|
Post by larry on Dec 13, 2016 16:06:10 GMT -5
The AVP will have 8 tournaments in 2017, one more than in 2016, but will not stop in Florida, Milwaukee, Cincinnati or anywhere on the East Coast other than New York City. On the plus side, its events are spaced roughly two weeks apart starting on the first weekend in May, other than a break of nearly a month between late July and mid-August. Click here to view 2017 AVP schedule.But is 8 events, 3 in Southern California and 5 on the West Coast, a "tour"? It has often been noted on this board that the AVP is a money-losing proposition. Does keeping the series so small and so geographically imbalanced pretty much ensure its failure, since potential exposure for its sponsors is so limited? The center-court venue that the AVP brought to Chicago this summer had actual general admission free seating (in chairs, no bleachers) for 360 fans. There was a poorly conceived stand-room area in the north end zone and standing-room area on the sand that was next to worthless because the court had been elevated and numerous visual obstructions marred the sight lines. The VIP section in the south end zone pretty much forced the bulk of the paying customers to stand, in that seating was limited to raised tables and barstool-like chairs. The biggest complaint I heard from folks in the Chicago volleyball community was that they wanted to buy VIP tickets for the finals, but they were not available. I understand that Chicago is one stop, but the AVP would have had no problems selling those 360 covered chair seats on Sunday, thus generating a bit more revenue. On an unrelated matter, shouldn't the AVP throw its cash-strapped players a bone by removing the clause in its standard players contract that prohibits them from playing on any other domestic tour? When only AVP earnings are considered, even the top competitors of each gender are playing for peanuts (Jake Gibb and Casey Patterson tied for No. 1 in earnings among the men with $36,500 each, and Lane Carico and Summer Ross were the female leaders with $31,500 each). Such a restriction of potential money-earning opportunities smacks of pettiness given how little the players earn through the AVP.
|
|
|
Post by haze on Dec 13, 2016 16:48:40 GMT -5
Isn't there a Ft Lauderdale tournament in February or something that was going to be done via FIVB?
Nevermind. It's there according to bvb but not the AVP schedule?
|
|
|
Post by mjnaleva on Dec 17, 2016 11:17:09 GMT -5
One of challenges the AVP seemingly has never really been able to fully overcome through the ups and downs over the decades is the establishment of a very consistent scheduling plan. Since they are so much reliant on permitting at the event stops (and the trickle down events of FIVB word tour event planning which changes a lot from year to year), it's difficult to establish events that are at the same locations on the same weekend every year. You look at tennis for example which has a very similar model of tournament events and they have the same locations on the same weekends (with minor exceptions here and there) established from year to year, especially the majors. I personally feel the AVP really needs to establish some majors at different locations across the country and stick to them while perhaps rotating around or experimenting with some of the "minors". This goes a long way in developing a good, consistent following at locations.. not to mention the advertising/media side of things. Outside of some of the locations in Southern CA, it's seemingly unpredictable to know where events might be held each year across the country. For all the growth of the sport nationally helped by the juniors and college players in the sport now, the tour doesn't seem all that national still.
Of course, developing a tour that is sustainable and not draining money is going to drive a lot of the decisions the organization leaders make. Very little public info is shared about whether locations want the AVP back (not surprising) or if the requirements imposed on the local groups to make an event happen generally become unsustainable over the long haul. If anyone knows more about how responsibilities between host and AVP are these days, please share. On the surface some might think it's all the AVP but I believe the reality is far from it. I've never heard the AVP say anything along the lines of "We had X number of sites that wanted to host this upcoming season but had to decide on only Y and here are the reasons why...." Maybe there are a bunch of locations wanting an event... maybe not. In any case, the lack of info and constantly changing schedule from year to year just seems to suggest there's a lot of experimenting still going on and that growth is being done very cautiously.
