NUMP MENS ALL COLLEGIATE TEAMS
Mike Gerics
or Womens Disisions, or both. 7 points were awarded to their #1 pick, 6 for
#2, 5 for #3 etc.......
From these votes we determine the ALL COLLEGIATE TEAM(ACT) and the top vote
getter in each Division will be named NUMP COLLEGE MVP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the NUMP's Most Valuable Player----
Kurt Gibson, Florida
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NUMP's ALL COLLEGIATE 1st TEAM
Athlete/School Points
1 Kurt Gibson, Florida 77
2 Jolian Dahl, Colorado 65
3 Mark Sherwood, Stanford 39
4 Will Neff, Michigan 34
5 Brandon Malecek, Wisconsin 23
6 Stephan Pressley, Texas 21
7 Jim Foster, Wisconsin 17
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NUMP's ALL COLLEGIATE 2nd Team
8 Joe Kershner, Arizona 16
9 Austin Gregerson, Arizona 10
10 Brodie Smith, Florida 9
11 Greg Swanson, Georgia 8
12 Kevin Schipper, Colorado 6
13 Martin Cochran, Colorado 6
14 Will Locke, Wisconsin 5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Honorable Mentions:
Matthew Rebholz, Wisconsin
George Stubbs, Harvard
Shane Hohenstein, Wisconsin
joad...@ec.rr.com
imagine that.....the guy that WINS the calahan dosent even make the
all collegiate 1st team. Hmmmmmmm
MilesMB
How many members does the NUMP panel have?
richarda...@gmail.com
> all collegiate 1st team. Hmmmmmmm
I'd imagine if I'd polled my friends about who should have won the
oscars, I'd get different results than the academy as well. I
wouldn't take that to mean that the Academy screwed up and needs to be
overhauled. This list is pretty skewed toward a few teams, which is
misleading and doesn't really take into account how good players look
when they're on phenomenal teams. But it's impossible to come up with
a system that's fair and logical for everyone.
joad...@ec.rr.com
> How many members does the NUMP panel have?
are you questioning the validity of NUMP? Personally i dont know a
whole lot about how nump or callahan voting takes place but it dosent
take a brain surgen to see the huge inconsistacies in the winners of
the two polls.
Usually, when there are different polls, the top contenders are
separated by a very small margin. Kurt was 2 or 3 in calahan votes
and 1 in nump......yet the guy that won calahan was EIGHTH IN THE NUMP
VOTE. Somthing smells a little fishy here to me.
And you cant help but look at the fact that the calahan winner was
from arizona (1st in spirit scores) and kurt, the nump all collegiate
player of the year was from florida (last in spirit scores). So you
just cant deny that the calahan award overemphisizes spirit.
joad...@ec.rr.com
<richardaustinw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd imagine if I'd polled my friends about who should have won the
> oscars, I'd get different results than the academy as well. I
> wouldn't take that to mean that the Academy screwed up and needs to be
> overhauled. This list is pretty skewed toward a few teams, which is
> misleading and doesn't really take into account how good players look
> when they're on phenomenal teams. But it's impossible to come up with
> a system that's fair and logical for everyone.
which is why alot of sports related polls have more than one system to
figure out whos the best.
All that needs to happen is that this nump "all collegiate player"
award needs to be hyped up more. Soon it will become more coveted
than the callahan.
And again, even with different systems you usually see a flip flop in
the rankings or at most a one rank discrepency..........not an 8 rank
discrepency.
Vuck
> And again, even with different systems you usually see a flip flop in
FLIP FLOP FLIP FLIP FLOP!!!!!!!
But really Kersh = Callahan
Kurt = Best Player
Dylan = Best Callahan nominee who knows all Disney songs
Flip Flop = best Matt Lane Heckle
dbl...@yahoo.com
Yes I can. Why is OVERemphazing spirit? The college players voted and
decided that this is what we valued. All night after the award I heard
people come up to Joe and congratulate him and tell him that he truly
was their Callahan. Joe was the candidate that we idolized, not Kurt.
