|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 12, 2013 19:39:39 GMT -5
It would be interesting to analyze how many scoring swings there are in a 30-pt, 25-pt, and 21-pt match. It is the team on the upswing at the end of a set that often wins. On the other hand, play every set to 15, with the first to win 5 sets (out of 8) the winner. Call it Blitz Volleyball... Is it best 4 out of 7 or 5 out of 9? I though I heard a proposal for best out of 7 to 21 pts. More commercial ops per set this way. Have to be able to pay to get volleyball on TV. Yeah it should have been 5 out of 9. On the other hand, 5 out of 8 (15-pt sets) would require winning by two sets, which might be interesting. After all, you have to win the sets by two.
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Sept 12, 2013 19:55:24 GMT -5
ME 2, I want the chance for bagels back! Do you suppose that we could somehow structure the FIVA so that the more changes they make the less they get payed?
|
|
|
Post by James on Sept 12, 2013 22:44:27 GMT -5
Here's an idea. How about we play 3 out of 5 to 15 but the only team that can score is the serving team? Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 13, 2013 2:02:53 GMT -5
The only scoring change I think is really necessary is to eliminate "win by two". It should be replaced with "must win from serve."
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 13, 2013 10:17:35 GMT -5
The only scoring change I think is really necessary is to eliminate "win by two". It should be replaced with "must win from serve." Why? I know it always heartbreaking to see a match end on a service error,*** but in the end, in order to win the match by 2, you have to score more points on your serve than your opponent. Why does that matter if you did it at the beginning of the match or at the end? Moreover, from a realistic standpoint, there are always a few points on serve in a set - even in the 5th set, we see something like 5, 6, 7 per team. So the horror situation of "a team gets a point on their first serve and then wins by siding out the rest of the way" just never happens. If you are serving with the other team on set point, then they have out-performed you in scoring on serve. Why should they have to do more? ***Besides, I love the challenge of the losing team having to serve - it creates a really tough strategy question, do we serve sufficiently conservatively to avoid the error? Or do we serve tough and maximize our chances of scoring? (actually, in real life the question isn't really that tough, because the answer is obvious, but you'd be amazed at how many people think they should not choose the best strategy for scoring in that situation)
|
|
|
Post by meanmug on Sept 13, 2013 11:11:25 GMT -5
I believe the Brazilian league is going to 21-point games this season.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 13, 2013 12:32:59 GMT -5
The only scoring change I think is really necessary is to eliminate "win by two". It should be replaced with "must win from serve." Why? I know it always heartbreaking to see a match end on a service error,*** but in the end, in order to win the match by 2, you have to score more points on your serve than your opponent. Why does that matter if you did it at the beginning of the match or at the end? Moreover, from a realistic standpoint, there are always a few points on serve in a set - even in the 5th set, we see something like 5, 6, 7 per team. So the horror situation of "a team gets a point on their first serve and then wins by siding out the rest of the way" just never happens. If you are serving with the other team on set point, then they have out-performed you in scoring on serve. Why should they have to do more? ***Besides, I love the challenge of the losing team having to serve - it creates a really tough strategy question, do we serve sufficiently conservatively to avoid the error? Or do we serve tough and maximize our chances of scoring? (actually, in real life the question isn't really that tough, because the answer is obvious, but you'd be amazed at how many people think they should not choose the best strategy for scoring in that situation) I should add that if a set is tied at 24 or greater, then the winning team must already score on their serve to win the set.
|
|
|
Post by arick2582 on Sept 13, 2013 21:10:47 GMT -5
I don't see why they have to try and make the game faster or shorter. In American football a 15 min quarter can take an hour and nobody complains about that.
|
|
|
Post by kro2488 on Sept 13, 2013 21:34:19 GMT -5
I don't see why they have to try and make the game faster or shorter. In American football a 15 min quarter can take an hour and nobody complains about that. That's what I miss about the old vball scoring system. Evenly matched teams could duke it out forever...
|
|
|
Post by arick2582 on Sept 13, 2013 21:40:42 GMT -5
I don't see why they have to try and make the game faster or shorter. In American football a 15 min quarter can take an hour and nobody complains about that. That's what I miss about the old vball scoring system. Evenly matched teams could duke it out forever... Definitely. I love long matches. I don't want to watch if it's over in 45 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Sept 13, 2013 22:14:18 GMT -5
Nah, that'll never work. You can run the danger of having one team fighting so hard siding out that you can drag a 15 point game out in to hours. Who'd want to see that! ME! You don't count in this, VBCOACH. They need to find people who currently don't like volleyball who would like it if only they'd ruin change the way it was scored and played.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 13, 2013 22:36:52 GMT -5
Remember when the talk was volleyball needed to change to rally score to make it more "TV friendly"? I was just looking through the TV listings tonight. NO VOLLEYBALL. Guess it wasn't the scoring system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 22:46:11 GMT -5
The only scoring change I think is really necessary is to eliminate "win by two". It should be replaced with "must win from serve." Why? I know it always heartbreaking to see a match end on a service error,*** but in the end, in order to win the match by 2, you have to score more points on your serve than your opponent. Why does that matter if you did it at the beginning of the match or at the end? Moreover, from a realistic standpoint, there are always a few points on serve in a set - even in the 5th set, we see something like 5, 6, 7 per team. So the horror situation of "a team gets a point on their first serve and then wins by siding out the rest of the way" just never happens. If you are serving with the other team on set point, then they have out-performed you in scoring on serve. Why should they have to do more? ***Besides, I love the challenge of the losing team having to serve - it creates a really tough strategy question, do we serve sufficiently conservatively to avoid the error? Or do we serve tough and maximize our chances of scoring? (actually, in real life the question isn't really that tough, because the answer is obvious, but you'd be amazed at how many people think they should not choose the best strategy for scoring in that situation) I should add that if a set is tied at 24 or greater, then the winning team must already score on their serve to win the set. I don't know if this is mike's point, but the receiving team only needs to win by one service point in rally score. Maybe not a big deal to 25, but to 15 it is.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 14, 2013 7:53:23 GMT -5
I should add that if a set is tied at 24 or greater, then the winning team must already score on their serve to win the set. I don't know if this is mike's point, but the receiving team only needs to win by one service point in rally score. Maybe not a big deal to 25, but to 15 it is. No, it's not a "big deal" in a set to 15. That's because it never happens. In all the years you have been complaining about this, has there been a single example of it happening. I don't think so. It's not a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Sept 14, 2013 8:21:42 GMT -5
***Besides, I love the challenge of the losing team having to serve - it creates a really tough strategy question, do we serve sufficiently conservatively to avoid the error? Or do we serve tough and maximize our chances of scoring? (actually, in real life the question isn't really that tough, because the answer is obvious, but you'd be amazed at how many people think they should not choose the best strategy for scoring in that situation) I'm interested to hear the "obvious" answer here, since it really is pretty dependent on your team and the exact situation. I don't know if this is mike's point, but the receiving team only needs to win by one service point in rally score. Maybe not a big deal to 25, but to 15 it is. No, it's not a "big deal" in a set to 15. That's because it never happens. In all the years you have been complaining about this, has there been a single example of it happening. I don't think so. It's not a problem. In reality, there is no way you know of every game going on all over the world to even make such a ridiculous statement that it has never happened. I don't know what level of the game you are involved with, nor do I really care, but as the level gets higher, earning points is not as easy.
|
|