5 Changes to Make High School Volleyball Better in Nebraska
Berk Brown is the founder of Nebraska Prep Volleyball, LLC. He has won 19 awards for his journalistic work during his career, including awards from both the Nebraska Press Association and Minnesota Newspaper Association. In the early 2000s he was a regular contributor for ESPN.com. He has covered, coached and been involved in volleyball for the past 24 years. You can reach him at Berk@NebraskaPrepVolleyball.com.
One of the most popular questions I get asked is whether I like club volleyball or high school volleyball better. That’s about the same as asking if I like my favorite drink better in a cold glass or cold mug.
Berk BrownI love them both.
Club volleyball brings together the best of the best and provides a very high level of competition. I enjoy traveling throughout the country and watching the nation’s top players and teams compete and seeing how Nebraska compares. The simple fact is that you can’t go to a high school match in Nebraska and see 12 Division I caliber players all on the court at the same time. When you watch Open Division club volleyball, that’s what you see constantly. It’s sensational.
At the same time, with all due respect to club volleyball, the aura around 95% of high school competitions is unmatched. There is just something about representing your school, your friends and your community that makes the high school atmosphere so amazing. The student body sections, the bands playing and all the pomp-and-circumstance that goes with high school athletics.
Until you’ve found yourself in the Columbus Scotus gym (without air conditioning, by the way), or in Grand Island Northwest, Kearney Catholic or North Platte with 1,000 or more other fans for a home match with the band playing and students screaming, you haven’t really seen the beauty of a high school match in Nebraska. The same could be said at hundreds of other schools across the state, and the atmosphere only seems to get better as the size of the school gets smaller.
With the first high school matches starting three weeks from tonight – and practices officially getting started on Monday – I thought now would be a good time to talk about a few tweaks that could make the high school game in Nebraska even better.
1.) Overhaul the wild card points formula
A long time ago wild cards and seeding at state were based solely on a team’s winning percentage. Eventually people realized that was a little archaic and silly so the wild card point system was put in place. It’s now time to realize that it’s a system that’s a little archaic and silly.
The chart below shows how to determine the points a team is awarded based on the result of a match. A 1st division team is one that has won 75% of its matches or more. A 2nd division team is one that has won 50% of its matches but less than 75%. A 3rd division team is one that has won 25% of its matches but less than 50%. Finally, a 4th division team is one that was won less than 25% of its matches.
It’s important to note that the amount of points you receive following a match can change throughout the season. As an example, a team might get 50 points for beating a team that was Tier 1 at the time of the match, but if that team drops to Tier 2 status during the season, the winning team’s total points for that match would drop from 50 to 47.
Here are my issues with this system. First, it seems very naive to think that Team A would deserve as many point for a win over a team that ends its regular season with a record of 29-1 as it would with a win over a 23-7 team. Similarly, it’s equally naive to think beating a 15-15 team means you deserve as many points (47) as a team that beat a team that finished 22-8.
Also, it’s dangerous when a team’s wild card point total (which is calculated by taking the total amount of points a team has earned divided by the number of matches played) can be impacted greatly with the outcome of one match. It’s a rough situation when Team A can lose anywhere from three to six to nine points in the final couple days of the regular season because a team it played during the season suddenly falls down a division with one loss.
Again, the system is archaic. The more thought I’ve put into it; I’m actually more convinced that the right word for the system is that it’s lazy. And let’s be honest, there is no reason for that to be the case. The system is nothing more than formulas in a spreadsheet. There is no mad scientist behind the scenes working 60 hours a week crunching numbers. There is a better way of doing things, which wouldn’t take much work to implement other than changing a few Excel formulas.
Here is my idea for a better system. Simply adjust the number of divisions from four to 10. A 1st division team’s winning percentage would be from 91-100%, a 2nd division team’s winning percentage would be from 81-90% and so forth. The points awarded for wins over those teams would go down by one point from 50-41. Conversely, a loss to those teams would go down from 39-30.
It’s a simple fix that would create a more accurate reflection of a team’s success or lack thereof by not clumping such a wide margin of winning percentages into a single category. It would also greatly reduce the big swings in point totals based on the outcome of a single match.
Again, the word that I keep coming back to when describing the present system is lazy. It’s just a lazy system for giving an accurate reflect of a team’s success and there is absolutely no reason for there to be a lazy system in place for determining who gets into state and who does not.
One final tweak to the wild card point structure would be to cease tabulations with the end of the regular season. Since the NSAA controls all of the postseason scheduling, schools have no control over whom they will play in the postseason. Many teams schedule matches during the season with an eye on how it will impact their wild card points. If a school has no control over whom it will play, those matches should not count toward wild card points. Also, the current structure is dangerous.
