How Senior Night Ruined Collegiate Sports

*The below post is evidence of my transition into "back in the day" disconnect with current times*

Believe it or not, there was a time when Senior Night was non existent.  It was just an acknowledgment by the head coach in the pre-game talk that this was the last home match for the Seniors and we want to make sure they leave their home court with a win.  Maybe, just maybe, the announcer acknowledged the last home match for Seniors and the result was a big round of applause.

Before I explain just how Senior Night has ruined collegiate sports, let me say that I absolutely support senior night for high school players.  High school volleyball (and all high school sports) is a challenging beast.  This is a rough time period because the athletic reality of a player comes into fruition.  There can be talented 8th graders who never get better (and worse by comparison to their team mates), late bloomers, kids who work their socks off just to make the roster and have great attitudes, players who are spoiled selfish brats who could be good players if they just changed their attitude and let's not forget, there are plenty of high school coaches who have plenty of room for improvement (both technically and personality wise).

The high school senior night is often the pinnacle of a high school athlete's career.  They are not going to play college volleyball, they are not going to win state, there is no all conference recognition and their photo was never printed in the local newspaper.  This is the opportunity for the player and her family to stand in front of the school and hear the applause of friends and fans.  This is an affirmation of the years of hard work, the floor burns and high fives and to walk away with a keepsake photo to show their children one day.

No where else has the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality reached rarefied air than of collegiate athletic's Senior Night.

In collegiate sports, there is much concern over the entitlement attitude of athletes (and parents) and the Senior Night festivities are part of this problem.  The basic reason I don't support this Carnival of Senior Night is that college athletes are receiving compensation to participate in sports at their school.  Some athletes receive a full athletic scholarship, others are on a package of scholarships which is significant; even if an athlete receives no financial support, there are still the great benefits of being an athlete such as academic support, clothes/equipment, access to athlete only conditioning and medical facilities, travel, etc.

Collegiate athletics is a business transaction between players and schools.  That is the elephant in the room, the reality which only seems to be recognized when a player is cut or a coach is fired.

I distinctly remember my first thought of, "This is not good" with regards to Senior night.  I was at a DI school, and the men's basketball program had left the 'awards' presented to their Seniors in the volleyball office because we were closer to the playing floor (I am unsure how they gained access the office, but mens' hoops is usually the king has no clothes on any collegiate campus).  The 'award' was beyond a poster size glass framed playing uniform, and another equally big glass framed action photo with brass engraved career statistics - When I say big, I mean embarrassingly large.  And the best part, these demonstrations of every senior gets a trophy sat in the volleyball offices for two weeks, until my assistant called the basketball secretary (yes, we only had access to the secretary - and then she told my assistant to bring them upstairs to her; we did not act as delivery service) and then they sat in our offices another two weeks!

These over the top displays of senior night, led the NCAA to set limits on how much a school could spend on such senior awards.  The big school programs then started having their awards 'donated' so they could still give Zeppelin (the blimp, not the band) sized gifts.  Every year, programs try to make Senior night bigger/better than other programs in the league or even on their own campus!

Each of my readers can rightfully think that I have turned into grumpy old man and there is nothing wrong with having a celebration of the seniors, that it is just a few minutes before the last match, that the players enjoy it, etc.  And each of my readers may be absolutely right, but you may be absolutely wrong.

I say absolutely wrong, because I have witnessed and received feedback from other college coaches, how this Senior Night becomes more important than the team. How players and parents get upset if the number of words spoken about them by the announcer is not long enough or as long as the other seniors.  How the award they received was not as good as the award given to last year's seniors or what their friend got at State University.  They were mad because they were not able to walk across the floor to the entrance music they wanted or they were not allowed to walk with their boyfriend.  

Whenever the focus is diverted to the individual versus the team, not good things usually happen.  The team is what matters and individual recognition should be a result of excelling within the team success.  It used to drive me nuts as a coach, to have Seniors expecting/demanding the big recognition of a Senior night, when the team record during  their Senior year was poor and they did not perform as a player or leader.  

It is hypocritical of coaches/fans/media to decry the spoiled/entitled attitude of today's athletes, yet smile and clap during the presentation of flowers, balloons, framed jerseys, photos, incense and quinoa to players.  The athlete has already been 'thanked' by the program every day for the last 4 years, and will continue to be 'thanked' by the college for the remainder of their life by having a degree and a resume that reflects collegiate athletics.

