Is the UPA really supporting the rise of Ultimate?
Rachael P. Hotchkiss
cannot stay silent in an issue I find unsettling. The Rutgers men and
women's teams are both banned from the series. Why?
Amanda Davis, the captain of Rutgers women's team sent in a complete
roster to the UPA every year, for the past 2 years. Never late, and
always with time to spare. This year was no exception, the roster was
done by mid-February. However, this year our sports club director
requested, required, the two Ultimate teams to turn their roster into
her and SHE would turn it into the UPA. The sports club director is
NOT involved with ultimate at all. As a precaution, Amanda Davis and
Ariel Jackson followed up multiple times to make sure she sent out the
teams' rosters on time. Before heading down south for Spring Break
tournaments, both of them were assured by the sports club director
herself that the roster was being sent out that day, the 17th of
March.
Now, what else could the captains do? They could have not trusted the
Sports Club director, and instead made a second copy and sent it in
themselves, but why? They were assured, twice. And being that she
required both the men's and women's teams to turn it into her, and she
is in control of their field space and team funds, it would not
benefit either team to undermine her.
Sunday, the 23rd of March, the co-captains checked the UPA log and we
were concerned to see our names grayed. Not yet received our roster?
No way. We simply thought it was due to the UPA having to go through
hundreds of rosters. Certainly, after a few days, our names would be
on the list of registered teams. This was not the case. After
spending most of the week emailing/phoning the UPA, the sports club
director, and women's sectionals coordinator, the situation became
clear: the upa received the roster on the 25th of march and postmarked
21st. However, the sports club director insisted that she mailed it
out the 17th. These did not add up, and so both teams decided to
appeal their case to the UPA administration, seeing no just cause for
their suspension from the series when they in fact did nothing
wrong.
It would seem rational for the UPA to be sympathetic, due to the
teams' good track records with getting rosters in on time and the fact
that it was out of their hands once the rosters were given to the
sports club director (almost a full month before they were due at UPA
hq). Arguments can be made that it was our responsibility to check
up on our rosters (which we did, actually, several times to ensure
they were sent out on time. On Thursday, the UPA presented its
decision to the teams: appeal denied. Although they ADMITTED THERE
WAS A GREY AREA in cases like this, they were completely unwilling to
consider that our situation is different than other teams.
I can appreciate that the UPA needs to stand by its rules. But this
system seems flawed. I cannot imagine that the UPA is so busy that
they cannot look at each case individually and make rational
decisions. Furthermore, I believe they owe this to the teams that
support them financially. It is hard enough to gain the support of
one's college or university, but to then lose the support of the body
that is supposed to exist for us is truly sad.
The real shame of this whole process is not that someone somewhere
along the line messed up, but that in the end Ultimate suffers.
Ultimate, a sport the UPA is supposedly supporting its growth, its
rise, its strength, suffers. Rutgers women's team this year worked
extremely hard in building its program. The captains more than
tripled the team in size, a team that was notorious for being small.
The last two years, the Rutgers women have made it through sectionals
to regionals with no more than 9 girls, usually 8. They contributed
to the competition of the northeast tremendously. That's
extraordinary. A school that always had strong players, but not low
numbers, finally has the numbers to back up their strength. That's an
achievement in Ultimate; it's the kind of support and spread of the
sport that the UPA encourages and symbolizes. The sport of Ultimate
was introduced and embraced by 20 new girls.
In addition, Rutgers has Vanessa Low, a player who received the rookie
of the year award only three years ago AND Amanda Davis, a player who
was in contention for the Callahan Award this year. This is Amanda's
last year, her senior year. She has embraced everything that the
sport of Ultimate needs to thrive. She attends every tournament she
can, strives to better her game at every chance. She makes herself
known. She puts her all into everything. She had the roster done a
month in advance. She is an inspiration to play with.
Need more proof? Read someone more credited than me. I am just her
co-captain.
http://www.icultimate.com/profiles/regionalrockstars08.html
This is not to say that just because we have these two extraordinary
players, we should be allowed to play in the series. But I think
there should be more of a chance to allow competition. To allow the
players to play their game. Give us a late fee. We would rather pay
it than watch all the work we put into our game and this sport be
washed away and put on hold until next year. I would feel this
strongly about ANY team in our region or section that added to the
game and was banned from play due to an administrative fault.
A real pity for Rutgers, a quiet force with real potential, to watch
regionals from our own backyard in Princeton while knowing that we did
all we could and the UPA decided not to care.
Why would the UPA disregard a roster, despite being four days late,
and push aside over 60 players? The Rutgers men and women suffer,
yes.
But the sport suffers from a governing body who does not have the
sport and its players best interest in mind.
ulticritic
wrote:
>
> This is not to say that just because we have these two extraordinary
> players, we should be allowed to play in the series. But I think
> there should be more of a chance to allow competition. To allow the
> players to play their game. Give us a late fee. We would rather pay
> it than watch all the work we put into our game and this sport be
> washed away and put on hold until next year. I would feel this
> strongly about ANY team in our region or section that added to the
> game and was banned from play due to an administrative fault.
>
> A real pity for Rutgers, a quiet force with real potential, to watch
> regionals from our own backyard in Princeton while knowing that we did
> all we could and the UPA decided not to care.
>
> Why would the UPA disregard a roster, despite being four days late,
> and push aside over 60 players? The Rutgers men and women suffer,
> yes.
>
> But the sport suffers from a governing body who does not have the
> sport and its players best interest in mind.
to answer your initial question(the thread title).......NO
Ringer
sign. At UCLA we have a heap of trouble with our Club Sports office.
They require us to keep all team funds in school accounts, but then
take as long as three months for reimbursements. All I mean to say is
that I'm sure a lot of people at UCLA would understand and support
your cause.
Ringer
colinm...@gmail.com
Sports director/department, too. Having been informed that it was
absolutely critical that the UPA receive the roster by X date and
having received the roster over a month in advance, for them not to
leave enough of a margin to deal with the sort of flub that happened
here is unforgivable. You all should be outraged with your Club
Sports department. You should be raising all hell, complaining to the
highest authority you can reach. Talk about an organization that you
support financially. You pay what, nearly a thousand times more per
year for tuition?
Quick side note. I don't think "banned" or "suspended" are accurate
descriptions of Rutgers' situation. "Unaccepted," "unexcepted," "not
admitted," "not in time," "not registered." Those give a better
indication. The reason Rutgers isn't in the Series is not that they
engaged in some bad behavior, so neither should the reason to make an
exception for them be there good behavior this time or in the past.
You and your team/teammates certainly didn't act unreasonably here,
but there has to be a deadline some time and there's a very easy way
to meet it, I think. On January first, submit a 7 player roster with
upper classmen on it. Add the rest of your players subsequently (try
to meet the March 21st deadline, but if you don't quite make it,
you're still ok). This way, the UPA gets plenty of notice of which
teams are participating and you don't get screwed out of participating
in the series.
I don't agree with your complaint about the UPA system being flawed
with respect to the appeal process. The appeal option shouldn't be
viewed as a way of addressing unfairness, but rather as a way of
addressing UPA error in drafting of the eligibility rules and maybe
postal error. If you allow a team to participate who clearly didn't
meet the requirements of the rules, you make it really hard to justify
denying teams in the future. Accusations of favoritism/corruption
would be flying all over the place. I think the UPA's doing the right
thing, but should be more explicit about the appeals process not
operating to correct unfairness, so much as to correct UPA errors.
While I think the UPA's getting it right to hold strong on enforcing
its rules, I do think there's room to change the rules to address some
situations. Maybe a very short grace period with a stiff late fee. I
don't understand what the grey area in the Rutgers situation is,
though. The rule says the roster must be received by X date. It
wasn't. Where's the grey? The rule doesn't say anything about fault
(though there's the postal error exception).
