Blog

U.S. Men Continue to Disappoint in Grand Slams (Australian Open)

Julius Caeser is credited with saying, “Veni, vidi, vici” (I came, I saw, I conquered). Clearly Caeser was not in charge of the USTA Player Development program.

Of the 12 American players entered in the Australian Open 9 were first round losers (Ryan Harrison, Bradley Klahn, Tim Smyczek, Rhyne Williams, Wayne Odesnik, John Isner, Steve Johnson, and Michael Russell).

  • Jack Sock finished the tournament 1-1 and exited in the second round.
  • Donald Young and Sam Querrey won 2 matches before bowing out in the third round.

Overall the 12 men won 5 matches and lost 12.

Based on the performance of the U.S. men in this and previous Grand Slam events, it is clear the USTA needs someone with a Julius Caesar mindset to take charge of USTA Player Development.

Note:  In 2003 Roger Federer won his first Wimbledon. There have since been 43 Grand Slams Including that event and the most recent Australian Open. Only eight men have won titles during that period:

  • Roger Federer 17
  • Rafael Nadal 13
  • Novak Djokovic 6
  • Andy Murray 2
  • Stanislas Wawrinka 1
  • Juan Martin del Potro 1
  • Gaston Gaudio 1
  • Andy Roddick 1
  • Marat Safin 1

As an aside, Murray defeated Djokovic in the finals of both his Grand Slam victories, del Potro upset Federer in his only Grand Slam victory, and Wawrinka upset Nadal in the most recent Grand Slam. In other words, at least of the trio (Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic) have been in the finals of all but three Grand Slams since the 2003 Wimbledon tournament.

It is safe to say that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have dominated the sport for the past decade.  Unfortunately, they are only part of the reason the U.S. continue to disappoint in Grand Slams. A major part of the problem is the USTA Player Development program.

 

American Women Have Solid Australian Open

Sloane Stephens’ upset of Serena Williams in the quarterfinals of the 2013 Australian Open showed she had the potential to be a difference maker. A year later Stephens has proven to be a solid performer in the Grand Slams and Williams is hitting on all cylinders despite being a year older.

Unfortunately, both players fared better in the 2013 Open than this year. In 2014, they each won three matches before bowing out in the round of 16.

Americans Lauren Davis and Alison Riske had solid tournaments, winning two rounds before dropping out in the round of 32.

Madison Keys, Irina Falconi, Varvara Lepchenko, and Christina McHale posted 1-1 records. All lost in the second round.

Sachia Vickery, Venus Williams, Vania King, and Bethanie Mattek-Sands each dropped their first round matches.

Overall the American women won 14 matches and lost 12.

The real story is the impact that Na Li’s victory will have on the sport. Reportedly, more than 120 million fans in China cheered her on as she won the title on her third attempt. Her accomplishments will likely spawn a tennis boom in China. Greater interest in this market may increase the importance of the Australian Open as a Grand Slam.

Na LI’s victory raises a series of questions. Will 2014 be a year where the tested veterans such as Williams and Li dominate? Will the next level of pros such as Sharapova and Azarenka  visit the winner’s circle more often in 2014? Will the younger crowd (Simona Halpe, Sloane Stephens, Eugenie Bouchard) play deeper into the tournaments?

Check back a year from now for more answers about the American women.

 

American Juniors Have Solid Performance in 2014 Australian Open

Five American juniors had moderate success in the 2014 Australian Open.

Only two Americans played in the Boy’s Juniors:

  • Michael Mmoh was 1-1 and lost in the second round.
  • Stefan Kozlov was 5-1. The 15-year old was soundly defeated in the finals by Alexander Zverev.

Three Americans played in the Girl’s Juniors:

  • Michaela Gordon was 0-1.
  • Katrine Steffensen was 1-1 and lost in the second round.
  • Olivia Hauger was 3-1.  The high school sophomore upset the #1 seed in the 2nd round in straight sets. In the quarterfinals she lost to finalist Janet Fett in three sets.

