|
|
Post by 513vb on Jan 22, 2024 11:20:15 GMT -5
Yes the Top 20 is for publicity, so teams can market themselves better and hope to attract more fans to watch the games. It looks better to announce #2 Long Beach vs #17 George Mason instead of just saying #2 Long Beach vs George Mason. It also gives recognition to teams #16 - #20 for the hard work their doing- which looks more prevalent this year when there is more parity between teams. Yall keep shouting and hoping to grow the game of MVB yet you cringe and look the other way when AVCA does something that helps to do that. SMH
lmfao well, lol that's just an opinion, and not even proof, that having #17 vs. #2 grows the game. and I seriously doubt the #17 prefix draws one extra fan, seriously c'mon. in MVB top 5 and top 10 mean something. in that case, why not just have the top 40, so won't #2 vs. #37 will 'grow the game'? ...because it won't anymore than having #20. IMO, the amount of time spent to do #1-5 will far exceed the amount of time people will even think about 16-20. IMO growing the game means the 'hard work' to get more D1 programs, after which expanding # of ranked teams. people are trying to get more D1 teams, as well as growing HS teams sponsoring. that's the 'hard work'. adding 5 more ranked teams frankly is a gimmick, but ok, no problem if the sport needs gimmicks, but don't make it more than what it is. 20/50 means 40% of teams ranked in mVB and frankly having 5 or 6 of those with losing records?? to me that's a bit embarrassing actually to have rankings where 25 % of the ranked teams will have losing records, it diminishes the sport. again my opinion. basketball, 25/350 = about 7%, so top 25 ranking MEANS SOMETHING so no, it's a publicity gimmick call it for what it is, and I get it, but no it won't necessarily grow the game and doubt that gimmick actually grows it one iota. grow the game, and then more rankings will come, as they should. but whatever I really think most of this is short-sighted. And growing the game via rankings and increased exposure doesn't prohibit hard work growing the game in what you consider to be the "right" way (adding D1 teams). It may even help an AD decide to add MVB when they realize they could invest in a team and have a ranked team pretty quickly which would look good for the department and the university. To a lot of people who are just discovering NCAA volleyball, kids and their parents, if they see #17 that does seem important. They probably don't know there are not as many teams. And they would probably be more likely to attend a match of #2 vs #17. People who know mvb do understand #17 may not mean as much, but knowledgable fans aren't the demographic we're trying to appeal to here. Is it a gimmick? Sure you can cal it that, but if it's a gimmick that helps more people become interested then who cares? People are used to a "Top 25" from basketball, football, women's volleyball, etc. Your "Top 40" point is disingenuous because everyone would raise their eyebrows at "#37" - that is different than people are used to seeing for rankings. Is it great to have teams with losing records up there? No, of course not, but also many fringe fans are not going to take the time to look up a team's record before deciding if they're interested in that match. They will see a "Top 25 match up" and decide it's worth caring about. MVB people know that top 10 really means something, after that less so, but w'ere already invested. Try opening your eyes to how others would approach or see the sport. |
|
|
|
Post by burtonz on Jan 22, 2024 11:30:16 GMT -5
1. LBSU
2. Ohio State
3. UCLA
4. Stanford
5. GCU
6. Hawaii
7. BYU
8. USC
9. Pepperdine
10. UCI
11. Lewis
12. Charleston
13. LMU
14. Daemen
15. Concordia
16. McKendree
17. North Greenville
18. Erskine
19. Quincy
20. Tusculum
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jan 22, 2024 12:02:02 GMT -5
lmfao well, lol that's just an opinion, and not even proof, that having #17 vs. #2 grows the game. and I seriously doubt the #17 prefix draws one extra fan, seriously c'mon. in MVB top 5 and top 10 mean something. in that case, why not just have the top 40, so won't #2 vs. #37 will 'grow the game'? ...because it won't anymore than having #20. IMO, the amount of time spent to do #1-5 will far exceed the amount of time people will even think about 16-20. IMO growing the game means the 'hard work' to get more D1 programs, after which expanding # of ranked teams. people are trying to get more D1 teams, as well as growing HS teams sponsoring. that's the 'hard work'. adding 5 more ranked teams frankly is a gimmick, but ok, no problem if the sport needs gimmicks, but don't make it more than what it is. 20/50 means 40% of teams ranked in mVB and frankly having 5 or 6 of those with losing records?? to me that's a bit embarrassing actually to have rankings where 25 % of the ranked teams will have losing records, it diminishes the sport. again my opinion. basketball, 25/350 = about 7%, so top 25 ranking MEANS SOMETHING so no, it's a publicity gimmick call it for what it is, and I get it, but no it won't necessarily grow the game and doubt that gimmick actually grows it one iota. grow the game, and then more rankings will come, as they should. but