01-28-2022, 05:04 PM
(01-28-2022, 04:43 PM)Mick Wrote:(01-28-2022, 04:06 PM)DC 86 Wrote: Why is it that Stanford MVB's historical results (2 national championships, 5 final fours) pale so dramatically compared to WVB (9 national championships, 23 final fours). It seems as if both programs would be recruiting from the same pool so to speak, and there's far more depth of competition on the women's side. Is there a simple answer or a number of factors that have resulted in WVB being so dominant while MVB has often struggled at the top level? Is it a matter of resources which are now being addressed with this fundraising effort?
I don't know the actual answer, but I can give you an educated guess. Here's a few reasons:
1) High school girls' volleyball is more closely akin to football than it is to boys' volleyball, in terms of participation. About 10x the number of girls than boys play in high school.
2) The number of girls' competitive clubs dwarve those of boys. Which leads to...
3) I was peeking over coach Kosty's shoulder at the Junior Olympics one year. He had the Volleyball Magazine's Top 50 attached to his clipboard. Four of the names were highlighted. I asked "Are those the players you really want?" He replied "Those are the four who can get into Stanford." I don't think the leading academic lights generally pursue volleyball at the highest level. And if they do...
4) Volleyball players don't really have a chance to earn big money in the pros. So they may gravitate to programs where they won't have to work as hard, or pay as much. Recruited volleyball players get a one-quarter scholarship. That's it. But the following schools have competitive men's varsity programs, many of which require far less of a time commitment than Stanford: Harvard, Princeton, MIT, NYU, USC, UCLA, UCI, UCSB, UCSD, and UC Santa Cruz. And as a kicker, Cal has two club teams, one of which plays excellent ball. They actually recruit at tournaments with a pretty compelling sell: an education virtually as strong as Stanford/Harvard/Princeton/MIT but you commit to volleyball 12 hours a week instead of 40. Since it wasn't a varsity program, my son scrimmaged with that Cal team as a junior in high school. The setter had been recruited to UCLA and UCSB, but chose to go to Cal.
5) Let's say that Stanford recruits like crazy and gets the five best players in a year. Players quit, don't pan out, get injured, transfer, lose interest, etc. So let's say they get the best players. Does Stanford have the coach? Stanford's men's team has Head Coach Kosty, assistant head coach Shibuya and assistant coach Dan Rasay. That's it. A team of three. The women's volleyball team has a team of eight professionals listed on their web site:
a) director of VB Hambly
b) Ass't Coach Johnson
c) Ass't Coach Thompson
d) Volunteer assistant Reinert
e) Technical Coordinator Carr
f) Ass't Trainer Sicard
g) Sports Performance Coach Friedrich
h) Dir of operations Hambly. Yes, she's the head coach's wife. Also has a kinesiology degree.
So those are a few of the reasons. Training, funding, recruiting, coaching.
Thanks, interesting.
I know girls volleyball participation dwarfs boys volleyball but that in itself shouldn't necessarily disproportionally impact Stanford MVB vis a vis its competitors, except for #3 and #4 which I hadn't thought about and which may be the overriding factors. Admissions: if you can only recruit a small part of the pool you're much more challenged if it's a small pool to begin with; and Pro Careers: if you're an elite female athlete with professional aspirations then volleyball is one of the most realistic paths and Stanford volleyball in particular is worth the required commitment. If you're an elite male athlete with professional aspirations then volleyball is far down the list of sports to play to begin with, and absent the pro motivation other schools may be just as attractive for the reasons you cited.