|
Post by tamz on Jun 3, 2019 22:50:40 GMT -5
The FIVB continues to astound in the stupidity of its ranking system. A team that has one top 4 finish - a 4th - in 15 events is now ranked 6th. Hard to blame Jake/Taylor they should be able to ride that seed to a 5th or two. If they think they can just show up to a 5 Star and finish 5th after not playing FIVB for three months they are delusional. They barely finished 5th in a 3 Star earlier this year and then followed that up with a 9th in a 4 Star. They’ll be lucky to win their pool in a 5 Star even as a 6 seed. There are just too many other good teams right now. They may think they are gaming the system, but IMHO they are only hurting their chances of qualifying for the Olympics. But first things first they’ll be playing World Champs and then Gstaad. Pools come out tomorrow by the way!!
|
|
|
Post by beachking on Jun 4, 2019 0:45:06 GMT -5
I don’t think they are not playing these to save points and finishes.
|
|
|
Post by gauchoball11 on Jun 4, 2019 2:02:33 GMT -5
I'm just curious from a financial standpoint, why not try to put yourself in a position to make as much money as possible? Is the money so bad in our sport that it almost isn't worth it to fly over there for a 9th? Looking at bvbinfo (and answering my own question), looks like a 9th in a 4 star gets each partner a whopping $2k (before taxes). That is pathetic. They can probably run a weekend clinic and make twice that. I wish someone could confirm what USA Vball covers on these trips. Hopefully they pay the players something on top of just travel expenses.
|
|
|
Post by acrossthepond on Jun 4, 2019 4:26:40 GMT -5
The FIVB continues to astound in the stupidity of its ranking system. A team that has one top 4 finish - a 4th - in 15 events is now ranked 6th. Hard to blame Jake/Taylor they should be able to ride that seed to a 5th or two. I'm curious: What would be a better alternative to the current system. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, but can't think of a better system myself at the moment. Have the best 8/10/12 tournaments of the last 365 days count? This would make it much harder for new players to get a spot in the Main Draw. Anyway, this year there is also the special problem that there has been no 5* tournament in the last few months. That means that teams that have played less this year still have the 5* results from last year in their entry points. This should be corrected soon.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 4, 2019 8:17:51 GMT -5
The FIVB continues to astound in the stupidity of its ranking system. A team that has one top 4 finish - a 4th - in 15 events is now ranked 6th. Hard to blame Jake/Taylor they should be able to ride that seed to a 5th or two. I'm curious: What would be a better alternative to the current system. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, but can't think of a better system myself at the moment. Have the best 8/10/12 tournaments of the last 365 days count? This would make it much harder for new players to get a spot in the Main Draw. Anyway, this year there is also the special problem that there has been no 5* tournament in the last few months. That means that teams that have played less this year still have the 5* results from last year in their entry points. This should be corrected soon. It would be a mix of some common sense solutions. An example of a few things like that: 1) Anyone who wins a 4 star or above is automatically in for 12 months anything they want to enter 2) No team can be seeded top 10 if they have never finished on a podium 3) Double elimination so its harder for teams to desperately cling to their seeds Many other things. Essentially when something like this comes up - Jake/Taylor gaming the seeds - see how it happened then solve the problem. Thats my biggest issue with the FIVB, the continuing stupidity and it seems like problems never get solved.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 4, 2019 8:27:32 GMT -5