|
|
|
Post by love2vball on Dec 17, 2016 12:41:50 GMT -5
There is one really good reason for that;weather. Securing a long, 3-4 day weekend in many areas of the country between let's say March and early October could be a crapshoot. That's why beach volleyball is so much more conducive to mainly Southern California and always will be. Mix in factors in other areas like rain, heat and cold that cause low attendance and interest and setting up the tents would seem to be a risky, expensive proposition at best. There is a brief window of opportunity in most other states even if a venue could be had at a reasonable cost. It's not like matches can be easily rescheduled as in baseball or finish play on a Monday as in a Golf Major. Sitting through final matches in inclement conditions because you have already paid admission can be a long lasting, negative experience for even the most ardent of fans. And would they take another chance the following year? There also exists the reality of public beach takeover for 3-4 days. In California, believe it or not, many of the people who are fortunate to live at our coasts could care less about the sport and cringe when it comes to town (i.e. Seal Beach for example). Add to that, the outrageous expense of securing a beach through our Coastal Commission who were not established to cater to the AVP is another major issue. But, there could be a solution worth entertaining. Possibly the AVP could strategize with the many amateur orgs like Gulf Coast, East End and others and run ALL qualifying matches prior to AVP events at each site in order to fill the brackets and grow the sport. In California, where many of the qualifiers come from, the CBVA could govern selected tournaments. That way, only Saturday and Sunday would be necessary for match play and more than likely reduce costs and concerns. Just an idea........
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 17, 2016 18:55:24 GMT -5
Im not sure why the "beach takeover" thing is such a big deal. Ive played in dozens of events up and down the East Coast that took up more beach space than the AVP does. The old Toyota tour was set up much like an AVP event, just smaller bleachers etc. A lot of the Jersey events had a ton of space as well as Rehobeth, Virginia Beach, some Florida ones.
Plus is using a beach on a weekday (Friday) for an event with no fans really a problem?
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Dec 17, 2016 18:57:25 GMT -5
Im not sure why the "beach takeover" thing is such a big deal. Ive played in dozens of events up and down the East Coast that took up more beach space than the AVP does. The old Toyota tour was set up much like an AVP event, just smaller bleachers etc. A lot of the Jersey events had a ton of space as well as Rehobeth, Virginia Beach, some Florida ones. Plus is using a beach on a weekday (Friday) for an event with no fans really a problem? Those East Coast events have never had to deal with the California Coastal Commission.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 17, 2016 19:07:22 GMT -5
Im not sure why the "beach takeover" thing is such a big deal. Ive played in dozens of events up and down the East Coast that took up more beach space than the AVP does. The old Toyota tour was set up much like an AVP event, just smaller bleachers etc. A lot of the Jersey events had a ton of space as well as Rehobeth, Virginia Beach, some Florida ones. Plus is using a beach on a weekday (Friday) for an event with no fans really a problem? Those East Coast events have never had to deal with the California Coastal Commission. Oh sure I get that California is a different animal. I was referring to the fact that nothing is scheduled on the East Coast.
|
|
|
Post by love2vball on Dec 17, 2016 19:09:10 GMT -5
Im not sure why the "beach takeover" thing is such a big deal. Ive played in dozens of events up and down the East Coast that took up more beach space than the AVP does. The old Toyota tour was set up much like an AVP event, just smaller bleachers etc. A lot of the Jersey events had a ton of space as well as Rehobeth, Virginia Beach, some Florida ones. Plus is using a beach on a weekday (Friday) for an event with no fans really a problem? Yeeeeup. Like Geddy says, it certainly is out here. There are many, many more residents that care about access to our beaches than ever have cared about professional beach volleyball. Add to that sentiment the cost involved to secure the beach in prime season and it's a very big deal. Years back the AVP was puffing it's chest, but got spanked and put in it's place. And a lot of people believe that it was a rightful place. California tends to protect its residents much like Hawaii in the respect that beach access is for everyone and not just for organizations who profit from them. They try to limit that and Im not sure it's the wrong thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by downtheline on Dec 17, 2016 20:06:57 GMT -5
It's crazy to think an AVP event is going to limit public access to the beach. For one weekend out of the year at any given beach, no way. A beach like Huntington is used way more for surf contest, dog shows, x type sports, EDM gigs.
So I say the limitations on beach events actually hurts the potential economic impact for a beach community. Btw those that own ocean front homes shouldn't influence what goes on at the public beaches as much as they have .
