If a club's only exposure to a player is at tryouts it is entirely possible the scenario you describe can occur and it happens more often than you would think. A less-skilled player can have a good day at tryouts and make a team or a very good player can have a bad day of tryouts and not make a team. It takes coaches with a lot of experience to identify good players having an off day and vice-versa on the basis of just a few minutes watching them over the course of a 90 minute tryout. And if a club is running multiple tryout times for the same age its even easier to get a "false positive" or a "false negative." That's one of the reasons everyone on these threads recommends attending at least one if not more of the fall clinics that most of the good clubs run (and every club that has teams in the top level of CHRVA). They help both the club and you figure out if your DD is right fort the club.

Is it a poor decision by the club to put a "bad" player onto a team above their level? It depends. On a developmental team clubs will often look for less skilled players that show either the physical traits necessary to compete and/or the ability to learn quickly. The physical traits are obvious in a tryout while the ability to learn is one of the hardest things to ascertain. There are lots of physically gifted players who make developmental teams and then struggle to become good volleyball players. And the physical gifts aren't just height, but quickness, arm swing speed, etc. Show up at tryouts and be tall for your age, or faster than the other players or show you can hit a ball hard and you have a good chance of making a team.

Then you get into practice and the coach discovers that while you can hit a ball hard, your footwork and timing are off and you are struggling to get better. Or you can get to the spot of a serve because you are quick but can't get your platform right to pass well. Or you are tall and can block when you get in front of the ball, but struggle to read the set and never get to the proper block location.

The best coaches in the region are very good at finding talent and developing it. But there aren't that many of those coaches and it takes years for them to develop both the eye for a future good player and the ability to train them up to their potential. Every coach has a story of the player who they thought would be great but they just couldn't get them to up to the level of the team.

Its terrible that it sounds like its happened to you this year. But it doesn't automatically mean the club was acting in bad faith or trying to "rob" you.

It looks like you haven't been reading, so I will mention again that my DD has her court time and this is not about me or my family. So let's avoid the appeal to motive fallacy as we move on into this conversation.

I can see how the less experienced coaches may make a mistake thinking that a player is better than she actually is. I assume that these circumstances are relatively rare on the top teams and they happen most often on the bottom teams. The reason why the coach makes a mistake (whether they misjudge the skills or they hope the player would develop at a faster rate) is quite irrelevant. You have an offer that has been made and a family that pours money into a club. The family has no idea who else is on the team and cannot foresee that the player would be benched for the season. Why would that family pay the price for the coach's decision to extend an offer? I can see you explaining away poor decision by the coach / club and only "sucks to be you" for the family.

If someone’s kid gets benched, that’s not “the family paying for the coach’s mistake.” That’s competition. The offer gets a roster spot, not immunity from someone else working harder or improving faster.

The only “poor decision” here is everyone who signed up for a competitive sport and acting shocked when it’s… competitive.

I would agree with this idea if we were talking about the top 25% of the teams. You can consider those competitive for a good reason. But the teams that lose most of the games anyway are hardly competitive. Refusing to develop the players by offering the chance to play in tournaments is not acceptable. Especially when families have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING that their kids would end up being benched. Before the contract is signed, the only person who knows that specific kids would end up on the bench is the coach (or the club director). So stop blaming the people without access to the information.

Over the years that my DDs played club volleyball, they played for 5 different clubs at levels from not competitive to the among the top teams in the region, and every one of those clubs had policies about playing time. And every one of those clubs were willing to have conversations about their philosophy/policies leading up to tryouts during fall clinics and after offers were made. The statement that "families have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING" a club's policies on playing time is ridiculous. While some clubs are more up front and make their playing time policies well known, every club that we've interacted with over the years was willing to have the discussion when asked. If your DD is on the younger side, it's ok to help them ask the question when they are deciding which club to accept an offer from, but once the season starts conversations about playing time should be between the player and the coach. When the player initiates the conversation, it's perceived positively - players should want to play more and advocate for themselves. When a parent participates in the conversation it becomes a much different thing. In our experience, coaches will make time before or after practice to talk with a player if asked ahead of time.

