|
Post by kro2488 on Jan 30, 2015 14:57:57 GMT -5
Comebacks can occur but I think it's the length of the games that we are neat in other sports. Fans want to be entertained for long periods of time and rally scoring makes indoor and outdoor games go by way too fast. Where you have soccer and football tennis that go on for hours sometimes. Your lucky to get a two hour game in rally scoring. Only way you don't get more time in sodeout scoring is obviously one team outmatcheS the other then you have 15-3 beat downs in sets obviously. I was typing on my phone I have edited my writing to make the first sentence more readable.
|
|
|
Post by stevieofmb on Jan 30, 2015 15:02:48 GMT -5
Right now, emphasis on "now", the AVP IS the red-haired-stepchild to the FIVB, it wasn't (was it?) during their hey day pre-demise-'08. They must adhear, currently, to the pecking order. If you extract WHO actually wants to watch "old school rules" in play, its an unfortunate mix of baby-boomer (Hey, I'm right in the middle of THAT pack) highly-involved players wanting to portray themselves as fans! Are there really any "beach volleyball fans" or just players, and highly skilled ones at that, generally, that watch pro events...SO, Donald Sun DID want to "go retro" early on and then shortly afterwards, I believe, dropped the idea...Probably because he understands marketing and what YOU want is not generally what THEY (READ: fans) want...Lets get Beach Volleyball back on TV regularly and then work in a retro game... I would buy this if the sport had general audience fans and it had been proven that the sport will ultimately be popular enough to survive with rally scoring. But it doesn't and it hasn't. It has hard core fans that are going to watch regardless and it has casual fans that go when the tournament is in town or they happen to see it on TV. The only general market fan viewership is during the Olympics. I don't think we can honestly say that anyone knows for sure that a random viewer would or would not make a decision to watch or not an event because it was side-out instead of rally or small court versus big court. Maybe you can say TV wouldn't broadcast side-out because it didn't fit into their time slot, but I bet they would find a way to make it fit if the sport did actually have fans and those fans demanded it. I don't necessarily think it is a great idea, but it isn't a horrible one either. If the players don't want to do it, then that probably kills it because I don't think it is a good enough (i.e. money making) idea to force them into it. So many of the tournaments aren't even followed, you really think you are going to drive away fans or sponsor dollars by having a one-off tournament? I think an argument could easily be made that you actually draw in some people that used to be regulars but have sworn off going to a tournament because they hate the new rules. Of course I have no support for my position. But those saying it is a horrible idea and would turn fans off have no support for that side either. I can't remember which thread, but someone recently posted something that I thought was the best argument for the return to side-out scoring that I have read on this board. Side out scoring creates comebacks and drama. The sport can't be popular to the masses in its current form because it is almost impossible to have a big comeback with rally scoring. I don't think it will ever happen, but that was the first argument that made me budge slightly from my rather firm "it's never going to change back so why are we still talking about it?" position.
|
|
|
Post by stevieofmb on Jan 30, 2015 15:11:32 GMT -5
My earlier post didn't post. Well expressed Klazk. You and geddyleeridesagain are the two premier posters on this site. You two are always insightful, whether or not I agree with what the two of you state and it's rare I don't agree. I'm an "old school" guy, having played old school tournaments for about 35 years. I stopped when short court took over although that was attributable as much to age as to my dislike of old school. Me and a number of my friends loved the old school Manhattan Beach Open that took place 4 or 5 years ago. It was fun watching some of the then current pros play old school. The winners, Rosenthal and Wachtfogel, were both "reared" on old school and had a great time playing (and winning) under old school rules. One "specialty" tournament a year under old school rules would not be a detriment to the AVP, especially if played in So Cal.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Jan 31, 2015 11:50:31 GMT -5
I will say while the players may not love it, it is a different situation when the AVP is dictating with $200,000 or whatever they want to offer, rather than Manhattan when there was not much behind it financially, but did have your place on the volleyball walk of fame. I feel it's an OK move for the AVP, but was not an OK move for Manhattan when that should be the best players with the current rules who win it.
