Path to the Pros: The Impact of Collegiate Beach Volleyball on the Domestic Professional Beach Tour - A Data Analysis and Report

By Wayne Holly and Shane Spellman

INTRODUCTION

Since becoming an NCAA emerging sport in 2012 and a championship sport in 2016 collegiate beach volleyball has steadily grown.  What began in 2012 with 204 players on 15 Division I teams has blossomed into 1,312 players on 76 teams across three divisions of competition.[1]  The sport is also growing outside of the NCAA.  Both the NAIA and junior colleges sponsor beach volleyball programs that bring additional teams and players into the sport.  In fact, the NAIA recently added beach volleyball to its list of “emerging sports.”  The development that could stimulate additional expansion in the coming years.

At the same time that sport sponsorship is growing college beach rosters have expanded nearly 20 percent.  The average NCAA roster is now 17.3 players compared to 14.6 in the 2012 season.  The trend is a complex one owing at least in part to (i) expansion in the pool of recruitable juniors, (ii) indoor players shifting to beach for a 5^th year” of eligibility and (iii) slowed growth in sport sponsorship at the Division I level.

Figure 1:  Growth in NCAA Beach Volleyball Teams and Average Roster Size 2012-2019.

Collegiate beach growth is commonly associated with igniting participation in the juniors game.  Less attention has been paid, however, to the effect of the college game on the professional ranks.  To determine what impact college beach has had on the pros we analyzed seven years of data to identify the annual participation rates and performances of college players in professional beach volleyball.  The data show that college beach players have dramatically impacted the professional tour through near straight line growth in participation and success rates.

PROCEDURE

To identify the influence of collegiate beach on the professional ranks we identified every athlete who:(i) has committed to a college or university to play beach volleyball, (ii) is currently on a college beach volleyball roster, or (iii) previously competed with a collegiate beach volleyball program (“college players”).  We then tracked their participation and results through all qualification and main draw matches played on the Association of Volleyball Professionals (AVP) pro beach volleyball tour in the United States from 2013 through 2019.[2]

DISCUSSION

College Beach Players in the Pros – Participation Rates  

Main Draw

From 2013 to 2019 the percentage of college players in the pros increased by 954%.  In 2013, college players represented just 6.3% of the main draw field on the AVP Tour.  By 2019, they constituted 66.4% of the main draw field.

Figure 2:  College Players as Increasing Percentage of AVP Main Draw Field 2013-2019.

In fact, as shown in Table A, college players have constituted an increasing percentage of the main draw field of every AVP event in every returning city in every season since 2013. 

Table A:  College Players in AVP Pro Beach Volleyball Events 2013-2019.

Event Cities	College Players as Percentage of Main Draw Field
	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Salt Lake City	6.3%	18.8%	-	-	-	-	-
Manhattan Beach	7.8%	15.6%	18.8%	21.9%	37.5%	57.8%	70.3%
Cincinnati	6.3%	15.6%	15.6%	-	-	-	-
Atlantic City	6.3%	15.6%	-	-	-	-	-
St. Petersburg	3.1%	9.4%	-	-	-	-	-
Santa Barbara	6.3%	-	-	-	-	-	-
Huntington Beach	6.3%	9.4%	15.6%	25.0%	28.1%	-	60.4%
Milwaukee	-	9.4%	-	-	-	-	-
New Orleans	-	-	6.3%	21.9%	-	-	-
New York	-	-	18.8%	34.4%	37.5%	50.0%	68.8%
Seattle	-	-	21.9%	34.4%	43.8%	56.3%	75.0%
Chicago	-	-	25.0%	29.2%	43.8%	62.5%	62.5%
Austin	-	-	-	-	40.6%	43.8%	56.3%
San Francisco	-	-	-	40.6%	43.8%	53.1%	-
Hermosa Beach	-	-	-	-	54.2%	66.7%	70.8%
Hawaii	-	-	-	-	-	-	65.6%

College player representation in the main draw increased at an extraordinary pace for the five most regularly scheduled professional events: Manhattan Beach (+801.3%), Huntington Beach (+858.7%), New York (+266.0%),Seattle (+248.8%), and Chicago (+250.0%).

Qualification

The rate at which college players are entering the professional ranks is suggested by their representation in the final round of AVP qualification events.  In 2013, college players constituted just 10% of all players competing in the final round of AVP qualifiers, known colloquially as the “match to get in” (“MTGI”).  In 2019, college players constituted 67.2% of all players competing in the MTGI – a six year increase of 572%.  Complete data and growth trends are shown in Table B and Figure 3.

Table B:  College Players in the Final Round of AVP Qualification Events.