That said, clubs do share blame here too. We've seen clubs that promise every player will play a minimum of 25% or 50% of the time and what that really means is that they will "guarantee" a player gets into that percentage of sets or matches. But only putting certain players into a single set of a match when the score is nearing 25 and the set is mostly decided is not very meaningful and still results in those players standing on the sideline for 95%, and that really sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think I know how averages work, but since you brought up stats, we can go more in depth. You definitely have a distributions of skills and abilities in any team and nobody disputes that. You can do the stats for each player and come up with solid numbers of who is at the top, who is average, and who is below the average. You can even point out to a p-value that makes this one player unfit to make it on the court, so you have a good reason to bench her. But there is a bigger issue here: why didn't the club realize that during the tryouts? Why did the club make an offer to this player if her skills and abilities are so poor compared to the rest of the team? Most players new to a club have no idea what team they are going to end up on until they see their teammates at practice. How would they know that they are at the bottom with p-values that give them no chance to see the court?

Presumably you know how crazy tryouts for club usually are every year, given that you're commenting on this forum. There are also any number of reasons for that. Sometimes a player has a really strong showing at tryouts that it turns out is out of character for their usual performance. Sometimes they don't get the best evaluation because they have more than 100 girls to sift through. Sometimes the club wants each roster to have a certain number of players (typically 12), and depending on the age/location of the club and their tryouts, they might have to work pretty far down the waitlist because players took other offers and the coaches had to scramble. I have mostly coached 14s and 15s in my club career, and three different years have not been able to fill out my roster until the "everybody is a free agent" portion of the tryout window, simply because that's how much movement there is in that age range in general (the most popular years to try club) and my area in particular. As I said earlier, I personally DO attempt to play everyone in every pool play match, but playing time expectations are also something I lay out before our first practice (as every coach should). Still, I can imagine a lot of variables from tryouts, practices, and tournaments that could definitely affect an athlete's court time depending on the coach, and the OP never really shared anything that would eliminate even some of the more obvious options.

So you want people to believe that a player can have such a strong showing at tryouts that she can fool the coaches, but then she is so bad when the season starts that she needs to be benched. And that sounds totally reasonable to you and in no way you are trying to shift the blame from the poor club decisions during tryouts.

Not the PP, who honestly sounds like they were just trying to help.

The scenario you describe happens at every club and at every level of competition (not just developmental). Its common at the younger ages and up through U15 or so, less common at U16+. The younger the team and the more developmental the team is, the bigger the risk is for both the club and the family that a player that everyone hoped would be good ends up not as good.

If a club's only exposure to a player is at tryouts it is entirely possible the scenario you describe can occur and it happens more often than you would think. A less-skilled player can have a good day at tryouts and make a team or a very good player can have a bad day of tryouts and not make a team. It takes coaches with a lot of experience to identify good players having an off day and vice-versa on the basis of just a few minutes watching them over the course of a 90 minute tryout. And if a club is running multiple tryout times for the same age its even easier to get a "false positive" or a "false negative." That's one of the reasons everyone on these threads recommends attending at least one if not more of the fall clinics that most of the good clubs run (and every club that has teams in the top level of CHRVA). They help both the club and you figure out if your DD is right fort the club.

Is it a poor decision by the club to put a "bad" player onto a team above their level? It depends. On a developmental team clubs will often look for less skilled players that show either the physical traits necessary to compete and/or the ability to learn quickly. The physical traits are obvious in a tryout while the ability to learn is one of the hardest things to ascertain. There are lots of physically gifted players who make developmental teams and then struggle to become good volleyball players. And the physical gifts aren't just height, but quickness, arm swing speed, etc. Show up at tryouts and be tall for your age, or faster than the other players or show you can hit a ball hard and you have a good chance of making a team.

Then you get into practice and the coach discovers that while you can hit a ball hard, your footwork and timing are off and you are struggling to get better. Or you can get to the spot of a serve because you are quick but can't get your platform right to pass well. Or you are tall and can block when you get in front of the ball, but struggle to read the set and never get to the proper block location.

