|
Post by Murina on Apr 17, 2020 15:48:48 GMT -5
What are the significant differences in training that you'd see from a coach if it was? Playing with a different ball? But wait, FIVB just switched the ball so all of that would've been for naught. What else? From my perspective I think you would see more middle blockers spending significant time serving & defending, more people setting out of system balls, more people building tall/strong/ignorant opposites who are back row players/threats, a bit more time would be spent in the gym (NCAA rules would have to change a little), you would see even fewer 6-2s (not that there are very many at the top of the NCAA). Just the first few things that popped into my mind. And another one - no 3 rotation OHs.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 17, 2020 16:40:11 GMT -5
The college coaches at NCAA programs who have produced pro players and Olympians certainly emphasize that fact when recruiting. Russ Rose famously espoused that his job was not to train players for the pros--until he graduated the class that included Glass, Harmotto, Hodge and Fawcett. After that, he started singing a different tune.
The programs who don't produce international level players have no reason or incentive to promote their ability to produce pro players for obvious reasons. The group of college programs who have produced volleyball Olympians is very small.
The other issue is that there are very few USA coaches who have coached and trained at elite international levels. The differences between NCAA and international/pro aren't just the ball, but speed, power, attack angles(which requires different defensive strategies), etc. It wouldn't make sense for a coach with strong international experience to train entirely with the international game in mind because the team won't be seeing those same situations in NCAA matches, but they could/would incorporate certain elements.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2020 17:06:10 GMT -5
I've got nothing against people deciding that some sport is their chosen profession. It's just that college isn't really the right place to learn it. Nothing is stopping USA kids from signing up with a pro team somewhere rather than going to college. I guess this is where we differ then. In other vocations or professions, college is about giving you the skills and tools to succeed in later life. With collegiate athletics, it is about the athlete helping the school succeed. You suggest that the coach is simply focused on his team vs someone else's... What about remembering that he works at an institution of higher education and developing the athlete to the best of his ability? With the NCAA is determined to hide behind the 'student athlete' label a bit longer, it makes a mockery out of those claims when the ideology among so many coaches is that of pro sports; "win at all costs". It also hamstrings the USWNT because those athletes who will eventually comprise the team, have to leave the relative twilight zone of collegiate athletics and compete with athletes from all over the world who were raised to understand the professional side of the sport. And the guidance doesn't even have to come from the schools (although they're freaking schools, so they should be educating about the working environment, rather than treating it like a dirty little secret). USAV have lots of contact with the top players in each class via the junior and collegiate national teams and could easily provide helpful info on pro volleyball. But they don't. Instead we operate a sink or swim philosophy which is clearly sub-optimal when looking at the development of our best players. You are right, colleges are schools. But they are not volleyball schools. I went to a science/engineering school. I spent a ton of my own time writing for the student newspaper. But the school didn't train me in journalism. Not only was there no journalism major, but there wasn't a single undergrad journalism class of any kind. If I had wanted to get trained in journalism, then I picked the wrong school. Some of my fellow student journalists actually made journalism their future profession (despite getting degrees in engineering or whatever). But that doesn't mean the school should have provided them with more journalism education. It's just not what they do best. Athletics at US colleges and universities is the same deal. These are not generally supposed to be pro athletics training programs. That's what developmental/feeder leagues are supposed to be. The US system of sports is all wrapped around the axle due to this inherited English class-based obsession with "amateur sports" and schoolboys playing for the honor of their school, yada yada yada. It's actually worked out pretty well for certain sports, but in lots of others the sooner a player leaves school and turns pro, the better it is for him/her (athletically, anyway). The whole idea that "sports pays for your college education" is great -- if you value that academic education more than your athletic career. Otherwise, why are you wasting your time in college when you could be training full-time professionally?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 17, 2020 17:16:15 GMT -5