Event Data		Composition of Players in MTGI
Season	# Events	# Players	# CPs	% CP
2013	7	120	12	10.0%
2014	7	128	28	21.9%
2015	7	116	31	27.0%
2016	7	128	53	41.0%
2017	8	176	90	51.1%
2018	7	160	109	68.0%
2019	8	192	129	67.2%

Figure 3: College Players as Increasing Percentage of AVP Qualification Finalists.

College Beach Players in the Pros – Performance

The collegiate impact on the professional tour is not limited to growth in participation rates.  The data show that college players often outperform their non-college counterparts.  That performance edge exists both in the final round of qualification and in the main draw of professional events.

Qualification

College players competing in the MTGI routinely outperformed their non-college counterparts and increased their advantage when they played non-college pairs.  Teams comprised exclusively of college players won 63.5% of matches against pairs with only one college player and won 76.7% of matches against pairs comprised of non-college players.  Pairs comprised of more college players than their opponents won 69.3% of their final matches to get into the main draw.

Table C:  College Players’ Performance in MTGI By Composition of Opponents.

	Composition of Pairs in MTGI
	CP-CP v. CP-NCP		CP-CP v. NCP-NCP		CP-NCP v. NCP-NCP + CP-CP v. CP-NCP
Season	Record	Win %	Record	Win %	Record	Win %
2013	2-1	66.7%	2-1	66.7%	7-2	77.8%
2014	3-2	60.0%	3-1	75.0%	14-4	77.8%
2015	7-4	63.6%	7-2	77.8%	11-5	68.8%
2016	5-4	55.5%	3-2	60.0%	13-5	72.2%
2017	14-4	77.8%	7-2	77.8%	22-8	73.3%
2018	11-11	50.0%	3-3	50.0%	14-12	53.8%
2019	19-9	67.9%	11-0	100%	23-10	9.7%
Totals	61-35	63.5%	36-11	76.7%	104-46	69.3%

College players also are constituting an ever increasing percentage of the winners in the MTGI regardless of the composition of their opponents.  In 2013, college players constituted 6.7% of the winners of the matches to qualify for the main draw.  By 2016 they constituted 23.4% of the winners.  In 2019, nearly 40% of the winners in the final matches of qualification were college players – a 475% increase in six years.

Table D:  College Players as Percentage of Winners in Final Round of AVP Qualifiers.

Event Data			Composition of MTGI Field
Season	# Qualification Events	# MTGI	# Players in MTGI	# College Players Among Winners	% College Players Among Winners
2013	7	30	120	8	6.7%
2014	7	32	128	17	13.3%
2015	7	29	116	20	17.2%
2016	7	32	128	30	23.4%
2017	8	44	176	54	30.7%
2018	7	40	160	54	33.8%
2019	8	48	192	74	38.5%

Main Draw

As in qualification, college players’ success in the main draw has grown steadily from season to season.  We measured success through five distinct but interrelated criteria: (i) tournament victories, (ii) finals appearances, (iii) semi-finals appearances, (iv) tournament finishes, and (v) final rankings on the AVP tour.

Tournament Victories

Since Summer Ross became the first college player to win a pro tournament in 2013, college players’ representation among tournament winners has trended upward with the biggest gains occurring over the last three seasons.  From 2013-2016 college players represented 8.9% of all AVP tournament winners.  From 2017-2019 that percentage more than tripled to 32.6% as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: College Players as Increasing Percentage of AVP Tournament Winners.

Despite trending toward more victories college players’ overall record in the finals remains under .500.  College players have a 19-36 (.345) record in the finals from 2013 to 2019.  When college players teamed up to form college pairs their record was only marginally better.  College pairs earned a 7-10 record, or .412 winning percentage, over the same period of time.  Only three college players, Betsi Flint (5-4), Kelley Larson (3-2) and Sarah Hughes (3-2) have winning records in AVP finals.[3]  The only college pair with a winning record is Sarah Hughes and Summer Ross (2-1).[4]

Finals Appearances

We looked at finals appearances from two perspectives: (i) the percentage of college players among AVP finalists and (ii) the percentage of AVP finals that included 1-4 college players.  Both show a growth trend.

Percentage of College Players Among Finalists

The percentage of AVP finalists that were college players tripled from 2013 to 2019.  As shown in Table E, 10.7% of the players in the finals of AVP tournaments were college players in 2013.  By 2019 that number grew to 34.4%, although the highest percentage occurred in 2018 when nearly half of all finalists were college players (46.4%).  The 2013 to 2019 change represents a 221.5% increase.

