Results of The CHRVA Survey
From Jake Barkdoll
|
Thanks for the Great Input!
On July 13, a
questionnaire was distributed by email and regular mail to players, coaches,
scorekeepers, and other volleyball fans, enthusiasts, fanatics, and supporters
in the Chesapeake region. By August 15, I had received over 400 responses,
50+ by fax, 125+ by regular mail, and a surprising 225+ by email. About
80% of the respondents were players, 40% were scorekeepers, 30% were referees,
25% were coaches, and a little less than 10% were parents of junior players.
That adds up to more than 100% because many folks who responded have more
than one role, and some fill all four roles. I received over 350 of the
responses in time to do some analysis before the August 3 Board of Directors
meeting. I still have not had enough time to read and analyze all the written
comments… but more about that later.
The new “let serve” and “libero” rules generated
the most heated responses. One player asked “What are we going to do next,
play the ball on the first bounce?” and another said, “This rule is ridiculous.”
But, overall, 60% of those responding voted to implement the “let serve”
rule by checking the option labeled “If they will be using it at the national
tournament, we should use it here.” (Perhaps it would be more accurate
to call the rule the “play all serves” rule rather than let serve.) About
20% voted to delay implementation as long as possible, and 20% created
their own answer. Many of the created answers were opposed to implementing
the rule…EVER! The responses to the question about implementing the libero
rule (plus eight substitutions) were a little different and contained a
lot fewer written responses. Seventy percent (70%) voted to implement the
libero rule immediately, 20% preferred delaying it, and only 10% had a
variety of written responses.
In the past, members of the Board of Directors
have been elected by the individuals who attend the annual membership meeting.
The survey responses indicated a strong interest in having an option for
regular mail or email voting. About 25% voted to keep the current process
and 75% voted for a regular mail and/or email process. This response will
provide valuable information to the Board of Directors as they complete
the revision of the Region’s Bylaws.
The responses were also in general agreement
about another topic. Over 70% of the folks responding preferred to have
paid referees throughout tournaments rather than having paid referees only
for playoffs.
There was no consensus on two questions: (1)
awards at tournaments, and (2) communications.
The question about awards at tournaments generated
very diverse results. 30% voted for “no awards, save the money,” 40% voted
for first place awards only, and almost 30% wrote in other suggestions
including awards for first and second and awards for the first three finishers.
There were quite a few comments that indicated that some players (e.g.
the juniors) enjoy getting awards a lot more than others.
T-Shirts are the award of choice (40%), with
individual medals second choice (30%). Many other options were mentioned
including trophies, gift certificates, discounts at future tournaments,
ribbons (an inexpensive option), cash, and clothing of all types. A number
of the written comments suggested that each Tournament Director should
make the decision based on his or her knowledge of the interests of the
competing teams. That appears to be the most viable option until someone
invents a more universally attractive award.
The responses to the communication question
were very diverse. About 1/3 of the folks responding want to continue to
get hard copy Digs, about 1/3 indicated that the website is enough (and
quite a few complemented the webmaster for his outstanding work), and about
1/3 indicated they would like to receive an email message when there
is something new and important on the website. The Board of Directors is
dedicated to getting information to everyone as quickly as possible given
a limited budget. For the next few years, a variety of methods will be
needed. Fortunately, the emerging communication methods (email and webpages)
require less outlay of cash, although they require a major time commitment
by talented volunteers.
You may recall that the questionnaire asked
you to think back over the previous season and indicate what should be
kept the same and what should be changed. Those questions generated
exactly what we were looking for… LOTS OF COMMENTS. I have only had time
to get through about 1/2 of these written comments, and I already have
23 pages full (5 pages of “keep the same” and 18 pages of “change next
year”).
Many of the “change next year” comments fell
into 4 categories: Length of Tournaments, Tournament Location and
Facilities, Rules, and Referees and Scorekeepers. As you might guess, no
one asked for longer tournaments, and players, parents, and referees all
suggested ways to shorten tournaments including 4 team pools, “half day
tournaments” with 3 team pools, eliminating playoffs for pool ties, and
less formal (no points for Regionals) spread throughout the season. There
are many issues to consider such as the availability of officials, cost
of facilities, and travel time. The suggestion has been made that tournament
directors should try some of these alternative formats during the “fellowship
season” to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each.
The comments on tournament location and facilities
were quite diverse but did include suggestions for improving safety and
cleanliness. There were also a number of requests for more tournaments
in Virginia.
Many of the comments on rules were triggered
by this year’s proposed changes. Other comments addressed using the same
balls at all tournaments (the balls used at the Nationals), being more
relaxed about uniforms, and returning to pre 1998-99 serve receive rules.
Several people suggested that all players should be required to attend
brief rules review or training sessions at the beginning of the season.
Many of the comments about referees and scorekeepers
had to do with training opportunities. Some who responded wanted more opportunities,
some thought that alternative ways for training scorekeepers (other than
clinics) should be considered, and a few folks thought that there should
be training for down refs and linespersons. The appropriate Committees
and Chairs are actively considering all of these options as they plan the
2000-01 season.
I sent four email messages to Board members
and Staff as the responses came in, and the survey responses were mentioned
several times as the Board worked through the agenda items. Board and Staff
members are already putting your input to use as they make decisions and
work to improve activities.
Thanks again for your great response and the
very creative suggestions. I plan to ask for your input again in the not
too distant future (but not until I’ve managed to work through all the
comments still on my desk and in my computer).
— Jake Barkdoll
|
|
