SPECIAL
OFFERS

Click on the item below for more information on great offers for LoneStarVolleyball fans

It would be interesting to view win-loss records of the teams that are ranked in the top 15. The win-loss record would be the starting point in the rankings, then one would have to look at strength of schedule, with head to head play taken into strong consideration. The strength of schedule is clearly the most meaningful analysis in determining where a team should fall in the rankings. One has to only look at several high school teams that have better win-loss records than teams in stronger volleyball districts, only to lose in the first round of the playoffs to teams that have played tougher competition throughout the year. Could you share with us how you would rank the following in order when you rank teams? Head to Head play, win-loss records, or strength of schedule, other factors. Thanks. - BCB (posted 4/30)

Editor's note: OK, we'll briefly (I hope) go through it one more time but only because you asked nicely. The object is to identify the best teams, so we start with head-to-head. Two teams play each other and one beats the other, especially more than once or easily, and that's where we begin. Of course in club it's not uncommon to have Austin beat TAV, TAV beat Alamo and Alamo beat Austin (that's only an example!!!). What do you do then? That's where we go to consistency. If one team consistently beats top teams and weaker teams and only loses to top teams, then that team is going to be ranked above a team that also beats top teams but turns around and loses to weaker teams. In over 20 years of covering sports at all levels, we've seen countless talent-laden teams capable of beating any team on any given night but also capable of losing to anyone on any given night (SA Judson?). Those teams ultimately don't have the staying power to be a top team. The best teams may lose to another good team here or there, but they take care of business against weaker opponents. That's why we wrote during the high school season that we aren't impressed with teams or players who run up big stats against weaker competition then disappear when the action heats up. We caught a lot of grief in high school for ranking some Houston area teams with good records above some north Texas teams wth great records, but the playoffs proved us out. The problem comes when trying to compare teams that don't play similar schedules. In those cases, we try to look at who they have beaten and who they have lost to (their play on the court) at major tournaments. We don't really care about their final standings since a team can have a losing record in an Open division and still finish in the Top 10-15 (you can read other letters for our thoughts on that). We give some consideration to regional rankings, but realize that they are based on local tournaments and many top teams don't play a lot of local tournaments and may be rated low or not at all. Ultimately, we try to decide who would beat who on a consistent basis. In situations where teams are otherwise even, we'll go with recent head-to-head. Regarding won-loss records, unlike high school that is an almost impossible stat to get from many clubs, especially if you try to include pool play. Some clubs keep great player stats and records. Some don't keep any records at all. At Lone Star, for example, we asked several coaches of top teams if they knew their record and they didn't have a clue. And we don't have the time or manpower to track that information ourselves. Hope that helps. Ranking club sports can be confusing and we've debated whether to even bother, but we think it's a good way to give fans in such a large state a little perspective on who's doing what.

__________

I wanted to clarify one thing you said in your recent Editor's note: Skyline and Mid-Cities 17's have played three times, not two. They played once in pool play, and Skyline won. Later in the tournament Mid-Cities did beat Skyline in bracket play, and Mid-Cities beat Skyline again in a subsequent tournament. I realize that you do not give as much weight to pool play, and I am not suggesting that Skyline should be ranked ahead of Mid-Cities at this time or that the logic in your note was flawed; I just want Skyline to be credited for having beaten a really good team when they did. - LL (posted 4/29)

