|
|
Post by maigrey on Nov 22, 2023 16:07:36 GMT -5
does this scream professional and serious?  I like when some coaches where full piece suits, others look like they are going to sub in to to the game the next point, some wear heels, etc. I appreciate the diversity. We can have VB go the baseball route and have our coaches dress in spandex? no one wants to see John Cook in spandex shorts. 😬 |
|
MyNameHere
Sophomore
Enter your message here...
Posts: 204
|
Post by MyNameHere on Nov 22, 2023 16:08:43 GMT -5
... On another subject: Speeding up replay, beside the obvious of better cameras, would be to have a dedicated Replay Official (I believe the SEC is doing that his year). The Replay Official can start looking at the replay before the coach even makes the challenge. That eliminates all the wasted time of the R2 listening to the coach, and explaining the challenge to about a half dozen different people at the scorer's table, before he/she start actually looking at the replay. Doesn't softball have a dedicated replay official?
NCAA indoor sports (basketball, wrestling, swimming, non-SEC volleyball) generally have referees review their own calls. NCAA outdoor sports with mature replay systems (P5 football, baseball, softball) generally have a review official of some kind, for reasons of equipment location and logistics.
Nobody wants to see prolonged challenge reviews in any sport, especially in volleyball where plays occur in rapid succession. But shaving 10 seconds off of a 90-second review is not going to make or break the sport for a casual fan. It also takes away the official having to change their mind... which shouldn't be a factor, but realistically probably is...
Howard Webb, the head honcho for England's pro soccer referees, has said this about video reviews: "we can't sacrifice accuracy for speed". The SEC's use of a review referee has been an interesting test. The goal was to increase the impartiality of the process, both actual and perceived. Is there a perception of it being "more fair"? Sure, from afar it seems more fair - the play is being reviewed by someone other than the person who made the initial call. But who is actually more fair? The referee flown in to work the match, with no school affiliation, who risks their career by hesitating to overturn their own mistake? Or the review referee who lives 20 minutes from campus and works all of that team's home matches?
Volleyball challenge review isn't rocket science, but it does require a firm grasp of the intricacies of the rules of the game. It seems counterintuitive to tell the R2 (who theoretically knows the rules as well as anyone in the gym) that they are explicitly forbidden from trying to help get the call correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by maigrey on Nov 22, 2023 16:12:08 GMT -5
Introduce more analytics into the broadcasts. Show each team's hitting and sideout percentage per rotation. Passing numbers. People will learn, they'll get it quicker than you think. Treat broadcasts like Volleyball 103 instead of 101. Speaking as a broadcaster, this is easier said than done. Getting access to that data isn't easy unless your crew is doing it live. We had started to play around with building rotations graphics in the 2019 season but COVID was a major shock to the sports broadcasting sector and a lot of operations got scaled back. You also need to have a color person who can talk about rotations and side out percentages. I'm not sure there are a lot who can. (to be clear, I think big ESPN could take this one but I don't think they really care to run their shows in such an analytical fashion) what they need is a telestrator so they can do the whole John Madden thing and write all over the screen to explain plays and rotations (half joking) |
|
|
|
Post by txvbcoach on Nov 22, 2023 16:41:12 GMT -5
The spring is the best idea no one wants to consider. That is club season. What are you doing with that? where all referees are spread out at tournaments. 1) the top refs are running tournaments 2) the National level refs are running around the country at diff qualifiers-now that 18's pretty much run their own schedule it spreads the top refs even thinner 3) Line judges for college are also reffing and have various levels of patches and are developing their R1/R2 games Are you proposing club changes to summer/fall? |
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 22, 2023 16:41:57 GMT -5
Anyone involved in broadcasting volleyball (Execs./Producers/Announcers/Directors/Camera operators) should take some time and watch this OC Sports broadcast of a Hawaii/Washington Tournament match from 2012.
I posted this in another thread, but IMO if most broadcasts were anywhere near as good at this one, WVB might be one of the top-rated sports in America.
Announcers knowing what they're talking about, focused on the action on the court - no rambling side-stories detracting from the play. Great use of replays without constantly missing serves. A real sense of excitement and intensity that makes you feel like you're there.
THIS IS TEXTBOOK: HOW TO BROADCST VOLLEYBALL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Del Bocavista on Nov 22, 2023 16:44:09 GMT -5
The assumption that many make is that the longer review allows them to get the call right. I don't think that's true. I wonder if anyone has done a thorough review of outcomes, looking at other angles available, hell, just asking the player after the fact on touches, to see if there's any data to support that the current system actually provides more accurate outcomes (for touches I'm mainly talking about). For in/out I think it's probably doing the job of preventing egregious errors (#freecarlisnyder).
