NLM,
It does not look that anybody from CEN Blue Dev team was invited to NTSC.
Maybe there is a ‘one per team’ guarantee, but I think those are more like guidelines. In Development, PAC Blue finished 7th and sent one to NTSC. SWZ finished 8th and sent five to NTSC.
The moral of the story is… save your money if you were born in Q4 and you are in development and did not have to shave your beard before the games… I’m sure there are 1 or 2 exceptions to this rule, but it’s a fairly accurate rule of thumb. The 0 for 22 stat on Q4 2011 birthdays is pretty staggering… many of those kids were the very best players on the best teams in 12u last year and not a single one was selected to a 75-person pool of players for Dev NTSC. Maybe this is ok(?). Some kids have an advantage in age group play (August 1 cutoff) and others have an advantage in ODP (January 1 cutoff). Such is life. But it seems unusual that there is a chunk of the country’s current top players who seems to be deliberately being left out simply because they are 9 months behind their peers in age, strength, puberty, etc. A more long-term developmental approach would bring these kids into the fold with a mindset that they may not be able to compete immediately, but they are worth investing in longterm.
It is absolutely certain that being born in an odd year is a disadvantage as the “up” years for youth/cadet world championships are 2008, 2010, 2012, etc. This is not a criticism; it is just a reality.
So unless you are a genetic freak born late in 2009, 2011, 2013… you might be better off saving your money and having your athlete focus on shining in age group play/high school and skipping ODP.
5 Likes
This is interesting. I can’t figure out how to see the whole interview
This is true in all sports at all levels and really, all of life. Kids are advantaged by their genetics and being members of the “lucky sperm club.” It’s no one’s fault that the world championships are alternating years. Olympics are every four years and you might miss your peak window because of when your parents got busy so many years ago.
That said, there have been plenty of early developers who see the competition pass them at later ages and late bloomers who excel. We’ve all heard “that kid can’t be 12!” I think the coaches know that. Do they bet on potential that doesn’t materialize? Sure.
ODP is an experience. Take it or leave it.
3 Likes
There is so much USA Water Polo could do to make the ODP experience better!! The poor experience is creating a lot of cynicism in the water polo community and kids who see all the politics etc and have no interest to go back. In general, where is the “development” in oDp?
Right now the experience is completely dependent on the coach - some are a disorganized mess and others are awesome. How good an experience a player has is completely random. Some teams don’t even practice and have no social interaction outside the pool, other coaches encourage parents to set up chat groups and dinners etc. Some teams showed up at the pool for their 5 games and left right after games and really got no development or even bonding with team mates (given no practices).
USA Water Polo should implement some consistent guidelines for communication (for some coaches this is almost non-existent), practices, timelines, recommendations for parents etc.
And how about ODP “camps”? They are not camps but try outs… many view them just a money-maker taking advantage of kids’ dreams. So many kids come back completely dejected because they were deemed “non-contenders” from the start and put in some corner where no one even bothered to watch them, much less give them any feedback. I hear so much complaining from parents saying ODP camps turn their kids off the sport. Does USA Water Polo ask and actually listen to feedback?
1 Like
NCWP,
So 0 out of 22 kids with Q4 2011 birthdays were invited. OK. But then 6 out of 20 kids with Q1 2012 birthdays were invited. Are you really suggesting a deep conspiracy to discriminate against kids with Q4 birthdays? I am not sure that I can visualize National Dev coaches looking at a talented kid and saying, “Damn it. It is again a Q4 2011 kid. Let us take another Q1 2012 kid instead.”
But yes, 9–12 months is a big difference at this age group. This is probably one of the reasons why those late 2011 kids could do so well at the 12u JOs last summer.
You actually just proved my point.
Because there is absolutely no chance that those 6 out of 20 kids born Q1 2012 were better than all 22 kids who were 2011 Q4 who got cut. So yes, the staff very much appears to have had an informal birthday cutoff point and then moved on to choose the top/oldest 2012 kids rather than bring in any of the younger/smaller 2011s. I do not doubt that if there had been a 6-foot-tall 180 lb. 7th grader with a November birthday in the crowd that he would have been pulled through. But I stand by my assessment that at least half a dozen of the top kids in the age group were put out to pasture.
