Four years; at least one NCAA ring. That was the unofficial
guarantee for men’s volleyball players who chose to invest
four years playing for the UCLA program under legendary coach Al
Scates. Over a span of 30 years, Scates and the UCLA men’s
volleyball program accumulated 18 NCAA titles, a dominance that
began with their 1970 victory over Long Beach State. No graduating
senior class left without a championship ring after that, although
the Bruins did suffer a “long” drought of three years
without a championship in the early 1990s. Some Bruins on the
1981-1984 teams were even so fortunate as to have four fingers
adorned with those coveted rings. But this was all before rally
scoring came around in 2001. In addition to an explosion in the
amount and quality of club and high school players, an influx of
experienced foreign players and other factors, the quicker-paced
match has contributed to the increase in parity among teams in the
men’s collegiate game, giving others a better chance to sit
on the throne. The Bruins have made two NCAA Finals appearances
since that game-changing year, but have been unable to add to the
long list of championship banners that hangs in Pauley Pavilion.
UCLA’s dominance appeared to have been all but lost when
four-year starter Adam Shrader and other seniors on the 2004 squad
became the first class in a long while to leave Westwood
empty-handed. All season long, the 2006 team has had its sights set
on returning the program to its traditional glory. “Getting
recruited and stuff, I’ve always heard of that, that if you
go to UCLA you’re guaranteed to graduate with a ring,”
redshirt senior Damien Scott said. “But it’s been six
years now, so hopefully we’re going to change that and set it
back straight.”
How it started Long. Boring. These words have
been used to describe the retired traditional side-out system.
Side-out after side-out, whistle after whistle, teams once traded
serves without even scoring a point. Exemplified by the
knock-’em-down, drag-’em-out, three-and-a-half hour
slugfest between UCLA and Hawai’i in the 1996 NCAA Finals,
the side-out scoring era often consisted of long, drawn-out
matches. Teams could only score a point on the serve, and it often
took a considerable amount of time to get to the 15 points needed
for the game win. But when Scates went overseas and witnessed the
freshly evolved version of the sport, he saw a new and better
alternative to the game. “I lobbied to bring rally-point
scoring to the United States in 2000,” Scates said. “I
coached the World University teams in ’96 and ’98 and
played them in an international tournament where they were allowed
to use the rally score. It was just such a more intense game, and
the fans were just so much more into it. “It was obvious that
it was best to make the change.” When asked what
characterizes the new scoring system, UC Irvine coach and former
UCLA assistant coach John Speraw agreed that rally scoring is
better for the sport in terms of entertainment. Speraw’s
Anteaters, who are currently No. 1 in the country, are often
praised by opposing teams for their consistency and a balanced
lineup that is well suited for the quick play of rally scoring.
“(It’s) good for the game, exciting, and better for the
fans,” Speraw said. But what has been good for the game has
not necessarily been as kind to the Bruins. The UCLA playing style
was better suited to the drawn-out matches of the traditional
system, according to the UCLA coaches. “Before, conditioning
was more of a factor,” Scates said. “When we played
Hawai’i in ’96, we won because we were in better shape
than they were, not because we were more talented.” Scates
attributes a lot of his team’s previous success to its famed
conditioning routine. “We would spend up to 45 minutes
running, doing pushups, sit-ups, diving, jumping before we touched
a volleyball in the old days under the old rules,” Scates
said. Now, with the shortening of the match to fit it into a
two-hour television time slot, the Bruins no longer feel they hold
that same advantage of stamina over their opponents. Just last
season, the Bruins lost a five-game match to Pepperdine in the
national championship. “The longer the game went on, we were
usually a bigger team, and we were usually stronger and in better
shape,” UCLA assistant coach Brian Rofer said. “So if
we could draw the game out, we would be better off at the end. And
now it’s not like that anymore. It used to be you had to be
in great physical shape for the long haul. (Now) you just have to
be really good if you can win a national championship.”
Asking for parity Year in and year out, the
Bruins dominated the playing field, bringing home championship
after championship. No other program rivals that of Scates’
18 national titles. But since rally scoring was instituted to make
the game more fan-friendly and exhilarating to watch, the playing
field has been evened out a little more, leading to close matches
and upsets that are truly exciting to watch. “The institution
of rally scoring made it so that there would be parity,”
Rofer said. “(The people might say) “˜Yeah, we got to
the finals (in 2001 and 2005), so what?’ You’re not
successful (at UCLA) unless you win a national championship.
“(It was implemented) so we could have upsets, and that was
the reason why ““ make it more exciting, get the underdogs a
chance to win.” Rofer and other coaches around the league
have seen the parity increasing over recent years, highlighted by
the opportunities the new scoring system has given to various
teams. In the past five years alone, four different teams ““
including Division II school Lewis ““ have won national
titles. Coaches now stress that on any given night, any team in the
Mountain Pacific Sports Federation can upset another team, and
underdogs are never taken lightly. “Statistics prove that the
team that’s favored to win wins less often in rally
scoring,” said Speraw, a member of four UCLA national
championship teams as a player and coach. “So a team like
UCLA, which typically has more talent, finds it more difficult to
win on a consistent basis. And that’s not just true just of
UCLA, that’s of all teams that are favored to win. But of
course, UCLA is favored to win most of the time.” When every
serve results in a point, any kill or any error could mean the
difference between a win and a loss. In rally scoring, points can
slip away in a hurry, so every rally is crucial. “The game
itself has not changed; the pressure has increased,” Speraw
said. “It’s still the same skills, the same tactics for
the most part, but it becomes a little bit more intense. But
that’s good.” “In the past we’ve had big
younger guys that could make some mental errors on the court, and
now it could cost you a point,” Rofer said. “(Before)
we would just side-out again or serve again and we were able to
control the game a little bit more.”
What’s next The Bruins have been in a
state of readjustment since 2001, trying to find a way to the top
of the mountain once again. They have had to leave the comfort zone
of side-out scoring, and accept and keep pace with the quicker
nature of rally scoring. “The rules are rules and
there’s no such thing as regular score, so you deal with
rally score,” Rofer said. “As far as rally scoring,
we’ve got to the finals, but I think the parity of the rally
score has hurt us a little bit. We just have to adjust to that.
“Al’s been doing this a long time and he’s
started to change a little bit, (but) it just takes time to see
what rally scoring’s actually going to do.” Scates has
responded by shifting his main focus from conditioning to
technique, concentrating more on individual skills such as blocking
and passing. “We work more on technique now,” Scates
said. It’s more of a technical game rather than (an)
endurance game under rally scoring. Teams still get tired after two
hours of play, but it’s not as tiring as it used to
be.” However, endurance may still play a big role: Starting
tonight, the Bruins will have to run a long, do-or-die, six-match
gauntlet in the final three weeks of the season if they hope to
return to Westwood with rings on their fingers.