I guess this is where we differ then. In other vocations or professions, college is about giving you the skills and tools to succeed in later life. With collegiate athletics, it is about the athlete helping the school succeed. You suggest that the coach is simply focused on his team vs someone else's... What about remembering that he works at an institution of higher education and developing the athlete to the best of his ability? With the NCAA is determined to hide behind the 'student athlete' label a bit longer, it makes a mockery out of those claims when the ideology among so many coaches is that of pro sports; "win at all costs". It also hamstrings the USWNT because those athletes who will eventually comprise the team, have to leave the relative twilight zone of collegiate athletics and compete with athletes from all over the world who were raised to understand the professional side of the sport. And the guidance doesn't even have to come from the schools (although they're freaking schools, so they should be educating about the working environment, rather than treating it like a dirty little secret). USAV have lots of contact with the top players in each class via the junior and collegiate national teams and could easily provide helpful info on pro volleyball. But they don't. Instead we operate a sink or swim philosophy which is clearly sub-optimal when looking at the development of our best players. You are right, colleges are schools. But they are not volleyball schools. I went to a science/engineering school. I spent a ton of my own time writing for the student newspaper. But the school didn't train me in journalism. Not only was there no journalism major, but there wasn't a single undergrad journalism class of any kind. If I had wanted to get trained in journalism, then I picked the wrong school. Some of my fellow student journalists actually made journalism their future profession (despite getting degrees in engineering or whatever). But that doesn't mean the school should have provided them with more journalism education. It's just not what they do best. Athletics at US colleges and universities is the same deal. These are not generally supposed to be pro athletics training programs. That's what developmental/feeder leagues are supposed to be. The US system of sports is all wrapped around the axle due to this inherited English class-based obsession with "amateur sports" and schoolboys playing for the honor of their school, yada yada yada. It's actually worked out pretty well for certain sports, but in lots of others the sooner a player leaves school and turns pro, the better it is for him/her (athletically, anyway). The whole idea that "sports pays for your college education" is great -- if you value that academic education more than your athletic career. Otherwise, why are you wasting your time in college when you could be training full-time professionally? While this is true to some degree (I think some football and basketball programs absolutely view their role as producing pro players), it is also true that in college sports programs where there are existing pro leagues, there is a considerable amount of "cross-pollination" between college/NCAA and pro coaching opportunities. It's not uncommon for this to happen in football, basketball, tennis, etc (that is, for a coach to have experience in an NCAA program and professionally). This doesn't happen nearly as often in volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 17, 2020 17:35:58 GMT -5
You are right, colleges are schools. But they are not volleyball schools. I went to a science/engineering school. I spent a ton of my own time writing for the student newspaper. But the school didn't train me in journalism. Not only was there no journalism major, but there wasn't a single undergrad journalism class of any kind. If I had wanted to get trained in journalism, then I picked the wrong school. Some of my fellow student journalists actually made journalism their future profession (despite getting degrees in engineering or whatever). But that doesn't mean the school should have provided them with more journalism education. It's just not what they do best. Athletics at US colleges and universities is the same deal. These are not generally supposed to be pro athletics training programs. That's what developmental/feeder leagues are supposed to be. The US system of sports is all wrapped around the axle due to this inherited English class-based obsession with "amateur sports" and schoolboys playing for the honor of their school, yada yada yada. It's actually worked out pretty well for certain sports, but in lots of others the sooner a player leaves school and turns pro, the better it is for him/her (athletically, anyway). The whole idea that "sports pays for your college education" is great -- if you value that academic education more than your athletic career. Otherwise, why are you wasting your time in college when