devo's volleyball – Australian volleyball: news and views

What changes do you want to MAVL next season?

Posted by devo on November 18, 2009

The post on MAVL – finals teams has started to develop some interesting ideas on how AVL should develop. And so a new post so that that idea can be pursued, as the post was becoming too long and unwieldy. How should AVL change for next year to make it a better competition for all? And thanks to The Hoff for the idea!

I am also going to add some polls to this post. if you have an idea that you’d like canvassed, contact me via the Contact Devo’s tab at the top of the blog.

126 Responses to “What changes do you want to MAVL next season?”

  1. Morky said

    1) 12 sub is the first thing – players that sit on the bench for a season of AVL having paid big bucks, don’t tend to come back. Give players the opportunity to play for the significant financial and personal sacrifice they have made.

    2) A round should be played in Sydney and in Melboune every year. Since cost is the major issue for most clubs competing in AVL (from conversations I have had with management of some AVL clubs, 3 teams came close to pulling out this year – on top of SA who did pull out). Having a round in Sydney and a round in Melbourne, significantly reduces the cost to all teams. They are the two cheapest destinations to fly to and from in the country. For example, having the rounds from perth and bisbane in Sydney and Melbourne would have cut the cost for each club by about half this year.

    3) Which states teams travel to, should depend on a cheapest route system. Brisbane should not have to travel to Perth and vice versa. that exercise has cost each player on those 2 teams about $1000 (and has meant that although UTSSU had no home game – they had to play thousands in eqalisation)

    4) Not every team should travel to every round – again far to expensive!

    With respect to 2, 3 and 4 above – if teams don’t want to travel to the cheapest destinations, then we should scap the eqalisation model. By not travelling to the cheapest destinations, it is generally the Sydney and Melbourne teams that have to pay for everyone else.

    5) If eqalisation is being used, then teams not bringing 12 players (that is what we are paying for) should be forced to refund a portion of their eqalisation based on how many players they do take

    6) probably should have put this one at the top – AVF to release a draw at the beginning of the year (they have the volleyball calendar and know when everything is on, so why can’t they do it). Ask for expressions of interest early. Finalise the draw and get deposits from all teams at least 3 – 4 months before the event. If this is done, then teams can organise group travel through an agent without comitting names to those bookings. Obviously, the earlier you are able to book flights, the cheaper they are (surprise! surprise!) In addition to this, venues can be booked early and it is more likely that a single venue can be organised for each round.

    7) The tournament rules and regs need to be updated to avoid any “mishaps” like this year

    I have thought about this a fair bit over this past year, but haven’t been writing everything down. I probably have another 20 or so things to add to the list – just have to remember them

    • edbinnie said

      on the 12 subs, in the past I never liked it. We should play the way the National Team does.
      Having now used it as an NCAA coach, I like it.
      From a player’s perspective, you’re right, players consistently say they will pay the money, but only if they get to play.
      From a spectator/coach’s perspective you only want to use the best that you have.
      In 6 sub, if a player can’t defend back court, they don’t start. Or if they can’t block effectively, they don’t start. At best they are there for half a rotation – maybe 5 or 6 points. And you can only use 3 players like that – there go the 6 subs.
      In 12 sub, you can get a little more funky. You can use a better offensive player (with poorer back court skills) and replace them for defense. Or you can use a more skillful setter that might not be a great blocker, for back court only, which will improve the quality of the game. You can improve the right side block, forcing a little more variation in the offense that the opponent has to use, rather than the “throw the ball to the outside and hit over the setter” that can often occur in the 6 sub game.
      You can use more players, and improve the quality of the match, making it better for players, administrators and even fans. And you also get a little more diversity in game plans. And given the adoption of the Fast sub by the FIVB (already in use in NCAA) its almost as quick as the libero exchange, so no real delays to make things less attractive.

  2. Wolfmother said

    I agree with Morky, but I think that sizeable deposits to secure spots and finalised draws should be in at least 5-6 months before the season is due to start.

    It would help if the calendars from each state were co-ordinated to ensure minimal clashes with other tournaments. Once the AVL draw has been finalised, the states will need to add the dates to their own calendars to ensure there are no clashes.

    In addition, if the Women’s and Men’s AVL seasons have to be played at different times of the year, then at least the organisation of them should be together. (ie. The tournament rules/entry forms/payments/draws etc should be all provided at the same time.) Organising AVL twice a year has required double the effort from the many unpaid volunteer organisers.

    Reducing costs for the participants should be the main goal of the AVL organisers. All costs should be scrutinised to provide the lowest cost to the teams involved. Eg. The referees associations in each state should be given plenty of notice before each round (at least 3 months) to organise appropriate referees within the host state so that we can limit having to fly in referees and chief referees from other states.

    I also think that each team should have a representative on an AVL commitee that is chaired by an AVF representative. This commitee should review things like tournament rules, the draw, entry kits etc before release to provide feedback. The committee should also have the power to make decisions during the season where there have been disagreements or protests.

  3. Yaegan said

    In regard to the last point, we get a phone conference before the season starts… however it is not particularly formal. So I think it would be a good idea to have some sort of committee, even it was purely advisory and had no actual power.

    Also, why not have both men’s and women’s AVl at the same time when the current MAVL season is? From memory, they changed WAVL to earlier in the year so that they could select a team for Asian champs (or something like that..?). Is this still applicable? Would the the general makeup of the squad not be known in december for the following years competitions? I really don’t know..

  4. Troy M said

    I think combining MAVL and WAVL would be a good thing for the competition.

    Logistically everything is bigger, but it saves the time factor of having to do everything twice over, and I think with more people there is potential to leverage discounts on certain things (eg accomodation, court hire), perhaps make it less difficult to attract sponsors, have more people watching the games (even if most of them are players – it is much more enjoyable playing in front of a crowd – and the way it is at the moment, if you are at an away round, the only people cheering for your team are the guys in the pig pen).

    There is also the possibility of saving some smaller costs here and there (eg pay for one chief referee who can cover both courts, may need to hire an additional AVF official, but save money on not having to cover costs for two sets of tournaments, don’t need a separate first aid person for both MAVL/WAVL rounds, etc etc).

    • Tony said

      You need a chief referee for each court that plays to be involved in any protest resolution .Also referees get graded for every game as part of their accreditation so it is an important pathway for referees too and not just the players. Without high quality referees the comp would suffer. Overall though some good ideas being posted, just need to somehow coordinate it all into a single response to AVF if any of this is going to be taken seriously.