It’s dangerous because – using Class A as an example – the NSAA seeds the district tournaments to provide easier brackets for high seeds. For the most part, Class A teams need to win two matches in district play to reach state. Let’s say, for example, the #1 seed in Class A has a point total of 47.000 and wins its two district opponents – both of which finish with records of 14-16. At the same time, the #2 seed in Class A has a point total of 46.950 and wins its two district matches with wins over a 14-16 team and a 16-14 team. In this case, because of the slight difference in the one opponent’s record, the #2 seed would leap over the #1 seed in wild card points and assume the #1 seed at state. That’s dangerous. Point totals at the end of the regular season should be used throughout the postseason. Postseason matches where the NSAA dictates who you play should not be added to the formula.
2.) Either penalize teams for playing lower-class opponents or eliminate bonus for playing upper-class opponents
This is the one issue that drives my ADD off the charts. As referenced in the first issue, teams earn points in the NSAA wild card based on if they win or lose and the winning percentage of their opponent. There is one alteration the NSAA makes to those points, and that’s when teams from different classes play each other.
If you play a team in a lower class, you are not penalized any points. Let me say that again. If you play a team in a lower class, you are not penalized any points. So, using last year’s records as an example, the NSAA would have rewarded Omaha Marian with as many points for a win over Stanton as it would have for a win over Papillion-LaVista.
Seriously.
However, if you play a school one classification above you, you are awarded two bonus points. You get three bonus points if there is a two-classification difference, four bonus points if there is a three-classification difference and five bonus points if there is a four-classification difference.
So, no penalty for playing down, but bonus points for playing up. You see why my ADD doesn’t like this. There’s no ying to the yang here. I struggle understanding the concept of rewarding teams for playing up but not punishing teams for playing down.
I realize there are issues at play here with some conferences having teams in multiple classes which forces some smaller schools to play larger schools on a regular basis. There are also geographical issues that prevent some larger schools from being able to play as many large schools as others. However, we have reached the point where schedules are manipulated in a way to take advantage of these bonus points instead of simply being an equalizer for schools with scheduling hardships.
My idea for a solution is to do away with bonus points for playing up in classification. Points should be earned solely based on what you do on the court, not because a school may have 10 more students than you in its total enrollment.
From a geographical standpoint, a good example is Class A power North Platte. Give the Bulldogs credit for making three trips to Lincoln and one to Bellevue this year to get in as much competition against high-level Class A teams. However, it’s difficult from an academic and financial standpoint to think North Platte should be able to do more than it is doing to play Class A competition because of travel time. When the Bulldogs do step down a classification to play teams, generally they are playing Class B and C-1 powers that are the equivalent of many Class A schools. North Platte faces Ogallala three times, Kearney Catholic and Grand Island Northwest. A point deduction for facing those teams would be ridiculous.
Now, let’s look at the flip side of the equation and let’s use Class C-2 power Guardian Angels Central Catholic as an example. The last few years, Guardian Angels has come down and played in a tournament featuring Omaha Public Schools teams in Class A. These Class A teams are generally third or fourth division teams. Because there is a three-classification difference, Guardian Angels gets four bonus points for each match it plays. In a tournament, those add up quickly. Guardian Angels won the tournament two years ago and finished second last year and left Omaha with a boatload of bonus points. Guardian Angels can come in and get wins over Omaha Benson and Omaha Bryan (teams which struggle to even field full rosters) and get a minimum of 45 wild card points for those wins.
Is that what the bonus points are really intended for?
Or, how about all the bonus points Class B teams in the Omaha and Lincoln metro area rack-up in matches with Class A opponents just down the street while fellow Class B schools like Sidney, McCook, Lexington, Holdrege, etc., have no such options available on a regular basis? Is it a coincidence that no Class B team west of Grand Island hosted a substate match last year? I doubt it.
Bonus points for playing up in classification need to be eliminated by the NSAA. Points should be earned based on your performance on the court. Period.
3.) Please, please get actual volleyball officials to serve as line judges in postseason matches
This might be another issue that bothers only me, but it seems like a no-brainer with a simple solution.
I realize there simply aren’t enough certified volleyball officials for there to be four at every match during the regular season. I get that. You know what, I even get that it probably isn’t feasible for it to happen during the Class C and D subdistrict rounds given how many are going on those two nights and the geographical locations and distances. But, there is absolutely no reason why there can not be four certified officials working all district final matches in Class C & D, substate matches in Class B and all district matches in Class A. Especially when you realize the Metro Conference does this during its tournament.
