|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jun 20, 2007 8:12:34 GMT -5
As we've talked about before, there are only a very small handful of players that make "decent" money. The winners of a tournament have to SPLIT $15k to $20k. I really don't understand how the players outside of the top 6 or so can make any sort of living playing the sport. There is more money, for more players in the indoor professional leagues. I'm sure someone can be more specific, but it seems that in the last couple of years pay and demand for players has really increased. Spain and Russian are taking so many of the top players away from Italy. Two points: 1)There is, as you say, more money for more players in the indoor professional leagues. But is there more money for more players in the indoor National Team program? 2)Money ain't the only motive out there. And, as far as the media within the USA goes, there's a TON more attention and celebrity for more players in the beach professional league. The names (and faces) of Heather Bown, Logan Tom, Lindsey Berg, Dani Scott, and Tayyiba Haneef would be completely unrecognizable to the average American, even in the middle of the 2004 Olympic cycle. (How many times have members of the indoor NT been featured on the cover/pages of People, Sports Illustrated, ESPNMag, etc.?) But if you said "Misti May and Kerri Walsh" or showed their pictures to the average tv-watching American, the recognition level would be much higher.
|
|
|
Post by simonsun on Jun 20, 2007 20:48:38 GMT -5
Had USA won gold at Athens, things might be quite different. Had May and Walsh lost their final, things might be different too... Here in China the indoor women's team was much adored, but only after they won gold did the common ppl start to know each player's name.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jun 21, 2007 9:55:47 GMT -5
Had USA won gold at Athens, things might be quite different. Had May and Walsh lost their final, things might be different too... Here in China the indoor women's team was much adored, but only after they won gold did the common ppl start to know each player's name. I agree that to an extent popularity is based on success, but indoor volleyball is a low priority for most americans, and the USA is not China. If you stood on a corner in New York and asked a thousand people walking by, "Who are Paula Weishoff and Flo Hyman?", I seriously doubt you would need two digits to express the percentage of correct identifications. If you simply showed these two pictures, I doubt you'd need two digits to express the number of correct identifications: But if you asked, "Who are Misti May and Kerri Walsh?", I think the percentage of recognition (while still low compared to the major US sports) would be several times higher than the other pair, and showing these two pictures would similarly be a huge increase in the number of correct IDs: i16.tinypic.com/4lytuv7.jpgAnd this one from those ubiquitous Gatorade "Rain" ads would probably get even more of the age 15-40 male tv-watchers:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2007 10:37:22 GMT -5
And, unfortunately, if you asked those people about volleyball itself, they'd probably mostly identify the beach game.
It's been terrible for the real sport.
|
|
|
Post by plm on Jun 21, 2007 10:49:59 GMT -5
Yeah, the beach game to me is rather boring. With what little I have watched there really aren't many long rallies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2007 11:05:06 GMT -5
I agree, but that's not my point. One could make the argument that it's more popular than the indoor game. But it's not popular because of the volleyball.
This is a general comment. Many of us can appreciate the skills of the game. Many of us like the sport as a sport. But it has not been good for the indoor game, nor do _most_ of its new fans watch it for the _volleyball_.
Volleyball has been barking up the wrong tree for over 20 years now. It's probably too late to change. Most of the general public see it as that sport played in skimpy outfits -- outdoor and indoor. It makes it hard for them to take it seriously, and sports played by females have enough obstacles without adding that one.
Want an example? Just page through any issue of Volleyball. The schizo-nature of the coverage is painful to see.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jun 21, 2007 11:06:55 GMT -5
I heard it's like watching bowling in jello.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2007 11:08:08 GMT -5
That's a terrific analogy.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jun 21, 2007 11:10:48 GMT -5
I can see how bowling in jello can be bad for the sport of volleyball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2007 11:14:51 GMT -5
Well, of course. Who's going to want to watch volleyball when they can watch that?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jun 21, 2007 11:17:42 GMT -5
Yes. And every bowling meet/event/tournament can have a theme -- a flavor. Raspberry today. Strawberry tomorrow. Lemon-Lime next week. You can't do that with volleyball. Come to think of it, what sport CAN compete with bowling in jello? Boy, this analogy works on so many levels, it's astounding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2007 11:18:50 GMT -5
And they were just warming up.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jun 21, 2007 11:28:43 GMT -5
I think you can get that kiddie pool at Wal-Mart for about $7.99.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2007 11:53:50 GMT -5
Yes, but the joy is priceless.
Or $154.63, actually. Also at Wal-Mart.
|
|