|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Apr 14, 2017 9:28:05 GMT -5
This sport is undergoing many growing pains and it’s only going to get worse. You have 70ish current programs with 50 more considering adding in the next couple years. Where is the talent going to come from? Where are the coaches going to come from? The junior ranks are growing too but not at this clip. Do you think if the NBA or MLB doubled in size through expansion, the quality of the play would remain? I think not. So how is the NCAA going to keep parity in the league through this growth spurt? There are enough 5-0; 4-1 matches now. Spread the talent out over another 50 schools….yikes! You can make the argument that the best players will still go to the best programs but I suspect there will be a few who will opt for a free education at one of the new schools knowing they will hop right into a top playing spot as a freshman rather than wait a year or two at a top 10 program. Going to add an interesting twist to recruiting. So how does this relate to the “sandbagging” issue? As a spectator, I’m tired of watching these blow outs. I want close, down to the wire team matches. I just think it’s best for the sport, the players and the schools. Every match should be 3-2 no matter who is competing…..idealistic?? I think if the coaches have more leeway in moving teams around, this might happen. There might be more lopsided individual matches but I think the overall team matches would be closer. So how do you accomplish this? How about taking a cue from the Ryder Cup Golf matches? We get rid of the term “seed” and replace it with “match.” Matches are set before play by the visiting coach putting their first match team (any team) on the board and the Home coach then getting to pick from any of his 5 teams to set Match 1. Then the Home team puts up a team for Match 2 and the Visiting coach gets to set their pair. This process alternates back and forth until all the matches are set adding a level of strategy to the game. The pool of teams can come from any combination of players on the team. Coaches will have to watch more film and know their competition better. If a match is a dual, then the order of picks is reversed for the second match. I think the players would get better because they will be forced to play “up” probably a 3rd of the time. Top level players may not get as much competition, but it’s a team sport and the team matches will be better. It may help down the road with the dilution factor in the sport. It would get rid of all this petty bickering about team movement, add a new level of strategy and make the sport more exciting to watch when every meet comes down to that last match or two. Just an idea……I could be wrong 😊 here is the potential real issue the 'ideal' Beach VB player is about 5'9 to 6'0 I keep saying that indoor VB could be potentially see a drain of setters and defensive specialists and liberos because those are the types of players that will have more and more opportunity in Beach granted, many will play both indoor and Beach, but as the # of colleges expand and more importantly as the # of Beach schollies increase, there's bound to be some drain from quality indoor 'ball control' players who end up deciding to play Beach only - and I think that will only serve to increase the chasm between the top WVB indoor teams and the rest, as the PSUs and Texas type programs will still get the best - the dearth will trickle down and affect the programs below #40-50 ish. that is unless the poll of High School and club players expands - so what would be interesting would be to see the data distribution I think Klaes is the perfect example - LB thought they had one of the best setters in the country for their indoor, but she ends up playing Beach only - that's not going to be a unique situation or I could be wrong, and the increase in Beach simply contributes to an overall increase in skill level across the board !  |
|
|
|
Post by beachbum96 on Apr 14, 2017 15:23:20 GMT -5
Agreed that indoor will be effected. At this point I think girls need to make a choice early and go one way or the other. The crossover player will soon be rare or relegated to the nonplaying depths of the beach roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by pd154 on Apr 16, 2017 1:05:30 GMT -5
