Blog

Seven Outfits for Serena

Several years ago Serena Williams was featured in a 30-second video for the WTA’s ad campaign, Strong is Beautiful. In the ad she stated, “Before every slam I pick out seven outfits. SEVEN – one for every match I need to win. I wouldn’t pick seven outfits if I didn’t plan on wearing them all.”

For the sixth time Willams wore all 7 outfits at the Australian Open. And for a change, the American women had an exceptional AO.

Sixteen American women entered the tournament. Combined, they won 30 matches while losing 15. Seven Outfits for Serena

Grace Min, Alison Riske, Sloane Stephens, and Taylor Townsend bowed out in the first round. At one point Stephens and Townsend were thought to be the replacements for the Williams sisters as America’s top players. That certainly wasn’t the case this tournament.

Twelve American women advanced to the second round.

Nicole Gibbs, Anna Tatishvili, Irina Falconi, Lauren Davis, and Christina McHale lost in the second round. It should be noted that Tatishvili changed her country of representation from Georgia to the United States in April 2014.

Three of the seven Americans who advanced to the third round were ousted: Bethanie Mattek-Sands, Varvara Lepchenko, and Coco Vandeweghe.

Four American women remained in the draw as play began in the round of 16.

Madison Brengle lost in the round of 16s and Venus Williams was defeated in the quarterfinals.

Up and comer Madison Keys was defeated by Williams in the semifinals, while Russians Maria Sharapova and Ekaterina Makarova battled it out in the other half of the draw.

Williams defeated Sharapova 6-3, 7-6 in the finals. The loss made Sharapova 2-17 lifetime against the 2015 champion.

The win at this year’s AO gave Williams 19 Grand Slam victories, 1 more than Chris Evert and Martina Navritilova. Next on the list is Steffi Graf, with her Open-era record of 22 major titles and Margaret Court, the victor in 24 Grand Slam singles events.

Congratulations to Serena Williams for getting to wash her seven outfits on the way to another title!

American Juniors Have Mediocre Outing at 2015 Australian Open Juniors

The nine American juniors who played the 2015 Australian Open juniors had limited success.

Raveena Kingsley (3-1) advanced to the quarterfinals before losing to Katie Swan. Swan actually lives in Wichita Kansas, but represents Great Britain.

Kingsley was joined by Jessica Ho (1-1) and Olivia Hauger (1-1), who won a round before losing. In 2014 Hauger (3-1) was a quarterfinalist.

Raquel Pedraza (0-1) and Mia Horvit (0-1) both dropped their first round matches.

The boys had similar results. Taylor Harry Fritz (3-1), the number three seed was upset in the quarterfinals.

Sameer Kumar (2-1), won two matches and William Blumberg (1-1) lost in the second round.

Michael Mmoh (0-1) lost in the first round. Last year Mmoh was 1-1.

Overall, the boys were 6-4 and the girls were 5-5.

Here’s to a larger contingency of players and a stronger showing at the French Open in June.

American Men Out in First Week of Australian Open

Week one of the 2015 Australian Open has come and gone – and so have all of the American men.

Sad to say, their performance supported the comments made by Pete Sampras at a recent IPTL press conference. He stated that he doesn’t see any American men on the horizon who are capable of breaking into the top ten. Sampras was asked to comment on the reasons for the demise of the American me. He was diplomatic and mentioned there were a lot of reasons.

Many in the industry would say the crux of the problem is the inept USTA Player Development program. Without any star American men, young boys don’t aspire to be tennis players, much as they did when Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras were at the top of their games.

In addition, some feel that American kids have too many options. The sport has enjoyed growth around the globe and young players from other countries are motivated than you Americans.

This year there were only 7 men in the Australian Open, compared to 12 last year. Fortunately Tim Smyczek and Michael Russell qualified, otherwise there would have only been five Americans.

John Isner is the constant for the American men. He was seeded in 19th and he held his seed. He won two matches prior to bowing out in the round of 32. Steve Johnson was also 2-1.

Denis Kudia, Sam Querrey, and Michael Russell were first round losers.