The American juniors were few in numbers, but they made their presence felt.

 

USTA Women’s Player Development – Quantity or Quality?

After dominating the women’s circuit in 2013, it was no surprise to see Serena Williams’ name at the top of the WTA January 6, 2014 rankings. Given the global appeal of the sport it was also no surprise that players from 10 countries filled out the top 10 slots.

  1. Serena Williams  United States
  2. Victoria Azarenka  Belarus
  3. Maria Sharapova  Russia
  4. Na Li  China
  5. Agnieszka Radwanska  Poland
  6. Petra Kvitova  Czech Republic
  7. Sara Errani  Italy
  8. Jelena Jankovic  Serbia
  9. Angelique Kerber  Germany
  10. Caroline Wozniacki  Denmark.

Only two Americans earned spots in the top 25. In addition to Serena Williams, Sloane Stephens was ranked 13th. The top 25 included players from 16 countries. The following six countries had multiple players in the top 25:

  • 5 Russia
  • 2 Germany
  • 2 Italy
  • 2 Romania
  • 2 Serbia
  • 2 United States.

Players from 37 countries were ranked in the top 100. The following 21 countries had multiple players in the top 100:

  • 11 United States
  • 7 Germany
  • 6 Italy
  • 6 Russia
  • 6 Spain
  • 5 Czech Republic
  • 5 Slovakia
  • 4 China
  • 4 France
  • 4 Japan
  • 4 Romania
  • 3 Serbia
  • 3 Ukraine
  • 2 Austria
  • 2 Belarus
  • 2 Belgium
  • 2 Croatia
  • 2 Israel
  • 2 Kazakhstan
  • 2 Poland
  • 2 Switzerland

A closer look at the rankings shows that most of the Americans women are not in the upper echelon.  The American women and their ranking in the top 100 follow:

  • 1  Serena Williams
  • 13  Sloane Stephens
  • 28  Jamie Hampton
  • 36  Madison Keys
  • 38  Venus Williams
  • 48  Bethanie Mattek-Sands
  • 52  Varvara Lepchenko
  • 55  Alison Riske
  • 65  Christina McHale
  • 67  Lauren Davis
  • 71  Vania King

On a positive note, there are more American players in the top 100 than any other country. On the downside, Serena Williams and Sloane Stephens are the only impact players.

Clearly, the focus of the USTA Player Development is quantity rather than quality. Time will tell whether Stephens and her younger counterparts will follow in the footsteps of the Williams sisters and someday become difference-makers.

 

NCAA Volleyball Quarterfinalists Represent 24 States and 5 Countries

The Big 12 and the PAC 12 conferences dominated the NCAA Women’s Volleyball Championships. Teams from their conferences filled 7 of the 8 quarterfinal slots. Texas was the only school from another conference.

This brief analysis identifies the home states of the most active players from the teams in the quarterfinals. Information was gathered from the rosters and stats pages of the school’s athletic department websites. Only players were included in this analysis that played more than half the sets during the season.

 Team  Number of Players Playing Playing More Than Half of the Sets in 2013  Number of Players Playing Sets in 2013 Season
Nebraska  9 15
Penn State  10 18
Purdue  11 13
Stanford  8 15
Texas 10 13
USC 11 15
Washington  9 12
Wisconsin  9 13
  Total  77  114

 

The following two tables identify the home countries and states for the quarterfinalists. The first table looks at the location by country and the second table identifies the home state for the U.S. players.

There were only 5 foreign players at four schools. Four of the quarterfinalists had all players from the U.S.

NU

PSU

Purdue

Stanford

Texas

USC

U of W

Wisconsin

Total

Italy

1

1

Mexico

1

1

PuertoRico

1

1

2

Sweden

1

1

U.S.