The FIVB continues to astound in the stupidity of its ranking system. A team that has one top 4 finish - a 4th - in 15 events is now ranked 6th. Hard to blame Jake/Taylor they should be able to ride that seed to a 5th or two. If they think they can just show up to a 5 Star and finish 5th after not playing FIVB for three months they are delusional. They barely finished 5th in a 3 Star earlier this year and then followed that up with a 9th in a 4 Star. They’ll be lucky to win their pool in a 5 Star even as a 6 seed. There are just too many other good teams right now. They may think they are gaming the system, but IMHO they are only hurting their chances of qualifying for the Olympics. Finishing 5th for them is winning pool + one match. Do I think there is an 80% chance they can do that? No, but its much better than playing a high seed in pool and taking their usual 9th/17th (2/3s of their finishes last year) Lots of weak teams in the 9th place round and doing your best to be sure you play one of them can go a long way
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Jun 4, 2019 12:32:37 GMT -5
Not to mention, winning pool as the top seed in a modified pool structure is much easier than in a full round robin, because your first match is basically a gimme and then you only have one chance to mess up against the 2/3 seed.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Jun 4, 2019 13:09:16 GMT -5
Not to mention, winning pool as the top seed in a modified pool structure is much easier than in a full round robin, because your first match is basically a gimme and then you only have one chance to mess up against the 2/3 seed. Right but 4 Stars also use modified pool play and the competition is weaker. By skipping three of them you lose three good chances to pick up points that would count toward your top 12 finishes. Instead they are taking a big risk by putting all their eggs into the 5 Star baskets.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Jun 4, 2019 15:42:54 GMT -5
Not to mention, winning pool as the top seed in a modified pool structure is much easier than in a full round robin, because your first match is basically a gimme and then you only have one chance to mess up against the 2/3 seed. Right but 4 Stars also use modified pool play and the competition is weaker. By skipping three of them you lose three good chances to pick up points that would count toward your top 12 finishes. Instead they are taking a big risk by putting all their eggs into the 5 Star baskets. I think this is wrong. Competition is not much weaker in a 4 Star than a 5 Star. I don’t have time to go check but off the top of my head the average 4 Star seems to have 15 of the top 20 teams play each 4 star. The difference between Gibb/Crabb facing a field with 8-10 teams better than them versus 10-12 teams is negligible. Now square this with the fact that the point differential between the two tourneys is massive. 5th at a 5 Star is worth 720 per team, 5th at a 4 Star is worth 480. 9th at a 5 Star is even better than 5th at a 4 Star. Next tourney they play, they lose their 4th place from last year. They would have to get top 4 at a 4 Star in order to not take a massive hit from this. If they got a 5th at a 4 Star, their entry ranking would drop from 6th to 15th, meaning no more cushy top seed spots. Has there been any 4 Star this year with a weak enough field that Gibb/Crabb could’ve anticipated even a 50% chance at a top 4 finish? Absolutely not. Meanwhile, at a 5 Star, they just need a 5th (pool win and then one more match) in order to not lose too much ground (though they still will, entry ranking will drop from 6th to around 10th in this case). All teams want 5 Star points as party of their entry points, and at the point that you’ve played six tournaments since a 5 Star, you’re screwed under this system unless you’re medaling at the 4 Stars. This is why so many superior teams are below Gibb/Crabb on the entry points. Is this a good strategy for Gibb/Crabb if they want to medal at the Olympics? No, not at all, they’re not getting any experience playing good teams. Is it a good strategy to hold seed and qualify? Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.
