|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 23, 2023 21:54:17 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? 337 DIV-I teams spread across ~ seven standard deviations of strength makes sense to you? RPI penalties for losses to the bottom makes sense? Just... Why? Growth well managed, creating a healthy competitive and fiscal environment, doesn't look like what currently exists in DIV-I WVB. How did it get so fubar? Well, just a guess, because WVB became one of the go-to answers for managing Title IX requirements and keeping more profitable DIV-I men's football/basketball programs and scholarships. Along with 'school pride' driving a dash of wealthy alumni donors wanting DIV-I status or they'll take their cash and go home. RPI bonus/penalty structure is a reflection of informal relegation. If you're in the DIV-I bottom where others are penalized for playing you, you've been relegated. If you're among the top where a RPI and schedule bonus is handed out for playing you, you've been 'promoted'. So, formalize promotion/relegation as a structure and do it right. It will better serve the student athletes, better serve their fans and schools, and create a tournament experience with NCAA support for the relegation Lower teams. If you don't want to prune the bottom, just too hard to do, you could keep them in DIV-I Lower. DIV-I Upper would have 100 teams that contains the upper two standard deviations and the upper crust of the third standard deviation. But DIV-I Lower would now have 237 teams stretched out across about five standard deviations of relative strength. Still a problem for competitiveness and student athlete experience at its bottom. To address that, you could split the Lower into two, pick a division point. Shot in the dark, take the top 100 of the Lower and call them the 'Mid'. Now there would be a DIV-I Upper (top 100 teams); Mid (next 100 teams); and Lower (137 teams). Each would have its own NCAA tournament. Each would follow the RPI guidance and scheduling rules suggested in my first post, with mods permitted of course. Following the year of implementation, relegate/promote teams after each season, pick a number; 25 teams sounds about right to me. DIV-I Mid would promote its best 25, and relegate its bottom 25 to DIV-I Lower. DIV-I Lower would promote its top 25 to DIV-I Mid. DIV-I Upper would relegate its bottom 25 to DIV-I Mid and receive its promoted top 25. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Nov 23, 2023 22:20:25 GMT -5
1. The teams playing for at large bids generally don't schedule matches against the bottom 100.
2. Why would one-third of DI membership vote themselves out of DI?
|
|
|
|
Post by hookshott on Nov 23, 2023 22:27:54 GMT -5
No, let's go totally nuclear and eliminate the utterly stupid requirement for "rotations". Play your 6 best players in their best positions 100% of the time. Volleyball is the only sport that is dumb enough to require each player to move to different positions throughout the match. This would be like baseball requiring your best pitcher to move each inning to 1st base...center field...catcher...etc. Why? To show how versatile they are? Ridiculous. The game would be faster, better quality, and way more exciting. Don't just tweak a lousy current model. Blow it up and really make it exciting with the best players in their best positions. Volleyball is a "democratic" game that requires all players to follow a rotational order and serve within this order. (especially where FIVB rules are followed, which is most of the world). There are "specialists" (setters, middles etc) but again, they must achieve their desired position on the court after adhering to their appropriate rotation position based on the fact that they all must serve. Of course, coaches have become most adept at developing movement around these rules. Do not expect FIVB to change significantly in the future (though you never know as they have made many changes over the years....point on every serve, being able to serve from anywhere on the back line, libero, 25 pt sets etc...so you never know. Probably not advisable to add to the problem the National team already has with the lack of outside hitters who can successfully pass due to the emphasis on specialization at every level in the system. |
|
|
|
Post by 900sqftdad on Nov 23, 2023 22:30:38 GMT -5
Probably an un-popular opinion, but I believe that the NCAA needs to expand the Men’s side and market it better. NBA / WNBA for example
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 24, 2023 0:08:47 GMT -5
1. The teams playing for at large bids generally don't schedule matches against the bottom 100. 2. Why would one-third of DI membership vote themselves out of DI? They wouldn't. Pruning 50 teams from the bottom would require a majority to vote them out. And instituting Relegation isn't a change in school DIV-I status. It establishes for DIV-I WVB an upper division with one or two relegation divisions, with annual adjustments through promotion/relegation, and could reward the lower programs with their own NCAA supported tournament experience. |
|
|
|
Post by babybacksets on Nov 24, 2023 1:27:28 GMT -5
Why not just keep Division 1 at the numbers that they are at or something that makes sense and just keep focusing on ways to improve the prep level of play?
Especially at the high school level, maybe reworking nationwide of how coaches are paid? Many schools do stipends at the end of the season and usually that works just fine for teachers who are just tacking on some extra $ to their retirement accounts or is most convenient for their schedules.
