|
Post by redstratocat on Jan 18, 2024 19:56:20 GMT -5
My understanding, which could be wrong, was that starting at Regionals it was a requirement to use some sort of court that masked over the hosting school's floor so as to give all 4 teams at Regional an equal footing. Like you can't use your schools video graphics if you (Texas) is hosting an NCAA regional because that would be unfair to the other team that doesn't have graphics/videos at their disposal. Added: And regarding the logic about cost, etc...Stanford could afford to use sportcourt in 2022, but not in 2023?
That was the justification given, at least (neutrality). I personally suspect it was to give a unified look to all the televised matches, while getting a sponsor to pay for it. (They also require any non-NCAA-sponsor advertising to be covered up, if it could show on camera.) However, when they switched to Taraflex (or when they switched away from having Sportcourt sponsor/pay-for the Regional and Final courts), the NCAA presumably couldn't get a Taraflex court (provided at no cost) for the Regional schools. They also can't readily require the schools themselves to pony up the dollars for a neutral-appearing Taraflex court. Thus, what we had and will have: host-school specific courts (with advertising covered), with a future requirement that schools need to have a Taraflex court in order to qualify as hosts (akin to other venue-qualifications like capacity and locker rooms). So Texas will have to rent a Teraflex from now on in the regionals? Pretty sure JE has stated they have no intention of installing one permanently because the of venue logistics.
|
|
|
Post by hornfanaustin on Jan 18, 2024 19:59:48 GMT -5
That was the justification given, at least (neutrality). I personally suspect it was to give a unified look to all the televised matches, while getting a sponsor to pay for it. (They also require any non-NCAA-sponsor advertising to be covered up, if it could show on camera.) However, when they switched to Taraflex (or when they switched away from having Sportcourt sponsor/pay-for the Regional and Final courts), the NCAA presumably couldn't get a Taraflex court (provided at no cost) for the Regional schools. They also can't readily require the schools themselves to pony up the dollars for a neutral-appearing Taraflex court. Thus, what we had and will have: host-school specific courts (with advertising covered), with a future requirement that schools need to have a Taraflex court in order to qualify as hosts (akin to other venue-qualifications like capacity and locker rooms). So Texas will have to rent a Teraflex from now on in the regionals? Pretty sure JE has stated they have no intention of installing one permanently because the of venue logistics. I asked him that directly. He said they don't have the space to store Teraflex in Gregory gym, which they rent from Rec Sports.
|
|
|
Post by redstratocat on Jan 18, 2024 20:05:45 GMT -5
So Texas will have to rent a Teraflex from now on in the regionals? Pretty sure JE has stated they have no intention of installing one permanently because the of venue logistics. I asked him that directly. He said they don't have the space to store Teraflex in Gregory gym, which they rent from Rec Sports. But they would be able to temporarily put one down for a regional? Sounds like they won't have a choice.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Jan 18, 2024 20:39:15 GMT -5
I asked him that directly. He said they don't have the space to store Teraflex in Gregory gym, which they rent from Rec Sports. But they would be able to temporarily put one down for a regional? Sounds like they won't have a choice. lack of storage space wouldn't be an issue with a rented court because they wouldn't have to store it at all.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jan 18, 2024 21:06:39 GMT -5
So Texas will have to rent a Teraflex from now on in the regionals? Pretty sure JE has stated they have no intention of installing one permanently because the of venue logistics. Unless the NCAA changes its rules, Texas would need to purchase, rent, or go to a location with a Teraflex court.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 18, 2024 21:37:29 GMT -5
So Texas will have to rent a Teraflex from now on in the regionals? Pretty sure JE has stated they have no intention of installing one permanently because the of venue logistics. Maybe they just won't be hosting any more regionals, which would avoid the issue.
|
|
|
Post by widdledumpling on Jan 18, 2024 21:38:45 GMT -5
So Texas will have to rent a Teraflex from now on in the regionals? Pretty sure JE has stated they have no intention of installing one permanently because the of venue logistics. Maybe they just won't be hosting any more regionals, which would avoid the issue. I put the chances of this happening at roughly 0%.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Jan 19, 2024 20:01:25 GMT -5
Taraflex and sport court are both owned by the same company. I do still guess that the 2020 tournament might have been a watershed moment where the NCAA came to realize that many teams prefer Taraflex. Makes sense; I’ve yet to meet a player who preferred Sportcourt to Teraflex.
