Let's deal with the easy misstep by the NCAA first: changing the name of indoor volleyball games to sets is not a fan-friendly change. Scoring changes for the past twelve years have been justified for the purpose of boosting volleyball's popularity and making it more fan friendly. How is changing the term for "game" to "set" an improvement in simplifying the sport for the casual observer? I would argue that it confuses, rather than simplifies.
In tennis, the first player to win six games wins a set. Sets are for tennis. Sure, both sports use nets, serves, and rallies. End of similarities. Why add a term from tennis into volleyball? A game is a game. A match is a match. A set is a tennis term.
The other misstep has far more defenders, which makes the following argument weaker. Perhaps, perhaps not. The NCAA simply cannot leave its hands off intercollegiate indoor volleyball scoring. It has been on a roll since academic year 2001-2002, when rally scoring replaced side-out scoring.
Some scoring changes are good. When the game of volleyball was invented in 1895, there were nine innings like in baseball. Every player served at least once in every inning.
In 1900, side-out scoring was adopted, wherein a team only scored if it was the serving team. If the defensive team won the point, it won the right to serve--it did not score. The first team to 21 points won the match. In 1916, the matches became best-of-three competitions.
Flash forward to 1998, when the international volleyball organization, FIVB, adopted rally scoring in its competitions. Rally scoring means both serving and non-serving teams can score by winning the point. Every point results in a score. Rally scoring streamlined matches, reduced their lengths, and allegedly increased fan interest. USA Volleyball adopted rally scoring in 1999, and the NCAA did the same two years later.
Of course, it made statistics and records somewhat obsolete from the side-out days. Rally scoring was inevitable if the sport were ever to catch on as a popular television attraction.
The NCAA continued playing with the scoring system of indoor volleyball. What the organization really was telling the world was that it viewed volleyball as a lesser Olympic sport that had no structural integrity. One could fiddle with its scoring without suffering repercussions in the athletic community. NCAA committees had already decided that basketball was going to be the heavily-promoted women's team sport, thanks to NBA interest. Dollars went to women's hoops at the expense of softball, soccer, field hockey, and volleyball. But I digress.
Reluctantly accepting rally scoring in 2001 does not mean that further abridgements should be given a pass. In 2008, at the time "games" became "sets," the NCAA deemed it wise to tweak the scoring again for women's indoor volleyball. The first four games would now be played to 25, not 30. The fifth game, if necessary, would still be played to 15, with all games requiring victory by at least two points. Once again, statistics and records from 2001-2007 would become obsolete.
Many observers argue that it's only a five-points-per-game reduction: what's the big deal? Well, the modification changes the total required minimum points in five games for the winning team from 135 to 115. That's about a 15% reduction. Worse, it changes a blow-out 3-game romp from 90 to 75 points minimum required for the victory. That's about a 16% reduction. The correlative for basketball would be to reduce the halves to 17 minutes each. Economical? Yes. Good for the modern, ADD-stricken society? Yes. Unfair for coaches, players, and teams? Yes.
What reasoning was given? The NCAA wanted the sport's structure to reflect its Olympic structure. Really? Then what about basketball? In the Olympics, basketball has four 10-minute quarters. In college, there are two 20-minute halves. Sounds like a different structure to me.
I believe other reasons are involved. It guarantees matches won't go beyond two hours: much better for television. It works for ADD student fans and adult viewers. Also, since volleyball is a non-revenue sport in most universities, it saves on infrastructure: utilities like electricity, gas, and water for air conditioning, lighting, heating, and thirsty spectators.
Can anybody really accept the NCAA explanation? How many NCAA athletes become Olympians? Indoor Olympic teams are limited to 12 individuals. How much of a handicap is it for those American Olympians to play to only 25 instead of 30 in the first four games of an Olympic or world championship competition if they played the longer games in college? The national team plays plenty of warm-up international matches using the Olympic system. Is it that hard of an adjustment to make? I doubt it. The NCAA changed a scoring system again for the purported reason of eliminating a competitive disadvantage for those 12 national team members.
If any adjustment should have been made in 2008, it should have been to make the fifth game to 30 points as well. Respect the sport, NCAA, don't disrespect it.
In 2010, the men adopted the women's streamlined scoring. Who wins? Not volleyball.
Perhaps the NCAA Volleyball Committee is long-range planning to whittle the first four games to 20, then 15, then all 5 games to 10. Shoot, why stop there? Why not phase the sport out entirely? After all, it's a non-revenue sport outside of Hawaii and some Big 10 schools, and most universities have shrinking budgets. Shame on you, NCAA.
No comments:
Post a Comment