|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on May 10, 2014 16:54:33 GMT -5
Sure, Title IX is a huge factor. But even if Title IX is a driving factor behind the growth of NCAA sand volleyball and the explosion of junior beach participation in the past few years, that still means more players on the beach, more families involved, more fans created, and more people to market the sport to. As an aside, I was at the national championship last week, and the crowds were very good - particularly given Gulf Shores ain't the easiest place to get to.
The AVP generally drew solid crowds last season - although Santa Barbara seemed pretty lame (and is no longer on the schedule). I don't know if the D. Sun version of the AVP will end up being the best iteration of pro beach, but they do seem to be doing some of the right things in respect to stabilizing the pro tour. They've also done some things I really don't like, but that's another thread.
Things could be better on the domestic scene, but then again things could always be better. But given where the sport was in 2010 when Lewin did his best - or worst, I guess - to kill the sport, there's certainly been progress.
|
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 10, 2014 23:10:04 GMT -5
Gotta love the Annie-isms. Your passion is to be admired. Your objectivity, not so much. If you're not realistic about the problem, you'll never find the solution that actually works. Harsh perhaps, but true. And pls keep in mind that I'm not the one who said that people won't pay to watch sand vb. I'm merely saying that looking at the sport subjectively is doing neither the sport nor its most fervent fans any good.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 11, 2014 0:57:21 GMT -5
You didn't say one thing that specified or addressed the supposed objectivity and/or subjectivity that you claim exists. Participation in sand volleyball at the college level is increasing. That is an objective fact. But perhaps you have the argument being made turned around in your mind: participation (which I am using in the sense of athletic opportunities at the NCAA level) is not increasing because of a growth in consumer interest, but rather the increase in participation is likely to spur opportunities to increase and capture consumer interest. The players on the AVP tour now obviously are not a product of college sand volleyball, and it will be a few years before the AVP would reap any benefit from the increase in participation, assuming the AVP survives that long. But there will now forever be a pipeline of current or former college beach players.
|
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 11, 2014 21:58:14 GMT -5
You didn't say one thing that specified or addressed the supposed objectivity and/or subjectivity that you claim exists. Of course I have. Objectivity -- pls see the multitude of posts in this forum referenced here: The re-appearance on a regular basis of threads on this forum lamenting the now-long-term decline in sand vb's popularity among "consumers" pretty much tells us that the decision has long since been made regarding the AVP. Subjectivity -- pls see all the Annie-isms in this forum. They're pretty much just as plentiful as the lamentations, if not more so. And pls remember -- the context of all my posts in this thread are consumers of sand vb -- e.g., paying customers -- not participants. Heck, bowling is wildly popular among people who bowl. But how many consumers are there of bowling these days?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 11, 2014 22:31:22 GMT -5
A cursory internet search suggests that the bowling industry in the US was over 6 billion dollars in 2013. Perhaps not a behemoth industry, but quite significant nonetheless.
The context of the most recent posts was in response to your assertion that beach volleyball was on life-support. That might be true with respect to the AVP, but not true for beach volleyball in general, and the level of college participation is an important reason that the future of beach volleyball appears much brighter.
I still haven't encountered a clear definition of Annie-ism, but I do wonder if your constant references to Annie-isms actually qualifies as one.
