|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 8, 2018 1:35:32 GMT -5
I was thinking about how qualifiers could be better, and fairer to athletes. The current problems are:
1) Some venues don't have space for all the teams that want to play.
2) Participation costs a ton - Travel, hotels etc.
3) Athletes have a disadvantaged when qualifiers go late
4) Scheduling for those that work is difficult. Its an extra day off - maybe 2 depending on flights, and hard to plan on. Probably have to take Thursday and Fri off, even if you fail to qualify on Thursday
And I assumed these things:
1) 80% of athletes with real pro aspirations live in California.
2) A lot of players with real potential would play qualifiers if the above problems could be removed.
3) Because there are 3 days of regular tournament play, limiting qualifiers won't affect many fans.
Here is the idea. For Non-California events, play qualification tournaments for 3 of the 4 spots in So Cal on the previous weekend. (AVP doesnt play back to back weeks as far as I know)
Play a limited qualifier locally on the current schedule for a single spot. (Any team that plays in the local event can't play in the CA ones and vice versa, but teams can play local qualifiers in Chicago, New York and Seattle for example)
For the bigger events where more teams qualify, do the same but proportionally.
The end result would be more high quality teams attempting to qualify,
Better rested qualifier teams in the main draw
Qualifier teams spending much less to try to qualify
Qualifier teams not wasting a ton of time trying to qualify when they could be practicing (i.e. lose your first match, then go back to Huntington and practice, as opposed to losing your first match in NYC, and you have taken 3 days out of practicing.
|
|
|
|
Post by 405LAX on Jun 8, 2018 2:00:18 GMT -5
I was thinking about how qualifiers could be better, and fairer to athletes. The current problems are: 1) Some venues don't have space for all the teams that want to play. 2) Participation costs a ton - Travel, hotels etc. 3) Athletes have a disadvantaged when qualifiers go late 4) Scheduling for those that work is difficult. Its an extra day off - maybe 2 depending on flights, and hard to plan on. Probably have to take Thursday and Fri off, even if you fail to qualify on Thursday And I assumed these things: 1) 80% of athletes with real pro aspirations live in California. 2) A lot of players with real potential would play qualifiers if the above problems could be removed. 3) Because there are 3 days of regular tournament play, limiting qualifiers won't affect many fans. Here is the idea. For Non-California events, play qualification tournaments for 3 of the 4 spots in So Cal on the previous weekend. (AVP doesnt play back to back weeks as far as I know) Play a limited qualifier locally on the current schedule for a single spot. (Any team that plays in the local event can't play in the CA ones and vice versa, but teams can play local qualifiers in Chicago, New York and Seattle for example) For the bigger events where more teams qualify, do the same but proportionally. The end result would be more high quality teams attempting to qualify, Better rested qualifier teams in the main draw Qualifier teams spending much less to try to qualify Qualifier teams not wasting a ton of time trying to qualify when they could be practicing (i.e. lose your first match, then go back to Huntington and practice, as opposed to losing your first match in NYC, and you have taken 3 days out of practicing. Taking my FIVB cq model and modifying, like this very much but it has one very glaring issue with it: makes too much sense. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdogman on Jun 8, 2018 9:33:26 GMT -5
I like. This is good but somewhat of a cart before the horse perspective. What I mean is, while our sport is one in which you can count on your fingers the number of players who can make a living at it, it doesn't really matter what qualifiers are like. So ideally, all this goes away when the number of full time pros who are feeding their families is 50-100 per gender. Wish we seeing this as something the landscape was moving towards, but even with p360 it isn't looking likely in the next decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Jun 8, 2018 11:54:20 GMT -5
If there was a real line of who was local and who had to play in Cali, The Cali qualifiers could potentially be massive, for every single event (every weekend warrior, real jobber, former pro, etc.). Right now the barrier of several hundreds of dollars to travel is certainly a barrier. Manhattan had over 100 teams last year at their men's quali, that was almost 100 games of Qualifier volleyball to get down to 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by 405LAX on Jun 8, 2018 15:19:17 GMT -5
If there was a real line of who was local and who had to play in Cali, The Cali qualifiers could potentially be massive, for every single event (every weekend warrior, real jobber, former pro, etc.). Right now the barrier of several hundreds of dollars to travel is certainly a barrier. Manhattan had over 100 teams last year at their men's quali, that was almost 100 games of Qualifier volleyball to get down to 8. And don't forget, AVP was making what, $250 per team? $250 to lose two and call yourself a "pro"? |
|
|
|
Post by beavis on Jun 9, 2018 13:20:33 GMT -5
Its a solution in search of a problem. No offense, but this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard, and clearly is coming from someone who rarely, if ever, likely actually attends AVP tournaments in person. The best part of attending these tournaments is sometimes the Thursday, all day qualifier. To assume that it would be better to play an off-site qualifier in California, and not at the venue itself, does a tremendous disservice to the folks who really matter - the fans. To have even less live matches to watch and convert these tournaments into, in essence, two day, instead of three day, affairs (considering the tremendous dearth of actual matches to watch on Sundays) will drive even more fans to not attend in person. If you are on the fence, who on earth is going to travel across the country and spend all of that money on flights, hotels, etc. to watch even less live matches? One of the best matches of the Chicago AVP last year was watching the Partains beat the old guys in the qualifier - taking that option away from the fans is, in my humble opinion, very ill-advised and unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by boysbeachvolleyball on Jun 9, 2018 16:32:33 GMT -5
I would go for a middle ground direction and grant 3 levels: smaller 8 team main draw, 1st level ranked qualifier, and full qualifier.