|
|
|
Post by texannexile on Jan 25, 2024 15:55:25 GMT -5
If I have missed this in an early post my apologies but can someone explain what each court is and the advantages/benefits of one over the other? To the uninitiated a wood floor seems to be a wood floor. Also is the issue with Texas due to the recreational use of the court year round- it is not as durable?
|
|
|
Post by notvballdad on Jan 25, 2024 16:23:13 GMT -5
I have a dumb club question about the levels of play...What is the traditional wisdom for teams that play below "Open" that qualify for a particular level. Should/are they encouraged to move up to the next level once they qualify. Example - Team plays down from Open to USA to make sure they get a bid and then they qualify at an early qualifier. After that, (I'm sure there aren't any written rules about this, but are there unwritten like in baseball or understandings?) should they then play up at Open for their remaining qualifiers? I can see both sides. If you clearly aren't going to qualify at Open or are going to get your brains beat in, I get not wanting to move up. However, if you already have your bid at a lower level, continuing to play at the lower level could cost some teams a bid simply by playing that team at an inopportune time (i.e. crossover) and they would also be eliminated from the possibility of a trickle down as well. Maybe the answer is just "tough", that's the way it goes. That makes perfect sense to me. Happens at Open when they have nowhere else to go and the same thing happens. I'm just curious. We never played anything except open and someone asked me the question and I didn't have an answer.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jan 25, 2024 16:25:19 GMT -5
Do players like megan hodge, Alix Klineman, Logan tom, etc truly get dozenz upon dozens of offers?
like even from programs that KNOW they wont get them?
Or do thoes players traditionally only get a couple, as they show who they want early?
( i know this is not game related but just was curious)
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jan 25, 2024 20:53:09 GMT -5
I have a dumb club question about the levels of play...What is the traditional wisdom for teams that play below "Open" that qualify for a particular level. Should/are they encouraged to move up to the next level once they qualify. Example - Team plays down from Open to USA to make sure they get a bid and then they qualify at an early qualifier. After that, (I'm sure there aren't any written rules about this, but are there unwritten like in baseball or understandings?) should they then play up at Open for their remaining qualifiers? I can see both sides. If you clearly aren't going to qualify at Open or are going to get your brains beat in, I get not wanting to move up. However, if you already have your bid at a lower level, continuing to play at the lower level could cost some teams a bid simply by playing that team at an inopportune time (i.e. crossover) and they would also be eliminated from the possibility of a trickle down as well. Maybe the answer is just "tough", that's the way it goes. That makes perfect sense to me. Happens at Open when they have nowhere else to go and the same thing happens. I'm just curious. We never played anything except open and someone asked me the question and I didn't have an answer. Should they? Yes. What’s the point of playing at the same level? And a team that qualifies at one level isn’t going to get their brains beat out. There are always teams playing up 2-3 levels in a qualifier. But it’s not always a possibility. If an open division is already full, they might not have an opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by VB48 on Jan 25, 2024 22:59:54 GMT -5
Who came up with the term Bic and why is it called that? Why do teams run the Bic now instead of the old style X plays and stack plays? The story I heard (no idea the verocity but its fun) is that the symbol for it is a thumbs up with a bent knuckle, and it looks like you're flicking a bic cigarette lighter. Flickum bicus! Iykyk If you stuff block a ball on the opponents side, but pike enough on your jump that you feet are under the bottom of the net and the previously blocked ball hits your foot in mid air and falls, what is the call? should be an interference call against the blocker but I've never seen it called. Jeff Nygaard says that calling it a bic came from when he, Stein Metzger, and Al Scates were trying to figure out the hand signal, and they decided to use the bent thumb flicking, making it looking like they were using a bic lighter. Here is Nygaard talking about it: www.volleyball1on1.com/jeff-nygaard-volleyball-hitting-the-bic-and-history
|
|
|
Post by ManapuaSurprise on Jan 26, 2024 20:46:57 GMT -5
At what point exactly during the serve can players switch out of rotation? Is it after the toss, after the hit, or...?
|
|
|
Post by hookshott on Jan 26, 2024 22:41:22 GMT -5
At what point exactly during the serve can players switch out of rotation? Is it after the toss, after the hit, or...? After the ball is contacted on the serve.
|
|