|
Post by hithigh9 on Aug 4, 2009 9:35:47 GMT -5
NIRSA is trying whatever advertisement ploys they can to keep teams coming to their tournament. They obviously feel threatened by the Louisville tournament (and they should be) because I feel over a majority of the teams are going to the NCVF tournament instead. Some things that are too good to be true, might be. A few teams might have "commited" or been mandated, but look at all the leagues that are promoting the NCVF tournament. I understand this does not ensure all those teams will go to the NCVF tournament, but come on, almost all of those teams are going to go to the tournament their league recommends.
Louisville is the place to be.
|
|
|
Post by lbsuclub on Aug 4, 2009 10:14:26 GMT -5
Does anyone know if NCVF changed any of the eligibility rules for Nationals, (i.e. # of varsity players allowed on a roster?)
|
|
|
Post by bredsox61 on Aug 4, 2009 12:44:34 GMT -5
Does anyone know if NCVF changed any of the eligibility rules for Nationals, (i.e. # of varsity players allowed on a roster?) From what I know, the NCVF is not changing any of the eligibility rules for Nationals next year. So, it will still be a limit of 2 ex-varsity players per team.
|
|
|
Post by hithigh9 on Aug 5, 2009 10:11:19 GMT -5
With NIRSA saying teams have already committed, NCVF is asking the teams that support them to endorse the organization and the NCVF National Tournament in Louisville. ncvfvolleyball.org/default.aspx
|
|
|
Post by sltp2004 on Aug 6, 2009 8:03:13 GMT -5
Has anyone heard any recent news on changing the NIRSA rule of 5 consecutive years at nationals to 5 total years for nations? I heard that NCVF is looking into adopting this change
|
|
|
Post by bredsox61 on Aug 6, 2009 9:24:14 GMT -5
Has anyone heard any recent news on changing the NIRSA rule of 5 consecutive years at nationals to 5 total years for nations? I heard that NCVF is looking into adopting this change The rule is currently 6 years, not 5. And I would be very surprised if either one made the change. I think it would be negative in the long run, because allowing a ton of 30 year old grad students to compete would totally alter the feel of college club Nationals, and make it seem like USAV Adult Nationals.
|
|
|
Post by gobears on Aug 6, 2009 12:20:30 GMT -5
I have not seen anything in writing lately if ever that clearly defined this, but Cal has operated on a player being eligible for Nationals for 6 consecutive years from the first year his name appears on any vb college roster (not Nationals roster)...club, NCAA, NAIA...and a year is still counted even if he didn't play vb at all anywhere for a year or two or more...once the 6 year period has started. ...and of course there not being more than 2 former NCAA/NAIA players on the team...
I think there has been something about a player on an NCAA/NAIA roster for up to 3 weeks in the off season but if cut, that doesn't count as a former varsity player....as he moves to any school's club team. .. and.... if he doesn't play at all for any club the year he was cut from a varsity program, but comes back the next year on a club team......THAT would be his first year....and not count the tryout year with the varsity team.
I happen to know of a player who fits the above...not at Cal...but...it would sure be nice if the commissioners and folks in charge would be really specific about this stuff.
Cal has followed the same Nationals guidelines for our competition in League...altho I think some club teams will have various players during league on their team who don't qualify for Nationals...and they know it ahead of time..and chose to have them play anyway. Each school/league decides what works best for them....altho seeding for Nationals can be skewed some... with wins and losses by teams with players not eligible for Nationals.
By the end of the season tho, we want to play the toughest competition we can, eligible players or not....at Las Vegas or anywhere else....to get as prepared as possible for Nationals. Seeding is seeding....often not perfect....you gotta show up and win your pool.
Now that we are talking about this so early, NCVF and NIRSA need to specifically define eligibility IN DETAIL.....this fall, asap, September. Waiting around for such info till Feb or some such, means teams at times must tell players they can't go to Nationals well after they have paid dues, got their offense working, etc etc. Highly regretable and frankly dumb and unprofessional by whomever is running Nationals.
|
|
|
Post by westcoastplaya on Aug 6, 2009 13:36:01 GMT -5
LATEST RUMOR - NIRSA on verge of signing with big sponsor. They'll use additional funds to televise the championships in Dallas. Seems as if CBS, FOX and ESPN are very interested. So much for NIRSA not giving funds back to VB.
|
|
|
Post by hithigh9 on Aug 7, 2009 8:11:05 GMT -5
NIRSA does a lot of useless talking, I'm not gonna believe it until I see it.
