|
|
Post by parkplace on Aug 28, 2012 22:19:40 GMT -5
No ranking system is going to be perfect. I think even the USAV system has flaws. Counting your top 10 events over a 1-year period means that new teams have to perform at a high level for a year or longer to even out their seed (see Patterson/Doherty). The AVP system just got under my skin because they were more determined to use AVP finishes, even though they were over two years old, then to get a fairly seeded tournament. All-in-all there really isn't any great injustices in the AVP seeding. Some "old favorites" are being given one more main draw than they likely deserve (JJJ, Davis, Wachtfogel, Baxter, Brazao); but after everything that group has done for the game, hard to argue they don't deserve a break. Honestly the omission of Walsh is the only glaring problem. And I'm sure if she had wanted to play, the AVP would have found a way to accommodate her (or just told her to use Branagh's points). Isn’t the point of competitive sports, to play at a high level? It’s almost like beach volleyball is about who has paid their dues (either with time in the sport or promotional offerings) as opposed to who can play and win. It’s not about how long you’ve been in a business, but about how successful? When young athletic men and women start playing and quickly move up in the seeding I believe this sport will explode into what the fans and players have been waiting for. If it was about AVP finishes for seeding didn’t Phil and Todd win all the tournaments in 2010, the last season the AVP held tournaments? Can someone explain that, please? I’m somehow not following the logic of the seeding points. And where can I find those numbers used to seed this tournament or is it a calculation of past finishes? Thanks. And not many injustices...except maybe in the top 3 seeds for both men and women. And not counting players that are sharing their points. Rose and Gibb are 6th, really? And lastly, re: Walsh- I thought that transparency in its rules and regulations was the new “black” of this sport. Accommodate her? But I believe the AVP is going to get it right and keep it right. They just need to start somewhere and this is it. |
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Aug 29, 2012 6:08:58 GMT -5
Isn’t the point of competitive sports, to play at a high level? It’s almost like beach volleyball is about who has paid their dues (either with time in the sport or promotional offerings) as opposed to who can play and win. It’s not about how long you’ve been in a business, but about how successful? When young athletic men and women start playing and quickly move up in the seeding I believe this sport will explode into what the fans and players have been waiting for. I agree that those players shouldn't be seeded that high; but are you implying the only problem with beach volleyball's popularity is the seeding process? If it was about AVP finishes for seeding didn’t Phil and Todd win all the tournaments in 2010, the last season the AVP held tournaments? Can someone explain that, please? I’m somehow not following the logic of the seeding points. And where can I find those numbers used to seed this tournament or is it a calculation of past finishes? Thanks. Not just AVP finishes. The Cuervo events are in there, too. That is why Rogers/Dalhausser are 2nd. Well that, and the fact that it is top 8 finishes and Rogers/Dalhausser only played 6 AVP events in 2010. avprankings.com/ranking.aspx?Gender=MClick on a name and you will see how the points are calculated for each player. And not many injustices...except maybe in the top 3 seeds for both men and women. And not counting players that are sharing their points. Rose and Gibb are 6th, really? Rosie/Gibb are too low, yes. But I don't think their seed is going to be responsible for them not winning versus winning the tournament. They are going to have to beat the same teams on the way to the finals. It isn't really going to affect them until the quarters. And it's double elimination. What do you mean by sharing points? Seeds have (to my knowledge) always been on a combined individual basis and not a team basis. And kindly explain to me the injustice in the top 3 women's seeds? And lastly, re: Walsh- I thought that transparency in its rules and regulations was the new “black” of this sport. Accommodate her? I was referring to a wildcard to keep her out of the qualifier. Not some backroom deal. Wildcards have always been used. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 29, 2012 9:08:43 GMT -5
Excluding FIVB is somewhat fair because there are a lot of teams that dont have a chance to play in those. If you are Allen/Prosser for example you would have to pay your own way to go over for the qualifier several times, whereas Gibb and Rosie are seeded into the main draw and have been since well before the rankings period. Teams like Jennings and whoever, who can pay to play there would be rewarded over teams that couldnt. I would suggest only counting FIVB points towards the top 10 seeds or so and then not using them for the rest. That way you dont get May/Walsh excluded but Billy Strickland wouldnt be rewarded because he can buy a lot of plane tickets (not saying he would but just an example) Just because you pay to go over there doesn't give you an advantage. You have to get into the main draw and actually perform to get points under the USAV system. A FIVB 33rd gets you 20 or 25 points depending on grand slam or open. That is equivalent to a 25th at a 50k-75k domestic event. A FIVB 25th (if you are automatic main draw and win nothing) is the equivalent to a 17th at most domestic events. I don't see how that is any kind of advantage for those traveling internationally. No ranking system is going to be perfect. I think even the USAV system has flaws. Counting your top 10 events over a 1-year period means that new teams have to perform at a high level for a year or longer to even out their seed (see Patterson/Doherty). The AVP system just got under my skin because they were more determined to use AVP finishes, even though they were over two years old, then to get a fairly seeded tournament. All-in-all there really isn't any great injustices in the AVP seeding. Some "old favorites" are being given one more main draw than they likely deserve (JJJ, Davis, Wachtfogel, Baxter, Brazao); but after everything that group has done for the game, hard to argue they don't deserve a break. Honestly the omission of Walsh is the only glaring problem. And I'm sure if she had wanted to play, the AVP would have found a way to accommodate her (or just told her to use Branagh's points). No but if you are a pretty good player and you keep going eventually you will get some decent results (Kevin Wong the last few years) |
|
|
|
Post by razzo on Aug 29, 2012 17:25:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by boxarox on Aug 29, 2012 18:06:49 GMT -5
Yes, and no.
