|
Post by johnbar on Sept 15, 2014 18:55:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Sept 15, 2014 19:14:13 GMT -5
Roberts/Nielsen at 14th is going to ruin someone's day
|
|
|
Post by donnyb on Sept 15, 2014 20:21:55 GMT -5
Pretty tough first game and probably want win the second game. Could be wrong but they got some tough draws. Roberts/Nielsen at 14th is going to ruin someone's day
|
|
|
Post by vb1987 on Sept 15, 2014 22:26:09 GMT -5
The #5 seed in the qualifier has won 1 match ever in a quali. Other than that match, look at the scores. I cant imagine that this is what the AVP had in mind when they came up with this point system. Pretty bad.
The 19/14 matchup is insane. That's a game you would expect to see to get in normally. Then the winner gets bates/McKenzie. Tough draw for those boys.
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Sept 16, 2014 7:30:10 GMT -5
Phil & Sean are now listed too.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Sept 16, 2014 9:19:47 GMT -5
The #5 seed in the qualifier has won 1 match ever in a quali. Other than that match, look at the scores. I cant imagine that this is what the AVP had in mind when they came up with this point system. Pretty bad. The 19/14 matchup is insane. That's a game you would expect to see to get in normally. Then the winner gets bates/McKenzie. Tough draw for those boys. I didnt think about this that much until seeing what you wrote, but this really irritates me Extending this seeding thing down to the qualifier makes no sense at all but AVP qualifier seeding in general is really dumb. The 5 seed you mentioned is actually an interesting history. That team is 1-4 this year and 2-9 in game record. (career 1-5, 2-11) They started as the 45 seed in St. Peter and got destroyed (13, 8) by the 38th seed. Taking that ass-kicking enabled them to move up to the 29 seed in Salt Lake, where they also got a bye. Thats right a bye for a team that had never won a qualifier game and in four games had never scored 15 points. Not surprisingly they lost in two again, although they did get 15 in a game (losing 15, 14). Now that two set loss, let them move up to the 12th seed in the Manhattan Beach qualifier! WTF??? At Manhattan, a team with a career best finish of a two game 15, 14 loss got a bye and was seeded ahead of around 20 players with main draw experience, including some who played in the Main Draw last year. A team that had never won a qualifier game (let alone a match) In a remarkable surprise they lost in two again, although they did get 17 in a game. Finally their seed went down, from 12 to 14. In Cinci they managed to beat a team (although that team hasn't won a qualifier game in six years) Now they are a five seed, while Adam Roberts, who has played in more than 50 main draws and has two 9ths this year and Nielsen, who played with Casey Jennings last year are 14th. And that hurts every team in that part of the bracket. As mentioned, Will Montgomery, who is a main draw regular has to beat Roberts/Nielsen and Bates/McKenzie just to get in. Those two wins would normally get you a 9th place. Meanwhile the Bomgrens just have to show up to get into the Main Draw. These qualifier guys sacrifice a lot to go to these tournaments (although not so much in Huntington) and they deserve better than this. Hudson has to fly out from VA or FL or wherever he lives now, and now has a 50/50 chance to win anything, and based on what? Ammerman, who I dont know, is probably playing to hold on to Montgomery and now has a very low chance of doing so, since those guys will struggle to qualify.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballer4life on Sept 16, 2014 9:35:00 GMT -5
The #5 seed in the qualifier has won 1 match ever in a quali. Other than that match, look at the scores. I cant imagine that this is what the AVP had in mind when they came up with this point system. Pretty bad. The 19/14 matchup is insane. That's a game you would expect to see to get in normally. Then the winner gets bates/McKenzie. Tough draw for those boys. I didnt think about this that much until seeing what you wrote, but this really irritates me Extending this seeding thing down to the qualifier makes no sense at all but AVP qualifier seeding in general is really dumb. The 5 seed you mentioned is actually an interesting history. That team is 1-4 this year and 2-9 in game record. (career 1-5, 2-11) They started as the 45 seed in St. Peter and got destroyed (13, 8) by the 38th seed. Taking that ass-kicking enabled them to move up to the 29 seed in Salt Lake, where they also got a bye. Thats right a bye for a team that had never won a qualifier game and in four games had never scored 15 points. Not surprisingly they lost in two again, although they did get 15 in a game (losing 15, 14). Now that two set loss, let them move up to the 12th seed in the Manhattan Beach qualifier! WTF??? At Manhattan, a team with a career best finish of a two game 15, 14 loss got a bye and was seeded ahead of around 20 players with main draw experience, including some who played in the Main Draw last year. A team that had never won a qualifier game (let alone a match) In a remarkable surprise they lost in two again, although they did get 17 in a game. Finally their seed went down, from 12 to 14. In Cinci they managed to beat a team (although that team hasn't won a qualifier game in six years) Now they are a five seed, while Adam Roberts, who has played in more than 50 main draws and has two 9ths this year and Nielsen, who played with Casey Jennings last year are 14th. And that hurts every team in that part of the bracket. As mentioned, Will Montgomery, who is a main draw regular has to beat Roberts/Nielsen and Bates/McKenzie just to get in. Those two wins would normally get you a 9th place. Meanwhile the Bomgrens just have to show up to get into the Main Draw. These qualifier guys sacrifice a lot to go to these tournaments (although not so much in Huntington) and they deserve better than this. Hudson has to fly out from VA or FL or wherever he lives now, and now has a 50/50 chance to win anything, and based on what? Ammerman, who I dont know, is probably playing to hold on to Montgomery and now has a very low chance of doing so, since those guys will struggle to qualify. Why reward bad teams for sticking together? The 5 seed, who are 1-4 this year, get rewarded for sticking together and locking down Not disagreeing with anything you said but I'd like to go a layer further. The quote that stands out to me is "These qualifier guys sacrifice a lot to go to these tournaments and deserve better than this". I recognize it's building itself back up, but if we're going to take that approach, I'd feel more sympathy for the teams that regularly finish 17th-21st and literally don't have a dime to show for it. I bet if you gave teams the choice to vote on a different seeding structure or payout that went further than 13th, you'd get support for the latter. I say this as a player who honestly does it for the love of the game and doesn't expect to make money - but if I was one of those teams that are on the cusp, I'd be extremely downtrodden at the expectations of players if they want to become a top-12 team. You have to play 3-4 matches on Thursday almost every time, only to play a top-4 seed, and somehow you have to take a 9th or better multiple times in a row and hope one of the other main draw teams gets lower every time. That's an EXTREMELY daunting task. If I was looking at it from a business perspective, I'd be REALLY happy with the AVP if I was a top-12 team and would consider picking up a new hobby if I was 13-20.. That being said, can't deny the progress they've made from Year 1 to Year 2 and hope it continues.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Sept 16, 2014 10:10:33 GMT -5
I agree with you about expanding the Main Draw some. I wonder has there really been progress this year though?