The best coaches in the region are very good at finding talent and developing it. But there aren't that many of those coaches and it takes years for them to develop both the eye for a future good player and the ability to train them up to their potential. Every coach has a story of the player who they thought would be great but they just couldn't get them to up to the level of the team.

Its terrible that it sounds like its happened to you this year. But it doesn't automatically mean the club was acting in bad faith or trying to "rob" you.

It looks like you haven't been reading, so I will mention again that my DD has her court time and this is not about me or my family. So let's avoid the appeal to motive fallacy as we move on into this conversation.

I can see how the less experienced coaches may make a mistake thinking that a player is better than she actually is. I assume that these circumstances are relatively rare on the top teams and they happen most often on the bottom teams. The reason why the coach makes a mistake (whether they misjudge the skills or they hope the player would develop at a faster rate) is quite irrelevant. You have an offer that has been made and a family that pours money into a club. The family has no idea who else is on the team and cannot foresee that the player would be benched for the season. Why would that family pay the price for the coach's decision to extend an offer? I can see you explaining away poor decision by the coach / club and only "sucks to be you" for the family.

If someone’s kid gets benched, that’s not “the family paying for the coach’s mistake.” That’s competition. The offer gets a roster spot, not immunity from someone else working harder or improving faster.

The only “poor decision” here is everyone who signed up for a competitive sport and acting shocked when it’s… competitive.

I would agree with this idea if we were talking about the top 25% of the teams. You can consider those competitive for a good reason. But the teams that lose most of the games anyway are hardly competitive. Refusing to develop the players by offering the chance to play in tournaments is not acceptable. Especially when families have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING that their kids would end up being benched. Before the contract is signed, the only person who knows that specific kids would end up on the bench is the coach (or the club director). So stop blaming the people without access to the information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think I know how averages work, but since you brought up stats, we can go more in depth. You definitely have a distributions of skills and abilities in any team and nobody disputes that. You can do the stats for each player and come up with solid numbers of who is at the top, who is average, and who is below the average. You can even point out to a p-value that makes this one player unfit to make it on the court, so you have a good reason to bench her. But there is a bigger issue here: why didn't the club realize that during the tryouts? Why did the club make an offer to this player if her skills and abilities are so poor compared to the rest of the team? Most players new to a club have no idea what team they are going to end up on until they see their teammates at practice. How would they know that they are at the bottom with p-values that give them no chance to see the court?

Presumably you know how crazy tryouts for club usually are every year, given that you're commenting on this forum. There are also any number of reasons for that. Sometimes a player has a really strong showing at tryouts that it turns out is out of character for their usual performance. Sometimes they don't get the best evaluation because they have more than 100 girls to sift through. Sometimes the club wants each roster to have a certain number of players (typically 12), and depending on the age/location of the club and their tryouts, they might have to work pretty far down the waitlist because players took other offers and the coaches had to scramble. I have mostly coached 14s and 15s in my club career, and three different years have not been able to fill out my roster until the "everybody is a free agent" portion of the tryout window, simply because that's how much movement there is in that age range in general (the most popular years to try club) and my area in particular. As I said earlier, I personally DO attempt to play everyone in every pool play match, but playing time expectations are also something I lay out before our first practice (as every coach should). Still, I can imagine a lot of variables from tryouts, practices, and tournaments that could definitely affect an athlete's court time depending on the coach, and the OP never really shared anything that would eliminate even some of the more obvious options.

So you want people to believe that a player can have such a strong showing at tryouts that she can fool the coaches, but then she is so bad when the season starts that she needs to be benched. And that sounds totally reasonable to you and in no way you are trying to shift the blame from the poor club decisions during tryouts.

Not the PP, who honestly sounds like they were just trying to help.

The scenario you describe happens at every club and at every level of competition (not just developmental). Its common at the younger ages and up through U15 or so, less common at U16+. The younger the team and the more developmental the team is, the bigger the risk is for both the club and the family that a player that everyone hoped would be good ends up not as good.

