Volleyball Faceoff
July 14, 2015
The 96th Annual Summer Meeting of the National Federation of State High School Associations overlapped dates and shared hotels, restaurants and sidewalks with the USA Volleyball 2015 Girls Junior National Championships during late June and early July in New Orleans.
This mega-tournament drew fields of 24 to 72 teams in each of 30 divisions, with each of the approximately 1,000 teams paying from $650 to $900, providing an attractive payday for USAV. In addition, this was a dreaded “stay and play” tournament that required teams to book rooms at the designated hotels that provided kickbacks to the organizers.
USAV raked in the dollars which the parents I spoke to seemed only mildly distressed to pay because they had bought into the fantasy that this sort of extravagance is necessary to help their daughter reach the “next level.”
Next level? Some of these parents couldn’t even find the next court for their daughter’s match among the 80 courts on which competition was held, and missed parts of matches they had paid hundreds of dollars in club and travel expenses to attend. This was about quantity of teams, much more than quality of experience.
And what, after all, is the next level for a girl playing on an “Under 13 Team” ... Under 14?
If the “next level” means college volleyball, then parents haven’t been told of the lottery-like odds they face. Making any college team that offers any financial aid based on volleyball skill is a mere fantasy for almost every girl and it’s a futile strategy for those parents to fund their daughter’s college education.
In sharp contrast, I’m reassured that we’ve got it right in school-based volleyball, where the focus is on scholarship in high school, not athletic scholarships to college; on learning in many practices more than competing in many tournaments; on local events, not national travel; where MHSAA tournaments are free to enter, and matches are conducted one at a time on the arena’s one and only court, with the school’s student section cheering the team on.
Program Priorities
January 10, 2014
Many school districts face more requests from their constituents for sports programs than they have the resources to accommodate, so they are forced to make very difficult decisions. For three decades, when I’ve been consulted, I have offered and stood by this advice.
First, I advance the premise that if the activity is educational, there is just as much potential for the education to occur at the junior high/middle school and subvarsity levels as at the varsity level. Just as we would not discriminate against one race or gender, we should not disadvantage one age or ability level. In fact, with a little less pressure to win, it is likely to see more education at subvarsity levels and more reason to sponsor them.
Second, I advocate the position that schools should avoid sponsorship of any activity for which a qualified head coach cannot be secured. Qualified personnel are, in order of priority:
-
a teacher within the building who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
-
a teacher within the district who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
-
a teacher in another district who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
-
a certified teacher from the community who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
-
a non-certified person who has current CPR certification and completed CAP.
I urge schools not to descend lower than this for program leadership. Coaches are the delivery system of the education in educational athletics; they are the critical link in the educational process. More problems occur than are worth the effort if the program is in the hands of an unqualified coach.
Next, I urge that schools rank sports on the basis of cost per participant, and give higher priority to sports that spread funds over the greatest number of participants.
Next, I urge that schools place lowest in priority the sports that cannot be operated on school facilities and create transportation, supervision and liability issues, and give higher priority to those conducted at or very near the school.
Next, I urge that schools place lowest in priority the sports which are most readily available in the community, without school involvement. If resources are precious, then duplicating school programs should be a low priority; doing what the community can’t do or doesn’t do should be given a much higher priority.
While I’m a fan of school sports, I recognize that an athletic program has as much potential to do harm as to do good. Programs without qualified coaches that are conducted for small numbers of students at remote venues and without comprehensive school oversight and support may create more problems for schools than the good they do for students.
Bare bones budgeting will require brutally honest assessments based on priorities like these.