8

9

11

8

10

9

8

9

72

 Total

9

10

11

8

10

11

9

9

77

 

The rosters of most teams included players from within their regions. For example Purdue has 6 players from Indiana and USC had five players from California.

Of the 72 players from the U.S., 15 were from California, 11 from Texas, 9 from Illinois and 7 from Indiana.

Five of the 8 schools have players from California, 6 schools have players from Texas, and 4 schools have players from Illinois.

Although about 60% of the players are from 4 states, the key players from the quarterfinalists were from 24 states.

 

NU

PSU

Purdue

Stanford

Texas

USC

U of W

Wisconsin

Total

 AL    

1

         

1

 AR

1

1

CA

1

1

4

5

4

15

 CO

1

1

 FL

1

1

 HI

2

2

 IA

1

1

 IL

2

2

1

4

9

 IN

6

1

7

 KY

1

1

 LA

1

1

 MD

1

1

 MI

1

1

 MN

2

2

 MO

1

1

 NB

2

2

 NC

1

1

1

3

 NJ

1

1

 NY

1

1

 OH

2

1

3

 OK

1

1

2

 OR

2

2

 TX

1

1

1

5

2

1

11

 WA        

1

1

 

2

 TOTAL

8

9

11

8

10

9

8

9

72

 

The data illustrates that quality programs are developing high performance players in most parts of the country.

 

Its Already Been Decided – Chargers Will Win the Super Bowl

Call off the playoffs, the San Diego Chargers will win the Super Bowl. There is no need to risk any injuries, the winner has already been determined.

Here’s the story…

In 2009 the Philadelphia Eagles lost their home season opener to the New Orleans Saints 48-22.

-The Saints beat the Colts in the Super Bowl, 31-17.

In 2010 the Philadelphia Eagles lost their home season opener to the Green Bay Packers 27-20.

-The Packers bet the Steelers in the Super Bowl, 31-25.

In 2011 the Philadelphia Eagles lost their home season opener to the New York Giants 29-16.

-The Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl, 21-17.

In 2012 the Philadelphia Eagles won their home season opener by defeating the Baltimore Ravens 24-23.

-The Ravens beat the 49ers in the Super Bowl, 34-31.

In 2013 the Philadelphia Eagles lost their home season opener to the San Diego Chargers 33-30.

-Since the Chargers played Philadelphia in the Eagles’ home season opener, the Chargers will win the Super Bowl.

There you have it. Game over.

 

 

Big Ten Dominates NCAA Women’s Volleyball Championships

On December 5th, 64 teams kicked off regional play for the 33rd NCAA women’s volleyball tournament. Teams represented 31 conferences; however, the tournament was essentially a competition between the Big Ten and the Pac 12.

There were 4 Big 10 teams and 3 Pac-12 teams in the quarterfinals. Although Penn State defeated Wisconsin in the finals, the match of the tournament saw Penn State defeat Stanford after being down 9-6 in game 5.

Michigan was the only Big Ten team that did not win a match. All other teams had winning records and conference teams won a total of 23 matches while losing 7.

Big Ten

Won

 Lost

Penn State 6 0
Wisconsin  5 1
Purdue  3 1
Nebraska  3  1
Illinois  2  1
Michigan State  2  1
Minnesota  2  1
Michigan  0  1
Conference Total  23  7

 

The Pac 12 was also well represented by 9 teams. Only ASU didn’t win a round and 5 teams won a match before bowing out. Conferences teams were 15-9 in championships.

 

PAC 12

Won

Lost

Washington

4

1

Southern California

3

1

Stanford

3

1

Arizona

1

1

California

1

1

Colorado

1

1

Oregon

1

1

Utah

1

1

Arizona St.

0

1

Conference Total

15

9

 

The Big Ten and Pac-12 teams won 38 of the 63 matches played in the championships. That is dominance!

Five of the 8 teams representing the SEC won their first round match, but lost in the second round. Overall the conference had a modest performance.