After the Callahan award was announced, people immediately started
whining on RSD. Although some people congratulated Kershner on being
recognized by his peers, many people said that it should have been
given to someone else and that the award is flawed. Stop trying to
take this away from him. He won. That means that the college players
that he has played against for years recognized him, and I hope that
he chooses not to listen to what all of these washed up alumni have to
say about him not deserving it. We believed that he deserved it,
that's why we voted for him.
All of this complaining is meaningless. The factors that contribute to
the Callahan selection are laid out, but they are guidelines and
people usually vote based on what they value in the sport. This is how
it should be, and this sport is defined by the players and the idea of
"most valuable" should be defined by the players in this division. The
true meaning of this award is the recognition by all of the current
college ultimate players that have been watching the candidates play
all year at tournaments around the country. It is a vote for who the
college ultimate community believes to be the embodiment of this sport
and a vote for the player that is most respected by his peers
(respected for whatever reason they deem to be most important and
valuable). The opinions of posters on RSD are not as important as the
votes of all the actual college players. Let the college players
continue to define what a Callahan award winner is.
Go ahead, washed up alumni, and make up some other MVP award. The
truth is that no one will care. This sport is not about who goes first
in a draft or who gets paid the most, so no one cares who the most
skilled player is. Who cares about the NUMP team, it doesn't mean
anything. None of us are in this for anything more than a love of the
game, and so no one cares who a bunch of washed up alumni (who haven't
seen much college ultimate this year) believe to be the best. By
allowing all of the players to vote for the Callahan, the players get
to choose each year what they want to value and recognize.
Congratulations to all of the Callahan nominees, but especially to the
people's winner, Joe. Stop trying to rob this from the guy that we
picked, and let him enjoy the undeniable fact that college players
respect him and chose to give him the division's greatest honor. The
Callahan means exponentially more than the opinions of RSD posters.
Ryan Thompson
this year)'
It's interesting that you think this describes the NUMP, when the
(mens) panel includes at least three players at College Nationals,
several more for teams who competed in the NCUS, several regional
coordinators, an ex-UPA official, some all-region players, and some
coaches of Regionals-level teams.
b_rainw...@yahoo.com
>
> Honorable Mentions:
> Matthew Rebholz, Wisconsin
> George Stubbs, Harvard
> Shane Hohenstein, Wisconsin
Stubbs didn't even get all- region nor FOTY, but he was honorable
mentioned?.
ad_g...@yahoo.com
brodie smith was the tenth highest vote getter, and he didn't make all
region in the AC
Mark Ratkiller
> Stubbs didn't even get all- region nor FOTY, but he was honorable
> mentioned?.
All-region and FOTY are also, to a degree, popularity contests.
I'm fine with Kershner winning the Callahan (even though he was not my
top choice) - you can't fake your way into getting the most votes. I
also think this All Collegiate team is pretty cool. There are several
ballers Mike G listed who, as already pointed out, didn't make all-
region but deserve some props.
Thanks Mike G and all the NUMP panel members for all the NUMP polls
over the years and for this All Collegiate team. I hope this
continues.
Ryan Thompson
He was injured for most of the season and didn't deserve FOTY based on
his performance up to Regionals, but he was a huge part of Harvard's
Quarters performance at Nationals.
Brodie
Ok obviously I got worse this year going from AC All-region last year
and not making this year and Kurt stayed the same with placing 3rd in
the Callahan race over the last two years.
That is easy to believe enough but what is difficult for me to believe
is how we ended up with a spirit score of 1.8??? We played UNT first
and they gave us a score of 5 and when we asked the guy taking the
scores to change it to a 1 he said he couldn't do that. Ok next game
was Deleware and they also gave us a 5 but we were able to get
Deleware's captain to change it to a 1 after some hardcore "Suck it
17" comments. The last game of the day was against Illinois who for
sure gave us a 1 without us having to do much.
