|
Post by gr8ful on May 3, 2012 15:01:46 GMT -5
Whaaa....the other team sandbagged me.....whaaaaaa.....there coach knows how to strategize better than me......whaaaaaa......bottomline folks, coaches call as it should be, who plays when and where as long as they are eligible....if a coach decides to sit his best player for whatever reason, or run up the score and pad stats against a weaker team so be it - his decision.....wait, I got it....lets just give first place to everyone so nobody's feelings are hurt, egos bruised and we can all play nice nice together....whaaaa, but it's my ball....
BTW, maybe coaches should spend a bit more time in teaching a deep dish, or for that matter basic passing techniques....with a decent partner I think I could give most of these "collegiate amateur athletes" a run for their money they aren't allowed to take, and I'm old and consider myself a below average hack at best.....
|
|
|
Post by beachvolleymike on May 3, 2012 15:28:02 GMT -5
People keep saying this is a legal strategy, but is it? On the AVCA website there is a PDF with a rule (or was it just a rule proposal?) that said, "The line-up shall always be based on order of ability. 'Matching up' is prohibited. Players must compete in order of ability with the best doubles team on the team playing at the No. 1 position, the second best at No. 2, and so on through all positions." Good research mg. So it's like the U.N. (rules with no way to enforce them). Back to square one of solving the issue. I like ciscokid's idea, but it might take too long to play all those matches. Who has an estimate? I'm not a fan of shortening the games either...15 points goes by way too fast....and some schools will only have 3 courts to duke it out on. Sent from my MB860 using ProBoards
|
|
|
Post by OOTCDUDE on May 3, 2012 15:47:53 GMT -5
Speakng of deep dishes, at the AVCA tournament, the refs were not at all tight with the hand-seting rules (as non-specific as they may be).
|
|
|
Post by tinman2 on May 3, 2012 15:50:04 GMT -5
Gr8...you'd be a beast on the girls net and would win your own trophy or flip flops or whatever they got.
|
|
|
Post by gr8ful on May 3, 2012 16:33:44 GMT -5
I didn't say coed, I'm talking taking on a couple birds with a partner of my choosing.....my regular partner abandoned me ages ago when my horrific bump setting took a turn for the worse and people complained my handsets looked like a catch and chuck because they were too perfect. I haven't seen too much heat being delivered by any of the players I have seen clips of (or seen play) so I feel solid on my serving, blocking and defensive lack of abilities...I wouldn't yahtzee a girl, unless I was losing real bad.....
|
|
|
Post by unrated on May 3, 2012 21:19:00 GMT -5
wouldn't that depend on her funbags?
|
|
|
Post by fischerbeach on May 22, 2012 16:01:24 GMT -5
I haven't followed tennis or the current Sand Volleyball match-ups closely, but I still see a problem with the alleged "sandbagging" and arguments about what is strategy and what is shenanigans. Obviously, if it's okay in the rules, it's strategy, and if it violates them, it's shenanigans.
The double-elimination idea is great but would take several rounds and would have teams from the same school meeting up against each other. Too much time.
Having each team play the other school's 5 teams in shortened games (a giant pool-play scenario) is fair, but is a bit like speed-dating. Not much time to strategize, and would stress balancing one's teams as much as possible -- splitting up your top players would become the norm.
Here's my idea of the morning: Match #1 is worth 10 points, match#2 is worth 8 points. Matches #3-5 are 6 points each. That way, after matches 1 and 2, there's always a need to finish at least one of the next round. I don't like abandoned games. If there's a tie at the end (18 points each), each school puts together a team of their choice for a championship deciding set to 21.
If schools split in matches #1 and #2 , the school winning two of the remaining three matches would take the crown.
The concerns above against weighing certain teams higher don't take into consideration that most sports place 100% importance on the players who see playing time while bench players do nothing. In beach volleyball, all 10 athletes get to compete, and schools would have an incentive to make 2 super-strong teams, which would lead to some better volleyball. Thoughts?
--David Fischer
|
|
|
Post by sirtrojan on May 22, 2012 18:09:32 GMT -5
Fischerbeach, that is a solid idea with definite possibilities. You can debate what is the best point differential between the #1 thru #5 teams to come up with the most exciting overall event. As good as an idea as it is I don't believe it will be incorporated by the College Sand people at this time because it is too forward thinking.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on May 22, 2012 21:22:02 GMT -5
Weighting is still not a good method.