The point of competitive sports may be to play at a high level, BUT......the point of professional sports is, butts in seats.
That's generally the result of high level play, but not always. People come for other associations too. They may be trying for players whom they think are more popular and more recognizable because of past performances, than players who are doing well now but don't have as broad a fan base -- yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Aug 29, 2012 22:12:24 GMT -5
The latest AVP facebook post seems to say Kerri Walsh will be playing in Cincinnati.
Edit: Just realized that Kerri tweeted that information herself last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by geedawg on Aug 29, 2012 22:31:54 GMT -5
AVP just tweeted Kerri Walsh CCC. SUHHWEEET!!
|
|
|
|
Post by parkplace on Aug 29, 2012 22:56:33 GMT -5
I agree that those players shouldn't be seeded that high; but are you implying the only problem with beach volleyball's popularity is the seeding process? Not just AVP finishes. The Cuervo events are in there, too. That is why Rogers/Dalhausser are 2nd. Well that, and the fact that it is top 8 finishes and Rogers/Dalhausser only played 6 AVP events in 2010. avprankings.com/ranking.aspx?Gender=MClick on a name and you will see how the points are calculated for each player. Rosie/Gibb are too low, yes. But I don't think their seed is going to be responsible for them not winning versus winning the tournament. They are going to have to beat the same teams on the way to the finals. It isn't really going to affect them until the quarters. And it's double elimination. What do you mean by sharing points? Seeds have (to my knowledge) always been on a combined individual basis and not a team basis. And kindly explain to me the injustice in the top 3 women's seeds? I was referring to a wildcard to keep her out of the qualifier. Not some backroom deal. Wildcards have always been used. No, I’m not saying seeding is the only problem because fans want to see good players and a low seed isn’t going to keep good players down. But happy players have charisma and that attracts fans and although I’ve only been following volleyball a short time, it doesn’t seem like there’s been much satisfaction for the players or the fans. What I meant about it exploding is that when there is parity there is excitement and that draws fans. Thanks for pointing me to the rankings page, but I also was not aware that it was more than just AVP tournaments. (Cuervo) Not sure how I missed that but I did. No, I agree it’s not going to hurt Rose and Gibb one way or another, but there must be some reason for seeding and I guess it was more of a point of is it calculated correctly or not? It either is or it isn’t. Is it calculated correctly? “Sharing points” as in Walsh using Branagh’s points so that she doesn’t have to play in qualifiers. Also, I didn’t understand that one of the players has two names she’s played by (didn’t recognize that) and the other player I didn’t realize she was no longer with her recent partner so I was confused. I wasn’t even thinking of the first two seeds. I should have said that. What is a wildcard, exactly, and what are the rules for using it? I’ve only seen it at FIVB and haven’t seen a WC by anyone’s name in US tournaments. Have I missed that too? And if the official seeding is already done, how does that work to add a team? I do appreciate the material that you and others post because it’s always informative, which I want. I appreciate your clarifications. |
|
|
|
Post by parkplace on Aug 29, 2012 22:59:28 GMT -5
Yes, and no. The point of competitive sports may be to play at a high level, BUT......the point of professional sports is, butts in seats. That's generally the result of high level play, but not always. People come for other associations too. They may be trying for players whom they think are more popular and more recognizable because of past performances, than players who are doing well now but don't have as broad a fan base -- yet. Boxarox- You made me laugh! Very funny and that is the bottom line, isn’t it? Butts in the seats. And yes, there is always the next star standing (spiking) by. That’s part of the entertainment. |
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Aug 30, 2012 7:19:41 GMT -5
The latest AVP facebook post seems to say Kerri Walsh will be playing in Cincinnati. Edit: Just realized that Kerri tweeted that information herself last night. And somehow they are the #4 seed. Doesn't add up using avprankings.com. I don't disagree with giving them a higher seed, just seems like AVP is already doing what the players were critical of them in the past - making exceptions for certain players in terms of registration times and also seeding "outside the system." Business standpoint - you gotta get Kerri in there. Competition and player standpoint - AVP is walking a fine line. Hopefully they will come out with some kind of explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Aug 30, 2012 7:27:35 GMT -5
