Author: horvath

USTA Ten and Under Mandate Remains Contentious

horvath Leave a comment

The United States Tennis Association recently announced that it passed rules requiring that 10-and-under tournaments be played using smaller courts and lighter equipment.

Their press release quoted USTA President Lucy Garvin as saying, “We’re very excited about what this change means to the future of tennis in the United States. Competition is an important element of learning and growing the game, and now all children 10 and under will have the proper platform with which to compete.”

In addition, Kurt Kamperman, Chief Executive, Community Tennis, USTA said, “This rule change to the competition format for kids 10 and under is critical to the long-term growth of our sport, and ultimately will help us develop new generations of talented players.”

The press release continued by saying that the change in tournament format by both the USTA and the ITF was reached after weighing the benefits for beginners as well as recurring and high-performing youth players. Studies have found that competition, when conducted in a welcoming environment that allows for multiple play opportunities, enhances kids’ enjoyment of the game. And for aspiring collegiate and professional players, the QuickStart Tennis play format fosters proper technique and enhances strategy, key components to success in competitive play.

Over the years teaching professionals, coaches, and manufacturers have endorsed the notion that multiple play opportunities, short courts, lighter racquets, and quality instruction increase the chances that juniors will enjoy and stay in the game. In fact they have developed short racquets, lighter balls, and have had short court programs in place since the mid-1980s.

The mandate handed down by the USTA was not welcomed by some prominent teaching professionals and many in the industry. The following objections to the 10U ruling are from a variety of sources:
• Some 10-year olds have advanced beyond the short court teaching tools and are playing competitive tennis on a full court. For that reason, an appropriate rule change would have allowed short courts for 10U competitive play rather than mandating them.
• The ruling in counter-productive. Ten-year olds who are already playing on a regular court will avoid the 10Us and play the 12Us.
• This is yet another attempt by the USTA to create a monopoly. They want to take credit for the work of others and try to control all aspects of the industry.
• The ruling has not been put in place for the benefit of the sport, but rather the benefit of increasing USTA power.
• Garvin and the USTA do not support the teaching profession. This is illustrated by her comment “Now all children 10 and under will have the proper platform with which to compete.”
• The USTA has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the Player Development program, but have had limited success in development of world class players. This rule change illustrates they are not in touch with the sport or the needs of the tennis industry.
• Every USTA President and Board wants to leave their mark on the sport. This mandate is nothing more than that.
• The USTA is schizophrenic in its decision-making. It wasn’t that long ago that the USTA eliminated lower level age division rankings because research had demonstrated that competition was bad for players under 12 years of age. Now they are calling for increased competition at the younger ages.
• Over the past 20 years, clubs have gone out of business and courts have been eliminated at existing facilities. Dedicating space for new junior courts or converting existing courts for 10U play is not a cost effective investment for recreation departments, tennis facilities, or country clubs.
• The U.S. still has not fully recovered from the Great Recession. The USTA, which has not been a articipant in the recession, is not in touch with the challenges facing the industry.
• Similarly, the new ruling creates barriers to entry for new clubs. 10U courts have limited potential for revenue generation.

Even after the decision has been made, this remains a contentious issue between the USTA and some members of the industry. The real question remains, “Will the 10 and under players ultimately be the winner?”

Over the years, the USTA has introduced a number of excellent programs. Time will tell whether the recent 10U mandate will prove to be a “critical driver of long-term growth of the sport” and a generator of “generations of talented players”. In the meantime it is up to the teaching professionals and the industry to track the success of this USTA decision and hold them accountable if it turns out to be another USTA boondoggle.

 

Concussions – No Joking Matter

horvath Leave a comment

With the start of the high school fall sports season, coaches, parents, and players should take a few minutes to have a discussion about concussions.

Concussions are a form of brain injury. They are caused by a bump or blow to the head. As well they can be caused by a hit to the body that moves the head back and forth rapidly.

According to the Center for Disease Control approximately 1.7 million people receive traumatic brain injuries each year. About 52,000 die, 275,000 are hospitalized, and 1,365,000 make visits to emergency facilities. It is unknown how many people do not receive treatment for their injuries.

Symptoms of a concussion may show up immediately or hours or days after the injury. The following information is from a publication by the Center for Disease Control.