|
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 13:19:44 GMT -5
A cursory internet search suggests that the bowling industry in the US was over 6 billion dollars in 2013. Perhaps not a behemoth industry, but quite significant nonetheless. The context of the most recent posts was in response to your assertion that beach volleyball was on life-support. That might be true with respect to the AVP, but not true for beach volleyball in general, and the level of college participation is an important reason that the future of beach volleyball appears much brighter. I still haven't encountered a clear definition of Annie-ism, but I do wonder if your constant references to Annie-isms actually qualifies as one. You're refusing to listen. CONSUMERS, volleyguy, CONSUMERS. Not players. Not participants. "The level of college participation" -- itself debatable with regard to its potential future impact on sand vb consumption -- is not relevant to what I said was on life support. I was quite specific, and deliberately so, so as to try to avoid the misunderstanding you seem to have: I think it's as popular as it ever was. The biggest issue is people just don't want to pay to watch it... You don't see the contradiction in what you said here? This is a good example of an Annie-ism. Think about it. When people decide they don't want to pay to watch a (fill in the blank) team, we generally then say that the team is not as popular as it once was. If sand vb really was as popular with consumers as some here want to believe it is, there would be no need for all the despair expressed here about the state of the sport, because the state would be healthy. As it is, sand vb has been on life support -- among consumers -- for quite a while now. Try a cursory internet search on attendance at bowling tournaments, and viewership of bowling tournaments -- i.e., regarding bowling's consumers -- and get back to me. And "the context of the most recent posts" is a nice way of saying that you & others are choosing to alter the context of my posts so as to make the points you want to make with no regard to what I actually said. As a courtesy, here is the post I responded to in this thread -- the one that establishes the context of my remarks to you and others here -- with emphasis added to make it clear: It's my understanding people knew the AVPs stance on competing tours. While I agree the lesser names ie Chara should be allowed to play where they can, I also believe the AVP has the right to operate as they see fit. Then its up to the players/ consumers to decide if they want to be associated with them. The re-appearance on a regular basis of threads on this forum lamenting the now-long-term decline in sand vb's popularity among " consumers" pretty much tells us that the decision has long since been made regarding the AVP. So if you'd like to discuss the consumers of sand vb with me, that's fine. If on the other hand you want to keep talking how many people play sand vb -- i.e., participate in the sport -- that's fine, but stop quoting me as if it's at all relevant to what I've said. Fair enough? As for what an Annie-ism is...well, again, you're not listening, just reacting. See this earlier in the thread: I think it's as popular as it ever was. The biggest issue is people just don't want to pay to watch it... You don't see the contradiction in what you said here? This is a good example of an Annie-ism. Think about it. When people decide they don't want to pay to watch a (fill in the blank) team, we generally then say that the team is not as popular as it once was. If sand vb really was as popular with consumers as some here want to believe it is, there would be no need for all the despair expressed here about the state of the sport, because the state would be healthy. As it is, sand vb has been on life support -- among consumers -- for quite a while now. Just being honest with you. Many here like yourself have convinced themselves that, because sand vb is such an awesome sport, it is only a matter of time before the sports consuming public realizes what the sand vb fanatics already know and jump on board, thronging to tournaments and spending their entertainment $ to do so. That is Annie-ism. There is a lesser number of objective people here who realize that sand vb isn't all that among the sports consuming public, and they come up with some ideas how to change that. Good for them. In fact, as I said: Your passion is to be admired. I will give you this -- you sand vb folks make for interesting reading. As, I'm sure, the womens volleyball forum is for some of you.
|
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 15:21:33 GMT -5
A cursory internet search... ...the level of college participation is an important reason that the future of beach volleyball appears much brighter. OK. You did inspire me to do a cursory internet search to examine your contention here. I went right to the first site that came up (i.e., cursory): www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2014.pdfIn an attempt to be objective and fair, allowing for the possibility that sand vb might prove so popular among players that it will grow 5-fold, I scrolled down to the first NCAA womens sport that currently (meaning 2012-13) has 5x the participants of sand vb (416): womens ice hockey (2090). And so the obvious, relevant question to ask: given your contention above, are you also willing to state just as clearly that "the level of college participation is an important reason that the future of [womens ice hockey] appears much brighter" -- particularly given the fact that womens ice hockey has 5x as many participants? If so, would you like to explain why you believe that? Look -- I get that you love sand vb. Good for you. I am just trying to explain that looking at your sport objectively would do you more good, and keep your blood pressure better in check, than what I would claim is unwarranted/unrealistic optimism. In that vein, let's move on. In what should be a sobering comparison, let's now look at a sport that currently has 63x the number of participants than does sand vb: womens soccer (26,084). There are actually a lot of similarities between the 2 sports in terms of their respective pipelines -- and it is your contention that the pipeline for sand vb is an indication of "much brighter" times for the sport. According to USYS (http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/media_kit/keystatistics/), in 2008 there were 1,449,904 youth girls playing soccer. According to USAV (http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Volleyball/Membership/USAV-Facts), it has over 300,000 members -- but that includes players of both genders, coaches, and officials. I can't find anything reliable on the internet to break things down by players only, and then by gender, so I have to make some assumptions to get to how many girls there are playing youth vb. The best guide I can find is HS numbers (file:///C:/Users/tcfrock/Downloads/2013-14%20NFHS%20Handbook_pgs52-70%20(1).pdf), and also some educated guesses based on numbers at any given club vb court. So -- using the HS numbers as a guide, 89% of youth (HS) players are female. Using a court at a USAV club tournament, I'm assuming an average team size of 10, an average coaching staff of 2, and an average ref crew of 1. So there are 25 people courtside, 80% of which are players. Now let's apply these %s to the USAV number: 300,000 x .80 (percentage players as members) = 240,000 youth players, of which 89% are girls = 213,600 youth girls playing volleyball. Of course, the overwhelming majority are not playing sand vb, so it's pretty hard to get a number for just those players. I did google "number of youth sand volleyball players", but didn't come up with anything meaningful. Well, actually I did -- this (https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/london-spy/mystery-solved-why-sand-doesn-t-stick-beach-202829395.html) -- but not meaningful with regard to the number of players. So the only thing I know to do, in order to get a ratio that is not just a guess, is to go back to the NCAA stats and compare the number of volleyball players (16,261) to the number of sand vb players (416). That give us 2.5% of all NCAA women players playing sand vb. Of course there is some overlap, but given the total of only 416 the effect of that overlap is negligible and not statistically significant. So the final step in getting a comparable number of youth players in the pipeline that play sand vb is to take 2.5% of all female youth players, and we arrive at a pipeline for sand vb of 5340 girls. But things are more complicated than this. The pipeline for womens soccer undoubtedly also includes other sports such as indoor soccer, beach soccer, and futsol. So that pipeline actually has more than 1.5 million girls in it. Even worse for the prospects of sand vb, the womens soccer pipeline is composed of at least 4 separate sports -- soccer, indoor soccer, beach soccer, futsol -- converging together into one college sport. Conversely, the pipeline for womens sand vb has the potential for some of it to split off to another another college sport -- volleyball -- rather than continuing on to empty into sand vb. So here's the best-case scenario for sand vb (girls/women only, so I don't have to keep specifying that): only youth soccer players are in the pipeline for college soccer, not the players of other related sports; there are 1,449,904 girls in the pipeline, representing potential support for the sport of womens soccer, which has 26,084 NCAA players; therefore, the soccer pipeline is 56x the size of the college player pool, and represents some amount of increased future popularity consistent with that ratio. For sand vb, all youth volleyball players are in the pipeline for college sand vb; there are 213,600 girls in the pipeline, representing potential support for the sport of womens sand vb, which has 416 players; therefore, the sand vb pipeline is 513x the size of the college player pool, and represents some amount of increased future popularity consistent with that ratio. That's the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario? Only youth sand vb players are in the pipeline for college sand vb; there are 5340 girls in the pipeline, representing potential future support for the sport of sand vb, which has 416 players; therefore, the sand vb pipeline is 13x the size of the college player pool, and represents some amount of increased future popularity consistent with that ratio. So what's the most-likely scenario? Will sand vb prove to be 513x more popular than it now is, or only 13x more popular, given the current numbers RE participation? Will it prove to be much more popular than womens soccer is now, or much less popular than womens soccer is now, given the relative differences in future popularity? Rather than guessing, let's take one last look at relative stats: the pipeline/player ratios of womens soccer and womens volleyball. Womens soccer: 1,449,904 youth/26,084 college = 56x Womens volleyball: 213,600 youth/16,261 college = 13x Given that some youth volleyball players will choose to play volleyball in college, others will choose to play sand vb in college, and a relative few will choose to play both, it's reasonable to assume that the net gain or loss coming thru the pipeline into either college sport will be a wash. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the future growth in popularity for sand vb will be much more in line with 13x than with 513x. One last point: beyond what the numbers above might indicate, an objective observer must look at the relative popularity of the 3 sports discussed here. As much as all of us -- volleyball and sand vb fans alike -- might fervently want our sports to gain in popularity among consumers of sports entertainment, the pipelines for our respective sports indicate that it is highly unlikely -- in fact, over 4x more unlikely (13x vs 56x) -- that either sport will ever reach the level of popularity of womens soccer. And so, the final sobering thought for all of us here: Just how "popular" do you consider womens soccer to be among the consumers of sports entertainment these days, and what are the prospects for its future growth? I would advocate for realism over Annie-isms. (btw -- womens bowling currently has more participants than sand vb, at 570. Now, I know you're going to say that sand vb will explode soon and quickly overtake bowling. Perhaps. But do you know that, in one year, womens bowling exploded by over 1000%? It's true. It had it's time of explosive growth. And, according to you, it's a multi-billion dollar industry. Sand vb has neither grown by over 1000% in one year, nor is it anything close to a multi-billion dollar industry.)
