|
Post by n00b on Jul 4, 2014 18:14:58 GMT -5
The clubs, NCAA, and AVCA all have separate interests it seems to me. While the AVCA might make money off of the clubs, ultimately the "business" of the clubs is to funnel players to the NCAA. Without that, the price would be halved, or more. Conflating "club/USAV" as a single interest makes little sense. The vast majority of clubs don't funnel players to the NCAA either. Most of them exist for girls to get better for their high school teams and for the players to enjoy the sport. The teams that played in Minneapolis this past weekend were the top 1% of all club teams. Yes, those clubs groom kids for college. The other 99% do not. International sub rules would cause a mass exodus to JVA/AAU in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 4, 2014 18:40:29 GMT -5
The clubs, NCAA, and AVCA all have separate interests it seems to me. While the AVCA might make money off of the clubs, ultimately the "business" of the clubs is to funnel players to the NCAA. Without that, the price would be halved, or more. Conflating "club/USAV" as a single interest makes little sense. On re-reading your post, it seems that you might be under the impression the AVCA , not USAV, regulates club. That's not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jul 4, 2014 18:42:31 GMT -5
The vast majority of clubs don't funnel players to the NCAA either. Most of them exist for girls to get better for their high school teams and for the players to enjoy the sport. The teams that played in Minneapolis this past weekend were the top 1% of all club teams. Yes, those clubs groom kids for college. The other 99% do not. International sub rules would cause a mass exodus to JVA/AAU in my opinion. The club system does send more players to college, they don't send all of them to Division I exclusively. Division II, III, NAIA etc. I don't have the data in front of me but ever since the USAV opened up JOs, adding two new divisions etc., the number of teams playing at JOs is significantly more than just 1%. While club ball was meant to be a way to get the players to keep playing during the high school off season, college is actually the focus for almost all the travel level teams. It has to do with the cost of traveling as well as increased gym time etc. It's the tail wagging the dog, parents are looking at club as a means to getting college paid for. I am not sure changing the sub rule will send people to JVA/AAU, I think the colleges will raise holy hell. Plus I don't think JVA/AAU would hang on to the 12 sub rule easily.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 4, 2014 18:52:30 GMT -5
As Phaedrus suggests, I suspect the reason USAV hasn't adopted international rules entirely is that it relies so heavily on the NCAA institutions for the training of college-age athletes, and it doesn't want to create an unnecessary rift. But if it chose to adopt the rules, I don't see that there is much the NCAA could actually do. Some clubs might prefer to operate in a system that is more in line with college rules, but USAV has too much influence in the field with it's other pipeines and training and development opportunities, not to mention the increased influence in beach/sand vb, to be disregarded.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 4, 2014 19:14:32 GMT -5
As Phaedrus suggests, I suspect the reason USAV hasn't adopted international rules entirely is that it relies so heavily on the NCAA institutions for the training of college-age athletes, and it doesn't want to create an unnecessary rift. But if it chose to adopt the rules, I don't see that there is much the NCAA could actually do. Some clubs might prefer to operate in a system that is more in line with college rules, but USAV has too much influence in the field with it's other pipeines and training and development opportunities, not to mention the increased influence in beach/sand vb, to be disregarded. The clubs wouldn't care that they aren't operating under NCAA rules, they'd care that their team size would be smaller. With fewer subs, fewer players get into the game and more people get upset. Costs go up for each player (since costs are now being divided by 9 players instead or 11). Plus, now that you can't run a 6-2 and you can't use a DS, you'd reduce participation numbers by a lot by making it very difficult for girls 5'7 and shorter. And I don't think getting into the USA pipeline makes much of a difference. You can play for a JVA club and still be on national teams. Or MAYBE the only reason Carlini won't be setting the 2016 Olympic team is that she played for a JVA-club...