By having 8 main draw spots open for qualifiers, each of the eight brackets can have smaller pools and some teams (who used to get MD) can be given 1 or 2 byes and travel in later in the day.
This format lowers the 4 qualifying matches to a more reasonable 3 max for all teams and allows up to 56 teams and grants 8 teams a bye, or handles 40 teams and gives 8 preferred qualifier teams a double bye.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Jun 11, 2018 8:02:53 GMT -5
Its a solution in search of a problem. No offense, but this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard, and clearly is coming from someone who rarely, if ever, likely actually attends AVP tournaments in person. The best part of attending these tournaments is sometimes the Thursday, all day qualifier. To assume that it would be better to play an off-site qualifier in California, and not at the venue itself, does a tremendous disservice to the folks who really matter - the fans. To have even less live matches to watch and convert these tournaments into, in essence, two day, instead of three day, affairs (considering the tremendous dearth of actual matches to watch on Sundays) will drive even more fans to not attend in person. If you are on the fence, who on earth is going to travel across the country and spend all of that money on flights, hotels, etc. to watch even less live matches? One of the best matches of the Chicago AVP last year was watching the Partains beat the old guys in the qualifier - taking that option away from the fans is, in my humble opinion, very ill-advised and unnecessary. I agree to a point on this Beavis. guest2, maybe back it up a round or two. Use the AVPNext tournaments (regular entry fee), and that qualifies you for the qualifier on site. Top 4 teams in points get auto bids into the Q, then: 4 teams from SoCal 4 teams from NoCal 2 teams from FL 2 teams from TX 2 teams from East Coast 2 teams from Mid west 2 teams from OH 2 teams from AZ 24 team Q, AVPNext regions are represented. and teams like McK bros, Loomis, Paven don't have to play in the pre q. |
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Jun 11, 2018 10:03:07 GMT -5
Its a solution in search of a problem. No offense, but this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard, and clearly is coming from someone who rarely, if ever, likely actually attends AVP tournaments in person. The best part of attending these tournaments is sometimes the Thursday, all day qualifier. To assume that it would be better to play an off-site qualifier in California, and not at the venue itself, does a tremendous disservice to the folks who really matter - the fans. To have even less live matches to watch and convert these tournaments into, in essence, two day, instead of three day, affairs (considering the tremendous dearth of actual matches to watch on Sundays) will drive even more fans to not attend in person. If you are on the fence, who on earth is going to travel across the country and spend all of that money on flights, hotels, etc. to watch even less live matches? One of the best matches of the Chicago AVP last year was watching the Partains beat the old guys in the qualifier - taking that option away from the fans is, in my humble opinion, very ill-advised and unnecessary. I agree to a point on this Beavis. guest2, maybe back it up a round or two. Use the AVPNext tournaments (regular entry fee), and that qualifies you for the qualifier on site. Top 4 teams in points get auto bids into the Q, then: 4 teams from SoCal 4 teams from NoCal 2 teams from FL 2 teams from TX 2 teams from East Coast 2 teams from Mid west 2 teams from OH 2 teams from AZ 24 team Q, AVPNext regions are represented. and teams like McK bros, Loomis, Paven don't have to play in the pre q. This would only make more sense once AVP actually gets more people running AVPnext tournaments. 2 from the East Coast, 2 from Ohio? Without actually paying close attention, but it seemed like AZ was actually just SoCal teams traveling over. A ton of thought would have to go into this process, and not sure it actually makes it better, other than rewarding those from weak areas (a massive complaint from the one tourney where they gave the auto's based on the AVPnext regions). |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 11, 2018 10:50:55 GMT -5
Its a solution in search of a problem. No offense, but this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard, and clearly is coming from someone who rarely, if ever, likely actually attends AVP tournaments in person. The best part of attending these tournaments is sometimes the Thursday, all day qualifier. To assume that it would be better to play an off-site qualifier in California, and not at the venue itself, does a tremendous disservice to the folks who really matter - the fans. To have even less live matches to watch and convert these tournaments into, in essence, two day, instead of three day, affairs (considering the tremendous dearth of actual matches to watch on Sundays) will drive even more fans to not attend in person. If you are on the fence, who on earth is going to travel across the country and spend all of that money on flights, hotels, etc. to watch even less live matches? One of the best matches of the Chicago AVP last year was watching the Partains beat the old guys in the qualifier - taking that option away from the fans is, in my humble opinion, very ill-advised and unnecessary. I agree to a point on this Beavis. guest2, maybe back it up a round or two. Use the AVPNext tournaments (regular entry fee), and that qualifies you for the qualifier on site. Top 4 teams in points get auto bids into the Q, then: 4 teams from SoCal 4 teams from NoCal 2 teams from FL 2 teams from TX 2 teams from East Coast 2 teams from Mid west 2 teams from OH 2 teams from AZ 24 team Q, AVPNext regions are represented. and teams like McK bros, Loomis, Paven don't have to play in the pre q. They would still have to travel to the event sites, which is very costly and time consuming if you dont get in. Why not just acknowledge what everyone knows - that the qualifiers are going to come from CA 80% of the time (7 of 8 in the first two events) and plan accordingly. Playing the majority in CA makes it easier for players to become pros and gives other regions a better chance anyway |
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Jun 11, 2018 11:54:43 GMT -5
I agree to a point on this Beavis. guest2, maybe back it up a round or two. Use the AVPNext tournaments (regular entry fee), and that qualifies you for the qualifier on site. Top 4 teams in points get auto bids into the Q, then: 4 teams from SoCal 4 teams from NoCal 2 teams from FL 2 teams from TX 2 teams from East Coast 2 teams from Mid west 2 teams from OH 2 teams from AZ 24 team Q, AVPNext regions are represented. and teams like McK bros, Loomis, Paven don't have to play in the pre q. They would still have to travel to the event sites, which is very costly and time consuming if you dont get in. Why not just acknowledge what everyone knows - that the qualifiers are going to come from CA 80% of the time (7 of 8 in the first two events) and plan accordingly. Playing the majority in CA makes it easier for players to become pros and gives other regions a better chance anyway Cali shouldn't be the only place players can be "pro". Also assuming the top 4 teams get auto, plus 4 from south and North, that's 12 top Cali teams. That is plenty. This also for the women's side too, where the play is a bit more even outside the MD across the country. travel regionally should be much cheaper, and the AVPNext is the AVP product, they should be looking to create more value out of it, some regions may be a bit low, but it's usually depth, the top 1 or 2 teams can have a shot to get into the MD. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 11, 2018 12:02:30 GMT -5
They would still have to travel to the event sites, which is very costly and time consuming if you dont get in. Why not just acknowledge what everyone knows - that the qualifiers are going to come from CA 80% of the time (7 of 8 in the first two events) and plan accordingly. Playing the majority in CA makes it easier for players to become pros and gives other regions a better chance anyway Cali shouldn't be the only place players can be "pro". Also assuming the top 4 teams get auto, plus 4 from south and North, that's 12 top Cali teams. That is plenty. This also for the women's side too, where the play is a bit more even outside the MD across the country. travel regionally should be much cheaper, and the AVPNext is the AVP product, they should be looking to create more value out of it, some regions may be a bit low, but it's usually depth, the top 1 or 2 teams can have a shot to get into the MD. I wouldnt say all from Cali, I would have 3 of 4 and a small onsite qualifier for the last, as detailed in the OP. I think that would have the effect of being better for the CA guys and everyone else, because the rest of the country wouldn't have to face the CA teams, which they do now. (although they would only be competing for one spot, not 4) Does AVP Next have any grassroots value? Are their players playing tournaments who otherwise wouldnt? |
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Jun 11, 2018 12:06:18 GMT -5
Cali shouldn't be the only place players can be "pro". Also assuming the top 4 teams get auto, plus 4 from south and North, that's 12 top Cali teams. That is plenty. This also for the women's side too, where the play is a bit more even outside the MD across the country. travel regionally should be much cheaper, and the AVPNext is the AVP product, they should be looking to create more value out of it, some regions may be a bit low, but it's usually depth, the top 1 or 2 teams can have a shot to get into the MD. I wouldnt say all from Cali, I would have 3 of 4 and a small onsite qualifier for the last, as detailed in the OP. I think that would have the effect of being better for the CA guys and everyone else, because the rest of the country wouldn't have to face the CA teams, which they do now. (although they would only be competing for one spot, not 4) Does AVP Next have any grassroots value? Are their players playing tournaments who otherwise wouldnt? I've seen it in the panhandle tournaments in FL, or the S. Carolina AVPNexts. Go back a couple years, and teams from Tampa, Orlando and South wouldn't go to these, now they do. Go look at a player like Justin Phibbs, he's played a ton of them. I think TX gets a pretty good draw too. |
|