Table E:  Percentage of College Player AVP Finalists.

Event Data		Composition of AVP Finals Field
Season	# Events	# Finalists	# CPs	% CPs
2013	7	28	3	10.7%
2014	7	28	1	3.6%
2015	7	28	5	17.9%
2016	7	28	12	42.9%
2017	8	32	11	34.4%
2018	7	28	13	46.4%
2019	8	32	11	34.4%

Percentage of Finals That Included College Players

Our second approach to finals appearances calculated the percentage of AVP finals in which college players appeared in numbers from 1 to 4.  Our findings are summarized in Table F. 

The data show that the most consistently occurring event was that of a single college player (1CP) in the finals, which occurred at least once in every season from 2013 to 2019.  Instances of 2-3 college players in the finals did not occur until 2015 but since then have become common.  From 2015 to 2019, 70.3% of all AVP finals featured multiple college players (2CP + 3CP).  Finals with two college players occurred most frequently and in more than half of all events (51.4%).  No AVP final in history has (yet) featured a match contested exclusively among college players.

Table F:  AVP Finals Including N College Players.

Event Data		College Players in AVP Finals
Season	Events	1CP		2CP		3CP		4CP
		Occurred	%	Occurred	%	Occurred	%	Occurred	%
2013	7	3	42.9%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
2014	7	1	14.3%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
2015	7	2	28.6%	2	28.6%	1	14.3%	0	0%
2016	7	7	100%	5	71.4%	0	0%	0	0%
2017	8	5	62.5%	3	37.5%	3	37.5%	0	0%
2018	7	7	100%	5	71.4%	1	14.3%	0	0%
2019	8	5	62.5%	4	50.0%	2	25.0%	0	0%

Semi-Finals Appearances

From 2013 to 2019 the percentage of college players among AVP semi-finalists increased 514.6%.  In 2013, just 8.9% of players in the semi-finals of AVP events were college players.  Two seasons later that number more than doubled.  By 2017, nearly 33% of semi-finalists were college players and during the 2019 season collegiate players constituted more than half of all semi-finalists on tour at a rate of 54.7%.  Complete data is shown in Table G and the growth trend is shown in Figure 5.

Table G:  Percentage of College Player AVP Semi-Finalists.

Event Data		Composition of AVP Semi-Finals Field
Season	# Events	# Semi-Finalists	# CPs	% CP
2013	7	56	3	8.9%
2014	7	56	1	16.1%
2015	7	56	5	21.4%
2016	7	56	12	39.3%
2017	8	64	11	32.8%
2018	7	56	13	48.2%
2019	8	64	11	54.7%

Figure 5:  Growth of College Players in Semi-Finals of AVP Pro Beach Events.

Tournament Finishes

Since 2013 college players increased their percentage of Top 5 and Top 10 finishes nearly every season on tour.

Between 2013 and 2019 the percentage of college players among Top 5 finishers increased by 471.6% and the percentage finishing in the Top 10 increased by 333.6%.  In 2013, college players earned just 7.1% of 3^rd place and 10.7% of 5^th place finishes.  By 2019 those percentages rose to 75.0% and 65.6% respectively.  Likewise, while college players earned only 3.2% of 7^th place and 4.1% of 9^th place finishes on tour in 2013, they accounted for 53.1% of 7^th place and 71.9% of 9^th place finishes in 2019.  Complete data is shown in Table H.  The growth trend is shown in Figure 6.

Table H:  College Players’ Top 5 and Top 10 Finishes on AVP Pro Tour.

Event Data		Percentage of College Players Among Players Finishing:
Season	# Events	Finals	3rd	5th	7th	9th	Top 5	Top 10
2013	7	12.5%	7.1%	10.7%	3.2%	4.1%	10.2%	14.3%
2014	7	3.6%	32.1%	10.7%	10.7%	16.1%	15.5%	14.9%
2015	7	17.9%	25.0%	21.4%	14.3%	18.8%	21.4%	19.4%
2016	7	35.7%	35.7%	32.1%	35.7%	32.1%	34.5%	33.9%
2017	8	39.3%	32.1%	28.6%	71.4%	41.1%	33.3%	42.3%
2018	7	46.4%	53.6%	60.7%	53.6%	44.6%	53.6%	50.6%
2019	8	34.4%	75.0%	65.6%	53.1%	71.9%	58.3%	62.0%

Top 15 finishes show a similar trend of consistent growth as shown in Table I and Figure 6.  From 2013 to 2019, the percentage of college players among Top 15 finishers in AVP events grew 1,043.9%.  More than 65% of the Top 15 finishers in 2019 were college players compared to just 5.7 % in 2013.