SEC

Won

Lost

Florida

1

1

Kentucky

1

1

LSU

1

1

Missouri

1

1

Texas A&M

1

1

Alabama

0

1

Arkansas

0

1

Georgia

0

1

Conference Total

5

8

 

Of the 4 ACC teams, only Florida State posted a winning record.

 

ACC

Won

Lost

Florida St.

2

1

Duke

1

1

Miami (FL)

0

1

North Carolina

0

1

Conference Total

3

4

 

The Big 12 was represented by 4 quality teams.

 

Big 12

Won

Lost

Texas

4

1

Kansas

2

1

Oklahoma

1

1

Iowa St.

0

1

Conference Total

7

4

 

There were 4 conferences that had a total of 8 teams. Each of these had representatives in either the round of 16 or 32.

School

 Conference

Won

Lost

Hawaii Big West

1

1

Cal St. Northridge Big West

1

1

UC Santa Barbara Big West

0

1

San Diego West Coast

2

1

BYU West Coast

2

1

Marquette Big East

1

1

Creighton Big East

1

1

American Univ. Patriot

2

1

Total

10

8

 

In total, the 41 teams that represented these 9 conferences had a combined record of 63-40.

Then there were the other 23 teams from 22 conferences. Generally speaking, these teams were admitted to the tournament because they were conference champions. While these teams and conferences all have solid programs, they are not competitive with the top teams or conferences.

None of the teams from these conferences won a match. In fact they only won 6 sets while losing 69 sets. Only Colorado State played a “close” match, losing 3-2 to Cal State Northridge.

 

School Conference Sets Won Sets Lost
Louisville AAC

0

3

New Hampshire America East

0

3

Duquesne Atlantic 10

0

3

Jacksonville Atlantic Sun

0

3

Idaho St. Big Sky

1

3

Charleston So. Big South

1

3

Radford Big South

0

3

UTSA Conference USA

0

3

Milwaukee Horizon

0

3

Yale Ivy

1

3

Fairfield Metro Atlantic

0

3

Ohio Mid-American

0

3

Hampton Mid-Eastern

0

3

Wichita St. Missouri Valley

1

3

Colorado St. Mountain West

2

3

LIU Brooklyn Northeast

0

3

Morehead St. OVC

0

3

Ga. Southern Southern

0

3

Central Ark. Southland

0

3

Alabama St. Southwestern

0

3

IUPUI Summit

0

3

Texas St. Sun Belt

0

3

New Mexico St. Western Athletic

0

3

Total

6

69

 

It is clear from the results that there are two if not three or four tiers of play 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 their championship season!

 

 

If You Were the Buffs AD, Would You Spend $143 Million?

CU Athletics recently announced plans to spend $143 million to update its facilities. In an email sent under Rick George’s name, this expenditure was explained in the following way:

“Our Sustainable Excellence Initiative (SEI), which includes a $143 million wide-ranging facilities improvement plan, was approved unanimously by the Board of Regents on December 4. This is the vital component to our strategic plan, one that reaches out past the year 2025, which will be finalized by the end of January. We have determined what our vision and mission are:

“To be nationally recognized as a premier athletics department, by providing a world-class and holistic student-athlete experience, operating in a fiscally responsible manner, while consistently competing for and winning championships.”

The comprehensive student-athlete experience includes enhancing our academic, health and wellness, and personal development programs, in concert with raising the level of competitive excellence for all teams to compete for and win championships on the conference and national levels. Developing and renovating facilities is the key factor in achieving the above objectives.

We are working diligently to make this a reality, not a pipe dream. We intend to start construction this Spring with a completion date in time for the start of the 2015-16 academic and athletic year; yes, an aggressive remake of our athletic department in what basically is a 16-month window.”$143 milliom

CU Athletics submitted their proposal directly to the Board of Regents instead of initially having it approved by the campus planning committee. Technically this is not a problem, but George’s actions may not sit well with some members of a community that does not fully support the Buffs.