I also feel while you are adopting all of the old rules, you have to keep it rally scoring. The juniors club athletes, who should be the priority to turn into fans, probably don't even know what side-out scoring is.
|
|
|
Post by unrated on Feb 3, 2015 15:23:26 GMT -5
Wait 3 years, then have the AVP pick up the Dinosaur as a novelty event. Couldn't be any worse than the Pro Bowl...
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Feb 4, 2015 2:19:49 GMT -5
Here is how business would address the "Short court" v. "Side out", or however you want to describe the entities: An IBM retail/corporate parallel: Lou Gerstner takes over IBM in early 90's and they have been vying with an operating system OS/2 to compete with Microsoft and pouring tens of millions per year in it: GET RID OF IT, you lost that battle a decade ago....Software killed, end of discussion...Rally scoring was OVER a decade ago...It is dead, literally, metaphorically and any other descriptor you would like to use. I LOVE sideout scoring and playing that way, its a great invention, but TV antennas were marvelous ways to get free TV, but we opt for Cable TV and probably won't go back...People vote with their feet/checkbook. Sideout died many, many years ago. . .
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Feb 4, 2015 10:25:53 GMT -5
Here is how business would address the "Short court" v. "Side out", or however you want to describe the entities: An IBM retail/corporate parallel: Lou Gerstner takes over IBM in early 90's and they have been vying with an operating system OS/2 to compete with Microsoft and pouring tens of millions per year in it: GET RID OF IT, you lost that battle a decade ago....Software killed, end of discussion...Rally scoring was OVER a decade ago...It is dead, literally, metaphorically and any other descriptor you would like to use. I LOVE sideout scoring and playing that way, its a great invention, but TV antennas were marvelous ways to get free TV, but we opt for Cable TV and probably won't go back...People vote with their feet/checkbook. Sideout died many, many years ago. . . The problem with this argument is the people haven't voted, some combination of the media companies and FIVB have made the decision for them. In your example Microsoft Windows was already being consumed by the masses. Rally scoring (in the US at least) isn't being consumed by the masses. It is being force fed and there are plenty of people that still aren't eating. Show me the AVP regularly on TV and in the black with growing sponsorship and fan base and this argument becomes apples to apples. Until then, it is assumption at best or irrelevant because the masses are never going to care enough either way at worst. The ONLY thing rally scoring has going for it as definitive proof that it is better for a mass audience is that FIVB appears to have built a successful European tour around it. That obviously is a significant thing. But until a tour becomes profitable/sustainable in the US I don't know that in itself is enough to prove rally is better than side out (from a mass audience perspective). After all, there are plenty of things that European consumers love that US consumers do not.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Feb 4, 2015 13:47:31 GMT -5
Here is how business would address the "Short court" v. "Side out", or however you want to describe the entities: An IBM retail/corporate parallel: Lou Gerstner takes over IBM in early 90's and they have been vying with an operating system OS/2 to compete with Microsoft and pouring tens of millions per year in it: GET RID OF IT, you lost that battle a decade ago....Software killed, end of discussion...Rally scoring was OVER a decade ago...It is dead, literally, metaphorically and any other descriptor you would like to use. I LOVE sideout scoring and playing that way, its a great invention, but TV antennas were marvelous ways to get free TV, but we opt for Cable TV and probably won't go back...People vote with their feet/checkbook. Sideout died many, many years ago. . . The problem with this argument is the people haven't voted, some combination of the media companies and FIVB have made the decision for them. In your example Microsoft Windows was already being consumed by the masses. Rally scoring (in the US at least) isn't being consumed by the masses. It is being force fed and there are plenty of people that still aren't eating. Show me the AVP regularly on TV and in the black with growing sponsorship and fan base and this argument becomes apples to apples. Until then, it is assumption at best or irrelevant because the masses are never going to care enough either way at worst. The ONLY thing rally scoring has going for it as definitive proof that it is better for a mass audience is that FIVB appears to have built a successful European tour around it. That obviously is a significant thing. But until a tour becomes profitable/sustainable in the US I don't know that in itself is enough to prove rally is better than side out (from a mass audience perspective). After all, there are plenty of things that European consumers love that US consumers do not. Well, any sports agency is probably a "political" entity, so we'll never be able to compare apples to apples (PLUS, we know beach's place on the pecking order (READ: Low!). I would beg to humbly differ, without being able to provide accompanying evidence, that rally scoring is not consumed by the masses (Isn't it?). We do have our "leftovers" in Santa Cruz that play sideout scoring, but VERY rarely and Santa Cruz would, I think, be the last to switch over. Isn't rally scoring the predominate mainstream rule-system at most beaches in California? Florida? The pros completely reject (I'm sure there are holdouts, but not many) sideout scoring. As far as "the only thing" it has going for it, I would add: 1-Rally score doesn’t “reward” unforced errors. As a competitive golfer at a young age I relish that an error is costly. I can’t imagine taking a “mulligan” and still telling people I shot 78! Not losing a point to an error, though done elsewhere in sports, seems counter to “purity”. 