Yes, I know that I am making a mountain out of a small ball.  I understand that 10 minutes at the end of the season is just 10 minutes.  I understand that there is nothing wrong with having a bit of celebration for athletes playing their last home match.  Yet, there is acknowledgment and there is too much, and today's Senior Nights have become too much. 

College Volleyball 5th set scoring

I'm watching a terrific five set battle between Stanford and Penn State (go Card!).  I've always wondered why NCAA volleyball matches (since rally scoring was implemented) play the 5th set to fifteen instead of 25 (or 30).  Why shorten the final set?  

The matches are not that long (particularly since they reduced the first four games to 25).  Five set matches are not that common.  When you get a good one, why cut it short?  I do not understand the rationale for the shorter fifth set.  

Can you explain?  

H.R.


It is a function of the history of volleyball and the seeming need for volleyball to have significant change every couple of years.

History:

Volleyball used to be sideout scoring to 15 points, which was based upon having to serve and win the rally to score a point.  Matches were 5 games to 15 points, as this seemed a comfortable length of a match; long enough to provide time for strategy, in game adjustments and comebacks, but not too long to reach a conclusion.

My junior year at UCLA (I think junior year, maybe senior year), the 5th game was changed to rally score to 15.  Rally score is the winner of each rally gains a point, no matter who served.  My team mates and I did not understand the rationale for the change, and did not feel it necessary but were were told it was to make the 5th game more 'exciting'......we did not realize that the 5th games were boring?  

For many, many years, volleyball was sideout score to 5 games, with each game to 15.

Then for many, many years, volleyball was sideout score to 15 the first 4 games, then rally score to 15 for the 5th set; again, the reasoning was to make the 5th set exciting.

A few of years into my college coaching tenure, the move was made to rally score for all 5 games with the point total being 30 points for games 1 to 4 and then 15 points to make sure that 5th game was exciting.  

The FIVB had changed to rally scoring for international play a few years before college volleyball also moved to rally score.  From what I was told, the rationale of the FIVB to change was to make the matches more exciting, to make every play count and to better manage the length of the match.

I was in the Big Ten as an assistant coach, at a coach's meeting when the topic of switching NCAA Volleyball to rally score was a discussed.  As a power conference, a few coaches (who are no longer in the Big Ten) wanted the conference to sponsor a rule change switching the scoring system to rally.  There were two main points in this argument for change; 1) we should mimic the international governing body for volleyball, 2) by switching to rally score, the volleyball matches would be played within a much better defined time segment, thus better for volleyball to be televised.

A significant item still sticks with me from this coaches meeting (it was a head coaches meeting, and I was present because the program's head coach had quit earlier in the year); Penn State had lost in the NCAA Finals and as part of the argument for rally score, the coaches in the meeting who supported the change for rally score, extrapolated the Final's score sheet to come up with a rally score final point total.  In the rally score final, Penn State still lost but the total points awarded were much larger than 25 or even 30.  

What stuck with me was this, when the coaches limited the extrapolation to just 25 points (to mimic the FIVB rally score totals), the total points scored under sideout scoring were constantly around 7 points.  I was stunned to think we were contemplating a change in format which cut the games in half....imagine football playing 7 minute quarters, basketball playing 10 minute halves, baseball playing 4 innings, etc.  We were going to halve our sport in the hopes of getting on television more.

When rally score was adopted, it did not mimic the FIVB 25 point total because college coaches thought the games were too short, but a couple of years later they were reduced to 25 points so we could be inline with the FIVB - Interesting to note that we didn't follow the FIVB substitution or Libero limitations, just the scoring format/total.

I completely agree that the 5th game to 15 points is way too quick, especially since the 25 point games don't take that long.  I think the 15 point final game is actually too quick  as there is limited time build drama and absolutely no time to make a comeback; the games tend to be played under the mindset of don't make a mistake, as opposed to make great players.

So, to answer your question in rally score fashion....the 5th set to 15 points rally score is a hold over from many year's ago when the 5th set of sideout scoring was changed to rally score to make it "more exciting".  

Co (rally score version of my name)

College Volleyball and Cheerleading

Significant court ruling for Title IX and saving a volleyball program at a NCAA Division I university.  The Athletic Department tried to replace Volleyball with competitive cheerleading.  

