Mixed Nationals Coverage Day 1
Erik.S...@gmail.com
winter...@hotmail.com
write up after day one? COED!?!??!
aside from the division i'm on a roster for but not actually there
playing in, masters, it's the crappiest division out there. and yes,
i'm talking to you my brass monkey peeps - you should still be playing
open and women's!
i can't believe i'm saying something this insane, but i miss tony
leonardo.
corey
On Oct 26, 8:36 pm, Erik.Sebe...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.ihuck.com/tiki-index.php?page=2006MixedNationalsCoverage
>
> --Erik
ultimate7
has to offer. It's a joke, you want to know why Ultimate will never be
taken seriously as a sport, that's near the top.
I love to play Co-Ed in leagues with my friends, but it the UPA should
not be keeping it on that stage, move it back to the summer, send it to
a different location, whatever.
You send out their 32 teams that bust their ass year round to be fit
and ready to play ultimate, and then put it on the same stage as a
B/fun divsion. At least for masters they keep the finals out of
Saturday.
HD
blahblahblah...sourgrapes...blahblahblah... sameoldshit
get over it and play whatever division you want. and let others do the
same.
ultimate7
Fall Series and I have many friends play Coed Nationals right now that
I'm following and rooting for. I just feel strongly that it doesn't
deserve the same stage as Open and Women.
bab...@gmail.com
league. A "B" league, as you call it. To hell with fun. Ya know, I
think this could be the beginning of a new life for ultimate. If
you're not on one of the top 32 teams in the nation then get back on
the couch.
Good idea. Way to advance ultimate.
danfri...@yahoo.com
ultimate7 wrote:
> I don't have anything against those playing Coed, I've played it in the
> Fall Series and I have many friends play Coed Nationals right now that
> I'm following and rooting for. I just feel strongly that it doesn't
> deserve the same stage as Open and Women.
Mixed is the same as Open, but with stricter gender requirements.
We should all be so lucky as to have a friend like you.
bste...@gmail.com
working together as a team, succeeding or failing AS A TEAM. mixed is
still a team sport, and one of the more unique aspects to ultimate.
masters, not so much, but mixed... it really opens up another avenue
for athletes to play at a high level. it sounds like you played coed
and failed to meet any ladies (or men) who would give you the time of
day. or maybe your team didn't know how to party together. but
honestly, mixed ultimate provides such a different (usually more
positive) vibe than single-gender it's hard to believe there's haters
out there like you...
ultimate7
good, there is no question it's fun, but it's not at the same level of
competitiveness because they are outweighed by the social gathering
aspects.
Adam Tarr
> I don't have anything against those playing Coed, I've played it in the
> Fall Series and I have many friends play Coed Nationals right now that
> I'm following and rooting for. I just feel strongly that it doesn't
> deserve the same stage as Open and Women.
I'll put this as simply as possible: you haven't made a good argument
that there is a problem that would be solved by having the mixed
championship at a different venue than Sarasota, simultaneous with
open's and women's.
The idea that the presence of mixed at the same tournament somehow
cheapens those championships is only in your head, until proven
otherwise.
If you want to make a logistics argument, you need to demonstrate that
there's a real alternate venue that we're missing out on due to the
need to have 30 fields. And you need to argue that this alternate
location/time is so attractive that it justifies the increased
adminstrative overhead associated with having separate championships.
In addition to the logistics argument I made above, the other good
argument for the status quo is that the size of nationals and the
presence of many divisions is one of the things people like about the
event.
ultimate7
it's better for many players because there are more people to visit
with. I guess my main issue comes down to this, say OLN finally is
inquring to video some of the event to show as a half hour special, and
they want to know the finals schedule, Mens is at 9:00 and women's is
at 3:00 and oh by the way Coed is in between, to me it loses
credibility. Maybe it doesn't maybe I'm wrong, maybe they would be
interested in Mixed as something different that other sports don't
offer.
I fully understand that the plans aren't going to be changed in the
near future because of this, but it's just a problem that I think
exists due to Coed in addition to other problems such as watering down
the level of all divisions.