In this case, I think having the best interest of the players in mind
means denying the appeal. It is not in the best interest of the
players to have a governing body who arbitrarily makes exceptions for
its favorite teams. Making judgments about what is fair is not only
time consuming, but extremely prone to error and arbitrariness/
inconsistency. Denying a couple teams a year is the cost of having a
predictable system. If teams are concerned about late notice, they
can easily submit in the way I mentioned above.
All that said, I'm sorry to hear that the Rutgers teams will be unable
to participate in the Series this year. It is a very unfortunate
situation and I can only begin to imagine your disappointment. I do
hope you raise a fuss with the university administration. It's not
about the ultimate frisbee team not being treated well, it's about
you, the tuition-paying students being treated unreasonably poorly be
the university staff. Hopefully, you at least can get a policy change
such that you can send the roster out yourself next year, instead of
having to simply drop it into the abyss of university paper-shuffling.
On Mar 28, 10:42 pm, "Rachael P. Hotchkiss" <rho...@eden.rutgers.edu>
wrote:
> co-captain.http://www.icultimate.com/profiles/regionalrockstars08.html
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
spoken like a true "new gamer" upa loyalist. And, hey dip shit, the
GREY AREA is exactly where the upa admitted it to being.
For me, the big discrepency is in the inconsistant standards that are
applied to the sport accross the board. Why take a minimalistic
approach to the rule enforcement process on the field and take such a
stringent stand on administrative standards off the field?
Frank Huguenard
Max
allowed you to play (it is very unfair if the4y don't), but if the
director had gotten it in on time then none of this would have ever
happened.
benlw...@gmail.com
the team says about the situation. As another poster mentioned, this
is in accordance with their rules and to do otherwise would open them
to allegations of unfairness and corruption.
If you are serious about doing what it takes to get in to the UPA
series, then (based on my understanding of the rules, which is
imperfect) your chance lies in getting your club sports office to get
in touch with the UPA directly. Only your school will be able to
convince the UPA that is was their fault, and that this constitutes an
'extenuating circumstance'.
If your school administration were to contact the UPA, provide
documentation and state unequivocally that it was the administration's
(and not the team's) fault...you may have a chance. The administration
would have to seriously eat some crow, and probably offer some kind of
late fee.
Even if you do everything right, and the administration plays along,
you may not get back in. The UPA would be opening a loophole for teams
that screw up in future years to have their administration beg for
them, or go to bat for them. However, the UPA has proven in the past
that they do not want to cross school administrations (see the UPenn
fiasco) and this may give the administration some weight.
The biggest problem, however, is probably the administration
themselves. Whoever screwed up probably doesn't want to admit it, or
to go to these lengths to make it better. Really, they need to be
begged, and then if that doesn't work...your last card might be the
threat of a well-publicized (starting with the school paper, etc)
campaign to make this mistake obvious. In my estimation, you have to
try to beg and plead first...if you lead with the threat they will
likely dig in their heals. You need a miracle, or a Greenough.
The UPA will not reverse their rules for you...and while that sucks,
you shouldn't waste your time trying to get sympathy. Turn that time
and effort towards the school administration, and you may yet be able
to get in under the 'extenuating circumstances' scenario.
Mark Ratkiller
The situation sucks, we sympathize, but your sports club director is
really the one at fault here, not the UPA. Blaming the UPA is like
repeatedly telling your child to take out the trash for pickup (the
child doesn't), then being upset with the garbage truck when it
consistently makes its route. You may, understandably, want to beat
the living shit out of your child for being so stupid, and this is
exactly what you should do.
matty j
>
> This is not to say that just because we have these two extraordinary
> players, we should be allowed to play in the series. But I think
> there should be more of a chance to allow competition. To allow the
> players to play their game. Give us a late fee. We would rather pay
> it than watch all the work we put into our game and this sport be
> washed away and put on hold until next year. I would feel this
> strongly about ANY team in our region or section that added to the
> game and was banned from play due to an administrative fault.
>
> A real pity for Rutgers, a quiet force with real potential, to watch
> regionals from our own backyard in Princeton while knowing that we did
> all we could and the UPA decided not to care.
>
> Why would the UPA disregard a roster, despite being four days late,
> and push aside over 60 players? The Rutgers men and women suffer,
> yes.
>
> But the sport suffers from a governing body who does not have the
> sport and its players best interest in mind.
another example of lack of leadership and a gutless lack of decision
making capability, hiding behind the UPA mantra of fear about having
other teams also request an exception to the rules and the bizarre
notion that because they used discretion and compassion and said "ok"
in this circumstance they would have a difficult time using discretion
and saying "no" in the future under completely different circumstance.
Our leaders have to be able to do both with conviction, and not
cowardly shrink away from having to make the right decision given the
right circumstances.
Easier to say no to everybody? what cowards!
how terribly disappointing.......
yet again.
MJ
MJ
matty j
wtf?
ultimatep...@gmail.com
with a similar situation (i.e. school administrator
"requiring" them to allow the administrator to send
the roster)?
Maybe that's obvious - just send in a second copy
to the UPA directly, but that runs the risk of
failing to comply with your school's requirements.
Is this worth having a policy for, or is it so
unusual/unlikely that there's no need?
My suggested policy would be:
A team can "file" by submitting their roster
in a form that itself complies with all the roster
requirements. Where a school's adminsitration
requires a school official to send an "official"
roster, that submission inherits the earlier filing
date of the two.
colinm...@gmail.com
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> spoken like a true "new gamer" upa loyalist. And, hey dip shit, the
> GREY AREA is exactly where the upa admitted it to being.
>
> For me, the big discrepency is in the inconsistant standards that are
> applied to the sport accross the board. Why take a minimalistic
> approach to the rule enforcement process on the field and take such a
> stringent stand on administrative standards off the field?
I don't know why the UPA admitted to anything, other than to be
conciliatory, which was a mistake. What is grey about "We must
receive your materials by X date"? What is grey about "if there is an
administrative/registration conflict, you must apply beforehand for
permission to turn in your roster at a later date"? What is grey
about "if it is postmarked the day before and sent overnight, but
postal arror makes it arrive late, we will still count it"? Don't
just rely on the totally incompetent UPA's "admission." What the hell
do those screw-ups know? Explain to me yourself, what's the grey
area?
Administrative standards can be applied strictly because there is no
subjectivity involved. The connection you try to draw between the
rules of ultimate and the administrative standards is weak at best.
BrookDaves
Ringer
still hold to what I said before. This is already an extenuating
circumstance. I think the UPA should provide an exception. Not all
administrative policies have to be robotic to be effective. I mean we
are humans--we know how to tell good reasons from bad ones without
spiraling into favoritism. If the original poster can provide some
contact information, I would be glad to write a short note to those in
charge.
ulticritic
> Administrative standards can be applied strictly because there is no
> subjectivity involved. The connection you try to draw between the
> rules of ultimate and the administrative standards is weak at best.
how about this connection.....i was told in a round about way that
there is no push for an IRS with observed ultimate because the powers
that be (the upa administration) are willing to sacrifice a status
quoe standard for the facilitation of a conflict resolution process.
So it is inconsistant for those same powers that be to not evoke a
similar conflict resolution process within the administrative
standards that it controls.no?
colinm...@gmail.com
I'll take your selective reply as an admission that you're completely
full of it with respect to your claim of there being a grey area. Is
that right?
This supposed connection you attempt to draw has the same flaw that I
pointed out initially. These are very different conflicts that the
systems are trying to resolve. Subjectivity vs. objectivity. If the
calls were objective and didn't fall into the category of calls that
players would like to selectively not make, then the IRS would be
fine. For example, in/out calls are active, as are force-outs, thanks
to that fateful day at Nationals with the rogue observer and the
subsequent decision by the observer committee.