  5. edbinnie said

    Morky good points
    for MAVL, while you continue to have 2 teams in Canberra, Canberra needs a home round too.

    I have for a long time advocated a return to home and away style play, with between 2 or 3 games per round for a traveling team.

    Do away with Equalisation! This business of Sydney and Melbourne paying everyone else that have home rounds is ludicrous. And if that’s what the equalisation model says, then that is the starting point that you are doing the draw wrong!

    It is just too cost prohibitive to have wholescale rounds in WA. If an SA team comes back in, then maybe there is room here for WA to host the SA team(s) one year, then the reverse the other year. I say do away with Equalisation, but I do believe that WA should be compensated if there is no home round, and even partially if they do host SA only. You want WA in the league, and you want their best players. But as everyone has continuously pointed out, it would have saved each player in EVERY team over $500 for the WA round to be in Sydney or Melbourne, and completely pay for the WA team to travel.

  6. Alexis said


    1 – 12 sub rule doesn’t get you to play, it gets you on the court (very briefly). If you want to ‘play volleyball’, reduce subs and make it compulsory to play everyone in the team for at least a set.

    2 – NCAA use different rules (though they have reigned back some of them), but the national coaches hate it. they’d rather the players used the international rules.

    3 – in the previous topic on the MAVL Joe asked “how many coaches and referees have cut their teeth on AVL and then gone on to referee/coach internationally”. I don’t know about referees but I can’t think of any any coaches at all.

    • markleb said

      To expand on the first point…
      Coaches would then be forced to teach all players all areas of the game, leading to better skilled players with greater understanding of the sport. Better skilled players enjoy more success and enjoy the game more, produce better quality matches for spectators and are better equipped to reach higher levels.
      There are no down sides to it, and best of all noone would ever again have to pretend that they are doing it ‘for the players’.

      • Joe said

        plus it makes th coach better, preparing them better for higher duties also, yes?

        • Or they would just have less players on their roster to avoid being forced to use weaker players

          • Joe said

            More to coaching than game day Hugh.

            • totally agree.

              But remember, last year Mt Lofty got away with playing an MAVL round with only 7 players and were still competitive.

              If you intrduced a rule that you had to play every player for a whole set, what’s to stop people taking over only 7 or 8 players for a round? Is it even a bad thing if they do?

              • Joe said

                Injuries, match ups, saving players for tougher games coming up. Many reason why you want a full squad.

                • simon Phillips said

                  Please Mt Lofty did finish close to last though.
                  Mark and Alexis seem to be on a winner and lets remember they have experienced alot more high level leagues than the rest of us. I wouldn’t play if it went to 12 sub as I know the coaches will abuse the rule as they do in high school volleyball. And that’s not fun. It’s just not volleyball.

          • markleb said

            simple solution… minimum rosters and point penalties for not having the required number.

            • Yaegan said

              But then you force people to pay to go… and if the players can’t go because they can’t afford it, the club will have to pay for them to go, meaning the costs get spread across other players.. or the club goes under.

              • Joe said

                So it goes under, big deal. You shouldn’t be traveling to another state with 8 players. Forfeits by a club in a national league bcause they didn’t take a bench would make the AVF’s incompetency look par for the course.

                • Toddy said

                  Thats ludicrous to suggest that clubs should be sacrificed for rules…there are only a limited number of clubs in the country with the resources to play a competition such as AVL and as such their requirements need to be considered in every aspect of the rules/competition.

                  I do agree however that there need to be full squads at the rounds, what would happen with the AIS program if they were expected to play ever player for a full set, there are juniors who barely see the court all season but travel to rounds and this is an essential part of their development. And looking at the kind of draw that is seemingly impossible to avoid, having only 7 or 8 at a round would reduce the level of play (even if only marginally) and surely that is something that we are trying to avoid wherever possible.

                  • Joe said

                    It isn’t sacrificing clubs for rules, it is setting up rules to ensure that forfeits do not occur in what is supposed to be the premier volleybal league in Ausralia. If a club doesn’t have enough resources to take 10 players then it doesn’t have enough resources to play AVL.

              • markleb said

                I don’t understand. People don’t want to go because they don’t get enough court time, but if they were guaranteed court they are being ‘forced’ to go.

  7. Joe said

    6 sub for AVL. I find it hard to believe that players at AVL level, who presumably are serious anout their volleyball by that stage would not go because if they are a bench guy they may not get a lot of court time. If that is the case the wrong people are being selected. I guarantee I could find six hungry juniors to sit on a bench and would relish any chance to play, and those are the players who will try harder at training and in the end be better players than those who say they wil only play if they are guaranteed court time.

    Play women and men together to save costs and improve the atmosphere. Back when Jeny Becker was doing her review of volleyball a few years back I told her that the AVF needed to set a national calendar, identifying when AVL, AVSC, Nat Juniors, National Beach and other important cross border events such as SA Open, Warrnambool and Good Neighbour would occur and then advise the window for each state league and each local beach tour to run. Of course another thing the AVF hasn’t achieved, resulting in unnecessary conflicts.

    Re point 3 from Alexis above, perhas that is bcuse the league is too young and the coaches are too old?? :) In the future I would expect the talent pipeline for both coaches and referees to be state league – nat juniors – avl/nat junior teams – overseas pro league(s) – national team / international referee.

    Rounds should be Melbourne / Sydney / Canberra / Brisbane, with finals located in the state of the best performing state (assuming one team per state, otherwise best performing teams form a state). I.e. Victorian women win rounds, men miss finals v. WA women finish 4th and WA men finish 2nd – assuming no other state performed better overall WA host the finals. Entry fees to be based on this scenario, which would be the most expensive of possible scenarios, with a rebate back to teams if the finals hapen to be in Sydney or Melbourne. Floating finals venue does create a logistics issue that I am not sure the AVF is equipped to handle, but in theory it is the cheapest model available that is still fair to all teams.

    • edbinnie said

      You’re right, I’ve never struggled to find people interested in playing AVL. But then add a $1000 to $2500 price tag to sit on a bench and not play …
      you very quickly find that you’re only going to have old guys with lots of money, or young guys/juniors with lots of money (care of parents).

      I also think that everyone needs to step past something, and that is very few players that are likely of making national teams are playing avl (AIS athletes excluded). They have either finished at the AIS and not gone overseas and are effecitvely out of national team contention, have retired from the national team, or were a national junior player not quite good enough to make it into the AIS.
      Obviously this is a gross overgeneralisation, and people will be able to point to this individual this year, and a different one the next. But of the 3 teams going to finals, how many players are likely to attend the AIS or play for the national team?