Adam Tarr
> There's no question that it's better as is logistically and certainly
> it's better for many players because there are more people to visit
> with. I guess my main issue comes down to this, say OLN finally is
> inquring to video some of the event to show as a half hour special, and
> they want to know the finals schedule, Mens is at 9:00 and women's is
> at 3:00 and oh by the way Coed is in between, to me it loses
> credibility.
I almost brought this up. This is the one istance where there is a
reasonable argument from your end. You could argue that the mixed
division does not deserve a feature spot on finals Sunday. This is not
to say they shouldn't play finals on Sunday; they have to given the
tournament format. But you could argue that Open/Women's should
schedule their finals when they want, and then Mixed can either go in a
time slot before or after, or can be on another field at the same time.
Then again, if the argument is that mixed doesn't deserve the
attention, I could turn around and point out that the open division has
by far the most spectators at every tournament I've ever seen, and if
it's a question of pecking order for the feature spot, open should get
the "prime" spot every year.
I wouldn't make either of these arguments, but if you want to make one
and not the other, you should be clear why.
> Maybe it doesn't maybe I'm wrong, maybe they would be
> interested in Mixed as something different that other sports don't
> offer.
Some networks would, for sure. Others would only care about open, and
some would probably care about O/W and not mixed. Heck, some might
care about masters, too. For now, let's not worry about what some
hypothetical network might like, and let's worry about what serves the
players the best.
Seamus
> I love to play Co-Ed in leagues with my friends, but it the UPA should
> not be keeping it on that stage, move it back to the summer, send it to
> a different location, whatever.
UPA this, UPA that.
You are the UPA.
Stop bitching... make it happen.
jenny
at a lower level then open or women's. The top mixed teams are damn
good though. The mixed finals is often a better game than either open
or women's (was anyone actually watching the riot/backhoe stomping last
year?), and there's no reason mixed shouldn't be given as big a stage
to play finals as the other divisions.
As for coed watering down the other divisions...that's just bullshit.
Maybe it's the open and women's divisions who are watering down mixed.
:)
Jenny
ultimate7
composed of very good players, but for the most part the aren't putting
in near the effort of the top open and womens teams, maybe that will
change over time, but for the time being from my experience it tends to
be for the players that don't have the time to commit to play at a high
level of the other divisons.
Elizabeth D Murray
1162082704.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "ultimate7"
<ulti...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There's no question that the top Coed teams are very good teams
> composed of very good players, but for the most part the aren't putting
> in near the effort of the top open and womens teams,
That simply isn't true.
ckerr4
truth...
As an outsider looking in at club ultimate, I think it's clear that the
raise of mixed ultimate has had some positive, and some not so
positive, results on club ultimate as a whole.
On the plus side I think mixed has gotten more players involved with
the UPA Series and that has gotten more players to be become members of
the UPA. Take away the fact that you have to be a UPA member to play in
the Series and I believe UPA membership plummets -- no matter how
glossy the magazine. So mixed has generated revenue for the UPA and
that's a good thing.
The downside is that I think it's clearly decreased the density of
teams in the other two divisions. Combine the availability of mixed
teams with the fact that there are no club roster limits and loose
geographical restrictions on who can be on a club team, and you have a
few mega teams in each region (in my region Ring of Fire has 26 players
on its roster -- 26!) that have virtually no completion until the semis
of regionals. In most regions (except the NW?) you've got 2 or 3 strong
mega teams and then the level of play falls off a cliff, resulting in
the same small pool of teams making Nationals year after year.
Again, using North Carolina as an example, there are two men's and
women's teams that have vacuumed up all the players across the state.
Compare this with college ultimate where there are at least 10
competitive men's teams in North Carolina that can drive a couple of
hours and beat up on each other....
Clearly, if given the choice, players will elect to be the 26th player
on a Club team that has a chance to win a National title over being #1
on a team with no chance.
For most of the men's and women's teams that qualifed for Nationals the
series was a complete walk until the semis (if then) of regionals and
that's not good for the sport.