__________

I want to begin by applauding the enthusiasm and intention of this site and rankings. I have had the opportunity to sit on a few collegiate regional ranking committees and I find some of you ranking criteria troubling. I would like to add to the discussion that there is a simple rule for moving up or down a poll. If you want to move up, finish above teams that are ranked above you which are playing in the same tournament in the same division (open or club). If you want to move down, finish below teams that are ranked below you or are not ranked at all playing in your division. I don't think "not putting much stock in finishes outside the gold bracket since so much is dictated by pools and seedings" (which you have mentioned a few times in editor's notes) is a very sound principle. EVERY finish including those in the gold bracket are dictated by pools and seedings and every finish should count. Every finish is influenced by skill and chance. When analyzing almost any team's finish in a qualifier, be it 2nd, 3rd or 17th, one can either point fingers to factors of chance like pools or seedings OR give each and every team due credit. THERE are many examples, but with the example given by the editor, Skyline 17's finished 7th in open division above three teams in the top seven of lonestar's state rankings...let's give them credit instead of using this result to promote a belief on the relative strengths of divisional play. Skyline 17's earned a right to be ranked above teams that played open and finished lower than they did. Mid-cities finished below seven teams in the club division that were not ranked in the lonestar volleyball state top ten. High plains placed below 22 teams in the club division that were not in the lonestar top 15. Those teams should be out of the rankings because they finished lower than that many unranked teams. Since only three of the lsv's top 15 played in the club division, then the top three finishers have an argument to be included going into regional play, the rest do not. - signed fightin for fairness (posted 4/29)

Editor's note: I not sure, but I think you just made our point about not placing too much emphasis on finishes. "Skyline finished 7th in Open" and "Mid-Cities finished below seven teams in the club division that are not ranked." Yet Mid-Cities has beaten Skyline the two times they met in bracket play this season (once, I believe, when Mid-Cities was without its two starting middles). You can find similar examples going all the way back to Las Vegas where Amarillo finished 32nd and Crown of Texas finished 109th, but when the two teams met COT won in two. Our staff, too, has been involved in rankings as sports writers and coaches over the years and our experience has been that performance on the court and not final standing in a tournament is a better measuring stick, but to each his own.

__________

First of all, great job covering the Lone Star Classic for PrepVolleyball.com! I know your next rankings are not due out for a couple of weeks but I have to put in my 2 cents. You have had High Plains & Mid Cities ranked pretty high all season long but I don't think they have had the accomplishments to warrant it. Winning smaller tournaments or playing up & winning versus suspect competition should not give them this privilege. For example, High Plains is ranked 4th in 17s yet they just played club at Lone Star & finished 37th. I am not sure if Mid Cities has even played in a qualifier but they are ranked 8th. I hope AMV does not leap frog in the rankings just because they won club at LSC. Even though this is a great accomplishment the competition is no where near what it is in open. A prime example is Oklahoma Elite which had won 2 Club Qualifiers & tried their luck in open in the LSC & finished 13th. Teams like Texas Tornados, Centex, Austin Juniors & Alamo deserve to be ranked at the top due to their showings at the LSC. Then again, we will have a better idea of things after regionals! Congratulations to all the Texas teams that have qualified for JOs (be it open or club)! - Ranking Critic! (posted 4/27)

Editor's note: Thanks for the complment. As we've said before, we don't penalize a team for playing in Club rather than Open because most teams who compete in Open at qualifiers will not qualify at that level, but will end up playing in club if they go to Atlanta. Nor do we put to much stock in finishes once you get outside the gold brackets, since so much is dictated by seedings and pools. While it's more prestigious to play in Open and the elite teams at that level are the best, there is not that much difference between the quality of the top 10-20 teams playing in Club on a Sunday or the non-Gold teams in Open. Mid-Cities, a team you mentioned that doesn't play a lot of tournaments, is a good example. They finished tied for 9th (top 16) in Club at Lone Star. Dallas Skyline, a team that has three Top 20 finishes at Open qualifiers this year, finished tied for 7th in Open. Mid-Cities has beaten Skyline the two times the teams have played this year. There are other examples, but the bottom line is that we don't overvalue "playing" in Open and we don't undervalue performing well in Club.

__________

The possibility of the two clubs in Amarillo combining looks more like a reality than a dream as the season draws to a close. If so the rest of Texas might be in trouble come next year. - Lonestar observer (posted 4/21)

__________

"Monica Paul and the rest of the gang who run things in Austin do an excellent job of posting results and updating pools on the Austin Juniors web site. " Are you kidding? Since when have they done this? Where is it?