you could be training full-time professionally? While this is true to some degree (I think some football and basketball programs absolutely view their role as producing pro players), it is also true that in college sports programs where there are existing pro leagues, there is a considerable amount of "cross-pollination" between college/NCAA and pro coaching opportunities. It's not uncommon for this to happen in football, basketball, tennis, etc (that is, for a coach to have experience in an NCAA program and professionally). This doesn't happen nearly as often in volleyball. The cross-pollination thing is true, and I don't think it's hard to see why. You alluded to this, but unlike the other sports mentioned, there are hardly any domestic pro volleyball opportunities. If you're an American coach looking to get pro experience, you either have to be in one of the like five spots with the national team, or you have to go overseas (granted, some college coaches do moonlight with some of the international tournaments, but this is pretty limited and not full-time). If you want to stay in the country, you'll instead coach at the collegiate, high school, or club levels, where there are actually opportunities. If there was a viable pro league in the US, then I suspect we'd see lots of coaches who had experience at both the NCAA and pro levels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 17:59:13 GMT -5
I guess this is where we differ then. In other vocations or professions, college is about giving you the skills and tools to succeed in later life. With collegiate athletics, it is about the athlete helping the school succeed. You suggest that the coach is simply focused on his team vs someone else's... What about remembering that he works at an institution of higher education and developing the athlete to the best of his ability? With the NCAA is determined to hide behind the 'student athlete' label a bit longer, it makes a mockery out of those claims when the ideology among so many coaches is that of pro sports; "win at all costs". It also hamstrings the USWNT because those athletes who will eventually comprise the team, have to leave the relative twilight zone of collegiate athletics and compete with athletes from all over the world who were raised to understand the professional side of the sport. And the guidance doesn't even have to come from the schools (although they're freaking schools, so they should be educating about the working environment, rather than treating it like a dirty little secret). USAV have lots of contact with the top players in each class via the junior and collegiate national teams and could easily provide helpful info on pro volleyball. But they don't. Instead we operate a sink or swim philosophy which is clearly sub-optimal when looking at the development of our best players. You are right, colleges are schools. But they are not volleyball schools. I went to a science/engineering school. I spent a ton of my own time writing for the student newspaper. But the school didn't train me in journalism. Not only was there no journalism major, but there wasn't a single undergrad journalism class of any kind. If I had wanted to get trained in journalism, then I picked the wrong school. Some of my fellow student journalists actually made journalism their future profession (despite getting degrees in engineering or whatever). But that doesn't mean the school should have provided them with more journalism education. It's just not what they do best. Athletics at US colleges and universities is the same deal. These are not generally supposed to be pro athletics training programs. That's what developmental/feeder leagues are supposed to be. The US system of sports is all wrapped around the axle due to this inherited English class-based obsession with "amateur sports" and schoolboys playing for the honor of their school, yada yada yada. It's actually worked out pretty well for certain sports, but in lots of others the sooner a player leaves school and turns pro, the better it is for him/her (athletically, anyway). The whole idea that "sports pays for your college education" is great -- if you value that academic education more than your athletic career. Otherwise, why are you wasting your time in college when you could be training full-time professionally? Interesting you mention the English system. There is no English equivalent to the NCAA. Young soccer players in England turn pro at 16, same with all other team sports with pro leagues in England I believe. Let's be honest, if there was an alternative in volleyball (an established domestic pro league) the elite players would do what they do in other countries (maximise their athletic career while they can and do school later if they wish). That what football and basketball players would do, had the NCAA not effectively prevented it from happening by essentially becoming the feeder leagues. That's the inherent hypocrisy here. The players aren't amateur in any sense except remuneration and they aren't given the choice of going to play in feeder leagues. Then those that champion the NCAA, as you are, say the kids shouldn't join the system if they don't like it. They have no other choice if they want to receive top class coaching in this country. But I'm not looking to rehash this one; I've worked on both sides of this particular fence and my opinions on it are immutable at this stage. My overarching point here is the NCAA or USAV could VERY easily establish an initiative to help prepare those wishing to pursue pro opportunities and it would benefit the USWNT when those players established themselves internationally. I've heard no good argument against it and the benefits (with very little expenditure) are obvious.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2020 18:20:46 GMT -5
