|
Post by gobruins on Dec 6, 2019 13:15:16 GMT -5
When you start the freeze at 14-13, the serving team has 14. So, they still have to score on serve to win the match. I agree with the OP, the receiving team should be able to get a point on receive, then start the freeze. Isnt that the reward the team that gets to 14 first receives for being ahead? I like the freeze the way it is, although wouldnt mind a 5 or 6 point skunk rule (if you are down that much at the freeze, you just lose) Theoretically, if the receiving team were to win every point, the team getting to 14 points first would just be the team lucky enough to start the match receiving.
|
|
|
Post by proudd3mommy on Dec 9, 2019 10:39:53 GMT -5
FIVB should get rid of the rule where the host country gets the #1 seed.
99% of the time that team wouldn't be the 1 seed and it messes up seeding by pinning the true 1 and 2 seeds against each other in the Semis instead of the finals.
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Dec 9, 2019 12:48:41 GMT -5
Update the freeze a little bit. Once a team reaches match point, they are frozen and have to serve to score. But the team that is behind, keeps playing rally score, until they tie the score. So basically sideout scoring ONLY for the team with match point.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 9, 2019 13:23:41 GMT -5
Update the freeze a little bit. Once a team reaches match point, they are frozen and have to serve to score. But the team that is behind, keeps playing rally score, until they tie the score. So basically sideout scoring ONLY for the team with match point. So a team down 14-7, could just sideout 7 times in a row and tie the match? That would be grossly unfair
|
|
|
Post by ebes1099 on Dec 9, 2019 13:31:50 GMT -5
Update the freeze a little bit. Once a team reaches match point, they are frozen and have to serve to score. But the team that is behind, keeps playing rally score, until they tie the score. So basically sideout scoring ONLY for the team with match point. So a team down 14-7, could just sideout 7 times in a row and tie the match? That would be grossly unfair Agreed, that would be insanely unfair. I'm all for starting the freeze 1 point later, as I think it's a huge advantage to an otherwise even game for the team that happens to be in the 1-up position if teams keep trading side outs. As said above, it doesn't change anything for the team that gets to 14 first and has to serve to score, since they'll be serving anyway, so if they win the point they would have won regardless if it was side out scoring or rally scoring. But it does give the receiving team an even shot to get that 14th point (or 20th depending on the set) and keep an even match level as opposed to giving one team a pretty significant advantage.
|
|
|
Post by ebes1099 on Dec 9, 2019 13:38:28 GMT -5
AVP- Put on 1 tournament a year that is different. do a King/Queen of the Court. I want to see 1 tournament a year without the same 3-5 teams realistically battling it out. Give me a King of the Court tournament where I can see Phil/Jake play together or something I would never ever see. Or do a blind draw 4 v 4 tournament. Top 10 teams are put in 1 hat and teams 11-20 are put in another hat. Team from each hat is drawn and they are a team of 4 for the entirety of the tournament. Watching the McKibbins 4v4 video was some exciting vb as more rallies vs traditional 2-man where the point is more often than not over quick. Or same concept where you put the "blockers" from each qualifying team in a hat, the "defenders" in a hat and you draw for partners in a 2 v 2. AVP points of each person is quickly tabulated to come up with overall team points and teams are seeded accordingly. This would be amazing. Do anything, a KOB/QOB, a full on draw fours tournament. Just do something to spark new interest and mix it up a little bit. Don't be so rigid that you can't find new ways to make the sport exciting, beach volleyball isn't at the level of a major sport where it would be gimmicky to do something like this. I think most of the hardcore fans would enjoy seeing this and I bet many of the casual fans would also enjoy seeing this. I guess I'm not exactly sure what they players think of it, but if you put some money on the line I'm guessing they'd be down to compete.FIVB: Fix your playoff bracket draws. They are stupid and often super lopsided...Claes is basically in the Olympic hunt due to lopsided brackets. I want to see the best teams playing in the semis/finals. I think that they should put the non-winners (2nd & 3rd place finishers) into the bracket like they normally do (which I actually have no idea how they do). But, for the winners of the brackets, let's say 8 teams, the teams get to pick where they want to be placed in the draw. Let's say the 3 seed loses in pool and is put in the top part of the bracket where if they win, they would then play the top seed. Sucks for the 1 seed and put 2 top seeds against each other early on...plus how is that a reward to the 1 seed. Take the 8 pool winners and sort them by seed. Let's say the pool winners were the 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 23, & 28 seed. Whoever is the top seed, gets to pick where they want to be put in the bracket once they see where the 2nd/3rd place finishers from pool are put. In this case, the 1 seed gets to pick where they want to be put in the bracket (anywhere). Next up the 3 seed but they have to choose the opposite bracket as where the 1 seed went but they can choose anywhere they want in that bracket. So if 1 seed chose bottom part of bracket, 3 seed can choose anywhere in top part of bracket. 5 seed next up, they can choose anyhwere. 