If a club's only exposure to a player is at tryouts it is entirely possible the scenario you describe can occur and it happens more often than you would think. A less-skilled player can have a good day at tryouts and make a team or a very good player can have a bad day of tryouts and not make a team. It takes coaches with a lot of experience to identify good players having an off day and vice-versa on the basis of just a few minutes watching them over the course of a 90 minute tryout. And if a club is running multiple tryout times for the same age its even easier to get a "false positive" or a "false negative." That's one of the reasons everyone on these threads recommends attending at least one if not more of the fall clinics that most of the good clubs run (and every club that has teams in the top level of CHRVA). They help both the club and you figure out if your DD is right fort the club.

Is it a poor decision by the club to put a "bad" player onto a team above their level? It depends. On a developmental team clubs will often look for less skilled players that show either the physical traits necessary to compete and/or the ability to learn quickly. The physical traits are obvious in a tryout while the ability to learn is one of the hardest things to ascertain. There are lots of physically gifted players who make developmental teams and then struggle to become good volleyball players. And the physical gifts aren't just height, but quickness, arm swing speed, etc. Show up at tryouts and be tall for your age, or faster than the other players or show you can hit a ball hard and you have a good chance of making a team.

Then you get into practice and the coach discovers that while you can hit a ball hard, your footwork and timing are off and you are struggling to get better. Or you can get to the spot of a serve because you are quick but can't get your platform right to pass well. Or you are tall and can block when you get in front of the ball, but struggle to read the set and never get to the proper block location.

The best coaches in the region are very good at finding talent and developing it. But there aren't that many of those coaches and it takes years for them to develop both the eye for a future good player and the ability to train them up to their potential. Every coach has a story of the player who they thought would be great but they just couldn't get them to up to the level of the team.

Its terrible that it sounds like its happened to you this year. But it doesn't automatically mean the club was acting in bad faith or trying to "rob" you.

It looks like you haven't been reading, so I will mention again that my DD has her court time and this is not about me or my family. So let's avoid the appeal to motive fallacy as we move on into this conversation.

I can see how the less experienced coaches may make a mistake thinking that a player is better than she actually is. I assume that these circumstances are relatively rare on the top teams and they happen most often on the bottom teams. The reason why the coach makes a mistake (whether they misjudge the skills or they hope the player would develop at a faster rate) is quite irrelevant. You have an offer that has been made and a family that pours money into a club. The family has no idea who else is on the team and cannot foresee that the player would be benched for the season. Why would that family pay the price for the coach's decision to extend an offer? I can see you explaining away poor decision by the coach / club and only "sucks to be you" for the family.

If someone’s kid gets benched, that’s not “the family paying for the coach’s mistake.” That’s competition. The offer gets a roster spot, not immunity from someone else working harder or improving faster.

The only “poor decision” here is everyone who signed up for a competitive sport and acting shocked when it’s… competitive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clubs do it because they keep getting away with it.

There should be an offer made to the bench players that they will be a practice player. You pay a reduced fee because you don’t go to tournaments. That way the bench players and parents all know where they stand. No one is wasting time going to a tournament where they will never play.

Huh? You can’t and would never send just your starters to a tournament.

Different PP. I don't see anyone suggesting that only the starters should be sent to tournaments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think I know how averages work, but since you brought up stats, we can go more in depth. You definitely have a distributions of skills and abilities in any team and nobody disputes that. You can do the stats for each player and come up with solid numbers of who is at the top, who is average, and who is below the average. You can even point out to a p-value that makes this one player unfit to make it on the court, so you have a good reason to bench her. But there is a bigger issue here: why didn't the club realize that during the tryouts? Why did the club make an offer to this player if her skills and abilities are so poor compared to the rest of the team? Most players new to a club have no idea what team they are going to end up on until they see their teammates at practice. How would they know that they are at the bottom with p-values that give them no chance to see the court?

