|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jan 6, 2014 2:44:07 GMT -5
I wish it would work but it seems doubtful. The best players in this country can make over 100k playing oversees. Why would they give that up to make 10-15k here at best. And if the league can't pull the BEST players (recognizable names with national team level talent) then it doesn't earn the respect of 'professional' I don't see anything wrong with a semi pro league and I think the PVL is a good tester Why? When MLS was getting off of the ground a lot of our best soccer players stayed abroad. For last years CONCACAF roster, 11 of the 25 players were non-MLS and based overseas. How is this different? And to the other post, if I recall, when the USPV played I think Rochester Minnesota led the league in attendance, so don't just assume that college towns are the best place to go. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 8:51:16 GMT -5
I wish it would work but it seems doubtful. The best players in this country can make over 100k playing oversees. Why would they give that up to make 10-15k here at best. And if the league can't pull the BEST players (recognizable names with national team level talent) then it doesn't earn the respect of 'professional' I don't see anything wrong with a semi pro league and I think the PVL is a good tester But if they could make $10,000 without interrupting those overseas contracts--would that make a difference? What if you could do the entire league in a month? You don't really need longer. If a league is going to be successful, it's about television, and that doesn't require live airings. Create 6 or 8 teams. Find two gyms. Then run the regular season with every team playing two matches/day (12 days). Top four teams to playoffs, single elimination, one match/day (two days). Give each team a couple days before hand to practice and you're looking at a commitment of 16-21 days. TV could film for four days and get eight matches--telecasting one per week for eight weeks, then run the semis and the final the next two weeks. Now you've got a ten week TV package for minimal overhead expense. 80 players at $10k = $800,000 2 weeks of court rental = $10,000 Admin expenses = $50,000 (no idea here--but probably need to pay someone to be in charge) You're looking at basically one million to produce everything. Split that up for ten weeks of TV, two hours per telecast, and you're looking at $50,000/hour. A network would make a profit on that. |
|
|
|
Post by ja on Jan 6, 2014 9:20:59 GMT -5
If you will look into successful VB leagues, then we have only two models that works. First, private investors or big corporations, second - government
in any form. If you are planning to run this as a charity event (10K per player) it doomed to fail. Players in Turkey, Russia, Azerbaijan, Italy, Japan are making 6 figures! It needs to be run like a business, then we will have a chance to survive. We do have enough former and current players around, who will spend $10-20 per match to go out and have fun together, but they need a good product! Would NY, Chicago, Huston, Orlando, Denver, Seattle, Omaha and few more places be able to get 5000 plus spectators? I believe so! But as I mention before, they will have to see a good product, not some random players, getting together for a gig.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Jan 6, 2014 11:30:07 GMT -5
I wish it would work but it seems doubtful. The best players in this country can make over 100k playing oversees. Why would they give that up to make 10-15k here at best. And if the league can't pull the BEST players (recognizable names with national team level talent) then it doesn't earn the respect of 'professional' I don't see anything wrong with a semi pro league and I think the PVL is a good tester Why? When MLS was getting off of the ground a lot of our best soccer players stayed abroad. For last years CONCACAF roster, 11 of the 25 players were non-MLS and based overseas. How is this different? And to the other post, if I recall, when the USPV played I think Rochester Minnesota led the league in attendance, so don't just assume that college towns are the best place to go. Because there isn't enough interest, you could never pay the top players enough which would be essential to fan interest. The PVL was a bust, as was every other league that has tried to make a go at it. I love volleyball, would love to see it, I just don't see any way it could. It wouldn't be any better or even as good as top college volleyball, so where would the interest be? Just don't see it happening unless you had 10 owners who could care less if they lost a ton of money. |
|
kcco
Freshman
Posts: 74
|
Post by kcco on Jan 6, 2014 14:45:55 GMT -5
Thanks for the laugh! Good start to monday.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Jan 6, 2014 18:14:36 GMT -5
Any major city that has an existing professional sports team will be a tough draw for spectators. College towns like Austin, Lincoln, Madison, etc. will draw in people. Previous history has shown that franchises in NY, Chicago, LA, SF/SJ, etc. all failed to draw 5,000 fans every match.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftcoaster71 on Jan 9, 2014 1:23:24 GMT -5
Any major city that has an existing professional sports team will be a tough draw for spectators. College towns like Austin, Lincoln, Madison, etc. will draw in people. Previous history has shown that franchises in NY, Chicago, LA, SF/SJ, etc. all failed to draw 5,000 fans every match. None of the MLV franchises drew 5.000 fans per match. Minnesota led the league in attendance with San Jose close behind. The final season of MLV, The SJ GoldDiggers were selling out every match at the 2,100 seat SJ Civic Auditorium. Had they gone to 4th season, they would have moved down the street to the SJSU events center and would have averaged 3-4k per match. They were actually in the process of looking at moving some of the final matches of the season over there. Back in the 80's this was considered a great start, even though the teams were still losing money. The owners of the SJ and Minnesota franchises wanted to continue with the league but, Chicago, LA, and NY had such piss poor attendance, that it brought the league under. We're talking in the neighborhood of 100-200 people per match. As one person stated "I could have walked door to door and sold more tickets than that." I think your biggest markets of LA, NY, and Chicago would continue to do horribly, but I believe there is room in most other markets for a pro team to thrive. |