Donald Young and Tim Smyczek both won a match before losing in the second round. To Smyczek’s credit, he took Rafael Nadal to five sets before bowing out.

Overall the men won six matches and lost seven.

The Grand Slams are much more fun to follow when there are American men playing during the second week of the tournament!

Lessons From a Bad Situation – Support Your Local Team

In May, 2006 the University of Colorado eliminated its men’s tennis program, the second time in a matter of years that a Colorado Division I school dropped its men’s tennis program. A small group of “supporters” irrationally responded to the rational, but unfortunate decision in a childish manner.

In fact, the protesters coerced the United States Tennis Association, Colorado Tennis Association, Intermountain Tennis Association, and the Intercollegiate Tennis Coaches Association to purchase a full-page ad in the Denver Post condemning the University of Colorado.

On May 31, 2006 Boulder Daily Camera sports writer Neil Woelk wrote an editorial addressing the situation. The text of that article follows.

Not only did Woelk explain the situation, he offered advice for Colorado sports fans. Unfortunately, Woelk’s words of wisdom issued 8 1/2 years ago have been ignored by ‘supporters’ of about every sport at the University of Colorado.

The bottom line – get out and support your local team, whether it is junior high, high school, college, or a university athletic program!

————————————————————————————-


‘Support’ for CU tennis program rings hollow

I’ve watched with interest-and, I admit, a measure of amusement-as the heretofore unknown support for the Colorado men’s tennis program has emerged.

The first question that comes to mind is a simple one: Where was all this support over the last 10 years? Where were all these alleged die-hard college tennis fans when the Buffs routinely played home matches in front of a handful-very small handful-of fans?

The answer, of course, is that they didn’t exist.

Fact is, few people cared about CU tennis-at least, not enough to send a few bucks to the program or actually attend a match now and then. Tennis matches and seasons came and went, and nobody noticed.

But now all of a sudden-in true Boulder fashion-we have a “cause”. Now, folks who had no interest in the program suddenly have an interest because it’s become a crisis situation with all the elements that make such causes attractive.

The big, bad athletic department-yes, the one that puts so much emphasis on football-is picking on the little guy. Football stays, tennis goes. The only thing that would have made the cause more attractive would have been prairie dogs playing tennis.

But ask yourself this: How much support for tennis was there prior to this?

Here’s an interesting tidbit: Just last year, CU officials went to the tennis community and asked for help in building an indoor practice facility for the men’s and women’s programs. Such a facility would not only have guaranteed the long-term survival of the sport at CU, but would have helped increase interest in the programs by integrating the community into the program. The interest then? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nobody cared. Nobody donated.

That was the first clue for CU officials that the Buff tennis programs weren’t exactly overflowing with supporters.

Not to say there aren’t a few ardent, bona fide boosters-just like there were a handful of wrestling, baseball, gymnastics and swimming boosters 26 years ago at CU. These folks are understandably upset. Something they love had been eliminated.

But now we have the entire tennis community-a relatively affluent demographic, by the way-up in arms because CU is eliminating something that only a few you paid attention to.

It’s similar to the little kid with the long-forgotten toy in the back of his closet. He never plays with it; in fact, he seldom remembers that it exists.

But when the decision is made to sweep the toy away, it’s temper-tantrum time-and this one is a doozy.

Now tennis supporters are self righteously threatening never to support CU again. They’re issuing press releases and buying advertising detailing how much CU will lose in the long term. At the same time, they’re leveling personal attacks on people who actually do care about CU student-athletes, an offensive mob-mentality reaction.

The irony here is that most of these folks threatening never to support CU again never supported CU in the past. Had those people cared before now, the situation never would have occurred.

But they didn’t support CU athletics. They didn’t care.

And now CU’s athletic department is faced with a difficult decision:

Keep all the current sports and watch each one gradually deteriorate; or, reduce the number of sports, shore up the financial problems, and do your best to keep the remaining sports competitive.

It’s not really a choice.

