The problem with a qualification tournament

[tstokke]

Here's my take on the idea of having a qualification tournament (which I like the idea of, but it needs some work).

Take the indoor teams. USA sends a team to tournaments, friendlies, etc. USA will qualify through NORCECA or some other tournament. Once the team qualifies, USA then gets to select a roster. I've never publicly heard someone state that they will be on the Olympic roster solely because they were on the roster of the team that won a qualification tournament. Also, the USA roster is likely different for every event during the quad. I realize there is "one" tournament in which the team earns their place in the Olympics (with several opportunities to win that "one" tournament), but it takes a lot of players over 4 years to get into position to win that one tournament.

On the beach two players, and only when they play together, earn a spot in the Olympics. Yes, they are from the USA, but Nick/Phil, for example, earn the spot. Yet two specific guys (or girls) have to earn the spot, not for them, but the US . Yes, I realize right now that the the teams DOES earn the spot for themselves, but only because USAV chooses to do it that way. I suspect finances also have to come into play for how many players feel about the process. I believe USA picks up the bills for the everything for the indoor teams, including salaries. I really don't know a lot about how if works for the beach players. I believe the top 4 per gender get a stipend/expense money from USA for each tournament, or something like that, but I suspect there is some money out of pocket by the players, with also them keeping all potential income. If there was a qualification tournament I can see beach players seeing that they are providing the funds/time/labor earning the Olympic position that could go to other players. Given that a team can't have a change in personal (Olympics go by team points, not adding together two individual's points), it's not hard to see how the beach "team" can really be viewed more of an individual, and less of a team (with it's potential moving parts).

It would be interesting if the FIVB determined the number of teams for the Olympics by giving points by position of the county, and not the individual teams. For example, in the first two tournaments, if Nick/Phil take a 1st and 25th, Casey/Slick take a 25th and a 1st, and Billy/Ryan take a 5th and a 5th, the US would two firsts and two fifths. No country gets to count more than their top two finishes. Then follow the same procedure for continent inclusion and so on when picking teams for the Olympics. Now ALL players from the US can contribute to the US getting two spots by being one of the top two finishers for the US. Then maybe a qualification tournament, or series of tournaments, could be held for the teams that contribute XX finishes or YY points into system. Injuries and partner switches wouldn't kill a players chance to make the Olympics as long as they had the finishes. The qualification tournament addresses the legitimate concerns about teams earning a spot mostly through perseverance, or well-qualified teams sending injured players, yet insures that the only people in contention for the spot have demonstrated they deserve to be in consideration.

Wow, I just reread this, and it's way to long. Good luck, and feel free to tear it apart. :-) 

[mati]

I think the idea of the nations being judged on their full effort is a good one. Although, it might be a bit too simple for the FIVB to adopt.</snark>

I would give each confederation (Noceca, CEV, etc.) one spot based to keep the "World" feeling of the Olympic games. Then leave it up to the countries to battle it out for a second and possibly even a third spot. This would open up the ability for USAV to have a trials system. Seeding would be based on how much each player on a team contributed to the overall effort of earning the second spot.

[johnbar]

Yes, I suggested something similar in another thread.

[guest2]

Jan 11, 2018 11:12:24 GMT -5 tstokke said:

Here's my take on the idea of having a qualification tournament (which I like the idea of, but it needs some work).

Take the indoor teams. USA sends a team to tournaments, friendlies, etc. USA will qualify through NORCECA or some other tournament. Once the team qualifies, USA then gets to select a roster. I've never publicly heard someone state that they will be on the Olympic roster solely because they were on the roster of the team that won a qualification tournament. Also, the USA roster is likely different for every event during the quad. I realize there is "one" tournament in which the team earns their place in the Olympics (with several opportunities to win that "one" tournament), but it takes a lot of players over 4 years to get into position to win that one tournament.

On the beach two players, and only when they play together, earn a spot in the Olympics. Yes, they are from the USA, but Nick/Phil, for example, earn the spot. Yet two specific guys (or girls) have to earn the spot, not for them, but the US . Yes, I realize right now that the the teams DOES earn the spot for themselves, but only because USAV chooses to do it that way. I suspect finances also have to come into play for how many players feel about the process. I believe USA picks up the bills for the everything for the indoor teams, including salaries. I really don't know a lot about how if works for the beach players. I believe the top 4 per gender get a stipend/expense money from USA for each tournament, or something like that, but I suspect there is some money out of pocket by the players, with also them keeping all potential income. If there was a qualification tournament I can see beach players seeing that they are providing the funds/time/labor earning the Olympic position that could go to other players. Given that a team can't have a change in personal (Olympics go by team points, not adding together two individual's points), it's not hard to see how the beach "team" can really be viewed more of an individual, and less of a team (with it's potential moving parts).