The fact that a coach can sandbag his lineup to his advantage is an indication that the format is wrong. It is inevitable that coaches will sandbag, and other coaches will get accused of sandbagging even when they aren't, and eventually, coaches who hate sandbaggers will start sandbagging, because "eveyone else is doing it". The format has to change. There are a lot of ways to fix the problem. One simple way would be to award winning the higher matches. For example: Match 1 winner 10 points Match 2 winner 9 points Match 3 winner 7 points Match 4 winner 6 points Match 5 winner 5 points With that scenario, whoever wins 3 out of 5 wins the match EXCEPT if they lose the top two, which would be a good indication of sandbagging. Still have the problem of teams sliding everyone down a slot. No weighting will ever remove that option because there will always be cases where one of your 1 or 2 teams doesn't have a chance. Why any coach would ever let their top team play Claes/Hughes for example makes no sense from a winning perspective. Maybe some version of, if a team plays no. 1 and then moves down to 2, they must stay in that spot for a certain number of matches events etc. Really highlights how dumb it is to shoehorn bvb into a swim meet kind of format |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Apr 16, 2017 7:25:07 GMT -5
This sport is undergoing many growing pains and it’s only going to get worse. You have 70ish current programs with 50 more considering adding in the next couple years. Where is the talent going to come from? Where are the coaches going to come from? The junior ranks are growing too but not at this clip. Do you think if the NBA or MLB doubled in size through expansion, the quality of the play would remain? I think not. So how is the NCAA going to keep parity in the league through this growth spurt? There are enough 5-0; 4-1 matches now. Spread the talent out over another 50 schools….yikes! You can make the argument that the best players will still go to the best programs but I suspect there will be a few who will opt for a free education at one of the new schools knowing they will hop right into a top playing spot as a freshman rather than wait a year or two at a top 10 program. Going to add an interesting twist to recruiting. So how does this relate to the “sandbagging” issue? As a spectator, I’m tired of watching these blow outs. I want close, down to the wire team matches. I just think it’s best for the sport, the players and the schools. Every match should be 3-2 no matter who is competing…..idealistic?? I think if the coaches have more leeway in moving teams around, this might happen. There might be more lopsided individual matches but I think the overall team matches would be closer. So how do you accomplish this? How about taking a cue from the Ryder Cup Golf matches? We get rid of the term “seed” and replace it with “match.” Matches are set before play by the visiting coach putting their first match team (any team) on the board and the Home coach then getting to pick from any of his 5 teams to set Match 1. Then the Home team puts up a team for Match 2 and the Visiting coach gets to set their pair. This process alternates back and forth until all the matches are set adding a level of strategy to the game. The pool of teams can come from any combination of players on the team. Coaches will have to watch more film and know their competition better. If a match is a dual, then the order of picks is reversed for the second match. I think the players would get better because they will be forced to play “up” probably a 3rd of the time. Top level players may not get as much competition, but it’s a team sport and the team matches will be better. It may help down the road with the dilution factor in the sport. It would get rid of all this petty bickering about team movement, add a new level of strategy and make the sport more exciting to watch when every meet comes down to that last match or two. Just an idea……I could be wrong 😊 here is the potential real issue the 'ideal' Beach VB player is about 5'9 to 6'0 This is wrong. The ideal beach player is just like the ideal indoor player. As far above 6'0 as you can get and still have good mobility/coordination. Witness Kerri Walsh. Some very good players at the lower end of your range (Larissa, Misty etc.) but thats not ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Apr 16, 2017 7:28:29 GMT -5
A six teams per school double elim bracket would be nice. Would also give lower ranked teams a chance to compete in real play against higher ranked teams from their own school and be a more interesting way to determine what people actually want to know when they think about BVB, who is the best team (not the best collection of 5 teams)
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Apr 16, 2017 8:31:42 GMT -5
here is the potential real issue the 'ideal' Beach VB player is about 5'9 to 6'0 This is wrong. The ideal beach player is just like the ideal indoor player. As far above 6'0 as you can get and still have good mobility/coordination. Witness Kerri Walsh. Some very good players at the lower end of your range (Larissa, Misty etc.) but thats not ideal. granted that's true for pros, but for collegiate, the 5'9" player can compete extremely well on the sand ok so 5'9" isn't ideal, poor choice of words but mobility as an asset is a big thing for the college game. there are, what, 30 US teams scrounging for some survival coin in pro Beach WVB - -whereas for college, there are 360 and growing - so yeah 5'9" competes very well because there aren't a lot of Kerri Walsh's in college |
|
|
|
Post by beachbum96 on Apr 16, 2017 18:56:10 GMT -5
A six teams per school double elim bracket would be nice. Would also give lower ranked teams a chance to compete in real play against higher ranked teams from their own school and be a more interesting way to determine what people actually want to know when they think about BVB, who is the best team (not the best collection of 5 teams) Can't do this in a two hour window. Have to be practical with time and limited budgets the schools have to work with. |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Apr 16, 2017 20:13:04 GMT -5
A six teams per school double elim bracket would be nice. Would also give lower ranked teams a chance to compete in real play against higher ranked teams from their own school and be a more interesting way to determine what people actually want to know when they think about BVB, who is the best team (not the best collection of 5 teams) Can't do this in a two hour window. Have to be practical with time and limited budgets the schools have to work with. True. Also, the NCAA considers beach volleyball first and foremost a team sport (as opposed to a pairs sport), so the best collection of five teams is the order of the day. And that isn't going to change. |
|
|
|
Post by vboldschool on Apr 17, 2017 9:55:46 GMT -5
This sport is undergoing many growing pains and it’s only going to get worse. You have 70ish current programs with 50 more considering adding in the next couple years. Where is the talent going to come from? Where are the coaches going to come from? The junior ranks are growing too but not at this clip. Do you think if the NBA or MLB doubled in size through expansion, the quality of the play would remain? I think not. So how is the NCAA going to keep parity in the league through this growth spurt? There are enough 5-0; 4-1 matches now. Spread the talent out over another 50 schools….yikes! You can make the argument that the best players will still go to the best programs but I suspect there will be a few who will opt for a free education at one of the new schools knowing they will hop right into a top playing spot as a freshman rather than wait a year or two at a top 10 program. Going to add an interesting twist to recruiting. So how does this relate to the “sandbagging” issue? As a spectator, I’m tired of watching these blow outs. I want close, down to the wire team matches. I just think it’s best for the sport, the players and the schools. Every match should be 3-2 no matter who is competing…..idealistic?? I think if the coaches have more leeway in moving teams around, this might happen. There might be more lopsided individual matches but I think the overall team matches would be closer. So how do you accomplish this? How about taking a cue from the Ryder Cup Golf matches? We get rid of the term “seed” and replace it with “match.” Matches are set before play by the visiting coach putting their first match team (any team) on the board and the Home coach then getting to pick from any of his 5 teams to set Match 1. Then the Home team puts up a team for Match 2 and the Visiting coach gets to set their pair. This process alternates back and forth until all the matches are set adding a level of strategy to the game. The pool of teams can come from any combination of players on the team. Coaches will have to watch more film and know their competition better. If a match is a dual, then the order of picks is reversed for the second match. I think the players would get better because they will be forced to play “up” probably a 3rd of the time. Top level players may not get as much competition, but it’s a team sport and the team matches will be better. It may help down the road with the dilution factor in the sport. It would get rid of all this petty bickering about team movement, add a new level of strategy and make the sport more exciting to watch when every meet comes down to that last match or two. Just an idea……I could be wrong 😊 This is a really really good idea. Much better than my suggestion of giving more points to higher seeds. |
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Apr 17, 2017 10:21:49 GMT -5
Both options of putting different point values and the Ryder Cup matchings would strongly negate sandbagging. I really like the weighted points because it discourages teams from not playing their top 2 teams in the first 2 games. The Ryder Cup option is even better I think. Puts more responsibility on coaches to be smart. Both options will still allow for a little bit of sandbagging no doubt but Ryder Cup picking option is very intriguing. If one coach decides to sandbag, the other coach can just do that the very next round. It sounds bad but I think over time coaches will see that it is pointless and would rather have their 1s team battle it out for the win instead of their 3s team battle it out for the win after potentially sandbagging the other 4 rounds. Not a perfect fix but either option is better than the current system.
|
|
|
|
Post by vboldschool on Apr 17, 2017 10:30:18 GMT -5
Both options of putting different point values and the Ryder Cup matchings would strongly negate sandbagging. I really like the weighted points because it discourages teams from not playing their top 2 teams in the first 2 games. The Ryder Cup option is even better I think. Puts more responsibility on coaches to be smart. Both options will still allow for a little bit of sandbagging no doubt but Ryder Cup picking option is very intriguing. If one coach decides to sandbag, the other coach can just do that the very next round. It sounds bad but I think over time coaches will see that it is pointless and would rather have their 1s team battle it out for the win instead of their 3s team battle it out for the win after potentially sandbagging the other 4 rounds. Not a perfect fix but either option is better than the current system. One reason the Ryder Cup suggestion is so good is that the concept of sandbagging disappears. The first coach simply picks a team, it could be the strongest, the weakest, or somewhere in between. Then the 2nd coach has the advantage of picking a team that he believes stacks up well. Then the tables are turned and the 2nd coach has to select a team (again, no expectation that the team is good or bad), and then the 1st coach gets to choose which players he believes will stack up best against the known team. Seems like it would be a really bad idea to announce your best team first, as the other coach could then pick a couple players from the bench and be at an advantage for the remaining 4 matches. Seems best to start with a weaker (or even the weakest?) team. Does anyone know if that's what teams do typically in the Ryder Cup? |
|
|
|
Post by rainmaker on Apr 17, 2017 11:13:40 GMT -5
I would put out my threes first, then wait to see what the other coach puts out second.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Apr 17, 2017 11:55:00 GMT -5
I would put out my threes first, then wait to see what the other coach puts out second. Agreed. Example of Ryder Cup pick trying to gain advantage could go. I put out my 3s and you put out 4s. Then you put your 3s and I'm forced to put out my 4s. I put out my 2s and you go with your 1s. Then you have your 2s vs my 1s. Then it's 5v5 for the win! 3v4 4v3 2v1 1v2 5v5 Other ways I could see coach's trying to gain an advantage in a snake draft could go like this. I did each of these scenarios with Team A selecting first and going in a snake pattern. These are advantages that intelligent coaches could create. Pick order in these scenarios: 1st v2 4v3 5v6 8v7 9v10th pick Team A with advantage over B 3v2 1v1 4v3 2v4 5v5 Team B with advantage over A 3v3 2v4 4v5 5v1 1v2 Team A with advantage over B 3v4 1v5 2v1 4v3 5v2 A million other scenarios so every match is unpredictable and quite strategic and interesting. Imagine setting a time-limit on selecting the matchups and/or mixing up partners at the selection. Entertaining thought. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyba11 on Apr 18, 2017 9:48:41 GMT -5
So how does this relate to the “sandbagging” issue? As a spectator, I’m tired of watching these blow outs. I want close, down to the wire team matches. I just think it’s best for the sport, the players and the schools. Every match should be 3-2 no matter who is competing…..idealistic?? I think if the coaches have more leeway in moving teams around, this might happen. There might be more lopsided individual matches but I think the overall team matches would be closer. So how do you accomplish this? How about taking a cue from the Ryder Cup Golf matches? We get rid of the term “seed” and replace it with “match.” Matches are set before play by the visiting coach putting their first match team (any team) on the board and the Home coach then getting to pick from any of his 5 teams to set Match 1. Then the Home team puts up a team for Match 2 and the Visiting coach gets to set their pair. This process alternates back and forth until all the matches are set adding a level of strategy to the game. The pool of teams can come from any combination of players on the team. Coaches will have to watch more film and know their competition better. If a match is a dual, then the order of picks is reversed for the second match. I think the players would get better because they will be forced to play “up” probably a 3rd of the time. Top level players may not get as much competition, but it’s a team sport and the team matches will be better. It may help down the road with the dilution factor in the sport. It would get rid of all this petty bickering about team movement, add a new level of strategy and make the sport more exciting to watch when every meet comes down to that last match or two. Just an idea……I could be wrong 😊 To me, this sounds like the scenario as you are attempting to adjust it. Possible scores right now (no sandbagging) 21-17, 21-16 21-18, 19-21, 15-11 21-19, 21-12 21-17, 19-21, 15-12 16-21, 21-18, 15-9 Possible scores right now (sandbagging) 12-21, 10-21 21-18, 21-19 21-17, 21-19 21-16, 19-21, 15-10 21-16, 21-19 Both of those have "team blowouts" 5-0 and 4-1 but lots of close, competitive sets. Only players that are screwed over are the winners and losers of match1 with sandbagging. Neither of them got competitive matches. What you are proposing has a potential for: 21-10, 21-7 13-21, 14-21 21-16, 21-18 10-21, 13-21 18-21, 21-19, 15-11 Sure it's a 3-2 "team win" but how many players actually were challenged in their matches? 