|
Post by guest2 on Feb 7, 2015 11:52:08 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... Dana is not and never has been a draw. If he were people would show up to the local tournaments he plays in or show up when he is actually playing in AVP tournies for 40 minutes a year. He is talked about among volleyball fans because he is remarkable but no one goes to see him. Tiger is big because of what he was not what he is, also because he has tens of millions in marketing behind him. I do agree that the AVP needs to sell personality, but that was my point about new school. Who would you rather be, Smith/Stoklos circa 1990, Steffes/Loiola in 1997 or Phil Dalhausser or Ryan Doherty? No one says to themselves, "my aspiration is to be really tall and not incredibly uncoordinated so I can play a sport that is rigged for giants." No. They do, or they used to, say to themselves, I want to play an awesome sport in front of beautiful women and do some modelling on the side. Its why the little guys are always more popular than big in the NBA. You know who the most popular player between Jordan and Lebron was? It wasnt Shaq or Duncan or Garnett, or even Kobe. The player fans dressed like and wanted to be was Allen Iverson. He appealed to the aspirational nature of fandom, like Smith/Stoklos did. The old players were basically a version of what fans wanted to be. They wanted to be cool like Frohoff and Ayakatubby or Insane and awesome like the Hov. Do kids dream of growing up to be Phil? Do men envy him?
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Feb 7, 2015 12:33:23 GMT -5
Guest2, an interesting point. So to make the smaller players "relevant" again, you need the large court. But you don't need sideout scoring, right? One could imagine a mix of old and new: large court with rally scoring.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Feb 7, 2015 15:23:02 GMT -5
Guest2, an interesting point. So to make the smaller players "relevant" again, you need the large court. But you don't need sideout scoring, right? One could imagine a mix of old and new: large court with rally scoring. I dislike rally scoring and find the two out of three format unnecessary and too random, but I don't hate it the way I do short court. If I could make the rules they would be something like, large court, rally clock, some penalty to deter players from just bombing jump serves all the time (because that gets really boring when they miss so many), and very tight hands calls. I think what the AVP needs to sell is a combination of the beach lifestyle, athleticism and competition and you just dont get the "beach lifestyle" from watching Ryan, Phil, Theo and Brad. To put it another way, which team would you rather build a marketing campaign around: 1. Fonoi/Blanton 2. Blanton/Nygaard You see the NBA do that all the time. They change the rules to give the type of players they want an advantage. The AVP needs to do that too. Of course my opinion happens to favor the brand of volleyball I prefer so take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Feb 7, 2015 16:42:10 GMT -5
WHY is Tiger such a draw when he would be, according to the posts above, the "Keenan performer of his era"? Bwahahahahaha this is the most ridiculous comment EVER. Guest2 can throw pie in my face if I am wrong, but comparing Keenan's height to Tiger's golf game is borderline insane in my eyes. Liked the rest of the post, but could not let that go.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Feb 7, 2015 19:41:52 GMT -5
Have to say I am actually of the opinion that this battle has been decided. Unless you can convince the FIVB to change the rules, the current rules are also going to dictate how the the domestic pro beach tour(s) play.