Aside from the sparseness of competitive teams in open and women's, the
second downside of having a mixed division is that with 60 (16+16+16+12
masters) teams at Nationals and teams expecting to play 5-7 games for
the tournament, we don't have many options for where to hold our
Championship. The college tournament with just 32 teams can be held in
lots of different venues, but the club tournament is in Sarasota year
after year. Being able to move the Championship to different cities
would obviously help promote the sport.
Although I've seen lots of ideas discussed about how to solve the mixed
"problem" (move it to the summer, move it to the spring, different
locations from men's and women's, etc.) here's one idea I've never
seen suggested: why not hold the men's/women's championships and
mixed/masters championships every other year? In 2008 there'd be an
open and women's championship, in 2009 mixed and master champions, 2010
open and women's, etc. etc.
There would still be men's and women's tournaments outside of the
series in odd years (and mixed tournaments in even years) and some of
these tournaments would undoubtedly become strong enough to crown an
informal champion, but to be the UPA Open Champion you'd have to wait
for an even year.
Lots of sporting events are held every 2 or 4 years (the Olympics,
World Cup, World Baseball Championship, Ryder Cup, etc.), we don't have
to crown a UPA Champion every year.
In conjunction with alternating championships I'd add two obvious rule
changes that would help increase the density of teams: (1) cap rosters
(for all divisions) at 18 players, (2) set a guideline that at least 16
of your team's players must live within 75(?) miles of the city their
team is representing. If you wanted to play for Ring (Raleigh), you
could live in Durham, but if you lived in Wilmington, Greensboro,
Charlotte, Winston Salem, Asheville, etc. and you aren't one of the two
exempt players, you'd be out of luck. If you want to play disc that
year in the club series, you'd have to start a new team.
Under these rules you'd have a smaller National tournament (32 teams --
Masters could be expanded to 16 teams) that could be held in lots of
different locations and you'd almost certainly double or triple the
number of teams in each division.
And there'd be one other positive result: successful teams would more
likely be built on teamwork (and frequent practices) and less likely on
gathering up all of a region's all-stars.
Charles
ps: and to make this proposal "revenue neutral" for the UPA, dues could
be doubled with membership lasting 24 months...
Zorro
ultimate7 wrote:
> There's no question that the top Coed teams are very good teams
> composed of very good players, but for the most part the aren't putting
> in near the effort of the top open and womens teams, maybe that will
> change over time, but for the time being from my experience it tends to
> be for the players that don't have the time to commit to play at a high
> level of the other divisons.
I bet the USA Worlds team would be really happy to hear that.
pizzaslot
teams...so your point is?
danfri...@yahoo.com
ckerr4 wrote:
> (2) set a guideline that at least 16
> of your team's players must live within 75(?) miles of the city their
> team is representing.
Seems like a mileage rule would affect western teams significantly more
than eastern teams.
josh
introducing such radical changes at once would be ill advised. A
phased/gradual implementation would be cool.
My vote would be roster limits (probably the simplest & least radical)
to start with, maybe even limiting to a fairly high number (24?) &
whittling down slowly to some ideal (18?).
Then perhaps the geographical/residence restriction (all players live
within a certain radius of one another - not that this won't be
incredibly difficult to enforce at the club level, possibly even being
an "honor system" restriction).
But the most exciting (to me) & radical change is definitely going
every other year for Mixed & Masters vs Open & Women. That would allow
players to compete in both divisions (since each obviously has its
unique strengths & weaknesses) as well as remove any speculation as to
one division diluting the talent of the other. We'd have more exciting
teams in all divisions (in theory)!! How cool would that be? Oh, and
yeah, the option to actually play in different venues would be pretty
cool too.
Sincerely,
A UPA member & a Natties fan
bab...@gmail.com
> to start with, maybe even limiting to a fairly high number (24?) &
> whittling down slowly to some ideal (18?).
Roster limits, while most likely something many larger teams would
frown upon if only for camaraderie, would be a good move towards
attempting to even out the teams. I'm not saying that each team should
have an equal chance of winning their section/region or Natties, but
this would force the bench players to form other teams and even out the
talent.
> Then perhaps the geographical/residence restriction (all players live
> within a certain radius of one another - not that this won't be
> incredibly difficult to enforce at the club level, possibly even being
> an "honor system" restriction).
