|
|
Post by klazk on May 12, 2014 18:13:56 GMT -5
I am now convinced you are trolling. But I will give you one more response. 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 have no way of knowing that all the Youth Soccer participants you cited are "club" players or that the USAV numbers you used are the only "club" volleyball players. I wasn't telling you to throw out the soccer numbers. I was telling you the two did not appear to be comparable numbers to me. You are trying to counter my analysis with absolutist statements. ... 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. You have again not read the point of my post. I'm not trying to counter your analysis. In the end you may be right. My point was that if the statistics you use are meaningful, it is by sheer luck. I honestly don't care if you are right or not. I enjoy watching beach volleyball. I'll watch and support what is there. I don't have time for the "anne-isms" as you call them. I do have a problem with people who use "the best numbers I could find" on the internet and think that because it is what they could get to in a couple Google searches it becomes right until someone proves them wrong. A subject like this would take real research to prove anyone right or wrong. More than citing a couple websites. And if you do, I won't insult you by hurling an epithet at your analysis.  I hope you would (hurl an epithet). I hope anyone would call me out for trying to pass off limited research as meaningful analysis. People are welcome to their opinions (educated or not) and can post all the thoughts they like. But passing off research that was done with a few internet searches (and apparenlty personal experience with U6 club soccer and the dual memberships of USAV/AAU) and saying it means your opinion is more reasonable than someone else's until they prove you wrong? That's why I called BS. I can't prove you wrong in 5 minutes. But you can't prove you are right, either. It is still a guess based on questionable numbers that may - or may not - be comparable. |
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 18:39:54 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. Alrighty then. Now that you have misrepresented me in a number of ways, time to respond to what merits a response. What, exactly, have I said about sand vb? I replied to hamrtime that imo consumers have long since delivered their verdict, an opinion based on the numerous threads in this forum in which various posters under various usernames lament the long-term decline in sand vb's popularity. When hamrtime responds that viability is the real issue, I reply with my observation that sand vb fans are somewhat more unrealistic than are volleyball fans regarding each sport's future prospects. I also admit to using a bit of hyperbole, and assurance that what I am saying is not mean-spirited. After a brief aside to reply to unrated's tongue-in-cheek post, I note that hamrtime's latest post is contradictory in light of his contention that "the biggest issue is people just don't want to pay to watch it" (with which I agree -- what say you, "geddyleeridesagain"?). Then you reply, and the very first thing you said is this: What a load of crap. On life support? The fastest growing sport in NCAA history. That is demonstrably untrue. See the 1000% growth from one season to the next in womens bowling, and when sand vb does that, get back to me. I would also mention that guest2 had issues with your "indicators", also. I then posted a sincere statement that noted your (and others') passion for sand vb, but questioned your objectivity with regard to seeing the problems. I suggested that it would be in the best interests of both your beloved sport and its fans to not be so subjective when trying to look at the sport with an eye for making it work. It is at this point that volleyguy focuses on increasing college participation in sand vb, describes it as an "objective fact" (which it is), and goes on to strongly imply that a "forever" pipeline can only mean that sand vb will become increasingly popular. And although volleyguy later tries to distance him/herself from the issue that I have been posting about -- i.e., sand vb's popularity among the consumers of sports entertainment -- he/she does actually address it in this post, contending that "the increase in participation is likely to spur opportunities to increase and capture consumer interest". It is this point with which I strongly disagree, and the rest of my posts to date in this thread discuss the lack of interest among sports entertainment consumers in sand vb -- one of which goes into detail in order to counter volleyguy's primary point of a "forever" pipeline virtually guaranteeing growth in consumer interest. Other highlights include crawfish's honesty and objectivity in acknowledging both sand vb's "demise" and, unlike yourself, the lamenting posts that are on this board. And of course there is klazk's epithet. Lastly, as for why Kia is sinking $ into the AVCA Sand Championships? Why do the sponsors of the NCAA womens ice hockey championships sink $ into that? Why did the sponsors of the failed womens pro soccer league sink $ into that? Why do corporations of all kinds sink $ into all kinds of promotions? Those are questions quite relevant to yours. A major reason -- and perhaps the answer -- is in the hope of attracting customers, "geddyleeridesagain", not because customers are already there, or are guaranteed to come. I understand the hope, and the reason for it. But to suggest that having a "forever" pipeline of youth players basically means that sand vb's day is coming, I will refer you -- as I did above -- to the current and future prospects for popularity among sports entertainment consumers of womens soccer. And to suggest that college participation is a reliable indicator of a rosy future for sand vb as a sport, I will refer you -- as I did above -- to the college participation numbers for womens ice hockey. |