As for more practical reasons for there being strict enforcement of
administrative requirements, there is one big one - interest. There
is a very strong body of supporters who want to keep the game in the
players' hands as much as possible, minimizing perceived interference
of observers. There has not been a strong move towards creating a
flexible, time-consuming appeal system for teams that screw up when
trying to register for the series. There's a very simple step-by-step
explanation of what needs to be done. In general, the vast majority
of teams are getting it right and aren't particularly sympathetic with
the teams that get it wrong (aside from empathy for their crappy
resulting situation). I haven't seen any proposals to the board about
it.
In general, the posts by teams unable to participate in the series
come across as whiny. "Boo hoo, we messed up, but we swear it's not
our fault and the UPA should bail us out." If instead the post read
in generic terms about potential reasons for the UPA changing it's
policy, it would be more well received. However, the better policy
move is to change the rules to address the problem, not to create some
arbitrary appeals process. Example post below:
Fellow Ultimate Players,
Every year a couple of teams run into problems with submitting their
rosters and are excluded from the College Series. While the majority
of blame can almost universally be placed on these individual teams,
their circumstances also indicate that some Club Sports departments
are incredibly troublesome. The UPA policy of strictly enforcing its
rules is understandable and the reasons for having a strict deadline
are also understandable (notice to SCs, predictability, etc).
However, these goals could still be accomplished while offering some
flexibility in the system.
I propose a 3-day grace period following the deadline. During that
period, a team should be able to pay a stiff penalty (hundreds of
dollars?) and still submit a roster. This would allow a team whose
Club Sports Department was unreasonably slow to recognize the error,
get a certified roster and send it overnight. The benefit of this
emergency grace period is that it ensures the most competitive College
Series and it allows teams to participate, who otherwise would have
been excluded. It creates a warm feeling of security in teams,
knowing that the UPA cares about their opportunity to compete.
Furthermore, the costs are minimal. This should be a rarely-invoked
emergency provision, creating only a minor additional burden on UPA
HQ. SCs will have notice of the team's intended participation already
through the online registration and communication with captains.
The stiff penalty will provide an adequate deterrent so that teams
will not become lazy, making the grace period operate as the actual
deadline. However, exclusion from the Series is out of proportion
with the increased burden late rosters place on UPA HQ. This system
provides the optimal balance between administrative efficiency and
fairness to teams.
ulticritic
>
> I'll take your selective reply as an admission that you're completely
> full of it with respect to your claim of there being a grey area. Is
> that right?
how about.....take a hint and get the fuck over the whole "grey area"
issue......or take it up with the upa, they are the ones that admitted
to it.
>
> This supposed connection you attempt to draw has the same flaw that I
> pointed out initially. These are very different conflicts that the
> systems are trying to resolve.
not really......one side says foul.....the other side is contesting.
Thing is there just aint an impartial observer.....so just like in the
sport, the original call stands.
--------------------------------------------------
Subjectivity vs. objectivity. If the
> calls were objective and didn't fall into the category of calls that
> players would like to selectively not make, then the IRS would be
> fine. For example, in/out calls are active, as are force-outs, thanks
> to that fateful day at Nationals with the rogue observer and the
> subsequent decision by the observer committee.
so you agree that the whole rule enforcement system(on the field) is
inconsistant.....thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for more practical reasons for there being strict enforcement of
> administrative requirements, there is one big one - interest. There
> is a very strong body of supporters who want to keep the game in the
> players' hands as much as possible, minimizing perceived interference
> of observers.
and what do you base that contention on?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has not been a strong move towards creating a
> flexible, time-consuming appeal system for teams that screw up when
> trying to register for the series.
from the posts i read on rsd there sure seems to be
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a very simple step-by-step
> explanation of what needs to be done.
there are also step by step explinations of what needs to be done to
properly manage a sports competition........they are called referee
manuals.........the upa stubornly dismisses them, so why be such hard
asses when it comes to administrative management?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the vast majority
> of teams are getting it right and aren't particularly sympathetic with
> the teams that get it wrong (aside from empathy for their crappy
> resulting situation). I haven't seen any proposals to the board about
> it.
fuck "the board".......those people dont know their elbow from there
asshole.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In general, the posts by teams unable to participate in the series
> come across as whiny. "Boo hoo, we messed up, but we swear it's not
> our fault and the UPA should bail us out."
kinda how the sport comes accross with their whiny little player
controled arbitration system?
---------------------------------------------------------------
If instead the post read
> in generic terms about potential reasons for the UPA changing it's
> policy, it would be more well received. However, the better policy
> move is to change the rules to address the problem, not to create some
> arbitrary appeals process.
arbitrary appeals process???? can an appeals process be any more
arbitrary that the ones used to enforce the rules of
ultimate.....thank you for pointing this out once again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But dosent this type of policy seem rather obvious, especially for a
sport (and even moreso an administration) that clings to the "new
games" philosophy of managing the sport itself, to the point in which
it should already part of the policy? Again, thank you for pointing
out the error in the upa's policy, their overall stupidity and
inconsistancies.
colinm...@gmail.com
> But dosent this type of policy seem rather obvious, especially for a
> sport (and even moreso an administration) that clings to the "new
> games" philosophy of managing the sport itself, to the point in which
> it should already part of the policy? Again, thank you for pointing
> out the error in the upa's policy, their overall stupidity and
> inconsistancies.
Maybe it should be. I don't care if it is or not. I always got my
roster done in plenty of time. If someone cares about it, they should
submit a proposal to the board. Regardless what you think about them,
they have the power to change policy. If all people care enough to do
is whine about unfairness on RSD, then they really don't care all that
much.*
*I'm in this category on a handful of issues, but not on others.
Baer
the UPA took the time and effort to personally speak to you about this
issue and to support their own position. Did they engage in an
interactive process with you to at least address your concerns?
We've seen similar concerns from other teams on this issue, and while
each single issue is unique, it usually boils down to an honest error
somewhere. I have no problem with the UPA sticking to their guns on
enforcing their rules, but if they are this strict on these deadlines,
they should meet other deadlines that they set as well. The UPA has
been lax in the recent past about submitting info to the membership on
time (regarding rule changes, uniform standards, strategic planning,
magazine publishing, etc), so maybe they should allow similar
"flexibility" on other deadlines.
If not, that's fine, but they should also offer an explanation to the
teams about their decisions, for better or worse. These are simple PR
issues for the UPA, and as a "player controlled" sport and
organization, they should at least have close interaction with teams
that go through this, to offer an alternative, to guide them for
future circumstances, or at least show that they do care about the
teams and players.
Did the UPA have any such discussions with you, Rachael? Other teams
that have been through this, have you had any quality discussions with
the UPA?
ulticritic
> I have no problem with the UPA sticking to their guns on
> enforcing their rules, but if they are this strict on these deadlines,
> they should meet other deadlines that they set as well.
