2005 Adult Survey Results

I would like to thank the people who took the time to respond to our survey this year. We appreciate your comments and suggestions and hope that you see that many of your concerns and suggestions have been addressed and implemented for this season and that we are working on some of the other issues (that take a little longer to solve) for next season.

The questions mainly were Yes/No, rank (with 1 being your first choice) or your input. Where it was ranking the lowest number (average ranking) is the first choice.

Demographics:

We had 13 team reps respond, with responses primarily from the men's divisions (4 women - Gold 0, Silver 4, Bronze 0 and 9 men - Gold 2, silver 5, Bronze 2). They came from Burlington, Cary (2), Durham (2), Greensboro (3), Kernersville, Raleigh (2), Taylorsville and Tennessee. They have been playing in the Carolina Region an average of 10 years (1, 2, 3 (2), 5, 7 (2), 8, 15 (3), 20, 30).

Tournament Location and Dates:

The preference is to hold all the divisions on Saturday in the same location even if not in the same location (1.15). Second choice was to hold all the divisions on Saturday even if they are in different locations (1.54). Region response: Looking for enough courts to hold all divisions on Saturday.
If the tournament has to be split over two days, the preference was to split the days by division (women's & men's gold on the same day, etc.) (1.69). The second choice was to play as many teams as possible on Saturday, the rest on Sunday, rotating teams who play on Saturday (1.84). Splitting by women and men (2.38) and splitting evenly between Saturday and Sunday (2.69) were the other responses. Region response: We will attempt to split along division if possible.

Points System and Team Movement:

The next question dealt with the new (last year) points system to determine which helped us determine split teams into divisions. Also during the season the dividing line of which teams were in a division was moved to allow a check of the top teams in the lower division against the teams in the upper division. The preference was to stay with the current system (1.08). Automatic movement (two teams that play in the finals move up and the two lowest average points move down) was the second choice (1.77). The next was going back to the previous system (division reps determine) (2.38). Region response: stay with current system but we are adjusting the system so that teams who do not play a weekend do not lose points.

Player Movement:

The next group of questions dealt with player movement. Last season the region created the unaffiliated player membership category. This allowed players who did not have a team or could not commit to a team to register and be "picked up" by a team that needed a player for that tournament.

A nearly unanimous response (12 for 1 against) to continue to allow players who want to play but do not have a team or are not able to commit to playing several tournaments to register as unaffiliated. Teams would be able to pick up players off this list when they do not have enough to play. Region response: approved for use again this season.
The preference (12 for 1 against) to continue to allow teams who pick up a player off the list to be eligible to advance to the playoffs. Region response: approved for use again this season.
Last season, an unaffiliated player was automatically placed on the roster of the third team that they played with. The preference (11 for 2 against) was to allow the player (with acceptance from the team) to choose which team (of the three that they have played with) they want to join. Region response: Player from Unaffiliated list will be allowed to choose the team they will joing (with team rep approval).
The preference (10 for 2 against) was to keep the current policy on player movement within a club (limit of two moves up and one move down). Region response: approved for use again this season.
In the past, junior players have played with adult teams (using the club player movement). The preference was to continue to allow this under the club player movement rules (6). Limiting moves to adult teams (4) and not allowing (3) were the other options. Region response: approved for use again this season.
Region response: NEW - This season the adults will be one large club. Teams will be able to borrow players from any other adult team under the existing club movement policy. NEW - Unaffiliated players may sign up to play in a tournament on an unaffiliated team. The region will make t-shirt uniforms for these teams to use and will not treat shorts as part of the uniform. We will also be flexible regarding the officiating requirements for that team.

Officiating:

Last year you asked for more officiating clinics to make it easier to get certified. The region held 86 clinics. The region sponsored 2 re-cert junior clinics, 2 full junior clinics, 5 adult re-cert clinics and 3 adult full clinics. The rest were sponsored by clubs (junior and/or adult). At the end of February we only had 6 adult teams (no junior teams) that were not complete (compared to 22 adult teams last season). We also created the team official's category (where you did not have to correct your test to 100 if you scored a 70 or higher) in an effort to make the certification process easier.

The respondents felt that there were enough opportunities to get certified this year (11 yes 2 no). Region response: we will continue to offer numerous clinics.
The preference was for the region to continue the team official's certification process (12 yes 1 no). Region response: we will continue to offer the team official's certification.
The on-court rating (good for two years) has been encouraged but has not been part of the certification process (in regard to keeping a team from being eligible to play provided they have been to a clinic and passed the test(s). There was no clear preference (6 for 7 against) to make the on-court rating part of the certification process. Region response: we will continue as we have in the past.
Last season we created the online system to check your officiating status. It was nearly unanimous (12 yes) that we continue this system. Region response: we will continue using the system.

Member Development

Should the region allow junior players from the previous year who are now adults to use the new member discount (currently they do not get the discount)? (11 yes 2 no). Region response: we will allow them to use the new member discount.
Should the region allow someone who was not a member last year to use the new member discount (currently they do not get the discount)? (6 yes 7 no). Region response: we will continue using the current policy.
Should the region allow someone who has moved in from another region to use the new member discount (currently they do not get the discount)? (9 yes 4 no). Region response: we will allow them to use the new member discount.
Should the region allow full-time college students (as defined by their institution) to use the collegiate rate (currently only varsity players who played last year and whose eligibility is used up are eligible for the collegiate rate)? (13 yes) Region response: not addressed - we will look at adding this category in the future
What are the issues that are deterrents to people playing USAV? Issues identified were: length of tournaments, location of tournaments, cost, difficult for new players to join a team. Region response: we are examining different tournament formats that take about ½ a day; we are working with facilities to be able to move the adult tournaments around some.

Age group, Coed, and Outdoor play:

There was a minimal response about coed and age group play. Region response: created an online database where people who are interested in coed and/or age group play can register. The region will attempt to help these people get together to play.
Are there things that the region could do to support or enhance the outdoor play in the region? Responses were: hold 4 on 4 tournament, listing of tournaments on region web site has been a big help. Region response: for next summer, work with tournament organizers to see if we can get a large tournament with sponsors, set up some player clinics early in the season next spring.

Member Service and Support:

. Last season we added online registration and online payment capability.

The majority of the people use the web site (12 yes).
The web site was rated Good to Excellent in overall usefulness, intuitiveness and ease of use.
The schedules, pool postings, results and officials sections were the most frequently used sections of the web site.
Suggestions to improve the web site included: spice it up with graphics, add "button style" links, more pictures, online tournament entry, and links to other websites that help players find places to play in their area.
The regular e-mail updates were received by the majority (9 yes 3 no).

Region response: We have purchased new web development software and staff is getting training on using it. A major goal over next several months is to update the look and user-friendliness of the website. Our goal is that everyone will be able to easily find all the information they are looking for. Our new "look" may appear in stages - hopefully, by next season all major sections of the site will be incorporated. Please continue giving us your feedback on what you would like to see on the site!