Geographical restriction is unneccessary if roster limits are imposed.
1) People would be less likely to relocate or attempt to be on a team
outside their geographical area knowing that an addition of that player
would force an already existing team member off the squad, and 2) teams
would potentially sprout up in more areas of the region.
> But the most exciting (to me) & radical change is definitely going
> every other year for Mixed & Masters vs Open & Women. That would allow
> players to compete in both divisions (since each obviously has its
> unique strengths & weaknesses) as well as remove any speculation as to
> one division diluting the talent of the other. We'd have more exciting
> teams in all divisions (in theory)!! How cool would that be? Oh, and
> yeah, the option to actually play in different venues would be pretty
> cool too.
Some reasons why this would seriously deteriorate the sport:
1) If the same people are playing open/women AND mixed/masters, then
you're eliminating the people playing for nationals in half. Why would
anyone even try to get to nationals? Metal and Brute Squad team up
against DoG and Godiva, and where do Slow White, PR and Tandem go?
2) Even if you force people to only play in one division what do people
do for the year off? The reason for so many tournaments is to get
practice against teams that you'll be potentially squaring off with
come this October, not a year and a half away. Tournaments and
activity would stumble, and this would happen for all divisions
3) If what people say about hype for the different divisions is true,
then we're screwing over the Mixed and Masters divisions. The other
divisions aren't going to fly somewhere and watch them duke it out.
Who's going to care? And don't put out the usual inferiority
arguments. Removing those two divisions is like the WNBA being a
summer league and the NBA playing in the winter. Not that I like to
watch the WNBA (shhh) but it's not as though trying to highlight it
during a different time is beneficial to the league.
Did I just compare ultimate to the WNBA? Bill Simmons would have a
fit.
Brian
josh
> Geographical restriction is unneccessary if roster limits are imposed.
> 1) People would be less likely to relocate or attempt to be on a team
> outside their geographical area knowing that an addition of that player
> would force an already existing team member off the squad, and 2) teams
> would potentially sprout up in more areas of the region.
Hmm... that actually makes sense. While it would be nice for there to
be a Sacramento & a San Francisco team, I don't think that it can
really be forced that way. Roster limits should achieve the real goal
of increasing numbers of teams. I agree.
> Some reasons why this would seriously deteriorate the sport:
> 1) If the same people are playing open/women AND mixed/masters, then
> you're eliminating the people playing for nationals in half. Why would
> anyone even try to get to nationals? Metal and Brute Squad team up
> against DoG and Godiva, and where do Slow White, PR and Tandem go?
Well, I agree. It would indeed reduce the number of people overall that
can make natties (in any division) but that's actually the positive
aspect, in my estimation. It raises the bar for who the best really are
at that level. It means a higher level of games. It becomes less about
getting a lot of people together to party & socialize & more about the
best players in the world playing against the best. I'm not saying
it's where the sport is. I think it's a completely HUGE change, but
very interesting growth idea.
> 2) Even if you force people to only play in one division what do people
> do for the year off? The reason for so many tournaments is to get
> practice against teams that you'll be potentially squaring off with
> come this October, not a year and a half away. Tournaments and
> activity would stumble, and this would happen for all divisions
Yeah, I don't think trying to force people to only play in one division
& sit out every other year makes sense. The players decide that for
themselves. And yeah, I'm guessing the majority play both years in the
different divisions. That sounds exciting to me. It would probably
affect the nature of the summer options a bit - they'd probably change
every other year also. But I don't see why their quality wouldn't
increase in proportion.
> 3) If what people say about hype for the different divisions is true,
> then we're screwing over the Mixed and Masters divisions. The other
> divisions aren't going to fly somewhere and watch them duke it out.
> Who's going to care? And don't put out the usual inferiority
> arguments. Removing those two divisions is like the WNBA being a
> summer league and the NBA playing in the winter. Not that I like to
> watch the WNBA (shhh) but it's not as though trying to highlight it
> during a different time is beneficial to the league.
Yeah, I guess you're right. We certainly wouldn't be able to have our
cake & eat it too. We'd have to accept both the positive (more venue
options) that come with less teams competing AND the negative
consequences (fewer attendees to cheer/socialize & attract sponsors to
the physical venue). I guess it's a matter of priority.
