Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2021 12:14:36 GMT -5
I like the format from this year’s VNL, but I can understand why it may not be popular with some of the stakeholders. This year’s format gave non-top 10 teams a great opportunity to play top-ranked teams and a lot of exposure for the players. With the new format, the “bottom” teams will play less games and won’t get to play some of the better competition (which would help with their ranking if they took sets off a good team). The rich get richer, and the poor stay poor - so to speak…(the best teams get better and the lower-ranked teams don’t have as much opportunity to improve). "bottom" teams will play 12 vs 15. In the end, won't amount to too much in terms of ranking points. A lot of it had to do with teams/players wanting less games. Like Argentina lost points during the Olympics. Canada finished with less points than they started the VNL with. If anything, these teams should prefer the Grand Prix style tiers. The Challenger Cup just isn't big enough for this. It would be nice for teams like Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico to get involved with the CEV Golden/Silver leagues... but that's probably too costly (and CEV would say no) |
|
|
|
Post by CAI BIN MUST GO on Aug 13, 2021 12:16:15 GMT -5
I like the format from this year’s VNL, but I can understand why it may not be popular with some of the stakeholders. This year’s format gave non-top 10 teams a great opportunity to play top-ranked teams and a lot of exposure for the players. With the new format, the “bottom” teams will play less games and won’t get to play some of the better competition (which would help with their ranking if they took sets off a good team). The rich get richer, and the poor stay poor - so to speak…(the best teams get better and the lower-ranked teams don’t have as much opportunity to improve). I have to say I preferred the old ranking system now. |
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Aug 13, 2021 12:29:50 GMT -5
I love that we're getting a knock-out round style Finals with QF > SF > F rather than just having the top 4 teams in a SF. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2021 15:52:12 GMT -5
I like the format from this year’s VNL, but I can understand why it may not be popular with some of the stakeholders. This year’s format gave non-top 10 teams a great opportunity to play top-ranked teams and a lot of exposure for the players. With the new format, the “bottom” teams will play less games and won’t get to play some of the better competition (which would help with their ranking if they took sets off a good team). The rich get richer, and the poor stay poor - so to speak…(the best teams get better and the lower-ranked teams don’t have as much opportunity to improve). I have to say I preferred the old ranking system now. I like the new one but I think teams should be awarded bonus points for placing in the top 4 in the majors (WCH and OG) I don't count the WCup anymore since it's format isn't the same and there is no Olympic qualification on the line. Why the FIVB is moving away from the World Cup is beyond me. I honestly didn't like the IOQT. USA would have gotten their noses bloodied if they would have had to have played Serbia or Italy in their 2019 form. USA wasn't ready in 2019. I still think it should be the World Cup which certifies 2-3 teams to the Olympics and THEN the IOQT and lastly the COQT. In 2019, the World Cup should have occurred BEFORE the IOQT. Anyways, I'm ranting. Moving on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2021 15:54:29 GMT -5
I love that we're getting a knock-out round style Finals with QF > SF > F rather than just having the top 4 teams in a SF. I'm honestly really excited about that part. I just don't like that the round robin phase is going to be lopsided. 5 out of 7 in your pool you fill face twice. Perhaps a chance to make adjustments? |
|
|
|
Post by CAI BIN MUST GO on Aug 13, 2021 16:43:53 GMT -5
I have to say I preferred the old ranking system now. I like the new one but I think teams should be awarded bonus points for placing in the top 4 in the majors (WCH and OG) I don't count the WCup anymore since it's format isn't the same and there is no Olympic qualification on the line. Why the FIVB is moving away from the World Cup is beyond me. I honestly didn't like the IOQT. USA would have gotten their noses bloodied if they would have had to have played Serbia or Italy in their 2019 form. USA wasn't ready in 2019. I still think it should be the World Cup which certifies 2-3 teams to the Olympics and THEN the IOQT and lastly the COQT. In 2019, the World Cup should have occurred BEFORE the IOQT. Anyways, I'm ranting. Moving on. Yeah, how many points did Korea gain from their top 4 finish? 3 3-2 wins against Japan, DR, and Turkey isn't gonna do their ranking a whole lot of good. |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,431 