2-Court is “manageable” – Short court also allows a great defender (eg. Tramblie) to COMPLETELY manage the court on defence if he/she is “on”, whereas the larger court, you have to give up something…That could be seen as a negative, but I see it as a positive. Especially for lower level games. 3-Rewarding endurance – I’m not into it. I like great play, not someone who can outlast the others. I like seeing the best and not sure being able to play “into the night” and under “car headlights”, though wonderful “beach lore”, is not classic in a sports performance sense, though some might prefer this, I am not one, though it IS impressive. On a related note, longevity in the sport, where Kent comes to mind, as he left the sport REALLY early on, does that “diminish him”? Koufax in baseball was unreal, but didn’t do it over a protracted period of time, but still remains my favorite, though a Giant fan. Koufax was THAT good. Longevity and endurance have their place, but I think skill sets in our sport should be premier. My personal opition is I’d like to see penetration blocking eliminated or something more aimed at equalizing the big guy to improve the sport. Remember, the rules of volleyball were more inteneded at the YMCA’s initiative, as I know it, to get people back to work with less fatigue (and probably sweat) than basketball or the other sports they offered when they invented the game… Again, I.M.H.O. . . . VBJ
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Feb 5, 2015 20:50:12 GMT -5
I can't dispute your points.
But - I will say that it doesn't make sense to me to use what is played recreationally as justification for the pro side of things. After all, if everyone that participated in beach were fans/spectators of the pro tour, it would be thriving.
At least right now, the connection between what is played by the majority and what is going to make the masses consume a pro event as spectators is weak.
|
|
Kamali'i-7
Sophomore
I'm not ethnocentric.
Posts: 200
|
Post by Kamali'i-7 on Feb 5, 2015 23:08:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wilsu on Feb 6, 2015 3:52:38 GMT -5
The problem with this argument is the people haven't voted, some combination of the media companies and FIVB have made the decision for them. In your example Microsoft Windows was already being consumed by the masses. Rally scoring (in the US at least) isn't being consumed by the masses. It is being force fed and there are plenty of people that still aren't eating. Show me the AVP regularly on TV and in the black with growing sponsorship and fan base and this argument becomes apples to apples. Until then, it is assumption at best or irrelevant because the masses are never going to care enough either way at worst. The ONLY thing rally scoring has going for it as definitive proof that it is better for a mass audience is that FIVB appears to have built a successful European tour around it. That obviously is a significant thing. But until a tour becomes profitable/sustainable in the US I don't know that in itself is enough to prove rally is better than side out (from a mass audience perspective). After all, there are plenty of things that European consumers love that US consumers do not. So, you're saying that AVP was thriving in late nineties before the change to smaller court and rally scoring? I thought there were massive financial problems by late nineties. I'd reckon that with so called old school rules game would be less popular in both USA (yes, it's possible) and rest of the world. It's time to stop blaming the rule changes, look forward and start doing things that actually could grow the game. Dwelling in old memories simply won't do it.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Feb 6, 2015 10:58:36 GMT -5
I can only think of ONE reason why AVP/Pro beach events haven't created more demand from the masses: Nobody really knows of it/them. Seriously, most people can't answer the reason why most products fail in the marketplace: No one has tried/knows about them. Just walk the aisles of your grocery store and you'll quickly understand. I was "in that knowledgeable boat" in 2004 when I, notice "I", not they, decided to get to know about the pros in the sport I loved. I was at a party and saw a "Dig Magazine" on my friends table and decided to subscribe, just to find out something about this pro sport. Wow, when I went to Manhattan Beach AVP the following year I never turned back...I just don't think you can rely on people "beating a path" to your better mousetrap! Market the players, the rivalries, the event, etc., and as the story goes, "...they will come".