So after day one we have a spirit total of 5+1+1=7
Day two Arizona gave us a 5 and we couldn't stop it and Carleton gave
us a 1 after a battle...
so adding day 1 and day 2 together we have 7+5+1= 13
now if you just do 13/5 you get a spirt score of 2.6 so thats fine
lest assume that Wisco gave us a 1 after finals even though no spirit
scores were given we now have 14/6 which is 2.333 repeating of course.
So even though I am impressed with our 1.8 spirit score beating out
carleton by 1.7 points i am confused...
any insight???
T
> Ok obviously I got worse this year going from AC All-region last year
> and not making this year and Kurt stayed the same with placing 3rd in
> the Callahan race over the last two years.
>
> That is easy to believe enough but what is difficult for me to believe
> is how we ended up with a spirit score of 1.8??? We played UNT first
> and they gave us a score of 5 and when we asked the guy taking the
> scores to change it to a 1 he said he couldn't do that. Ok next game
> was Deleware and they also gave us a 5 but we were able to get
> Deleware's captain to change it to a 1 after some hardcore "Suck it
> 17" comments. The last game of the day was against Illinois who for
> sure gave us a 1 without us having to do much.
>
> So after day one we have a spirit total of 5+1+1=7
>
> Day two Arizona gave us a 5 and we couldn't stop it and Carleton gave
> us a 1 after a battle...
>
> so adding day 1 and day 2 together we have 7+5+1= 13
>
> now if you just do 13/5 you get a spirt score of 2.6 so thats fine
> lest assume that Wisco gave us a 1 after finals even though no spirit
> scores were given we now have 14/6 which is 2.333 repeating of course.
> So even though I am impressed with our 1.8 spirit score beating out
> carleton by 1.7 points i am confused...
>
> any insight???
Clearly Arizona lied to you about the score they gave and should be
stripped of their team Spirit award.
T
swill...@yahoo.com
Trust me......the panel has enough members with 'more than enough'
experience (both past and present).
swill...@yahoo.com
To clairfy:
"washed up alumni" were 'schooling kids' when you were learning
ABCs.
"washed up alumni" were studying teams when you were learning to read
a disc.
"washed up alumni" realize there is a difference in skill and Spirit.
Joe is the player's winner. (Nice job Joe.)
NUMP ACT are the observer's* winner. (No comment necessary.)
*"washed up alumni" observers...that is...
richarda...@gmail.com
> whole lot about how nump or callahan voting takes place but it dosent
> take a brain surgen to see the huge inconsistacies in the winners of
> the two polls.
I care how the voting works. I'd rather see a poll of nationals
college players rather than a self-selecting group of people with the
narrow view that college ultimate should be analyzed with the same
methods that college basketball and football are analyzed. Both
college sports' ranking and selection systems are widely criticized
every year, and I'm fine with not relying on that for ultimate as
well.
> And you cant help but look at the fact that the calahan winner was
> from arizona (1st in spirit scores) and kurt, the nump all collegiate
> player of the year was from florida (last in spirit scores).
No, _you_ can't help but look at that. Not everyone is like you and
is as obsessed with spirit scores as baptist ministers are with sexual
deviance. You can't hold up the NUMP results as the true voice of
reason just because you agree with it more (while you still admittedly
haven't seen Kershner play). It's the first year it's ever been
awarded. It's the result of a relatively tiny poll of like-minded
players and fans.
> So you just cant deny that the calahan award overemphisizes spirit.
Yes I can. There's no evidence that the voters overemphasized spirit,
they voted for the player they respected most as an ultimate player.
And if you have such a problem with how these players voted, too bad,
no one asked you who you wanted to be the Callahan.
On the other hand, in your world, spirit shouldn't exist in any form,
so maybe everything overemphasizes spirit.
Jed
Seems like spirit was pretty heavily emphasized if it was enough to
move Joe up 7 spots. Take all the other factors combined, and Joe's
#8. Add spirit, and he rockets up to #1. Either this guy is the
absolute Messiah of ultimate spirit, or those top 7 guys are the
cheatin'est grouches we've you'll ever have the mistfortune to meet;
or, spirit got too much emphasis in the Calahan voting.
That's now this Canadian, washed-up never-been sees it, anyway.