Today, organizers of the recent fundraising drive will argue that they had enough money in hand to keep the program afloat for another couple of years.  Actually they had enough money in hand to pay for approximately one-third of one year. The rest was in the form of pledges-not money in hand. Had AD Mike Bohn agreed to restore the program, the likelihood of being in the same position a year from now was very real.

Personally, I wish Bohn could have found a way not to cut the program. Such moves are always a sign of deeper problems-and Bohn inherited a department that is still reeling from mismanagement of the past regime. But Bohn was hired to clean up the mess, and he will be the one whose career is balanced on those decisions.

Now, as the athletic department prepares to present its budgets for the next fiscal year to the administration, it must prove that the department is doing his best to become viable again. It must present a business plan that presents sacrifices in some areas-and the cold, hard fact is that cutting a program is a sacrifice that must be made.

The hope is that at least some of the people who pledged to save tennis will maintain those pledges to help the other existing programs. That would be a strong statement.

It does not, however, mean that lessons from the situation can’t be learned:

• Years ago, CU officials-in their infinite wisdom-changed the rules and made it virtually impossible to support a specific program. Now, if you want to donate to athletics, your money goes to a general fund and is spent at CU’s discretion.

Reinstating the ability to donate to specific programs in some form would not be a bad idea-It might encourage coaches of the nonrevenue sports to be more proactive in the fund raising arena.

• Don’t wait for crisis mode to hit again.  Like volleyball? Take in a volleyball match now and then. Enjoy soccer? Check out the soccer team, and toss a few bucks to the scholarship fund, or donate to the general athletic department fund.

• And, as illogical as this may sound to some, one of the easiest ways to support tennis-volleyball, track, cross country, skiing or golf-is to buy a football ticket. Folks, football pays the bills. If football were the only sport in the athletic department, the department would be rolling in positive cash flow. Football is the ONLY revenue-generating sport in the department.

When Folsom Field is full, every other sport in the department benefits. If Folsom Field were sold out every Saturday this fall, CU’s financial worries would virtually disappear.

Don’t like football? Give the ticket to a friend. Donate it to charity.

But don’t wait until another crisis occurs. Don’t ignore a program if you actually do care.

And above all don’t complain when it’s too late.
————————————————————————————-

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL TEAM!

CU Football Ranked Again – Number One

Santa Claus delivered an early Christmas present to the University of Colorado football team and its fans – a number one ranking. Go Buffs!

The December 22nd issue of Forbes Magazine featured its annual ranking in “College Football’s Best And Worst Teams For The Buck 2014”. The Buffs were ranked #1 – the worst investment in college football.CU Football Ranked

Author Chris Smith stated, “Across the last three seasons, no team has spent more per football victory than Colorado, our pick for the sport’s worst team for the money. The Buffaloes have won just seven games in that time, tied with Kansas for the least of any team in our pool, while spending over $50 million. To put that into perspective, Mississippi State has built a competitive SEC program while spending $44 million across the same time period,”

To be exact, the Buff footballers spent $51.4 million over three years. Basic math shows that each of the seven wins cost $7.34 million.

Just think how it must feel to be one of the seven teams that lost to the Buffs! Thank goodness those seven teams were inept; otherwise the cost for CU to win a game would be much higher.

This notoriety is of the same ilk as the university’s #1 ranking (multiple years) as the top party school in the country. In addition, the Leeds School of Business is continually ranked as one of the country’s weakest business schools in the country and the worst in Colorado.  Bummer!

The article proves that if you are good at math, it is possible to calculate virtually anything – meaningful or meaningless. While a case can be made that the Forbes calculations fall into the latter category, they point to a larger challenge for CU.

CU clearly does not have the money to build the facilities, attract the top athletes and coaches, and be competitive with the elite football teams in the PAC-12 and the country.

Will they retain the number one ranking in 2015? Probably not!

More importantly, where will they be able to find the money to play with the big boys? Smoke and mirrors? An unsuspecting sugar daddy? The state will triple its funding for the university?

A more likely option would be for CU to lower its academic standards or look the other way to become a winner. The only cost involved in that type of decision would be their reputation.