GIDDY FUCKIN UP ON THAT! YOU HYPOCRITE UPA BASTARDS!!!
amanda
part of the club sports director (who has had a history of making life
difficult for both the men's and women's teams and is currently being
investigated by the rutgers administration; information uncovered by
this investigation has led me to believe that it indeed was
intentional). for me, the upa rostering rules are not the issue (we
understand them, and if the situation had been any different, i would
completely agree with the upa's decision to deny our appeal to play in
the series). what i have issue with is that the upa was unwilling to
consider this as a rational reason to allow us to play.
and, yes, i could have taken it upon myself to submit a second
roster, BUT (1) why shouldn't i be able to trust my sports club
director, whose job it is to ensure things like this are taken care of
and (2) last year when our adviser discovered that i had taken the
roster to the registrar and then mailed it to the upa myself, she
threatened my team with loss of field space for practices and possible
fines if i went over her head again. so, should i have risked my
team's ability to practice and have the funds to attend tournaments to
do something that the sports club director should have had no problem
doing herself?
it's an unfortunate situation for us, and certainly now how i imagined
my senior season ending. thanks to everyone who has written to us
voicing their support.
amanda davis
captain, rutgers ultimate '05-'08
On Mar 29, 5:10 pm, "colinmcint...@gmail.com"
colinm...@gmail.com
I have a proposal under way to establish some reasonable deadlines. 9
months notice for any rule or uniform changes. It hasn't been so much
that the UPA hasn't met it's deadlines as it has been that the
deadlines they've set have been less-than-ideal. Not sure about the
other deadlines - haven't paid attention to them. Are they
equatable? Is the UPA whining about the penalty it receives when it
misses a deadline? I suppose not - no penalty, aside from a few
irritated people on RSD.
colinm...@gmail.com
Gotcha. Getting sabotaged by the athletic director is a way different
situation than the one mentioned in the original post - an
administrative delay. UPA policy has generally been to stick with the
University administration, but if you can get a higher-up official to
confirm foul play, I wouldn't oppose a UPA Board decision to grant
your appeal. Foul play by the athletic director is definitely an
unusual situation. If it turns out to just be shocking incompetence,
then I'm not as supportive. Good luck with your efforts in pursuing
this. At worst, I hope you create some major problems for the
athletic director and/or secure favorable treatment for coming years.
Terrible situation to have a nutcase for a club sports director. This
seems like exactly the situation the appeals are set up to deal with,
provided it was presented in as a situation of sabotage.
ulticritic
>
> I have a proposal under way to establish some reasonable deadlines. 9
> months notice for any rule or uniform changes. It hasn't been so much
> that the UPA hasn't met it's deadlines as it has been that the
> deadlines they've set have been less-than-ideal.
An apologist and a loyalist
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about the
> other deadlines - haven't paid attention to them. Are they
> equatable? Is the UPA whining about the penalty it receives when it
> misses a deadline? I suppose not - no penalty, aside from a few
> irritated people on RSD
hey why dont you eat shit you fuckin prick.......dont trivialize our
irritation you pretentious fuck. FUCK YOU AND THE UPA
ADMIN........you bunch a cunt rags
reggieh...@gmail.com
UPA's fault in part that there are so many conflicts to begin with.
For the amount of your dues money, locations and dates of sectionals
need to be up waaaayyyyyy earlier. Right now, the way I understand it
is (correct me if I am wrong) the process revolves heavily around
volunteers. I guess that's ok, but for some sections, people were
given less then a month for the deadlines, because the dates and
locations were not up yet.
So I pay the UPA, and then I pay a tourney fee to whoever volunteers
to run the tourney.. Why doesn't the UPA run things themselves as far
as field reservations, dates, and so on. Yes, it would take some
work, but isn't that why we send you money? This way, plans can be
made much easier, instead of everyone trying to clear schedules fast.
Come on, even beer league softball and intermural ping-pong have
things up in advance, usually at least 6 months, if not more.
jacob...@gmail.com
trivialize our irritation you pretentious fuck. FUCK YOU AND THE UPA
ADMIN........you bunch a cunt rags"
Once again, your use of nuance and metaphor has made it difficult to
understand your underlying point. Would you please restate your
argument in a more direct manner?
Paul P
> and, yes, i could have taken it upon myself to submit a second
> roster, BUT (1) why shouldn't i be able to trust my sports club
> director, whose job it is to ensure things like this are taken care of
> and (2) last year when our adviser discovered that i had taken the
> roster to the registrar and then mailed it to the upa myself, she
> threatened my team with loss of field space for practices and possible
> fines if i went over her head again. so, should i have risked my
> team's ability to practice and have the funds to attend tournaments to
> do something that the sports club director should have had no problem
> doing herself?
Neither of the buts have anything to do with the UPA and everything to
do with a crappy sports director. She set a requirement for herslf to
be the one to send in the roster - then didn't send in the roster.
Again, not a lot of grey area about fault here.
Ben is 100% right. Complain long and loud and publicly about the
sports director's screwup, intentional or not, but this really isn't
the UPA's balliwick.
Paul P
ulticritic
Baer
> Complain long and loud and publicly about the
> sports director's screwup, intentional or not, but this really isn't
> the UPA's balliwick.
>
True, there is nothing to say that this situation is the UPA's fault,
but that doesn't mean that the UPA shouldn't take steps to address the
situation. Whether they engage in an interactive process with the team
or investigate the matter with the Rutgers sports director, I think
the entire Ultiamte community would appreciate the UPA's stepping in
to look into things or at least offer an explanation.
No, maybe the UPA's bylaws don't require this, but if you are trying
to grow and maintain support from your members, you need to quickly
address any potential PR problem. Even if they don't overturn their
decision, they need to come out and speak, and maybe address the
entire community on these problems so they don't happen again.
Situations like this can cause image problems for the UPA, or it can
be an opportunity for the UPA to step up and show that they care about
their members and want to do what is best for the sport, it's all in
how you address it. This is the same for any business or organization
anywhere.
Paul P
> On Mar 31, 8:32 am, Paul P <paulp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> No, maybe the UPA's bylaws don't require this, but if you are trying
> to grow and maintain support from your members, you need to quickly
> address any potential PR problem. Even if they don't overturn their
> decision, they need to come out and speak, and maybe address the
> entire community on these problems so they don't happen again.
Well, I disagree.
What are they supposed to say? "We mean it when we say there is a
roster deadline." I think they have been making that point loud and
clear. "We are sorry that this team got screwed by their athletic
director"? That doesn't seem appropriate.
Paul P
Jeff
effort to ensure that their roster was turned in to the UPA on time.
Continued contact with the Club Sports office gave them every reason
to believe that the roster would be sent on time. Asking the team to
go around university protocol is not something that should be
encouraged by the community at large.
Suggesting that the players contact the student newspaper may be a
good idea, but Rutgers has sectionals (and is hosting open sectionals)
in 13 days. With basketball and all the other spring activities
taking place there is a very good chance that this story would get
buried by more 'interesting ' non-Club Sports news.
The roster process has evolved over time to hopefully eliminate the
potential of another Chabot where club players are taking back packing
courses for $6 a semester to be eligible for the college series. This
evolution has legitimized the college series. There is a point where
the process may lose sight of its goal: doing the best that it can to
guarantee that the players who are playing in the series are
legitimate students at that school.
Is there a print date on the roster? At one time most documents from
a college or university bursar/registrar had a print date and if it
says mid-February then this would help with revisiting the decision.
A phone call to the Club Sports office from a UPA official to
determine if the roster was given in mid-February may be a very
slippery slope, but this is a player's organization, right?
If the UPA always held to its policies, Ambush would have been
disqualified from the Club series for using a non-rostered player.
ulticritic
no, what they should do is just cut them some fuckin slack and let em
play. whats the big harm in doing that. And fuck a fine just accept
their appologies and quit being such hard asses. Now if they are
gonna stop being pussies about how the rules are enforced on the
fields i can see them enforcing the deadline more stictly but since
they arent they should just let em play.
Rob DeVoogd
the UPA is like a.. bureaucracy the size of the Chinese government.
"oh no, it would be WAY too complicated if we made subjective
decisions. Objectivity must be maintained at ALL costs or our whole
system would collapse into CHAOS." That's simply untrue. Yes, there
are ~650 teams in the college series. Yes, the UPA has a fair amount
of work to do in order to make the championship series the peerless
event that we all know and love. But are you really going to pretend
they couldn't make exceptions-- or at least have some sort of process
for allowing exceptions-- in cases like this? Recall if you will that
they're the Ultimate *Players* Association. Their stated mission is
to "advance the sport of ultimate in the United States..." How is
that goal served by excluding teams who, by all accounts, did
everything right? I'll supply the answer for you. It's not. Making
exceptions to rules when those exceptions should be made is a
demonstration of good leadership, not the opposite.