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 19:19:36 GMT -5
I am now convinced you are trolling. But I will give you one more response. 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 have no way of knowing that all the Youth Soccer participants you cited are "club" players or that the USAV numbers you used are the only "club" volleyball players. I wasn't telling you to throw out the soccer numbers. I was telling you the two did not appear to be comparable numbers to me. You are trying to counter my analysis with absolutist statements. ... 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. You have again not read the point of my post. I'm not trying to counter your analysis. In the end you may be right. My point was that if the statistics you use are meaningful, it is by sheer luck. I honestly don't care if you are right or not. I enjoy watching beach volleyball. I'll watch and support what is there. I don't have time for the "anne-isms" as you call them. I do have a problem with people who use "the best numbers I could find" on the internet and think that because it is what they could get to in a couple Google searches it becomes right until someone proves them wrong. A subject like this would take real research to prove anyone right or wrong. More than citing a couple websites. And if you do, I won't insult you by hurling an epithet at your analysis. I hope you would (hurl an epithet). I hope anyone would call me out for trying to pass off limited research as meaningful analysis. People are welcome to their opinions (educated or not) and can post all the thoughts they like. But passing off research that was done with a few internet searches (and apparenlty personal experience with U6 club soccer and the dual memberships of USAV/AAU) and saying it means your opinion is more reasonable than someone else's until they prove you wrong? That's why I called BS. I can't prove you wrong in 5 minutes. But you can't prove you are right, either. It is still a guess based on questionable numbers that may - or may not - be comparable. Wow. So the following disclaimers in that post were not enough for you to realize that what I posted was not set in stone? "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. ...some educated guesses based on numbers at any given club vb court...I'm assuming an average team size of 10, an average coaching staff of 2, and an average ref crew of 1. Of course, the overwhelming majority are not playing sand vb, so it's pretty hard to get a number for just those 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). ...it's reasonable to assume that the net gain or loss coming thru the pipeline into either college sport will be a wash." Hardly the stuff you read in a scientific paper or dissertation, is it? But "trolling"? Hardly that, either. It was a sincere attempt to investigate volleyguy's contention that one can reliably look to college participation numbers, and the pipeline of youth players leading up to those numbers, in order to conclude that sand vb's increasing popularity is a lock. I could have just come back with an opinion unsubstantiated by anything, but I didn't. I never pretended it is definitive, but your contention that if correct it is only due to "sheer luck" is going out on a limb much farther than I might have. So at this point we have volleyguy's unsubstantiated opinion, my opinion with supporting information, and your epithet. Do you want to advance beyond that? Do you want to address any of these questions that have been raised: 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? Are you willing to state 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 as sand vb? If so, would you like to explain why you believe that? Do you believe it is reasonable, given the level of popularity among consumers of womens soccer and womens ice hockey, that these sports' situations can provide useful insight and conclusions as to realistic expectations for the success of sand vb? If so, what conclusions or insight do you gain? If not, why are they so different from sand vb as to not be instructional? You see, these questions have everything to do with volleyguy's contentions, and nothing to do with the research I did. So please, continue to ignore the info I gathered on this subject. And then, you can choose to ignore these questions, or to answer them. And if you do give us some answers, you may choose to give us the information you gathered in your good-faith efforts to arrive at your answers, or not. Fair enough? |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on May 12, 2014 20:27:19 GMT -5
I think one thing that should be mentioned in response to Geddy's point about the sponsors is that historically sponsorship of women's sports has been a little less tied to the actual popularity of the sport than sponsorship of men's sports. The men's sponsorship paradigm is basically a consumer who says, "I love to watch Lebron, look he is wearing Nikes, i want Nikes." The idea is that people want to emulate the heroes they watch and so sponsors pay to be associated with them.
