|
|
Post by VolleyTX on Feb 8, 2016 17:49:56 GMT -5
I know. I know. I'm beating a dead horse here, but here goes anyway.
I've watched a few NCAA men's matches over the last month or two, and I feel like I'm watching professional volleyball. I didn't feel this way just 4 years ago. I expect to see more and more of the top NCAA talent become superstars professionally (ala Matt Anderson).
A few things that I think are stifling the development of our young women.
1. Stupid substitution rules. We've beat this to death, so I won't say more.
2. Too many teams resulting in watered down talent and competition.
3. This is a bit of a guess: I'm assuming that young girls don't play as many different sports as young men do growing up which suppress some of their natural athleticism.
4. and those stupid substitution rules.
I know there are benefits to have more people playing etc, but I'm simply focused on the fact that we seem to be churning out more top talent .... ready to go on the men's side considering the participation rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 8, 2016 18:20:29 GMT -5
I know. I know. I'm beating a dead horse here, but here goes anyway. I've watched a few NCAA men's matches over the last month or two, and I feel like I'm watching professional volleyball. I didn't feel this way just 4 years ago. I expect to see more and more of the top NCAA talent become superstars professionally (ala Matt Anderson). A few things that I think are stifling the development of our young women. 1. Stupid substitution rules. We've beat this to death, so I won't say more. 2. Too many teams resulting in watered down talent and competition. 3. This is a bit of a guess: I'm assuming that young girls don't play as many different sports as young men do growing up which suppress some of their natural athleticism. 4. and those stupid substitution rules. I know there are benefits to have more people playing etc, but I'm simply focused on the fact that we seem to be churning out more top talent .... ready to go on the men's side considering the participation rate. Are we implying that it's a good thing to feel like you're watching pro ball? I watch 10 times as much college basketball as I do NBA. The product is different, "better" is in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Feb 8, 2016 18:24:15 GMT -5
Are substitution rules different for boys' club ball?
Different divisions seem to help with the watering down that may occur, not to mention power leagues and the mandatory tourneys, tour of Texas, etc.
I've seen guys being forced to choose one sport early just as much as girls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 18:24:52 GMT -5
What do you mean by "too many teams"? This is the STRENGTH of women's volleyball. Yes, the sport would look more like pro leagues if only the top 20-30 teams existed, but we don't want that, do we?
Sub rules at the lower levels are what are hurting players, not at the NCAA level. When you have 12U teams with middles who never play the back row something is seriously wrong. Heck, when you have 12U players who never play the FRONT row, you have a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by oshkoshdadmjs on Feb 8, 2016 18:25:19 GMT -5
Are substitution rules different for boys' club ball? Different divisions seem to help with the watering down that may occur, not to mention power leagues and the mandatory tourneys, tour of Texas, etc. I've seen guys being forced to choose one sport early just as much as girls. All USAV are the same, boys just play with the higher net. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 18:26:30 GMT -5
I'd also add that our NT is one of the best in the world, if not THE best.
|
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Feb 8, 2016 18:30:38 GMT -5
Are substitution rules different for boys' club ball? Different divisions seem to help with the watering down that may occur, not to mention power leagues and the mandatory tourneys, tour of Texas, etc. I've seen guys being forced to choose one sport early just as much as girls. All USAV are the same, boys just play with the higher net. So that argument doesn't hold much water. The majority of development is before college. |
|
|
|
Post by oshkoshdadmjs on Feb 8, 2016 18:35:21 GMT -5
I know. I know. I'm beating a dead horse here, but here goes anyway. I've watched a few NCAA men's matches over the last month or two, and I feel like I'm watching professional volleyball. I didn't feel this way just 4 years ago. I expect to see more and more of the top NCAA talent become superstars professionally (ala Matt Anderson). A few things that I think are stifling the development of our young women. 1. Stupid substitution rules. We've beat this to death, so I won't say more. 2. Too many teams resulting in watered down talent and competition. 3. This is a bit of a guess: I'm assuming that young girls don't play as many different sports as young men do growing up which suppress some of their natural athleticism. 4. and those stupid substitution rules. I know there are benefits to have more people playing etc, but I'm simply focused on the fact that we seem to be churning out more top talent .... ready to go on the men's side considering the participation rate. In general, men's volleyball is just growing a ton. The amount of teams in jr tournaments have more than doubled in the past 5 or 6 years, the kids are bigger/stronger/better athletes, the sport is growing to new and different states, etc. Honestly, watching 18s boys this year is like night and day from watching it just 6 years ago. Additionally, the offenses that midwest teams always had to use to even compete with cali teams are universally used by all men's NCAA teams (no more sky balls to the outside and lack of middles). Just looking at the players that could play D1 10 years ago vs. now you can see the difference (Matt Anderson's college setter was ~6'0"; no college setter could be that short anymore). |
|
|
|
Post by oshkoshdadmjs on Feb 8, 2016 18:37:43 GMT -5
All of this combined with the fact that there still aren't very many teams means that only the best of the best can play men's D1.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Feb 8, 2016 20:23:13 GMT -5
Title IX has taken a toll on men's sports, particularly wrestling. Do you think there's "room" for men's volleyball?