I disliked rally scoring when it came in, but now I am OK with it.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Feb 8, 2015 10:15:02 GMT -5
WHY is Tiger such a draw when he would be, according to the posts above, the "Keenan performer of his era"? Bwahahahahaha this is the most ridiculous comment EVER. Guest2 can throw pie in my face if I am wrong, but comparing Keenan's height to Tiger's golf game is borderline insane in my eyes. Liked the rest of the post, but could not let that go. I misunderstood his point about Tiger. I thought he was referring to Tiger's crummy current ranking, but I see now he was referring to Tiger's physical advantage over most of the field. The difference is that Keenan and his ilk's advantage moves the game a place fans don't like, whereas Tiger's, Jordan's, Gretsky's, Stoklos' moved their games in directions fans did like. When a style or talent that makes the game unattractive to fans becomes dominant (see 90s Knicks defense, Ryan Doherty, 9-7 NFL games) the rules have to be altered to reward what people want to see. Its why flagrant fouls exist in basketball, its why the let serve and rally scoring were needed indoors (because missed jump serves and 12 hour matches were making the game boring and destroying players with endless jumps) Maybe John is right and this ship has sailed, but if the Raiders can return to Oakland, why cant this happen? Besides in its heyday AVP guys were doing better than current players (even including FIVB) For seven years in the 90s, the top guys were making over $300,000. Last year the top player on the FIVB made $150,000, the year before $98,000. The 10th ranked AVP player for most of the 90s was making more than that. If the FIVB were making guys rich then fine, but the money they are giving out is pre-NBC, late 1980s AVP money so it is not prohibitive to making a switch.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Feb 8, 2015 19:22:31 GMT -5
My Tiger/Keenan "thing" was just to show you that any snapshot in time, attendance and fan desire change. Tiger still increases PGA attendance significantly, though he doesn’t play in any capacity of old. What you "might" want to gleen from this Tiger reference if approached analytically, is that maybe some post 40 year old recognizable player make a comeback like Holdren or something to rivet up the fan base and demand (Yes, there are larger issues). People/fans LOVE underdogs (Tiger clearly is now) and that “sells”.
Arguing a return to old rules really is amazing. It really is an ostrich “head in the sand” thing since no top tier pro tour supports it nor WOULD support it. The ship "didn't sail", it left port and has returned, and has disembarked again (READ: Old School is dead).
Regarding Dana not being a draw: Go look at a court he is playing on. If there are more than 10 chairs around (like all the other courts with 10 or FEWER), he is a draw; He IS a draw, not in the arena of the big guys, but some people get a kick out of watching him and his antics. So far as I know, Kerri Walsh is arguably the only AVP “draw”. I would cringe at a survey listing the top 5 players male & female to see the “recognition levels”…Yikes! But I am optimistic and hope a an increase in stops on the 2015 AVP tour and Donald Sun’s consistent improvements with and on the tour will eventually create our niche sport in a better position.
Glad, as Rodney King once stated, we can “all get along” ; - )
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Feb 9, 2015 9:11:04 GMT -5
My Tiger/Keenan "thing" was just to show you that any snapshot in time, attendance and fan desire change. Tiger still increases PGA attendance significantly, though he doesn’t play in any capacity of old. What you "might" want to gleen from this Tiger reference if approached analytically, is that maybe some post 40 year old recognizable player make a comeback like Holdren or something to rivet up the fan base and demand (Yes, there are larger issues). People/fans LOVE underdogs (Tiger clearly is now) and that “sells”. Arguing a return to old rules really is amazing. It really is an ostrich “head in the sand” thing since no top tier pro tour supports it nor WOULD support it. The ship "didn't sail", it left port and has returned, and has disembarked again (READ: Old School is dead). Regarding Dana not being a draw: Go look at a court he is playing on. If there are more than 10 chairs around (like all the other courts with 10 or FEWER), he is a draw; He IS a draw, not in the arena of the big guys, but some people get a kick out of watching him and his antics. So far as I know, Kerri Walsh is arguably the only AVP “draw”. I would cringe at a survey listing the top 5 players male & female to see the “recognition levels”…Yikes! But I am optimistic and hope a an increase in stops on the 2015 AVP tour and Donald Sun’s consistent improvements with and on the tour will eventually create our niche sport in a better position. Glad, as Rodney King once stated, we can “all get along” ; - ) A draw is someone who people come to see when those people would not otherwise come. Dana is almost always eliminated before any fans show up and no one who is not a hard core fan (and thus showing up anyway) knows who he is. The main argument for keeping the new rules is the FIVB dictates it. Fine, but at some point, and it probably isnt yet, the AVP is going to need to go against the FIVB. Thats a simple math problem. There are x number of dates to run pro beach volleyball events. If the FIVB takes all the best ones, and it does, the AVP ends up running tourneys in October. The only way the AVP ever works is if its players are playing AVP instead of FIVB. You cant run a beach tour when the only dates available are in April or October. So appeasing the FIVB, which is the reason everyone gives for not going back, is stupid because the FIVB's existence as the place the best Americans play means that the AVP won't succeed without changing that.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Feb 9, 2015 11:50:34 GMT -5
Old school rules are dead and buried. There just isn't any incentive to bring it back on a permanent basis, and it's just wishful thinking to believe otherwise. IMO.