|
|
|
Post by crawdaddy on May 12, 2014 15:55:42 GMT -5
Popularity isn't the issue. Viability is however. Au contraire. I agree that with regard to players viability is indeed the issue. But you also mentioned consumers. If consumers are not attracted by a sports product, they will not spend their leisure $ on it. And posts lamenting sand vb's now-long-term decline in popularity abound in this forum. Sad, perhaps, but true. Volleyball enthusiasts like myself often talk about how our sport is a niche sport. We wish it was more popular, and we hope it will become so, but for now it is what it is and we love the sport we see as a hidden gem. But we do not fill the mens and womens volleyball forums with the bipolar wide-eyed Annie-isms on one hand, and hand-wringing despair on the other, seen in this sand vb forum. A bit of hyperbole, yes, but not meant in a mean way, just describing what I see. I just find volleyball supporters to be much more realistic about our sport and its future prospects, as compared to sand vb folks. Again, just an observation. The reason why there is both lamenting and optimism on this board and not on the indoor board is that there was, not that long ago, a very successful professional U.S. tour, with network T.V. contracts, major sponsors, and relatively high-profile athletes. There has never been anything close to that on the indoor side in the United States. Since us beach volleyball fans (at least those of us a little older) remember this success well, we naturally lament its demise and hope for a return to those glory days. I'm not sure why you want us to stop doing that, and I, like many others, do see positive signs that the AVP is building the sport back up again. I will continue to be proudly optimistic and you can go back to the other board and quibble about whether Purdue had a good recruiting class.
|
|
|
Post by klazk on May 12, 2014 16:10:39 GMT -5
The best guide I can find is HS numbers (file:///C:/Users/tcfrock/Downloads/2013-14%20NFHS%20Handbook_pgs52-70%20(1).pdf). I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but I am calling b*%#t on your analysis. Your own reference shows that you used bad numbers. Page 53 of your HS guide shows that 420,208 girls participated in high school volleyball in 2012-2013. That is almost twice the number you used for total volleyball players and that is only high school, not all youth. I'm not knocking your theory, just that you can't randomly go to USAV's website, pull a membership number and use it to prove a pipeline. Not every youth volleyball player is a registered USAV member. You can find statistics published somewhere to prove almost anything. Knowing which statistics are valid and reasonable and using them to intelligently support your argument is a lot harder to do.
|
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 16:48:15 GMT -5
The best guide I can find is HS numbers (file:///C:/Users/tcfrock/Downloads/2013-14%20NFHS%20Handbook_pgs52-70%20(1).pdf). I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but I am calling b*&#%#t on your analysis. Your own reference shows that you used bad numbers. Page 53 of your HS guide shows that 420,208 girls participated in high school volleyball in 2012-2013. That is almost twice the number you used for total volleyball players and that is only high school, not all youth. I'm not knocking your theory, just that you can't randomly go to USAV's website, pull a membership number and use it to prove a pipeline. Not every youth volleyball player is a registered USAV member. You can find statistics published somewhere to prove almost anything. Knowing which statistics are valid and reasonable and using them to intelligently support your argument is a lot harder to do. Indeed it is. That's why I used club vb numbers and not just HS vb numbers. Question: which group is most likely to wind up actually on a college roster -- a club player, or a HS-only player? The answer will lead you to the most relevant stat. Besides, we both know that the vast majority of HS players that are going to be playing in college are playing both club & HS, so there's a significant amount of overlap in the 2 numbers. But again, the "valid and reasonable" stat is the one that encompasses the most likely college players -- i.e., the USAV number, not the NFHS number. I maintain that the NFHS number greatly overstates what volleyguy would call realistically potential college "participants". So you can call the analysis anything you like. And if you can find better -- more valid -- numbers that better reflect the number of potential college players (or indicate the likelihood of increased interest in sand vb by some other means -- I went with college participation because that's what volleyguy was basing his/her argument on), be my guest. I'd love to see it, and I'm sure the sand vb folks would love to see a more optimistic analysis based on current, valid, relevant numbers. This is the best I could find with my google machine and an hour or so, and it was a sincere effort, I assure you. Oh -- I also know that not every youth volleyball player is a registered USAV member. Some of them are AAU members. Some JVA. But again, there is significant overlap -- most of my club's players have dual registration, and we're not alone in that -- and USAV is by far the largest portion of the total number of club players/most-likely-college-players. By enough, in fact, that I did not consider it necessary to gather all the numbers from USAV/AAU/JVA and determine the degree of overlapping membership in order to make my points. I believe the points still stand. If you think you can rebut the analysis by gathering your own set of numbers, pls feel free to do that. But I feel confident that there will be no statistically significant difference in my results, and in yours. It's not like I cherry-picked the numbers, and I was up-front with my assumptions. These were the most relevant numbers I was able to find, and I stand on the analysis based on those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by klazk on May 12, 2014 16:53:46 GMT -5
You are kidding right? You think your soccer number is statistically equivalent to the volleyball number you used? Youth soccer is not Club soccer. It includes 5&6 year olds that at there for the fruit slices and juice boxes.