Presumably you know how crazy tryouts for club usually are every year, given that you're commenting on this forum. There are also any number of reasons for that. Sometimes a player has a really strong showing at tryouts that it turns out is out of character for their usual performance. Sometimes they don't get the best evaluation because they have more than 100 girls to sift through. Sometimes the club wants each roster to have a certain number of players (typically 12), and depending on the age/location of the club and their tryouts, they might have to work pretty far down the waitlist because players took other offers and the coaches had to scramble. I have mostly coached 14s and 15s in my club career, and three different years have not been able to fill out my roster until the "everybody is a free agent" portion of the tryout window, simply because that's how much movement there is in that age range in general (the most popular years to try club) and my area in particular. As I said earlier, I personally DO attempt to play everyone in every pool play match, but playing time expectations are also something I lay out before our first practice (as every coach should). Still, I can imagine a lot of variables from tryouts, practices, and tournaments that could definitely affect an athlete's court time depending on the coach, and the OP never really shared anything that would eliminate even some of the more obvious options.

So you want people to believe that a player can have such a strong showing at tryouts that she can fool the coaches, but then she is so bad when the season starts that she needs to be benched. And that sounds totally reasonable to you and in no way you are trying to shift the blame from the poor club decisions during tryouts.

Not the PP, who honestly sounds like they were just trying to help.

The scenario you describe happens at every club and at every level of competition (not just developmental). Its common at the younger ages and up through U15 or so, less common at U16+. The younger the team and the more developmental the team is, the bigger the risk is for both the club and the family that a player that everyone hoped would be good ends up not as good.

If a club's only exposure to a player is at tryouts it is entirely possible the scenario you describe can occur and it happens more often than you would think. A less-skilled player can have a good day at tryouts and make a team or a very good player can have a bad day of tryouts and not make a team. It takes coaches with a lot of experience to identify good players having an off day and vice-versa on the basis of just a few minutes watching them over the course of a 90 minute tryout. And if a club is running multiple tryout times for the same age its even easier to get a "false positive" or a "false negative." That's one of the reasons everyone on these threads recommends attending at least one if not more of the fall clinics that most of the good clubs run (and every club that has teams in the top level of CHRVA). They help both the club and you figure out if your DD is right fort the club.

Is it a poor decision by the club to put a "bad" player onto a team above their level? It depends. On a developmental team clubs will often look for less skilled players that show either the physical traits necessary to compete and/or the ability to learn quickly. The physical traits are obvious in a tryout while the ability to learn is one of the hardest things to ascertain. There are lots of physically gifted players who make developmental teams and then struggle to become good volleyball players. And the physical gifts aren't just height, but quickness, arm swing speed, etc. Show up at tryouts and be tall for your age, or faster than the other players or show you can hit a ball hard and you have a good chance of making a team.

Then you get into practice and the coach discovers that while you can hit a ball hard, your footwork and timing are off and you are struggling to get better. Or you can get to the spot of a serve because you are quick but can't get your platform right to pass well. Or you are tall and can block when you get in front of the ball, but struggle to read the set and never get to the proper block location.

The best coaches in the region are very good at finding talent and developing it. But there aren't that many of those coaches and it takes years for them to develop both the eye for a future good player and the ability to train them up to their potential. Every coach has a story of the player who they thought would be great but they just couldn't get them to up to the level of the team.

Its terrible that it sounds like its happened to you this year. But it doesn't automatically mean the club was acting in bad faith or trying to "rob" you.

It looks like you haven't been reading, so I will mention again that my DD has her court time and this is not about me or my family. So let's avoid the appeal to motive fallacy as we move on into this conversation.

I can see how the less experienced coaches may make a mistake thinking that a player is better than she actually is. I assume that these circumstances are relatively rare on the top teams and they happen most often on the bottom teams. The reason why the coach makes a mistake (whether they misjudge the skills or they hope the player would develop at a faster rate) is quite irrelevant. You have an offer that has been made and a family that pours money into a club. The family has no idea who else is on the team and cannot foresee that the player would be benched for the season. Why would that family pay the price for the coach's decision to extend an offer? I can see you explaining away poor decision by the coach / club and only "sucks to be you" for the family.