Table I:  College Players’ Top 15 Finishes on AVP Pro Tour.

Event Data		Percentage of College Players Among Players Finishing:
Season	# Events	13th	15th	Top 15
2013	7	2.1%	0%	5.7%
2014	7	13.0%	0%	14.4%
2015	7	19.6%	0%	19.4%
2016	7	21.4%	0%	30.8%
2017	8	50.0%	50.0%	44.3%
2018	7	63.5%	66.7%	54.3%
2019	8	72.6%	80.0%	65.2%

Figure 6:  Percentage Increase of College Players’ Top 5, Top 10 and Top 15 Finishes.

AVP Annual Rankings

The final measure of college players’ success at the professional level is suggested by AVP rankings.  We organized the rankings into four common increments - Top 5, Top 10, Top 15 and Top 20 - and identified the percentage of college players within each increment for each season from 2013 to 2019.  The data is presented in Table J. 

We measured success in the rankings by analyzing the data in two ways.  First, we measured percentage growth in each increment for each season between 2013 and 2019.  Second, we measured growth within each increment by comparing the 2013-2016 seasons with the 2017-2019 seasons within each increment.  Both analyses show a trend toward increasing percentages of college players at every measured increment of the AVP official rankings.

 

Table J:  College Players Ranked on AVP Pro Beach Tour.

Seasons	College Players in AVP Tour Rankings
	Top 5		Top 10		Top 15		Top 20
	# CP	% CP	# CP	% CP	# CP	% CP	# CP	% CP
2013	0	0%	0	0%	1	6.7%	2	10.0%
2014	1	20.0%	2	20.0%	2	13.3%	2	10.0%
2015	0	0%	1	10.0%	3	20.0%	3	15.0%
2016	3	60.0%	3	30.0%	3	20.0%	3	15.0%
2017	2	40.0%	5	50.0%	7	46.7%	9	45.0%
2018	2	40.0%	6	60.0%	11	73.3%	13	65.0%
2019	2	40.0%	5	50.0%	9	60.0%	12	60.0%

No college players were ranked in the Top 5 or 10 in 2013.  By 2019, 40% of the Top 5 and 50% of the Top 10 athletes on tour were college players.  During the same time, the percentage of college players in the Top 15 grew from 6.7% in 2013 to 60% in 2019 (a 795.5% increase) while those in the Top 20 grew from 10% in 2013 to 60% in 2019 (a 500% increase).

Comparing the 2013-2016 seasons with the 2017-2019 seasons within each increment shows a similar growth trend.  As shown in Table K, college players comprised an increasing percentage of all top rankings on tour since 2013.

Table K:  College Players in AVP Rankings by Period 2013-2016 and Period 2017-2019.

Periods	College Players in AVP Tour Rankings – 2013-2016 and 2017-2019
	Top 5		Top 10		Top 15		Top 20
	# CP	% CP	# CP	% CP	# CP	% CP	# CP	% CP
2013-2016	4	20.0%	6	15.0%	9	15.0%	14	17.5%
2017-2019	6	40.0%	16	53.3%	27	60.0%	34	56.7%
	Percent Change
	+100%		+255.3%		+300%		+224%

The greatest growth occurred in the Top 15, where the percentage of college players increased 300% from the 2013-2016 period to the 2017-2019 period.  The slowest growth occurred in the Top 5, where college players have constituted 40% of the ranked players for the last three season.  The percentage of college players in the Top 5 increased 100% during the 2017-2019 period over the period 2013-2016. 

Path to the Pros – Colleges and Universities

College players in the pros represent a wide variety of NCAA Division I schools.[5]  Twenty-one different programs have had at least one college player in the pros and nine programs have three or more players with professional experience. 

USC leads all schools in terms of the number of players in the pros (14) and the number of main draw appearances (147).  Pepperdine and UCLA are second with 10 players each but Pepperdine players have 128 main draw appearances to UCLA’s 55.  Geographically, USC, Pepperdine and UCLA lead the west while Florida State and Georgia State lead the east.  Florida State has 8 players in the pros with 67 main draw appearances and Georgia State has produced 6 professional players with 44 appearances in the main draw since 2013. 

More complete lists of schools ranked by player appearances in the main draw and number of players in the pros are set forth in Figures 7 and 8 respectively.

Only five schools in the country have had player representation in the main draw every year since 2013 – USC, Pepperdine, Hawaii, Florida State, and Georgia State.

Figure 7:  Top 10 College Programs Ranked by Number of Player Appearances in Main Draw.

Figure 8:  College Programs Ranked by Number of Players in the Pros (minimum 3).

