Constructive Feedback to USA Water Polo

General
1

The goal of this new topic is to provide a space for constructive feedback to USA Water Polo on any subject. We are all strong supporters of the sport and appreciate the leadership of USA Water Polo, but there remains significant room for improvement. I hope the comments in this thread help contribute toward that goal.

I understand that USA Water Polo representatives read the content on this sit. If so, please confirm, so we know our feedback is being heard. My first piece of feedback is that it’s unclear who to contact at USA Water Polo regarding various topics. If there’s a better venue for submitting general feedback, it would be helpful if you could provide guidance.

3 Likes
2

Short list stemming from frustration after searching for basic information this morning:

(a) USA Water Polo’s overall infrastructure has gradually deteriorated over the years, but this past year marked a noticeable step down. Even basic information is no longer being properly maintained:

  • (a1) The 2025 NTSC lists are missing from the website under the “Archive” section.

  • (a2) The link to JO Session 1 results incorrectly redirects to Session 2. Final placements for 2025 across all sessions have not been posted.

(b) I also tried to rewatch a 2025 JO Session 1 game on the GOLS site, which I had already paid $40 to access during JOs. The paid links are now unavailable after less than 90 days, and GOLS is asking for another $40 for renewed access. I’m sure this limitation was buried in the “contract” I agreed to before purchasing during JOs, but does this make sense to you as part of USAWP’s contract with GOLS?

Those seem like ‘minor issues,’ but represent a continuous deterioration in information and care about the two events that are the lion’s share of USA WP’s annual budget.

10 Likes
3

My recommendation to USAWP is to go around, even virtually, and meet with a couple clubs in each relevant state across the country to seek feedback. Meet with players, coaches, and some parents. Take a genuine open mind to these meetings. The feedback will likely uncover common themes to be addressed. CA is obviously important and always will be, but get feedback outside of CA to understand how to drive a better product/growth.

11 Likes
4

Hey @wp2024 - mind DM’ing me the email tied to your GOLS account? I’d love to hook you up with complimentary access to test out our updated Video On Demand (VOD) program. Great timing honestly - we’re in the middle of expanding rewatch windows and adding a few new features to make long-term access easier & cost effective.

Running a full VOD platform for the amount of content we shoot is definitely a challenge, but we’ve been putting a lot of work into finding a setup that lets people rewatch while still keeping things sustainable for us as a small business.

Also - big thanks to everyone here for actually caring about accessibility in the sport. We read these threads when we can, and the feedback really does help. If anyone ever wants to share ideas, comments or concerns directly, please reach out at contact@gols.co.

Game On!

P.S. If any water polo fans want to help film or produce future events (water polo or otherwise), we’re hiring: Employment - Game On Live Studio

11 Likes
5

Will do, and thank you for the offer! Shawn, Trevor, and Dustin — you’re always extremely responsive and professional. Your energy and passion for the sport are clearly reflected in the quality of your work. I’ll also share a client experience and help promote your excellent “recruiting highlight videos,” which I’ve found to be outstanding and highly recommend.

On my suggestion above, I am eager to learn about your VoD program. It is frustrating paying for something just to discover after 2 months that you lost access to it. One suggestion is potentially to have two pricing schedules: ‘live access’ and ‘permanent access’ with marginal added cost. Alternatively, just add storage tax to the event and charge another few dollars across the entire community to have ‘permanent access.’ You have probably weighed those options in the past.

2 Likes
6

Every year the JO All-American list comes out on Sept 14th or 15th. It’s October 6th and still nothing.

JO’s was 2 1/2 months ago. They should get a list out by August 1st frankly.

2 Likes
7

Correct. It can also come out the day after JOs.The list is constructed by the coaches of each of the 15 or so top teams based on pre-determined allocation to each team based on their final standing.

My sense is that USA WP cut some of their support / media stuff and is challenged in maintaining many of the past processes.

8

I would figure out a new way to do all American status. Imagine if college water polo did All Americans based on the 8 teams in the championships at the end of the year. Just call it Junior Olympic top performers or something if you want to recognize players on teams that finish in the top 10.

3 Likes
9

among others…

Tear down the website and start from scratch with a modern platform and a strong social media presence and a strong digital strategy that encourages participation from the community sourcing videos, streaming, images, and written content from grass roots up. Maybe even invest in a free streaming app for amateurs and a stats app.

Align with NCAA in every way possible.

Continued momentum with National League and gaining corporate sponsorships for prize money.

Create a strategy on international participation that balances foreign up leveling along with domestic development.

9 Likes
10

Support for Increased Zone Engagement by USAWP Leadership

I strongly support the idea of USA Water Polo leadership spending more time directly engaging with clubs across all zones. Actively seeking input from a wider range of clubs—not just the most prominent or well-connected ones—would help shift the current perception that USAWP operates in a closed circle or “bubble.”