Parents, coaches, and teachers may observe the following symptoms:

  • Appears dazed or stunned
  • Is confused about events
  • Answers questions slowly
  • Repeats questions
  • Can’t recall events prior to the hit, bump, or fall
  • Can’t recall events after the hit, bump, or fall
  • Loses consciousness (even briefly)
  • Shows behavior or personality changes
  • Forgets class schedule or assignments

The athlete may report the following symptoms:

Thinking/Remembering
• Difficulty thinking clearly
• Difficulty concentrating or remembering
• Feeling more slowed down
• Feeling sluggish, hazy, foggy, or groggy

Physical
• Headache or “pressure” in head
• Nausea or vomiting
• Balance problems or dizziness
• Fatigue or feeling tired
• Blurry or double vision
• Sensitivity to light or noise
• Numbness or tingling
• Does not “feel right”

Emotional
• Irritable
• Sad
• More emotional than usual
• Nervous

Sleep
• Drowsy
• Sleeps less than usual
• Sleeps more than usual
• Has trouble falling asleep

What to do if a Concussion is Expected

Seek medical attention right away. If the potential concussion occurs during a game, the athlete should be removed immediately. Note: Concussions are not limited to boys and the sport of football.

Help them take time to get better. Be patient, a brain injury will take time to heal. As well, it will likely be necessary to limit physical activities and such things as reading or computer work.

Learn more about concussions. The source of this information is http://www.cdc.gov/Concussion/ and http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/statistics.html.

 

 

Is it Necessary to Have Equal Playing Time in Youth Sports Programs

horvath Leave a comment

Should participants in youth and recreation sports programs have equal playing time over the course of a season? There are a number of justifiable reasons for not giving young participants equal playing time and the definition of unequal time on the court varies from coach to coach.

The following reasons are based on past experience, a review of literature on the topic, or discussions with other coaches, parents, athletes, or experts in the field.
• Winning is the top priority. In other words a coach makes a decision to play the strongest team in hopes of maximizing the number of wins.
• It is fair to give more inexperienced players playing time after the outcome is determined.
• There are many life lessons to be learned from unequal playing time – one of them is that the team takes precedence over the player.
• Unequal playing team teaches players that you have to earn when you get. In other words, the better players often work harder than the benchwarmers.
• Playing time is a privilege that is earned, not a right.
• The majority of learning occurs during practice. Unequal playing time is a non-issue.
• Organized sports are not designed to facilitate equal playing time. Equal playing time is more likely to occur in unstructured play.
• Unequal playing time teaches players to appreciate teammates with stronger skills. As well it provides them with an opportunity to learn to respect those with lower skills.
• Volunteer parent coaches often have difficulty monitoring and ensuring equal playing time. They shouldn’t have the burden of equal playing time placed on them.
• Playing time should be allocated based on attendance at practice.
• Players who show the strongest commitment or hustle should have the most playing time.
• Injured or ill players should be rested until they are well enough to play.
• Players who have violated team rules will not have equal playing time.
• Playing time may be awarded based on classroom performance.
• Players who are not emotionally or physically developed should not play as much.
• A player who is not in condition may not have the stamina to play a full game.
• At some point, kids note that they have inferior skills. Inexperienced players are not likely to benefit from situations where they are getting beat soundly.
• Team chemistry is essential; the group of players that produce the best team chemistry should play a majority of time.
• In individual sports, league rules may dictate that players must play a certain number of matches at their level to qualify for a conference championship at that position. This may be relevant in individual sports like tennis.
• Players may be specialists, which dictate they only play in certain circumstances. For example, a linebacker may be most effective in passing situations and play primarily on third downs.
• Players who have demonstrated poor sportsmanship will receive less playing time.
• Players may be required to play a minimum amount of time to receive rankings or be acknowledged for awards or statistics.
• Playing time may be determined by head-to-head competition (individual sports), skills tests (team sports) or some other type of selective process.

There are successful programs with varied philosophies about playing time. For a look at the justifications for equal playing time go to the post on July 23, 2011, entititled “Should Participants in Youth Sports Programs Have Equal Playing Time?”

 

 

Contenders or Pretenders – What is University’s Actual Goal?

horvath Leave a comment

The Boulder Daily Camera has always had top-notch sports writers. On Friday August 21, 2009 Neill Woelk wrote a timeless article entitled “CU must decide if ‘competitive’ is actual goal.”

Woelk’s focus was on the University of Colorado Athletic Department; however, his commentary applies to the academic side of the university as well. In fact, Woelk’s editorial makes the case that higher education is a tough business. Although he doesn’t say it, many colleges and universities have encountered challenges similar to those facing CU.