Administrative standards aren't good in and of themselves. They
aren't "objectively superior". Not when you're an organization OF
players FOR players. Everyone seems to agree that Rutgers got
shafted. And yet the Colin Mcintyres of the world, when they're not
gleefully congratulating themselves for turning in their rosters on
January 1 every year, still claim that the relevant standards are more
important than the underlying goal of ensuring that people can play
ultimate.
The fact that it happens every year does NOT make it acceptable. It
just makes it even more abundantly clear that change is both necessary
and slow to come to the UPA. Five year plans are all well and good.
Spending thousands of dollars on a logo to brand the sport is fine, i
suppose. But when a division consistently encounters problems and the
response of the UPA is that they 'don't have enough time to address
these concerns', or 'any discussion of the system, even just replying
to your emails about it, would come at the expense of the ~650 teams
that did the right thing', or 'oh, sorry, but we just have standards
that must be maintained', it's clear that there is something wrong,
and maybe that money should be spent to fix it. There needs to be
someone, perhaps a full-time, paid college director, directly
responsible for the decisions made in these cases, someone who can
interpret the rules rather than just point to them. As it is the UPA
can remain spineless and continue to hide behind their black and white
regulations rather than admitting any shade of gray.
As Matty J says, it would be fully within their purview to demonstrate
compassion and understanding in this case, just as it has been in past
cases. But now, as before, the UPA is too cowardly to even
experiment... If they did, maybe they would learn that they don't need
to fear the Mongol Hordes breaking down their door at the first sign
of nuanced interpretation.
On Mar 29, 5:10 pm, "colinmcint...@gmail.com"
<colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
Baer
>
> Well, I disagree.
>
> What are they supposed to say? "We mean it when we say there is a
> roster deadline." I think they have been making that point loud and
> clear. "We are sorry that this team got screwed by their athletic
> director"? That doesn't seem appropriate.
>
> Paul P
Put out a statement, take the high road, take advantage of a good PR
opportunity. It's simple business. It's not expensive, not difficult,
and it shows the community that you are willing to at least talk it
over.
Even if it's something as simple as: "Some teams have unfortunately
been left out of the series due to various rostering errors. According
to this rule: ____, the teams are not eligible for this season. This
is what we did to address the situation: ____, here is why we made the
decision: _____, here is what teams can do to prevent this situation
in the future: ____. This is regrettable, thanks for your
understanding, etc..."
Simple communication and PR. The members do not work for the UPA. The
UPA works for the membership, and any good relationship is built on
open communication.
Baer
Damn excellent post, Rob.
Ringer
play" sentiment). The UPA doesn't have to be a robotic adminstrative
aparatus. We play ULTIMATE. We play a hippie sport for a reason--we
should start acting like it by letting teams like this play. The
"spirit" of the laws matters (playing on the title, not the content of
Montesquieu's work).
amanda
our sport club directors. that is not being disputed, at least not by
me. perhaps i should have been more clear, but the "gray area" i
mentioned in my earlier post was in regards to our situation. i have
never heard of a school administrator intentionally tampering with a
team's roster as in our case. as such, i do believe our situation
warrants special consideration by the upa. i am not faulting the upa
for sticking to it's rules, like i said before, if this had been as
simple as the sports club director mailing it out late, i would not
have any issue with the decision. but i am saying that our situation
presents an extreme case and should be appealed.
amanda
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
and so should have ambushes last fall. Heres the thing, the upa touts
and fourishes this notion that ultimate as better, more pious and more
spiritualy elevated than other sports but then god forbid (and i dont
even believe in god) if they are somewhat inconvienienced in the
slightest bit when it comes to preforming their administrative tasks.
Do the "spiritual" phrases "do unto others", "turn the other cheek",
or "to err is human" not fall under a spirited catagory that the
administration should hold itself to as well.
I'm telling you people, the upa has got you ALL hood winked. Some of
us are onto their bullshit hypocritical self serving agenda but untill
the rest of you wake up, get up and stand up for your rights they will
continue to treat you like pawns.
Baer
And it's not just about giving them special consideration for any
particular reason, it's just good practice to look at each situation.
Even the NFL, the biggest beheamoth of American sports and one the
best run businesses anywhere, looks at situations on an individual
level. For example, the Commissioner, Roger Goodell, met personally
with Pacman Jones to see what they could do to address Pacman's
issues. It was obvious to everyone that Pacman was a jackass and
needed to be suspended, but the NFL still took the extra effort to
meet with him and look at it as an individual situation.
Even the NCAA, as flawed as many say they are, looks at each school
individually when considering probation or some other penalty and will
at least issue a press release explaining their decision, instead of
opinting to a rule and not saying anything.
ulticritic
which would just point out as to how arrogant, stubborn and UNSPIRITED
the upa administration actually is.
Paul P
And, looking back at the initial post, it is clear that the UPA DID
discuss the team's concerns with the team and work to understand the
specific situation. There is no indication that the team and thier
pleas were ignored by the UPA. There is every indication that the team
did not agree with the UPA's decision. It is clear from the text of
first post that this decision was not made in a vacuum.
So... Your concerns would be assuaged if the UPA issued a press
release about it?
Paul P
Don Steg
Is the UPA looking into this at all? Seems like some folks are jumping
to conclusions.... Due to the extenuating circumstances I would hope
the UPA would at least call Rutgers admin to try to straighten this
out.
D
Baer
>
> And, looking back at the initial post, it is clear that the UPA DID
> discuss the team's concerns with the team and work to understand the
> specific situation. There is no indication that the team and thier
> pleas were ignored by the UPA. There is every indication that the team
> did not agree with the UPA's decision. It is clear from the text of
> first post that this decision was not made in a vacuum.
>
> So... Your concerns would be assuaged if the UPA issued a press
> release about it?
>
> Paul P
Ok, yeah, I went back and read the first post again too, and the UPA
did have some sort of communication with the teams with a brief
explanation, so that's okay. I was wondering what exactly they said
and then I started going off as if they hadn't had any discussion at
all. I apologize for that. A lot of my words reflected the UPA's poor
communication and PR practices in general and may not have been
specific to this situation.
But I wonder how much they really looked into the matter. Did they
investigate the "gray area" that they mentioned with their decision?
I'm hoping that some of the Rutgers folks could answer this for us.
I think a lot of us would appreciate a press release or some sort of
announcement to address these sorts of concerns in general. Of course
it's not a requirement, but it may prevent a lot of us (including
myself) from jumping to conclusions.
ulticritic
dream on.......the upa is to proud to reverse a decision like this.
That would just open the door for other critisisms to be validated.
I believe there are certian aspects of humility that fall under the
spirit umbrella that some how dont apply to the admin either.
centralp...@gmail.com
1. Both the Rutgers women's and men's team are disqualified from the
2008 series due to a problem with their rosters.
2. The women's roster was completed turned into the sports club
director in the middle of February.
3. The sports club director was repeatedly reminded by the women's
team that the roster was due on a particular date.
4. The sports club director stated that they would send the roster out
March 17.
5. On March 23 the teams found out that the Rutgers teams were grayed
out on the UPA log.
6. The UPA received the roster on March 25, four days after the
deadline.
7. On March 27 the UPA denies the appeal of the Rutgers teams. There
is an admitted GRAY AREA.
There has been communication between the women's team and the UPA, the
women's team and the sports club director and the women's team and the
women's sectional coordinator. But no communication that we know of
between the sports club director and the UPA.
We know approximately when the women's team submitted their roster to
the club sports director. We have no idea when the men's team
submitted theirs to the club sports director. Both were apparently
going to be put in the mail on the same day to be sent to the UPA.
The commitment of the players involved to the sport of Ultimate really
should not have much to do with the decision made by the UPA.
What we do not know is if all the names on the rosters are eligible to
play in the College Series.
