from my reading this thread, it sounds like the crux of the usav/jdva divide is usav's desire to 1) hold the open field @ JO's to 28 teams; 2) add 4 more qualifiers; and 3) limit the number of bids awarded at qualifiers to 2 rather than 3. i know there are other issues at play here (length of season; hosting of qualifiers; perception that usav is not listening to its customers, etc.), but is this really the heart of the matter?

if so, it seems to me that the jdva group has a legitimate beef, in that top clubs will feel compelled to maximize their chances for an open bid by playing in as many qualifiers as possible, thereby driving the price of club volleyball up even further. clubs desirous of an open bid will "game" the system by traveling to the qualifier(s) that they feel give them the best chance of success. why else would ova play in the seattle qualifier, as they did last year? heck, my club gave serious consideration to entering NEQ this year rather than big south, and we are from atlanta. yes, one can say that clubs are incurring such extra expense voluntarily, but usav has given them an incentive to do so. sort of like telling a young lawyer at a big law firm that the number of hours they bill will have a very significant impact on whether and when they are made a partner and then, after they resign in a few years, maintaining incredulously, "no one forced them to work 80 hours/week."

i suspect that there's more at play here, but if the qualifier system is really the primary source of friction between jvda and usav, it seems like a simple solution to either 1) maintain status quo; or 2) increase the number of qualifiers to 12, but continue to award 3 or maybe even 4 open bids at each qualifier. this, of course, would necessitate an expansion of the open field to 36 teams minimum, and at that point, perhaps 48 is the right number. and adding 4 qualifiers would likely enable teams to drive rather than fly to some.

one of the posters to this thread mentioned that part of the allure of open is its exclusivity, a concept with which i agree. however, it is also important to recognize that participation in usav volleyball has increased 40% since 2004, yet the open field has not been expanded. increasing 28 teams by 40% yields 39 teams. we're not that far apart. if the cost of jdva/usav reconciliation is a little exclusivity in the open division, my vote is to reconcile the two groups and expand the open field so that it is reflective of the national and american divisions.

This seems like such a simple and obvious compromise that my instinct is telling me that there must be other significant issues dividing the two camps. Or has this been proposed, with usav responding, "my way or the highway"? Comments?