      As Adam Sachs pointed out in 2007, MAVL is outside the elite pathway. So do we create the best product taking that into account? This is a little more serious that State Leagues, and every game is more intense, but it is still a user pays system.

      • Joe said

        For now Ed, but should we build it with that aapproach? We should build it in such a way that it may operate as a part of the pipeline … of course very few of the 160 (men and women) or so participants will ever make the national team, but that is the same as in every aspect of life. You don’t dumb down the pyramid just because few people will reach the top.

      • Joe said

        Also re point one, we aren’t the only sport to face this. I played junior basketball at a pretty god level (even though I wasn’t great) and often sat at the end of the bench at tournaments that I had paid to attend. Did I care? No, I had made the rep team! Those minutes i got were as satisfying as being a starter. Maybe that is a rare attitude though? Gen Y and all that!

      • edbinnie said

        Fair points Joe.
        I guess we are torn between what is ideal, and what is immediately possible. Then trying to find a transition between the two. Until such time as the AIS programme is canceled (let’s hope not, but given the Crawford Report … it could be sooner than we hope), I can’t see that MAVL will be anything different from what it is.
        And i agree with you re taking the opportunities – I know that I always did – in fact I trained with a team for 2 years before I ever hit the court.
        But my point is that AVL is not a junior development thing. Most players are there to play at the highest level. But if they don’t see opportunities for themselves after one season, then they aren’t likely to come back. So you have a consistent starting 6 to 8 players, but the fringe around that is constantly fluctuating. I know people say that you should be getting juniors in there for the remaining roles.

        That brings up 2 points –
        what if they aren’t even remotely near the level – are you just taking advantage of them because they are cashed up?
        How is that then the “top” league – surely its about the best 12 players in the state.

        I was constantly frustrated during my time as an AVL administrator from 2003 to 2007 that every year, I was able to get better deals, better training, and more funding/sponsorship, and despite that every year the cost went up for the players (due to format, travel, and other fees that were levied).

        • Joe said

          All fair points Ed, and I agree having juniors rather than the best players availabe ins’t ideal. Another reason why state teams run by the state associations is a better model. I would be much more open to being 12th man on a state team (I was in fact!) than being 12th man on UTSSU or Uni Blues! You are more likely to get the best payers if the team is one to aspire to rather than one that may be perceived to be a big brother of its state league equivalent.

    • Alexis said

      Not sure that its fair to say that AVL isn’t very old. I remember going to games in the early/mid 1980s! I still can’t think of anyone moving to coach overseas who cut their teeth with the AVL/NVL/NGP. Happy to be proven wrong if anyone can think of someone.

  8. Hoff said

    If I am recognizing names correctly, it looks like everyone posting is from NSW (with the Lebedews as exceptions).
    I’m v. interested to hear whether the other states agree/disagree with any of the points above?

  9. stan said

    At this level of competition, it should be the most reflective of FIVB rules, hence 6 sub. Not only for the national/junior narional team members to gain extra game play in this format but also for the refs to gain more experience in scoring/ reffing this format.

    Cost is definitely a big issue and I have no idea how to fix that other than trying to make it fairer to teams travelling. I mean, find the most cost effective way to get teams together. Some suggestions listed above are worth exploring further. eg edbinnie’s idea of paying for wa to copme over and removing the concept of equalisation.

    Knowing what the draw is ahead of time would be good!

    This brings me to my next point. AVF should have a national calendar with all the major state comps/tournaments listed on it so clashes can be avoided – you only have to look at the first round to see what happens with poor planning. And the excuse of ‘we didn’t think we would be responsible for providing support for world masters volleyball’ is totally ludicrous and naieve. Even if avf didn’t know they were going to be responsible for world masters volleyball, surely common sense would have told them to avoid placing a round on that weekend.

    Really I think that commmon sense would have prevented many of the mishaps this year.

    • Toddy said

      Not only knowing what the draw is ahead of time, but if a home/away system is used why not make it over the course of 2 years. This way there can be an equalised model put in place of one year at home for the matches against a team the next will be away. Granted it wont lead to the absolute lowest cost, but it will definitly equalise and ca still provide low cost options due to longer term planning (if you know 18months in advance you will be able to get better deals, and in the case of home rounds you can promote earlier and plan venues that are more appropriate and cheaper)

  10. Why not just make it like state seniors. 12 teams (6 mens, 6 womens), in one venue for a week. With so few teams you could probably do it in the country where you get good local support, cheaper accommodation and venues and good crowds. In their time off, elite players and coaches go run some clinics

    The 12 sub rule doesn’t prohibit you from leaving your best 6 players on the court, or letting every player play the whole way around for a whole set.

    I do like Alexis’s idea of making it compulsory to play every player for a full set. perhaps no liberos and make the players, coaches and team, “eat” any disadvantages they have

    • Joe said

      rememberit is still a competition that teams want to win/ Force teams to play every player and suddenly players 10-12 don’t appear on the score sheet. Not a bd idea for juniors perhaps, but not here.

      • then i think it’s a question between if it’s better to take players 10-12 who might play less than 10 rallies a weekend, or not take them at all.

        Why not only take 9 players?

        • Joe said

          as above

        • Morky said

          we want to make the competition better don’t we? If you force a coach to put each player on court for at least a whole set, then teams of 7 or 8 players would be picked. Most of the guys won’t want to play with a junior who they consider not up to scratch. Most coaches wouldn’t pick guys that weren’t up to scratch in both front and back court. So by elimination the “weaker” players and those that cannot afford to go, what are we left with???

          by playing 12 sub, we could make the competition stronger. Playing an extra defensive player in back court, playing a big blocker in front, double subbing setter and opposite to always have back court setter etc.etc.

          I don’t agree with comment 7 by Joe, saying that he could find 6 hungry juniors to play. How many can afford between $1000 and $3000? Even if they can afford it, how many will want to fork out that sort of money to be told they are just benchies? On top of this, you then possibly have 6 juniors on your bench – there is no depth to your team and you are unlikely to be competetive.

          I know Joe goes on to say “If that is the case the wrong people are being selected”, I agree to an extent. But in a user pays system, you want some sort of value for your money. I was once one of those young guys (a long time ago now) who sat on the bench, but I stuck with it, improved and became a starter. That was also back in the day when it was considerably cheaper, and for me, I was happy to be part of the team (and I have always been reasonably financial)
          But over the 12 or so years I have been involved in the AVL as both player (up until 2 years ago) and coach, I have seen a lot of players play just one season and in some cases one round and then not come back. It all comes down to what you get for your buck (for the vast majority anyway). Every year we have lots of interested players. Generally when they find out the cost, we lose about half of them.