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 4, 2014 19:29:11 GMT -5
Those are definitely valid points. The main point I'm expressing is that USAV is the sanctioning body. They can theoretically establish whatever rules they want, and apart from a wholesale rebellion, there isn't much that clubs can do about it. I'm not advocating that USAV act unilaterally because it's not usually in the best interest of the athlete (e.g. stay and play rules, etc). There is always room for better communication and coordination, however, but that hasn't always been a strength that's been demonstrated.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Jul 4, 2014 20:29:31 GMT -5
Those are definitely valid points. The main point I'm expressing is that USAV is the sanctioning body. They can theoretically establish whatever rules they want, and apart from a wholesale rebellion, there isn't much that clubs can do about it. I'm not advocating that USAV act unilaterally because it's not usually in the best interest of the athlete (e.g. stay and play rules, etc). There is always room for better communication and coordination, however, but that hasn't always been a strength that's been demonstrated. The concerns of club volleyball seem largely an afterthought to the USAV. Hence, JVA.
|
|
|
Post by ja on Jul 4, 2014 22:11:28 GMT -5
By accepting FIVB rules USAV will ultimately kill base money they get for registration. According to USAV we have almost 500,000 volleyball players now participating at club level, who have to pay $55 registration fees. This (with coaches fees) creates almost 30 millions for USAV. Switching to FIBV ruleswill effectively pushed at least 30% of kids out of the club system. Can USAV afford 10 million gap in the budget? Another point about pro volleyball league has been discussed numerous times on this board, and as everybody agreed it would be a pleasure to watch our best players playing at home! How realistic is this? Unfortunately it does not seems like a reality in near future at least. Most countries have three four leveled national Championship. We do have NCAA as some kind of substitution for the league. Even if we will count all colleges with volleyball teams and all players on the rosters we will see that majority of our club players will never play college. I believe that less then 5% of all club players will play for college team. Thanks God, our parents do not know how to be honest and see if DD potential is not enough even for HS, otherwise our clubs will never be profitable. Most countries heavily subsidizing youth sport, we are squeezing out our love for our kids to pay club fees! Maybe if we will cut food stamps and welfare (did I just committed crime?) and redirect those billions to education and sport we might have grow a much healthier generation! And, who knows if even could have few millions to start the league!
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jul 5, 2014 8:01:28 GMT -5
Time to revisit the role of an NGB in the global sports.
USAV is the NGB, National Governing Body, for volleyball in the US. As such, they are the body that fields and certifies the national team, pay for the training and competition for all the national teams, and all the support for the NT.
The NGB is also responsible for the grassroots development of the sport. So juniors is also a part of the mission for USAV. This is where people have a beef with the USAV, that they just see juniors as a cash cow for the NT program.
Now, as the NGB, the USAV is also responsible for disseminating the latest rules of the game to the grassroots. In this case the rules as dictated by the FIVB. The vast majority of the FIVB countries already are in line with the 6 sub rule, the are a minority of countries, but very significant countries who are not. The USA and Australia are two. I don't remember the others.
The FIVB could, if they decided to, take away the qualification certification of the countries who don't fall in line with the FIVB rules, I.e. These countries are not eligible to qualify for the Olympics. The FIVB have not and may not use the big hammer yet, but rest assured, they could and would.
As you can see, the USAV is kind of stuck, tick off their major constituency, the clubs, or the big boss?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 5, 2014 9:41:50 GMT -5
Time to revisit the role of an NGB in the global sports. USAV is the NGB, National Governing Body, for volleyball in the US. As such, they are the body that fields and certifies the national team, pay for the training and competition for all the national teams, and all the support for the NT. The NGB is also responsible for the grassroots development of the sport. So juniors is also a part of the mission for USAV. This is where people have a beef with the USAV, that they just see juniors as a cash cow for the NT program. Now, as the NGB, the USAV is also responsible for disseminating the latest rules of the game to the grassroots. In this case the rules as dictated by the FIVB. The vast majority of the FIVB countries already are in line with the 6 sub rule, the are a minority of countries, but very significant countries who are not. The USA and Australia are two. I don't remember the others. The FIVB could, if they decided to, take away the qualification certification of the countries who don't fall in line with the FIVB rules, I.e. These countries are not eligible to qualify for the Olympics. The FIVB have not and may not use the big hammer yet, but rest assured, they could and would. As you can see, the USAV is kind of stuck, tick off their major constituency, the clubs, or the big boss? Why would the FIVB want to do that? Is there any precedent for that in any sport? The only I sport I can think of to compare is basketball, and America certainly doesn't align with international rules there.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 5, 2014 11:07:32 GMT -5
