|
Post by AntennaMagnet on Apr 20, 2007 14:41:43 GMT -5
Figjam has got it right.
The pressure for a coach to win means that they will be loyal to a player only until the next best player comes along.
One way to eliminate this problem would be to have a NCAA rule that stated all non - injured players on the squad must play at least 10 points per match. That way everyone gets a chance to play and both teams would have to figure out the best substitution pattern that would achieve a win given a wide range of talent.
|
|
|
Post by chiwoj85 on Apr 20, 2007 15:00:43 GMT -5
That's a good idea, except for one thing. How would one know that a player is truly injured? The coach may pull some kind of lie saying that the player injured her finger or strained her back or something. Coaches can always lie so they can get the best players on the court. Now I'm not saying that all coaches would do this, but you know that some will
|
|
|
Post by mervynpumpkinhead on Apr 20, 2007 15:03:23 GMT -5
Figjam has got it right. The pressure for a coach to win means that they will be loyal to a player only until the next best player comes along. One way to eliminate this problem would be to have a NCAA rule that stated all non - injured players on the squad must play at least 10 points per match. That way everyone gets a chance to play and both teams would have to figure out the best substitution pattern that would achieve a win given a wide range of talent. You're kidding, right? You do understand that this would never, ever, ever, have a chance of being implemented, right?
|
|
|
Post by goutes on Apr 20, 2007 15:06:42 GMT -5
I'm curious-are these two girls a package? Do they want to play at the same school? That hasn't been addressed, I don't think.(Asst at Utah in 2005) I don't think so. What are the odds that a school has a spot for both of them? Has anyone heard from Syd Anderson about this? Probably a good idea to just let the Salvo family make fools of themselves in the press.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2007 15:13:33 GMT -5
What is wrong with trying to put your best team on the floor -- the team with the best chance of winning? Isn't that the point of sports? Not winning. But _trying_ to win? Trying to achieve excellence?
|
|
|
Post by saywho on Apr 20, 2007 15:18:03 GMT -5
What is wrong with trying to put your best team on the floor -- the team with the best chance of winning? Isn't that the point of sports? Not winning. But _trying_ to win? Trying to achieve excellence? It is indeed, I believe. Isn't that exactly what these girls are doing too though?
|
|
|
Post by blob on Apr 20, 2007 15:24:43 GMT -5
I'm curious-are these two girls a package? Do they want to play at the same school? That hasn't been addressed, I don't think.(Asst at Utah in 2005) I don't think so. What are the odds that a school has a spot for both of them? Has anyone heard from Syd Anderson about this? Probably a good idea to just let the Salvo family make fools of themselves in the press. If there's one lesson the Salvo family has learned from all of this,(and I don't know them, nor have never met them) it's to not be honest about your intentions. Better to be politically correct, so as not to antagonize the RABID VOLLEYTALK FANS.
|
|
|
Post by utevbfan17 on Apr 20, 2007 15:29:24 GMT -5
Figjam has got it right. The pressure for a coach to win means that they will be loyal to a player only until the next best player comes along. One way to eliminate this problem would be to have a NCAA rule that stated all non - injured players on the squad must play at least 10 points per match. That way everyone gets a chance to play and both teams would have to figure out the best substitution pattern that would achieve a win given a wide range of talent. That would only make it worse. if a coach knew that they would have to play everyone on their roster, in every match, then the coach would get rid of the players that aren't good enough to play right then. Some coaches bank on developing raw talent. They get the players that could be good and develop them into great players. No coach would want to risk getting those type of players because NCAA would tell them they had to play them right away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2007 15:32:19 GMT -5
What is wrong with trying to put your best team on the floor -- the team with the best chance of winning? Isn't that the point of sports? Not winning. But _trying_ to win? Trying to achieve excellence? It is indeed, I believe. Isn't that exactly what these girls are doing too though? I don't know about this specific case and refuse to speculate. I will say that jumping from one team to another in your "attempt to win" is _not_ the same thing. And, again, I have NO IDEA if that's what's happening here. I was responding to AM's comments.
|
|
|
Post by blob on Apr 20, 2007 15:36:49 GMT -5
I sure hope that all the people who are ripping the girls for transferring have never switched jobs because they sought a better opportunity. Doofs.
|
|
|
Post by blob on Apr 20, 2007 15:38:50 GMT -5
And maybe if the scholarships were guaranteed for 4 years, instead of year by year players would feel more obligated to stick around.
|
|
|
Post by utevbfan17 on Apr 20, 2007 15:45:17 GMT -5
I sure hope that all the people who are ripping the girls for transferring have never switched jobs because they sought a better opportunity. Doofs. yeah it's the same thing IF: say the company spent money sending this employee to school to further their career, took that employee to all the company parties and paid for them and if that certain employee was right in the middle of a huge project with a team . then out of the blue left the company for greener pastures then maybe we can compare the two
|
|
|
Post by fromohtosf on Apr 20, 2007 16:03:54 GMT -5
I sure hope that all the people who are ripping the girls for transferring have never switched jobs because they sought a better opportunity. Doofs. yeah it's the same thing IF: say the company spent money sending this employee to school to further their career, took that employee to all the company parties and paid for them and if that certain employee was right in the middle of a huge project with a team . then out of the blue left the company for greener pastures then maybe we can compare the two Actually, you can, it is called health benefits, which are just as expensive anymore. Stuff like this happens in the "professional" world all the time. And many companies do send employees through school just to see the employee leave. So you can make a comparison. And the employee is not seen at fault, so why should these girls.
|
|
|
Post by blob on Apr 20, 2007 16:04:43 GMT -5
Gee, I sure don't remember the schools being there when we were forking out some $30,000 for our kid to play club volleyball. with no guarantee that she'd ever get any kind of financial help.
Just like you are getting compensated at your work, these kids are getting compensated for playing a sport. Believe it or not, they actually do make sacrifices to play a sport, and trust me when I tell you that the scholarship does not come close to covering all their expenses. Sadly by the end of their college athletic careers many of them do begin to look on it like a full time job on top of taking a full load at school.
I say give these girls a break, they are looking for something different, and who are we to tell them they are disloyal. Give me a *$%^& break.
|
|
|
Post by blob on Apr 20, 2007 16:14:50 GMT -5
And don't even get me started on the whole club volleyball ripoff scam and the ridiculous year round training that goes on so that these kids can injure themselves and burnout. It's a big freakin black hole that parents & kids are sucked into.
|
|