          Hugh made the comment of making AVL a state seniors comp. I am assuming you want the states to take control and come up with the funding and organisation etc. I believe that SVNSW were offered to take over a NSW AVL team and provide funding, coaching, organisation etc. and they turned it down (correct me if I am wrong – only going on what I was told) SVNSW doesn’t have the funds to run an AVL team, so it would suddenly be that the players form our state would fund everything. We are lucky that we have both UTS and Sydney Uni to help cover our costs, otherwise I doubt that we would have a team at all. I am pretty sure if you looked at the make of most AVL teams currently, they probably are close to a senior state team. I know in our team we have several players from other clubs. All were welcome to tryouts, but many either weren’t interested, couldn’t commit or couldn’t afford it.

          • never said anything about having the state associations run it. just said run it like state seniors used to be, given that we have one team per state and it’s small enough to run as a 1-week tournament.

            • Toddy said

              I believe there was a state seniors style competition run before, I am just curious how difficult it was for teams to have full strength squads, as it would be rather difficult for everyone to get a week off work, and there would be a lot of people not willing to give up 1/4 of their annual leave to play volleyball (I know plenty of people that get in enough trouble with their wives and families as it is). Also there would be a further issue of referees and officials that would need to be available.

              But I think that having only one team per state isnt quite our end goal anyway is it? I would have tought that we want to build towards a larger competition with 10-12 teams as we had 7 years ago.

              • Joe said

                We all did it back in the day (took a week off that is), though there were always a few who couldn’t commit. Not sure a bigger comp is the way to go … that talent pool is too thin. Fewer teams, higher quality.

    • Troy M said

      I’ve thought about the idea of running it as a one week tournament for a bit, but I think the problem might be the exposure the volleyball gets. Having it run at 4 different places means more people have the opportunity to see the volleyball (although it costs more for the players).

      I am not saying i disagree with the one week thing, cost wise it would have to be the better option. Exposure wise, really not that many spectators are coming to watch anyways in the current format, and it probably wouldnt change much in the one week format. Maybe if there was a bigger audience and higher demand from spectators, the 4 rounds would work, but at the moment, the one week thing is probably something worth discussing amongst teams.

      • Morky said

        Only proble I see with 1 week tounament, is players taking the time off Uni or work. Currently they only need to take off a friday here or there (so 1 or 2 days of your precious annual leave v’s 5)

      • Hoff said

        Good point Troy.

        I remember Adelaide round last year and a comment from ?Devo? mentioning how much it boosted the sport to juniors down there.

  11. Stove said

    As someone involved with the Heat, here’s my view on things

    The season needs be advertised well in advance – that’s a no brainer, the more notice we get the easier it is to book flights and accommodation and teams can give their players a better idea of how much it’ll cost them.

    The season for both men and women needs to be on during the Oct-Dec period as the MAVL currently is and there are a number of reasons for this:
    1. It makes more sense logictically as mentioned above
    2. It makes Volleyball unique from a marketing point of view (how many other sports value their men’s and women’s leagues equally?)
    3. This is the best time frame for volleyball to get some kind of media coverage, the footy codes are done and dusted and the cricket season is yet to get underway. The Heat men managed to get some newspaper and local tv news coverage this year but the women got nothing.
    4. There’s no clashes with State League or National Juniors. For the Heat men in particular, all but one player was involved in NJ’s this year as either a coach or a player.

    Teams in the league need to be seperate entities to any State League team/club and they absolutley MUST have names that the average non-volleyballer can immediately recognise. So this rules out UTSSU, Uni Blues and Mt Lofty Rangers, sorry guys you’ve got to go or at the very least change your names. It was extremely difficult this year to try and explain to people out of the ‘volleyball circle’ who the hell you guys are and where you’re from, so much so that in media releases etc we simply called you NSW and Victoria (and SA if lofty had played).

    The Grand Prix format cannot continue and we should go back to a similar format to that used in 2006 and earlier. From memory that was a hybrid of the home and away and grand prix formats (it seems so long ago now). The Heat can play the AIS whenever they want and the AVF should take advantage of this (which they eventually had to do this year with the replayed game debacle), I see no logical reason to have the Heat play the tute in Perth.

    While I understand not having any teams travel to WA makes sense from a cost perspective, I think that’s a bit harsh on them. Making them travel to the other side of the country for all of their games is a pretty big disadvantage don’t you think?

    Perhaps we have to look at other recently established national leagues and see what they did? Looking at the A-League, the NBL and now the Australian Baseball League (due to start next year) the main thing that is common across all three of these leagues is that teams needed to secure a base level of funding to be considered to enter the league. So perhaps the AVL needs to have a similar kind of requirement? Obviously it wouldn’t be the millions of $$ that these bigger leagues require but I really believe we need to take a page out of the book of other sports and see how we can make it work for volleyball because we obviously aren’t doing enough right. Perhaps to begin with each team wishing to enter the AVL needs to secure $10,000 of funding? This doesn’t necessarily have to be sponsorship it could just be the team fundraising on it’s own with trivia nights and the like, but it would give teams a figure to work towards and then everyone knows where they stand. The AVF can then work out things based on the knowledge that each team has at least X amount of money to play with. I’m not saying that the AVF should be in charge of this money (not sure if they could handle it), but it would give them a budget to work with. For the Heat this would actually make things easier for us to secure funding from the ACT Government (and stop them giving it to the Raiders and Brumbies who don’t need it anywhere near as much as we do), it’s an easier sell to go to them to say we need X amount of money to be able to compete.

    Finally substitutions. Personally I’m in two minds about it, part of me wants to say we should use the official rules (that’s what they’re for right?) and play the game the way it is internationally. But part of me agrees with the reasons for 12-sub that are mentioned above.

    Joe, come on, it cost our guys nearly $2000 to play AVL this year. Even for the most serious of players it’s a pretty hard sell to say “Hey do you want to pay two grand for 7 points in the AVL”. And you must have the richest juniors in the world! Assuming they’ve already paid a couple of thousand to play in National Junior’s, can you really guarantee they’ll pay ANOTHER couple of thousand to sit on the bench for AVL. I agree that a serious player should be happy to sit on the bench for a high level competition (and jump at the opportunity if and when they do hit the court) but given the position we are currently in, you have to consider the other (mostly finiancial) factors.

