|
|
Post by downtheline on Feb 17, 2015 23:04:03 GMT -5
1. Expand the coaches advisory board.
2. Keep an open mind and implement advisory board concepts, except when Pep wants to eliminate the pairs championship.
3. Create student athlete advisory board for this and every NCAA sport. They play, so give them a say!
4. Allow for more than 2 paid coaches.
5. Encourage schools like Nebraska to actually play more than one week if they expect to participate in Championships.
6. Limit changes to 1-5 ranking throughout season so coaches don't game the system from match to match.
7. Allow athletes to participate in AVP & FIVB points events during offseason, even once school as started in Sept. (sans prize $$, its about the points)
8. Allow for more scholarships. You cannot create parody by handicapping, social engineering is for politicians not sportman.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Feb 21, 2015 18:06:26 GMT -5
9. Rename it beach volleyball.
|
|
|
|
Post by austintatious on Feb 23, 2015 11:53:25 GMT -5
1. Expand the coaches advisory board. 2. Keep an open mind and implement advisory board concepts, except when Pep wants to eliminate the pairs championship. 3. Create student athlete advisory board for this and every NCAA sport. They play, so give them a say! 4. Allow for more than 2 paid coaches. 5. Encourage schools like Nebraska to actually play more than one week if they expect to participate in Championships. 6. Limit changes to 1-5 ranking throughout season so coaches don't game the system from match to match. 7. Allow athletes to participate in AVP & FIVB points events during offseason, even once school as started in Sept. (sans prize $$, its about the points) 8. Allow for more scholarships. You cannot create parody by handicapping, social engineering is for politicians not sportman. 1. Always better to have a wider range of input. 2. fair request 3. Do other sports have one? If so, should mirror other sports. 4. really?? 5. can't dictate this to schools. 6. they are using the tennis guidelines if I am not mistaken, don't see this changing. 7. Not sure of eligibility issues here. Don't expect Sand VB specific waivers from NCAA 8. Always |
|
|
|
Post by downtheline on Feb 23, 2015 16:20:42 GMT -5
3. No I haven't seen one, that is why I think there should be one. The athletes are subservient to the NCAA, schools & coaches without representation, imho.
4. Do you work for free? Who wants too. And 2 coaches is not enough to train these teams, ask any player or coach trying to train right now.
5. Yes you could, you either play more than a week or a full schedule or you don't qualify for a playoff spot. Doesn't matter for NE as they won't go anyway.
6. This is not tennis, the sport should stand on its' own with its' own set of rules, imho
7. Eligibility isn't at stake as this is not about earning money, just points toward Olympic opportunities before completing college. Currently NCAA prevents these kids from earning international points after school starts which kills any chance of earning an Olympic spot while in college. One simple change would allow this to happen and it has nothing to do with what other NCAA sports are doing, it has everything to do with the system for earning points toward the 2 USA Olympic teams.
Swimmers, gymnasts & track & field athletes are able to work out earning their respective Olympic spots on team USA while in college so why the penalty on sand VB players?
As simple as adding 2 months of eligibility to play after Sept. Is that a difficult change to wrap your head around? Practice doesn't start until another month on campus!
Nina would have retained Summer for the duration if this was in place. Others may take the same route which hurts the college sand game.
Our Olympic players rank among the oldest in the world, that doesn't bode well for the future when the system locks out the up and comers until they graduate from college.
|
|
|
|
Post by fetchin on Feb 23, 2015 17:29:55 GMT -5
How about having a pairs championship??
Just having a team championship is boring, It will be Pepp or USC every damn year.
|
|
|
|
Post by downtheline on Feb 23, 2015 18:03:54 GMT -5
How about having a pairs championship?? Just having a team championship is boring, It will be Pepp or USC every damn year. Top of the list. Thanks I mentioned that in another thread & forgot here... The pairs competition has been very exciting these past years. Different team(s) winning each time. |
|
|
|
Post by butteryhands on Feb 23, 2015 20:51:38 GMT -5
Make it mens instead of womens. Not going to happen, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by pnw_mark on Feb 25, 2015 10:57:07 GMT -5
In regards to the Olympic Qualification process, the players are free to play tournaments for their country just not AVP or like events (CVBA etc). In fact sisters who play for LSU just won a qualy for their country of Guatemala a week ago in an effort to try to get to Rio.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 25, 2015 12:31:54 GMT -5
2. Keep an open mind and implement advisory board concepts, except when Pep wants to eliminate the pairs championship.
HAVE THE PAIRS CHAMPIONSHIP ON THE WEST COAST 1 WEEK AFTER TEAM championship @ GULF COAST: Manhattan, LB, or Hermosa, = MORE EXPOSURE for the CHAMPIONSHIPs. 12 by RANKINGs, & 4 for AT-LARGE, or SOME SIMILAR SYSTEM
4. Allow for more than 2 paid coaches.
WHY, REALLY?? ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR MID-MAJORs FINANCIALLY. NOT EVEN NECESSARY
6. Limit changes to 1-5 ranking throughout season so coaches don't game the system from match to match.
PLAY ROUND ROBIN 1 SET to 15, EACH of 5 TEAMs - THIS IS AN EASY SOLUTION TO PREVENT GAMING, & AND WOULD ALSO HELP EQUALIZE RANKINGS
8. Allow for more scholarships. You cannot create parody by handicapping, social engineering is for politicians not sportman.