Too often, it feels like decisions are made without real understanding of what’s happening on the ground in different parts of the country.

Regular visits, open forums, and genuine dialogue would:

  • Build trust between USAWP and its broader membership

  • Ensure policies are shaped by diverse regional realities

  • Strengthen grassroots development and retention

Membership Reform: Strengthening Standards and Simplifying Systems

Current Issues

USAWP’s current membership system presents challenges related to age classification, safety compliance, and verification integrity, which can lead to:

  • Confusion around age group eligibility (especially for events like JO qualifiers and tournaments)

  • Inaccurate or unverified age reporting

  • Delays or gaps in SafeSport compliance as athletes near adulthood

Proposed Reforms

1. Transition to Year-of-Birth Classification

  • Align membership age classification with the ODP model, using year of birth instead of actual age at the time of the tournament.

  • This creates consistency across all USAWP programs (ODP, JOs, and club play), simplifies roster management, and reduces confusion.

:white_check_mark: This also matches what most other NGBs (national governing bodies) and sports do, streamlining cross-sport athlete participation and planning.

2. Require Age Verification at Registration

  • Mandatory age verification (e.g., upload of birth certificate or passport) should be required at the time of new membership or renewal.

  • This ensures:

    • Accurate age grouping

    • Prevents age fraud

    • Creates consistency across the organization

  • Once verified, the birth year should be locked in the system to avoid manipulation.

3. SafeSport Compliance: 30-Day Pre-18 Window

  • Require that all athletes complete SafeSport training within 30 days before turning 18.

  • This proactive measure ensures athletes are eligible to continue without last-minute issues or missed eligibility windows.

  • Provide automated reminders and clear instructions during the final months before an athlete’s 18th birthday.

Benefits of Membership Reform

  • Simplifies eligibility determination for coaches, clubs, and tournament directors

  • Enhances data accuracy and integrity of competition

  • Supports SafeSport compliance and protects athlete welfare

  • Builds a more professional and trustworthy membership system

Referee Development & Oversight: Raising the Standard Nationwide

Current Gaps

Referees play a critical role in maintaining fairness, safety, and game integrity, yet the current system lacks:

  • A structured, transparent feedback mechanism

  • Sufficient on-deck evaluation and accountability

  • A national oversight and development model

This creates inconsistencies in officiating quality, undermines trust among athletes, coaches, and spectators, and limits referee development.

Proposed Improvements for Referee Oversight & Development

1. Implement a Formal Tournament Feedback Mechanism

  • Tournament hosts and club leadership should have the ability to submit structured feedback on officiating after events.

  • The system should:

    • Include specific, constructive criteria (e.g., consistency, communication, professionalism)

    • Be reviewed by a designated referee oversight committee

    • Be used to inform future training and assignments, not punish referees arbitrarily

Model Inspiration: Adopt a system similar to U.S. Soccer, where referee feedback loops help ensure accountability and continuous improvement.

2. Increase On-Deck Evaluations Throughout the Year

  • Referees should receive routine on-deck evaluations by trained assessors—not just at national or championship events.

  • Evaluations should be:

    • Conducted during regular-season tournaments and league play

    • Shared with referees in a constructive, growth-focused format

    • Used to guide promotion, continued training, or reassignment where necessary

3. Establish a National Referee Oversight Panel

  • Form a small panel of experienced, neutral officials to travel to events across the country.

  • The panel’s responsibilities would include:

    • Training referees through clinics and on-deck mentorship

    • Conducting live evaluations

    • Answering rule interpretation questions

    • Reviewing submitted game film to address coach or referee concerns

This creates a consistent standard nationwide, especially valuable for regions with fewer training opportunities or inconsistent rule interpretation.

Benefits of the Proposed System

  • Improves officiating quality and consistency across all zones

  • Provides referees with growth opportunities and support

  • Builds trust and transparency between referees, coaches, and tournament hosts

  • Reduces confusion over rules and interpretations

  • Encourages long-term referee retention through investment in their development

Player Safety Reform: A Call for Stronger, More Consistent Enforcement

Current Problem

USAWP’s existing point-based penalty system is largely ineffective as a deterrent. It does not meaningfully address violent in-water behavior, nor does it align with the standards and urgency of other athlete safety initiatives like SafeSport.

Despite a growing emphasis on safety off the deck, aggression, brutality, and violent conduct in the water continue to be inadequately addressed, putting athletes at risk and damaging the integrity of the sport.

Proposed Reforms for Player Safety

1. Eliminate the Current Points System

  • The current points accumulation model does not deter repeat or dangerous offenders effectively.

  • Replace it with clear, mandatory consequences for serious infractions to ensure accountability and consistency.

2. Automatic Tournament Ejection for Brutalities

  • Any player called for brutality (as defined in the rulebook) should be immediately ejected for the remainder of the tournament, not just the game.

