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 5th 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 3rd place and 10.7% of 5th
place finishes. By 2019 those
percentages rose to 75.0% and 65.6% respectively. Likewise, while college players earned only
3.2% of 7th place and 4.1% of 9th place finishes on tour
in 2013, they accounted for 53.1% of 7th place and 71.9% of 9th
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.
(c) 2019 Wayne D. Holly and Shane Spellman. All rights reserved. No fee may be charged for access to this report or its contents.