A lot has changed since Woelk penned his column in 2009 – CU has new coaches in its marquee sports and a new practice facility for basketball and volleyball. As well, the Buffs are now part of the PAC-12, and Commissioner Larry Scott has aggressive plans for the conference – and CU.

Despite these and other changes, the basic question is still pertinent – CU must decide if it really wants to be competitive (in athletics and academics). If competitiveness is their choice, they must find a way to finance that decision.

Woelk’s comments from 2009 follow:

It seems that every few years, the question arises concerning the University of Colorado and its athletic department.  What exactly, are the expectations that should be associated with CU’s programs?

It’s pertinent again today because the upcoming year might just be one of the most important in years for CU’s athletic department.

Important because CU’s fortunes in the “marquee” sports-football and men’s and women’s basketball-have been less than productive in the win-loss column in recent years. Important because a positive step forward by each of those programs is vital to the long-term viability of not only each individual program, but vital to the overall success of the entire department.

And, important because it’s time for the school-not just the athletic department, but the entire administration – to decide whether the Buffs should actually compete in the Big 12 or simply be merely a member of the conference with no expectations attached.

By no means is this the first time such a question has been asked. Fact is, it’s been an issue at CU for decades, and the answer has ebbed and flowed as administrations have come and gone.

It’s no secret that the zenith of Colorado’s athletic successes coincided with the presidency of Gordon Gee (now the president at Ohio State). Gee and then-athletic director Bill Marolt built a foundation for success at CU that set the stage for Bill McCartney’s 1990 national championship team, the opening of the Dal Ward Center in 1991 and what turned out to be maybe the most successful overall stretch ever for CU athletics in the ensuing half-dozen years.

That stretch also set the stage for CU to earn a seat on the national stage across the board. While some members of academia – not all, but some-are loath to admit it, successful athletic programs benefit a school in myriad ways. The marketing potential of successful athletics can’t be over-stated, and CU reaped the benefits in the ’90s.

(If you need to see the correlation between athletics and top-ranked public institutions, check any of the annual lists compiled by a variety of magazines. The top 20 always includes such schools as Virginia, Cal, North Carolina, Washington, Illinois, Utah, Texas, and Florida. Those same schools, of course, all boast successful athletic programs.)

It’s also no secret that when Gee left in 1990, CU’s ability to excel on the field began to slowly erode. McCartney had recruited well enough to keep CU nationally competitive for the ensuing six seasons, but support from the administration was never the same. The result was that maintaining competitive facilities became more difficult, as did the ability to attract the athletes necessary to compete in one of the nation’s most competitive conferences. By the end of the decade, CU had slipped significantly.

Gee’s departure is one of the reasons McCartney finally left in 1994, when support from the administration waned. It’s also one of the reasons Marolt followed suit just a couple of years later, and that lack of support is at least in part behind Rick Neuheisel’s departure after the 1998 football season.

And, it’s one of the reasons CU’s fortunes have since see-sawed, with the successes of the 1900s becoming more and more a memory rather than a constant.

How do administrations play a role in athletic success?

In the case of schools such as Colorado, it means making the playing field relatively level, wherever possible.

Clearly, CU will never compete on a financial basis with schools such as Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, etc. Those schools are economic heavyweights, with the booster dollars to provide whatever is necessary to facilitate success.

But CU can make sure its athletic programs are not hamstrung in other areas, such as academic admissions, necessary facilities, and the day-to-day process of doing business.

Check out CSU’s latest football press guide. In glossy color, it boasts of a $13 million indoor practice facility and a $7 million academic and training center. It’s by no means a Taj Mahal, but it keeps CSU competitive in its conference.

CU can make no such claims in the Big 12.

It terms of admission, I’ve never, ever advocated that CU accept the NCAA’s bare minimum standards. CU should be proud of its academic excellence. No shortcuts allowed.

But there are also cases in which some student athletes are on the cusp and are turned away. That’s not wise. Exceptions can and should be made. It was standard practice under Gee, and the university certainly seemed no worse for the wear.

By no means should Colorado compromise or taint the quality of its reputation.

But if CU officials – and fans and donors and students – do indeed want Colorado to actually compete in the Big 12, the administration should make that clear. Colorado should never hide behind the facade of claiming to be a productive member of one of the nation’s premier conferences if that isn’t actually the case.

Instead, CU administrators should consider another conference, because in the Big 12, the majority of schools see being competitive as a positive experience rather than a burden.