What I meant about it exploding is that when there is parity there is excitement and that draws fans. This point has been debated a lot on this board in the past. I wish it were as you state. It definitely is for me. However, there are a lot of people that argue (and unfortunately rightly so) that "the masses" would rather see the popular team (read May/Walsh) win every time. Look at the Lakers, the Yankees, etc. etc. It either is or it isn’t. Is it calculated correctly? It was until Branagh/Walsh mysteriously got a #4 seed instead of the #8 seed they would have based on the points on avprankings.com. What is a wildcard, exactly, and what are the rules for using it? I’ve only seen it at FIVB and haven’t seen a WC by anyone’s name in US tournaments. Have I missed that too? And if the official seeding is already done, how does that work to add a team? Wildcards are usually teams that a promoter/organizer wants in the tournament regardless of points. FIVB uses the wildcards to normally get one extra home country team in the tournament. I have no idea how they grant the other one. GLM may be able to explain. Some people think it's political. Sometimes it seems like they give it to a "hot" team that misses out on the main draw because too other many teams from the same country have more points then them. The AVP Cincinnati information sheet said the main draw would be the 18 top teams based on points + 2 wildcards. If the wildcards weren't used, then the other two teams would be based on points. It appears for Cincinnati, they are removing one of the qualifier positions. They did not push the (former) #20 team down into the quali. I've never seen a late add like this since I started following the sport closely 3 or 4 years ago, but I'm sure others have seen it plenty. |
|
|
|
Post by geedawg on Aug 30, 2012 9:19:38 GMT -5
I agree put butts into seats. Kerri deserves a high seed simply for winning the gold again. Similarly to the men's side a no. 4 or 6 seed (as in the case of Rosie/Gibb) won't really effect anything. With Kerri coming to Cincy and I would imagine S.B. that will give greater exposure to the sport and to other players. The same goes for Todd/Phil & Rosie/Gibb to a lesser extent. ...and of course Jen/April.   ;D |
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Aug 30, 2012 22:14:44 GMT -5
I don't think the AVP is in any position to ignore late adds, especially high level ones and I wouldn't make a segue to "future problems" since they're just trying to get things started this year with 2 stops.....A national tour is so needed and I would suspend any evaluations for a couple of years till Sun has time to get his model operational. There's an old saying "If you were in that persons position, with all the info they have, you might have done the exact same thing"....
|
|
|
|
Post by parkplace on Aug 31, 2012 0:17:16 GMT -5
I don't think the AVP is in any position to ignore late adds, especially high level ones and I wouldn't make a segue to "future problems" since they're just trying to get things started this year with 2 stops.....A national tour is so needed and I would suspend any evaluations for a couple of years till Sun has time to get his model operational. There's an old saying "If you were in that persons position, with all the info they have, you might have done the exact same thing".... I think the AVP should be in a position to ignore anything that erodes the confidence of the players. I do not have the mindset that the AVP needs to be saved at all costs as that’s been tried before. I think that Mr. Sun had the funds to buy this business and as a businessman has done his due diligence about how much money and time it will take to make it successful. What I don’t know, but hope, is that he will run his business with integrity. I don’t believe anyone is jumping ahead and predicting problems, but maybe others feel as I do…although it may take time to execute a full tour, the integrity of this company should be immediate. And is there anyone who will worry about honest mistakes that might be made along the way? No, I don’t believe so. That’s called learning and discovery. As I said in a post above, I think the AVP is going to get it right and keep it right. They have to start somewhere and use whatever resources they have. And I am not actually paying much attention to these two tournaments as I too appreciate what Mr. Sun is trying to do. But I will be watching, starting with the very first 2013 tournament. As a fan I will be very easy to please: say what you mean and mean what you say; do it right or don’t do it at all, every time. Ladies and gentlemen of the Cinci tourney, start your warm-up pepper and good luck! |
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Aug 31, 2012 2:56:53 GMT -5
I don't think the AVP is in any position to ignore late adds, especially high level ones and I wouldn't make a segue to "future problems" since they're just trying to get things started this year with 2 stops.....A national tour is so needed and I would suspend any evaluations for a couple of years till Sun has time to get his model operational. There's an old saying "If you were in that persons position, with all the info they have, you might have done the exact same thing".... I don't have a problem with the late add or the #4 seed at the end of the day. What I do have a problem with is a company that made a big deal about "transparency" and posting their ranking system for all to see and then going outside that ranking system without an explanation. A simple "we adjusted the seed due to Walsh's unique situation of not playing 2010 AVP events due to maternity or Cuervo events due to her Olympic pursuits" would have more than satisfied me. For what it is worth i did pose the question to them and have only crickets as a response. Maybe they explained it to the players. That is another important side to it in my mind. |
|