In the mean time Buff fans can only hope that Forbes and Chris Smith have somewhere else to look when the article is penned for 2015.

 

International Premier Tennis League – A Hit in Kickoff Season

This past November, the International Premier Tennis League (IPTL) kicked off with competition between the:
• Micromax Indian Aces
• Musafir.com UAE Royals
• Manila Mavericks
• DBS Singapore Slammers

Match play includes:
1. Five sets
a. Men’s Singles
b. Women’s Singles
c. Mixed Doubles
d. Men’s Doubles
e. Men’s Legends’ Singles
2. Each set is played first to six games with a five minute shoot-out at five-all.
3. No-ad scoring applies for each game and each game won counts as one point for the team’s total.

The order of play is to be decided by the home team, and the team lineup is given to the umpire 45 minutes before the match starts. There are other slight differences in the rules that make the matches fun for all parties.

Critics of the league claim that it is not real tennis, that it is a commercial venture to benefit the league owner, and that it will detract from the WTA and ATP circuits. The critics are entitled to their opinions; however, it should be noted that the first season of the league was well received by fans and players. That is great for the sport!

Colorado tennis fans should note that Scott Davidoff, former coach for the CU men’s tennis team, is the Executive Director for the IPTL. Hats off to Scott and his group for demonstrating to people around the world how much fun it is to play and watch tennis.

For more details on the IPTL click here or check out the embedded You Tube video below.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/oi2Is7pMlx4″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

Big Ten and Pac-12 Dominate NCAA Volleyball Championships

Once again the women’s  NCAA Volleyball Championships were a showdown between the Big Ten and the Pac-12. The Big Ten captured bragging rights for quality with six teams entered and three of the eight quarterfinalists. The Pac-12 laid claim to the deepest conference, with ten teams entered and one semifinalist.

On December 4th, 64 teams from 31 conferences kicked off regional play for the 34th NCAA women’s volleyball tournament. On December 20th, Penn State won the championship for the second consecutive year.

Each of the six Big Ten representatives won matches. The overall conference record was 17 wins and 5 losses.

Big Ten Won Lost
Penn State 6 0
Wisconsin 3 1
Nebraska 3 1
Ohio State 2 1
Illinois 2 1
Michigan St. 1 1
Conference Total 17 5

Each of the ten Pac 12 teams won matches. Conferences teams were 17-10 in championships.

Pac 12 Won Lost
Stanford 4 1
Oregon 2 1
Oregon State 2 1
UCLA 2 1
Washington 2 1
Arizona 1 1
Arizona State 1 1
Colorado 1 1
USC 1 1
Utah 1 1
Conference Total 17 10

The 16 teams from the Big Ten and Pac-12 conferences won 34 of the 63 matches played in the championships. That is dominance!

Five teams represented the SEC. Florida had three wins and was the only SEC team that had a strong presence in the championships. Texas @&M was the only team that did not win a match.

SEC Won Lost
Florida 3 1
Alabama 1 1
Kentucky 1 1
LSU 1 1
Texas A&M 0 1
Conference Total 6 5

Four teams represented the ACC. North Carolina and Florida posted winning records.

ACC Won Lost
North Carolina 3 1
Florida 2 1
Miami (FL) 1 1
Duke 0 1
Conference Total 6 4

Four teams represented the West Coast Conference. The strongest WCC team was finalist BYU. The Cougars were the only team from the conference to win matches.

WCC Won Lost
BYU 5 1
Loyola Marymount 0 1
San Diego 0 1
Santa Clara 0 1
Conference Total 5 4

With the exception of Texas, the Big 12 was represented by teams that were weak by Big 12 standards.

Big 12 Won Lost
Texas 4 1
Iowa State 1 1
Kansas 0 1
Kansas State 0 1
Oklahoma 0 1
Conference Total 5 5

Combined, the 19 teams from the SEC, ACC, WCC, and Big 12 won 22 matches of the 63 matches played.

There were 5 conferences that had the remaining 7 wins in the championships. CSU was the only team to have two wins.