|
|
|
Post by mjnaleva on Dec 19, 2016 13:22:43 GMT -5
Not intending to start another discussion about the "culture" of beach events and whether it's relevant anymore, but with the issues surrounding permitting and scheduling as brought up in this thread already, I feel like the long term solution continues to be the establishment of semi-permanent/permanent venues as tournament locations. With that said, places like Coconut Beach in New Orleans and partnering with tennis facilities like have been done in Cincy and Charleston, SC seem to make sense. I personally would like to see some of the tennis facilities offer sand courts alongside the tennis courts permanently (or seasonally) to where maybe only a center/showcase court needs to be prepped when an AVP event happens. Of course, remains to be seen if players would ever utilize enough and pay to use the courts year-round. Volleyball players are notoriously "cheap" and there's definitely a certain percentage only concerned about the socializing/drinking aspects that have supported bar leagues all around the country.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Dec 19, 2016 17:43:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure I "buy", nor ever buy the "volleyball players are notoriously "cheap" discussion (Yes, its a fun phrase, has certain basis, but should not be used as an economic model. I watched them pay and fill the seats in the stadium at Hermosa in '08 or something, but think they want to do the sponsor based financial model. I believe people will pay (they sold out many VIP boxes last year, if not all), so that would not have happened without some people wanting to "pay". Can you sustain a domestic tour on our wallets? Well, MANY, many other venues do....just my thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by mjnaleva on Dec 20, 2016 9:24:04 GMT -5
I'm not sure I "buy", nor ever buy the "volleyball players are notoriously "cheap" discussion (Yes, its a fun phrase, has certain basis, but should not be used as an economic model. I watched them pay and fill the seats in the stadium at Hermosa in '08 or something, but think they want to do the sponsor based financial model. I believe people will pay (they sold out many VIP boxes last year, if not all), so that would not have happened without some people wanting to "pay". Can you sustain a domestic tour on our wallets? Well, MANY, many other venues do....just my thoughts... I'm not really suggesting people won't buy tickets for pro events. My take on why the AVP doesn't charge is they want numbers at events. Plus, I'm sure there are challenges of charging for admission at events on public beaches that makes it not so straightforward... not to mention the need to block off access if people with tickets are only supposed to be allowed in. My "cheap" comment was talking more in the general sense when it comes to spending money to play. Depending on locale, there can be free courts at parks or on the beach which makes it challenging for someone to run an inland facility that includes sand courts.
|
|
|
Post by haze on Dec 20, 2016 12:23:35 GMT -5
I'm assuming FIVB is not working with AVP for Ft Lauderdale in February.
|
|
|
Post by larry on Dec 22, 2016 0:29:44 GMT -5
I'm not sure I "buy", nor ever buy the "volleyball players are notoriously "cheap" discussion (Yes, its a fun phrase, has certain basis, but should not be used as an economic model. I watched them pay and fill the seats in the stadium at Hermosa in '08 or something, but think they want to do the sponsor based financial model. I believe people will pay (they sold out many VIP boxes last year, if not all), so that would not have happened without some people wanting to "pay". Can you sustain a domestic tour on our wallets? Well, MANY, many other venues do....just my thoughts... I'm not really suggesting people won't buy tickets for pro events. My take on why the AVP doesn't charge is they want numbers at events. Plus, I'm sure there are challenges of charging for admission at events on public beaches that makes it not so straightforward... not to mention the need to block off access if people with tickets are only supposed to be allowed in. My "cheap" comment was talking more in the general sense when it comes to spending money to play. Depending on locale, there can be free courts at parks or on the beach which makes it challenging for someone to run an inland facility that includes sand courts. So if the AVP wants substantial numbers of fans, why does its new-look rattan-festooned venue have free seating for a mere 360 fans, as was the case in the Center Court built for the Chicago event over Labor Day Weekend at Oak Street Beach? The setup that was used the previous year had bleachers on the sideline and end zone that sat a whole lot more fans than the seating area with individual folding chairs had this summer. There were three levels of raised standing room in the end zone of the reconfigured venue, but, once again, fewer fans could actually watch the action from there. It also certainly wasn't comfortable for the fans to have to stand for hour after hour. Furthermore, the standing-room area on the sand itself was awful, because the court had been raised about 3 feet and the view was obstructed by courtside features such as the players' boxes. All in all, considerable grumbling on the size and layout of the Center Court could be heard within the Chicago volleyball community. Another complaint I heard from several folks was that they wanted to buy VIP tickets, but none were available. I don't believe that Chicago is unique in having fans who would be willing to pay for tickets, particularly on Sunday, when the bulk of the matches are played on Center Court.
|
|
|
Post by downtheline on Dec 22, 2016 0:37:21 GMT -5
Court/stadium design & layout.
The tour decided they didn't need the team & leader that had been building the venues for decades, about 2 years ago. So now you see what you have, it is not fan friendly, not good for vendor interaction with fans, and many times just plain layed out in a dangerous fashion. How about plywood sign tepees within diving distance of athletes?
There have been issues.
|
|