AJ’s email in response to DC

Email sent on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Sent to citymbinfo.com, tbrnews.com, kindagood.com, easyreader.info

In response to DC’s call for investigation I make the following comments.

Kevin’s Participation
There does seem to be some exaggeration regarding Kevin’s participation in the Manhattan Beach Opens. I mean, theoretically, he could have played 30 consecutive events since his first recorded in 1978, but he seems to have missed some. Regardless, he’s played a lot.

Also, he didn’t really “start” the AVP, and indeed he wouldn’t argue it either. In fact, he gives Leonard Armato most of the credit for helping form the initial AVP.

My point is that obviously everything ever written about Kevin, or anyone for that matter, isn’t Kevin talking about Kevin. Further, it may not even be true. Of course, none of that has any relevance to the argument he’s helped put forth about the Manhattan Open, nor does it matter if he was a main draw player or even a participant at all. Kevin’s arguments certainly still stand untouched by the remarks made by DC, which makes me wonder what the point of his email was. Personal slander, perhaps?

Tradition
A major point of the protest is that the Manhattan Open is a tradition in beach volleyball. It’s probably the only real respected tradition amongst all beach volleyball players. Many of the commenters and Kevin have made it clear that, while the tournament has evolved over the years, there are certain aspects of the event that make it unique and help it retain its historical significance. Contrary to DC’s suggestion, tradition doesn’t mean the event must remain exactly the same. Using that logic, we’d probably also have to say that the event must consist of exactly the same players. He’s made a classic strawman argument, but it’s unlikely to convince anyone since the argument makes no sense anyway.

So, what traditions are we changing?

Field Size
First, the event was always a completely open field (as large as can be accommodated with the given equipment), which in some ways hasn’t changed. The qualifier for the new format is essentially open to as many players as can be accommodated. It will take place over two days and the entry fee will be $200/team, double the normal AVP entry fee. Of course, simply doubling the entry will eliminate much participation. You also won’t have an opportunity to earn any of that money back unless you place in the top 8 (which is essentially the top 16 AVP teams for this event). Oh, and good luck!

While traditionally 8 spots (or more) are given away at the Manhattan event, the main draw field has always been larger than the 16 team field proposed. Now the event exempts only the top 8 teams rather than the top 24 teams from qualification. Quite a difference. In fact, it looks like 8 teams that are normally exempt from qualifying are expected (by seeding) to not even make the main event!

The event size has changed over the years (mostly to be smaller). Clearly, there are reasons for doing this and they have thus far outweighed the protest to the change. However, at some point cutting the draw size significantly alters the event. I think it’s safe to argue that 32 teams is considered a reasonable size for a double elimination event. It’s been the standard event size for quite a long time by the AVP and the FIVB. With the amount of space and courts available in Manhattan a 32 team event is easy to setup and put on, even for both genders. In fact, the only “difficult” setup is in the grand stands, which will certainly not be eliminated with the new format.

Lots of Competitive Volleyball for Fans and Players
The size of the event was one of the most important aspects of the Open. Pro players all covet a win and the traditional plaque on the pier, so the event is always the strongest of the year. Strong competition and deep fields are one of the biggest draws for fans. They get to see a huge group of top players competing for a most coveted prize. As a fan, one could literally immerse oneself in the highest level volleyball and often watch 3-4 great games from one spot. This competitive environment is appealing to both players and fans. To now give 8 teams a bye past one round only to play a team that had just played a minimum of 4 qualifying rounds over the last 2 days is not exactly a level playing field. Perhaps the suggestion is that the difference between the 8 and 9 seed (7 and 10, etc) is so great that it is just a waste of time to play that game on a level field anyway?

More importantly, this size draw is probably going to be run on no more than 4 courts, at least 2 of which will be surrounded by grand stands of some magnitude. The opportunity to sit on the sand and watch multiple great games will vanish. I personally don’t expect many die hard fans to be showing up to such an event. This move is rather risky for a sport that is struggling to fill its stands from week to week. As a side note, raising the entry to $25/person is another risky move. We’ll see how it pans out…

Bracketology 101
While it’s possible that DC actually consulted Matt Gage, I personally doubt that he would have made as grave an error as to suggest that the event is 10% smaller or only 15 matches fewer. It is ironic that DC criticizes Cleary’s participation “experience” when it seems likely that DC has never participated in an event or at least doesn’t understand tournament bracket format. Since it’s so obvious that delusionalcleary’s remarks are just repeated from what someone else told delusionalcleary, it’s easy for me to forgive delusionalcleary’s error. Let me set the facts straight for anyone who may be confused, including delusionalcleary. I attached a 32 team bracket (in pdf form) so you can count the matches yourself if you’d like.

A 32 team double elimination tournament (61 matches) is exactly 32 matches fewer than a 16 team double elimination tournament (29 matches). Therefore the event is 48%(29/61) the size it was and has 53%(32/61) fewer matches.

Perhaps the suggestion that the event has 10% fewer games comes from the suggestion that the qualifier is part of the event. In that case, delusionalcleary is comparing the last rounds of the qualifier to normal main draw rounds. OK, fair enough. Still, there are two rounds of contenders’ matches associated with the missing 16 main draw teams. These never get played in a single elimination qualifier, so even using this criteria, we are playing at least 16 matches more in a 32 team event, or 26% fewer in a 16 team event. That includes the overlap of games which are played in the qualifier that would normally be played in the main draw. Clearly “10%” is at least 2.6 times smaller a percentage than the actual decrease, even with the most conservative estimate. So the difference in matches is 260% larger than DC is making it out to be. That number sounds big!

Lopsided Advantages
An interesting point to be taken from the above illustration of matches lost is that, while you are reducing the amount of matches by 16 (or 32, depending on your perspective), you are forcing the bottom 8 teams (that are allowed to continue) to play a minimum of 3 extra matches, plus the one you would normally play in a 32 team draw before the event even starts. This is one of the biggest arguments against the new format. The competitive advantage is enormously lopsided towards the top 8 teams, unless you are making some ridiculous argument like: the “experience” of those 4 extra matches (or 5 if you qualify from a low ranking) somehow outweighs the physical and mental strain of the competition.

Female Participation
I imagine DC is talking about some past debate or something, but I’ve neither seen nor heard Kevin suggesting that the women’s event should be removed this year, or the scoring format switched. By the way, the argument that NBC can’t run an event without knowing when it will end is clearly rather ludicrous. A great deal of televised sporting events go over their “allotted” time, and do extremely well because of it! (As far as I can judge, those are the best games for every reason anyone watches sports.)

Anonymity
It’s amusing to me that DC has gone through the trouble to get an email address called “delusionalcleary@yahoo.com” in an attempt to remain anonymous. There is something extraordinarily suspicious about that choice while attacking the character of another person. If delusionalcleary believed in the principle of delusionalcleary’s remarks, delusionalcleary would surely stand behind them. I would.

AJ

• Topic: News & Updates
• By Dan Madden
• May 23rd, 2008