Click for the article:  http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/connecticut-judge-rules-competitive-cheerleading-is-not-a-title-ix-sport-030613

This should be ruling noticed and if it ever changes, it should fought by all volleyball families and the AVCA.  Not because cheerleading is bad, but because if Athletic Departments can replace one women's sport with another women's sport which is cheaper to manage and supplies more student-athletes for the equity count, then they will.

Women's Volleyball has no male shelter when it comes to equity - This is one of the reasons why our sport lags behind other team sports, most especially women's basketball and now, softball.  WBB and softball is safe, when an athletics department has basketball and baseball.   Even women's soccer has some measure of protection, because of the men.

But, volleyball is on an island.  Crew or rowing has seen great gains within the NCAA is because this sport can garner a very large roster.  This large roster, relatively speaking, is easy to fund and creates a huge offset in participation numbers to football.  Volleyball does not sponsor such large rosters, and has no male cover.

Because of the economy and the emphasis on the Golden Goose of Football or the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament (each DI football team believes it can be the next Alabama and each no-name basketball program believes they are the next Cinderella story), athletic departments are constantly looking for ways to manage Title IX and Gender equity from a dollars perspective.  

Cheerleading is not a recognized NCAA sport, and I hope it never becomes one because other traditional women's sports will be at risk because an athletic department could put together a very large roster with ease which will count towards a faux equity count.

Volleyball Recruiting Soft Scam

My daughter got an invitation from her high school coach to attend "junior national" tryouts in Michigan a couple of weeks ago.  We didn't know much about it, but decided to go.  It seemed loosely run and I hear kids on the way out saying "what did I get out of that?"

 

I am not finding information online about it.  Only AAU Nationals info pops up.  This is called "USA Junior Nationals, National Volleyball Sports Festival."

 

She got a letter saying she made it to the next level in Ohio.  It costs quite a bit so I am wondering if it is a legitimate thing.  They say there will be college scouts there.  But it is somewhat vague.  Have you heard of this?  Is it beneficial to go to?

 

Thanks, T

No. 

Unfortunately, there are a number of volleyball business ventures where a group will put on a tryout, or all star event, or select invite event, or some other title which sounds fancy but is really nothing.

It is better for your family to use financial resources toward club volleyball and personal college outreach efforts, which is the proven vehicle for garnering recruiting exposure to college volleyball programs.

These select or tryout events, which have another 'next level', which promise that the college coaches will be there are a soft scam. Soft because you do get to touch a ball, and maybe there is excellent training, but a scam because they are being disingenuous when it comes to the recruiting aspect.

Whatever you spend on travel or entry into such an event, especially it being expensive, would be better spent on going to an established Club Volleyball tournament which you may have not attended before (like a large tournament out of your region, which would provide exposure to a new set of collegiate coaches), or using that money to enroll in NCSA Athletic Recruiting's premium service where you can get your information/video out to thousands of collegiate coaches in a verified fashion, or use that money to buy another video camera/computer/scanner which will make your digital communication quicker and easier.  

If there is no website about this event, and no detailed listing of who will be there and who the sponsoring club or governing body is, then I would be highly suspect of going.  After your impression of the first event, you need to remember the old saying, "Fool me once......"

Stay focused on proven, traditional recruiting methods, where it is verified that college coaches will be there or will digitally see your PSA's information.

Coach Matt

NCAA Conference Expansion Commentary

Finally, a sports writer has the fortitude to write a critical commentary about the conference expansions which have now become routine!

ESPN link is here.

Do caretakers of college sports care?

The Most Powerful Man In College Sports race heats up as Big Ten makes it move

Originally Published: November 19, 2012

By Dana O'Neil | ESPN.com

• 475
• 129
• 432
• EMAIL
• PRINT

Do they even care anymore? Do they listen to the people at all -- read their comments or feel their frustration?

Do the powers-that-be see people calling college sports a money-grubbing mess and an embarrassment? Do they sense the sarcasm and the cynicism when people talk about Rutgers-Nebraska as a new Big Ten rivalry or say they can't wait for that Georgetown-SMU Big East showdown?

My guess is they do. No one is that tone-deaf or blind.

They hear. They see. They simply don't care.