|
|
|
Post by bredsox61 on Aug 7, 2009 11:55:18 GMT -5
gobears - I think that the eligibility rules have always been pretty clearly defined on NIRSA's web page: www.nirsa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Sports/NationalCampusChampionshipSeries/NCCSEligibilityGuidelines/NCCS_Eligibility_Gu.htm And they also set these out again when you register for Nationals. Did you find NIRSA's information to be unclear/incomplete? According to NIRSA, the 6 year rule commences the first time a player is listed on a NIRSA roster, NOT just on any club roster. And you are correct about the 3 week varsity tryout rule. Also, does your league (NCCVL?) not use the same eligibility guidelines as Nationals? I know that our league does, and you should bring up any questions you have about eligibility with your commissioner, and the NCVF. NIRSA says that they will be releasing eligibility requirements in September, and I expect that the NCVF will be clarifying the eligibility information as well. The NIRSA stuff has always been pretty poorly worded... westcoastplaya - Even if NIRSA signs a sponsor, and even if they televise some matches, it doesn't change the fact that they created a wholly-owned for profit subsidiary, which they have already used to shelter roughly $1 million, profited from running OUR Nationals. NIRSA is trying to appear more invested in the sport now, only because they realize that they are close to losing their cash cow (college club volleyball). But I think that that opportunity has passed, and it's too late to try to win us back.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Aug 7, 2009 12:16:58 GMT -5
I definitely admire the spirit behind NCVF, but the platform reiterated definitely begs the question: do NCAA volleyball athletes harbor these sport specific feelings towards NCAA, a bureaucratic administrator of collegiate athletic champtionships? Didn't Oscar Wilde say "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy?" Sucks, especially given the greediness found latent in Corporate America which I can sniff from a mile away in NIRSA's actions, but I just hope we (club vball as a whole) don't cut off our nose to spite our face.
|
|
|
Post by westcoastplaya on Aug 7, 2009 12:59:04 GMT -5
Yo HitHigh9 or should I say NCVF Commisioner #1.
I bring facts to this forum. I predicted you idiots would select the same weekend as NIRSA even though NIRSA made their announcement back in mid-May and you guys announced in mid-July.
Not only is NIRSA and the NCCS attracting sponsors, but they are indeed reinvesting money into future tournaments like they've done the in past. Do you not recall the electronic results station instead of tackboards the past couple of years. And how about the educational sessions and communicty service projects they offered last year. The fact is, their tournament continues to get better every year.
So when I say they are close to landing a big sponsor and use the funds to tv, you know it's true. Here's another nugget for you, Molten will be re-upping with NIRSA on a multi-year deal.
You got questions, just come ask Westcoastplaya!
|
|
|
Post by bredsox61 on Aug 7, 2009 13:42:12 GMT -5
Treble76 - I understand your point, however a varsity team's relationship with the NCAA, and a club team's relationship with NIRSA is entirely different. The NCAA governs every single aspect of an NCAA team's season, and doesn't just put on a single year-end event. I'm not sure all of the commissioners, coaches and players understand this yet, but I think the NCVF has the ability to go way beyond just Nationals. It's about having an organization involved with our sport, not just with our tournament. I'm not saying USAV is run perfectly either, far from it, but at least we will see growth.
Westcoastplaya, the fact is, NIRSA left little slips of paper on the work tables on the last day of Nationals, basically saying: "Save the date, Nationals April 8-10, 2010." So somewhere along the line, that changed. Also, I was checking the NIRSA site daily, and their new date/location wasn't announced until early June. And while the NCVF did announce their tournament later, it doesn't mean that the date wasn't chosen sooner than NIRSA's date, and that NIRSA didn't specifically move up their tournament to put it in conflict with the NCVF.
To continue my point above, it's about year-round service. If you create a website that links all of the leagues, creates a team directory, allows for tournaments to be posted, and provides results, like the NCVF is doing, then you'll be closer to providing real services to teams. Setting up computer booths is nice, but that isn't an investment into the sport, it's a one-time expense.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Aug 7, 2009 14:09:57 GMT -5
Good point. That definitely cancels out my NCAA comparison. With your clarification, it becomes apples and oranges.
I wouldn't be surprised if this got messier as we go along. NIRSA seems to be getting very aggressive in securing their place as the host of a collegiate club vball national championship. It seems as if NCVF is taking the high road which will make for an unfair battle for attendance. How many more schools will mandate their clubs to go to Dallas? How many will be completely ignorant to what has been taking place and go to NIRSA by default? Will NCVF attempt to counter these mandates by "pitching" their tourney to some of these schoos that are commiting their teams to NIRSA? It's noble to state your purpose and then say "we want you to decide what's best for your team and the sport in general." Will it be enough?
|
|
|
Post by gobears on Aug 7, 2009 14:29:01 GMT -5
We ran into a 'rule???' 3 weeks before Nationals in 2009, which still is not stated anywhere on the NCCS site. After being involved in Nationals since Day 1 with this 'recent rule???' not stated anywhere, we objected. Our commissioner was ready to back us in an appeal. Possible ramifications from an accepted or declined appeal and the tight time frame involved resulted in our decision to forgo the appeal. We 'made good' for the two players involved which was a very imperfect solution...and no one was very happy with it....not the players, not the staff, not the parents. It is difficult to have confidence in an organization that attempts to enforce rules written down nowhere. We anticipate the rule being stated in Nationals guidelines (NIRSA and NCVF) for the upcoming year.
Further, the wording on the NCCS site on the 6 year eligigiblity item is also not totally clear.
Our commissioner already knows our areas of concern to check for on a draft update that I assume commissioners will get to review. The sooner the updated text for both NIRSA and NCVF get out there, the better. August 31, really...as many teams start selecting squads early Sept. One would like to avoid having to drop players after team selection due to late info. Makes everyone really cranky.
and...No..... NCCVL does not follow all NIRSA Nationals guidelines exactly..... for league play,.... which is fine....as long as each team captain/coach is aware of the slight variations.
|
|