All the sports having 'benches' are sports where teams are out on the field, use substitutes, etc.
Sand VB is more like golf or tennis or gymnastics, where you have 5/6 individual players (or pairs) out there - none of those sports compares. Indoor VB is also not a good comparison.
Teams already can split up players - and that's not sand-bagging. They can sacrifice the top to spread out talent. That's ok.
Another solution is to count or weight total points won (not just sets) - that would even out the effect some since a team 'throwing away' a match is likely to get relatively few points
Ultimately, to prevent it, without going to the everyone plays everyone method, you should implement a ranknig (based on results - which would take 5 or so matches to build up computerized individual/pair rankings, and then only give a team leeway up/down a notch in setting up your pairings.
Weighting also would reward teams that are less deep than others, as you could have 3 really good players to carry a team, vs an above average across the board team of 10 players would get penalized. No weighting.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on May 24, 2012 20:39:20 GMT -5
Weighting is still not a good method. All the sports having 'benches' are sports where teams are out on the field, use substitutes, etc. Sand VB is more like golf or tennis or gymnastics, where you have 5/6 individual players (or pairs) out there - none of those sports compares. Indoor VB is also not a good comparison. Teams already can split up players - and that's not sand-bagging. They can sacrifice the top to spread out talent. That's ok. Another solution is to count or weight total points won (not just sets) - that would even out the effect some since a team 'throwing away' a match is likely to get relatively few points Ultimately, to prevent it, without going to the everyone plays everyone method, you should implement a ranknig (based on results - which would take 5 or so matches to build up computerized individual/pair rankings, and then only give a team leeway up/down a notch in setting up your pairings. Weighting also would reward teams that are less deep than others, as you could have 3 really good players to carry a team, vs an above average across the board team of 10 players would get penalized. No weighting. Beach Volleyball is unique in that you can't exactly take your 3 good players, and expect them to carry 3 weak players. It just doesn't work like that. Anyone with half a brain is going to limit the effect on the strong player. Either way, I'm fine with a team trying to do this since it is not as easy in practice as it is in theory. What I don't think is OK is moving your teams around, that's not strategy. Plain and simple, if you take your 5th best team, move them to 1st, and bump everyone down, you make your team significantly stronger at 4 of the 5 positions. The main argument is that the other team can do the same. But why turn it into a game of who can randomly pick an order the best? I agree with Dave Fischer. Some good ideas for making teams keeping their good teams in the 1-2, and not the 3-5 slots. Like someone else said though, it is a bit too good for NCAA to consider it. I actually really like his point totals though.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 14, 2013 17:07:56 GMT -5
Hrmmm....
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Mar 14, 2013 21:54:44 GMT -5
What was your point in bumping this (almost) year-old thread?
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 15, 2013 8:57:20 GMT -5
Maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but why not institute a rule that states the pair with the best record is slotted as your #1 team, second best record is slotted as #2 team, etc.? If there are partner changes, just use the combined individual records. For the first 2-4 matches of the season, let the coach set the match-ups as he wants, until each pair has a substantial won-loss record to base their seeding on.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Mar 15, 2013 10:10:59 GMT -5
Maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but why not institute a rule that states the pair with the best record is slotted as your #1 team, second best record is slotted as #2 team, etc.? If there are partner changes, just use the combined individual records. For the first 2-4 matches of the season, let the coach set the match-ups as he wants, until each pair has a substantial won-loss record to base their seeding on. But how are the records any form of comparison when each pair plays a different pair each week? That would probably result in an ever revolving rotation of teams. Going back to last year's idea by Dave, the point system would ensure the top teams play at the top, and the best team should probably win more times than not.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Mar 15, 2013 13:42:36 GMT -5
Maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but why not institute a rule that states the pair with the best record is slotted as your #1 team, second best record is slotted as #2 team, etc.? If there are partner changes, just use the combined individual records. For the first 2-4 matches of the season, let the coach set the match-ups as he wants, until each pair has a substantial won-loss record to base their seeding on. Record would not be the best indication as a pair doesn't play all the other pairs. A school's best team may be able to destroy all the other teams at their school, but lose to most of the other school's #1 teams, while their #4 or #5 pairings could have a winning record. It would be like saying the teams with the best records in indoor volleyball are the best teams in the country, even though their schedules are vastly different.
|
|