Let's be honest, if there was an alternative in volleyball (an established domestic pro league) the elite players would do what they do in other countries (maximise their athletic career while they can and do school later if they wish). That what football and basketball players would do, had the NCAA not effectively prevented it from happening by essentially becoming the feeder leagues. This is not really true. The NBA has a rule that prohibits signing players until they are 19, which gave rise to the so-called "one and done" phenomenon. Before that, there were occasionally NBA players who never went to college at all. A fair number of "one and done" players would go directly to the NBA if they could. With NFL football, 18-yr-old men simply would not be able to survive the physical punishment. The NFL benefits from not having to sign them too young to play at the top pro level. I suppose the training in football is somewhat of a benefit to the NFL, but what they are really doing is mainly waiting for these guys' bodies to get bigger.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2020 18:23:00 GMT -5
But I'm not looking to rehash this one; I've worked on both sides of this particular fence and my opinions on it are immutable at this stage. My overarching point here is the NCAA or USAV could VERY easily establish an initiative to help prepare those wishing to pursue pro opportunities and it would benefit the USWNT when those players established themselves internationally. I've heard no good argument against it and the benefits (with very little expenditure) are obvious. So do it yourself. I mean, if the expenditure is so negligible and the benefits are so great, what is stopping you?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 17, 2020 18:24:50 GMT -5
While this is true to some degree (I think some football and basketball programs absolutely view their role as producing pro players), it is also true that in college sports programs where there are existing pro leagues, there is a considerable amount of "cross-pollination" between college/NCAA and pro coaching opportunities. It's not uncommon for this to happen in football, basketball, tennis, etc (that is, for a coach to have experience in an NCAA program and professionally). This doesn't happen nearly as often in volleyball. The cross-pollination thing is true, and I don't think it's hard to see why. You alluded to this, but unlike the other sports mentioned, there are hardly any domestic pro volleyball opportunities. If you're an American coach looking to get pro experience, you either have to be in one of the like five spots with the national team, or you have to go overseas (granted, some college coaches do moonlight with some of the international tournaments, but this is pretty limited and not full-time). If you want to stay in the country, you'll instead coach at the collegiate, high school, or club levels, where there are actually opportunities. If there was a viable pro league in the US, then I suspect we'd see lots of coaches who had experience at both the NCAA and pro levels. Yes and no. I don't believe a pro league is absolutely necessary to get the result we're talking about, but it certainly does make it easier. Tons of young USA soccer players are deciding to attend futbol academies overseas right now not because there isn't a pro league, but because the level of competition and training available in the USA isn't comparable. The same situation exists with volleyball. What we have here are tons of really good female athletes without as consistent training and development because of a bifurcated USAV and NCAA system. USAV, as the governing federation, could narrow those differences simply by adopting international rules, balls, etc. at the club level. It doesn't need anyone's permission to do that. The problem is that the club system is set up as a cash cow for USAV and club directors and it is fueled by the goal of NCAA scholarship money, not professional league money or experience. On the coaching side, I've said this many times, the problem is that Beal promoted his own philosophies rather than a broad-based coaching instruction program. A coach immersed in the current philosophy imbedded in USA Volleyball isn't really a viable or effective candidate for a high level international coaching job (see Jamie Morrison).