Sponsors enjoy the social sort of non-profity feel of sponsoring women's sports and a large part of the value in sponsoring women's sports comes from that rather than from people being fans of the sport. The WNBA is the best example. Sponsors, in particular the NBA itself, have taken losses on the WNBA for years, as have sponsors of many women's college sports.
They are paying for the ability to say "we sponsor women's ice hockey" so they look like good corporate citizens to people that couldnt care less about women's hockey. Not all or even the majority of sponsors interest in women's sports comes from that, but that whole, "look what a good company we are" is a big part of women's sports sponsorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinman2 on May 12, 2014 20:40:50 GMT -5
"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."
I was reading some of this thread and thinking, "This 11Six" guy sounds like a guy that used to post on here as CVVCDAD or something like that. Always talking down about beach volleyball and how boring it is....always trolling to start some great debate about how much better indoor volleyball is. I remember that guy was a religious fanatic as well...many years later and he's still at it. Sad, sad, sad....and not very holy.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 12, 2014 20:53:44 GMT -5
Well, at least you had the decency to quote me correctly. Beyond that, however, you have created an elaborate straw man argument that would be impressive if it weren't so creepy.
I have never made any assertions about participation and consumers except to suggest that sand volleyball participation creates opportunities to capture consumer interest (in the free market). This is the sequence/scenario as I see it: Colleges give scholarships to athletes. These athletes have a college experience with sand volleyball as an integral component. Athletes graduate and look for career opportunities. Some will try to play professionally, start coaching or start clubs or academies, while others find careers in completely unrelated fields. These athletes have families, and they introduce their kids to sand volleyball, along with their neighbors, extended families etc (that is the "forever" pipeline). As I said, whoever figures out how to effectively market beach volleyball to this group/community/niche stands to do well financially (again, not behemoth, just well). So, when your volleyball club, or the one across town, starts offering beach training, beach academies (and many of them already have), the fact is that participation (i.e. the availability of scholarships) played a role.
What I am suggesting is nothing new or exceptional. People will always look for ways to create opportunities to make money, as has been the case with junior volleyball. An ideal scenario might be a strong tour accompanied by the increase in participation, but in 3-5 years when the first wave of college beach players graduate, there may exist opportunities for something different to emerge. As is always the case in a free market, some will fail and some might succeed. That opportunity to succeed is what i have suggested participation provides.
As far as your analysis, I think an accurate analysis of the consumer sports markets, especially the smaller "niche" sports, and how to understand the roles of participation, regional differences, weather, demographics, etc. is beyond my expertise, and quite clearly, yours as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on May 12, 2014 21:13:00 GMT -5
I don't believe I've misrepresented anything about your posting history regarding beach. How about this thread: volleytalk.net/thread/38686/won-watch-beach-volleyball-signedWhere you go to pains to differentiate beach volleyball and "real volleyball," dismiss the skill needed to play beach volleyball, and mention several times how boring the sport is. Or this one? volleytalk.net/thread/42018/beach-vb-blowsWhere you agree with the OP of a thread titled "Beach VB Blows." Aaaaand this one: volleytalk.net/thread/44970/beach-dancing-girls-steal-show?page=3Where you claim beach volleyball's popularity at the Olympics is based on dancing girls. And that any good indoor player could hammer the ball all the time against a single block and be successful. Oh, and that beach volleyball is boring. As for sand volleyball (this is one of a dozen articles stating the same thing): boxscorenews.com/pepperdine-battles-at-annual-usav-collegiate-sand-volleyball-challenge-at-h-p79931-68.htm"Participation in sand volleyball has grown incrementally since the inaugural season in 2012, and more than 40 schools are expected to field programs this season. Such rapid growth makes sand volleyball the fastest-growing ‘Emerging Sport’ in NCAA history." I left off the word "emerging" in my original post by mistake, if that makes a difference. You also might want to take a look at these participation numbers for sand: www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/emerging-sports-sand-volleyballYou don't like the sport. And that's OK, it doesn't make you a bad person or anything. But your bias is obvious, which makes it impossible to buy your "hey, I'm just here to help" line. And guest2 and I frequently disagree. But he knows the game, and so I respect his opinion. |
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 21:45:41 GMT -5
