This pretty much nails it. Championship bracket absolutely needs to be reduced. There’s no more of this complaining about high scores on day one. Mercy role in this would help eliminate 95% of the problems with the first day of the tournament and make it so coaches and players and go differentials and parents don’t have to experience an event that may actually trigger somebody not wanting to play anymore
We could also discuss what that mercy rule should look like and I think a good start would be that if a team goes up by 8 or 10 in quarter three or later, the clock runs continuously even through whistles.
You could also call the game at the end of Quarter three.
Another creative way to end it as if it’s up by 10 or more, you could sub out Q4 for penalty shot shootout just for fun.
I also think the roster deadline needs to be April 15 tax day. Too many players tried to get around the rules at the end of the school year. Having a player officially playing a tournament on the roster before April 15 solves it.
I also think Water Polo needs to work with the world community of Water Polo and not schedule world competitions during junior Olympics point blank
Every two years, the junior Olympics gets watered down because they take the top players from the rosters and move them to the world team to travel
Odd vs even numbered JO are so different
I also want to propose a change to how seeding works, but I’m not sure what that would look like yet
To your club transfer bit, this is from USA Volleyball.
“USA Volleyball (USAV) restricts junior players to a single indoor club per season (Sept 1–July). Once committed, transfers require written releases from both the old and new Club Directors, a formal transfer fee, and Regional Volleyball Association (RVA) approval. Transfers are typically denied after a player competes in a qualifier.”
Only reason I bring that up is because the CEO came from that background. If I am missing anything from it, please correct me, but could we see USA Water Polo move to something like this?
Due to my experiences I suggest not limiting 10U in any way. Reason being there are clubs that struggle to put together a coed 10U, but some small number of players from random clubs that get a chance to play at JOs wind up going on to be elite level players. Open the mouth of the funnel as wide as it can go, for the health and future of the sport.
You can choke it down at 12U and further at 14U. Reality is there are probably only 16 clubs in the nation that are “National Champion” level in 16 and 18s, and maybe just eliminate those altogether since CIF is all those athletes care about.
I’ve spoken with many 16u and 18u athletes and their coaches over the years and I have yet to speak with one who doesn’t care about the Junior Olympics. Forced to make a choice between winning the Junior Olympics and the top division in their CIF sections, many of the athletes and coaches would choose the CIF but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to do well at the Junior Olympics. Since the Futures League was established, some top players and coaches believe the Futures League experience has surpassed the Junior Olympics because the level of competition is better and the competition lasts longer. Reducing the number of clubs that participate in the Championship tier at the Junior Olympics would help address the problem with the lack of competition in many Day 1 games.
Many top clubs especially in SPA play their rosters up in Futures. It’s definitely NOT treated as something that surpasses JO. Just a way to allow players who would sit on bench in JO to have some play time and medals of their own.
A much more serious thing is San Diego Cup that is second-most-serious thing to JO. However, it’s for 14u and under. There is not equivalent of it in 16, 18 and Futures become that spill over tournament for 16, 18 instead of San Diego
wopodad, I didn’t say the Futures League has surpassed the Junior Olympics. I said some players and coaches prefer the Futures League experience because the level of competition is better and the competition lasts longer.
In this thread, we’re talking about the changes we’d like to see in the Junior Olympics. Many of us agree that something needs to be done about the level of competition on Day One of the Junior Olympics. There is an easy fix there.
I don’t think anyone seriously considers the SD County Cup as an equivalent to JOs. The 5 minute quarters and inconsistent seeding process automatically excludes the tournament from serious contention.
I agree with what you’ve said. One thing I’d add is that Futures has shown a willingness to adapt and evolve the tournament format. Even though the seeding was clearly off this year (presumably because of National League), they’re at least willing to make changes, and over time that could start to erode some of the prestige gap with JOs.
My biggest change, though, would be not keeping JOs solely in Irvine. Especially if it’s centered at Woollett, I think that’s a mistake. Maybe the new pool will help, but the Woollett layout just isn’t conducive to creating the kind of event atmosphere you get at Avery, with multiple vendors, sponsor booths, and a true central gathering area. If JOs stays in Irvine year after year, I worry it starts to feel stale. Rotating the tournament between venues would help keep it feeling like the marquee event it should be.
Agree with pretty much everything you said, problem is the cost to rent Stanford’s facility that has shot up and nearly priced out hosting in recent years. Can’t have a home pool with costs so high that you end up in the red for the whole tournament.
Fully agree with this take. The problem with making any real changes to the format is that this is USA water polo’s only real money maker. In an ideal world, the most competitive tournament would probably be a 5 day 12-18 team tournament (dependent on if u wanna give an automatic qualifier for each zone). Each age group has their own pool sites. My hot take is that the premier clubs should run a separate tournament instead of participating at JO’s to force USA water polo into preserving a competitive tournament. Would be extremely unfortunate if JO’s started to turn into a 10 u dare to dream tournament/ 12 u rocktober tournament. They’re great tournament for bonding, but competition isn’t the focal point.
Separate out platinum/gold/silver/bronze via proper seeding and cut it to a 3 day tourney. If you’re really concerned with a team seeded below 24 being competitive with the top you could accelerate gold have a platinum/gold crossover round which might require four days. But you get rid of the day 1 beatdowns and get more quality games for everyone.