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jan 9, 2014 9:36:41 GMT -5
Any major city that has an existing professional sports team will be a tough draw for spectators. College towns like Austin, Lincoln, Madison, etc. will draw in people. Previous history has shown that franchises in NY, Chicago, LA, SF/SJ, etc. all failed to draw 5,000 fans every match. None of the MLV franchises drew 5.000 fans per match. Minnesota led the league in attendance with San Jose close behind. The final season of MLV, The SJ GoldDiggers were selling out every match at the 2,100 seat SJ Civic Auditorium. Had they gone to 4th season, they would have moved down the street to the SJSU events center and would have averaged 3-4k per match. They were actually in the process of looking at moving some of the final matches of the season over there. Back in the 80's this was considered a great start, even though the teams were still losing money. The owners of the SJ and Minnesota franchises wanted to continue with the league but, Chicago, LA, and NY had such piss poor attendance, that it brought the league under. We're talking in the neighborhood of 100-200 people per match. As one person stated "I could have walked door to door and sold more tickets than that." I think your biggest markets of LA, NY, and Chicago would continue to do horribly, but I believe there is room in most other markets for a pro team to thrive. Attendance doesn't mean anything. The money is in the tv deals. And the money with the tv deal means viability. |
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Jan 9, 2014 10:49:25 GMT -5
Many pro vb leagues have been tried over the years and all have failed. Not enough fan or TV interest to provide enough revenue to sustain a quality league with quality players in the US. I would rather see more broadcasts from the foreign leagues become mainstream viewing like international soccer (Premier League, Serie A, etc) has become.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 10:56:02 GMT -5
Volleytology--I disagree about TV interest.
I think there WOULD be interest, but the league would have to be designed for TV broadcast, not simply televising the league on the league's schedule. That's why I think filming everything in a two-week period would be most effective--and it wouldn't tax volleyball players excessively physically.
It doesn't matter when it's televised after. The matches just wouldn't be live.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 9, 2014 10:56:43 GMT -5
I look at some of the other professional leagues out there and don't see how they can be viable, but volleyball isn't. Take a look at World Team Tennis. NONE of the top 60 or so pros play in it, but the league has been operating since 1973. I have no clue if the league actually turns a profit, but I'd have to think so with it being around that long. Start small, have a month-long season in the summer when your only competition is baseball and see where is goes from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardcounter on Jan 9, 2014 11:40:54 GMT -5
Someone posted the WNBA is starting to gain solid financial footing. I don't agree. The Los Angeles Sparks are considered the premier team in the league. Two weeks ago the owner walked away from the team because she complained about losing too much money even with the $1 million from ESPN. If the WNBA doesn't find a buyer for the Sparks the League will be operating with one less team. Professional athletes expect to be compensated for their efforts whether it be basketball or volleyball. Some years back WNBA players were talking about going on strike for more money at a time when the league was two steps away from folding.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Jan 9, 2014 12:22:49 GMT -5
Volleytology--I disagree about TV interest. I think there WOULD be interest, but the league would have to be designed for TV broadcast, not simply televising the league on the league's schedule. That's why I think filming everything in a two-week period would be most effective--and it wouldn't tax volleyball players excessively physically. It doesn't matter when it's televised after. The matches just wouldn't be live. Why do you think that ? Our collegiate national championship game, the height of the sport in this country, doesn't even get a 1 share of the viewing audience and you think a 10 week league without the best players and no fanbase is going to be a viable as a televised event ? Doesn't make sense or cents... |
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Jan 9, 2014 12:23:52 GMT -5
Someone posted the WNBA is starting to gain solid financial footing. I don't agree. The Los Angeles Sparks are considered the premier team in the league. Two weeks ago the owner walked away from the team because she complained about losing too much money even with the $1 million from ESPN. If the WNBA doesn't find a buyer for the Sparks the League will be operating with one less team. Professional athletes expect to be compensated for their efforts whether it be basketball or volleyball. Some years back WNBA players were talking about going on strike for more money at a time when the league was two steps away from folding. Very simple regarding the WNBA; without the NBA's support the league goes under tomorrow |
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Jan 9, 2014 12:44:13 GMT -5
Here the WNBA is predicted as 1 of 10 brands to disappear in '14. Ten Brands That Will Disappear in 20147. WNBA
The champion and protector of the Women’s National Basketball Association, David Stern, will retire in February 2014. He has been the all-powerful commissioner of the NBA for three decades. It is hard to imagine how the WNBA could have survived without his support, and that will soon be gone. The league was founded in 1996, and currently has 12 teams. Six teams have disappeared since the league’s beginning, and three have been relocated. Attendance has been awful. Average regular season attendance by team per game was only 7,457 in 2012, compared to about 18,000 for the NBA. The WNBA attendance number was below 6,000 in Atlanta, Chicago and Tulsa. Even in New York City, the New York Liberty could not break the 7,000 barrier. Attendance for half of the teams dropped by double digits between 2011 and 2012. Owners have little financial reason to support the league. The Chicago Sun Times reported in 2011 that “The majority of WNBA teams are believed to have lost money each year, with the NBA subsidizing some of the losses.” TV viewership is so low it only makes matters worse.[/i] |
|