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckysHeat on Feb 8, 2016 20:29:17 GMT -5
Basketball and football still dominate boys sports on the high school level. There is still a stigma attached to volleyball as well in the eyes of high school boys. I would also dispute the idea that girls are more one dimensional in their sports choices, Scott Stadick goes to school with my niece, all he plays is volleyball. At 6'11", he still weighs too little to be effective in basketball despite his height and athleticism and he knows it.
There are enough clubs now that have volleyball for boys, if more wanted to play at this time, they have ample opportunity. With more boys playing, there would be more schools that played. There is a direct correlation, it has nothing to do with title IX
|
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Feb 8, 2016 20:59:57 GMT -5
I know. I know. I'm beating a dead horse here, but here goes anyway. I've watched a few NCAA men's matches over the last month or two, and I feel like I'm watching professional volleyball. I didn't feel this way just 4 years ago. I expect to see more and more of the top NCAA talent become superstars professionally (ala Matt Anderson). A few things that I think are stifling the development of our young women. 1. Stupid substitution rules. We've beat this to death, so I won't say more. 2. Too many teams resulting in watered down talent and competition. 3. This is a bit of a guess: I'm assuming that young girls don't play as many different sports as young men do growing up which suppress some of their natural athleticism. 4. and those stupid substitution rules. I know there are benefits to have more people playing etc, but I'm simply focused on the fact that we seem to be churning out more top talent .... ready to go on the men's side considering the participation rate. In general, men's volleyball is just growing a ton. The amount of teams in jr tournaments have more than doubled in the past 5 or 6 years, the kids are bigger/stronger/better athletes, the sport is growing to new and different states, etc. Honestly, watching 18s boys this year is like night and day from watching it just 6 years ago. Additionally, the offenses that midwest teams always had to use to even compete with cali teams are universally used by all men's NCAA teams (no more sky balls to the outside and lack of middles). Just looking at the players that could play D1 10 years ago vs. now you can see the difference (Matt Anderson's college setter was ~6'0"; no college setter could be that short anymore). Stop. Luke Murray could set for most any team out there today and do just fine. That kid was money. Hagen Smith the current setter/hitter for UCLA is maybe 6'0. That means he hits and sets for the current NCAA Div I top team. There are a few people who are active on both boards and both sides who could help you in guiding any argument you might have. You just seemingly threw stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Start with one point. |
|
|
|
Post by oshkoshdadmjs on Feb 8, 2016 21:06:22 GMT -5
The play at the juniors level is much higher than it was even 6 years ago. Tournaments in the Midwest and east coast are much larger than they were just 6 yeas ago.
Is that good enough for you? Sorry I struck a nerve by saying that the athletes are better/taller/stronger than they were earlier. Defensive much?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Feb 8, 2016 21:07:59 GMT -5
The men's game incorporates back row attacks much more than the women's. I would like to see more back row attacks in the women's game, instead of just moon balling to the outside when they're out of system. Stanford and USC are a couple of teams that utilized the back row attack a lot
|
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Feb 8, 2016 21:15:48 GMT -5
The men's game incorporates back row attacks much more than the women's. I would like to see more back row attacks in the women's game, instead of just moon balling to the outside when they're out of system. Stanford and USC are a couple of teams that utilized the back row attack a lot Well, in the B1G Purdue (D ball with Drews), Minnesota (Satana) and Nebraska and sometimes PSU all ran an effective back row attack , however as you say not as much as we see in the men's game. It is an effective option if you have the right type of hitter. |
|