I am not even necessarily saying this is the “wrong” thing to do, but it is most certainly what was done.
The top 2012 kids will be eligible for tournaments that the 2011 kids will not (going back to the “odd year birthday” curse), so I understand the staff’s desire to start identifying the better 2012s at this point.
Pointing out what happened is very different from being overly critical of it. I have pointed out the reality without necessarily expressing an opinion on it and it’s certainly something for parents (at least parents of Q4 kids) to take note of.
There are undoubtedly examples of Q4 odd-year birthday athletes who eventually “made it” (Ben Hallock comes to mind), but the odds are certainly stacked against you if you fall into that category so you’d better be a freak of nature if you expect to get pulled through.
Again, I do not see any deep conspiracy. Those Q4 2011 kids who “carried their teems on their backs” according to their parents did well because they were the oldest last summer. Good for them. But again, I have a hard time believing that Nat team coaches looked at the birthdate to discriminate against them. Maybe they were just weaker than early 2011 kids and showed less promise than some 2012 kids. Who knows… In any case, we are talking about middle school kids. If they are they good, they will attract attention of many coaches with or without NTSC during their hs years.
Not sure why you are so hostile to some honest and pretty obvious observations being made about the system. I think everyone on this board can agree that a lot of talented kids get left behind by the ODP process. It’s an inherently flawed system and it is a natural product of the way the system is set up that some very good kids get left behind. I’m not ranting or making excuses or really even promoting any deep conspiracy theories. If you think the system is perfect and that all of the best athletes get captured, you are entitled to your opinion. I am not sour grapes over any of this at all. The data speaks for itself and anyone who is actually familiar with this age group can tell you that some very talented kids were left behind. No one is crying about it, but this is a discussion board and the topic is ODP, so we are discussing the realities of ODP.
I do agree that, in the end, whether or not these kids ever make a national team, the best kids will almost always get seen by those they want to have see them in some capacity, whether it is high school, club, a showcase, a camp, or any of the other many ways that athletes can gain exposure.
4 Likes
It is interesting to hear at the Dev age group talented kids get left behind. I can say at the older age groups, such as youth, some zone’s better players have left ODP after seeing it for what it is.
1 Like
I think we can all agree that the birthday cutoff in any venue (age group, school, ODP, etc.) advantages some and disadvantages others, particularly in the early years. I think we can also all agree that 9-12 months is a significant period of growth, strength acquisition, etc. in the development age group, such that an older 2011 athlete (14+ years old) is more likely to have a physical advantage over a younger 2011 athlete (recently turned 13) at least in terms of size and strength, which certainly come into play in a physical sport like water polo.
What is also not up for debate is the absolute fact that none of the 22 Q4 kids from 2011 were selected. And I would hope we can all agree that there are some talented kids in that group, regardless of whether we think they should have been selected.
What we may disagree upon is how USAWP should respond to this disparity and I think there are a lot of valid opinions here. Maybe it’s just a “tough luck” or “try again later” approach and you have to hope they come back. If they don’t, maybe we conclude that they weren’t cut out for the rigors of the process of ascending to a national team, anyway. If they do return, it seems we all agree that eventually that age advantage starts to fade and you have to hope the evaluators are constantly on the lookout for kids who are making strides and passing up their slightly older peers, rather than just taking the same kids year over year who were identified early. I don’t have enough experience with the program to know how this has gone historically, but I think it’s good that some attention has been brought to this and we can all follow along over the years to see if any of these athletes are brought into the fold as time goes on.
2 Likes
The surprising part of ODP (IMO) is that USA WP could have run this past weekend more like a very aggressive camp with lots of games/scrimmages and general training rather than just a formal standard tournament.
Were any boys actually tired at the end of the tournament?
Most boys played 5 games but they really only played about half a game because of equal substitution standards. So many boys played about 15 min per game and 30 min per day. That’s Not too much for a strong athlete.
Yes there were some “team” meetings and some warm up passing time but really it was not much beyond a basic tournament.
I think most parents would have been happy if we had sent our kids to the pool for 3-4 hours Friday and then 6-8 hours Saturday and then 3-4 hours again Sunday morning.