School and Conference Won Lost
Colorado State Mountain West 2 1
Hawaii Big West 1 1
Long Beach State Big West 1 1
Dayton Atlantic 10 1 1
UALR Sunbelt 1 1
Illinois State Missouri Valley 1 1
Total 7 6

In total, the 41 teams that represented the 11 conferences mentioned above had a combined record of 63-39.

Of the 41 teams representing the 11 conferences mentioned above only 9 teams did not win a match. In addition, there were 24 teams from 20 conferences represented that did not win a match.

Generally speaking, these teams were admitted to the tournament as a courtesy because they were conference champions. While these teams and conferences all have solid programs, they are not competitive with the top teams or conferences. This is evident by the first round match scores for the losers. The majority of first round losers lost their only match 3-0. The summary of first round match scores follows:

  • 23 matches, 71.9%, were 3-0.
  • 5 matches, 15.6%, were 3-1.
  • 4 matches, 12.5%, were 3-2.

For the 31 other matches played (second round through the finals) the  majority of the scores were 3-1, i.e. the matches were more competitive. A summary of these scores follows:

  • 12 matches, 38.7%, were 3-0.
  • 14 matches, 45.2%, were 3-1.
  • 5 matches, 16.15%, were 3-2.

It is clear from the results that there are multiple tiers of ability within the NCAA Division I teams. The good news is that these 64 programs offer athletic opportunities for 600-700 of the country’s top women volleyball players.

Congratulations to Penn State on another NCAA volleyball championship!

Colorado Lady Buffs Volleyball Ranked 21st

Congratulations to the Colorado Lady Buffs volleyball team and the PAC-12 on their 2014 season. Setter Nicole Edelman and AVCA All-American hitter Taylor Simpson led the Lady Buffs to a year-end ranking of 21st in the country. Nine PAC-12 teams were ranked in the top 25.

Lady Buffs Volleyball
Nicole Edelman (5) has set Taylor Simpson (16).

Best wishes to the Lady Buffs for a productive off-season and strong recruiting to fill the voids left by the graduating seniors.

2014 Season Ending AVCA Rankings (PAC-12 Teams in Blue)

Rank School Total Points Adjusted 2014 Record Previous Rank
1 Penn State 1500 36-3 4
2 Stanford 1432 33-2 1
3 BYU 1374 30-5 12
4 Wisconsin 1306 31-3 2
5 Texas 1276 27-3 6
6 Florida 1183 28-4 5
7 North Carolina 1115 29-3 7
8 Nebraska 1074 23-10 11
9 Washington 1049 31-3 3
10 Florida State 921 30-3 8
11 Illinois 900 26-8 10
12 Colorado State 853 31-3 9
13 Ohio State 744 23-12 18
14 Oregon 681 23-10 16
15 UCLA 659 22-12 17
16 Arizona 613 24-10 14
17 Kentucky 497 27-6 13
18 Utah 443 20-13 20
19 Long Beach State 407 27-5 15
20 Oregon State 376 20-13 NR
21 Colorado 333 20-14 19
22 Arizona State 231 20-14 22
23 Hawai'i 204 22-7 23
24 Arkansas-Little Rock 96 30-5 NR
25 Duke 74 22-8 21

 

Coach, Have you Thought about Teaching Piano?

The coach yelled at the girls, “How many times have I told you to get low when you dig a volleyball? Why don’t you listen to me when I tell you to get your feet positioned properly and your toss in the right spot when you serve? And when you hit a spike, you are supposed to move your feet left-right-left and reach for the ball. Why don’t you girls get it? If you want to win you have to do the things I tell you. Since you are so slow on the take, you can run five sets of wind sprints. Maybe in the future you will learn to pay attention to what your coaches are saying.”

A timid girl in the back of the huddle walked over to the bench where the coach’s clipboard was sitting. She calmly took the outline for the practice out of the clipboard, ripped it in half, wadded it in a ball, dropped in on the floor and stepped on it. She then picked it up and laid it on top of the clipboard.Have you thought about teaching piano?

The stunned coach didn’t know what to do. Her response was a reflex action, “What do you think you are doing? That is my practice outline. Now I can’t read it. You’re going to be running sprints for the rest of practice!”

The girl bravely said, “When you give us unclear instructions and become impatient because we don’t get it right – you tear our spirit apart, just like your practice outline is torn in half.”

The girl then picked up the crumpled outline, unfolded it, and asked the coach, “Can you see all the wrinkles in the paper. They are ugly. That is the way we feel when you belittle us and put us down. It is okay to challenge us, but you are destroying us. You are putting wrinkles in our confidence, just like the wrinkles in the paper with your practice outline on it. No matter what you do, you can’t get the wrinkles out. ”

The player continued, “Coach, we are humans just like you are. We are trying to get better and you aren’t helping us. We feel just like that piece of paper that has been torn in half, crumpled up, and stepped on. Every practice we leave as damaged goods rather than athletes inspired to become better volleyball players.”

The girl paused and before the coach could start yelling at her and her teammates again and asked one final question, “Coach, have you thought about teaching piano instead of trying to be a volleyball coach?” With that the girl put her warm-ups on, called her parents on her cell phone to have them pick her up, and never played volleyball again.

Are you a volleyball coach or should you think about teaching piano?

 

CU Buffs Football Team – Attendance Slips Further

The primary goal of Division I football teams is to win and make money; however, the hard cold facts are that half the teams that play every Saturday are losers.

Over the past decade the abysmal win-loss record of the CU Buffs football team has given fans a reason to find other things to do on Saturday afternoons than support the black and gold.

The problems began a decade ago.

The Buffs finished the 2004 and 2005 seasons with 7-5 records. That is outstanding by today’s standards.

In 2004 they were 4-4 in the Big 12 and in 2005 they were 5-3. Oklahoma beat them 42-3 in the 2004 Big 12 Championships and Texas thumped them 70-3 the following year.

Many viewed these drubbings in the championships as a sign that CU was not capable of participating in the D1 football race to see which program could spend the most money.

The CU administration viewed the losses differently. They used them as justification for hiring a new coach.

In retrospect, those days of getting slaughtered in the  Big 12 championships were the good old days. The Buffs football team has not had a winning season since 2005.

In 2011, dollar signs flashed in front of the CU administrators and CU jumped from the Big 12 to the PAC-12 conference. Unfortunately the Buffs found out the PAC-12 also had teams that knew how to play football.

Since 2011, the Buffs have had four conference wins – two on the road and two at home. Details follow:

Year Conference Record Comments
2011 2-7 conference record Home win over Arizona and a road win against Utah.
2012 1-8 conference record Road win over Washington State.
2013 1-8 conference record Home win over California.
2014 0-9 conference record Ugh!

Unfortunately, the Buffs conference home attendance has paralleled the number of wins on the field.

2011
The Buffs were 1-4 at home in conference play.
• 9/10 49,532 California
• 10/1 51,928 Washington State
• 10/22 52,123 Oregon
• 11/4 50,083 Southern California
• 11/22 48,111 Arizona.
Average conference home attendance 50,355.

2012
The Buffs were 0-5 at home in conference play.
• 9/29 46,893 UCLA
• 10/11 45,161 Arizona State
• 10/27 44,138 Stanford
• 11/17 43,148 Washington
• 11/23 46,052 Utah.
Average conference home attendance 45,078.

2013
The Buffs were 1-3 at home in conference play.
• 10/5 45,944 Oregon
• 10/26 38,679 Arizona
• 11/16 38,252 California
• 11/23 36,005 Southern California.
Average conference home attendance 39,720.

2014
The Buffs were 0-5 at home in conference play.
• 9/13 38,547 Arizona State
• 10/04 36,415 Oregon State
• 10/24 37,442 UCLA
• 11/1 35,633 Washington
• 11/29 39,155 Utah
Fewer than 40,000 people attended every home game and average conference home attendance was 37,438.

Given these numbers, it’s a tough time to be the football coach or athletic director at the University of Colorado. Buff fans can only hope for a turn-around in 2015.