  • This removes the possibility of repeat violence within the same event and reinforces zero tolerance for dangerous conduct.

3. Minimum 30-Day Suspension for Punching & Brawls

  • Any instance of punching, fighting, or physical retaliation should result in an automatic minimum 30-day suspension.

  • Suspensions should extend to all USAWP-sanctioned events, including club, high school, and ODP activities.

  • USAWP should also publicly post a disciplinary actions list, as other governing bodies do, to promote transparency.

4. Align In-Water Discipline with SafeSport Values

  • USAWP must treat in-water violence with the same seriousness as misconduct off the deck.

  • Athletes deserve an environment where physical safety is paramount, and clear consequences reinforce that expectation at all levels.

Benefits of a Stronger Safety Policy

  • Protects athlete well-being by discouraging violent conduct

  • Promotes fair play and accountability

  • Enhances the reputation and credibility of USA Water Polo

  • Builds trust with parents, clubs, and collegiate programs

  • Reduces injury risk and sets a stronger example for youth athletes

Reform the ODP Program: Transition to a More Equitable and Effective Elite Athlete Development Model

Problem Statement

The current Olympic Development Program (ODP) model, which relies heavily on club coaches and owners for talent identification, has led to widespread perceptions of bias and favoritism. This has frustrated both athletes and competing clubs and has undermined the credibility and purpose of the program. Additionally, the current zone-based team structure places athletes in uneven competitive environments, particularly disadvantaging regions outside of California due to smaller talent pools and lack of cohesion.

Proposed Solution: A New Tiered and Transparent Talent Identification System

1. Eliminate the Current ODP Model

Discontinue the existing system in which club coaches and owners are directly involved in the talent identification process. This will remove conflicts of interest and restore credibility to the national development pipeline.

2. Implement a Tiered Athlete Recognition Model

  • Elite Athletes (Youth age group): Targeted toward those with the potential to be recruited by NCAA Division 1 and 2 programs.

  • Junior Elite Athletes (Cadet age group): Focus on early talent identification and development.

Selection to these tiers will serve as a valuable credential for athlete resumes, increasing buy-in from both players and families.

3. Host Multiple Zone-Level Evaluation Camps

  • Hold regional zone camps staffed by independent evaluators, not affiliated club coaches or owners.

  • Use a standardized rubric for evaluations to ensure consistency and transparency.

  • From these camps, identify a broad pool of Elite and Junior Elite athletes.

4. Regional Elite Tournaments with Randomized Teams

  • Invite the selected Elites to East and West Regional Tournaments.

  • Athletes will be placed on randomized teams by position, ensuring a fair mix of talent.

  • This eliminates the issue of unbalanced zone teams (e.g., talented field players with no goalie) and ensures that all teams are scouted equally.

  • Talent identification will be based on individual performance, not team success.

5. Expand USAWP’s Talent Engagement

  • From the Elite and Junior Elite pools, invite athletes to additional training camps and tournaments throughout the year.

  • This allows USAWP to develop a larger and more flexible pipeline of high-potential athletes, not limited to those selected for national teams.

6. Strengthen Club Partnerships Nationwide

  • USAWP staff should visit clubs with Elite/Jr. Elite athletes, providing:

    • Practice observations

    • Feedback on athlete development goals

  • This initiative will:

    • Build stronger relationships with clubs outside of California

    • Offer tangible support to help these clubs elevate their programs

    • Give athletes a reason to stay local, reducing the pressure to relocate to California for exposure and development

Benefits of the Proposed Model

  • Fairer and more transparent athlete identification

  • Increased value of Elite/Jr. Elite designation for recruiting and resumes

  • Improved national development pipeline, especially outside of California

  • Stronger club engagement, fostering national parity and athlete retention

  • More competitive and equitable tournaments that better showcase talent

8 Likes
11

I think there is a lot of really great feedback here and I agree with most of it. I do have one question regarding your ODP proposal: where exactly do you expect to find knowledgeable coaches willing to work in odp who aren’t affiliated with a club program in the zone?

As someone who was both an ODP coach and an ODP zone head coach, getting the coaches who participate in ODP already involved is often difficult. The job is essentially volunteer and the work is difficult and often thankless. The best coaches in the United States do not have the time or desire to do ODP. And the coaches who do coach in ODP are often just who the ZHC can convince to do it. So, you’re saying it shouldn’t be club coaches; however, I don’t really understand who else it would be if not them. Who else has the time, knowledge, area expertise and desire to participate in the ODP system if not them?

3 Likes
12

Side comment on “private” vs. “public” efficiency: GOLS responded within minutes to a suggestion about its model. Anyone want to take the over/under on how long it’ll take USAWP to engage in this conversation — or at least acknowledge that it’s collecting suggestions?