JephB
really freaking good at playing ultimate. Dont forget that in all this
discussion of spirit vrs skill and all that other nonsense.
Peterson
> college players rather than a self-selecting group of people with the
> narrow view that college ultimate should be analyzed with the same
> methods that college basketball and football are analyzed. Both
> college sports' ranking and selection systems are widely criticized
> every year, and I'm fine with not relying on that for ultimate as
> well.
Sounds like you're all set then. Good. You rely on what you want to
rely on.
> No, _you_ can't help but look at that. Not everyone is like you and
> is as obsessed with spirit scores as baptist ministers are with sexual
> deviance. You can't hold up the NUMP results as the true voice of
> reason just because you agree with it more (while you still admittedly
> haven't seen Kershner play). It's the first year it's ever been
> awarded. It's the result of a relatively tiny poll of like-minded
> players and fans.
See your own first post. All of these things you are talking about
are polls. By definition this just means a sampling of opinions.
> Yes I can. There's no evidence that the voters overemphasized spirit,
> they voted for the player they respected most as an ultimate player.
> And if you have such a problem with how these players voted, too bad,
> no one asked you who you wanted to be the Callahan.
You are correct here in the first couple of sentences. However
apparently no one asked you about to be on the NUMP panel so too bad.
It sounds like your saying " you are free to say whatever you want as
long as I say you are free to say it"
Handy
Ah, but part of this is that he carried his team to such success from
obscurity, which isn't spirit related and is hard to quantify against
others skills. There's no denying that Kobe deserved the award before
this year because of his dominant skills, but this was the year he was
most important to his team so he won it. Just because Kershner wasn't
the #1 most skilled player, he played with great intensity, great
spirit and unbelievable skill while taking a previously unknown
program to the top.
-Handy
Mike Gerics
> How many members does the NUMP panel have?
---we started with about 30 members.
you can see how many "first place votes" there are in the rankings to see
how many voted for the final poll.
not too many...but they all seem pretty super qualified and into the
scene...
Mike Gerics
separated by a very small margin. Kurt was 2 or 3 in calahan votes
and 1 in nump......yet the guy that won calahan was EIGHTH IN THE NUMP
VOTE. Somthing smells a little fishy here to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
---hopefully the fishy smell isn't from the NUMP????!!!!!
Mike Gerics
---i think that people saying that other people are COMPLAINING when they
are simply expressing their opinion and offering viewpoints IS WHAT"S
MEANINGLESS!
Mike Gerics
> anything. None of us are in this for anything more than a love of the
> game, and so no one cares who a bunch of washed up alumni (who haven't
> seen much college ultimate this year) believe to be the best.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---alright....YOU seem to be a complainer.
the NUMP doesn't mean anything....because it's NOT about the love of the
game?
so...one guy willing to recruit a big ole group of folks interested in
college ultimate to vote on their top 25 all season long....and then vote
for their top 7 athletes....so that that ONE guy can spend all day counting
votes...........ISN'T about the LOVE OF THE GAME?????
you are fucking trippin' if you think that the NUMP is about ANYTHING BUT
the love of the game.........
if it wasn't about LOVE FOR THE GAME....it simply wouldn't BE.
so please DBLIZO.....fuck off. because the NUMP's got nothin' but love.
Jed
No question about it. #8 in the country is pretty damn good IMO.
Jed
I can't speak for them, but I would certainly assume the NUMP voters
took this into account.
Mike Gerics
> college players rather than a self-selecting group of people with the
> narrow view that college ultimate should be analyzed with the same
> methods that college basketball and football are analyzed. Both
> college sports' ranking and selection systems are widely criticized
> every year, and I'm fine with not relying on that for ultimate as
> well.
---basketball polls are criticized every year??????????? basketball
polls????????
why are basketball polls criticized?????
football, yes, because they determine the National Championship
game........but basketball?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't hold up the NUMP results as the true voice of
> reason just because you agree with it more (while you still admittedly
> haven't seen Kershner play). It's the first year it's ever been
> awarded. It's the result of a relatively tiny poll of like-minded
> players and fans.