whatever I really think most of this is short-sighted. And growing the game via rankings and increased exposure doesn't prohibit hard work growing the game in what you consider to be the "right" way (adding D1 teams). It may even help an AD decide to add MVB when they realize they could invest in a team and have a ranked team pretty quickly which would look good for the department and the university. To a lot of people who are just discovering NCAA volleyball, kids and their parents, if they see #17 that does seem important. They probably don't know there are not as many teams. And they would probably be more likely to attend a match of #2 vs #17. People who know mvb do understand #17 may not mean as much, but knowledgable fans aren't the demographic we're trying to appeal to here. Is it a gimmick? Sure you can cal it that, but if it's a gimmick that helps more people become interested then who cares? People are used to a "Top 25" from basketball, football, women's volleyball, etc. Your "Top 40" point is disingenuous because everyone would raise their eyebrows at "#37" - that is different than people are used to seeing for rankings. Is it great to have teams with losing records up there? No, of course not, but also many fringe fans are not going to take the time to look up a team's record before deciding if they're interested in that match. They will see a "Top 25 match up" and decide it's worth caring about. MVB people know that top 10 really means something, after that less so, but w'ere already invested. Try opening your eyes to how others would approach or see the sport. and it's all subjective opinions! rankings and increased exposure really are two different things. people on here are projecting how fringe fans think, lol. I find that interesting. people are responding like they actually know how prospective fans think, even the idea that top 25 transfers is debatable unless the target audience is football and basketball fans lol. I think people assign more value to '#17' than is actually there, others think it's some big marketing splash, lol. it's a gimmick to get more fans, sure, when it's really just conjecture. and it means more teams with losing records are part of the rankings, fact. going from 15 to 20 is ok, and it is a gimmick at this point. and per your argument why not go to 25 then since that what people are used to 'top 25', lol? point is group-think along the lines of 'going to 20 from 15 will bring in fringe fans' is simply based on hope and people projecting and belief; and furthermore anyone that disagrees is 'delusional', lol that's rich and so typical of VT. and that's ok, lot's of things happen that way. just like it' important to make personal attacks for many people to be part of their argument, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Jan 22, 2024 13:59:00 GMT -5
1. UCLA
2. Ohio
3. LB
4. UH
5. GCU
6. Stanford
7. BYU
8. UCI
9. Loyola
10. PSU
11. USC
12. Pepp
13. UCSB
14. Princeton
15. CSUN
16. NJIT
17. GMU
18. UCSD
19. Ball State
20. LMU
21. PFW
22. McKendree
23. NGU
24. Erskine
25. CI
|
|
|
|
Post by booster26 on Jan 22, 2024 14:02:37 GMT -5
1. Long Beach
2. Ohio State
3. UCLA
4. Stanford
5. GCU
6. Hawaii
7. Pepperdine
8. BYU
9. USC
10. UCIrvine
11. Penn State
12. Princeton
13. Lewis
14. Loyola
15. NJIT
16. Ball State
17. George Mason
18. UCSB
19. CSUN
20. UCSD
|
|
|
|
Post by VolleyFanFL on Jan 23, 2024 11:46:29 GMT -5
1. UCLA
2. Ohio State
3. Beach
4. Stanford
5. GCU
6. Hawaii
7. Pepperdine
8. BYU
9. USC
10. PSU
11. UCI
12. LEWIS
13. Princeton
14. Loyola
15. NJIT
16. Ball State
17. George Mason
18. UCSB
19. CSUN
20. UCSD
|
|
|
|
Post by 513vb on Feb 7, 2024 21:18:05 GMT -5
I really think most of this is short-sighted. And growing the game via rankings and increased exposure doesn't prohibit hard work growing the game in what you consider to be the "right" way (adding D1 teams). It may even help an AD decide to add MVB when they realize they could invest in a team and have a ranked team pretty quickly which would look good for the department and the university. To a lot of people who are just discovering NCAA volleyball, kids and their parents, if they see #17 that does seem important. They probably don't know there are not as many teams. And they would probably be more likely to attend a match of #2 vs #17. People who know mvb do understand #17 may not mean as much, but knowledgable fans aren't the demographic we're trying to appeal to here. Is it a gimmick? Sure you can cal it that, but if it's a gimmick that helps more people become interested then who cares? People are used to a "Top 25" from basketball, football, women's volleyball, etc. Your "Top 40" point is disingenuous because everyone would raise their eyebrows at "#37" - that is different than people are used to seeing for rankings. Is it great to have teams with losing records up there? No, of course not, but also many fringe fans are not going to take the time to look up a team's record before deciding if they're interested in that match. They will see a "Top 25 match up" and decide it's worth caring about. MVB people know that top 10 really means something, after that less so, but w'ere already invested. Try opening your eyes to how others would approach or see the