Well, at least you had the decency to quote me correctly. Beyond that, however, you have created an elaborate straw man argument that would be impressive if it weren't so creepy. Just because you failed to understand that my first posts had to do with consumers' interest in sand vb -- posts in response to other posters' comments RE consumer interest in sand vb -- that does not mean that I created a straw man. Nor did I bring up the issue of consumers. I only responded to it. Lastly, your choice to ignore the context of my posts -- indeed, of the discussion at the time in this thread -- does not mean anyone here constructed a straw man. Even you. But then we moved on when you said this -- and you DID say this, right? ...the level of college participation is an important reason that the future of beach volleyball appears much brighter. And that is what my more detailed post addressed. Can you answer any of the questions posed in that post? 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?... 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 have never made any assertions about participation and consumers except to suggest that sand volleyball participation creates opportunities to capture consumer interest (in the free market). This is the sequence/scenario as I see it: Colleges give scholarships to athletes. These athletes have a college experience with sand volleyball as an integral component. Athletes graduate and look for career opportunities. Some will try to play professionally, start coaching or start clubs or academies, while others find careers in completely unrelated fields. These athletes have families, and they introduce their kids to sand volleyball, along with their neighbors, extended families etc (that is the "forever" pipeline). As I said, whoever figures out how to effectively market beach volleyball to this group/community/niche stands to do well financially (again, not behemoth, just well). So, when your volleyball club, or the one across town, starts offering beach training, beach academies (and many of them already have), the fact is that participation (i.e. the availability of scholarships) played a role. What I am suggesting is nothing new or exceptional. People will always look for ways to create opportunities to make money, as has been the case with junior volleyball. An ideal scenario might be a strong tour accompanied by the increase in participation, but in 3-5 years when the first wave of college beach players graduate, there may exist opportunities for something different to emerge. As is always the case in a free market, some will fail and some might succeed. That opportunity to succeed is what i have suggested participation provides. Not only do I understand this -- and did when you first said similar things -- I have no problem with this. But the rub had already come when you claimed this: ...the level of college participation is an important reason that the future of beach volleyball appears much brighter. What you fail to address, so far, is that the same exact things you said above can be said about womens ice hockey and womens soccer players, families, kids, neighbors, extended families, etc. Perhaps womens ice hockey advocates are saying the same things you are, but I imagine that womens soccer advocates now know better, and are more restrained in their projections. I have tried to show you and others here how similar womens soccer and womens sand vb are, in terms of college participation (your criteria, not mine) and their pipelines (also your criteria). I've also addressed womens ice hockey and asked you if you are willing to use your same logic and apply it to that sport. In response, all I've seen is gainsaying, epithets, etc. No answers to the questions raised. If this is how you and others here really think you can get your sport of choice to where you want it to be -- by ignoring parallels in various aspects with other sports and believing sand vb is somehow unique -- I would suggest that your goal will be extremely difficult to attain. But still, good luck with that. As far as your analysis, I think an accurate analysis of the consumer sports markets, especially the smaller "niche" sports, and how to understand the roles of participation, regional differences, weather, demographics, etc. is beyond my expertise, and quite clearly, yours as well. What makes this really funny is your allegation of a logical fallacy earlier. Given that you admit "an accurate analysis of the consumer sports markets, especially the smaller "niche" sports, and how to understand the roles of participation, regional differences, weather, demographics, etc." is, in your own words, "beyond my expertise" -- how exactly does that qualify and enable you to determine the quality &/or accuracy of anyone else's analysis of the consumer sports markets, especially the smaller "niche" sports, and how to understand the roles of participation, regional differences, weather, demographics, etc.? Let me say that another way: if biomechanics was admittedly beyond your expertise, how would you know if an article regarding the biomechanics involved in sand vb was correct or not? |
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 21:54:49 GMT -5
"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." I was reading some of this thread and thinking, "This 11Six" guy sounds like a guy that used to post on here as CVVCDAD or something like that. Always talking down about beach volleyball and how boring it is....always trolling to start some great debate about how much better indoor volleyball is. I remember that guy was a religious fanatic as well...many years later and he's still at it. Sad, sad, sad....and not very holy. I wouldn't believe everything you read on VT. Also, you are painting with a very, very broad brush here: a) Pls quote anything I posted that is "talking down" about sand vb, or about how "boring" it is. I'll wait. b)... c) So it is your contention that two "religious" posters must be one and the same person? Do you also go on the womens vb board and accuse, say, 2 Purdue fans posting similar things of being one and the same person? Really, people. This, along with the political forum, are something else. Maybe some of us can get the mods to shut both of them down. |
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 22:04:56 GMT -5
geddyleeridesagain -- that last post of yours is so far below the level worthy of a response, even this is -- well, let's just say it's a minimum of 13x and a maximum of 513x more than what it deserves. It was also a complete waste of your time. Capiche? (And you all think I made some assumptions in this thread?)
