Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 13:24:44 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... Because that match is broadcast live at a very specific point on a specific network. I'm talking about a pre-packaged 10 or 15 week set of shows--that wouldn't be live and could therefore fill space on a network at midnight or 2am. With the number of DVRs out there, the time of broadcast wouldn't be relevant initially. I am NOT talking about this being on during the height of March Madness or on Sunday afternoons in November.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jan 9, 2014 13:34:06 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. one is that tennis always draws big corporate sponsors. That is big money. Secondly, they do have a tv contract. And they do have big names playing. John McEnroe, Martina Hingis, andy roddick, etc. I've even seen the Williams sisters play. They always make sure at least one "name" player is at each site to And overall, people who play tennis have proven that they will go out and watch pro tennis, both live an on TV. Volleyball players don't do that.
|
|
|
Post by coachl on Jan 9, 2014 14:58:46 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. one is that tennis always draws big corporate sponsors. That is big money. Secondly, they do have a tv contract. And they do have big names playing. John McEnroe, Martina Hingis, andy roddick, etc. I've even seen the Williams sisters play. They always make sure at least one "name" player is at each site to And overall, people who play tennis have proven that they will go out and watch pro tennis, both live an on TV. Volleyball players don't do that. Why are volleyball players not wanting to watch volleyball?! I do think there is this sort of hump to get over where if volleyball is only on TV once every two weeks or even once a week, you really have to plan to watch it. But if it were on like 4-5 times a week or more like baseball, football and basketball, people would be more likely to watch it because it's on when they are watching TV anyway...
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Jan 9, 2014 15:48:31 GMT -5
Volleyball players have trouble watching volleyball for many reasons.
One reason I watch basketball or tennis is the announcers (people in the know who are interesting to listen to). I would watch or listen to Knicks games when they were bad, because I enjoy listening to Marv, Walt and Mike Breen. Same thing for the Nets, if Ian Eagle, or Spinarkle, Fratella or Tribucka or Ruocco are on, I tune in. Take the Clippers, boy will I watch (& did watch through some lean years) if Lawler and Smith are broadcasting. I'll watch tennis if McEnroe the elder is announcing too, ultra compelling.
Volleyball announcers, except for a few (Marlowe, Sunderland, Gregory) aren't that exciting to listen to. (and many are still pretty ignorant of what they are announcing)
One other flaw is in the actual coverage. The production crew and camera angles are so often poor. Recently, we held the FIVB Grand Champions Cup in Nagoya and Tokyo, Japan. Many of those matches were available online. The camera angles, the vision of the matches were excellent. Even the British announcer with his unique terminology was interesting. They knew what to zoom into. You could see touches on the block. You could see the effort in the players. This doesn't happen often in the States. Even when the AVP was going on. Go to a match and they are amazingly compelling, however, when seen on tv, that element doesn't show unless Casey Patterson is playing. ... or back in the days when the Hov played... you could see the emotion.
And then there isn't a great motivation for TV to improve their coverage. I believe we were told by ESPN recently at the AVCA convention, that all four of our semifinal matches were seen by less than 1% of the television audience. Hard to get things to improve with those type of numbers.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 9, 2014 15:55:25 GMT -5
First establish two-divisions of four teams based not in cities, but states/regions where fan-support for volleyball already exists:
Western: Hawaii (Waves), Northwest (Cascades), Bay Area (Sequoiahs), Great Lakes (Thunder) Eastern: Nebraska (Lynx), Texas (Tornado), Northeast (Leopards), Florida (Rays)
Tournament (rather than a league) format, with eight four-team tournaments (one hosted by each franchise) Four-team champion tournament, initially rotated between Hawaii and Nebraska.
Season: Avoid international/national team schedules (Winter-Spring?)
Pay: Sliding fixed pay-scale (payroll capped) paid by owners, plus prizes paid by sponsors
Rosters: 12 players. Each team assigned a regional recruitment area from which they can sign players (who played in college or HS in the region). Once the signing period is over, teams can sign players from any region. Two amateurs allowed per team.
Format: Timed, with winner with most points over two 25-minute sets, 15-minute half-time, 15-minute overtime in case of a tie. Two timeouts per set. Timed serves, penalties (a point) for delay of play. Time stops for call disputes (two per set), injuries (one per set). Matches should take less than 90 minutes.