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 17, 2020 18:25:08 GMT -5
You are right, colleges are schools. But they are not volleyball schools. I went to a science/engineering school. I spent a ton of my own time writing for the student newspaper. But the school didn't train me in journalism. Not only was there no journalism major, but there wasn't a single undergrad journalism class of any kind. If I had wanted to get trained in journalism, then I picked the wrong school. Some of my fellow student journalists actually made journalism their future profession (despite getting degrees in engineering or whatever). But that doesn't mean the school should have provided them with more journalism education. It's just not what they do best. Athletics at US colleges and universities is the same deal. These are not generally supposed to be pro athletics training programs. That's what developmental/feeder leagues are supposed to be. The US system of sports is all wrapped around the axle due to this inherited English class-based obsession with "amateur sports" and schoolboys playing for the honor of their school, yada yada yada. It's actually worked out pretty well for certain sports, but in lots of others the sooner a player leaves school and turns pro, the better it is for him/her (athletically, anyway). The whole idea that "sports pays for your college education" is great -- if you value that academic education more than your athletic career. Otherwise, why are you wasting your time in college when you could be training full-time professionally? Interesting you mention the English system. There is no English equivalent to the NCAA. Young soccer players in England turn pro at 16, same with all other team sports with pro leagues in England I believe. Let's be honest, if there was an alternative in volleyball (an established domestic pro league) the elite players would do what they do in other countries (maximise their athletic career while they can and do school later if they wish). That what football and basketball players would do, had the NCAA not effectively prevented it from happening by essentially becoming the feeder leagues. That's the inherent hypocrisy here. The players aren't amateur in any sense except remuneration and they aren't given the choice of going to play in feeder leagues. Then those that champion the NCAA, as you are, say the kids shouldn't join the system if they don't like it. They have no other choice if they want to receive top class coaching in this country. But I'm not looking to rehash this one; I've worked on both sides of this particular fence and my opinions on it are immutable at this stage. My overarching point here is the NCAA or USAV could VERY easily establish an initiative to help prepare those wishing to pursue pro opportunities and it would benefit the USWNT when those players established themselves internationally. I've heard no good argument against it and the benefits (with very little expenditure) are obvious. I think he was actually talking about English classes at US universities (English majors are somewhat notorious for obsessing over semantics or other issues related to grammar and language), not the athletic system in England. Also, with regard to football and basketball, it isn't really the NCAA that's preventing people from jumping straight to the pros. It's the pro leagues themselves (the NFL and NBA) that have imposed age limits. It is basically true that football players don't really have alternatives to the NCAA apart from maybe the CFL, but basketball players do. Now, until recently, the other opportunities in basketball weren't really attractive enough for most, but with the NBA increasing its max G-League compensation to $500K, that is changing. Also, while this is definitely not the case with soccer, there are some sports where British athletes can benefit from NCAA participation. One of the universities that I attended is the University of New Mexico, and they've become a powerhouse in women's cross country in recent years. Their 2015 team was the best women's college cross country team ever, and four of the top five runners on the team were from the UK. Out of curiosity, what would the initiatives that you're talking about to help players prepare for the pros look like? I agree that the NCAA system is far from perfect, and there have to be ways that it could be improved. I'm just interested in what such an initiative would look like in practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 18:35:06 GMT -5
Let's be honest, if there was an alternative in volleyball (an established domestic pro league) the elite players would do what they do in other countries (maximise their athletic career while they can and do school later if they wish). That what football and basketball players would do, had the NCAA not effectively prevented it from happening by essentially becoming the feeder leagues. This is not really true. The NBA has a rule that prohibits signing players until they are 19, which gave rise to the so-called "one and done" phenomenon. Before that, there were occasionally NBA players who never went to college at all. A fair number of "one and done" players would go directly to the NBA if they could. With NFL football, 18-yr-old men simply would not be able to survive the physical punishment. The NFL benefits from not having to sign them too young to play at the top pro level. I suppose the training in football is somewhat of a benefit to the NFL, but what they are really doing is mainly waiting for these guys' bodies to get bigger. This is disingenuous and you know it. The one and done rule was created to give the NCAA an opportunity to make money from the LeBron's and Zion's of this world. Those guys don't need to be in college and they are just trying to get through the experience in one piece. If/when the NCAA changes/folds there will be pro leagues set up within hours to pick up the slack. The teams within those leagues will have youth versions spanning all age groups so that they can identify and develop talent in house. Know how I know this? It's how every other developed nation does sports. And consequently the USWNT will get stronger and produce higher quality players.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 17, 2020 18:42:55 GMT -5