Time to revisit the role of an NGB in the global sports. USAV is the NGB, National Governing Body, for volleyball in the US. As such, they are the body that fields and certifies the national team, pay for the training and competition for all the national teams, and all the support for the NT. The NGB is also responsible for the grassroots development of the sport. So juniors is also a part of the mission for USAV. This is where people have a beef with the USAV, that they just see juniors as a cash cow for the NT program. Now, as the NGB, the USAV is also responsible for disseminating the latest rules of the game to the grassroots. In this case the rules as dictated by the FIVB. The vast majority of the FIVB countries already are in line with the 6 sub rule, the are a minority of countries, but very significant countries who are not. The USA and Australia are two. I don't remember the others. The FIVB could, if they decided to, take away the qualification certification of the countries who don't fall in line with the FIVB rules, I.e. These countries are not eligible to qualify for the Olympics. The FIVB have not and may not use the big hammer yet, but rest assured, they could and would. As you can see, the USAV is kind of stuck, tick off their major constituency, the clubs, or the big boss? Why would the FIVB want to do that? Is there any precedent for that in any sport? The only I sport I can think of to compare is basketball, and America certainly doesn't align with international rules there. Essentally, the FIVB and international governing bodies are a cartel. Their purpose is to regulate their particular industry (i.e. sport) for profit and development. One of the means by which they regulate and maintain order is by requiring conformity when it suits their purposes. The FIVB maintains strict control over the international competitions and highest professional levels, but it doesn't intervene too much in junior club because they don't profit from it directly--the NGB is the direct beneficiary in that case. The junior system in the US is pretty different from most countries, and especially those with professional leagues. In many other countries, the junior market is oriented towards identifying and retaining talent at an early age, and the FIVB has imposed rules regarding contracts and transfers that help protect the investment of a club in the early training and development of promising athletes. The NBA is a separate, private domestic league and it has the resources to operate outside of any national or international oversight. A professional volleyball league operating in the US would not have to operate under FIVB or USAV oversight, but they would not be able to use national team players or international transfers, which would make their sustainability pretty difficult.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 5, 2014 15:02:55 GMT -5
I think the NCAA adopting FIVB substitution rules is only slightly more likely than returning to single-platoon football. While only a minority of club players go onto play college volleyball (with scholarships or as walk-ons), it is the potential of earning a scholarship that supports the price and creates the profit.
It seems to me that FIVB increasing substitutions, first to eight, then to ten, would be much more likely.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 5, 2014 16:23:38 GMT -5
I think the NCAA adopting FIVB substitution rules is only slightly more likely than returning to single-platoon football. While only a minority of club players go onto play college volleyball (with scholarships or as walk-ons), it is the potential of earning a scholarship that supports the price and creates the profit. It seems to me that FIVB increasing substitutions, first to eight, then to ten, would be much more likely. The FIVB doesn't need to increase in-match playing opportunities. The number of national teams are predictable and fairly constant, so it doesn't benefit it in any way to increase rosters or participation within an existing team (it does have an interest in increasing the quality of play and number of participating countries/teams such as Africa). They make money from the actual competitions and the sponsorship money, which is maximized by ensuring that the very best players from each nation are represented. It serves no purpose to incrementally increase substitutions--if more substitutions were useful, they would simply increase the substitution rules to whatever number was determined to be most beneficial. The NCAA has a fundamentally different interest in participation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 16:28:28 GMT -5
I think the NCAA adopting FIVB substitution rules is only slightly more likely than returning to single-platoon football. While only a minority of club players go onto play college volleyball (with scholarships or as walk-ons), it is the potential of earning a scholarship that supports the price and creates the profit. It seems to me that FIVB increasing substitutions, first to eight, then to ten, would be much more likely. A minority of club players go on to play college volleyball?
|
|
|
Post by ja on Jul 5, 2014 19:29:13 GMT -5
I think the NCAA adopting FIVB substitution rules is only slightly more likely than returning to single-platoon football. While only a minority of club players go onto play college volleyball (with scholarships or as walk-ons), it is the potential of earning a scholarship that supports the price and creates the profit. It seems to me that FIVB increasing substitutions, first to eight, then to ten, would be much more likely. A minority of club players go on to play college volleyball? Yes, why it surprise you?
|
|