 

Should Participants in Youth Programs Have Equal Playing Time?

horvath Leave a comment

Should participants in youth and recreation sports programs have equal playing time over the course of a season? There are a number of justifiable reasons for giving young participants equal playing time. Among those who believe in equal playing time, there is a consensus that it should be a part of youth sports until the age of at least 12.

The following reasons are based on past experience, a review of literature on the topic, or discussions with other coaches, parents, athletes, or experts in the field.
• Players best learn the technical and tactical fundamentals of the game by playing it.
• The only way to learn to win and deal with mistakes is to be on the court or field.
• Players will learn the true meaning of teamwork when they find they can perform (and win) when the better players are on the bench.
• When you give kids a chance to play, inevitably they will make a big play that wins a game.
• The only way to learn the love of sport is to play the sport.
• Players must play to learn to perform under the pressure of competition.
• Some believe that practice is a necessary evil and the game is the icing on the cake that is the reward for putting up with practice. All should enjoy the rewards.
• Equal playing time reduces conflict between coaches and parents.
• Some parents expect a return on their investments or contributions, which may mean they expect equal playing time. Comparable playing time may reduce conflict between parents.
• Equal playing time may reduce conflict among players.
• Players are less likely to become exhausted or hurt.
• Team depth is improved when all players are given an opportunity to gain playing time.
• A team may value a win more if everyone participated in the process.
• Coaches who can develop all the players on a team are recognized as the top coaches.
• Because all players contribute, team chemistry is improved.

There are successful programs with varied philosophies about playing time. For a look at the merits of not equal playing time go to the post on August 4, entitled, “Is it Necessary to Have Equal Playing Time in Youth Sports Programs?”

 

Markovian Chains – Helping You Stay Focused on Each Point

horvath Leave a comment

Have you ever played a tennis match and come off the court with the feeling that you could have been the victor with a point here or there? That gut feeling is founded in the mathematical theory, Markovian Chains, discussed below. (The discussion is basic so keep reading).

Tennis has a unique scoring system. The ultimate outcome, or the match, is based on the number of sets won. A set is the first to win 6 games and be ahead by two, while a game is the first to 4 points and win by two.

The probability of winning a point, game, set and match are substantially different. For example, a player has a better chance of winning one point against Roger Federer or Maria Sharapova than they have of winning a game, set, or match.

It is possible to use Markovain chains and basic probability theory to explain the amplifying effect in going from point probabilities to match probabilities.  The size of the amplifying effect quantifies the difference in the probabilities for points, games, sets, tiebreaks, and matches.

To save you the hassle of learning the mathematical theory, the table below provides the probabilities for you. In that table you will see the following three scenarios:

• It should be intuitive that if a player wins 50 percent of the points, that player will win 50 percent of the games, 50 percent of the sets, and 50 percent of the matches (column I).  There is no amplifying effect.

• The impact of the amplifying effect can be seen when a player increases the percentage of points won from 50% to 54% of the points (column V).  A player winning 54% of the points will win 59.9% of the games, 76.3% chance of the sets, and 85.9% of the matches. In non-mathematical terms, this means that by finding a way to increase the percentage of points won from 50% to 54%, or 4 percentage points, a player theoretically has increased the chances of winning the match by 36 percentage points.

• The amplifying effect is even greater if a player can increase the percentage of points won from 50% to 60% of the points (column IX). This increase in points won translates into a 73.6% probability of winning the game, a 96.3% probability of winning a set, and a 99.6% probability of winning the match. By finding a way to increase the percentage of points won from 50% to 60%, or by 10 percentage points, a player theoretically has increased the chances of winning the match by almost 50 percentage points.

By developing a discipline in which a player focuses on each point, it will suddenly become very easy to pick up several points a set – and these points will be enough to make the difference in a match.

 

Bilingual Athletes

horvath Leave a comment

It is easy to forget that professional sports are international and that English may be a second or third language for many athletes. Frequently, foreign golfers, tennis players, and skiers speak eloquently when they are elevated to the podium to be receive their championship trophies and speak about their accomplishments. It is easy to forget that not everyone speaks English.

It is fairly easy to have an interpretter for individual sports. How does a coach communicate when he wants a basketball player to set a screen or play shortstop instead of second base, particularly if players on the team are from several different nationalities?