Futures isn’t a three day tournament. Futures sorts teams into divisions across five weekends. JOs does that in two days. SuperFinals is also longer for D1, D2 than JOs is for Upper Platinum, Lower Platinum, Upper Gold, and Lower Gold.
The bracketing philosophy differs between Futures and JOs in how high underdogs can rise. The 48th seeded team in JOs can in theory win the tournament. The last seeded team in Futures D3 cannot. The highest the last seeded team in D3 can reach is D2.
The cost of giving heavy underdogs the opportunity that JOs does is that in those opportunities they often end on the bad side of blowouts. Futures doesn’t give that same opportunity and so there are fewer blowouts but that opens the door to some ugly politics due to the starting seed determining opportunity. We experienced that this year when Del Mar Alt 12uB was initially seeded in D2, then post coup was relegated to D3 despite having the same coaches, all the same kids, and being a top-15 team nationally.
I like Futures. In ways it does things better than JOs, but that doesn’t mean I think there needs to be two Futures. I like that JO has a format where skill does all the determining even if it means there is going to be the odd 31-0 score.
I would add that all blowouts aren’t created equally. In my experience, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the prevailing attitude of the players/parents of more than a few of the teams getting blown out.
Especially at the older age groups. Maybe they’ve only heard about an elite program/team/player and appreciate the difference between simply watching, and actually competing against them in the same pool. Seeing the genuine excitement about scoring a goal or gaining position etc. may mean that it isn’t always the downer it seems on paper. I guess I’m saying that it can be a net-positive experience.
Plus this is a national tournament and those teams that are outside California may have a different perspective about JOs that should be taken into account.
Finally, mercy rules (especially if it ends the game) can also have unintended consequences, that may result in lost opportunities for both teams to get something out of it. Playing a full game and trying to push through. Learning from the better players. Or just seeing how you stack up. All of these are part of development. If we have to see a few lopsided results, so be it.
A running clock after a certain point seems to be a fine middle path. Btw, I don’t think we need mercy rules for 16u/18u, but while we’re spitballing might as well raise it!
Reducing the number of teams from 48 to 36 or 24 likely wouldn’t do anything to curtail Day One blowouts. In most age groups, the teams occupying the last row of seedings are often from zones that don’t use all of their allotments as it is. If the number was cut to 36 or 24, most of those teams would still be there in the last row on Day One.
The teams that would get cut in a bracket shrink would overwhelmingly be from PAC, CCA, and SPA, teams that currently sit in the 18-32 range of the bracket.
From the perspective of older age groups 16U & 18U, Quicksilver is trying to become the “invitational” tournament that addresses the issues with Day 1 of JOs. I don’t think there is much of a Day 1 issue in the 18UB division this year, aside from Game 1 matchups between top-12 teams and teams ranked 36th–48th. Even those games, especially in the older age groups, provide an opportunity to give bench players time they likely won’t get on Day 2 and beyond, while also serving as a warm-up for the team.
The bigger issue with JOs is that it has become the “third tournament” of the summer. Players are already tired and need time off, especially seniors. The “endurance sport” format of three games a day also leads to injuries and low-energy games. On top of that, JOs has become just another tournament with the same teams and the same format, rather than something innovative or unique.
I have heard several suggestions from USA Water Polo in the past, although I’m not sure whether any of them gained traction. The most exciting idea was to separate the top 16 teams and invite another eight international 19U teams to create a new “Open Bracket.” The challenge was attracting international teams because of the timing of JOs after the European season.
The main appeal of JOs for recruiting-age athletes used to be the presence of college coaches on deck. Over the past two years, however, I have seen most college coaches at Futures and Quicksilver, where athletes already have opportunities to showcase their skills. In that sense, JOs has also become more of the same rather than a unique recruiting opportunity.
Overall, I think private-market organizations will evolve more quickly in both the quality and presentation of their tournaments, while USA Water Polo will only evolve if it is forced to.
If I were setting the field, the clubs from the “weaker” zones wouldn’t automatically receive a spot in the Championship tier. If we continue to rely upon the results from the previous year (and I wouldn’t), only two clubs from “weaker” zones would have made a 24-club 18u Championship tier this year (Greenwich and CT Premier).
Some interesting points here from everyone. To me, JOs is a lot like the NCAA basketball tournament. Every team gets a chance, and the No. 16 seed gets to play the No. 1 seed and see how they stack up. Yes, it leads to some lopsided games, but I think that’s a worthwhile tradeoff because every team has an opportunity to earn its way through the bracket rather than having its ceiling determined before the tournament even starts.
I also hope private-sector tournaments continue to push USAWP to innovate and improve the overall tournament experience. That competition is good for the sport. But I still think JOs will continue to be the granddaddy of them all.
One other thought: if the goal is to grow the sport from a fan perspective, I’m not sure having the two of the best teams play each other in the very first game of the tournament (as arguably happened at Futures 16U) is the best approach. It doesn’t build anticipation the way the NCAA Tournament or the FIFA World Cup does, where the biggest matchups are earned as teams advance. That progression creates excitement throughout the event and gives fans something to look forward to.
My friend, I don’t think it is the reduction from 48 to 24 that would curtail blowouts in your proposal. To increase the level of Day One competition, the heavy lifting is done by…
We won’t see eye-to-eye on this one, but it is all good.