This is not really true. The NBA has a rule that prohibits signing players until they are 19, which gave rise to the so-called "one and done" phenomenon. Before that, there were occasionally NBA players who never went to college at all. A fair number of "one and done" players would go directly to the NBA if they could. With NFL football, 18-yr-old men simply would not be able to survive the physical punishment. The NFL benefits from not having to sign them too young to play at the top pro level. I suppose the training in football is somewhat of a benefit to the NFL, but what they are really doing is mainly waiting for these guys' bodies to get bigger. This is disingenuous and you know it. The one and done rule was created to give the NCAA an opportunity to make money from the LeBron's and Zion's of this world. Those guys don't need to be in college and they are just trying to get through the experience in one piece. If/when the NCAA changes/folds there will be pro leagues set up within hours to pick up the slack. The teams within those leagues will have youth versions spanning all age groups so that they can identify and develop talent in house. Know how I know this? It's how every other developed nation does sports. And consequently the USWNT will get stronger and produce higher quality players. There’s already the G league of which one of the best recruits just committed to.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 17, 2020 18:49:16 GMT -5
This is disingenuous and you know it. The one and done rule was created to give the NCAA an opportunity to make money from the LeBron's and Zion's of this world. Those guys don't need to be in college and they are just trying to get through the experience in one piece. If/when the NCAA changes/folds there will be pro leagues set up within hours to pick up the slack. The teams within those leagues will have youth versions spanning all age groups so that they can identify and develop talent in house. Know how I know this? It's how every other developed nation does sports. And consequently the USWNT will get stronger and produce higher quality players. There’s already the G league of which one of the best recruits just committed to. The USA doesn't have the coaching depth, ability or experience to create a viable domestic in-house developmental program. This is the excellent point that Murina made in an earlier post when discussing the training programs for coaches in other countries. What we have is a cadre of college and club (and high school to some degree) coaches who equate success in their particular arena with coaching prowess. These coaches are providing marauding coaching clinics designed to make a fast buck, not provide consistent, effective developmental training. The saving grace is that we have an abundance of female athletes gifted with physical ability.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2020 18:52:19 GMT -5
I think he was actually talking about English classes at US universities (English majors are somewhat notorious for obsessing over semantics or other issues related to grammar and language), not the athletic system in England. No, I was talking about the athletic system in England. But not the one they have now. The US didn't inherit our university athletic system yesterday -- the fork was much earlier than that. The original English system prized "amateur athletics" mainly because the wealthy classes could afford to train up and play sports without compensation but the poorer classes could not. That made sure that sports were for the wealthy. This system broke down when Rugby Football split in two (one group that favored amateurism and one that favored professionalism). But the whole fetish for sports as an amateur endeavor for the wealthy classes carried over into the Olympics. This was only finally squashed in the last few decades. US college athletics comes from that tradition that valued amateur sports and (generally upper class) college students playing for the honor of their school. Thus, bringing in professional "students" was seen as cheating.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2020 18:53:18 GMT -5
This is not really true. The NBA has a rule that prohibits signing players until they are 19, which gave rise to the so-called "one and done" phenomenon. Before that, there were occasionally NBA players who never went to college at all. A fair number of "one and done" players would go directly to the NBA if they could. With NFL football, 18-yr-old men simply would not be able to survive the physical punishment. The NFL benefits from not having to sign them too young to play at the top pro level. I suppose the training in football is somewhat of a benefit to the NFL, but what they are really doing is mainly waiting for these guys' bodies to get bigger. This is disingenuous and you know it. The one and done rule was created to give the NCAA an opportunity to make money from the LeBron's and Zion's of this world. Those guys don't need to be in college and they are just trying to get through the experience in one piece. If/when the NCAA changes/folds there will be pro leagues set up within hours to pick up the slack. The teams within those leagues will have youth versions spanning all age groups so that they can identify and develop talent in house. Know how I know this? It's how every other developed nation does sports. And consequently the USWNT will get stronger and produce higher quality players. Why would the NBA care in the least if NCAA schools get a chance to make money? NBA rules are intended to benefit the NBA, not the NCAA.
|
|