|
|
money
Sophomore
Posts: 227 
|
Post by money on Nov 22, 2023 16:52:02 GMT -5
The spring is the best idea no one wants to consider. That is club season. What are you doing with that? where all referees are spread out at tournaments. 1) the top refs are running tournaments 2) the National level refs are running around the country at diff qualifiers-now that 18's pretty much run their own schedule it spreads the top refs even thinner 3) Line judges for college are also reffing and have various levels of patches and are developing their R1/R2 games Are you proposing club changes to summer/fall? The NCAA and USA Volleyball are completely separate. Volleyball has a glass ceiling of tv coverage in the fall competing with Football and the Start of NCAA Basketball. Baseball and softball have exploded with popularity because there’s nothing else to watch all spring. So ESPN’s blasts it from the network. |
|
|
|
Post by txvbcoach on Nov 22, 2023 21:36:33 GMT -5
That is club season. What are you doing with that? where all referees are spread out at tournaments. 1) the top refs are running tournaments 2) the National level refs are running around the country at diff qualifiers-now that 18's pretty much run their own schedule it spreads the top refs even thinner 3) Line judges for college are also reffing and have various levels of patches and are developing their R1/R2 games Are you proposing club changes to summer/fall? The NCAA and USA Volleyball are completely separate. Volleyball has a glass ceiling of tv coverage in the fall competing with Football and the Start of NCAA Basketball. Baseball and softball have exploded with popularity because there’s nothing else to watch all spring. So ESPN’s blasts it from the network. My point is that you have the same pool of officials who ref College and then transition to club (not 100%). if you need them at the same time you're going to have sub par officials performance and you'll have a much lower level of line judging. People already complain right now about refs. There will be a huge shortage of refs in club as a result of the better refs (who are a huge portion of tournament directors, lead officials at larger tourneys and ratings teams for national ref advancement) all that would be compromised by the change. |
|
|
|
Post by txvbcoach on Nov 22, 2023 21:39:38 GMT -5
The assumption that many make is that the longer review allows them to get the call right. I don't think that's true. I wonder if anyone has done a thorough review of outcomes, looking at other angles available, hell, just asking the player after the fact on touches, to see if there's any data to support that the current system actually provides more accurate outcomes (for touches I'm mainly talking about). For in/out I think it's probably doing the job of preventing egregious errors (#freecarlisnyder). every challenge play is reviewed by the assigners for those officials. she/he see all the same angles that the R2 sees and they analyze every review for accuracy, time and procedure. I'm not high enough up on the food chain to know what is done after the analysis. |
|
money
Sophomore
Posts: 227
|
Post by money on Nov 23, 2023 7:42:38 GMT -5
The NCAA and USA Volleyball are completely separate. Volleyball has a glass ceiling of tv coverage in the fall competing with Football and the Start of NCAA Basketball. Baseball and softball have exploded with popularity because there’s nothing else to watch all spring. So ESPN’s blasts it from the network. My point is that you have the same pool of officials who ref College and then transition to club (not 100%). if you need them at the same time you're going to have sub par officials performance and you'll have a much lower level of line judging. People already complain right now about refs. There will be a huge shortage of refs in club as a result of the better refs (who are a huge portion of tournament directors, lead officials at larger tourneys and ratings teams for national ref advancement) all that would be compromised by the change. Basketball runs NCAA WBB, NCAA MBB, high school boys and girls basketball, and NBA/pro basketball in the winter, we’d figure out the reffing. There will always be good/bad officials. Good officials will go where the money is. Women’s volleyball can only grow so big under football - marketing, promotions, ticket sales, network tv network time, will NEVER be what it could be in the fall. Not with every campus’ focus on football. |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Nov 23, 2023 8:39:09 GMT -5
A lot of schools don't even try to make it look like a legit sporting event. No cheerleaders, no mascot, no pep band, only one concession stand open if that. Makes it look like they don't even care.
|
|
|
|
Post by txvbcoach on Nov 23, 2023 14:28:17 GMT -5
My point is that you have the same pool of officials who ref College and then transition to club (not 100%). if you need them at the same time you're going to have sub par officials performance and you'll have a much lower level of line judging. People already complain right now about refs. There will be a huge shortage of refs in club as a result of the better refs (who are a huge portion of tournament directors, lead officials at larger tourneys and ratings teams for national ref advancement) all that would be compromised by the change. Basketball runs NCAA WBB, NCAA MBB, high school boys and girls basketball, and NBA/pro basketball in the winter, we’d figure out the reffing. There will always be good/bad officials. Good officials will go where the money is. Women’s volleyball can only grow so big under football - marketing, promotions, ticket sales, network tv network time, will NEVER be what it could be in the fall. Not with every campus’ focus on football. I hear what you're saying but I don't think you understand the depth of the ref shortage we have right now in club vball. 6 years ago we'd go to a tourney and we'd ref 2 in a row and get an hour off to rest, eat, bathroom break and repeat all day. We'd ref 8 matches and sit 4. Nowadays you may do 10 in a row. Take 30% of refs away from those tourneys and you have a disaster. You say "we'd figure out the reffing" but I didn't see you provide any solution to the shortage and subsequent reduction of refs if NCAA moves into club season. A second lesser problem would be coaches recruiting players. with games on weekends how are coaches supposed to recruit? |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 23, 2023 16:16:57 GMT -5
Growing WVB larger isn't the problem. The bigger problem is that current growth has been poorly managed. Starting with how DIV-I WVB has expanded to the point it has too many teams for the given talent pool.
