|
Post by Boris on Dec 16, 2015 20:22:35 GMT -5
Ps. I am a 30 something year old woman with two teenage daughters. The fact that I've spent at least 600 dollars just in Nike Pro spandex this year, which neither can even wear as part of a uniform, speaks volumes to how much money could be made. My daughter wears the same headband her favorite player wears. Air Jordan had made billions. What about air Carlini? Lol. But seriously. A beautiful celebrity volleyball player could sell billions in female athletic apparel but she needs a stage week after week, year after year, not just every four years at the Olympics. Maybe Nike, under armour, and adidas should build some pro teams. Gabby Reece. Nike. 90's. Didn't work. It sounds to me, forgive me if I'm incorrect, in that for your privileged daughters vb may just be the flavor of the month?? The 'lifers' would be a bet for professionalism and The absolute foundatoin for the fan base. Kerry Trieschman, a legit AA and POY contender, was Nike to boot.
|
|
|
Post by Boris on Dec 16, 2015 20:27:05 GMT -5
As I recall, the stars would start out their European seasons there and then return to the states in eeking out their livings, further, on the summertime beach.
The USAV PVL is an already grassroots type of league. It does fine imo.
More grassroots would be to start off small, too, in rousing momentum. Amazon.com (Seattle), Oracle (SF/SJ area), AT&T (Dallas) and Pricewaterhouse (Buffalo).
4-woman has always been fun to watch. They used to do it on the beach but why couldn’t it be brought indoors?! Recruit one male and raise the net between 7’4” and 8’ to make it all the more interesting. Teams would need to have a Lib/Setter & MB/OPPs as alternates, tho the league could also include the PVL as well. Actually a PVL should be a must. In including one PVL team, for the applicable round robin rotated “tour”, these four states (above) could be the very beginnings. Carry the attrition through every two to three years moreover and keep it fresh.
Friday and Saturday nights, two matches per team. Siding out, make it 2 out of 3 with the third set ‘til 15. Spend a larger portion of time with BIO intros. People want to get to know people. Have the finals annually be played at Jr. Nationals, for the clubs will all be there as an audience with which to begin.
Hawaiians who’d want to try out could in theory place themselves in SF/SJ or Seattle.
|
|
|
Post by brickwall on Dec 16, 2015 23:30:24 GMT -5
Says the Gabrielle Reece poster I had in my room? It did work, but volleyball wasn't the sport then that it is now. I'd never even heard of club ball and I was a big lover of the sport back then. Times they are a changin and social media and all the vball obsessed club girls make today a very different environment than the mid 90's. Didn't work. The fact that you had one Gabby Reece poster on your wall doesn't mean it worked in the 90's.
Maybe you should look up the ABVL.
Oh jeez. Quit. Don't treat me like a child to be educated. It worked. It inspired girls to follow volleyball. But they were completely different times and threre weren't enough girls like me. Now there are and it could work on a greater scale. Especially with the ease of access to the target audience through social media.
|
|
|
Post by brickwall on Dec 16, 2015 23:44:50 GMT -5
Gabby Reece. Nike. 90's. Didn't work. It sounds to me, forgive me if I'm incorrect, in that for your privileged daughters vb may just be the flavor of the month?? The 'lifers' would be a bet for professionalism and The absolute foundatoin for the fan base. Kerry Trieschman, a legit AA and POY contender, was Nike to boot. Lol. My daughters aren't exactly privliged by club volleyball standards we are decidedly middle class. 5 years in competitive club environment devoting at least 8 months of the year to volleyball at younger ages and now closer to 11 months of the year for 1/3 of your life and the. Watching random YouTube matches and then striking up (long...) conversations with your mom about the defensive/offensive strategies of x teams 16-2 team (lol) and what you liked and what you didn't is hardly flavor of the month fandom. Not sure why my daughter's volleyball dedication is in question, anyway. Do you call into question 15 year old boys true dedication to football and their teams/players?
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Dec 17, 2015 9:14:46 GMT -5
Nebraska is by far the most financially successful VB program: Nebraska VolleyballThey generated $600K in gross profit on $3 million in revenue, a 20% margin (pretty good), but no player salaries. If we allocate half the gross profit to salaries that's $25K per player for a 12 person roster and leaves the hypothetical owner with a gross profit margin of 10% (getting a bit thin). However, if advertising/sponsorship money could be maximized, who knows. Advertisers direct money to where they get the most eyeballs, so VB has to be TV friendly. The players themselves are a big plus, typically attractive and athletic; the game is fast and strategic, so what's the problem? In my view the game should be simplified, fewer technical violations, no rotations, more substitutions allowed, etc., easier to understand and follow. There are still a few curmudgeons out there grousing about how rally scoring has ruined the sport, but if we're serious about a pro league the game has to evolve. No one is investing in a league that only makes 600K a year per location BEFORE paying players. No one of any talent is playing in a league that only pays 25K a year. All talented players make much more in Europe, Russia, S America and Puerto Rico, certainly if you include the covered room and board.
|
|
|
Post by alarmclock on Dec 17, 2015 10:19:01 GMT -5
Didn't work. The fact that you had one Gabby Reece poster on your wall doesn't mean it worked in the 90's.