The powers-that-be and the caretakers of college sports long ago stopped worrying about their pennant-waving constituents or even the athletes carrying the official flag of membership.

[+] Enlarge

AP Photo/Paul BeatyTurns out Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany will not sit pat at a dozen schools after all.

It became about the commissioners, about their egos and their legacies, about the aphrodisiac-laced cocktail of power and greed. Mike Slive has his powerful 14-team member SEC; Larry Scott got a network for the Pac-12; John Swofford added Notre Dame to the ACC, a huge coup.

Did we really think Jim Delany was going to sit idly by and dither?

No, the Big Ten's announcement that it will add Maryland, with Rutgers expected to follow, is merely the latest in the ultimate testosterone-measuring party to see who can lay claim to the Most Powerful Man in College Sports.

The United States map is the board for the chess game, and the colleges, fan bases, alums and athletes the pawns.

In their world, the Big Ten can have 14 teams, the Big East can go West and Utah and Colorado can lay claim to a Pacific-based home.

In their world, the Notre Dame football program, long chastised for refusing to capitulate and join a conference, winds up looking like a Mensa member. Who in the world wants to join this mess?

What's worse than the inaccurate conference names and skewed geography, though, is what these puppeteers are failing or refusing to see: In an effort to cement their places in history, they are putting cracks all over college sports.

The NCAA will have you believe that runners and agents are the most insidious cancer in the game today, that the notion that athletes are on the take has disenchanted the fan base to the point of no return.

The NCAA is wrong.

The commissioners are the ones on the proverbial take and everyone knows it.

SportsNation: Maryland, Rutgers To Big Ten

Both Maryland and Rutgers have accepted invitations to join the Big Ten. Which school is a better fit?
Cast your vote!

I can't fault Maryland and Rutgers in this one. It's been a decade since the Terrapins have been truly relevant in a revenue sport. It's been -- well, basically forever -- for the Scarlet Knights.

So if you're a financially strapped athletic department like Maryland and someone dangles the Big Ten Network cash register in front of you, you go.

If you're a dying-to-win homecoming queen but are a destined-for-princess school like Rutgers and someone wants you (other than your crumbling league), you go.

Delany will offer a good argument and a litany of explanations -- for example, that this gives Penn State some East Coast company, that the value added by the expanded television markets enhances the league.

But let's consider: Delany is suddenly worried about Penn State feeling lonesome -- the Hester Prynne of college athletics, the school many thought he should have kicked to the curb a year ago?

And he needs value and expanded TV markets, why? Because the money press he's currently operating isn't churning fast enough?

You can rationalize and argue this all you want and come up with answers and reasons. But there is no real need -- emphasize need -- to do any of this, other than you can and you want to.

And the fans are smart enough to realize it and disgusted enough to be sick of it. They know that all the posturing about the commitment to academics and bolstering competition is babble and that their interests, cares and passions don't matter a lick.

The Kansas-Missouri rivalry? Later. Georgetown-Syracuse? Eh. Duke-Maryland? Deal with it.

More From ESPN.com

Now that the Big Ten is ready to expand with Maryland and Rutgers, Gene Wojciechowski asks the big question: Is it done adding? Story

So your daughter plays field hockey at Maryland, and instead of driving to Virginia you now have to figure out how to get to Iowa to see her play? Deal with it.

So you love West Virginia and try to go to as many road games as you can and can't figure out how to get from Morgantown to Lubbock? Deal with it.

So in financially strapped times your pocketbook is getting lighter? Hey, sorry, we're busy over here trying to make sure the money doesn't come tumbling out of the Brinks truck on the way to the bank.

Deal with it.

Eventually, though, don't we have to reach a point of no return? Of some sort of pushback?

The landscape is a storm-ravaged mess and the last idealistic fan has left the building, seeing this entire enterprise for the sausage-making caper it is.

College sports are gaining money and losing credibility, the sham of amateurism and purity reserved merely for the athletes and their vow of poverty.

People are lemmings. They'll go to the games because they always go to the games. I get that.

But at some point the bastardization of all this has to devalue the very product these men keep talking about adding value to.

So when they are done fighting and scrapping to make their resumes thicker, their legends longer and their statues taller -- when they decide who is the Most Powerful Man in College Sports -- what exactly will be left to rule over?

And more importantly, will they care?