What we do not know is if the club sports director sent the rosters on
the 17th and they sat around the Rutgers mailing system until the
20th. This is plausible in a large university where mail is collected
from offices, then buildings, then shipped to a central dispatch
point. Being late to any one of these connections could have caused a
day or two delay in getting the letter postmarked by the post office.
Let's not even think about any major storms affecting ground or air
transportation across the US.
The roster was 4 days late or 3 mailing days late (including a 2 day
weekend on which one day the post office does not work) when it
arrived at the UPA.
Even if no one was malicious at any point, the roster could have been
caught in a mailing backlog anywhere across the country. But 4 days
is not a lot of time to send a letter from NJ to CO unless is is 2 day
express.
Since March 21 is a preliminary roster date, and rosters do not even
have to be finalized until the Friday the week before the day of
sectionals, could the UPA not give Rutgers a chance to complete
finalized and approved rosters by that April 4? Are any other schools
in a similar situation as a lot of teams are grayed out in the College
Roster Log?
eric.w....@gmail.com
exception for this case, as my team was denied the opportunity to play
in the series 2 years ago for the same reasons. What I was told, and
agree with, when I called the UPA to beg for our series life, was that
the rules were clear, and they were not willing to bed for one team,
as it would present the UPA as unprofessional, and would allow all
teams to believe they could get away with anything.
I feel terrible for the Rutgers teams, trust me, I know how much this
sucks, but I don't fault the UPA for their decision. Its on the club
sports director, and I agree with the people who are suggesting to
take this to the administration.
Ringer
"when I called the UPA to beg for our series life, was that
the rules were clear, and they were not willing to bed for one team,
as it would present the UPA as unprofessional, and would allow all
teams to believe they could get away with anything. "
We should remind ourselves that slippery slope arguments are
frequently fallacious. In fact there is a very argument against
slippery slope arguments. Take for one quick glance, the abstract of
an article in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies:
"Slippery slope arguments (SSAs) are, so I argue, arguments from
consequences which have the following peculiar characteristic: They
take advantage of our being less than perfect in making--and acting
according to--distinctions. But then, once SSAs are seen for what they
are, they can be turned against themselves. Being less than perfect at
making the second-order distinction between distinctions we're good at
abiding by and those we're bad at abiding by, we're bound to fail to
make the distinction between good and bad SSAs. One can therefore
construct an SSA, the conclusion of which is, that we ought not to use
SSAs. After characterizing SSAs and constructing the SSA against the
use of SSAs, I then explore its implications."
Enoch, David (2001).Once You Start Using Slippery Slope Arguments,
You're on a Very Slippery Slope. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.
21(4), 629-647.
colinm...@gmail.com
Under the current system, everyone knows, or should know that the
rules are black and white and if you don't meet them, tough luck. The
deserving teams get to play. Some deserving teams who didn't do
everything they could to get their rosters in on time don't get to
play.
Congratulations to me for accomplishing a simple task in 2003.
As for it not being complicated to make subjective decisions on which
teams to let in out of your pool of partially-deserving teams, I just
don't agree. Do you take Rutgers' word for it that the administration
was out to get them? How deep do you dig?
Congratulations to me for turning my roster in in mid-February of
2004.
What about the next team that really wants to play and makes up a
story of some sort? How deep do you have to dig? What about the team
full of players who would have gotten their roster in on time, but
were all helping orphans in Africa and didn't account for how long
international post takes?
Congratulations to me for turning in my roster on-time in 2005.
The complication comes with consistently approving and denying
appeals. What you argue for is either a more complicated system or a
simple system that admits a few more partially-deserving teams as well
as some undeserving teams. The current system ensures a legitimate
series. Your proposed system is either burdensome or more
complicated.
Congratulations to me for turning in my roster on-time in 2006.
I already suggested potentially changing the rules to allow for a
grace period in which a late fee applies but the team still gets to
participate. How is that not good enough for you? Are you insistent
that any deadline must not only be soft, but also require a subjective
judgment by the UPA in the case of any whiny team that can't
accomplish a simple task (not necessarily Rutgers, just any of the
many teams who don't get the job done).
Congratulations to me for signing up for a variety of sports
tournaments on-time since 2006 and not getting excluded as a result.
There is no gray in the regulations. It's a hard deadline with a
couple of explicitly listed exceptions. Stop calling it gray. You're
arguing about what is fair, not what is gray.
Congratulations to me for paying my rent and bills on time and
avoiding late penalties in 2007.
You still haven't convinced me that the rostering process is so
complicated as to warrant any exceptions. What is the reason that
teams can't submit a 7-player roster in January? What is difficult
about it? I would be more sympathetic to teams if it weren't such a
simple task. Especially if my club sports director had a history of
creating problems for me, I'd have made sure to get it in early.
Congratulations for me on leaving early enough to not miss the
tournaments that I played in this past year.
There are plenty of deadlines that people have to meet all the time
and they get it done. The fact that a team didn't do everything it
could to meet a deadline that had a huge punishment for lateness
mystifies me. We're talking about the UPA, not the Ultimate
Handholding Association. It is not uncommon in all kinds of athletic
competitions for potential participants to be excluded for failing to
meet the deadline.
Congratulations to me for buying my flight to Centex last year before
tickets sold out, since flying was the only feasible option.
What is it about a 3 month window in which submissions can be made
that renders the deadline unfair? My recollection is that there used
to be a wishy-washy deadline and it was very problematic because teams
didn't submit until really late. So maybe responding with the current
system went too far, but going less-far with a margin of error would
be way better than having an appeal's system.
Congratulations to me for mailing my letter before the post office
closed.
In short, the UPA system is fine and fair as it is. There may be
improvements to make it better. An appeals system is not the best
improvement to be made. Finally, when not searching for gray in black
and white rules, the Rob DeVoogds of the world spend their time
negotiating with businesses to accept expired coupons. "But it's
still March 31st in Hawaii!"
ulticritic
> Frankly I'd be more than a little frustrated if the UPA did make an
> exception for this case, as my team was denied the opportunity to play
> in the series 2 years ago for the same reasons.
but you would have been ok with them giving you a pass right? see,
your a fuckin hypocrite too.
---------------------------------------------------------------
What I was told, and
> agree with, when I called the UPA to beg for our series life, was that
> the rules were clear, and they were not willing to bed for one team,
> as it would present the UPA as unprofessional,
where they get the idea that anyone thinks of them or the sport they
steward IS professional to begin with.......the ego on them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
and would allow all
> teams to believe they could get away with anything.
so its a simple case of keeping their paranoid, "what we say goes"
reputation in tact.......that sounds about right.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I feel terrible for the Rutgers teams, trust me, I know how much this
> sucks, but I don't fault the UPA for their decision. Its on the club
> sports director, and I agree with the people who are suggesting to
> take this to the administration.
fuck all that.......all the upa has to do is quit being so stubborn
and practice a little of the compasion that is undoubtedly a big part
of the new games sotg philosophy that they tout and flourish. Of
course if they didnt preech that spirit shit to begin with such
decisions and policies like this would at least be more consistant.
matty j
long-term strategic goal?
do whatever you can to avoid any future requests for the UPA to spend
valuable time reviewing appeals to roster decisions by making any
exceptions, no matter how valid the argument?
imagine you are a senior in college and this has just happened after 4
years of blood, sweat and tears to get to Nationals.
I think everyone should say the following and visualize it, cuz it's
gonna be happening soon, as sure as I live right down the road from
Bristol, CT.
Meetings begin next month.
THE ESPN NATIONAL COLLEGE ULTIMATE CHAMPIONSHIPS!
THE ESPN CLUB NATIONAL ULTIMATE CHAMPIONSHIPS!
THE ESPN WORLD ULTIMATE CHAMPIONSHIPS!!
go ahead, say it... sounds too good to be true but maybe just maybe.