|
Post by trojansc on Aug 13, 2021 17:06:52 GMT -5
I like the new one but I think teams should be awarded bonus points for placing in the top 4 in the majors (WCH and OG) I don't count the WCup anymore since it's format isn't the same and there is no Olympic qualification on the line. Why the FIVB is moving away from the World Cup is beyond me. I honestly didn't like the IOQT. USA would have gotten their noses bloodied if they would have had to have played Serbia or Italy in their 2019 form. USA wasn't ready in 2019. I still think it should be the World Cup which certifies 2-3 teams to the Olympics and THEN the IOQT and lastly the COQT. In 2019, the World Cup should have occurred BEFORE the IOQT. Anyways, I'm ranting. Moving on. Yeah, how many points did Korea gain from their top 4 finish? 3 3-2 wins against Japan, DR, and Turkey isn't gonna do their ranking a whole lot of good. But I don't think Korea should have gained much points, really. They won three five setters and only finished Top 4 with a favorable QF draw. Should Korea receive more points than Italy because they didn't get matched up against Serbia in the QF's? The old system was bad in that it awards points to teams simply for being there (especially problematic if they qualified via an easier route, such as what happened to World Cup teams). |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,431
|
Post by trojansc on Aug 13, 2021 17:09:12 GMT -5
I like the new one but I think teams should be awarded bonus points for placing in the top 4 in the majors (WCH and OG) I don't count the WCup anymore since it's format isn't the same and there is no Olympic qualification on the line. Why the FIVB is moving away from the World Cup is beyond me. I honestly didn't like the IOQT. USA would have gotten their noses bloodied if they would have had to have played Serbia or Italy in their 2019 form. USA wasn't ready in 2019. I still think it should be the World Cup which certifies 2-3 teams to the Olympics and THEN the IOQT and lastly the COQT. In 2019, the World Cup should have occurred BEFORE the IOQT. Anyways, I'm ranting. Moving on. If the goal is to get the best teams in the Olympics, the COQT needs to be held first. Then the IOQT/World Cup/whatever. But the IOQT/World Cup qualifications need to be comprehensive and include the most amount of games/teams realistically possible to determine who gets into the Olympics. 4-team 'pods' for IOQT was a joke. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2021 17:17:15 GMT -5
Yeah, how many points did Korea gain from their top 4 finish? 3 3-2 wins against Japan, DR, and Turkey isn't gonna do their ranking a whole lot of good. But I don't think Korea should have gained much points, really. They won three five setters and only finished Top 4 with a favorable QF draw. Should Korea receive more points than Italy because they didn't get matched up against Serbia in the QF's? The old system was bad in that it awards points to teams simply for being there (especially problematic if they qualified via an easier route, such as what happened to World Cup teams). Korea gained 15 points. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2021 18:33:43 GMT -5
I like the new one but I think teams should be awarded bonus points for placing in the top 4 in the majors (WCH and OG) I don't count the WCup anymore since it's format isn't the same and there is no Olympic qualification on the line. Why the FIVB is moving away from the World Cup is beyond me. I honestly didn't like the IOQT. USA would have gotten their noses bloodied if they would have had to have played Serbia or Italy in their 2019 form. USA wasn't ready in 2019. I still think it should be the World Cup which certifies 2-3 teams to the Olympics and THEN the IOQT and lastly the COQT. In 2019, the World Cup should have occurred BEFORE the IOQT. Anyways, I'm ranting. Moving on. If the goal is to get the best teams in the Olympics, the COQT needs to be held first. Then the IOQT/World Cup/whatever. But the IOQT/World Cup qualifications need to be comprehensive and include the most amount of games/teams realistically possible to determine who gets into the Olympics. 4-team 'pods' for IOQT was a joke. I actually really like this. Let's complain to the FIVB straight away.  |
|