Scoring: Two points if ball hits floor untouched, otherwise one point per score.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Jan 9, 2014 16:59:44 GMT -5
The biggest reason for why TV success isn't likely, women/girls don't like to watch sports. Men who don't even play sports, still watch football, basketball, and baseball. Most men won't watch women's sports. Stereotypical, yes. True, yes.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 9, 2014 18:21:47 GMT -5
There was a co-ed professional volleyball league, the International Volleyball Association, that operated from 1975 through 1979. Southern California Bangers (interesting name for a co-ed team) 1975 / Tucson Turquoise/Sky 1976-79 Santa Barbara Spikers 1975-79 Los Angelas Stars 1975-77 / O.C. Stars 1977-78 El Paso-Juarez Sol 1975-77 Phoenix Heat 1976-77 Denver Comets 1976-77 Seattle Smashers 1978-79 Albuquerque Lazers 1979 Salt Lake Stingers 1979 San Jose Diablos 1979 Wilt Chamberlain played for the Seattle Smashers. Not sure how the "co-ed" thing worked, but if the following is any indication, the men hit, while the women passed:
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 9, 2014 18:56:11 GMT -5
Stupid nicknames are stupid. Just give the city and largest sponsor. Maybe they'll shell out 75 cents more to be part of the team name.
|
|
|
Post by Volley1234 on Jan 9, 2014 19:00:20 GMT -5
How many cities could support a professional volleyball team? Only Honolulu and Omaha, it seems to me, which is not enough to form a league. Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Seattle, or Philadelphia, for instance, at best might support a semi-pro team. What about sponsored touring teams - Nike Slammers, Mizuno Spikers, Molten Crushers, Tachikara Pounders, Mikasa Smashers, Under Armour Blasters? What about playing with five (no subs in sets except for injury) on a smaller court - three in the front row, two in the back row (with only the setter and one hitter rotating)? Might be able to get away with an eight player roster. Play to win two out of three (30 point) sets. I think Columbus would be a great city to have a pro team has you will not be competing with any big professional sports and Columbus has been known to enjoy the odd pro sports (Columbus Crew soccer and Bluejackets hockey) and it would help make Ohio State volleyball more successful in the long run most likely.
|
|
|
Post by panicvb on Sept 3, 2015 23:17:04 GMT -5
Okay this thread is old, but the idea keeps coming back to me.
My thoughts ---
National league will not work. Expenses are too high for travel.
Top national team stars need to stay abroad in the best leagues... for now.
Three - and this is key. The league needs to be set up in regional divisions. The only way this can work is for the biggest youth volleyball clubs need to support the "pros". If you take 2-10 of the bigger clubs in each state, state, and then have them play a regional schedule. This is how soccer developed in Europe and most of the rest of the world. I think even European volleyball leagues started like this.
USA PVL is on the right track, but the key is more teams, around the nation. These top clubs would need support from their youth players, use it as a fund raiser, include season tickets in the price of club play. Start small.
Big question - where to play? Do most of these clubs have courts that can handle 1,000 spectators? Probably not. So need to rent a gym, preferably something that allows beer to be sold. Beer is important. Regional league winners meet for conference titles, and conference winners meet for finals.
Now the issue I see is the men - boys volleyball is only played in 20 states, and we have a much smaller pool of players. College club teams would probably be a solid start - but it will take time to develop. For the soccer fans out there, something like an NPSL or PDL. League is basically amateur, but have prize money available as we are not using college players.
Make team ownership affordable - say $3,000 buys you a team in the league. Budget - shoot for $25,000.
Still have questions of when to play - men in the fall on Saturday nights at local high school gyms. Women in the spring - same gyms.
Let's get it growing, and then tackle the national league.
European leagues - I've tried to get good numbers, but some leagues average in the hundreds, and a some of the bigger clubs in Italy will draw 4-8,000. Goal for this league - draw 500 paid adults at $5-8 per ticket. 10 home games - $25,000 in revenue. Sponsorship money - goal would be $10,000.
Home team puts up $1,000 cash prize to the winning team for each match. Prize money goes directly to players. Not a lot of money, but it is basically high level amateur volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Sept 4, 2015 8:40:18 GMT -5
TV will be gone in a few years so I don't know that catering to that medium is really worth it. Here is an idea that I think is sort of what the PVL was supposed to become but the social media piece guarentees interested people will be out there... still need to get them to watch. mashable.com/2015/07/23/basketball-tournament-schedule/
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Sept 4, 2015 9:13:23 GMT -5
The biggest reason for why TV success isn't likely, women/girls don't like to watch sports. Men who don't even play sports, still watch football, basketball, and baseball. Most men won't watch women's sports. Stereotypical, yes. True, yes.