    If there can be a sustainable Australian Ice Hockey League then surely volleyball has a chance. It’s important we stay positive and support the AVF wherever possible (no matter how hard that is for some to swallow) hopefully they listen to us this time and we can work together to creat a league that everyone wants to be a part of.

    • Joe said

      “Teams in the league need to be seperate entities to any State League team/club and they absolutley MUST have names that the average non-volleyballer can immediately recognise. So this rules out UTSSU, Uni Blues and Mt Lofty Rangers, sorry guys you’ve got to go or at the very least change your names.” Thew first two are sponsor names … are you really prepared to trade sponsorship dollars for a name? A lot of your post is about getting more dollars in but you are prepared to trade it out on that basis? Clearly the way to resolve that problem is to have clubs run by the associations and leverage association sponsors / marketing staff, or (and I am not holding my breath) the AVF help tams secure corpoate sponsorship. Until then I am happy for a team to be called McDonalds if it means players can play for reduced cost.

      Re the bench players, again it goes to attitude. if you can only convince someone to play AVL with guaranteed court time then you have the wrong players. Understand what you are saying, but on blance I think 6 sub is the way to go.

      • Stove said

        Could they not be called ‘Victorian Uni Blues’? And surely being a university based team there is someone with a creative enough mind to think of a way to incorporate ‘UTSSU’ into a more identifiable name for the team…

        • Troy M said

          hahaha im sure ed will cringe at this but back when i started playing it was sydney uni lions… maybe they could have used the abbreviation of sydney lions/university of technology sydney.

          • Yaegan said

            Yeah, I’ve always thought that the Sydney Uni Lions, University of Technology Sydney (SULUTS) had a nice ring to it… though I’m not sure sure the womens team, nor the universities would agree…

            • Yaegan said

              If UTSSU and Uni Blues need to be identified so that people know where we are from, then why not use a more full version of their names ie UTS-Sydney Uni and Melbourne-Monash Uni Blues.

              I think thats pretty clear where they are from.

      • Morky said

        Agree with most of what Steve has said, but also agree with joe about the name changes. If we didn’t have both UTS and SU in our name, neither university would be prepared put any money in. Our team would fold – suddenly 5 team comp. Everyones eqaulisation costs rise, league folds. Volleyball becocomes a forgotten sport :(

      • Morky said

        @ Steve (assuming it is meant to be Steve not “Stove)

        Also in relation to playing in WA, not against it at all. But there should never be a situation like this year where all teams had to travel to Perth and Brisbane. Am happy for WA to have home rounds, just have teams from either SA, VIC or NSW travel there. They have the cheapest travel routes.

      • edbinnie said

        Stove, agree with most if not all of your points.

        Point of Clarification though.
        UTSSU is actually UTS Sydney Uni. The nomenclature UTSSU was only supposed to be used for the purpose of the draw. Getting the AVF to actually use the correct terminology in 2007 and the start of 2008 was the bane of my existence – I think I sent out between 100 and 200 emails to Spike, AVF, SVNSW so on. Then I left, and its now not my role to comment (other than as a clarification here!) I agree though UTSSU has no identity, but UTS Sydney Uni does – because of the “Sydney”
        The same is true of Uni Blues. Their actual Formal Name is Melbourne Monash Uni Blues. But again, getting the publicists of our brand (the AVF, Spike etc) to use their correct name was like pulling teeth.
        We were all allowed to have whatever we wanted as names, but were required to have shortened names for Draw purposes.

        And do away with those team names, and you farewell the sponsor dollars too, basically taking out a NSW team and a VIC team.

        Mt Lofty is a place. I have no problem with it. Its like the Bulleen Boomers, or Dandenong Rangers. Its like having Illawarra, or Newcastle. Most people outside the state don’t know where it is. But that’s because most people don’t know geography.

    • Eldo said

      Excuse me Stove.
      There is Mt Everest, Mt Fuji and Mt Lofty. One of the great mountains of this world.
      It towers over the great city of Adelaide.

  12. Dinosaur said

    People – Don’t forget regional centres. I know of a couple of regional centres that would be prepared to host a round and cover all the running costs of the games(and even some accomadation!) Regional centres find it easy to get sponsors, get publicity (albeit small circulation newspapers and TV channels – but still publicity)and get organisers/helpers to run a great event.

    Last year AVF denied one regional centre hosting and paying for a round of AVL as they thought it would be unfair for the teams who did not get rostered to go to that event!!!! Then get another event like it so everyone can reap the rewards!!!
    Maybe with some new people in charge AVF might not Knock back such an offer from a regional centre next year?

    • Stove said

      I would love for regional centres to be involved, especially if they are willing to assist with the costs. Perhaps they could start with hosting a round or two with a longer term view of an AVL team for the region? We definitely need to think outside the box, with volleyball’s position on the Australian sporting map perhaps we need to use the regional centres to create a league that would be classed as ‘second tier’ when compared to the big footy codes. But a popular ‘second tier’ comp is better than an unpopular wannabe ‘first tier comp’

    • Volleyball Athlete said

      Regional centres are very good. I don’t know if anyone remembers, but I believe either in 2007 perhaps, (excuse my lack of facts), it was the country town of Victoria, Mildura, who hosted 3 top quality AVL teams (Melbourne Falcons, Mt. Lofty and perhaps AIS?).

      It was purely an invitational tournament done for the good of volleyball. I remember reading that all the players did clinics for the local academy which was great, and all of the accomdation was done for free (if not heavily discounted).

      These country towns offer the best kind of hospitality, and I always know that these regional places secure local sponsors who help promote the sport.

      They are definitely a way to go in the future.

      • Anon said

        I’ll second that.

      • Joe said

        If that is a preferred approach why not piggy back of existing tournaments such as Warrnambool, old SA Open and hold the finals at Good Neighbour? Or put all of the rounds out to tender and hold them at the locations that present the best overall deal (taking account of travel costs)? Is there really a need for the season to run in a block or could it be spread across the year?

  13. roy said

    just a question but i am pretty sure that the first year or few years of avl was covered on sbs. however that was done surely it can be done again??

    • morky said

      Cost a lot of money though. Can’t remember the figures, but it wasn’t cheap

    • markleb said

      The federation paid for all of the production costs. SBS only provided the air time. The money came from the future.

    • edbinnie said

      It was back on SBS in 2004 to 2006? And that money came from the clubs, and as such the players.
      In 2004, the clubs agreed, because the AVF said that they would find a telecast sponsor from 2005 onwards. Then the Women’s AIS got cut, and the AVF’s focus changed.

    • Troy M said

      With the TV thingy, I never realised that SBS provided the airtime for free and that it was the actual production costs that the players were paying for.