And in that time I think a lot of kids would get to show their true potential to USAWP staff better. They just needed more time in the pool.
The logistics of how this all would happen would require a lot advanced planning on the part of USAWP. the staff would need to be very VERY organized and there would need to be more pools utilized. But in the end it seems like USAWP staff would get a much better picture of who should move forward to the NTSC.
3 Likes
I will chime in on my experience as a dad of a current D1 college player.
My son went to ODP tryouts once, declared it unsafe and dangerous and never went back.
He said the coaches turned a bunch of top shooters loose on some green goalies. He said there was no training and he felt like a practice dummy.
On his club the top players were not involved with ODP.
When my son was being recruited a few coaches asked about ODP, but made it clear that it was not a requirement and agreed the selection process was theatre.
One and done with ODP.
5 Likes
Red teams have a MUCH easier path to semis than Blue schedules.
Trix,
So? Forget about making semis.
Coastal Blue Cadet was seeded 9th and finished 8th. Coastal Blue Youth was seeded 8th and finished 11th. Are you trying to tell me that those teams were seeded too low? Standard B team performance for one of the strongest zones…
Red teams are the A teams. Of course they have an easier path. They are the better teams. Players on the Red teams tend to better than players on the blue teams, so, yes, red team players are more likely (have an easier path) to make NTSC.
There seems to be massive confusion about what is happening at ODP.
I mean this story about green goalies being put in dangerous situations, what? These kids are the same age. What are apparently many goalies doing at an ODP camp trying out for a national team if they can’t protect themselves from shooters their own age?
@wpolo93 you’re claiming there is clear distinction between Red / Blue - A / B teams based on where they Finish - Top 4 vs 8-12. I’m pointing out that this is the likely outcome in part, due to the strength of schedules Red/Blue teams are assigned. Red teams need two “easy” wins against Blue teams to make 1-6 Bracket where they will finally play a Red team. A Blue team will face a Red in game 2.
I’ll reiterate what some folks have argued before, is that the selection of Red / Blue rosters is very vague, ambiguous, political, & disheartening. Strictly based off merit or performance, I’d argue that 1-2 Red players should have been Blue, 1-2 Blue players should have been Red, 1-2 Blue players should not have been rostered at all in favor of kids left off Championship selection, but because USA Water Polo does not have a transparent selection process we are left wondering why or how kids get rostered where they are.
Below is the 5 game average of the team I was following/scoring at ODP, names redacted. 4 players made NTSC selection. Clearly performance or merit was not a factor. Maybe they were all even # birth years? Maybe they’re all Academy kids? Maybe they’re friends or family of some USA Water polo official, but the lack of objective, performance-based transparency will certainly turn kids & families away from ODP.
1 Like
I do not have a dog in this fight, so, frankly, I do not care 
I only objected to the statement by one of the parents that Coastal zone split players evenly into Red and Blue teams - this was obviously nonsense.
Of course, it is always the case that 1-2 Blue players could/should have been selected to the Red, and a few Red players could/should have been selected to the Blue…
Anyway, the parents need to relax a little bit about real and perceived injustices. The goal of the program is to develop future National team players, and not to give a decent player a leg up in their college recruitment via NTSC honors.
Cheers
2 Likes
This is so silly. The difference between Red and Blue teams is that the Red team has generally stronger players. Having stronger players means they might finish higher. Those stronger players are generally chosen for a next level.
This event is pretty straight forward 4 seeded brackets. The good teams win because they only play teams worse then they are? I guess I can’t argue with that logic, that’s the way the globetrotters did it. I’m trying to understand the tournament setup that doesn’t have a weaker team play a stronger team. Who do the stronger teams then play? Each other or even stronger teams? So a weaker team never has to beat a stronger team to get to the semifinals? But, how can that even happen, won’t one of the two weaker teams playing each other be weaker than the other? Does that make the other team stronger and therefor they should only play the stronger teams? Mind melting. It’s an escheresque puzzle. I guess I need to rethink march madness and bracketology.
There are plenty of parents and players of all ages who don’t know what it means to be a really good water polo player. That may be causing confusion and disappointment. But, but, but…my kid scored so many goals…