The only solution I can really see to the major negatives cited (total
number of players attending & pool of players qualifying year-over-year
for Natties) is to double the numbers of teams in each division. Maybe
add a Women Masters division (not sure if the numbers are ready to
support that or not) of 16 to complement the Open Masters. Then we'd
be losing the increased venue options. I personally think it'd be
interesting to find some less windy (on average) venues for Natties.
Wind seems to be a major un-equalizer in Sarasota. Teams that can stay
composed in the wind (by competing & practicing throughout the year in
windy sections/regions) are always going to have the upper hand over
the rest. So having the championships in a windy venue every year
means less parity than otherwise. I just think it'd be nice to mix it
up some years, for the fans' sake. ;-)
Like I said, I'm approaching this from the perspective of increasing
the level of play at the top, attracting fan support & increasing
general popular interest in the sport. If I'm one of those trying to
get to the top myself, I'm admittedly making it twice as hard to do so.
I'm not sure that's bad for the sport though. Making it mean more to
get there seems like a good thing to me.
mapler...@yahoo.com
do for the year off? "
go to Worlds in ummmm Australia?
Parinella
maplerowf...@yahoo.com wrote:
> "Even if you force people to only play in one division what do people
> do for the year off? "
>
>
> go to Worlds in ummmm Australia?
They would play in a championship series, possibly elite only,
organized by some other organization.
ckerr4
> > do for the year off? "
>
> > go to Worlds in ummmm Australia?
> They would play in a championship series, possibly elite only,
> organized by some other organization.
My assumption would be that if the UPA alternated the mixed/masters and
open/women series each year is that each summer there would still be a
series of mixed tournaments and men's and women's tournaments, but that
starting in August, when serious practices began, players would focus
on that year's crowns.
I'd guess that in mixed years pretty much 100% of the players on the
current open and women's teams would end up playing on a mixed or
master's team - although with roster and geographical limits these
teams would look much different than the 2006 versions. On year's where
an open and women's team would be crowned I'd guess 50% of the mixed
players would play in the series with the rest focusing on summer
tournaments.
To me the biggest problem we currently have is the lack of density of
teams in a given area. Having 5 competitive (if overall weaker) teams
where currently there is one seems much healthier for the sport than a
handful of regional heavy weight teams with huge rosters.
But maybe the NW already has this density of teams and the rest of the
country will eventually catch up? Maybe as college teams continue to
improve they'll begin to be competitive in watered down open and
women's divisions and UPA fall sectional and regional tournaments will
eventually become a college tuneup season? Who knows?
Charles
ps: lots of amateur and semi-pro sports (US rugby is a good example)
have rosters with strict geographical restrictions. That's no kind of
stopper.
Parinella
ckerr4 wrote:
> > > "Even if you force people to only play in one division what do people
> > > do for the year off? "
> >
> > > go to Worlds in ummmm Australia?
>
> > They would play in a championship series, possibly elite only,
> > organized by some other organization.
>
> My assumption would be that if the UPA alternated the mixed/masters and
> open/women series each year is that each summer there would still be a
> series of mixed tournaments and men's and women's tournaments, but that
> starting in August, when serious practices began, players would focus
> on that year's crowns.
>
> I'd guess that in mixed years pretty much 100% of the players on the
> current open and women's teams would end up playing on a mixed or
> master's team -
Charles, I think you completely misunderstand the elite open player.
While he would play in a mixed or masters series if that was all that
was available, he would so strongly prefer to play open that he would
forgo the UPA if the NUA or MUL or whatever offered anything remotely
comparable. Don't let the NUA's failures kid you into thinking that
the UPA owns all the cards.
I think the UPA would risk catastrophe if it implemented this. I'll
venture that 95% of the Open and Women's players at Nationals this year
would gladly skip a UPA Mixed Series to play in a decently-organized
Men's or Women's series run by someone else. (0-1% would skip a UPA
Open or Women's Series to do so.) I can't speak as to how the
non-Nationals-aspiring players would react, but the Nats players would
actually prefer to skip Sectionals.