      I am not sure how the production company was selected previously, but I imagine that AVF would have obtained quotes from a variety of professional organisations and selected the one that offered best value for money.

      However with so many skillful and passionate people in our sport, I wonder if there is a less financially taxing option of getting AVL on TV?

      I have little to no idea as to what is required production wise, but if there are people who do, could they possibly put their 2c in on this because I am sure I am not alone in wanting to know :)

      • Robbo said

        the costs build up, as all the equipment is very expensive. Thats why there are production companies who come in and do these kinds of events for people/groups. I have been looking into it recently with regard to the OZ Volleyball channel, and expenses are quickly adding up…

        • Troy M said

          As someone who has absolutely no idea about the production side of things, I sit here and think, camera, a couple of microphones, power cables, tripod, computer with video editing software. Obviously it could get more impressive with net cams and additional cameras in the huddles at time outs. As it does not need to be a live feed (the one for TV), a rough commentary could possibly be recorded separately and then redone properly and overlayed at a later stage, as can pop ups with the score etc.

          There will obviously be the labour costs, which is what I imagined would be the majority of the charge (so paying for the commentators, cameramen, people to interview lenny the lizard) which is why I thought if an insider did the job it may be cheaper because there would be people in the volleyball community who would have the skills to do it and would be willing to considerably undercut what these contracted production companies are charging because they are passionate about vball.

          Could you possibly go through the expenses that I am overlooking?

          • Robbo said

            Well firstly for a camera you are looking at $500+ at least.. I have been lucky enough to use a friends good quality HD one so far. Then you need a mixing board, mics (i got prices on the cheapest commentator headsets yesterday and they started at $800…. wow), a computer/laptop with the right connections, internet access, people (a huge thanks to Sketch, Ryan, Jase, Nic and Bill who have commentated games so far), then all the right cables and connections.
            At the moment all costs for all the games i’ve streamed so far have come completely out of my pocket, and its very hard to get anyone wanting to put money out to support/sponsor the events…

            Doing it all Post-production is slightly easier but then again you’ll need a couple of cameras and move people to get operate them (and have at least some skills with them. It’s not just point and shoot), and also good quality video editting software doesn’t come cheap….

            • Volleyball Athlete said

              Robbo, I had no idea that the streaming was coming entirely out of your pocket!

              It’s great to see you volunteering so much time and money for the sport!

              I know thanks doesn’t pay the bills, but I certainly do appreciate your work.

            • Troy M said

              I haven’t been able to watch any of your live feeds because of my disgracefully slow internet connection, but maybe set up a paypal account with a link from your streaming page and people can make donations? I know if I was watching a game or two and it was as impressive as everyone has said, I would be happy to donate a few bucks :) Not a lot, but better than nothing and ultimately it will help improve things because you will be able to afford more stuff :)

              • Robbo said

                Cheers mate. I had initially thought of this but wanted to clear it up in terms of tax etc first. But it is definitely a good starting idea!

          • Troy M said

            I could be totally wrong, but I vaguely recall seeing something about it costing $40,000-$50,000 for getting AVL on TV.

            What if AVF was able to identify some volleyball people willing to do the job, and people who could prove they were capable of doing the job in a way that was up to the minimum standards required by SBS(eg trial run at MAVL finals – its not being televised anyway).

            Then for next year, maybe if AVF was willing to dish out some money for equipment and pay some costs to cover transport of these people, accommodation, transport of equipment some sort of per diem/thank you salary (maybe $10k for the first year, and then recycle equipment so considerably less in following years).

            Based on the assumption my recall of it costing around $50k in the past being correct, I wonder if it could be put together for a fraction of that cost and we could get AVL back on TV?

  14. El Diablo said

    I think we should go back to the old model that was used in 1997. Australian Senior Volleyball Grand Prix! A week long tournament with senior athletes battling it out for national honours. Take clubs out of the mix and make it state based. State Associations need to give athletes a pathway after they have turned 21 and are to old for National Juniors. I think many state associations and the AVF dropped the ball 10 years ago! It needs to be either State Institutes or State Senior teams competing. State League Clubs should be playing in Warrnambool, SA Open and Good Neighbour if they want to compete at a higher level than state league. We should be getting our best senior athletes playing against each other! Not just the ones who play for the right club or have the money to play!

    Could National Juniors be played in conjunction with National Juniors?

    • El Diablo said

      Sorry national juniors be played in conjunction with national seniors! Whoops

    • Troy M said

      One of the guys from ACT had pointed out earlier that there are quite a few players either playing or coaching at national juniors. It would be nice in theory, but in practice I don’t think it would work.

    • Joe said

      plus many U21’s and some U19’s play both … I did the 21’s/Seniors thing in my last 21’s year. 21’s would be weaker than it aready is because players would (I think, I know I would have) to be on the bench in seniors than start in 21s/

    • Joe said

      Also, back then there was the Grand Prix and the National Champs, which kind of defeats the argument that Seniors can’t exist along with AVL. It is all about funding.

    • Hoff said

      Personally, i’m all for making it state based… with NSW competing against QLD etc… except that it would then cost the players a HUGE amount of money to compete.

      I would suspect that the state associations could not fund the teams close to the same as the clubs do. If I am wrong, then bring on State-based National Seniors! For UTSSU, even the clubs are struggling to fund, causing us to combine all funding from both universities for one MAVL and one WAVL team.

      It is not a professional sport, and as is being repeated, it is the players who pay.

    • edbinnie said

      I definitely think there is a place for National Seniors, although not run concurrently with National Juniors.
      In terms of the expense, I don’t think it would be that bad – its travel once a year, so its not an issue in terms of overall subsidy from the states.

      I do believe that there is place for both, National Seniors and AVL.

      What I find funny is that there is National Juniors, National Masters (starting at 25 for women, 30 for men), And lots of these athletes compete in AVL too. So for me its proof that they can exist together, and achieve different aims, and be run by different groups.

  15. Hoff said

    MAVL – good points to keep (please add to this guys… its not all bad)

    1. Website setup. I love the stats/photos etc. Everything that is up to date is great. (will be even better when everything is up to date… the stats etc in the team list are still from 2008 etc)
    2. Professionalism at stadiums eg. commentator/djs signage etc
    3. Having a consistent AVF presence at each round

    • Yaegan said

      As well as the stats, the commentary on the website is pretty cool. I know I always read it after each match.. It gives more to everyone than simply the scores.