It is presumed that George’s rush for approval is driven by clauses in Coach McIntyre’s contract that require CU to initiate plans for facility improvements by the end of the year and to complete those upgrades by a certain date. Said differently, the cost of hiring coach Mac contractually extends well beyond his monthly wages and incentives.

CU is faced with a self-induced conundrum. They are in an athletic arms race they cannot afford to be in. The expenditure of $143 million is necessary for them to continue to participate. On a comparative basis, many of their facilities are subpar. Unfortunately, spending $143 million is a band-aid that will not provide the program with a long-term competitive advantage. At best, it will temporarily reduce the gap between the Buffs and the top schools.

This issue could be addressed by re-focusing the purpose of athletics at CU. That won’t happen.

Like most universities, CU has chosen to expand their athletic empire. Good arguments can be made for de-emphasis or expansion; however, most college presidents endorse the rationale for having a strong presence in athletics.

What does $143 million mean to other organizations?

  • The website of Johnson and Wales University indicated that JWU increased student aid to $143 million for 2012-13.
  • The Bleacher Report stated that Alabama reported $143 million in athletic revenue during 2012-2013. This is an increase of about $20 million from the prior year when they were ranked 4th in the country for revenue. Alabama listed a surplus of $21.1 million. (Note: By comparison, a November 6th article in the Daily Camera stated that CU Athletics is more than $21 million in debt to the university and facing a shortfall of $5.6 million to budget this fiscal year).
  • In December, the sale of Frontier Airlines to Indigo Partners was finalized for $145 million.
  • Senior Housing News reported that American Realty Capital has agreed to purchase a nine-property portfolio of assisted living communities and development land for a total of $143 million. The eight communities and one development parcel are all based in the southeast and include 453 assisted living units and 187 memory care units.
  • In late September the Alabama State Port Authority approved a $143.8 million budget Tuesday for the upcoming fiscal year.
  • In the Q2 2013 Digital Startup Report published by Builtinchicago.com it was announced that 37 startups raised $146 million dollars in the second quarter of 2013.
  • In August, the New York Times announced the opening of North Atlanta High School, the most expensive high school ever built in Georgia.  The 11-story high school, with a 900 car parking garage cost $147 million.
  • In November of 2013, a Francis Bacon painting sold for $142 million.
  • The Illinois extension office released data indicating that in 2008 the major pumpkin producing states (Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and California) produced 1.1 billion pounds of pumpkins values at $141 million.
  • In April 2012, President Obama ended a six-month funding freeze to Palestine. He released $147 million to pay for infrastructure, education, humanitarian aid and health projects.

What does $143 million mean to you? Is CU’s decision to spend $143 million a necessary and responsible expenditure? How would you respond to CU’s athletic arms conundrum if you were the Buff’s AD?

 

Buffs Volleyball Attendance on the Rise

The University of Colorado became a member of the PAC 12 Conference in 2010 and began competition in 2011. In most sports, the Buffs demonstrated they were not ready for prime time. Volleyball was no exception.

The Lady Buffs won only 1 of 22 matches in their first season. The home court was marginally more friendly to the Buffs than the road. They lost eight matches by a score of 3-0 and won a total of 5 sets in the friendly confines of the Coors Event Center. On a positive note, they won their only conference match at home.

Only once during the season were more than 1,000 people in attendance at the matches in 2011.

 

Date Opponent Score Attendance
Sep-13 Utah

0-3

508

Sep-23 Oregon

0-3

507

Sep-24 Oregon State

0-3

483

Sep-30 USC

0-3

923

Oct-2 UCLA

0-3

710

Oct-14 Arizona

0-3

923

Oct-15 Arizona State

0-3

643

Nov-3 Stanford

1-3

686

Nov-5 California

1-3

2,060

Nov-18 Washington State

3-2

635

Nov-19 Washington

0-3

876

Home Conference Record

1-10

Conference Record

1-21

Average Attendance

814

The 2012 season was marginally better. The Lady Buffs lost all their road matches, but won 4 home matches. Through increased promotional efforts and greater interest in the team, attendance surpassed 1,000 on four occasions.