sport. and it's all subjective opinions! rankings and increased exposure really are two different things. people on here are projecting how fringe fans think, lol. I find that interesting. people are responding like they actually know how prospective fans think, even the idea that top 25 transfers is debatable unless the target audience is football and basketball fans lol. I think people assign more value to '#17' than is actually there, others think it's some big marketing splash, lol. it's a gimmick to get more fans, sure, when it's really just conjecture. and it means more teams with losing records are part of the rankings, fact. going from 15 to 20 is ok, and it is a gimmick at this point. and per your argument why not go to 25 then since that what people are used to 'top 25', lol? point is group-think along the lines of 'going to 20 from 15 will bring in fringe fans' is simply based on hope and people projecting and belief; and furthermore anyone that disagrees is 'delusional', lol that's rich and so typical of VT. and that's ok, lot's of things happen that way. just like it' important to make personal attacks for many people to be part of their argument, lol. We're going to have to agree to disagree here I think. And me re-stating the same things I already typed out is an exercise in futility. Top 25 has more relevance to sport fans than just football and basketball, but I digress. And if MVB went to a top 25, I wouldn't be very torn up about it. Anything that might increase exposure is good. Losing records will remain a constant part of MVB rankings until we get more teams. If going from 15 to 20 is so bad, what ideas are you bringing to the table to increase exposure or help the sport? All you've really done is try to tear down a simple thing and say "we need to add more D1 teams". Well no %*$# more D1 teams would help, but seeing as that doesn't seem exceptionally likely in the next few years, heaven forbid the powers that be try anything else to grow in the meantime. Lastly, no where did I say you were delusional or make it personal, unless me saying "I think this is short-sighted" really hurt your feelings that much. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 7, 2024 22:28:27 GMT -5
and it's all subjective opinions! rankings and increased exposure really are two different things. people on here are projecting how fringe fans think, lol. I find that interesting. people are responding like they actually know how prospective fans think, even the idea that top 25 transfers is debatable unless the target audience is football and basketball fans lol. I think people assign more value to '#17' than is actually there, others think it's some big marketing splash, lol. it's a gimmick to get more fans, sure, when it's really just conjecture. and it means more teams with losing records are part of the rankings, fact. going from 15 to 20 is ok, and it is a gimmick at this point. and per your argument why not go to 25 then since that what people are used to 'top 25', lol? point is group-think along the lines of 'going to 20 from 15 will bring in fringe fans' is simply based on hope and people projecting and belief; and furthermore anyone that disagrees is 'delusional', lol that's rich and so typical of VT. and that's ok, lot's of things happen that way. just like it' important to make personal attacks for many people to be part of their argument, lol. We're going to have to agree to disagree here I think. And me re-stating the same things I already typed out is an exercise in futility. Top 25 has more relevance to sport fans than just football and basketball, but I digress. And if MVB went to a top 25, I wouldn't be very torn up about it. Anything that might increase exposure is good. Losing records will remain a constant part of MVB rankings until we get more teams. If going from 15 to 20 is so bad, what ideas are you bringing to the table to increase exposure or help the sport? All you've really done is try to tear down a simple thing and say "we need to add more D1 teams". Well no %*$# more D1 teams would help, but seeing as that doesn't seem exceptionally likely in the next few years, heaven forbid the powers that be try anything else to grow in the meantime. Lastly, no where did I say you were delusional or make it personal, unless me saying "I think this is short-sighted" really hurt your feelings that much. I didn't say going from 15 to 20 is so bad I didn't say you said I was delusional It's pretty apparent we've already agree to disagree - I've never understood that phrase. Isn't it ok to just disagree? An agreement is needed, lol? but I digress. or better one can disagree without someone insulting another? lol is the alternate to disagree about disagreeing, lol? My feelings aren't hurt on VT. Comedy is interesting. the embellishment that occurs is interesting. I didn't try to tear down anything. Stating something in contrast isn't tearing it down. But maybe smarter ones disagree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Feb 11, 2024 7:37:51 GMT -5
Can you please drop Santa Barbara out of the top 20 let alone Top 15.
Even Ken Preston is embarrassed you ranking them so high at this point. 😎
|
|
|
|
Post by gofaster88 on Feb 11, 2024 7:49:34 GMT -5
|
|
