Wednesday, June 28, 2000


< back


June 28, 2000

Present:  Sean Byron, Joel Walton, Rubin Nieves, Ryan Patton, Mark Pavlik, Al Ronek and Kelly Stosik (John Hutton not available on this date.)

1. Roll call of group.

2. Committee members gave the feedback from their groups regarding rally score format.
 MPSF (Nieves) - 5 for Game-set-match; 5 for best-of-five.
 MIVA, DIII At-Large (Ronek) - Not enough response due to openings in coaches positions.
 EIVA (Byron) - 9 for Game-set-match; 8 for best-of-five.
 EIVA DIII (Patton) - 6 for Game-set-match; 1 for best-of-five.
 NECVA - league prefers best-of-five format. (Breakdown wasn't available)

Every region unanamously approved use of libero change every game, international pursuit rule and net serve rule.

3. Regional thoughts of scring formats brought up consistent concerns that have surfaced within the committee members discussions with thier constituent coaches.  Across the board the concerns deal with the time of the short matches (in the best of five format) and the lack of research (in the game-set-match format).

4. Discussion within the committee began with acknowledging that with the exception of the NECVA each region is split between the game-set-match and best-of-five formats.  Some factors were discussed which may or may not be involved in the choosing of a format.
a. How important is it to follow the FIVB format?  This was a factor but not the deciding factor.  The need to make a decision beased on what was good for the NCAA men's game outweighed the necessity of following FIVB current formats.  However, it was the second most important factor since there was no overwhelming consensus on the following two factors.
b. How important is it to control the length of NCAA matches?  This generated the most discussion with most of the talk centered around the shorter matches.  The overall result was that it was a concern but not necessarily one that was shared by every region.  It was a factor that weighed more heavily than the FIVB factor.
c. How important is it to create a format that may increase the frequency of upsets?  This recieved the least concern from all the regions.
d. A fourth concern was the "fan-friendliness" of each format.  How much re-education would need to occur with each format and should this be an overriding concern? The committee felt education of the fan to be a relatively simple matter; however, the press may need a little more education.  It received a little more than a passing remark and wasn't given significant weight.

5. Joel Walton suggested that a fax be prepared and faxed/emailed to the coaches. They would  indicate their top two format choices and include any comments relative to the discussion.  Mark Pavlik will put this together and the members will launch a phone call campaign to their coaches to promote the response to this question.  Once the results are in the committee will look for the region result to determine if there is enough of a consensus of format to explore scoring within that format. This is to determine a direction by early July.

6. It was mentioned by Ryan Patton and Kelly Stosik that the committee members must make sure they call their coaches to let them know that the questionnaire was coming.

NEXT CONFERENCE CALL: Wednesday, 7/12 @ 1:30 ET

NEXT AGENDA:  Which scoring format will we recommend to the NCAA Men's Championship committee for use starting with the 2001 championships. (This will include net serve, libero and international pursuit rules.) 

< back