Date Opponent Score Attendance
Sep-19 Utah

3-0

415

Sep-22 California

2-3

704

Oct-5 Washington State

3-0

757

Oct-7 Washington

0-3

712

Oct-12 Arizona State

3-2

3,117

Oct-14 Arizona

1-3

2,851

Oct-26 Oregon

0-3

701

Oct-28 Oregon State

3-1

607

Nov-9 UCLA

0-3

1,257

Nov-10 USC

0-3

1,140

Home Conference Record

4-6

Conference Record

4-16

Average Attendance

1,226

On the court, the 2013 season was a breakthrough year as the Lady Buffs posted a winning home record.

Date Opponent Score Attendance
Sep-27 UCLA 3-2

2,777

Oct-4 Washington 3-1

873

Oct-6 Washington State 3-1

851

Oct-25 Arizona 3-0

784

Oct-27 Arizona State 3-1

618

Nov-8 Stanford 0-3

1,562

Nov-9 California 1-3

1,127

Nov-22 Oregon State 3-0

863

Nov-24 Oregon 1-3

1,270

Nov-27 Utah 3-2

967

Home Conference Record

7-3

Conference Record

9-11

Average Attendance

1,169

The Lady Buffs have made progress; both on the courts and in the promotion of the program; however, the University of Washington has set a benchmark for CU and other conference members.

In addition to winning the 2013 PAC-12 title, the Huskies average attendance was over 3,800. Only twice was their home attendance less than 2,000.

Date Opponent Score Attendance
Oct-11 Arizona 3-1

4,589

Oct-13 Arizona State 3-0

2,188

Oct-16 California 3-0

1,525

Oct-20 Stanford 3-2

4,914

Nov-1 Utah 3-1

2,115

Nov-3 Colorado 3-0

2,880

Nov-13 UCLA 3-0

1,734

Nov-15 USC 3-1

4,274

Nov-27 Oregon State 3-1

2,139

Nov-29 Washington State 3-0

3,811

Home Conference Record

10-0

Conference Record

18-2

Average Attendance

2,842

Best wishes to the Buffs for a productive offseason and for continued improvement in 2014.

Buffs volleyball attendance on the rise
Nicole Edleman sets Kerra Schroeder in warmups

NCAA Volleyball – 33 Years in a Row for Stanford and Penn State

There was a time when baseball fans hollered, “Break up the Yankees.” At the time, it was an understatement to say that the Bronx Bombers were dominant.

If these anti-Yankee folks were women’s volleyball fans today they would say, “Break up the Penn State and Stanford programs.”

The first NCAA championships were held in 1981. In the 33 championships, including this season, Penn State and Stanford are the only two teams to appear in every NCAA tournament. That type of dominance makes the New York Yankees look as inept as the Chicago Cubs.

Over the past 33 seasons, Stanford has won 6 NCAA national championships and was runner-up on 8 occasions. As well, they had three undefeated conference seasons.

Since 1981, the overall winning percentage for the Cardinal fell below 65% twice. Their conference winning percentage dropped below that mark only once.

Penn State has been equally as impressive. They won 5 national championships and were runner-up on 3 occasions. They won the national championship four consecutive years (2007 – 2010) and were undefeated in two of those seasons.

As well, they were undefeated in conference play 14 times. Only once did the Penn State overall season winning percentage drop below 65%.

33 years in a row
Sunday evening Texas was announced as the number one seed for the 2013 NCAA tournament. They are the outright favorite to defend their title.

Penn State was seeded second and Stanford was seeded seventh. If they both win their first three matches they will face off in the quarterfinals.

Here’s to an exciting NCAA tournament!