The technology is there...I realize they have their hands full running a tournament but it doesn't seem to me that it would be difficult to actually post results to the website....at the end of each day if not more frequently. Imagine how convenient if tournament participants could log on in the evening and check pools and locations. And for those who aren't at the tournament (like me) and who don't have access to the tournament schematics which only seem to be available for $$$ at the tournament site.

Why these clubs can't be more fan-and-parent friendly escapes me. Why not post the pools to the websites, not just starting times and locations? Don't they think that parents and coaches are interested in that info? Shouldn't the tournament registration fees cover the cost? - AB (posted 4/21)

__________

I, too, was super impressed with the way this tourney was run and the talent that was displayed. It was our first year here, first to play for my daughter, and her team, High Plains Kaepa Obliter-8 even pulled off the biggest coup of all, taking the Austin Jrs, yep, the number two seed in the 13 division, out of the tourney in final bracket on Sunday! WOW, were they ever excited! They played their hearts out, as did the HPK DV8 and the champs, the AMA JOs. The Texas Panhandle has alot to crow about this week, and I just want to thank Austin again for such a wonderful experience! - E Schafer, Borger, TX (posted 4/19)

__________

I was fortunate to be in Austin last weekend for the Lone Star Classic. What a great tournament! Austin Juniors and Mizuno did a great job and I am sure it'll continue with the older girls this weekend. I did get a chance to see some good quality volleyball from some of the younger teams and the future looks bright. What equally impressed me was the play of the Alamo Kaepa 15's in the Open division. They were probably the most consistent team I've seen in a while and for that age is incredible. Good luck to all in future endeavors, Nationals, and next high school season. - Pooch, Dallas (posted 4/17)

__________

Hey RJ, I don't know what you're trying to prove. I believe the rankings are done very fairly. In my opinion, Crown of Texas has earned their spot in the rankings fair and square. With all the talent on that team, I wouldn't be surprised to see them at number one before long. As for the 31st place finish in Indianapolis, I would like to defend them by saying COT won 7 out of 9 games, just lost the wrong ones at the wrong time. All the teams in the rankings worked their butts off to get where they are and will continue to do so. Good luck to all the teams going to Austin this weekend!! - #23 (posted 4/16)

__________

One of our team goals at the beginning of the year was to qualify as one of the top 8 seeds on the tour. After reaching this goal, we then play the top ranked teams, winning games against those teams, to have teams playing in the lower brackets to move ahead of you in the rankings only adds to the confusion of how you rank teams. To see teams that you have beaten in head to head competition ranked above you does not follow your earlier logic of basing your rankings on head to head matches. That thought process would be similiar to ranking Texas Tech's basketball team above Arizona because Tech finished higher in the NIT (lower bracket tournament) with Arizona finishing lower in the NCAA (higher bracket tournament). A much more reliable method used to rank teams should be based on a strength of schedule matches verses win-loss records. Your thoughts? - BC (posted 4/16)

Editor's note: We're not going to go through the entre process again since we've outlined most of the process in earlier letters, but it would depend on how long ago you beat those teams, who you lost to, and our personal opinions on who we think is playing better when we do the rankings, etc. Regarding finishes, however, once we get past the top 4-6 places at major tournaments we don't pay much attention to where a team finishes because seeding in pool play and timing of wins/losses is such a big factor. To use your example of Tech and the NIT, it wouldn't be the same as Tech being ranked above Arizona since Arizona obviously had a better team. It would, however, be the same as Tech being ranked above several teams who earned NCAA berths because they played in weak conferences or just happened to get hot over a weekend and received automatic berths which knocked out teams that were actually better but played in tougher conerences. And while Tech proved they were capable of beating some of the nation's elite teams, they had some losses to average or below average teams and that inconsistency ultimately hurt them in the final rankings. The same thing happens with our rankings.