And the thing is, certain cynical volleyball promoters have even resorted to blatantly sexist marketing of using the women's bodies to sell the game. The logic being, sex sells of course. I mean, its obvious why female beach volleyball players dress in bikini. And I've seen some tv broadcasts of indoor volleyball matches have a strange focus on the girl's legs and their spandex butt. Perverse, sexist and unacceptable? Absolutely. But it does say something about how hard some are trying to sell the game if they are even resorting to these kind of below-the-belt tactics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 10:05:31 GMT -5
The biggest reason for why TV success isn't likely, women/girls don't like to watch sports. Men who don't even play sports, still watch football, basketball, and baseball. Most men won't watch women's sports. Stereotypical, yes. True, yes.
And the thing is, certain cynical volleyball promoters have even resorted to blatantly sexist marketing of using the women's bodies to sell the game. The logic being, sex sells of course. I mean, its obvious why female beach volleyball players dress in bikini. And I've seen some tv broadcasts of indoor volleyball matches have a strange focus on the girl's legs and their spandex butt. Perverse, sexist and unacceptable? Absolutely. But it does say something about how hard some are trying to sell the game if they are even resorting to these kind of below-the-belt tactics.
These are theories and may be true but does anyone know? One could argue the point above is correct IF you look at number of viewers for men's sand vs. women's sand for the olympics (assuming they were broadcast at similar hours over the two weeks). I searched for this but could not find anything. If far more people tuned in for the women's games, it is likely because of the uniforms. I think you are correct, but I would love to see some stats on it. That would argue that the only sports that will take off (in terms of viewership) for women are the more sexualized ones. I would argue that the media does do that for golf and tennis (look at who they focus on as the up and coming stars). They cannot ignore williams now, but remember all those years where, if you did not watch tennis, you would have though Anna was the greatest women's tennis player in the world?
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Sept 4, 2015 11:07:06 GMT -5
There was a co-ed professional volleyball league, the International Volleyball Association, that operated from 1975 through 1979. Southern California Bangers (interesting name for a co-ed team) 1975 / Tucson Turquoise/Sky 1976-79 Santa Barbara Spikers 1975-79 Los Angelas Stars 1975-77 / O.C. Stars 1977-78 El Paso-Juarez Sol 1975-77 Phoenix Heat 1976-77 Denver Comets 1976-77 Seattle Smashers 1978-79 Albuquerque Lazers 1979 Salt Lake Stingers 1979 San Jose Diablos 1979 Wilt Chamberlain played for the Seattle Smashers. Not sure how the "co-ed" thing worked, but if the following is any indication, the men hit, while the women passed: Not sure how I missed this post! I played for the Salt Lake Stingers for a season in 1978 (the league folded in the middle of the 2nd season). No rotation, women played defense, guys stayed on the front. Other than Mary Jo Peppler, a man also set. Interestingly, they set from middle back on most teams. I made $100/game, $50 for every clinic, and my apartment was paid for. Not a bad summer job. Oh, and Wilt Chamberlin got people in the stands, but he was no volleyball player!
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 4, 2015 13:56:30 GMT -5
The biggest reason for why TV success isn't likely, women/girls don't like to watch sports. Men who don't even play sports, still watch football, basketball, and baseball. Most men won't watch women's sports. Stereotypical, yes. True, yes.
And the thing is, certain cynical volleyball promoters have even resorted to blatantly sexist marketing of using the women's bodies to sell the game. The logic being, sex sells of course. I mean, its obvious why female beach volleyball players dress in bikini. And I've seen some tv broadcasts of indoor volleyball matches have a strange focus on the girl's legs and their spandex butt. Perverse, sexist and unacceptable? Absolutely. But it does say something about how hard some are trying to sell the game if they are even resorting to these kind of below-the-belt tactics.
(Note: I'm aware that the above might be ironical, satirical, or both, but since no smilies or winkies were attached...) We are talking about "beach" volleyball. I thought we were past bikinis not being appropriate beachwear. What would happen if bikinis were banned at the beach? Women and girls would lead the protest, it seems to me. Appropriate gymware, on the other hand... I'm hoping nobody is suggesting we go to this: Part of the problem is that body parts are libidinized by being concealed rather than exposed. A century ago, ankles were all the rage. I don't think anyone is suggesting a Lingerie Volleyball League. Where do we draw the line between sexploitation and natural sex appeal? I do think that one of the issues is that the sport is more exciting in person than on TV. Even in person, all too often a point being scored results in a "wha happen?" Now, I'd like to see longer rallies, which to me would mean one thing - raise the net.
|
|