  

Path to the Pros – Likelihood of Becoming a Professional

The NCAA estimates that only 2% of its athletes will go pro.  The percentage in beach volleyball appears to be more than twice that figure and continues to rise.  To determine the approximate likelihood of going pro we calculated the percentage of NCAA beach volleyball athletes in the pros each season.[6]  We did so by dividing the number of current or former NCAA beach volleyball athletes in the pros each season by the number of NCAA athletes on beach volleyball rosters for the corresponding academic year. 

Between 2013 and 2019 the percentage of all NCAA beach volleyball athletes who made it to the pros grew from 1.7% to 4.6%  -  an increase of 171.6%.  The data is presented in Table L.

Table L:  NCAA Athletes in the Pros as Percentage of All NCAA Beach Volleyball Athletes.

Athletes in Pros as Percentage of All Beach Athletes
Academic Year	# NCAA Athletes (All Divisions)	# NCAA Athletes in the Pros	% NCAA Athletes In the Pros
2011-12	204	-	-
2012-13	416	7	1.7%
2013-14	611	12	1.9%
2014-15	747	19	2.5%
2015-16	909	26	2.9%
2016-17	1,070	35	3.3%
2017-18	1,165	48	4.1%
2018-19	1,312	60	4.6%

Passage to the pros appears even more efficient when looking only at D-I athletes.  As shown in Table M, between 2013 and 2019 the percentage of NCAA D-I athletes who made it to the pros grew from 1.7% in 2013 to 5.7% in 2019 – a percentage increase of 235.3%.  College players in the professional ranks are associated exclusively with NCAA D-I schools.

Table M:  NCAA Athletes in the Pros as Percentage of D-I NCAA Beach Volleyball Athletes.

Athletes in Pros as Percentage of D-I Beach Athletes
Academic Year	# NCAA Athletes (D-I Only)	# NCAA Athletes in the Pros	% NCAA Athletes In the Pros
2011-12	204	-	-
2012-13	405	7	1.7%
2013-14	594	12	2.0%
2014-15	691	19	2.7%
2015-16	758	26	3.2%
2016-17	878	35	4.0%
2017-18	935	48	5.0%
2018-19	1,053	60	5.7%

CONCLUSION

The data show that college beach volleyball players have dramatically impacted the professional beach tour through near straight line growth in participation and success rates.  In eight years since collegiate beach volleyball held its inaugural season college players have become a fixture on the professional beach volleyball tour.  College players have increased their presence in the final round of qualification, in the main draw, in Top 3, Top 5 and Top 10 finishes, in finals and semi-finals appearances, as tournament winners, and in their presence and positions in the professional rankings.

While many of the implications of these developments are uncertain some have come into vision.  Collegiate beach has become a path to the pros and is solidified as a developmental and talent identification pipeline to professional and elite competition.  Both the success of collegiate beach for women and the absence of a parallel pipeline for men contributes to an expanding gap between the depth of men’s and women’s elite beach volleyball in the United States.  Whether the resulting implications will influence sport sponsorship in men’s collegiate beach volleyball remains to be seen. 

The data also suggest that while the professional ranks are more accessible in beach volleyball than in most other sports, the likelihood of going pro still is statistically improbable.  Whether and the extent to which professional aspirations will influence players in their choice of college is an issue for future research.

View a PDF version of this Data Report.

---

[1] National Collegiate Athletic Association. 1982-2019 NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Report. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association; 2019.  All sports sponsorship and roster data are to this source.

[2] The AVP did not have a full season in 2012.  The two events held in 2012 are excluded as they (i) were not part of a full season, (ii) did not have qualifiers, and (iii) did not have full main draw fields.  AVP events includes only events officially organized and sponsored by the AVP.  Events “presented by” the AVP in conjunction with the FIVB are excluded.  Entry into the main draw, directly or through qualification, is the standard for classification as a “professional.”  All participation and results data are cited to bvbinfo.com as of December 22, 2019.

[3] Minimum three appearances.

[4] Minimum three appearances.

[5] College players are associated with the schools for which they competed.  Transfers who played beach volleyball for multiple schools are associated with the school from which they obtained their highest degree.  Transfers who played an equal number of seasons for multiple schools are associated with the school from which they graduated.

[6] “NCAA beach volleyball athletes” excludes college players committed to play beach volleyball but who did not yet enroll and practice or compete in college.  These “committed” athletes are included within our definition of college players elsewhere throughout this report.

(c) 2019 Wayne D. Holly and Shane Spellman.  All rights reserved.  No fee may be charged for access to this report or its contents.