    • edbinnie said

      Hoff, I agree these things are cool, but would love to know what cost these are coming at.
      I’d much rather spend time and money on having the best refs available and doing 2 games in a row max, teams training more, and focused on playing, having a good draw, and finding every way to cut costs for travel, uniforms, entry fee etc.
      These things fall well below the must have list, and barely register on the nice to have list – they’re for an ideal time when you don’t have to worry about whether the best players can afford to go …

      • Yaegan said

        I agree, but instead of constant criticism (of which I know I am quite considerably at fault) we should at least try to find something that is good that is going on. If it turns out that this website stuff is costing us thousands of dollars at the expense of the rest of the competition, then we can criticise some more… but I doubt it. At the moment I think it is a nice thing to keep people informed and to keep players feeling as though they are wanted.

        • Joe said

          screw being positive in the face of the important facts … at best the website is a thin veneer covering up how bad the AVF is at every other aspect of event management. There is a reason they farm out the management of most events to the states … the AVF is incompetent!

          • Bill McHoul said


            Can you please put your real name to these comments

            I would be interested to know where such strong feelings come from, and are they justified



            • devo said

              Using nick names

              We are happy for commentators to use pseudonyms – up to 4 by one eager commentator – but please do not “hide” behind the pseudonym to say something that you would not say in person. Please do use a valid email address. We will not disclose it to anyone, but it gives us the opportunity to follow up or clarify an issue with you if the need arises.

              • Joe said

                Don’t worry Devo, I have expressed the same sentiments ot AVF staff on numerous occasions, from days of Carracher to Scotford to the current mob. Perhaps direct aproaches have been more diplomatically worded, but it is getting beyond a joke the number of errors they have made. Diplomatic approaches do not appear to have any effect, they continue to stuff up and these stuff ups only serve to prevent our great game from growing.

            • Caveman said

              I do not understand the “bitterness” of Joe towards anything to do with the AVF, I must agree with Bill McHoul.

              • Jack said

                replace AVF with Volleyball Victoria Caveman, and I think you’ll get the idea.

              • Joe said

                Good for you Caveman, good for you. Your parents must have had serious issues calling you Caveman, or is it perhaps that you too aren’t using your real name?!?!?

            • Joe said

              Ah, the beauty of the web … no need to do so Bill McHoul. Regarding whether my comments are justified or not … you believe the AVF runs the AVL well?

              • Bill McHoul said

                Every product, in this case a competition, must be continually reviewed and improved.

                Personally I am not involved closely enough with AVL at the moment to make comments on it.

                Joe, I can assure you that the comments you make are doing nothing to improve ‘our great game’.

                • Joe said

                  That is pretty soft Bill McHoul. You have surely heard about the errors that have been made. Answer me this, have you seen improvements since you were involved with Falcons. Name me one improvement that the AVF has made.

                  As for whether my comments help or not that is debateable. They got you taking part on the conversation (albeit without actually bring ing anything to the table … so far) didn’t they?

                  • Bill McHoul said


                    1. website – results, player profiles, etc
                    2. announcers at every event
                    3. event presentation & signage

                    There is a few off the top of my head

                    No I have not brought ‘anything to the table’ because on this current issue I am not qualified to speak on as I am not directly involved. Who knows if you have been involved you can’t use your real name

                    BUT when I do get involved I do put my name to it !!!

                    • Joe said

                      I would argue that the event day presentation was far better back when AVL was on tv Bill. You were involved back then, surely you remember ho it was?

                      As for the website, I will give you that, it is better.

                      See there you go, you have contributed and helped me see the error of my ways ;)

              • Caveman said

                Tell me something “Joe” … if you hate the AVF so much why haven’t you said anything previously about the preformance of VVI?
                ie not going with the national ball deal and then when they have Molten doing a deal with Wilson for the beach after already getting sponsorship from Molten for both Indoor and Beach ?

                • Joe said

                  Hate is such a strong word “Caveman” … (edited devo)

                  I think the AVF does a very good job at elite team and elite athlete management given the constraints they have to deal with. I also think the new CEO is pretty good. Unfortunately their public face for most volleyballers will be competitions that they run, and they are beyond poor at event management … I don’t see how this can even be in dispute?

                  As for VVI’s performance, firstly it is off topic, and secondly I actually think VVI do a pretty good job. I won’t comment further on VVI’s performance here but if you want to debate that point ask Devo to kick off a new topic and I will be happy to show you the error of your ways (again).

                  • Bill McHoul said


                    What do you think of the AVSC is ran ?

                    It is the biggest event in the portfolio

                    • Joe said

                      Sorry, going to have use the Bill McHoul out on that one … haven’t been involved in school sport since I was at school.

        • edbinnie said

          Hey Bill,
          while not directly involved in MAVL this year (or the past couple) you are one of the “fathers” of the league – having been around since its inception – correct me if I am wrong. So more so than most on this topic, your suggestions, advice and input would definitely be worth while.
          I for one would love to hear how you think things should be done, what you liked from the past, and what you disliked. You have the experience, and you’re still very much involved with Australian Volleyball.
          So please, speak up so the young ‘uns can hear from someone who has been there, done that!

  16. El Diablo said

    No one has made comment on the timing of AVL?

    Should Men’s and Women’s be at the same time?

    It would be good if the AVF stopped causing grief for state league clubs by making the WAVL around the same time as state leagues? I know that the WAVL serves as a selection tool for the Australian Women’s program, but it is seriously effecting the club’s that have developed these athletes!!

    Don’t we want the best athletes playing in state leagues to make our competitions better?

    • Yaegan said

      It was discussed briefly at the beginning of the comments. But yeah, I agree that MAVL and WAVL should be combined and played at the same time as the current MAVL season, after state leagues have run their course.
      My reasoning is that, as you mentioned El Diablo, by putting it a the same time as state leagues, it cripples the top division by taking away the best players and some coaches (sometimes all from one or two clubs, sometimes spread across the board), meaning that lower divisions are likely to be needed to fill in on these rounds, thereby affecting the comp down the chain.
      Secondly, it places a very large burden on players, coaches and administrators which otherwise could be spread out. For players and coaches, it means that they are effectively playing for two teams at the same time (and if they are playing national juniors, a third), each with their own training and playing requirements, often with different coaches who may or may not be sympathetic to the needs of the other team. Being an amateur sport, every player will be either working or studying. The increase in training and playing load for the period of the AVL season, is a very large load for these players or coaches, some of whom will simply not be able to commit. For administrators, who are very often players or coaches themselves, the amount of work running both AVL and state league (on top of their paid work or study) is absolutely huge. Moreover, if they are having to go away for AVL rounds, they cannot be at home looking after the vast majority of their constituents at the state league. This would have a huge impact on clubs as small issues may not be dealt with early, turning them into large issues over time.

