Re: Can we keep experimenting with scoring changes please?

Yes... Discussed till blue in the face.. I don't likeit, but there is
nothing I can do about it.... It stinks in my book, but what do I know...


"Brad Mocannotstandspamrrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello fellow volleyball enthusiasts,
> I love volleyball.  It's in my blood.  I've been playing for 18 years
> and coaching for 9.  I've played collegiate club volleyball for
> arguably the best club team in the country at the time (Cal Berkeley,
> 1991-1995), and for a less organized team at the University of
> Colorado, Boulder (1999-2002).  I've played USAV adult in Northern
> California and Colorado.  I've coached small high school girls
> (Division 4 California), Juniors (17s, 18s), Collegiate Club Women (CU
> 2001-2003), and now Collegiate Club Men (CU 2003-2004).
>
> I learned to play the game from old school coaches.  I learned to
> compete on the grass in Northern California when it was one of the
> elite levels of competition in volleyball.  I've adapted to the
> changes in the rules over the years.  I don't like some of them
> (overhand passing of serves), am indifferent to others (let serving,
> serving from anywhere behind the endline), and I like a few (liberos
> in particular).  However, the rally scoring format has FUNDAMENTALLY
> changed the game.  I know that this has been discussed on this list
> before.  I'm not here to regale for the "good old days" of regular
> scoring.  What I want to propose is a scoring system that brings back
> the possibility of the one fundamental thing about regular scoring
> which cannot be given up, or it will dilute our great game.  The
> ability of a team to get back into a game when the other team is down
> to its last point.
>
> The problem with rally scoring is that it is relatively easy to side
> out in volleyball, and relatively hard to score a real point.  Ask any
> good coach and they'll tell you that if they can side at 85% or better
> efficiency, then they can play with anyone.  When it comes down to the
> end of the game that a team is leading 29-24 (for college) or 24-19
> (for USAV, FIVB etc.)  Even if my team is good enough to sideout once,
> I cannot get my team to _score_ 4 real points without a great player
> on the other side of the net siding out one time, and restoring order
> for his/her team.  This used to be the order of the day with regular
> scoring, and it was those teams who could rise up and score at the end
> that won.
>
> A game that I have been experimenting with, and I think that I like
> VERY much is what I like to call opposite rally scoring.  I'm sure
> other coaches have played this game.  (In fact, the current club
> national champion Arizona coach Steve Carlat, and I have talked about
> exactly that.)
>
> Here is the format:  There is still a point per rally.  There is still
> no cap.  However, the _meaning_ of a sideout is exactly the opposite
> of what it is now.  When your team is serving and you win a rally, the
> other team rotates and serves.  When your team is receiving and you
> win a rally, the other team continues to serve in the same rotation.
> If your team is serving, when you lose a rally, you continue to serve
> in the same rotation.  If your team is serving and you win a rally,
> the other team rotates and serves.
>
> It creates the following scenario:  You struggle, and your opponent
> gets to 24-19 while you're serving.  Your libero makes a great dig and
> you win the rally.  The other team has to rotate and serve.  If you
> can sideout 4 times without the other team scoring a "real" point,
> your team is back in the game!
>
> I know it creates problems like, "I have a really weak server and the
> other team rolls lots of points in that rotation."  or "I have a
> really weak defensive rotation and the other team scores lots of
> points in that rotation."  But it brings back the fundamentally
> lacking thing of coming back at the end of games by "restoring order"
> with good sideout play, and winning by scoring a "real" point.
>
> Does anyone care about continuing to tweak with the scoring to make it
> better than it is now?
>
> Another idea:
> I like how at the end of a rally scoring game, the ball gets very
> intense and high quality if the score is tied.  Maybe all we need to
> do is make that the default?  Let's adopt tennis scoring and see how
> that goes.  Games to 4, win by 2, sets are best of 6 games, matches
> are best of 5 sets.  I bet you could restore some of the old "restore
> order" with good sideout play with this format, although it appears
> more drastic a change than opposite rally scoring, and will probably
> lengthen matches somewhat.
>
> Let's here what you all think!
> Brad Mocannotstandspamrrey