Maybe you should look up the ABVL.
Oh jeez. Quit. Don't treat me like a child to be educated. It worked. It inspired girls to follow volleyball. But they were completely different times and threre weren't enough girls like me. Now there are and it could work on a greater scale. Especially with the ease of access to the target audience through social media. How many times do you have to be told it didn't work? It did not "inspire" girls to follow volleyball. Just because it worked for YOU, doesn't mean it worked for EVERYBODY.
If it worked, it would still be here today. And the players and league would still be profitable, and it the events would still be well attended and there would still be a TV contract for the league. Why don't you ask all the players who played in the final season of the ABVL if they are ever gonna get paid for that season?
Don't give me your "well my situation was right so therefore it was right everywhere" excuse.
It's one thing to be a volleyball mom with daughters saying "it should be like this". Completely different for the people who are actually exploring the feasibility of creating and managing a successful professional volleyball league in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by alarmclock on Dec 17, 2015 10:24:13 GMT -5
Everyone keeps saying "Hawaii this" and "Nebraska that". Well...the truth is that those fanbases are loyal only to those specific programs and nothing else.
Case in point. The U.S. Women's National teams have played exhibition matches in both markets, with national team members on the active roster who were alumni of both the Hawaii and Nebraska programs. And those events were sparsely attended. So the theory that a huge collegiate fanbase in a geographical area will translate to a huge fanbase for a professional team is not proven.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2015 11:12:27 GMT -5
It's not about the league--it's about making it friendly for a network to produce. Get eight teams--all in one location. Seven regular matches, then playoffs. Each team's playing ten matches--one per day. Given them four days of practice beforehand, so two weeks total.
Pay everyone for two weeks work--$3000/athlete, $1500/official. That's about $250,000 of cost plus gym rental. But the matches don't get aired live--you broadcast one per week at a time of the network's convenience. Since it's filmed way in advance, they know the necessary amount of time, etc.
Heck--use 2-3 gyms in a big city if you want home courts to look different each time.
But doing this in 2-3 weeks means those athletes aren't sacrificing a 'real' job, nor would it interfere with their Euro-league commitments. $3000 for two weeks is the equivalent pay of a $75,000 salary--not going to make you a millionaire, but nothing to sneeze at.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 17, 2015 13:00:37 GMT -5
It's not about the league--it's about making it friendly for a network to produce. Get eight teams--all in one location. Seven regular matches, then playoffs. Each team's playing ten matches--one per day. Given them four days of practice beforehand, so two weeks total. Pay everyone for two weeks work--$3000/athlete, $1500/official. That's about $250,000 of cost plus gym rental. But the matches don't get aired live--you broadcast one per week at a time of the network's convenience. Since it's filmed way in advance, they know the necessary amount of time, etc. Heck--use 2-3 gyms in a big city if you want home courts to look different each time. But doing this in 2-3 weeks means those athletes aren't sacrificing a 'real' job, nor would it interfere with their Euro-league commitments. $3000 for two weeks is the equivalent pay of a $75,000 salary--not going to make you a millionaire, but nothing to sneeze at. ESPN has already showed that they're okay with producing matches at four regional sites. I don't understand what this accomplishes? One possible sell to ESPN is to try to get them to produce and air subregionals at the venue that is most likely to host regionals. For example, this year they could've sent crews and equipment to the Los Angeles, Lincoln, Austin and Minneapolis subregionals knowing that there is a very good chance that they wouldn't have to move their equipment for the regional matches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2015 16:05:19 GMT -5
It's not about the league--it's about making it friendly for a network to produce. Get eight teams--all in one location. Seven regular matches, then playoffs. Each team's playing ten matches--one per day. Given them four days of practice beforehand, so two weeks total. Pay everyone for two weeks work--$3000/athlete, $1500/official. That's about $250,000 of cost plus gym rental. But the matches don't get aired live--you broadcast one per week at a time of the network's convenience. Since it's filmed way in advance, they know the necessary amount of time, etc. Heck--use 2-3 gyms in a big city if you want home courts to look different each time. But doing this in 2-3 weeks means those athletes aren't sacrificing a 'real' job, nor would it interfere with their Euro-league commitments. $3000 for two weeks is the equivalent pay of a $75,000 salary--not going to make you a millionaire, but nothing to sneeze at. ESPN has already showed that they're okay with producing matches at four regional sites. I don't understand what this accomplishes? One possible sell to ESPN is to try to get them to produce and air subregionals at the venue that is most likely to host regionals. For example, this year they could've sent crews and equipment to the Los Angeles, Lincoln, Austin and Minneapolis subregionals knowing that there is a very good chance that they wouldn't have to move their equipment for the regional matches. Then you do it at four sites--whatever minimizes costs because a network wants to make money. The advantage of a single site is minimal logistics, including only needing a single TV crew and only 2-3 competent announcers. WIth a single site, you could even cut the necessary time by having teams play two matches/day. It's not about competition--it's about profitability.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Dec 17, 2015 16:54:40 GMT -5