__________

You do such a wonderful job on your website, I hate to quibble about something, but I really must ask why this time you moved Texas Advantage up above Dallas Skyline in the ratings (or even above Mid Cities, for that matter)? Skyline has beaten TAV three times this season, including in the semifinals of an earlier tournament, then last weekend in Kansas City, and Skyline has been ranked above TAV the entire season, so what would be the reason for TAV to suddenly be two spots ahead of Skyline now? Perhaps the reasoning was because in the North Texas Invitational, TAV reached the championship final (where they lost to their own 16's team) and Skyline was in the Gold final and lost there, but that still doesn't seem to be a reason to move them up like that above a team that has beaten them twice in tournament play and once in scrimmage play. The rest of the group rankings look very fair to me, just think TAV should be ranked under Skyline and Mid-Cities as well. Oh well, as I said, I hate to say anything because I'm sure you get more grief over your rankings than anything else on your site, but I just felt moved to comment. Thanks again for the time and effort you put into such an informative and free volleyball site for us! - JL (posted 4/13)

Editor's note: At the risk of having to defend all of our picks to a barrage of e-mails, you bring up a good point that always causes us trouble when we're compiling rankings. As we've mentioned in earlier e-mails, head-to-head is a primary method we use for rankings, we look at comparative results, we don't count scrimmage matches, etc. We also look at consitency, however, and Skyline's 17s team is one of those that we're having trouble getting a handle on in the North. All things being equal, say between a couple of teams like AMV 16s and Austin 16s, a head-to-head win is enough to move you above another team. These teams consistently win the matches they should and have established themselves as top teams. Skyline 17s, on the other hand, is one of those teams (and they aren't alone) that will have impressive wins then turn around and lose to a team that will leave you scratching your head. As a result we penalize them a bit. The NT Invitational you mentioned is a prime example. They were cruising along looking like champions then they go and lose to an ailing Mid-Cities team and AMV 16s. We actually had dropped them considerably after that until Kansas City. They have a couple more chances, however, to prove they belong above TAV and we'll be watching. After all, as Austin Westlake and Red Oak will tell you, it's where you are at the end of the season that really counts when it comes to rankings.

Also, to an earlier e-mail question. We don't penalize teams for competing in the Club division at qualifiers since most Texas teams that compete in the Open divisions will actually end up competing at the Club level should they qualify for Atlanta.

__________

All you do is complain on this forum about the two other clubs in Amarillo. The rankings are state rankingsnot national rankings. And why do the amarillo 18's play open? So they can win one match or none at all.- TM (posted 4/13)

__________

Just curious how you measure open and club in your rankings. How is Crown of Texas ranked 5th when in their only qualifier they finish 31st in club? They are ranked ahead of several strong open teams. If Crown is really that good they should be playing open or at least finishing way higher in club. Another case is High Plains 17's - ranked 4th in a very strong 17's age group when in their only qualifier they finish 51st in club. I know these teams are doing well in their regional tournaments but shouldn't these rankings reflect results outside the region as well? - RJ (posted 4/11)

__________

I believe Lonestar tracked the use of rally scoring at the most recent state tournament and rally scoring would not have changed any results except in the class 5A semi-final where Klein would have beaten Westlake in one of the games to force a 3rd game. Rally scoring is so much better then side-out. It makes teams concentrate on serving and serve receive. It speeds the game up so you are interested in every play. Congratulations to the UIL for making a good decision. Now lets get the Libero into the high school game. - JS (posted 4/10)

Editor's note - JS is right. Beginning with the Duncanville Tournament of Champions, we tracked matches at a number of major tournaments during the past high school season to see how rally would have impacted the results and time. In no case would the outcome of the match have been different other than forcing a third game a couple of times and in almost every case the games took much less time to reach 25 in rally than to reach 15 in traditional scoring, which is why we hope tournament directors will use 25 points rather than 15 in pool play.