This could lead to a structure in Open/Women's like American football.
There would be the pros (run by someone else, as the UPA Open/Women's
would devolve to a lower level than Mixed), there would be a small set
of club teams for post-college players who want to play in the pros but
aren't good enough, colleges would be the primary feeder to the pros,
and everyone else would play Mixed if they wanted to play in a series.
josh
> I think the UPA would risk catastrophe if it implemented this. I'll
> venture that 95% of the Open and Women's players at Nationals this year
> would gladly skip a UPA Mixed Series to play in a decently-organized
> Men's or Women's series run by someone else. (0-1% would skip a UPA
> Open or Women's Series to do so.) I can't speak as to how the
> non-Nationals-aspiring players would react, but the Nats players would
> actually prefer to skip Sectionals.
So you define "catastrophe" for the UPA as the most competitive version
of the sport no longer being owned but instead an independent
organization (possibly for-profit **gasp**) being that entity. But
you're not necessarily arguing that would be a catastrophe for the
sport itself, right? I admit that I failed to consider this angle, but
even in now doing so, it doesn't seem like a clearly awful thing for
the sport.
> This could lead to a structure in Open/Women's like American football.
> There would be the pros (run by someone else, as the UPA Open/Women's
> would devolve to a lower level than Mixed), there would be a small set
> of club teams for post-college players who want to play in the pros but
> aren't good enough, colleges would be the primary feeder to the pros,
> and everyone else would play Mixed if they wanted to play in a series.
So you're saying it might lead to a more fan-friendly &
mainstream-aware situation? Hmm.... That sounds kind of good. Let the
UPA, which is made up of the player masses (ideally), cater to the
playing masses, while the highest level (the few, the elite) are run
primarly by a different set of folks? Devolution sounds bad indeed, but
really you're just saying it would shift control/organization, not that
the entire sport would devolve, right?
I understand that some of the personalities involved in those
independent organizations (which have tried to offer an alternative
version of the sport) might have elicited an anti-UPA reaction. But
does their very nature? Might they not actually evolve to have a
symbiotic relationship with the UPA in order to advance a more
competitive, elite version of the sport we claim to love?
This idea just keeps getting more & more intersting.
Parinella
josh wrote:
> > I think the UPA would risk catastrophe if it implemented this. I'll
> > venture that 95% of the Open and Women's players at Nationals this year
> > would gladly skip a UPA Mixed Series to play in a decently-organized
> > Men's or Women's series run by someone else. (0-1% would skip a UPA
> > Open or Women's Series to do so.) I can't speak as to how the
> > non-Nationals-aspiring players would react, but the Nats players would
> > actually prefer to skip Sectionals.
>
> So you define "catastrophe" for the UPA as the most competitive version
> of the sport no longer being owned but instead an independent
> organization (possibly for-profit **gasp**) being that entity. But
> you're not necessarily arguing that would be a catastrophe for the
> sport itself, right? I admit that I failed to consider this angle, but
> even in now doing so, it doesn't seem like a clearly awful thing for
> the sport.
That's what I said, except I didn't gasp. As long as a competent
organization ran it, it wouldn't be a catastrophe for the sport,
although there would be groups hurt by it and there would be growing
pains. It would also be a catastrophe for the UPA if the Mixed
Division left.
The only way this would happen in the foreseeable future would be if
the UPA willingly got out of the business of running the UPA Series in
each division every year, either through Charles' plan or through a
conscious decision to focus on college (which provides a majority of
the membership dues, I think) and youth, which could conceivably be a
defensible strategic approach. It would also be possible if the UPA
spun off the championship-running.
Most sports governing bodies are not the governing body for every
single level of competition throughout the sport, although few sports
have top competitors routinely entered into competition against
grassroots members either.
The sport probably isn't big enough for it to be a sensible decision
for the UPA to branch off the elites, since that would kill the series,
which as has been pointed out repeatedly is the primary reason most
join the UPA. But it should also be noted that this is becoming less
true over time, as more leagues require UPA membership and the UPA is
surely kicking around ideas as to how to offer more to the regular
grassroots player in order for it to be a good idea for her to join the
UPA.