ESPN has already showed that they're okay with producing matches at four regional sites. I don't understand what this accomplishes? One possible sell to ESPN is to try to get them to produce and air subregionals at the venue that is most likely to host regionals. For example, this year they could've sent crews and equipment to the Los Angeles, Lincoln, Austin and Minneapolis subregionals knowing that there is a very good chance that they wouldn't have to move their equipment for the regional matches. Then you do it at four sites--whatever minimizes costs because a network wants to make money. The advantage of a single site is minimal logistics, including only needing a single TV crew and only 2-3 competent announcers. WIth a single site, you could even cut the necessary time by having teams play two matches/day. It's not about competition--it's about profitability. Fine, but ESPN has equipment and crew on location at all four regional sites. They pay to produce the Sweet 16 matches, but they don't even elect to air them on television, only on ESPN3. Why do we care about ESPN's profitability if they've been willing to send equipment and crews to all four regional sites for years? You seem to be trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 17, 2015 17:41:34 GMT -5
I wonder what percentage of ticket buying fans at schools with good attendance are there to watch good volleyball vs. they love their university's sports? Fans of school programs likely would not buy tickets to the pros, even if it were across the street. It depends. Most people like to follow teams that win. So does your hypothetical pro volleyball team win as often as the college team does? Does it cost five or ten times as much for tickets? How often does the roster turn over?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 17, 2015 17:44:31 GMT -5
It's not about the league--it's about making it friendly for a network to produce. Get eight teams--all in one location. Seven regular matches, then playoffs. Each team's playing ten matches--one per day. Given them four days of practice beforehand, so two weeks total. Pay everyone for two weeks work--$3000/athlete, $1500/official. That's about $250,000 of cost plus gym rental. But the matches don't get aired live--you broadcast one per week at a time of the network's convenience. Since it's filmed way in advance, they know the necessary amount of time, etc. Heck--use 2-3 gyms in a big city if you want home courts to look different each time. But doing this in 2-3 weeks means those athletes aren't sacrificing a 'real' job, nor would it interfere with their Euro-league commitments. $3000 for two weeks is the equivalent pay of a $75,000 salary--not going to make you a millionaire, but nothing to sneeze at. This ignores that the only reason live sports command a premium on television is because they are LIVE. The key to the appeal of sports is mainly the uncertainty of the outcome. Knowing that a match is being played in replay affects how you perceive it, even if you don't know what the outcome was.
|
|
|
Post by vballin008 on Dec 17, 2015 18:50:41 GMT -5
Everyone keeps saying "Hawaii this" and "Nebraska that". Well...the truth is that those fanbases are loyal only to those specific programs and nothing else. Case in point. The U.S. Women's National teams have played exhibition matches in both markets, with national team members on the active roster who were alumni of both the Hawaii and Nebraska programs. And those events were sparsely attended. So the theory that a huge collegiate fanbase in a geographical area will translate to a huge fanbase for a professional team is not proven. I went to a USA - Brazil game at the SSC in Hawaii and it was sold out so I don't really know what you're talking about
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2015 19:10:23 GMT -5
It's not about the league--it's about making it friendly for a network to produce. Get eight teams--all in one location. Seven regular matches, then playoffs. Each team's playing ten matches--one per day. Given them four days of practice beforehand, so two weeks total. Pay everyone for two weeks work--$3000/athlete, $1500/official. That's about $250,000 of cost plus gym rental. But the matches don't get aired live--you broadcast one per week at a time of the network's convenience. Since it's filmed way in advance, they know the necessary amount of time, etc. Heck--use 2-3 gyms in a big city if you want home courts to look different each time. But doing this in 2-3 weeks means those athletes aren't sacrificing a 'real' job, nor would it interfere with their Euro-league commitments. $3000 for two weeks is the equivalent pay of a $75,000 salary--not going to make you a millionaire, but nothing to sneeze at. This ignores that the only reason live sports command a premium on television is because they are LIVE. The key to the appeal of sports is mainly the uncertainty of the outcome. Knowing that a match is being played in replay affects how you perceive it, even if you don't know what the outcome was. But you won't get a premium for any start-up league. But non-live sports...if vb fans knew it would be on at 1am every THU, they'd Tivo it and watch, I suspect. Initially for the first 3-4 years, it would be completely about breaking even. But putting its production in to a short period massively lowers costs, eliminates almost all transportation expenses/no team travel, AND still leaves time for players to fulfill European contracts, national team commitments, whatever. It has to start someplace simple that TV will accept. I don't think you're going to do that via grassroots--is there any sport which has built itself into a TV Sports bonanza via 'grass roots'?
|
|