And apparently you are also guilty of answering what you thought a post was about as opposed to what the part stated. My point wasn't that your argument is wrong (or right) just that the analysis is crap and didn't support anything without apples to apples numbers.
|
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 16:58:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you want us to stop doing that... I am only suggesting that it will be better if you all were more realistic about the prospects. I would hate for you to build up false expectations -- again -- and have them dashed -- again. We volleyball fans have learned to not do that. I do think we're more honest about the prospects of our sport. We love it just as much as you do yours, but we don't build our hopes up only to crash again. I'm only trying to help. Really. ...you can go back to the other board and quibble about whether Purdue had a good recruiting class. Much more of a mens, and club, fan myself. I do enjoy watching the womens college game, but I have no particular rooting interest. That is, until my players/ex-players that are now 16 and younger begin to play college volleyball (none of whom are HS-only players, btw).
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on May 12, 2014 17:04:01 GMT -5
Kia Motors sponsored the AVCA Sand Championships. Why? Because they believe they can reach a desirable group of consumers (should I highlight that word in red?).
Major sponsors are putting up $1,000,000 in prize money for a single event in Long Beach. Why? Yep, consumers.
And so on.
Hey, beach volleyball is a niche sport - it was a niche sport when Karch, Sinjin, Hov and the boys were at their peak, and it will be a niche sport ten years from now. The sport will never be in the national consciousness in the manner of major professional team sports or, say, golf. And that's fine, as niche sports can still thrive taking only a small slice from the sports & leisure money pie. On a global basis, the sport is doing very well at the professional level. That's obvious by the number of events and amount of prize money being offered - neither of those things happen unless there is demand.
Domestically, the sport is thriving on a participatory level, but on a professional level is still emerging from the worst recession in what, eighty years? But the domestic pro scene is improving - seven AVP events with good prize money this year, and plans to steadily add more. Is beach volleyball a runaway success right now? Of course not. But is there room for some cautious optimism? I think so, yeah. And "cautious optimism" is pretty much as excited as I've seen anyone get on this forum, as opposed the characterization that beach VB commenters here are wildly enthusiastic about the future of the game.
Finally, I find any claim by 11Six of objectivity pretty disingenuous, as he (under various usernames) has been openly contemptuous of beach volleyball, while knowing next to nothing about the sport - how it's played, who plays it, who watches it, or the economics of it. And don't get him started on players wearing bikinis. Sorry, cvvc, but on this particular subject I find your credibility lacking.
|
|
|
Post by crawdaddy on May 12, 2014 17:18:37 GMT -5
What Geddy said.
|
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 17:20:36 GMT -5
You are kidding right? You think your soccer number is statistically equivalent to the volleyball number you used? Youth soccer is not Club soccer. It includes 5&6 year olds that at there for the fruit slices and juice boxes. And apparently you are also guilty of answering what you thought a post was about as opposed to what the part stated. My point wasn't that your argument is wrong (or right) just that the analysis is crap and didn't support anything without apples to apples numbers. Easy, now. You do know there is U6 club soccer, right? Lots of it, actually. You also know that not all "club volleyball" is that much different from rec soccer, right? Surely you know that some "club" teams are merely HS teams, playing with their HS coach, and do not rise to the level of the club volleyball you are apparently talking about. And I've got news for you: some club volleyball players are also there for the fruit slices and juice boxes. You are trying to counter my analysis with absolutist statements. Do I think the soccer #s are statistically equivalent to the volleyball #s? No, not equivalent, but they are not required to be in order to still support the analysis. I do believe they are likely within standard deviation, and that they lean way more to making the points I made rather than refuting them. Listen -- if you can come up with better numbers and therefore come up with a better analysis of volleyguy's contention, as I said go ahead. If you think that the potential for the future popularity of sand vb is somehow better than volleyball -- much less womens soccer, or womens ice hockey -- then pls gather your numbers, do the analysis, and show us what you come up with. If you want to argue the point that volleyguy raises -- that college participation is an adequate indicator of future popularity -- have at it. I've done so, with the best numbers I could find. For better or worse, I have provided a reasoned counterpoint to volleyguy's contention, and not just an opinion. If you can do better, pls do it. I encourage you to do that, in fact, because I believe a second analysis of the validity of volleyguy's conclusion would be valuable here. And if you do, I won't insult you by hurling an epithet at your analysis.
|
|