      So for me, by putting AVL and State league on at the same time, it could well have the effect of crippling the state league, crippling the players, coaches and administrators and very possibly the clubs.

      There are two solutions:
      1. AVL players don’t play state league – I can’t see too many people advocating this as it would cripple the state leagues and clubs even further, as well as lowering the standard of both competitions (For AVL, it would meant that players only play for a very brief time each year)

      2. MAVL and WAVL get played at the same time, after state leagues have ceased. This would allow the workload to be spread out, so that there is a full and consistent focus on both competitions, allowing both competitions and the clubs that hold them together to remain strong.
      The only increase in workload from having the WAVL and MAVL together separate from State leagues is for the AVF themselves. his would mean that they would have to organise both AVL at the same time as National Schools… But these people are paid for what they do.
      As for WAVL being a selection tool for the national womens team, I ask my original question from the beginning of the comments section, would the general make up of the national squad not be known in December for the following year? If not, why not?

      I’m interested to hear what other people think on the matter.

    • Joe said

      Comment on that has been made above El Diablo. I am not the only one to, but as i wrote above..

      “Play women and men together to save costs and improve the atmosphere. Back when Jenny Becker was doing her review of volleyball a few years back I told her that the AVF needed to set a national calendar, identifying when AVL, AVSC, Nat Juniors, National Beach and other important cross border events such as SA Open, Warrnambool and Good Neighbour would occur and then advise the window for each state league and each local beach tour to run. Of course another thing the AVF hasn’t achieved, resulting in unnecessary conflicts.”

    • Toddy said

      I’m pretty sure there are a few comments suggesting that AVL should run concurrently (MAVL WAVL) and it should be in the Oct-Dec bracket that MAVL is at the moment.

      I am curious as to whether or not the AVF are still honestly looking to use WAVL for selection, I remember seeing some of the AAVL players that should not have been selected due to their performance at AVL yet they were selected, and I even have had convesaions with various coaches that believe the same. So surely AVL has no benefit being in the middle of year, so hopefully we can have that change made to the competition format.

      As far as the best athletes playing, I think the priority needs to be having the best athletes playing in AVL and the as a second have them playing State League.

      Just to add to good things that the AVF have recently been doing, I would have to say they are starting to listen to the clubs and stakeholders a little more each year, if we can keep up the flow of ideas and information then I am sure this will continue to improve (even if it is at a glacial pace)

  17. Whosin said

    An interesting point to note – some people are talking about changes to some of the rules to suit Australia. It’s interesting to note that Good Neighbour is using the 6 sub rule….. also be interesting to see how many teams turn up with more than 7, 8 or 9 players?

    • Joe said

      Well done VACT!!!! And given the Good Neighbour tournament holds more prestige than AVL I bet there wil be some strong (and big) squads attending!

  18. Caveman said

    What you are doing here is “arguing” with a distinct bias against the AVF, instead what you “should” be doing is setting down something down to show us here that you “know” how to fix things, but this unrelenting bias of yours without anything to say how to fix things is just not worth the debating. I would much you debate things rather than tear strips off people.
    What is currently happening on this site (edited devo) is just not right.

    I implore you (as mediator) to keep this sort of thing off your site. (edited devo)
    I am all for debate but this is NOT debating at all, you are giving “joe” an avenue to write his hatred of the AVF, and seeing that the AVF does not answer this sort of stuff … it is wrong !!!

    • Joe said

      (edited devo)

      I am critical of the AVF’s performance and will continue to be until it improves whether you like it or not.

    • devo said

      Sorry Caveman, just re-read all of Joe’s comments. Don’t agree with all of them, but I think you are over-stating the case.

      • Joe said

        thank you sir… I noticed two edits, both on posts addressed to our cave dwelling brother … will avoid responding to his rants in future and thus will stay out of trouble :)

        • devo said

          LOL – Just remember, it’s not what you say, but how you say it. ;-))

        • Morky said


          whilst I agree with a lot of what you are saying (have to agree to disagree on the 6 sub vs 12 sub thing), Caveman did make a valid point. That is, that we need to try to come up with solutions to problems. Everyone knows that there are problems, we just need to figure out what to do about them.

          I am sure the AVF (and most others) would love to know who you are, but I respect your decision to stay anonymous. I know “people” at the AVF do read the posts on Devo (as I received a couple of phone calls after a post about a week ago). So hopefully they are taking note of what is being said, and maybe we can all work together to make AVL better. I would hate for AVL to fold, but i know for a fact, there are several teams ready to jump ship if things don’t improve.

          Devo, i implore you NOT to keep this sort of thing off your site. It makes for interesting reading, and a few home truths may be what it takes to kick things along

  19. Yaegan said

    A complete aside from the topic. With 112 comments so far at the time of my writing, is this one of if not the most commented on post? Does Devo have any stats relating to this?

    • mickmurphy said

      Looks to be the most commented on, and is right up there in the most viewed topics of all time.

      I’m sure Devo would know more, though.

      • devo said

        With 215+ comments over 3 posts, AVL is certainly the topic that has aroused most comments on the blog.

        We still get more visits when the Aussies are playing a major tournament overseas.

        Top Posts (the past week)

        What changes do you want to MAVL next season? 1,185 views

        Men’s World Grand Champions Cup begins 409 views

        MAVL – finals teams 261 views

        Road show rolls into Vic 149 views

        Rick Mitchell on Crawford 120 views

        Golden Formula update 105 views

        Wanted: AIS Beach Volleyball Assistant Coach 103 views

        Jess Peacock is NJCAA national champion! 91 views

  20. Toddy said

    Just want to throw this out there, but does anyone know what the AVF’s purpose for AVL is? Knowing that may actually make it easier to come up with appropriate rule changes. Personally I think that 12 sub is great, as long as we are not hoping to improve to any higher level, so if the AIS boys are not expected to continue onto international level, then sweet, lets use 12 sub. In America they have lots of little rule changes and differences, but their entire pathway is finished at NCAA. They have 10,000’s of players that drop out, and in a good year will pick up 1 or 2, so they arent too concerned with following international rules.

    So what is the actual goal of the competition?
    I mean we know that it is not part of the elite pathway (definitely for men, and I am beginning to doubt its value as a pathway for women), It is not used to promote the sport outside of the volleyball community (there is no external advertising that i am aware of), It is not meant for revenue purposes for the AVF (at least it better not be)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: