|
Post by 405LAX on Mar 23, 2020 13:11:51 GMT -5
With news this has been pushed to 2021, do we expect Taylor to grab Chase? Another year not good for older players like Jake.
|
|
|
Post by stephenasinjin on Mar 23, 2020 13:33:44 GMT -5
With news this has been pushed to 2021, do we expect Taylor to grab Chase? Another year not good for older players like Jake. Pushed to 2021? Better watch out for the eventual 2021 world champs Lee/Priddy!
|
|
|
Post by stevieofmb on Mar 23, 2020 13:43:26 GMT -5
With news this has been pushed to 2021, do we expect Taylor to grab Chase? Another year not good for older players like Jake. Budinger and Schalk got together to make a push for the 2024 Olympics. Now they might have an opportunity for the 2021 Olympics. Why would they split? Crabb would probably have been available to Budinger after the 2020 Olympics so he could have waited.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 23, 2020 13:46:18 GMT -5
Probably depends on how many qualifying events will happen before then. I imagine that Olympic points already earned will still count and maybe even be given greater weight. It’s probably not fair to make everyone start over, but it’s still a tough break for the 40+ crowd who were probably looking forward to retiring from international play this year.
|
|
|
Post by stevieofmb on Mar 23, 2020 13:53:38 GMT -5
Probably depends on how many qualifying events will happen before then. I imagine that Olympic points already earned will still count and maybe even be given greater weight. It’s probably not fair to make everyone start over, but it’s still a tough break for the 40+ crowd who were probably looking forward to retiring from international play this year. Should they be using results that are more than two years old as qualifying points? Why not reduce the number of qualifying events from 12 to a lesser number once tournaments start again. I want the teams that are playing the best at the time of the Olympics, not two years prior.
|
|
|
Post by stephenasinjin on Mar 23, 2020 14:20:47 GMT -5
What if this means Phil is out... so Nick scoops Theo
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 23, 2020 14:23:01 GMT -5
Probably depends on how many qualifying events will happen before then. I imagine that Olympic points already earned will still count and maybe even be given greater weight. It’s probably not fair to make everyone start over, but it’s still a tough break for the 40+ crowd who were probably looking forward to retiring from international play this year. Should they be using results that are more than two years old as qualifying points? Why not reduce the number of qualifying events from 12 to a lesser number once tournaments start again. I want the teams that are playing the best at the time of the Olympics, not two years prior. Good questions. The FIVB still probably wants to reward teams that have been playing their tour all along. They have historically been resistant to any system that allows a hot new team to earn too many points at the last minute. I would be surprised if they make it easy for a brand new team to qualify for the Olympics.
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Mar 23, 2020 14:26:55 GMT -5
What if this means Phil is out... so Nick scoops Theo Nooooooooo Phil is probably like ugh one more year
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Mar 23, 2020 14:27:42 GMT -5
This means it’ll be the longest qualifying ever. 2018 to 2021 events. 2.5 years if they decide to take into account of all the Olympics qualifying events.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Mar 23, 2020 14:32:22 GMT -5
With news this has been pushed to 2021, do we expect Taylor to grab Chase? Another year not good for older players like Jake. Gibb is better than Chase right now. Will that last another 15 months? Who knows. Interesting call for Taylor. I think a switch he might be more likely to make is if Tri called him. That way he doesnt have to play a bunch of Qs with a world tour neophyte who isnt used to the athleticism at that level. Chase has better size than Tri but other than that I think Tri is probably better at everything
|
|
|
Post by stevieofmb on Mar 23, 2020 14:32:26 GMT -5
Should they be using results that are more than two years old as qualifying points? Why not reduce the number of qualifying events from 12 to a lesser number once tournaments start again. I want the teams that are playing the best at the time of the Olympics, not two years prior. Good questions. The FIVB still probably wants to reward teams that have been playing their tour all along. They have historically been resistant to any system that allows a hot new team to earn too many points at the last minute. I would be surprised if they make it easy for a brand new team to qualify for the Olympics. They wouldn't be making it easy. You still have to earn your points; it's just that everyone would start with an equal footing. We have what is hopefully a once in a lifetime disaster. Rules have to be adapted to the circumstances. If you currently hold the world record in a track and field event, that doesn't get you into the Olympics. You have to qualify like everyone else at an Olympic qualifying event taking place close to the time of the Olympics. I want to see the teams playing the best volleyball competing in the Olympics; not the best team from two years ago.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Mar 23, 2020 14:33:32 GMT -5
Probably depends on how many qualifying events will happen before then. I imagine that Olympic points already earned will still count and maybe even be given greater weight. It’s probably not fair to make everyone start over, but it’s still a tough break for the 40+ crowd who were probably looking forward to retiring from international play this year. Should they be using results that are more than two years old as qualifying points? Why not reduce the number of qualifying events from 12 to a lesser number once tournaments start again. I want the teams that are playing the best at the time of the Olympics, not two years prior. Of course they shouldn't which means they probably will
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Mar 23, 2020 14:34:51 GMT -5
What should happen is USAV, which controls the spots once earned, should set up trials. Many of these partnerships are stale or feature teams/players who will be past their sell bys in 15 months. Give players the chance to play with who they want and improve the US' chances of medaling
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 23, 2020 14:55:23 GMT -5
What should happen is USAV, which controls the spots once earned, should set up trials. Many of these partnerships are stale or feature teams/players who will be past their sell bys in 15 months. Give players the chance to play with who they want and improve the US' chances of medaling I agree with this. USAV needs to step up and not be a slave to the FIVB, even if that means holding their own trials. But I guarantee that the FIVB will attempt to stack the rules in a way that favors their tour regardless of whether it necessarily produces the best qualifying teams.
|
|
|
Post by stephenasinjin on Mar 23, 2020 15:32:03 GMT -5
With news this has been pushed to 2021, do we expect Taylor to grab Chase? Another year not good for older players like Jake. Gibb is better than Chase right now. Will that last another 15 months? Who knows. Interesting call for Taylor. I think a switch he might be more likely to make is if Tri called him. That way he doesnt have to play a bunch of Qs with a world tour neophyte who isnt used to the athleticism at that level. Chase has better size than Tri but other than that I think Tri is probably better at everything I think Tri or Trevor giving Taylor a call is the only possible scenario where Cribb potentially splits (barring an injury I don’t see Gibb declining in 15 months). T2 are solidly both players best shot plus I think they both believe that split blocking is their best shot I have a hard time seeing them bail either. As for team Cha Cha, they like every major pairing is in it for their next possible Olympics.... until a better option comes along.
|
|