The December 22, 2009 Daily Camera published a quote on this topic attributed to Esquire magazine. Houston Rockets center Yao Ming was quoted, “I haven’t done much trash-talking. But last year, I did complain about a call. Nobody could believe it. So I said, ‘I’ve spent a lot on English lessons. I want to get my money’s worth.'”

Ming’s humorous comment on raises some interesting questions:
• What is being done by recreation programs and coaches to reduce the impact of the language barriers on their players?
• How many world-class athletes cannot advance to the next level because of language barriers?
• If this is occurring, what can be done to reduce the number of athletes lost in the process because of language barriers?
• Should players be required to speak English before participating in U.S. professional leagues? Should teams be required to have interpretters?

If nothing else, Ming’s comment illustrates how U.S. professional sports have become international.

 

Chestnut Downs 62 Franks; ‘Black Widow’ Consumes 40

horvath Leave a comment

On July 5, 2011 AP writer Verena Dobnik reported, “Joey Chestnut scarfed down 62 hot dogs to win his fifth consecutive Fourth of July hot dog eating contest at Coney Island – the equivalent of about 20,000 calories in 10 minutes.”

“Sonya Thomas, known as the ‘Black Widow’ of competitive eating won with 40 downed dogs, earning her $10,000 and her own pink champion’s belt.”

It is hard to believe that some people consider this activity to be a sporting event – celebrated every year – Just like Wimbledon, the World Series, and the Super Bowl.

 

 

PAC-12 Arrives – Let the Games Begin

horvath Leave a comment

Tomorrow (7/1) marks the day the University of Colorado and the University of Utah join the PAC-12. For CU, the move is from one BCS Conference to another – no big deal. For Utah the move is from a non-BCS to a BCS conference – this is a big deal. Being part of the PAC-12 is historic in another sense. The league is the second oldest in the country with only the Ivy League having a longer history.

Reportedly there is a network deal with ESPN and Fox worth about $3 billion to the PAC-12 (Daily Camera). As a result the move could be worth an additional $20 million each year to CU. While this is not a firm number, neither it or other preliminary estimates are chump change. Unfortunately, CU and Utah will need substantially more to be competitive in the new league.

Being in the PAC-12 presents a number of new marketing opportunities for the newcomers, particularly given CU’s large alumni base on the West Coast. And on the academic side, Buff leaders are quick to make the claims that the PAC-12 conference in more in line with the CU academic mission.

At the moment the conference is thriving under the aggressive leadership of Larry Scott. CU and Utah will definitely benefit from his actions.It was necessary for both schools to make the jump, given the race by other programs to construct a series of super conferences. If either school failed to take advantage of this opportunity they would have ended up in a weak conference.

Not only did the Buffs and Utes find a home; they now reside in one of the country’s elite athletic conferences. HOWEVER; being tabbed as an elite programs presents the newcomers with a series of new challenges- how are they going to survive in the race to raise or generate the most money, build the best facilities, hire the top coaches, and recruit premier athletes.

The bottom line is that CU and Utah were invited into the PAC-12 to generate money and develop winning teams. It is that simple. Let the games begin!

For further information on the PAC-12, click here, or go to http://www.pac-12.org/.

 

QuickStart Gets Kids in Swing of Tennis

horvath Leave a comment

Recreation is big business. It is important for sporting goods companies, recreation programs, commercial sports facilities, coaches and instructors, and sports physicians to bring new players into their respective sports, make the sport easy to learn, and keep them hooked for life. They are all promoting a healthier form of addiction than being a workaholic, eating too much chocolate cake, or consumption of illegal substances.

Skiers scoffed when short skis were introduced – they were thought to be impure and would prevent skiers from mastering the sport. Tennis players cringed when the oversize Prince racquet was introduced – only little old ladies who played doubles would use them. In time, other sports have followed suit, there are short golf clubs, smaller softballs, and light volleyballs.

Most recreation participants are kids and weekend warriors – they are not the masters of the moguls or tennis players with 130 mph serves. They are the players who benefit from oversized racquets, short skis, and light volleyballs.

On June 19, 2001, the Broomfield Enterprise featured an article entitled, “QuickStart gets kids in Swing of Tennis.” The city recreation program adopted the QuickStart program for select junior programs. In some form, the short court, light balls, shorter racquets, and altered scoring that was recently adopted by the Broomfield recreation group has been the standard for the past 20+ years.

Advantage Broomfield Recreation Department! Advantage tennis! Hopefully the change will serve as encouragement to  more juniors to gain a true appreciation for what a great sport tennis is.