MORE SCHOLLIES = MORE DILUTION FOR INDOOR
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by downtheline on Feb 25, 2015 13:08:44 GMT -5
In regards to the Olympic Qualification process, the players are free to play tournaments for their country just not AVP or like events (CVBA etc). In fact sisters who play for LSU just won a qualy for their country of Guatemala a week ago in an effort to try to get to Rio. NCAA players are currently able to play pro tournaments both here and abroad. They can utilize any monetary winnings for incurred expenses only per event. They must stop participating in any pro events once school starts in Sept unless the event is USAV sanctioned. I would like to see the Sept cut off time moved forward into Nov. It is the last two months of the Pro/points season where without those points opportunities, they will never earn enough points to qualify for a spot to represent Team USA. Furthermore no pro wants to take on on of these athletes due to the work stoppage in Sept. Several pro's have inquired about partnering with a current NCAA player, but when they find out she cannot play past Sept, they have to pass for points opportunity reasons only. So, the NCAA is currently hampering the Olympic dreams in the USA and that is short sided and actually heavy handed, imho. |
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Feb 25, 2015 18:43:08 GMT -5
8. Allow for more scholarships. You cannot create parody by handicapping, social engineering is for politicians not sportman. MORE SCHOLLIES = MORE DILUTION FOR INDOOR Giving students more choices is a bad thing? |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 25, 2015 23:47:05 GMT -5
8. Allow for more scholarships. You cannot create parody by handicapping, social engineering is for politicians not sportman. MORE SCHOLLIES = MORE DILUTION FOR INDOOR Giving students more choices is a bad thing? not necessarily - depends on what the goal is - students can go sand without a rule offering more schollies, it's the choice of the student as to where they go. more schollies is more schollies - & someone has to pay for them. it's more tuition paid by somebody other than the athlete . why shouldn't men's tennis be full schollies like women? and give more student-athlete's "more choices" why shouldn't men's basketball give 15 schollies like women? and give more student-athlete's "more choices" the "more choices" argument can be simplistic |
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Feb 26, 2015 13:29:50 GMT -5
not necessarily - depends on what the goal is - students can go sand without a rule offering more schollies, it's the choice of the student as to where they go. more schollies is more schollies - & someone has to pay for them. it's more tuition paid by somebody other than the athlete . why shouldn't men's tennis be full schollies like women? and give more student-athlete's "more choices" why shouldn't men's basketball give 15 schollies like women? and give more student-athlete's "more choices" the "more choices" argument can be simplistic I interpreted your previous comment as: if there are more sand vb scholarships offered, then some elite players might choose to play sand instead of indoor, and thereby indoor vb will be diminished. Maybe my interpretation was incorrect. My point was that if more sand vb scholarships are offered, more volleyball players will have the option to pursue sand vb instead of indoor vb, if they choose to, and still receive that aid. Comparing men's sports to women's sports then is not really relevant, because a student cannot (generally) choose to play women's tennis rather than men's tennis. And I am sure you understand that Title IX has a lot to do with differences in scholarships for men's and women's sports. If you are just talking about the monetary impact of additional scholarships, that's a different issue. Not negligible, certainly. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 26, 2015 19:18:05 GMT -5
not necessarily - depends on what the goal is - students can go sand without a rule offering more schollies, it's the choice of the student as to where they go. more schollies is more schollies - & someone has to pay for them. it's more tuition paid by somebody other than the athlete . why shouldn't men's tennis be full schollies like women? and give more student-athlete's "more choices" why shouldn't men's basketball give 15 schollies like women? and give more student-athlete's "more choices" the "more choices" argument can be simplistic I interpreted your previous comment as: if there are more sand vb scholarships offered, then some elite players might choose to play sand instead of indoor, and thereby indoor vb will be diminished. Maybe my interpretation was incorrect. My point was that if more sand vb scholarships are offered, more volleyball players will have the option to pursue sand vb instead of indoor vb, if they choose to, and still receive that aid. Comparing men's sports to women's sports then is not really relevant, because a student cannot (generally) choose to play women's tennis rather than men's tennis. And I am sure you understand that Title IX has a lot to do with differences in scholarships for men's and women's sports. If you are just talking about the monetary impact of additional scholarships, that's a different issue. Not negligible, certainly. your interpretation was correct. that choice is already there for them now - they just may not receiver aid. They still do have a choice! they may not like the choice. understand your sentiment - my point is the consequences aren't necessarily better just by having someone else foot a bigger bill than the student ahtlete |
|