Problem: DIV-I has too many teams, with too many standard deviations of strength between the top and bottom. To the degree that teams are RPI penalized for losing to bottom teams, and losing to a team with RPI > 100 is a highlighted bad loss. Teams at the bottom languish, avoided in non-conference scheduling by teams gaming RPI for NCAA post season tournament eligibility. The talent pool for collegiate WVB doesn't support 330+ DIV-I women volleyball teams.
Solution(s):
Reduce the #DIV I teams by:
- Put a limit on the # of DIV-I teams. Currently, the RPI adjustment penalty begins for losses to teams => RPI 288. The number of DIV-I teams = 337. This suggests the NCAA DIV-I could be pruned by 50 teams.
The above would be a good start, more might be done:
- Divide the remaining 287 DIV-I teams into two tiers w/relegation. Upper level and Lower level. Currently, Team Nitty Gritty highlights w-l records => RPI 101+, and <= RPI 100. A loss to RPI 101+ is a therefore a highlighted 'bad loss'. This suggests that upon implementation that teams with RPI <= 100 be promoted DIV-I Upper and the remaining relegated to DIV-I Lower.
How might this work? Put a few best and brightest to work on it, should come up with something interesting. Below is one shot in the dark:
- DIV-I Upper and Lower would each have their own post-season tournaments and Champion.
- The bottom-25 finishers (pick your own level) of DIV-I Upper relegated to DIV-I Lower the next season. Lower would promote its top-25 to DIV-I Upper.
- Most conferences would be a mix of Upper and Lower. NCAA could require within conferences that each Upper play each Lower at least once each season.
- RPI scores and ranking would be calculated for all DIV-I teams combined.
- No RPI penalties or bonuses would be awarded.
- No RPI penalties or bonus for Upper playing Lower in non-conference.
- No Lower team can have its RPI ranking increased by losing to RPI Upper team(s). RPI ranking will be adjusted for compliance by deducting from RPI raw score as required.
Critique away.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnp101 on Nov 23, 2023 18:40:27 GMT -5
 #1. Restructure the rounds. #2. Keep the early round games at the home of the highest seeds so you get the best attendance. #3. Dump the Final Four, and replace it with a Final Eight. #4. Play the Final Eight in Vegas. #5 (Optional) De-couple the Final Eight from the AVCA convention. Make the Final 8 a real fan event, not a sidebar to the AVCA convention. I actually like the idea. On top of that, we should play the 5-8 places and then the 3-4 place playing before the final as well. Then you get many matches in with more tickets sold. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 23, 2023 20:06:11 GMT -5
Growing WVB larger isn't the problem. The bigger problem is that current growth has been poorly managed. Starting with how DIV-I WVB has expanded to the point it has too many teams for the given talent pool. Problem: DIV-I has too many teams, with too many standard deviations of strength between the top and bottom. To the degree that teams are RPI penalized for losing to bottom teams, and losing to a team with RPI > 100 is a highlighted bad loss. Teams at the bottom languish, avoided in non-conference scheduling by teams gaming RPI for NCAA post season tournament eligibility. The talent pool for collegiate WVB doesn't support 330+ DIV-I women volleyball teams. Solution(s): Reduce the #DIV I teams by: - Put a limit on the # of DIV-I teams. Currently, the RPI adjustment penalty begins for losses to teams => RPI 288. The number of DIV-I teams = 337. This suggests the NCAA DIV-I could be pruned by 50 teams. The above would be a good start, more might be done: - Divide the remaining 287 DIV-I teams into two tiers w/relegation. Upper level and Lower level. Currently, Team Nitty Gritty highlights w-l records => RPI 101+, and <= RPI 100. A loss to RPI 101+ is a therefore a highlighted 'bad loss'. This suggests that upon implementation that teams with RPI <= 100 be promoted DIV-I Upper and the remaining relegated to DIV-I Lower. How might this work? Put a few best and brightest to work on it, should come up with something interesting. Below is one shot in the dark: - DIV-I Upper and Lower would each have their own post-season tournaments and Champion. - The bottom-25 finishers (pick your own level) of DIV-I Upper relegated to DIV-I Lower the next season. Lower would promote its top-25 to DIV-I Upper. - Most conferences would be a mix of Upper and Lower. NCAA could require within conferences that each Upper play each Lower at least once each season. - RPI scores and ranking would be calculated for all DIV-I teams combined. - No RPI penalties or bonuses would be awarded. - No RPI penalties or bonus for Upper playing Lower in non-conference. - No Lower team can have its RPI ranking increased by losing to RPI Upper team(s). RPI ranking will be adjusted for compliance by deducting from RPI raw score as required. Critique away. Just... why? The teams at the bottom of D1 could choose to move down to D2 if they thought it was better for them. And how do those teams existing matter to the Top 100? |
|