Nah, they wouldn't be interested in our little sport would they?
MJ
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
uhm......what just happened to post #52......seems like the sc
coordiater of the rutgers team might have just gotten gag ordered and
had to remove that awsome post. Fuck i wish i had of replied to it
befor it got gone.
Can or will anyone explain its mysterious disappearance???
Knappy
sense to deny kids an opportunity to play because a school sports
administrator intentionally (or through negligence) missed a
deadline---by 2 business days.
We trust players to make the right calls on the fields, even at the
highest level. But, we don't trust their word when they state they
turned the rosters in on time to their schools & were promised that
they were being sent out on time. And they also provide admin contact
information to the UPA so they can verify the facts are as the team
told them it was.
This is not about the Rutgers ladies blowing off deadlines, or being
irresponsible, or being careless with names on their rosters....they
did everything right, their school admin f'd up.
Let Rutgers play.
Knappy
Jeff
can see how the rest of us who organize the game deal with everyday
Ultimate life. There is a little fixer upper in Philadephia that the
Fairmount Park Commission may lease for three to five with a few
conditions. The toilet has been known to work on occasion, the fire
place provides enough heat to allow for only one sweater and it has a
great view. On any given night during the spring or summer (as long
as the ground is not water logged from rain or snow) when you are
working late you could look out the window and see a couple of hundred
persons playing Ultimate (you could also see the cricket players and
lacrosse players that also compete for use of the fields). The
majority of people who you are watching on any of those given nights
are not UPA members. But from what I hear they have a heck of a lot
of fun, especially on Fridays.
Being on the east coast a lot more people could attend those 5:30 pm
on a Sunday member's meetings. It could be like the East Coast
Captains meetings that used to take place. Being a relatively short
distance from NYC, Boston, Pittsburgh, DC, NC and major airports a lot
of people may just show up and maybe even more if you throw a little
hat tourney that day.
You could also take some time for some field excursions to places like
Swarthmore, Villanova, Eastern, F and M, Millersville, Dickinson,
Gettysburg, Lafayette and a couple dozen other little colleges to see
what is the state of the sport. There is a lot of high school play
nearby also. Leagues are all over the place too! PADA would be right
out your window. Mercer right up the road, DC and State College a
little longer further drive. Come to Harrisburg and watch us hope
that 15 years worth of work does not get washed way by one night of
rain.
This would be a good place for the UPA. Lots of non-top 25 teams who
are the backbone of your membership that you could be constantly in
touch with regarding the state of the sport.
Not a PADA member (this year) but someone who has enjoyed their
hospitality for 25 plus years.
> > decisions and policies like this would at least be more consistant.- Hide quoted text -
mike....@gmail.com
live.
Also key is not to target college anymore, although it has been a
traditional breeding ground for ulti and that should not change. Key
are the youth. Look at every other sport; soccer, football, lax,
etc. Monster youth leagues. You need that to grow. I'm not
suggesting an age, but it'd be a tough sell as an elementary school
sport. Further, you have to move beyond urban areas. Football,
soccer, baseball, etc are strong in the middle-of-nowhere/rural
areas. I grew up in one, I had never heard of this sport until say my
junior or senior year of high school. Even then I was completely in
the dark as to its size, level of play, and the whole community until
college.
Fact is UPA cannot do everything also, you have to go back to your
high schools college kids, or in your community, and form leagues and
teams. Show people what its about. Yes that means not being lazy,
which is a tough sell in this crowd, but no one ever said making ulti
grow would be easy. And don't expect over night success.
Additionally that means less arguing amongst each other all the time,
how are we supposed to get people to play if all we do is yell at each
other about trivial matters?
Last, Rutgers, I'm sorry no one should have that happen to them. In
fact, there does need to be a security blanket for college teams with
the understanding that colleges (and their employees) are not always
on top of the crap.
Mykus
JMU alum, Full Service (new N-NJ - mixed) capt.
kyle.w...@gmail.com
situation since last Friday (before this thread even started).
They've been talking to the Rutgers administration and are gathering
more information. Anyone could have found this information out and
posted it with a simple call to UPA HQ.
As always, RSD is not a UPA forum. If you want information the UPA's
contact page has tons of contact info for staff and board members
alike.
I agree that the UPA could do a better job communicating but
communication is a two way street. Posting on a public forum and
expecting a response is not communicating with the UPA.
-Kyle
ulticritic
> Just so everyone knows: The UPA has been looking further into this
> situation since last Friday (before this thread even started).
> They've been talking to the Rutgers administration and are gathering
> more information. Anyone could have found this information out and
> posted it with a simple call to UPA HQ.
fuck that, you guys act like tyranical, stuborn, delicate geniuses
when it comes to giving input. This is where the membershiP is. You
guys either need to cereatE a similar forum on your website or get
your asses over here and communicate with us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As always, RSD is not a UPA forum.
its the closest thing to a upa forum......we are all upa members, WHAT
THE FUCKS THE DIFFERENCE?. you need to bridge the fuckin gap here,
not us. And the fact that you dont take advantage of this forum and
use it more creativly and frequently just tells us how stubborn and
stupid you people are.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want information the UPA's
> contact page has tons of contact info for staff and board members
> alike.
pffft, and did i mention the arrogance you display as well. Make a
forum that could rival rsd and maybe we would. I'm thinkin, though,
thats a path you guys dont really want to go down.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree that the UPA could do a better job communicating but
> communication is a two way street.
goddamn straight.......we are over here communicating our asses off.
you are the ones that fail to respond and initiate dialouge so we have
to spout it out here just to inform the membership. If we waited for
you to get off your asses and initiated it we'ed never hear shit.
Speaking of which, what the fuck is up with the five year plan we were
supposed to be hearin about 2 months ago? Maybe we should impose a
fine on the administration for failing to meet its deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting on a public forum and
> expecting a response is not communicating with the UPA.
well thats your stupidity......and quite a cop out i might add.
One more thing......the sc from the rutgers section wrote a grest post
that somehow disappeared last night where she was being very critical
of this whole lack of compasion and leadership being displayed by the
upa. Why would she of had to write that if the wheels of fixing this
shit were already in motion. Was it because nobody COMMUNICATED to
her as to what was going on.
Face it upa, every corner you turn you got an angry mob on your
hands. When are you gonna wake up and get your shit together. You
people SUCK!
throw
-drink more water
-exercise
-periodically leave the house
-turn off the tv
Hank & Co.
www.thisisultimate.com
ulticritic
FINALLY YOU PROVIDE US WITH YOUR ULTIMATE RELATED ACCOMPLISHED
TASKS......i got to say though, i dont see how the sport would benefit
from ANY of these things you seem to have done......but then again,
you are a mediocre fuck
throw
Your kind text continues to warm our hearts here at tiu.com.... your
words give us reason to continue onward.....like a green flash the
weary mariner.
Have a good week on that end and may your next contractor job show up
on the horizon soonish.
Later,
Hank & Co.
www.thisisultimate.com
Knappy
And, how would the general Ultimate community know that unless we all
emailed the UPA separately? Does the UPA want every ultimate player in
the NJ/Pa community to send them emails about this---because I can
certainly do my part to make that happen.
The original post from Rutgers player stated their appeal was denied.
I'm curious---Why would an appeal be denied if the UPA is now looking
further into the matter? Why would they make a ruling without knowing
all the details or investigating the players' claims? Why don't the
players---the P in UPA---get the benefit of the doubt?
Your post does not answer a simple question: if a player or team does
not like a decision that the UPA made, where do they go from there?
How should a bunch of college kids (who do not have time on their side
with sectionals looming) rally people to their cause, if not via RSD
and/or local forums?