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 12, 2014 22:13:13 GMT -5
As an example, I might not be able to paint like Picasso, but I can understand art history and his role in it. In other words, evaluating an analysis or argument is a different skill set from being competent or expert enough to compose an accurate economic assessment of viability.
Regardless, I feel that behind a veneer of rational, altruistic argumentation, their exists an element of specious, disingenuousness to your arguments. With that in mind, I won't engage you any longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on May 12, 2014 22:21:11 GMT -5
geddyleeridesagain -- that last post of yours is so far below the level worthy of a response, even this is -- well, let's just say it's a minimum of 13x and a maximum of 513x more than what it deserves. It was also a complete waste of your time. Capiche? (And you all think I made some assumptions in this thread?) It's "capisce," il mio amico...ed eccoti servito. Ciao! |
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 23:50:08 GMT -5
geddyleeridesagain -- that last post of yours is so far below the level worthy of a response, even this is -- well, let's just say it's a minimum of 13x and a maximum of 513x more than what it deserves. It was also a complete waste of your time. Capiche? (And you all think I made some assumptions in this thread?) It's "capisce," il mio amico...ed eccoti servito. Ciao! |
|
11Six
Sophomore
Posts: 164
|
Post by 11Six on May 12, 2014 23:54:34 GMT -5
volleyguy -- let's hope those rose-colored glasses are up to the challenge, then. Bon chance!
|
|
|
|
Post by verticaltospare on Jun 11, 2014 12:58:07 GMT -5
Sorry I'm late to the thread but I have to respond to Geddy here. I was sitting in the big Ft Lauderdale hotel meeting room in 2010 at the players meeting (along with about 200 other players) with avp management when Canyon literally opened the books to the players and carefully showed how the AVP has never 'made money'. Never been profitable. Never. It was a public company so all the data was right there for us (still is if you go to the SEC site). So to say that the business of the tour was damaged by some kind of management thing is a complete stretch. Fact is that it was never a solvent business to begin with. The only winners making money over 30 years have been the top players and the guys who collected sponsorship commissions. Everyone else has pretty much lost. Broke in 99, 01, 08 and 10. How many more? The only times the AVP went huge was when Miller, Nissan or Crocs decided to fund the expense for marketing value. But the business itself has never generated a profit. That's the truth and a ton of talented people (including Armato who can sell better than anyone) have tried over and over and over to win the elusive big sponsors. But with low TV ratings and (relatively) low attendance, pro beach vball can't compete with modern marketing & new media ROI. Sorry but an AVP final has less people attending and lower TV ratings than womens college softball. We all hope for another white knight sponsor to come marching in. So Geddy if you have big sponsors introduce them to Donald. Otherwise your 'how the AVP has been mismanaged stuff' is really old. Fact is there is no secret formula that people haven't before, or aren't trying to do now, with the tour. I remember in 09 or 10 when Manhattan had Danny Kinda's team winning a 6 man match on Sunday before the finals, the Legends 6 man with Sinjin and Stoky vs Hov Dodd and even Gabby Reece 4s for Nike versus Kerri Walsh and Nivea. So if you have a profitable business model to share with Donald, email him. But I doubt anyone cares more for the AVP than its various 'management' over the past 30 years. |
|
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.