8 teams either won or lost a blowout that was pointless to play and 2 teams played in a tough 5v5 match that would already have happened in another way. Sure, now they are responsible for whether the school wins or loses, but the other 8 teams didn't really have that much impact. I would much, much, much rather see close matches in a 5-0 team blowout than lopsided matches in a 3-2 win. Someone proposed that coaches would make it effectively end up in a situation like 4v3 3v4 1v2 2v1 5v5, but that could happen anyways by moving a team up or down one position in the current formatting! Might as well continue to work at fixes that provide the student athletes the best chance to compete with appropriate leveled competition. |
|
|
|
Post by midwestmadness on Apr 19, 2017 9:15:06 GMT -5
So how does this relate to the “sandbagging” issue? As a spectator, I’m tired of watching these blow outs. I want close, down to the wire team matches. I just think it’s best for the sport, the players and the schools. Every match should be 3-2 no matter who is competing…..idealistic?? I think if the coaches have more leeway in moving teams around, this might happen. There might be more lopsided individual matches but I think the overall team matches would be closer. So how do you accomplish this? How about taking a cue from the Ryder Cup Golf matches? We get rid of the term “seed” and replace it with “match.” Matches are set before play by the visiting coach putting their first match team (any team) on the board and the Home coach then getting to pick from any of his 5 teams to set Match 1. Then the Home team puts up a team for Match 2 and the Visiting coach gets to set their pair. This process alternates back and forth until all the matches are set adding a level of strategy to the game. The pool of teams can come from any combination of players on the team. Coaches will have to watch more film and know their competition better. If a match is a dual, then the order of picks is reversed for the second match. I think the players would get better because they will be forced to play “up” probably a 3rd of the time. Top level players may not get as much competition, but it’s a team sport and the team matches will be better. It may help down the road with the dilution factor in the sport. It would get rid of all this petty bickering about team movement, add a new level of strategy and make the sport more exciting to watch when every meet comes down to that last match or two. Just an idea……I could be wrong 😊 To me, this sounds like the scenario as you are attempting to adjust it. Possible scores right now (no sandbagging) 21-17, 21-16 21-18, 19-21, 15-11 21-19, 21-12 21-17, 19-21, 15-12 16-21, 21-18, 15-9 Possible scores right now (sandbagging) 12-21, 10-21 21-18, 21-19 21-17, 21-19 21-16, 19-21, 15-10 21-16, 21-19 Both of those have "team blowouts" 5-0 and 4-1 but lots of close, competitive sets. Only players that are screwed over are the winners and losers of match1 with sandbagging. Neither of them got competitive matches. What you are proposing has a potential for: 21-10, 21-7 13-21, 14-21 21-16, 21-18 10-21, 13-21 18-21, 21-19, 15-11 Sure it's a 3-2 "team win" but how many players actually were challenged in their matches? 8 teams either won or lost a blowout that was pointless to play and 2 teams played in a tough 5v5 match that would already have happened in another way. Sure, now they are responsible for whether the school wins or loses, but the other 8 teams didn't really have that much impact. I would much, much, much rather see close matches in a 5-0 team blowout than lopsided matches in a 3-2 win. Someone proposed that coaches would make it effectively end up in a situation like 4v3 3v4 1v2 2v1 5v5, but that could happen anyways by moving a team up or down one position in the current formatting! Might as well continue to work at fixes that provide the student athletes the best chance to compete with appropriate leveled competition. VBall007, I'll be coach A and you can be coach B. I will select my 5th team for the first match. Please tell me who you are going to put across from them, and then tell me which of your teams will play the 2nd match. |
|
