I think money IS one of the major factors in this split, but not in the way that some people have been claiming. The claims that JVDA wants access to this supposed pot of gold (NQs) is NOT the issue, in my opinion. Rather, it's the amount that these teams spend each subsequent year to attempt to qualify in the open field. I don't think it's that they want more money coming in from a source they have no control over (NQs); it's that they want to decrease the amount that is going out of their parents' pockets. The other main area is directly related, and I would say that it is the qualifying process for the open division.

Like it or not, a club's reputation is usually built on two things, especially recently (10-15 years). The first is its coaching staff from top to bottom, but particularly at the top. The second is how many teams your club has sent to JOs. I might go even further in saying that it is how many teams your club sent in open, but that might be stretching it a bit too much. That does NOT mean that clubs that don't send teams to JOs (open or club) don't have a good reputation. However, if one were to take a poll that asked people to name clubs that were viewed as successful clubs, I would guess that the majority of the clubs mentioned would be teams that have competed and been successful at JOs, particularly in the open division. SPRI, KIVA, Northern Lights, Mizuno Long Beach, (Texas teams forgive me, I'm not too familiar with all the clubs to single one out, but you've been successful also), Epic, Front Range, etc... There are so many more to list, but you get my point.

However, JVDA's attempt to address this issue of cost doesn't resonate with the majority of the volleyball community because of the small scope of families and teams that would be affected in the open field. Not even 1% (open qualified teams only) of the USAV estimated # of participants would be affected. That number might approach 5% if you take into account ALL the open teams that participated in all the NQs. I believe that's why so many people either don't care or are strongly against the JVDA. There is an overwhelming majority of players, teams, clubs, and parents that this open field debate doesn't touch. Like I said earlier, "Their goal is admirable; their target group is too small to matter for most people." Competing in open is a CHOICE that teams have made, so that also bothers people as well. (rhetorical) They've chosen to do this, so why are they complaining about it?

I like the idea of traveling less to keep costs down, but still having the opportunity to qualify for open in a manner other than JUST the qualifiers. I don't profess to know how to do it or if it can even be done, but the IDEA of it is nice. I do NOT like eliminating the NQs, as I believe they benefit way too many people to just toss them aside.

If the open field MUST be filled through NQs, then I think the field needs to expand in order to offer more bids at NQs. If you expand to 48, you could conceivably offer 4/5 for each of the NQs and still have 12/3 at large teams. I believe that if the field at JOs is expanded and the bids are increased at each NQ, you'll see less teams going to 2-3 qualifiers and more doing 1-2. That will bring the cost down, meaning the JVDA folks will be happier, making them less upset with the system. However, if they vow to fight until an open bid can come from a place other than by attending a NQ, I believe the standoff will continue.

As to their other objectives, I think most of them ARE secondary, but I do believe that representation on the Board has some merit. Of the 40 + members, most have not been on the business side of running a club in many years. They may be in touch with volleyball, but I believe they're out of touch with the rising costs in junior volleyball. The only biographies I can find show that these members haven't been active with a club since the 80s and early 90s. Why 6 player reps and 1 more player as an at-large member? I know the national teams are important, but the majority of USAV's membership is in its junior ranks. I don't know what representation would gain given the size of the board, but it's a shame that junior players, their parents, coaches, and clubs that make up the largest chunk of membership don't have anyone to speak up for their issues.

Shortening the season has value, but the only REAL way to make progress on this is to shorten it on the front end instead of the back end, as most everyone that has posted here agrees.