The Class B district tournaments are all on Nov. 3, this year. That’s a whopping eight sites, which would require 32 officials.
The only volleyball action taking place on Wednesday, Nov. 4, this year are the Class A district tournaments. That’s seven sites that would require a total of 28 officials. There will be no issue filling those slots.
The only volleyball action taking place on Thursday, Nov. 5, this year are the district finals in Class C and D. That’s 12 sites that would require a total of 48 officials. Again, there would be no issue filling those slots.
On Saturday, Nov. 7, this year, the only volleyball action is the Class B substate round. That’s eight sites requiring 32 officials. Yes, that would be easy to fill.
Let’s just be frank, money isn’t an issue to pay for the certified line judges in district championships and substate matches. Finding the number of needed officials is not an issue either. So, what’s standing in the way of making it happen? Nothing.
I can’t envision a time when district baseball games would have a school volunteer out umping the base paths. In fact, I struggle to see a time when any high school varsity competitions are officiated by school volunteers. Actually, can you imagine if in the past couple years Bo Pelini had served as a line judge at Husker home volleyball matches? Laughable, right? Well, that’s what we do at the high school level.
I’m not sure it would go over well if a critical pass interference penalty was missed in a key district football game because a school volunteer official with no training wasn’t paying real close attention and got caught out of position. But, yet, we settle for that in volleyball. And, we’ve all seen line judges that double as a parent of a child playing for the home team. Ya, that’s ALWAYS a good idea.
It’s time to address this issue, at least in the postseason.
4.) Players should be allowed to have lessons at clubs during the high school season in groups of 3 or less.
Remember how I said I love club and high school equally? Well, there are times they go together like oil and water. This is one of those times. I’m certainly no lawyer, but I’ve seen every episode of the vastly underrated 80’s sitcom Night Court, so I feel like I’m adequately educated to try and sound like a lawyer.
In the NSAA Volleyball Handbook, Section 3.5.2 specifically states that, “During the season of a sport, a student is permitted to take individualized instruction from a person other than the high school coach. Individualized instruction shall not take the place of the high school practice. Group instruction, practices with outside teams, and tryouts for outside teams other than as a part of a college or university-recruiting visit, however, are not permitted. “
In short, it means a high school athlete can take a one-on-one lesson outside of the high school, but is not allowed to take part in a lesson or a clinic, etc., that involves another player or players. My problem with that is that adequate lessons almost always require two or three athletes at a time. It’s hard for a setter to work without a hitter and vice versa. The individual instruction can be good and meaningful, but it’s like telling a pitcher he can get a pitching lesson but can’t throw to a catcher or a first baseman can take hitting lessons but can’t have anyone pitching to him.
I realize that there is a certain uneasiness about athletes being instructed by club coaches during the high school season. I realize that it might mean an athlete is getting two different kinds of instruction. I also know that summer programs and conditioning for high school teams can interfere with club coaching and the club season. It goes both ways.
Here is the issue, as I see it. It is not the place of the NSAA to put limitations on what an athlete can and can’t do in their time away from school. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I would sure think the NSAA is opening itself up to litigation at some point by trying to limit an athlete’s ability to improve themself. I believe a similar issue with swimming was resolved through litigation. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…..
I’m just a big believer in individual liberties. The NSAA trying to control what an athlete does when they leave the school practice just strikes me as being wrong. If my daughter and a couple friends want to do a joint session with a math tutor once a week in the evening, I have every right as a parent to pursue that in order to help my daughter become better at math. If my daughter and a couple friends want to do a joint volleyball lesson with an instructor once a week in the evening, I have every right as a parent to pursue that in order to help my daughter become better at volleyball. It’s dangerous of the NSAA to think it can legislate otherwise.
Another issue, which needs to be addressed, is the NSAA’s insistence that an athlete’s season is not “over” until its varsity team has been eliminated from postseason play. Therefore, volleyball players are not allowed to pursue group lessons or partake in clinics at the club level until its varsity team is eliminated from postseason play. This makes sense if you’re a varsity athlete. But, if you are on a freshman or reserve team with no chance of playing on varsity during the postseason, why are you not allowed to do group lessons or be involved in club until your varsity team is eliminated? It makes no sense.
Just as an example, if you were on a player on the Millard West reserve team last year, your season ended on Oct. 25. However, your varsity team was not eliminated from postseason play until Nov. 14.
What is the purpose of a rule that keeps a freshman or sophomore who will not be playing varsity in the postseason at home and unable to partake in club volleyball lessons or clinics (when club tryouts were Nov. 16 for high school players) for three weeks? How is that a benefit to the student-athlete that the NSAA is suppose to be supportive of?