|
|
|
Post by goldengirlsx3 on Jun 4, 2019 15:56:44 GMT -5
Right but 4 Stars also use modified pool play and the competition is weaker. By skipping three of them you lose three good chances to pick up points that would count toward your top 12 finishes. Instead they are taking a big risk by putting all their eggs into the 5 Star baskets. I think this is wrong. Competition is not much weaker in a 4 Star than a 5 Star. I don’t have time to go check but off the top of my head the average 4 Star seems to have 15 of the top 20 teams play each 4 star. The difference between Gibb/Crabb facing a field with 8-10 teams better than them versus 10-12 teams is negligible. Now square this with the fact that the point differential between the two tourneys is massive. 5th at a 5 Star is worth 720 per team, 5th at a 4 Star is worth 480. 9th at a 5 Star is even better than 5th at a 4 Star. Next tourney they play, they lose their 4th place from last year. They would have to get top 4 at a 4 Star in order to not take a massive hit from this. If they got a 5th at a 4 Star, their entry ranking would drop from 6th to 15th, meaning no more cushy top seed spots. Has there been any 4 Star this year with a weak enough field that Gibb/Crabb could’ve anticipated even a 50% chance at a top 4 finish? Absolutely not. Meanwhile, at a 5 Star, they just need a 5th (pool win and then one more match) in order to not lose too much ground (though they still will, entry ranking will drop from 6th to around 10th in this case). All teams want 5 Star points as party of their entry points, and at the point that you’ve played six tournaments since a 5 Star, you’re screwed under this system unless you’re medaling at the 4 Stars. This is why so many superior teams are below Gibb/Crabb on the entry points. Is this a good strategy for Gibb/Crabb if they want to medal at the Olympics? No, not at all, they’re not getting any experience playing good teams. Is it a good strategy to hold seed and qualify? Absolutely, unequivocally, yes. This maybe is a good strategy to just qualify but it’s very disappointing to see one of our USA teams playing the crap shoot game just to go to the Olympics with no real chance to medal. Sorta feel bad for the Slick/Allen’s and the Tri/Trevor & Patterson/Budinger teams that are out busting ass at every 3 star & up tournaments to have a chance while a team just relaxes at home. Surprised Taylor wants to go the Olympics that way.
|
|
|
Post by 405LAX on Jun 4, 2019 16:14:25 GMT -5
I'm just curious from a financial standpoint, why not try to put yourself in a position to make as much money as possible? Is the money so bad in our sport that it almost isn't worth it to fly over there for a 9th? Looking at bvbinfo (and answering my own question), looks like a 9th in a 4 star gets each partner a whopping $2k (before taxes). That is pathetic. They can probably run a weekend clinic and make twice that. I wish someone could confirm what USA Vball covers on these trips. Hopefully they pay the players something on top of just travel expenses. No one on this board has definitively answered this question in the years I've been asking it.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Jun 4, 2019 16:32:50 GMT -5
Right but 4 Stars also use modified pool play and the competition is weaker. By skipping three of them you lose three good chances to pick up points that would count toward your top 12 finishes. Instead they are taking a big risk by putting all their eggs into the 5 Star baskets. I think this is wrong. Competition is not much weaker in a 4 Star than a 5 Star. I don’t have time to go check but off the top of my head the average 4 Star seems to have 15 of the top 20 teams play each 4 star. The difference between Gibb/Crabb facing a field with 8-10 teams better than them versus 10-12 teams is negligible. Now square this with the fact that the point differential between the two tourneys is massive. 5th at a 5 Star is worth 720 per team, 5th at a 4 Star is worth 480. 9th at a 5 Star is even better than 5th at a 4 Star. Next tourney they play, they lose their 4th place from last year. They would have to get top 4 at a 4 Star in order to not take a massive hit from this. If they got a 5th at a 4 Star, their entry ranking would drop from 6th to 15th, meaning no more cushy top seed spots. Has there been any 4 Star this year with a weak enough field that Gibb/Crabb could’ve anticipated even a 50% chance at a top 4 finish? Absolutely not. Meanwhile, at a 5 Star, they just need a 5th (pool win and then one more match) in order to not lose too much ground (though they still will, entry ranking will drop from 6th to around 10th in this case). All teams want 5 Star points as party of their entry points, and at the point that you’ve played six tournaments since a 5 Star, you’re screwed under this system unless you’re medaling at the 4 Stars. This is why so many superior teams are below Gibb/Crabb on the entry points. Is this a good strategy for Gibb/Crabb if they want to medal at the Olympics? No, not at all, they’re not getting any experience playing good teams. Is it a good strategy to hold seed and qualify? Absolutely, unequivocally, yes. Hold seed, yes. But I’m not convinced it helps them qualify. You still need 12 events to qualify and there aren’t enough 5 Stars to skip all of the 4 Stars. You’re going to need some good finishes at 4 Stars to qualify, and the more events you play, the more chances you have to get those top finishes. I think the seeding difference between a 7 and say a 12 at a 5 Star is negligible. It’s not like they’re in danger of dropping to the qualifiers. It just seems silly to be so worried about a bad finish at a 4 Star yet at the same time expecting a good finish at a 5 Star. Eventually they’re going to have to start playing these 4 Stars and when they do they’ll have little room for error. Entry points help, but they’re not the be-all end-all. It won’t be the end of the world when they drop their Gstaad and Vienna points.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jun 4, 2019 17:01:18 GMT -5
I think this is wrong. Competition is not much weaker in a 4 Star than a 5 Star. I don’t have time to go check but off the top of my head the average 4 Star seems to have 15 of the top 20 teams play each 4 star. The difference between Gibb/Crabb facing a field with 8-10 teams better than them versus 10-12 teams is negligible. Now square this with the fact that the point differential between the two tourneys is massive. 5th at a 5 Star is worth 720 per team, 5th at a 4 Star is worth 480. 9th at a 5 Star is even better than 5th at a 4 Star. Next tourney they play, they lose their 4th place from last year. They would have to get top 4 at a 4 Star in order to not take a massive hit from this. If they got a 5th at a 4 Star, their entry ranking would drop from 6th to 15th, meaning no more cushy top seed spots. Has there been any 4 Star this year with a weak enough field that Gibb/Crabb could’ve anticipated even a 50% chance at a top 4 finish? Absolutely not. Meanwhile, at a 5 Star, they just need a 5th (pool win and then one more match) in order to not lose too much ground (though they still will, entry ranking will drop from 6th to around 10th in this case). All teams want 5 Star points as party of their entry points, and at the point that you’ve played six tournaments since a 5 Star, you’re screwed under this system unless you’re medaling at the 4 Stars. This is why so many superior teams are below Gibb/Crabb on the entry points. Is this a good strategy for Gibb/Crabb if they want to medal at the Olympics? No, not at all, they’re not getting any experience playing good teams. Is it a good strategy to hold seed and qualify? Absolutely, unequivocally, yes. Hold seed, yes. But I’m not convinced it helps them qualify. You still need 12 events to qualify and there aren’t enough 5 Stars to skip all of the 4 Stars. You’re going to need some good finishes at 4 Stars to qualify, and the more events you play, the more chances you have to get those top finishes. I think the seeding difference between a 7 and say a 12 at a 5 Star is negligible. It’s not like they’re in danger of dropping to the qualifiers. It just seems silly to be so worried about a bad finish at a 4 Star yet at the same time expecting a good finish at a 5 Star. Eventually they’re going to have to start playing these 4 Stars and when they do they’ll have little room for error. Entry points help, but they’re not the be-all end-all. It won’t be the end of the world when they drop their Gstaad and Vienna points. If they can come up with a good finish here, even a 5th or so, it will put them in a much better position to get a few other decent finishes at 4 stars
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Jun 4, 2019 17:04:29 GMT -5
Theoretically speaking, that’s IF they get a good draw. IF they win two pool play matches. IF they win the Round of 16, and lose in the quarters, then they’ll get a 5th.
If this isn’t injury related, they’re banking on a lot of what ifs. But what IF things don’t fall their way?
Anything can happen. The Dutch, the Italians, and the Poles have all dropped in entry points due to injury. But they can strike at anytime.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Jun 4, 2019 17:07:02 GMT -5
I'm just curious from a financial standpoint, why not try to put yourself in a position to make as much money as possible? Is the money so bad in our sport that it almost isn't worth it to fly over there for a 9th? Looking at bvbinfo (and answering my own question), looks like a 9th in a 4 star gets each partner a whopping $2k (before taxes). That is pathetic. They can probably run a weekend clinic and make twice that. I wish someone could confirm what USA Vball covers on these trips. Hopefully they pay the players something on top of just travel expenses. No one on this board has definitively answered this question in the years I've been asking it. So nobody on this Board has ever said what the top teams are compensated by USAV? That says one of two things -- 1) it is embarrasingly low or nothing, or 2) it is something, and the teams getting paid (or USAV) don't want to piss off teams that just miss the payment cutoff, so everyone keeps the dirty secret.
|
|