Vs paying coaches bi monthly or monthly to open up the position to club coaches who are actively invested in themselves and improving as a coach within their sport. Not saying teacher-coaches aren’t doing that but it could be a big help to the sport in general if promising athletes/talent could be seen earlier and trained better…?
|
|
|
|
Post by photos1 on Nov 24, 2023 2:04:31 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. Are you trying to kill the sport? Vegas? What has that area of the country done to grow volleyball? Just, no. Final 8? So these teams spend 4 months playing twice a week and you want final 3 rounds to be played in the same extended weekend? The goal would certainly be to have the later rounds go 4 or 5 sets, and this would only lead to a championship match where one on both of the teams is hitting a physical wall-why would anyone think this would be the source of quality volleyball? I fear this would result in less than average volleyball. Its one thing for fans to pack up and travel from Thursday to Sunday, this would equate to a minimum of 2 extra nights. Taking a week off work or anything at this time of year would only result in fewer school involved fans making the trip. The worst thing would be seeing empty seats, and in Vegas-there would be empty seats. And lastly, the amount of elite D1 teams has has evolved eastward to where the vast majority of elite teams are in east central part of the country-again having the final rounds in Vegas would be forcing a square peg into a round hole. Imo, this further limits the amount of student fans who can take time off as most are studying for finals, and/or getting prepared for graduation. Many many “fans” travel to the final four in conjunction with going to the AVCA convention-“decoupling” these makes less than no sense. Why are people trying to reinvent the wheel? If changes are needed-and some are-how about starting with the “needs” over the “wants”? Better replay cameras are essential and needed as this sport evolves. The camera technology exists so that every touch at the net can be detected-let’s get that done. The bad acting after these touches are called or not called is getting ridiculous-if we had better cameras this would greatly reduce the hysterics. How about a uniform ball? How about a more focused push to have a matches on FOX and NBC on a weekly basis instead of occasional Sunday’s? People need to know when volleyball is on so that watching it becomes a habit. Women’s D1 volleyball will succeed where soccer and women’s basketball just haven’t if regular televised matched are scheduled. 🏐 |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Nov 24, 2023 8:13:16 GMT -5
1. The teams playing for at large bids generally don't schedule matches against the bottom 100. 2. Why would one-third of DI membership vote themselves out of DI? They wouldn't. Pruning 50 teams from the bottom would require a majority to vote them out. And instituting Relegation isn't a change in school DIV-I status. It establishes for DIV-I WVB an upper division with one or two relegation divisions, with annual adjustments through promotion/relegation, and could reward the lower programs with their own NCAA supported tournament experience. This is a solution in search of a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by avid 2.0 on Nov 24, 2023 8:21:45 GMT -5
This isn’t anything ncaavb can control
Or I don’t think it is
But I’m hoping with a new pro league, women’s media will start paying attention to it. The women’s sports media ESPNW/JustWomensSports/HighlightHer etc don’t give volleyball even a second thought… meanwhile they’ll shove basketball and soccer down your throat (with softball in season too)
Breaking into mainstream media will be hard but they gotta start somewhere (and that’s with the largest women’s focused media)
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 24, 2023 10:22:55 GMT -5
They wouldn't. Pruning 50 teams from the bottom would require a majority to vote them out. And instituting Relegation isn't a change in school DIV-I status. It establishes for DIV-I WVB an upper division with one or two relegation divisions, with annual adjustments through promotion/relegation, and could reward the lower programs with their own NCAA supported tournament experience. This is a solution in search of a problem. None so blind as those who will not see. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 24, 2023 10:30:06 GMT -5
This is a solution in search of a problem. None so blind as those who will not see. Who is being negatively affected by the current system that your new system would help? |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 24, 2023 11:03:23 GMT -5
None so blind as those who will not see. Who is being negatively affected by the current system that your new system would help? Promotion-Relegation is the common international system that is used in Volleyball. It recognizes that popularity and growth of the sport is not served by ignoring too wide a disparity of strength of teams in a league, and that player and fan interest can't be ignored. The international volleyball system of multiple leagues with promotion-relegation is recognized as superior by the rest of the volleyball world. The current U.S. NCAA DIV-I system is the bastardized version of promotion-relegation, using RPI and scheduling bonus-penalties, that relegates its bottom teams without providing them with anything meaningful to compete for in most of their conference season. Instead it has 32 AQs, about a third to a half of which will be 1st round fodder in the NCAAT. At-large will largely come from power conferences where their middling teams are RPI rewarded for playing in, more fubar implementation of RPI to ensure that power conference middling teams aren't left out. The current U.S. NCAA system is tyranny of the haves in volleyball (the power conferences) over the have nots, and its not serving the long-term best interest of the sport. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Nov 24, 2023 11:28:08 GMT -5
1. The teams playing for at large bids generally don't schedule matches against the bottom 100. 2. Why would one-third of DI membership vote themselves out of DI? They wouldn't. Pruning 50 teams from the bottom would require a majority to vote them out. It would actually require a supermajority of 80%, not a majority. Or an 80% vote from the autonomy conferences. So good luck getting 260ish schools on board. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Nov 24, 2023 11:47:43 GMT -5
They wouldn't. Pruning 50 teams from the bottom would require a majority to vote them out. It would actually require a supermajority of 80%, not a majority. Or an 80% vote from the autonomy conferences. So good luck getting 260ish schools on board. I agree, small odds of pruning the bottom 50 of DIV-I. It's this locked in disparity in the current system that highlights the need for formerly moving to hierarchal leagues with promotion-relegation within DIV-I WVB. DIV-I WVB has screwed around with RPI in its place to achieve an inferior result. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Nov 24, 2023 12:20:57 GMT -5
It would actually require a supermajority of 80%, not a majority. Or an 80% vote from the autonomy conferences. So good luck getting 260ish schools on board. I agree, small odds of pruning the bottom 50 of DIV-I. It's this locked in disparity in the current system that highlights the need for formerly moving to hierarchal leagues with promotion-relegation within DIV-I WVB. DIV-I WVB has screwed around with RPI in its place to achieve an inferior result. Other than the fact it violates several billion dollars worth of existing television contracts, do you see any challenges to implementing your plan? |
|