3 Likes
13

The coaches for the camps can be club coaches but evaluations should be done by those not affiliated with the zone or at a minimum it’s a panel of coaches from the zone that need come to a consensus on who is picked. Bring in olympians or coaches from other zones to evaluate. The argument is not that club coaches are not qualified to identify talent it’s that the evals are not transparent there is no rubric and this creates frustration for athletes on why certain athletes are picked. I believe the goal should be to remove as much of the appearance of bias as possible.

2 Likes
14

Honest question: Was this written by ChatGPT? Broadly speaking, we don’t use actual age at the time of the tournament in water polo, and don’t have the roster management issues associated with that type of scheme, but if you ignore the substance, the formatting and grammar of the post are impressive.

For the record, I strongly oppose this proposal. The lack of uniformity in cut-off dates means that different kids have advantages in different areas. Some have an advantage in ODP, some in club, and some in CIF. If the cut-off for everything is made to be January 1st, you might as well say that kids with Q4 birthdays are not welcome to play water polo.

5 Likes
15

There are national team coaches and players at every odp camp. They are involved in the assessment and selection at every level. Likewise, the reason the zone coaches make the selections is because an athlete’s performance at one three hour camp is not sufficient to make an accurate talent evaluation. I can understand how this can come off as biased and I appreciate that you want transparency, but in every camp, ODP national championship and NTSC I participated in the expectations for athletes were pretty clear. Whether USAWP could be more transparent with parents is maybe another matter, but I always endeavored to be honest with all parties about the strengths and weaknesses of the individual athletes and the ODP process itself.

I think what is often not understood about ODP and talent identification is that the directive isn’t always to find the best kids in a given birth year right now, but instead to project for where their eventual ceiling is for talent development. You can absolutely argue whether this is right or is being done well; however, a lot of the complaints I often see leveled at ODP selections regarding bias don’t seem to appreciate that certain athletes project to be competitive at the international level and other, very good, athletes do not. Certain clubs aren’t always over represented because of bias, but instead because they are places that have high level talent being developed by very good coaches.

The process isn’t perfect and I have a lot of negative opinions about the odp program having been “on the inside,” but I never interacted with anyone who I felt was passing over players because of a club bias.

2 Likes
16

US Club Soccer has gone back and forth on this issue and recently made the decision to go back to the August 1 cutoff for club play mostly because of the “trapped player” (their term) issue that takes place both in 8th/9th grade and senior year of high school. This is where, if January 1 is used, half of a birth year is playing high school soccer while half is still in 8th grade and wanting to compete with their club team and then again where half of a birth year has graduated and gone off to college while the other half still has their senior year of club to play.

Detailed explanation here: Age group cut-off update for 2026-27 season - US Club Soccer Website

Like water polo, the national teams are still birth-year due to all international tournaments using that system.

2 Likes
17

Our zone has many tournaments that are age of especially in the fall. This also includes Rocktober. It’s a huge pain for admin to evaluate where the age line is. On top of that training new parents on the age as of 8/1 is always fun. Other sports seem to do just fine with the year of birth and it does not matter what system you chose there will always be a birthday at a disadvantage. But I understand your argument.

18

I agree that Rocktober and Champions Cup should be changed and should simply become 12u and 14u tournaments with ages in line with JO requirements for this upcoming summer. There is absolutely no reason for a kid who turns 13 on November 1 to be at a Rocktober tournament in October playing against 10 year-olds. The disparity in size and strength that I have seen at that tournament has been legitimately dangerous.

2 Likes
19

I concur with this message. I have also been part of the ODP system and have seen it improve since I got involved about 6 years ago. Is there bias? Yes, but it isn’t nearly as toxic as years ago, in my opinion. When John Abdou brought me aboard years ago, I told him my evaluations of the athletes would go well beyond USA ODP Camps. To come to a fairer process, we need to see athletes play for their club, high school, as well as zone camps–it should be a year-round process. Most athletes will show different skills and even a different mindset depending on the environment. That is why I attend various tournaments like the South Coast, Villa Park, S & R, etc. In addition, I attended the Cousineau Cup this past weekend to watch many of the 14u clubs.

4 Likes
20

I understand the thinking behind this, but these types on “mandatory punishments” have unintended consequences and without uniform paths for remediation (i.e., VAR) available, it puts referees, players and coaches in a perilous position. Specifically, differences in reffing ability; unseen incidents; players protecting themselves, or simulations, etc., to name a few.

Make no mistake, safety should be paramount, but the physicality of the game is a feature, not a bug. . Moreover, as we all know, this sport is expensive. Not only in terms of dollars and cents, but also time. Imagine traveling to a tournament and watching a kid get excluded from the tournament because the ref “thought” he or she punched a competitor. One can imagine many other scenarios that would feel profoundly upsetting.

Nonetheless, I appreciate both the overall sentiment regarding safety and the disparate other issues raised in this post!