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Feb 6, 2015 13:58:48 GMT -5
The problem with this argument is the people haven't voted, some combination of the media companies and FIVB have made the decision for them. In your example Microsoft Windows was already being consumed by the masses. Rally scoring (in the US at least) isn't being consumed by the masses. It is being force fed and there are plenty of people that still aren't eating. Show me the AVP regularly on TV and in the black with growing sponsorship and fan base and this argument becomes apples to apples. Until then, it is assumption at best or irrelevant because the masses are never going to care enough either way at worst. The ONLY thing rally scoring has going for it as definitive proof that it is better for a mass audience is that FIVB appears to have built a successful European tour around it. That obviously is a significant thing. But until a tour becomes profitable/sustainable in the US I don't know that in itself is enough to prove rally is better than side out (from a mass audience perspective). After all, there are plenty of things that European consumers love that US consumers do not. So, you're saying that AVP was thriving in late nineties before the change to smaller court and rally scoring? I thought there were massive financial problems by late nineties. I'd reckon that with so called old school rules game would be less popular in both USA (yes, it's possible) and rest of the world. It's time to stop blaming the rule changes, look forward and start doing things that actually could grow the game. Dwelling in old memories simply won't do it. No. That wasn't what I was saying. I think if you read the entire thread, you will see at the beginning that I'm not making an argument for a return to the old rules at all. But when the AVP changed to rally, it didn't make it thrive and profitable, either. So there is that. Which really is my whole argument - no one really knows. There is nothing other than opinion and conjecture that "the masses" would watch side-out scoring more or less than rally scoring. I have no proof and am not trying to prove that more would watch side out than rally. I'm just saying that no one really knows. And to bring it back to content of this thread - therefore it wouldn't be a horrible idea for the AVP - or anyone else - to have a one-off tournament with old school rules. This thread has now officially been hijacked - sent on a tangent away from the OP and down a way too beaten path.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Feb 7, 2015 3:47:19 GMT -5
One note about old school vs new school in terms of marketing. The idea that sex appeal on the female side has been a significant driver of popularity has always been overstated, but the lifestyle aspect of the game, in particular the men's game, is enhanced by old school rules.
Compare Smith/Stoklos to Doherty/Keenan and there is a clear issue there. When the game was at its apex it was when the beach lifestyle was combined with athleticism and competition. Its hard to sell that beach lifestyle (on both sides) when some of the most successful players basically just lumber up to the net and slap the ball downward. (Think Sean Scott or Ryan Doherty, if you are selling tickets who do you want representing your sport)
It also creates a little of the problem the NBA had for years, height is too important. The NBA used to be full of guys whose physical gifts made up for a lack of passion and that disinterest bothered fans. This has become much less of a problem in the last couple decades but in the 80s it was a very real thing. I think in BVB it is too. I hate to keep piling on Brad but he is such a perfect example here. Make him 6'4 he couldn't get on the court.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Feb 7, 2015 11:39:11 GMT -5
People like PERFORMANCE and PERSONALITY and not necessarily in that order. WHY is Tiger such a draw when he would be, according to the posts above, the "Keenan performer of his era"?...People want to see him. When the average public cannot identify the top 5 - 10 AVP players, WHY would they want to watch them unless they end up at the tournament rather than "beat a path" to it? Dana Camacho, like or hate him, is a draw, real and not imaginary. You can have personality is so many different ways, but it sells...
|
|