It would be interesting if the FIVB determined the number of teams for the Olympics by giving points by position of the county, and not the individual teams. For example, in the first two tournaments, if Nick/Phil take a 1st and 25th, Casey/Slick take a 25th and a 1st, and Billy/Ryan take a 5th and a 5th, the US would two firsts and two fifths. No country gets to count more than their top two finishes. Then follow the same procedure for continent inclusion and so on when picking teams for the Olympics. Now ALL players from the US can contribute to the US getting two spots by being one of the top two finishers for the US. Then maybe a qualification tournament, or series of tournaments, could be held for the teams that contribute XX finishes or YY points into system. Injuries and partner switches wouldn't kill a players chance to make the Olympics as long as they had the finishes. The qualification tournament addresses the legitimate concerns about teams earning a spot mostly through perseverance, or well-qualified teams sending injured players, yet insures that the only people in contention for the spot have demonstrated they deserve to be in consideration.

Wow, I just reread this, and it's way to long. Good luck, and feel free to tear it apart. :-) 

This makes a lot of sense to me. I wonder why not take it to its natural extension which is having the country pick the teams. That would also ensure we have our best team no matter who players choose to play with the rest of the time. For example last year, letting the players pick their own teammates would have made Lauren and Nicole Olympians when a special needs lemur could see the best US team was Kerri/April

[tstokke]

OK, so I'm not sure how to take this, but we'll go with it at face value. I'm not suggesting that the country pick the teams. And we are talking about a team (of 2), not just throwing together the best two players (got luck judging that) and calling them a team. I was trying to point out that 2 individuals/team earn spots in the Olympics. It's not like indoors. If we want a qualification tournament, at the very least we need to address how the US earned the spot(s) that the teams are playing for. I seem to recall from 96 there were teams playing in the tournament that had NEVER played FIVB. That can't happen.

If we stick with the current system it's hard to argue that the teams that qualify didn't earn it. It sounds like an insane grind. It also may not find the best teams at the moment, as I believe you've pointed out in numerous posts. So how do we reward teams for putting in the effort to earn positions in the Olympics and still field the best teams possible?

I know my poorly worded idea isn't the answer. I'm a teacher, I'm good at throwing stuff out there just for the sake of conversation. That's went the good stuff happens, when smart people start talking about something. I know I'm not one of the smart ones with this, so I was really hoping that someone else would have something to say.

[guest2]

Jan 12, 2018 0:13:07 GMT -5 tstokke said:

OK, so I'm not sure how to take this, but we'll go with it at face value. I'm not suggesting that the country pick the teams. And we are talking about a team (of 2), not just throwing together the best two players (got luck judging that) and calling them a team. I was trying to point out that 2 individuals/team earn spots in the Olympics. It's not like indoors. If we want a qualification tournament, at the very least we need to address how the US earned the spot(s) that the teams are playing for. I seem to recall from 96 there were teams playing in the tournament that had NEVER played FIVB. That can't happen.

If we stick with the current system it's hard to argue that the teams that qualify didn't earn it. It sounds like an insane grind. It also may not find the best teams at the moment, as I believe you've pointed out in numerous posts. So how do we reward teams for putting in the effort to earn positions in the Olympics and still field the best teams possible?

I know my poorly worded idea isn't the answer. I'm a teacher, I'm good at throwing stuff out there just for the sake of conversation. That's went the good stuff happens, when smart people start talking about something. I know I'm not one of the smart ones with this, so I was really hoping that someone else would have something to say.

There weren't. Teams were required to play at least one FIVB to get into the Olympic qualifier, but none of the teams that did well were regular FIVB players, except for Randy Stoklos and even he was not close to full time on the FIVB.

I think the teams that qualify "earn it" under the system, but I don't think thats the same as proving they are our best team or saying the faced equal obstacles and did better. One thing the players have said a lot is they don't want an all US qualifying tournament or tournament(s) because that means only performance against other US teams is judged, rather than against the world.

I think thats a reasonable point, except that who you play on the FIVB is so weird and arbitrary. One team (team 1) may play Bruno/Allison in the quarters three times in a year, whereas another team, advancing to the quarters in the same events, could draw a Finnish team, Latvia B, and a US qualifier team. Of course judging those teams based on their performance in the quarterfinals in the tournaments they both played is inherently unfair.

Its an interesting problem, and I think involving a person, or a committee, into the ultimate selection would be very helpful. Maybe send the top ranked team and have the second qualify through a series of domestic qualifiers (the original approach back in 96) or have a committee choose the teams, or just the second team, with the first going by points.

That way no team that has a reasonable claim to being the best will be omitted

[beachking]

Instead of a qualification tournament, I would have USA beach run 3 or 4 qualification tournaments in the weeks leading up the Olympics. This assures you get the top Current teams and you dont have to worry about some team getting lucky at 1 event.

[wang pu]

Sounds like most non-players want a tournament or series of sort to determine who goes to the Olympics. I do not think that is unreasonable. The participants for the qualification has had to have played as a team on a minimum number of FIVB events. This would ensure that we are sending the best teams at the time of the Olympics, to the Olympics.