__________

comparing a rally game Of 15-10, a rally game to 25-20 and a 'normal' game to 11-7: (assuming in all games the losing team is siding out at around 50%)....the short rally games allows 25 balls to be served and nine rotations on both teams....the longer rally game allows 45 balls to be served and seventeen rotations by both teams...the normal scoring game would produce 36 balls into play and 12 rotations by both teams.....that's approximately 25% less balls played and rotations per game than the previous rule of pool play games to 11. - DW (posted 4/10)

__________

2 to 15 is just fine for pool play! As a coach I can go to a pool play tourny and get in 8 games in one day and not have it count against my record. This allows me to try new lineups and let more girls get playing time. As the other coach noted, if you don't like it don't go to pool play. I will continue and always will go to pool play because 8 games to 15 that don't count is just as good as 6 to 25 that do. — coach B (posted 4/2)

__________

About the pool play tournaments to 15. First off, did you know that up til now, in side-out scoring, pool play in tourneys started at 4-4? So they only played 11 points. That is so they can play pools and they do not count for a match. Then they can play some "real matches" in bracket play in the same day since the pool play games didn't count toward the "3 matches in one day" rule. The high school coaches that do not like it are going to go to tournaments that do not use pool play and a number of tournaments have changed their format because of that. There are still some coaches who like to get in more play during the day even though it doesn't count towards their record. Keep in mind that these new rules are "new" for Texas and the UIL. If they find that it doesn't work, they will change it. If the UIL sees that it really doesn't work, they will be willing to look at the possibility of changing it. I am also one who feels that 15 points in rally score is not enough. I will let the TGCA and UIL know of my feelings, and will allow it to go thru the process. Most of the changes that are made start with our representatives on the Volleyball Committee in the TGCA. If you are a high school coach contact your committee member about this. You can find who it is and their e-mail address on the TGCA web site. I am one of those coaches who has decided to not go to pool play tournaments so it won't affect my team at all. But I would like to see them allow 2 games to 25 for pool play. - High School Coach (posted 4/1)

__________

First off, I was mistaken on my earlier post about the sub-varsity; I just missed it on that one. However, MJ and I are still on the same page with the 15-point tournament issue. I contacted UIL myself and heard back from Ms. Seewald, with the same response as below. Here is a new question though, when are the high school coaches going to realize what effect this will have on tournament play and then weigh-in with their thoughts? - Ed, Tomball (posted 4/1)

__________

I feel Ms. Seewald is underplaying the effect of pool play. The only way to get into the top bracket is to do well in pool play. I can't tell you how often over the past few weekends in club volleyball that teams went point for point until about 15 when the clearly better team started to pull away. Playing rally scoring to 15 WILL NOT produce the best team. This is a mistake. How can we ask UIL to reconsider this rule? – MJ, Arlington (posted 4/1)

__________

I just wanted to make a comment about the 2 games to 15 rule that UIL will be using for tournament play this year. In my opinion a game to 15 is just too short to decide who the better team is and here's an example. While playing this weekend in Tampa my daughter's team was playing in bracket play on the last day, the score was 16-7 and we were losing. In the end we WON the game, WON the match in 2 games, and WON the tournament to receive a bid to JOs. This was in bracket play which I know will go to 25 but it is still a good example of how 15 points is not enough to be a clear indicator of the strength of a team when using rally scoring. - RC, Houston (posted 4/1)

__________

I don't think you have to have very much exposure to volleyball or to mathematical principles to grasp the concept that two rally games to 15 is not much of a competition. If teams are going to prepare mentally and physically for a match versus another high school it stands to reason that the event should last more than fifteen minutes or should approach the length of the pregame protocol. With further exposure this rule will be eliminated and I would guess in the majority of cases tournament schedulers would be tempted to ignore it. In summary I think its silly. when USAV went from traditional to rally scoring, they moved the end of the game from 15 to 25 except for deciding games. the UIL should follow suit and I believe they will upon further analysis. – SWH (posted 4/1)