I understand that there can be circumstances (see 2015 state boys basketball) where a school may have to dip down in its roster and add players because of suspensions, injuries, etc. However, this does not outweigh the disservice being done to many athletes.
The solution to the issue is to allow volleyball players to partake in outside volleyball activities without limitation as soon as the team it plays on has completed its season – not when the varsity is eliminated. Allow those younger players to move on without being held hostage by the off chance that something unlikely happens that would force them into postseason action. Simply state that any athlete that did not play in a junior varsity or varsity match during the course of the season is not eligible for postseason play and therefore free to be involved in outside activities when their season is over. If we’re doing things for the benefit of kids, this is another no-brainer.
5.) Create a better state tournament and better state tournament experience
This one I will break into a couple different pieces. First, you create a better state tournament by putting a system in place that attempts to get the eight best teams in each class to the tournament – not a system that attempts to get a geographically diverse group of teams to state.
The right system is now in place in both Class A and B when it comes to postseason play, but the issue around geographical subdistricts and districts in Class C and D needs an overhaul. I would suggest two ways to improve the current subdistrict and district clumping, which is currently based solely on a geographic basis.
- Keep the current system the way it is, take the 12 subdistrict champions in each class (C-1, C-2, D-1 and D-2) along with four wild cards and create a substate round like in Class B to be played on the date currently reserved for district finals. This wouldn’t prevent the annual subdistricts/districts of death and the subdistricts/districts where you barely have any teams with a winning record, but it would open the door much more widely for the best eight teams in each class to reach state. This is a simple fix that makes sense.
- In each of those four classes, seed the top 12 teams in different subdistricts and then fill in the remaining teams on a geographical basis. This is something that has been floated in the past and might be harder to put together late in the season, but it is a more viable option than the current system for getting the best teams to state.
Maybe Grand Island just set the bar too high for Lincoln to reach last year. I can’t exactly put a finger on it, but the whole state tournament experience last year just wasn’t what it was – nor was it close to being what it COULD be.
The two courts running at the same time at Pinnacle Bank Arena just struck me as being wrong. It just didn’t have a state high school championship feel to it. It had a club tournament feel to it. And, I have to be honest, as great of a facility as PBA is, I’m not sold on the idea of playing there ranks as something awesome in the minds of a lot of kids – especially in Class A and B. A vast majority of Class A and B players have played in bigger environments and facilities across the nation during club season. It really isn’t that big of a deal to play at PBA and to have two matches going on right beside each other was not an enjoyable spectator experience.
In fact, since the scoreboard hanging from the rafters wasn’t being used to keep score of the matches being played, you had to see the score only in the corner scoreboards on the side of the arena you were playing on. That arrangement meant that about ¼ of the crowd on each court could not see the score of the match they were watching, but could see the score for the other court clear as day.
I can’t really put a finger on exactly what it is, but playing two courts at PBA, in my opinion, didn’t add anything to the state tournament experience, and if anything, detracted from it. It just seemed roughly put together and not very well planned out. And, don’t even ask Lincoln Southeast what it thought of having delays in its match with Omaha Marian because the court it was playing on at PBA was buckling.
Playing at the Bob Devaney Sports Center is really the only advantage Lincoln has over Grand Island. And, it seems, the use of that facility is very contingent on John Cook’s mood when it comes to giving it up for the state tournament. That’s a concern. Especially if – or when – the Huskers decide they would rather have a match there on a state tournament weekend.
The championship Saturday at Devaney felt awkward as well. I’m also a basketball junkie and have being going to the state basketball championships pretty much every year since the mid-1980s. Compared to how the basketball championships are run, the championship Saturday for volleyball last year was sluggish. Things ran at a slower pace. There were several moments of awkward inaction because of television breaks where athletes simply sat on benches waiting. I got the sense I was there watching a made-for-TV event, not a made-for-athletes event.
If last year was any indication, the state tournament experience in Lincoln doesn’t come close to matching what was being done in Grand Island. And it certainly doesn’t come close to matching what is being done for state basketball. To make the state volleyball tournament better – and to get better attendance – you can’t make the experience in person worse than what the television audience experiences at home. Otherwise, fans will be quick to realize they will enjoy themselves more by staying at home and save time and money in the process.
The NSAA needs to make a point of trying to do better for volleyball – and that includes figuring out a way to not schedule high school football playoff games during the state tournament. It’s foolish business to force spectators to choose between two options when they want to partake in both.
Make creating a first-class state tournament experience for athletes and fans – in a city that places an emphasis on embracing it instead of just hosting it – a top priority and you’ll be surprised at the increase in interest and attendance.