And, for the record, I am one of those guys rooting for the UPA--but
this kind of decision, & your reply about it, saddens me. As a former
president & board member of PADA & occassional TD, I cannot recall us
asking for anything from the UPA--except to put on a great college &
club series, & to make it easy for our local teams & players to
participate.
I know it's not easy to promote transparency & open lines of
communication in an organization with a diverse group of members. But,
I strongly feel that the UPA falls significantly short in this
category. Sounds like you agree.
I have
On Apr 1, 9:55 am, kyle.weisb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just so everyone knows: The UPA has been looking further into this
> situation since last Friday (before this thread even started).
> They've been talking to theRutgersadministration and are gathering
> > > This is not about theRutgersladies blowing off deadlines, or being
> > > irresponsible, or being careless with names on their rosters....they
> > > did everything right, their school admin f'd up.
>
> > > LetRutgersplay.
>
> > > Knappy
>
> > > On Mar 31, 5:56 pm, ulticritic <t...@ec.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 31, 5:32 pm, eric.w.hedb...@gmail.com wrote:.
>
> > > > > Frankly I'd be more than a little frustrated if the UPA did make an
> > > > > exception for this case, as my team was denied the opportunity to play
> > > > > in the series 2 years ago for the same reasons.
>
> > > > but you would have been ok with them giving you a pass right? �see,
> > > > your a fuckin hypocrite too.
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > � What I was told, and
>
> > > > > agree with, when I called the UPA to beg for our series life, was that
> > > > > the rules were clear, and they were not willing to bed for one team,
> > > > > as it would present the UPA as unprofessional,
>
> > > > where they get the idea that anyone thinks of them or the sport they
> > > > steward IS professional to begin with.......the ego on them.
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > �and would allow all
>
> > > > > teams to believe they could get away with anything.
>
> > > > so its a simple case of keeping their paranoid, "what we say goes"
> > > > reputation in tact.......that sounds about right.
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > I feel terrible for theRutgersteams, trust me, I know how much this
> > > > > sucks, but I don't fault the UPA for their decision. �Its on the club
> > > > > sports director, and I agree with the people who are suggesting to
> > > > > take this to the administration.
>
> > > > fuck all that.......all the upa has to do is quit being so stubborn
> > > > and practice a little of the compasion that is undoubtedly a big part
> > > > of the new games sotg philosophy that they tout and flourish. �Of
> > > > course if they didnt preech that spirit shit to begin with such
> > > > decisions and policies like this would at least be more consistant.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Baer
> Just so everyone knows: The UPA has been looking further into this
> situation since last Friday (before this thread even started).
> They've been talking to the Rutgers administration and are gathering
> more information. Anyone could have found this information out and
> posted it with a simple call to UPA HQ.
>
> As always, RSD is not a UPA forum. If you want information the UPA's
> contact page has tons of contact info for staff and board members
> alike.
>
> I agree that the UPA could do a better job communicating but
> communication is a two way street. Posting on a public forum and
> expecting a response is not communicating with the UPA.
>
> -Kyle
>
Thanks for the update from the UPA Kyle.
As long as you're hopefully still reading this, is there a more
appropriate method for us rank-and-file members to discuss and/or
protest UPA decisions than RSD since there is no other official forum?
If a hundred of us spammed UPA HQ, what would the response be? (I'm
not being sarcastic, just wondering if there is a better way for large
groups of members to sound off - as messy as RSD is, it's still the
main place to go for Ultimate discussion)
Paul P
> situation since last Friday (before this thread even started).
> They've been talking to the Rutgers administration and are gathering
> more information. Anyone could have found this information out and
> posted it with a simple call to UPA HQ.
See, now that is kind of annoying. Why does the team in question not
know that?
Or maybe they did and thought that pressure from the community would
help?
So... Was the team aware that the UPA was still considering (or
reconsidering) when the post went up?
I'm very annoyed with someone. Either the UPA for not communicating
the fact that they were indeed still looking into the issue to the
team, or the posters from the team who withheld that tidbit.
Paul P
will....@gmail.com
Rutgers registration appeal. It can be found on the UPA website at
http://www.upa.org/college/2008_rulings/Rutgers or can be linked to
through the College Division page (www.upa.org/college).
Thanks,
Will Deaver
UPA Championship Director
bsl...@covenant.edu
> The UPA has issued a public statement regarding its decision on the
> through the College Division page (www.upa.org/college).
> Thanks,
> Will Deaver
> UPA Championship Director
Hooray for happy endings!
Baer
Knappy
La Calidad
> The UPA has issued a public statement regarding its decision on the
> through the College Division page (www.upa.org/college).
> Thanks,
> Will Deaver
> UPA Championship Director
Toad's not going to like this one bit, being wrong twice in one week.
Ringer
jsus...@gmail.com
really want to commend the UPA for their investigation into the
Rutgers matter. Exceptional job, guys.
matty j
I want to thank rsd posters and others for putting pressure on the UPA
to do the right thing here.
I also want to point out that the UPA's explanation and the original
poster's facts do not exactly jibe here.
Where in the UPA's explanation do they say that they informed Rutgers
that they were disqualified and then subsequently denied their appeal
in the first place? This is what happened according to Rachel
Hotchkiss (of Rutgers?) in the original post.
Let's not act like the UPA was the total hero here. It is the
membership that should be commended for rallying behind Rutgers and
demanding action from the UPA.
If the UPA has decided that they cannot play hardball with
disqualifications for minor and inadvertent (not purposeful or harmful
to other teams) roster violations and that they can make an exception
or two when warranted without fear of future repercussions and a flood
of late rosters and appeals, that is indeed a step in the right
direction.
btw, how was Toad wrong?
Toad was right, the UPA should have let em play.
good job Mr. Leber, rsd, and UPA membership!
joad...@ec.rr.com
hardly....an exceptional job would have been to just push it thru
without being such hard asses.
is it gonna be exceptional when the FINALLY give us our revolution
data too?
Eric Brach
where a character says something that touches on this very issue.
From "Kafka on the Shore", by Haruki Murakami:
"Narrow minds devoid of imagination. Intolerance, theories cut off
from reality, empty terminology, usurped ideals, inflexible systems.
THOSE are the things that really frighten me. What I absolutely fear
and loathe. Of course it's important to know what's right and what's
wrong. Individual errors in judgment can usually be corrected. As
long as you have the courage to admit mistakes, things can be turned
arround. But intolerant, narrow minds with no imagination are like
parasites..." [p. 160]
Seems like the above applies to many things and people I can think of
right about now...
La Calidad
> On Apr 2, 3:02 pm, jsuss...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > As Sectionals Coordinator for the Metro NY/NJ womens college section I
> > really want to commend the UPA for their investigation into the
> > Rutgers matter. Exceptional job, guys.
>
> I want to thank rsd posters and others for putting pressure on the UPA
> to do the right thing here.
> I also want to point out that the UPA's explanation and the original
> poster's facts do not exactly jibe here.
> Where in the UPA's explanation do they say that they informed Rutgers
> that they were disqualified and then subsequently denied their appeal
> in the first place? This is what happened according to Rachel
> Hotchkiss (of Rutgers?) in the original post.
>
> Let's not act like the UPA was the total hero here.
Sounds like they were looking into it before this thread began. Now we
don't always agree with Kyle, but I would like to believe he was not
lying to us.
> btw, how was Toad wrong?
"the upa is to[o] proud to reverse a decision like this."
Lex
the UPA denied the appeal. I understood the post to say that the UPA
disregarded the roster because it was 4 days late. That's not the
same thing at all. Disregarding a late roster is adhering to an
administrative deadline. Denying the appeal without looking into the
circumstances of the late roster would seem to be a perfunctory/rigid
application of that deadline.
Lex
text in a written post was the first thing to go. The poster did say
they were told their appeal was denied. My bad.
On Apr 2, 3:20 pm, matty j <maplerowf...@gmail.com> wrote: