Blog - On One Hand Business... On the Other Hand Sports

Residence of PAC 12 Men and Women Basketball Players

April 2, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

This brief analysis evaluated rosters of men’s and women’s PAC-12 basketball teams to determine what states or countries their players reside in. It looked at information published on their athletic websites in March 2014. Players were included in the sample if their average playing time per game for the season was greater than 15 minutes.

The results for the men are in the table below.

Residence of Men PAC-12 Basketball Players — Residence of Men Basketball Players

The results for the women are in the table below.

Residence of Women PAC-12 Basketball Players

Listed below are similarities and differences between the men’s and women’s programs.

Similarities

A majority of the players on most teams are from out-of-state.
The reliance on foreign players is minimal; the percentage of foreign players is 15.1% for the men vs. 8.0% for the women.
The state with the highest number of players is California.
The foreign country with the highest number of players in Canada.
The programs with a higher percentage of in-state players are more successful (this is not necessarily a cause and effect relationship).
The men’s programs had seven teams with winning records and the women’s programs had six teams. Three of the four winning programs are California teams, although the California teams are different for men and women.
The schools from states with smaller populations typically have fewer in-state players and are less successful.

Differences

The percentage of in-state players is greater for women than men, 36.4% vs. 23.3%.
The percentage of out-of-state U.S. players is greater for men than women, 61.5% vs. 55.7%.
The men players are from more states than the women, 21 vs. 16.
The reliance on California players is greater among women than men, 39 women vs. 30 men.
Female programs have more players from Texas and Washington than the men.
The percentage of out-of-state foreign players is greater for men 15.1% vs. 8.0% for women.
The men foreign players are from 7 countries compared to 3 countries.
Ten of the mens’ teams were competitive (won at least 8 games), whereas, only 7 of the womens’ teams were competitive.

For more details see the report PAC 12 Location of Residence for Basketball Programs. This report identifies the home state or country of the top PAC 12 basketball players and compares differences between the men and women teams.

Union of College Athletics – “It’s the End of the World as We Know It”

March 27, 2014June 7, 2014 horvath Leave a comment

Today it was announced that football players at Northwestern University could create the nation’s first union of college athletes for private universities.

The decision was passed down by Peter Sung Ohr, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board. Some of the key points from his decision follow:

Football players qualify as employees because they receive compensation (scholarships) and they are under the control of a manager (the coach and athletic program).
Football players are recruited because of their athletic ability, not their academic achievements.
Football players are not allowed to miss entire practices or games to attend classes, lecture sessions, group projects, or take tests. In fact, the opposite is true – they miss class to travel to play in games.
The life of a football player is more regimented than an average student. Players are given diets to follow and have NCAA restrictions that govern what they are allowed to do in their personal lives.

Some of Ohr’s key points raise serious questions about the argument made by many college officials that athletic programs are an integral part of university academics.

If the players vote to authorize the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) to represent them they will reportedly address sports-related medical expenses for current and former players, reduction of head injuries, and allowing players to pursue commercial sponsorships. While the first two items have a strong “feel-good” appeal, the latter issue is the heart-of-the matter.

Right or wrong, a union of college athletes ultimately is about money.

Many years ago R.E.M. wrote a song that sums up the situation best, “It’s the End of the World as We Know It.” If this moves forward, college athletics programs will never be the same.

Best College Tennis Players in Country Go Unnoticed in Boulder

March 25, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath 1 Comment

The best college tennis players in the country recently went unnoticed in Boulder. The city has a poor track record of supporting (watching) great sports performances. Boulderites would rather play than watch – which isn’t all bad.

Over a 10 day period (March 14th to March 24th) Colorado tennis fans had an opportunity to see the future of American women’s professional tennis in Boulder as the 74th-ranked Lady Buffs tennis team played USC (12th), Cal (16th), UCLA (2), and Stanford (4). Eleven of the PAC-12 visiting opponents are currently in the top 30 of the ITA singles rankings.

Zoe Scandalis, #1 Player USC, against CU Buffs. Scandalis is one of the top college tennis players in the country. — Zoe Scandalis, #1 Player, University of Southern California, in match against CU Lady Buffs.

The USC powerhouse is led by #1 player Zoe Scandalis (see photo) and includes a group of 9 elite junior players from California and 1 player from Mississippi. All were highly-ranked junior players who participated in a variety of USTA programs.

On the other hand Cal’s team is comprised of a mix of accomplished American and International players. For example, Hungarian Zsofi Susanyi, #3 singles player, advanced to the singles finals at the 2009 Junior Wimbledon.

The Stanford team includes 5 Californians, two East Coast players, and a Canadian. Three of the six players (Krista Hardebeck, Carol Zhao, and Carolyn Doyle) played in various junior Grand Slams and Kristie Ahn, #1 player, played in the main draw of the U.S. Open.

UCLA is coached by Stella Sampras, older sister of Pete Sampras. All six Bruin players (Robin Anderson, Jennifer Brady, Catherine Harrison, Chanelle Van Nguyen, Kyle McPhillips, and Courtney Dolehide) played in multiple junior Grand Slam events. In addition, one player played in the main draw of the U.S. Open. All of the players except Dolehide are currently in the top 50 of the singles ITA rankings.

It is disappointing that there weren’t more people in attendance to watch some great college tennis by the Buffs and their opponents. (Average estimated attendance for the four matches was less than 200 people.)

It is an even greater travesty that the Colorado tennis community doesn’t give the Lady Buffs the ongoing support the team deserves!

Which States do PAC 12 Women’s Basketball Players Reside in?

March 15, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

This brief analysis evaluated rosters of women’s PAC-12 basketball teams to determine the residence of their players (in-state, out-of-state, or foreign country). It looked at information published on their athletic websites in March 2014. Players were included in the sample if their average playing time per game for the season was greater than 15 minutes.

The states with the leading number of players were California (39), Washington (11), Texas (7), and Arizona (5). About 70% of the players indicated their residence was in these 4 states. Six players claimed Canada as their residence.

Of the 88 players listed in the sample, 32 players, or 36.4%, were in-state players. Cal, USC, UCLA, and Washington had more than half its players from in-state. Two schools didn’t have any in-state players, Arizona and Oregon.

Residence of PAC-12 Women's Basketball Players — Residence of PAC-12 Women’s Basketball Players

There were 49 out-of-state players from the U.S., 55.7%, and 7 foreign players, 8.0%. Overall, 63.7% of the players were out-of-state.

Individually, the top 6 teams in the conference had winning records. Collectively, they won 69% of their games. As a group, the residence of their players follows:

54% in-state.
41% out-of-state U.S.
5% out-of-state foreign.

The bottom 6 teams had losing records. As a group they won 31% of their games. Collectively, the residence of their players follows:

18% in-state.
71% out-of-state U.S.
11% out-of-state foreign.

For more details see the report Residence of Top Players 2013-2014 PAC 12 Basketball Teams. This report identifies the home state or country of the top PAC 12 basketball players and compares differences between the men and women teams.

Are PAC 12 Mens’ Basketball Programs Bringing in Hired Guns to Win?

March 15, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

In Division 1 men’s basketball, a premium is placed on winning because it is a revenue generating sport. A key to success is recruiting players who have “A” talent.

Are the universities in the PAC-12 bringing in “hired guns” to make their basketball programs successful? If so are they bringing in players from out-of-state or from other countries? Do PAC-12 players come from all over the U.S. or are they primarily from the Western United States? Are teams more successful if they have a higher percentage of in-state players?

This brief analysis evaluated rosters of men’s PAC-12 basketball teams published on their athletic websites in March 2014. Players were included in the sample if their average playing time per game for the season was greater than 15 minutes.

The states with the leading number of players were California (30), Texas (5), Arizona (4), Oregon (4), and Washington (4). About 55% of the players indicated their residence was in these 5 states.

Of the 86 players listed in the sample, 20 players, or 23.3%, were in-state players. Only Cal had more than half its players from in-state. Two schools didn’t have any in-state players, OSU and Washington.

There were 53 out-of-state players from the U.S., 61.6%, and 13 foreign players, 15.1%. Overall, 76.7% of the players were out-of-state. Six of the foreign players come from Canada, more than any state except California.

Are men's PAC-12 basketball programs bringing in hired guns to win? — Residence of players in men’s PAC-12 basketball programs.

Five schools didn’t have any foreign players (Arizona, Cal, Washington, UCLA, and Colorado).

Individually, the top 7 teams in the conference had winning records. Collectively, they won 61% of their games. As a group the residence of their players follows:

31% in-state.
55% out-of-state U.S.
14% out-of-state foreign.

The bottom 5 teams had losing records. As a group they won 35% of their games. Collectively, the residence of their players follows:

14% in-state.
70% out-of-state U.S.
16% out-of-state foreign.

Clearly, most men’s programs (at least in the PAC 12) look outside their state to find players to construct winning teams. This limited sample size shows that recruitment of out-of-state players may not guarantee a winning season. In addition it may be a questionable tactic for programs that need to build their fan base or generate alumni support.

The Volleyball Player’s Food Table – Redefining Sports Nutrition

March 3, 2014October 29, 2015 horvath Leave a comment

Sports nutritionists advocate that volleyball players at all-day tournaments graze on foods containing protein and carbohydrates. As well, the athletes are reminded to stay hydrated, i.e. drink plenty of water, stay off their feet, and rest if possible.

A player’s diet before and on the day of a tournament may determine their success on the court. With that in mind, club directors and parents came up with the player’s food table to as a means of providing nourishment for their daughters on game day.

Somewhere along the way, the focus of the food table was shifted from the players to the father’s beer bellies, the mother’s muffin tops, and the sibling’s sweet tooth. Parents used their daughter’s volleyball tournament as an opportunity to display their culinary skills with their favorite recipes for chili, fried chicken, and death-by-sugar cupcakes.

Too often the community food tables look like the picture on the right. This photo was snapped at a tournament where the host facility did not allow food inside the gymnasium, hence all food tables were located outside the front entrance to the building.

The menu for this tournament is provided below:

In the background is a cooler with bottled Gatorade on top. The sliced turkey, beef, and bologna are stored inside. The bread and condiments for the sandwiches are located on the table – a reasonable start.
On the table there is also mayonnaise and potato salad. It is best to store both inside the ice chest, especially when tables are outdoors on a warm day.
And the best part of the menu is the bag of Jolly Rancher candy (500 pieces), muffins, and 3 dozen cupcakes. These are an important part of a diet that provides the fans and players with an afternoon sugar rush and crash.
Underneath the table is a wide selection of chips – Yummy, but not what the athletes need.
And in the foreground is the unopened bag of apples and oranges on top of the cooler. Because the bag of fruit was never opened, it was presumably placed on the ice chest to keep the lid from blowing away and as a deterrent for those wanting to get a soda or other sugar-based drink.

And parents wonder why their daughters are playing in the lower divisions.

Meaningful Touches in a Volleyball Practice Matter!

February 25, 2014June 5, 2014 horvath Leave a comment

Meaningful touches make a difference in the rate at which players and teams improve.

The number of touches may be determined by the time spent on non-volleyball activities (setup, warm-up, discussions, dealing with injured players, cool-downs). As well, teams may spend time in strategy talks, working on mental toughness, or reviewing videos of match play. All of these activities can play an important role in the learning process even if no meaningful touches are associated with them.

In addition, the number of touches may vary as a result of the skill level of the athletes, number of courts, equipment and training aids, amount of practice time, coaching philosophy, and the drills selected.

While the number of touches matters, coaches should optimize, rather than maximize, the number of touches based on the needs of the team.

Consider the following two scenarios:

A player on a team that averages 1.0 meaningful touch every minute, or 120 touches every practice. This player will get 8,640 touches during the season.
On the other hand a player that averages 2.0 meaningful touches every minute, or 240 touches every practice, will get 17,280 touches during the season.

Both scenarios are highlighted in the table below.

Meaningful touches make a difference in the rate at which players and teams improve.

The difference between these two scenarios is 8,640 touches over the course of the season.

17,280 touches (scenario 2) minus 8,640 touches (scenario 1) = 8,640 touches.

That number of touches is equivalent to 36 practice sessions. In other words, the team with 2.0 meaningful player touches per minute is theoretically half a season ahead of the team that gets 1.0 meaningful player touches per minute by the end of the season.

Meaningful touches matter! It is essential for coaches to optimize the number of touches in their practices.

A Talkative or Disorganized Coach Prevents Kids from Getting Sufficient Meaningful Touches in Practice

February 19, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

Gym time is an expensive and precious commodity. It must be used wisely. Coaches must be punctual in starting practice and the activities within the practice must be planned and executed precisely to optimize the number of meaningful touches for their players.

Consider the example of a coach who spends an average of 20% of the practice time in activities where balls are not being touched (court setup, warm-ups, discussions, lectures, water breaks, dealing with injured players, and cool-downs.) That would mean that 24 minutes of each practice were allocated to those activities and 96 minutes were spent in activities that might directly improve a player’s skills (drills and playing).

If a player had 2.5 touches per minute of touch time that would mean she would get 240 touches during a single practice. That would be 17,280 touches during a season (17,280= 240 times 72 practices; 72 practices = 3 times per week for 24 weeks). This is highlighted in the table on the right.

If, on average, 30% of the practice time was spent in non-volleyball related activities then the player would get 210 touches per practice or 15,120 touches for the season. This is also highlighted in the table on the right.

The difference between these two scenarios is 2,160 touches over the course of the season.

17,280 touches minus 15,120 touches = 2,160 touches.

At a rate of 240 player touches per practice, that number of touches is equivalent to 9 practice sessions.

As can be seen, an extra 5 to 10 minutes adds up over the course of a season.

Percent of Time in Discussions	Practice Minutes	Drill Time Less Discussions	Player Touches Per Minute Touch Time	Player Touches Per Practice Touch Time	Player Touches per Season 72 Practices
10%	120	108	2.5	270	19,440
15%	120	102	2.5	255	18,360
20%	120	96	2.5	240	17,280
25%	120	90	2.5	225	16,200
30%	120	84	2.5	210	15,120
35%	120	78	2.5	195	14,040
40%	120	72	2.5	180	12,960

Is it Fair to Bash the USTA for their Men’s Player Development Program?

February 13, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

Is the USTA Player Development Program getting the job done?

A quick look at the January 6 ATP rankings shows that 32 countries have players ranked in the top 100. They are:

Spain 14 players
France 11 players
Germany 8 players
USA 8 players
Argentina 6 players
Russia 5 players
Australia 4 players
Czechoslovakia 4 players
Columbia 3 players
Croatia 3 players
Italy 3 players
Kazakhstan 3 players
The Netherlands 3 players
Poland 3 players
Serbia 3 players
Canada 2 players
Switzerland 2 players
15 countries have 1 player

Tennis is an international sport, but the combined total of ranked players from Croatia, Kazakhstan, and Serbia is greater than the U.S. total.

A closer look at the men’s rankings shows the following for the American men:

14 John Isner
46 Sam Querrey
89 Tim Smyczek
91 Michael Russell
95 Bradley Klahn
96 Donald Young
99 Ryan Harrison
100 Jack Sock.

If you asked 1,000 people to name the top American male tennis players in the U.S., they most likely couldn’t name one of these individuals. In fairness to the USTA, part of the problem is the popularity of tennis in many foreign countries. Some in tennis also feel that the best American athletes play sports other than tennis. Still others will say that American youth lack the work ethic to be world class tennis players.

These factors play a part in the lack of dominant American tennis players; however, the major source of the problem is USTA Player Development. Pancho Gonzalez, Jack Kramer, and Arthur Ashe have to be rolling over in their graves at the state of American men’s tennis.

What’s Coming Down the Pipeline for American Women’s Tennis?

February 7, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

For the past couple of years the American women have had respectable showings in the Grand Slam events, in large part due to the dominance of Serena Williams. What lies ahead for American women’s tennis when Serena retires? Is the USTA Player Development Program getting the job done?

On a positive note, there are more American players in the top 100 than any other country. Unfortunately, a closer look at the January 6, 2014 rankings shows that most of the American women are not in the upper echelon, i.e. only two are ranked in the top 25. Right or wrong, this creates the perception that the focus of the USTA Player Development program is on quantity rather than quality.

The American women, their age, and their ranking in the top 100 follow:

1 Serena Williams, 32
13 Sloane Stephens, 20
28 Jamie Hampton, 24
36 Madison Keys, 18
38 Venus Williams, 33
48 Bethanie Mattek-Sands, 28
52 Varvara Lepchenko, 27
55 Alison Riske, 23
65 Christina McHale, 21
67 Lauren Davis, 20
71 Vania King, 20.

The average age of the players in the top 100 is slightly over 25 years old. Four of the American women are older than 25 and 7 are younger. The average age of the American players in the top 100 is 24 years old.

From a practical standpoint, an argument can be made that the younger players will become difference makers as the older players retire or their level of play drops off. If that argument holds, then the 7 American women below the mean are likely to move up and those above the mean will move on.

This viewpoint is supported by the data. Statistically there is a slightly negative correlation between the ranking of the top 100 women players and their age. In other words, the higher ranked players are older and the lower ranked players are younger (see chart below).

Thirty of the top 100 players are 27 years old or older and 9 are in the top 25. Of the 4 Americans in this age group, Serena Williams is the only one in the top 25.

Twenty of the top 100 players are either 25 or 26 and 7 are in the top 25. No Americans are in this age category.

In other words, there are good players at all levels, but 16 of the players are at least 25 years old. For the younger players, the good news is that most will move on in the next 5 years.

The remaining 50 players in the top 100 are less than 25 years old. Nine of them are currently in the top 25. Their rank and age are listed below:

2 Victoria Azarenka, 24.5
5 Agnieszka Radwanska, 24.9
6 Petra Kvitova, 23.8
10 Caroline Wozniacki, 23.5
11 Simona Halep, 22.3
13 Sloane Stephens, 20.8
15 Sabine Lisicki, 24.3
21 Dominka Cibulkova, 24.7
22 Sirana Cirstea, 23.8

Stephens is the only American in that top group of players. Keys and Hampton are in the top 50.

Currently the top American women under age 25 (Stephens, Hampton, Keys, Riske, McHale, Davis, and King) will face tough competition if they are to become elite players. In addition to the above mentioned names, they will be challenged by Alize Cornet, France; Mona Barthel, Germany; Urszula Radwanska, Poland; Laura Robson, United Kingdom; Annika Beck, Germany; and Eugenie Bouchard, Canada. Spain, Germany, Eastern Europe, and Russia have excellent junior development programs and the popularity of Li Na is expected to create increased competition from China and other parts of Asia.

It is interesting and entertaining to speculate about who the next great American women players will be. Some of the young Americans will win Grand Slam events, but most will be top-ranked players.

Age of ranking WTA players - Is the USTA player development program getting the job done? — Age of Ranking WTA Players.

Time will tell!