Last year there were seven tournaments, this year there are seven. The money seems about the same.
I do think the fact that six of them were in the same cities this year is a good step and from what I watched on the stream, attendance seemed slightly improved. The stream has been good this year and the website is ok, if a little annoying to navigate at times. (for example when there was video from past events, why not make that easy to find?)
I havent been paying that much attention to sponsorships, but maybe some progress there?
|
|
|
Post by vb1987 on Sept 16, 2014 10:23:55 GMT -5
I agree 100% with Guest2, the lower level main draw/upper level quali teams sacrifice a lot and "pay their dues" (quite literally). Its just unfortunate that someone came up with this bright idea for seeding. Oh well, live and learn I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Sept 16, 2014 10:31:26 GMT -5
Just to add fuel to the fire, I believe the below would be the qualifier brackets using the last 4 events (but only 2014 events) regardless of partner.
I grouped them into "pods" so you could see who would have to play each other to make the main draw.
#1 Bates/McKienzie #32 Berzins/Onishchenko #33 Davis/Gregan #16 Kohler/Medero #17 Honer/Spencer #9 Cabbage/Rosener #24 Hilling/Nino #41 Bomberg/Lee #25 Love/Signorini #40 Evans/Jones #8 Iordanov/Maghy
#2 McColloch/Olson #31 Burkhardt/Thibodeau #34 Aronchick/Rowker #15 McDermand/Quillen #18 Hunkin/Peterson #10 Newman/Robbins #23 Colina/Olenchalk #26 Gyulai/Lesniak #39 Manuel/Young #7 McGuire/Mesko
#3 Lochhead/Marchewka #30 Fleming/Storey #35 Burgoyne/Lucas #19 May/Tusieseina #14 Gustafson/Paulis #11 Ammerman/Montgomery #22 Lynch/Miller #27 Gray/Panther #38 Dauburs/Forbes #6 Nielsen/Roberts
#4 Burik/Donohue #29 Alvarez/Bohls #36 Kolczak/Vaught #13 Gortych/Tralka #20 Araiza/Brunsting #12 DelSol/Robbins #21 Barnes/Theunissen #28 Holland/Kulhavy-Sutherland #37 Wolfe/Wolfe #5 Bomgren/Bomgren
Oddly enough, while this bracket is probably more reasonable (not familiar enough with most of these teams to say), Roberts/Nielsen would still have to go through Montgomery/Ammerman and Lochhead/Marchewka to get in.
|
|
|
Post by unrated on Sept 16, 2014 10:47:53 GMT -5
Geezus, Klazk... nice work. Do you actually work for Rich Kern, bvbinfo, or some fivb equivalent? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Sept 16, 2014 11:04:55 GMT -5
I think the AVP has to stop rewarding just showing up. The 5 seed team is a perfect example of this. Under normal seeding they would be ranked 13th. Davis/Gregan are seeded 16th. Matt and Kevin are not great players, but they are a tough out and have qualified once. They havent played all the qualifiers this year, which is why they are seeded lower than the other team, but look at their records for the last two years. Kevin is 3-1 in qualifier matches and made a main draw at Manhattan last year. The other team is 2-9 (with a horrible game record). The second team basically gets a participation trophy.
Araiza, who made a main draw this year at Manhattan has a 4-1 qualifier record this year, and 9-3 over the last two with wins over good teams. I think his team is seeded 20th in Klazk's calculations. How is that fair?
There are other examples that arent as egregious, but its clear that to be fair, the qualifier seeding system needs to change.
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Sept 16, 2014 11:48:50 GMT -5
Look on the women's side, Schumaker/Davis have come through the Q in every tourney together and failed only once NOT to win a MD match....and their in the Q. It's a little different because of some higher level partner switches on the Women's side, but that has to stink for them.
I've thought there should be bigger point differentials between 9 & 13, and 13 & 17(not Main Draw). Reward teams for winning in the MD. Or somehow give a bonus for a seed upset (does tennis do that?)
|
|
|
Post by boxarox on Sept 16, 2014 15:29:25 GMT -5
Phil & Sean are now listed too. Watch for Tramblie subbing for Phil, Ratledge for Grotowski.
|
|
|
Post by vballjj on Sept 16, 2014 15:31:13 GMT -5
No doubt the seeding makes no sense. The final list has been recently submitted so expect some shifts in the qualifier
|
|