9 seed has to choose opposite bracket as 5 seed...and so on and so on. 28 seed ends up in the last open spot. Sounds complicated but should be easy to do. I go back and forth on this. At one point, I don't think it would be fair to the 28 seed to continue punishing them for beating higher teams. If they somehow win their pool, that means they beat a good team already, now you reward them with another one of the best teams because they get the last spot? Then you also continually give the easiest paths to the best team? It somewhat sets up for a unbalanced results with the higher seeded teams staying at the top because they always get the best draws. But I can see the argument on the other side that you hate seeing two top teams match up early in the playoff brackets.FIVB: If a team wins their pool, they should get some points winning the pool. Let's say 20 points. Currently, a team that wins pool, but loses their round of 16 match-up went 2-1 for the weekend. A team that finishes 2nd in pool (1-1), wins their round of 24 match-up but then loses in round of 16 goes 3-2 for the weekend but both walk with the same amount of points. Seems a team should get some nominal points for winning pool. I don't really care about this one that much, 20 points is so meager that it shouldn't make a huge difference. But I have no problem awarding points just based on finish. The benefit of winning your pool is getting the bye into the 2nd round and theoretically getting a better matchup / playing a team that had to play 1 extra game.AVP/FIVB: Put more mic's on the court. Was fun to hear Ed play it up to the mic on the court. I want to hear some Trevor/Taylor trash talk. Granted, you probably couldn't have these mic's "live" but you could play back some action...or keep mic's live but put in a language rule (see Jeremy Casebeer). I almost think they should do this anyhow as AVP is targeting families and not sure if Mom & Dad want there little ones watching a Jeremy match where he seems to drop an obscenity every other point. Agree with this, it's really fun to hear the back and forth on the court. Not sure how you'd handle policing the language, but it would be really cool to have this in all events.
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Dec 9, 2019 14:14:03 GMT -5
Update the freeze a little bit. Once a team reaches match point, they are frozen and have to serve to score. But the team that is behind, keeps playing rally score, until they tie the score. So basically sideout scoring ONLY for the team with match point. So a team down 14-7, could just sideout 7 times in a row and tie the match? That would be grossly unfair As grossly unfair as the freeze as it currently exists? A team can be up 20-12 and lose. How is that any more or less fair than what I proposed?
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 9, 2019 14:27:10 GMT -5
So a team down 14-7, could just sideout 7 times in a row and tie the match? That would be grossly unfair As grossly unfair as the freeze as it currently exists? A team can be up 20-12 and lose. How is that any more or less fair than what I proposed? Because as it stands, there is a shift in the rules that is uniform for both teams, similar to how rules change depending on timing in other sports. Post-freeze both teams must do exactly the same things to score. What you are proposing is that identical plays for opposing teams be scored differently. In the freeze, as currently constituted, a team must win at least 1 more real point than its opponent to win (thats the scenario where the team receiving first gets to the freeze at 14-13, then scores once) and usually two or more of each. In your scenario, a team could win 18 more real points than the opposition and still lose a game. (12 in a 15 point game). Thats a preposterous outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Dec 9, 2019 14:31:14 GMT -5
Maybe it's because the freeze is ridiculous, in any form
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 9, 2019 14:31:31 GMT -5
AVP- Put on 1 tournament a year that is different. do a King/Queen of the Court. I want to see 1 tournament a year without the same 3-5 teams realistically battling it out. Give me a King of the Court tournament where I can see Phil/Jake play together or something I would never ever see. Or do a blind draw 4 v 4 tournament. Top 10 teams are put in 1 hat and teams 11-20 are put in another hat. Team from each hat is drawn and they are a team of 4 for the entirety of the tournament. Watching the McKibbins 4v4 video was some exciting vb as more rallies vs traditional 2-man where the point is more often than not over quick. Or same concept where you put the "blockers" from each qualifying team in a hat, the "defenders" in a hat and you draw for partners in a 2 v 2. AVP points of each person is quickly tabulated to come up with overall team points and teams are seeded accordingly. This would be amazing. Do anything, a KOB/QOB, a full on draw fours tournament. Just do something to spark new interest and mix it up a little bit. Don't be so rigid that you can't find new ways to make the sport exciting, beach volleyball isn't at the level of a major sport where it would be gimmicky to do something like this. I think most of the hardcore fans would enjoy seeing this and I bet many of the casual fans would also enjoy seeing this. I guess I'm not exactly sure what they players think of it, but if you put some money on the line I'm guessing they'd be down to compete.To quote JVG, "who cares what the players think, what matters is what the fans want." Also all major sports do something gimmicky like this, all star games/competitions. I think one of the biggest mistakes Donald made was allowing the players to bully him out of holding one old school event a year when he proposed it. Id personally love mixed doubles that any first or second round losers could pair up and enter. Then play it on outer courts, mostly on Sundays to give the lower ranked teams a chance to win something, the fans something to watch when not many matches are going on, then play the finals on center court.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 9, 2019 14:33:08 GMT -5
Maybe it's because the freeze is ridiculous, in any form Also the most popular rule change since blocking over, at least among everyone Ive met or spoken to about it. Not sure why its any more ridiculous than a tiny court, let serves, not let serves, tight hands, loose hands, or any of several dozen other rule iterations
