Volleyball Pros

[Burning_K]

I think each of the professions listed has several specific factors that when looked at would suggest how likely there is to be a major turnover of the current top 1000 or not.
Factors such as how well established the profession is, how much money is already involved in the top 100, the size of the player pool outside of the top 1000 (something that Gehrig already talked about), how long it takes to improve in each profession/transfer skills etc. Is it a skill/power/intelligence profession etc.

For example I might say that 100 metre sprinting is a power oriented sport.
- That it's not a sport you can improve in significantly through skill (like tennis or whatever).
- That the majority of people aren't really interested in becoming sprinters.
- That you can only develop as a sprinter at a young age and there is an obvious 'peak' to your abilities.
- The pool of candidates able to challenge the top 100 who are not yet in the top 1000 is not large.
- Short lifetime for sprinters in the sport.

So the % of runners in the top 100, who are not already in the top 1000 in 3 years time is likely to be small.
I would do the same for the other professions but I don't know enough about them. I don't know anything about sprinting either, I just wanted to suggest that all these individual factors need to be taken into account because some people are mentioning a few and some posters are talking about others. There is though I think a key list of factors that all of the professions should fit into one way or another.

- Existing financial rewards.
- Accessibility to profession.
- Time it takes to improve in profession.
- Skill/Strength/Intelligence based.
- Size of valid player pool outside of top 1000
- lol listaments!

Modify or add to it if you like, so we all may benefit. Or not.

[retleftolc]

Not. He was a beach player for the most part after his B-ball career, if I remember correctly.

Ret

[retleftolc]

If you read my comments earlier, my statements have concerned world wide V-ball. For qualification sake, I am a Cap 3 certified instructor. I think the real problem with this is that the athletes that you would need to come over to the sport are already making that kind of dough or close to it. Why would they change for 2 Mil more a year? Some/Most already make more. They wouldn’t. They second string athletes in the NBA would not be able to compete on a world level in 3 yrs. I would doubt they have the drive to. They already make a few Mil a year, and they know that’s going to be there.

The money is the issue, as far as I can tell.

Take D Wade (young and very athletic):

Currently salary 3.8 mil- free agent next year. Stands to make 12-18 mil a year for the next 5 after that. Why would he drop everything for that? He would be giving up a guaranteed contract of 60-90 mil for a chance at 30.

If we only say US, then we're not including the best of the best. Most of the other example "careers" do. I will concede the US, but think it’s silly to use that standard.

Ret

[retleftolc]

After some thought of the question;

Sprinter would be the much harder than most think. It takes years to develop the legs to a world class level, and that’s usually after years of sprinting before that. I have little experience in this sport (other than I idolized Carl Lewis, until he sang the National Anthem).

I would find it harder to believe that more than 25% would be replaced.

Ret

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

If you read my comments earlier, my statements have concerned world wide V-ball. For qualification sake, I am a Cap 3 certified instructor. I think the real problem with this is that the athletes that you would need to come over to the sport are already making that kind of dough or close to it. Why would they change for 2 Mil more a year? Some/Most already make more. They wouldn’t. They second string athletes in the NBA would not be able to compete on a world level in 3 yrs. I would doubt they have the drive to. They already make a few Mil a year, and they know that’s going to be there.

[/ QUOTE ]

In myoriginal reply i assumed that the 10 mil a year was not important for the actual figure, but as a representation of motivation to attempt an activity seriously. If Vollyball/Basketball were switched inpopularity and income suddenly is more how i thought about how basketball players would fare in vollyball. Obviously Kevin Garnett isn't oging to give up 20mill a year for a shot at 10, but if he decided to be the best vollyball player he could i don't doubt that he (and many other NBA players) would be world class in ~3 years.

[El Diablo]

r,

You did not reply to this post:

"Who cares about club volleyball in Serbia? 7-footers w/ 40in verticals and great body control are recruited from whatever tiny corner of the world they might exist in to play basketball in the NBA. Please show me those 7-footers that decide to pass up millions per year to remain the #1 hitter at Klub Vozhdina Zrenevac Volleyball."

DoctorLoomis explained exactly why you are so wrong. D Wade is a silly example. He's one of the biggest stars in the NBA. Of course guys who can make >$10M/yr are not going to switch to volleyball.

I'll make my question above even simpler for you. Tell me who some international volleyball players are who could be NBA stars.

[retleftolc]

I havent ever seen any of them play basketball. I dont know. I dont pretend to know things I dont have experience in.

Kazakov and Miljkovic would probably be able to eat minutes. The freshman from Arizona (Budinger) is averaging 20pt will probably opt for the league but admits he is a better V-ball player(he will probably be an Olympian if he goes that ave).

Im also saying guys that make less wont switch.

ret

[SEABEAST]

El D,

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think there would be most change for poker. Surely the financial incentive is already there, is there that much difference between an all-but guaranteed $2-5M or whatever the top 100 are earning now per year and a guaranteed 10? Is it the nature of the guarantee more important than the amount? Or are you including natural variance and turnover in the poker world and the fact that the group of people considered to be in the "top 100" already changes quite a lot yearly anyway based on results as a factor, ie. there might not be the highest increase in change compared to the other activities, but there still might be the highest change over the 3 years overall?

[sirtimo]

"If the top 100 American (x) players were all of a sudden offered $10 million dollars a year to ply their trade, and that salary commenced in three years, how many of those who get that salary three years from now are not presently in the top 1000?"

Isn't this question just asking how flat or steep the learning/achivement curve is for that activity? Or which activity has the greatest (or least) "gap" between a <100 rank and a >1000 rank?

[El Diablo]

r: Chase Budinger is the perfect example of the type of guy who would pursue volleyball for the 10m guarantee, but right now if it looks like he has a chance to play in the NBA, of course he'll pursue that. I'm still waiting for those 40-inch vert great body control 7-footers playing volleyball you were going to tell me about.

S: I'm definitely "including natural variance and turnover in the poker world" and also assuming that there's some objective measure in place here that doesn't exist today. The Top 100 EARNERS make $xxx today, but the top 100 PLAYERS don't necessarily make that much money. One can argue that this is semantics and in poker the top earners define the top players, but I think most understand the point I'm making wrt the nature of this guarantee.