Thoughts from an Olympian about Athletic Excellence

As the Olympics wind down and the U.S. had mixed results in the volleyball, it seems timely to reflect on a webinar hosted by USA Volleyball several months ago featuring Tom Hoff and John Kessel. Hoff was a 6′ 8″ middle blocker for the 2008 USA Olympic team and Kessel oversees grassroots development and disabled volleyball for USAV.

Key points from the 1 1/2 hour discussion follow:

Coaches
• A good coach does more than call balls in and out.
• Good coaches set their players up to be successful over a long period of time.
• A good coach will empower players on the court.  Good players will take the coach’s lead and own what they do on the court.

Playing
• Many people want to be the best player on the court. I always wanted to be the worst player. When I first started playing that was often the case. I always liked being challenged to improve.
• I was only 6’8″ and could touch 11’9″. At the top level that meant I had average talent. To counter that, I studied the statistics of rotations. It helped me be successful as a player and develop my IQ as a player.

Skills
• At the top level the best players are those who eliminate errors. They are the players who passed the ball the best. They are very selective in choosing when to take chances.
• Watch what the ball is doing on the other side of the net – track the ball.
• Great players have great court awareness.

Goal Setting
• The way to accomplish goals is to successfully execute simple actions more often than the opponent.
• The pursuit of goals may seem maniacal. Players who remain focused and determined in the pursuit of a goal will find the journey of pursuit rewarding enough.

Mental toughness
• The toughest hitters are the ones who want the ball on big points and take tactful swings on tough balls.
• Great players will showcase the areas where they can eliminate errors. They will walk the walk.
• Great players play in the moment. They don’t get flustered. They focus on the task at hand and aren’t worried about what has happened in the past or what might happen in the future.

Practice
• Never say “No” to a setter who wants to practice. Hitting will get to practice hitting and timing and improve their ball-handling skills.
• During season we practice 20-32 hours a week, volleyball specific. We spent 6-10 hours a week in strength and conditioning. We spent several hours a week watching video. The most underrated aspect of a training schedule is rest and recovery.
• It is imperative to train at full speed.

Stretching
• The Center for Disease Control has done over 300 studies on stretching. Not one of them shows that stretching prevents injuries.

Cross Training
• If younger players are going to play other sports, soccer is a good complementary sport. Soccer players must be good at tracking the ball. That is a skill essential to volleyball.

Sports Career
• Time works against you as an athlete. Use your time efficiently.
• Everyone wants to be successful, but many people are not willing to do what is necessary to achieve the desired results.
• Focus on the journey, not the end results.

Blocking
• Blocking is the toughest skill.
• In theory a middle blocker has to be at the opponents’ point of attack on every ball.
• The purpose of blocking is to lower the kill efficiency/percentage of the other team.

Time Spent Hitting the Ball
• In 2008 the Olympic team spent about three weeks in China practicing and playing matches. Even though they hit thousands of balls during this period, on average, the players actually spent a total of about 27.4 seconds hitting (contacting) the ball for that entire period.

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

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.