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Dec 9, 2019 15:12:59 GMT -5
I think those changes you mentioned are ridiculous as well. The freeze is popular with people who watch volleyball, but is it bringing in new fans? (which is the purpose of all these changes). The tightness/or lack thereof, of doubles calls isn't a reason people are showing up and paying to watch. Tiny court, eliminates 100's of people from competing at a pro level, let serves are stupid, regardless. All these rules changes or tweaks are supposed to make it more fan-friendly, and to grow our game. But I don't see how it is bringing in new fans, it's just frustrating the current players and fans. I'm trying not to be the "get off my lawn" guy; I grew up playing sideout/big court, and had to reluctantly change to the new dimensions and rules. We changed the court, we have changed balls, let serves, etc. all these rules were adopted and accepted by players and tournaments of all levels across the country and world. But I would venture to say that people playing pick-up or tournaments other than AVP, are not playing with the freeze.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 9, 2019 15:18:57 GMT -5
I think those changes you mentioned are ridiculous as well. The freeze is popular with people who watch volleyball, but is it bringing in new fans? (which is the purpose of all these changes). The tightness/or lack thereof, of doubles calls isn't a reason people are showing up and paying to watch. Tiny court, eliminates 100's of people from competing at a pro level, let serves are stupid, regardless. All these rules changes or tweaks are supposed to make it more fan-friendly, and to grow our game. But I don't see how it is bringing in new fans, it's just frustrating the current players and fans. I'm trying not to be the "get off my lawn" guy; I grew up playing sideout/big court, and had to reluctantly change to the new dimensions and rules. We changed the court, we have changed balls, let serves, etc. all these rules were adopted and accepted by players and tournaments of all levels across the country and world. But I would venture to say that people playing pick-up or tournaments other than AVP, are not playing with the freeze. I agree wholeheartedly that the rule changes over the last 20 years have not brought fans in and I would say the opposite, they have driven fans away - at least for the men's game. The scoring was supposedly changed so fans could understand it - of course everyone understood sideout scoring because they learned it in gym class and its incredibly simple "have to serve to score" - and then the preposterous two sets plus tiebreak model was introduced. I like the freeze because its a tiny chunk of the game played the way volleyball should be, under sideout rules where teams have to earn things I dont know anyone who plays with the freeze now, but back in the day almost none of us played touch on the block counts either.
|
|
|
Post by swift on Dec 10, 2019 4:27:35 GMT -5
I actually like all the sugestions keeweekid made. Plus the "FIVB should get rid of the rule where the host country gets the #1 seed".
I wouldn't mind if more games in a shorter time went down on the FIVB tour (especially on Sunday) but I don't think the popular tournaments (e.g. Vienna, Gstaad, Hamburg, etc.) have a problem with too many empty seats. I've been to some of those tournaments and there always seemed to be a decent crowd even on Thursdays and Fridays. I think the FIVB should cancel some of the tournaments in countries where clearly nobody cares about BV. I don't know if that's politics or simply a money thing or if they are trying to promote the sport in those countries but in my opinion it's a waste of time and it's annoying for cities with real volleyball fans that don't have any tournaments.
Regarding the big court/sideout scoring. I don't want it back. I know it's an unpopular opinion but I like the smaller court and side out scoring better. I grew up playing on the big court with sidout scoring but I think it was the right decision to change the rule. I could live with side out scoring but the bigger court was just to easy to side out on. I actually play a big court tournament once a year and every year it makes me realize how much better the smaller courts are.
|
|
|
Post by acrossthepond on Dec 10, 2019 8:54:01 GMT -5
I actually like all the sugestions keeweekid made. Plus the "FIVB should get rid of the rule where the host country gets the #1 seed". I wouldn't mind if more games in a shorter time went down on the FIVB tour (especially on Sunday) but I don't think the popular tournaments (e.g. Vienna, Gstaad, Hamburg, etc.) have a problem with too many empty seats. I've been to some of those tournaments and there always seemed to be a decent crowd even on Thursdays and Fridays. I think the FIVB should cancel some of the tournaments in countries where clearly nobody cares about BV. I don't know if that's politics or simply a money thing or if they are trying to promote the sport in those countries but in my opinion it's a waste of time and it's annoying for cities with real volleyball fans that don't have any tournaments. Regarding the big court/sideout scoring. I don't want it back. I know it's an unpopular opinion but I like the smaller court and side out scoring better. I grew up playing on the big court with sidout scoring but I think it was the right decision to change the rule. I could live with side out scoring but the bigger court was just to easy to side out on. I actually play a big court tournament once a year and every year it makes me realize how much better the smaller courts are. "I think the FIVB should cancel some of the tournaments" - Who is paying for those tournaments in other countries in your mind? It's not like anybody in the Netherlands is stopped from organizing a FIVB 5* tournament. Nobody is funding 600k€ of prize money (as well as the logistic costs) hence there are no tournaments. China is funding those tournaments for whatever reason. And it's better to have little attended tournaments than none at all.
|
|