|
Post by gollum on Nov 2, 2006 9:49:40 GMT -5
This thread is way too long, sorry if I missed this point...
The US system just doesn't incentivize players to be a part of the program early on. We have a great educational system that is linked to athletics, it is not like that in other countries, hence we see so many foreign players, pros or not coming to the US to trade their athletic skills for a US education.
It would be ideal if we had enough money to do the following- this would take away from the college game by the way... Identify the top players at a young age and place them into this program..
1) Wherever the training takes place pay for the college education at a local university. DON'T ALLOW OUR TOP PLAYERS TO PLAY IN COLLEGE AS THE NCAA RULES PROHIBIT THEIR DEVELOPMENT
That is all we need to do, whether it is ten players a year or forty, and then when we have determined they are not Olympic caliber, release them and let them go to college while they still have a few years eligibility left. Any player that is invited to the program and goes directly to college forfeits their opportunity to play in the Olympics. Any player that the system misses but develops to the level necessary has the opportunity to join at any time.
Of course it will never happen, lets say you move the training to SoCal and pay for an educations at Cal-State Fullerton... What parent is going to let their child pass up the opportunity to attend Stanford and all of the lifelong advantages that education could provide for them to pursue a dream at the Olympics and a different level of education altogether.
The bottom line is the college game we all love so much, ruins the international game.
Tracy Stalls, although probably athletically not the right person for this type of experiment is the closest to this actually being done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2006 9:56:11 GMT -5
First of all, I totally disagree about the practice time of high school, JO and college players being comparable to that of other countries. This just isn't true. Well, that's the thing: How many kids can be the primary passer in a match? Two! In this discussion "primary passers" refer to players who are have receiving responsibility for their team. Many teams use a 3 person alignment in reception - those teams would have 3 "primary passers" in each rotation. In this example there might be 6-10 in each match depending on sub rules... For an otherwise logical, reasonable person I'm amazed you can come to this conclusion. I just don't see how you can look at volleyball in the USA and not see a nation of specialists created by rules that make specialization the best way to team success... I'm at a loss... Because you are over-generalizing. No one denies there is specialization. But not everyone is a specialist. The USA has incredible numbers when it comes to participation. It's a mistake to look at all those players and draw conclusions. You need to look at the elite levels of JO play. As for your first point, I will tell you that at _most_ levels of volleyball, the kid standing in the middle of the serve receive will get most of the serves. My point is -- as you, I believe, also brought up -- you aren't going to develop a _lot_ of great passers through matches alone. It will have to happen in practice -- and that's where you will run smack into the wall of time restrictions. Anyhow, this ain't about the rules. It's about the culture.
|
|
|
Post by foreignball on Nov 2, 2006 16:45:27 GMT -5
I will tell you that at _most_ levels of volleyball, the kid standing in the middle of the serve receive will get most of the serves. This could be true only if: a) the game level is not very high b) the player who is there is the weakest receiver with the highest chance for a shank. c) the serving team believes that by serving there they will avoid certain play/player or will channel the next play where they want to see it. d) combination of the a, b and c.
|
|
|
Post by foreignball on Nov 2, 2006 17:03:27 GMT -5
As it stands in FIVB 3 players must have volleyball skills to play in all 6 rotations. A 4th must also play 6 rotations but has a special skill set (the setter). In USA volleyball (with 15 subs) 2 players have to play 6 rotations (one may be the special position of setter). This season I watched a team who had only 1 player playing all rotations. Here is the scenario: - 2 setters were paired with the MB’s (any time a MB had to rotate backrow, a S was coming in to serve and set. And any time a S had to rotate frontrow, a MB was subbing her) - L was coming in for both OH’s. A DS was replacing one of the other 2 players (most of times), so the only player who was in full time was the OPP (I’m not sure whether I could call her OPP or I should use something else).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2006 17:12:34 GMT -5
I will tell you that at _most_ levels of volleyball, the kid standing in the middle of the serve receive will get most of the serves. This could be true only if: a) the game level is not very high b) the player who is there is the weakest receiver with the highest chance for a shank. c) the serving team believes that by serving there they will avoid certain play/player or will channel the next play where they want to see it. d) combination of the a, b and c. Well, which is it? Are we talking about beginning levels -- where all these potential passers are ruined by the U.S. ruleset -- or are we talking about higher levels where it is too late? You all are talking in circles...
|
|
|
Post by recleagueref on Nov 6, 2006 10:59:49 GMT -5
This is something I should know already and is tangental to the discussion at hand, but y'all are having a good discussion and this is something I would really like to know. It concerns USAV rules, not NCAA.
The USA Volleyball rules are prefaced with this text:
MODIFICATIONS For all designated international competitions, the FIVB rules will be fully in effect. USA Volleyball recognizes that there are circumstances where grassroots development, sport development, safety or insurance requirements would indicate a need for a temporary rule modification (i.e., the number of substitutions might be expanded to include more participants at a school or recreational level.)
Acknowledging that a rule may not be changed, in instances where the USAV member organizations feel that the promotion of the sport would be enhanced by temporary adjustments, they are encouraged to promote the advancement of the sport.
In an attempt to have continuity in the domestic play of the game, this document has inserted in designated “USAV” boxed areas suggested guidelines for some of the more common temporary adjustments used to promote the growth of the game.
EXAMPLE: USAV 1.1: The free zone may be a minimum of 2 m (6’6”). It is not required that the free zone be symmetrical.
Another example would be:
15.1 NUMBER OF REGULAR INTERRUPTIONS Each team is entitled to request a maximum of two timeouts and six player substitutions per set. USAV 15.1: See USAV 15.6 for limitations of substitutions under USAV Domestic Competition Regulations.
Can someone explain what phrases like "Acknowledging that a rule may not be changed", "temporary rule modification", "suggested guidelines", and "some of the more common temporary adjustments" really mean?
Is there anything temporary about the differences between USAV Domestic Competition Regulations and FIVB Official Volleyball Rules?
|
|