Now, a one-off event under big court/side out rules? I have no idea if it would be successful or not. The players wouldn't be in favor of it (other than Todd, is there anyone left on tour who has ever played a pro event under the old rules? Maybe Rosie?), but they would play if the prize money was decent enough. The quality of play wouldn't be much to write home about. Any TV coverage would likely be tape-delayed and heavily edited.
Maybe if it was marketed the right way - perhaps as an appeal to nostalgia? A "Back to the 80's" kind of thing? I don't know if it would draw interest, but it might be interesting to test it out - if the AVP were willing to take the gamble. Donald Sun was, by all accounts, originally interested in putting on an old-school event, but is it a good move for a struggling tour? Dunno.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Feb 9, 2015 12:49:09 GMT -5
Voice of reason, again, GLRA...I DO remember when I wondered (before I knew more about pro beach) why FIVB players didn't take over the AVP since the AVP was SO MUCH better than the FIVB....Oh well...I don't think it is fair to give Donald Sun a couple of years to resurrect something that died so recently. After a decade we "might" look back and have a different assessment...The future is not a linear progression of the past...
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Feb 9, 2015 13:10:24 GMT -5
Even if the AVP "takes on" the FIVB with conflicting dates, they will still play the game by FIVB rules. The top teams are going to be playing in FIVB events and trying to qualify for the Olympics. When those players play in AVP events, they aren't going to want to play under different rules (or with a different partner). The Olympics pretty much trump everything else.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Feb 9, 2015 13:26:55 GMT -5
Even if the AVP "takes on" the FIVB with conflicting dates, they will still play the game by FIVB rules. The top teams are going to be playing in FIVB events and trying to qualify for the Olympics. When those players play in AVP events, they aren't going to want to play under different rules (or with a different partner). The Olympics pretty much trump everything else. I remember Leonard once telling the players that the Olympics really weren't a big deal, and so there wasn't a good reason for skipping AVP events to play FIVB. It didn't go over well.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Feb 9, 2015 13:50:13 GMT -5
Wow GLRA, and that was in their "relative" heyday....hmmmm....Sounds a bit like selling ice to the Eskimos....I guess "Only Leonard" would try ; - )
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Feb 9, 2015 19:48:52 GMT -5
I still dont get why the players are so fixated on the Olympics. What good did that do Blanton/Nygaard? Wong/Heidger? Holdren/Metzger it hurt.
the AVP cannot succeed without scheduling against the FIVB. It simply isnt workable. Any long term business plan that doesnt include eventual competition is just dumb
|
|
|
Post by klazk on Feb 10, 2015 6:48:42 GMT -5
In my mind if you build a strong enough product it shouldn't matter. Schedule 3 or 4 major events so they don't conflict with FIVB. The rest if the top 3 teams per gender miss, that is up to them. The tour should be able to survive without them.
The sport is too top heavy. Some of that is sponsor driven I'm sure. Not I'm anxious to see her go because she is an amazing player, but when Walsh retires, it should be a HUGE opportunity for the AVP to start selling the product as a whole instead of individual players. To a much lesser extent Rogers and Dalhausser, too. Yes, they need to market the individual players and make them known so the fans can come and root for someone, but it should be the AVP tour. Right now, it seems like it is the AVP tour featuring Kerri Walsh.
|
|