---i've got nothing against the Callahan and believe it is a great award and
a wonderful accomplishment............but you don't know about the NUMP.
firstly....this ain't the first year.
as for the Panel Members being "like minded players and fans".......i guess
you'll have to ask them about their minds....but to read that...makes me
think you're a fucking doofus.
is that true?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> So you just cant deny that the calahan award overemphisizes spirit
> Yes I can. There's no evidence that the voters overemphasized spirit,
> they voted for the player they respected most as an ultimate player.
---no disrespect....but the Callahan DOES overemphasize spirit.
undoubtedly......
that's not a bad thing tho...i guess.
....even if i think it's queer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> And if you have such a problem with how these players voted, too bad,
> no one asked you who you wanted to be the Callahan.
---you're a seemingly brainless...how you can support one and bash
another....why saying "too bad, no one asked you(toad) who you wanted..."
Mike Gerics
<richarda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7c9124c-f3ae-42de...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> imagine that.....the guy that WINS the calahan dosent even make the
>> all collegiate 1st team. Hmmmmmmm
>
> I'd imagine if I'd polled my friends about who should have won the
> oscars, I'd get different results than the academy as well. I
> wouldn't take that to mean that the Academy screwed up and needs to be
> overhauled.
--hey....try to be more gay.
can you?
Mike Gerics
All that needs to happen is that this nump "all collegiate player"
award needs to be hyped up more. Soon it will become more coveted
than the callahan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---i keep asking for a sponsor!
once i get that.....skyrocket!
Mike Gerics
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---TABULATOR NOTE:
i didn't plan to even point out the "honorable mentions".........but when i
saw Harvard's star just out of the 2nd team vote......i decided to add the
honorable mention.
much respect Harvard.
Mike Gerics
brodie smith was the tenth highest vote getter, and he didn't make all
region in the AC
---all region teams seem a bit......spirited....also.
Mike Gerics
Thanks Mike G and all the NUMP panel members for all the NUMP polls
over the years and for this All Collegiate team. I hope this
continues.
---on behalf of the Members and myself, you're welcome!
everyone puts in a lot of time and effort and thought.......
and the Polls will continue........
....hoping for a sponsor....how can i work that out?
David
Man, talk a little smack about the NUMP, and you really get Gerics
panties in a wad.
Good point though, if NUMP panelists didn't love the game, you really
think they would take the time they do to do it?
Salad
Ajax
> On May 21, 2:31 pm, "Mike Gerics" <mger...@ec.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > All of this complaining is meaningless. Who cares about the NUMP team, it
> > > doesn't mean
> > > anything. None of us are in this for anything more than a love of the
> > > game, and so no one cares who a bunch of washed up alumni (who haven't
> > > seen much college ultimate this year) believe to be the best.
I would be interested to see how the voting was split between
current college players and alums. Alums not voting for Kershner
might make up some of the disparity between polls.
Weston
NE Ultimate
doesn't make nationals, let alone quarters without his playmaking
ability on both sides of the disc. I'd take that guy on my team over
anybody in college except for maybe 2 or 3 other guys on that
list.
And where the hell is Sam Haynor from Dartmouth on here? That guy
single handedly had Dartmouth at the brink of making the
quarterfinals. Dartmouth!
Northeast Ultimate - better than the south, northwest, and metroeast!
One point away from a strength bid!
~TB
rufio
> just cant deny that the calahan award overemphisizes spirit.
Making the distinction between "emphasizes" and "over-emphasizes" is
not that simple.
rufio
> the #1 most skilled player, he played with great intensity, great
> spirit and unbelievable skill while taking a previously unknown
> program to the top.
>
> -Handy
Handy, I agree, and this comes back to the question of criteria. The
Callahan's are spelled out for us, and whether we choose to vote by
them or not is up to us (although we are supposed to follow the
award's criteria). I don't know what the NUMP's criteria were, so I
am assuming that Mike G just told everyone to pick the 7 "most
talented" or "best" players. Note that this is different from "most
valuable". So even if we take Spirit out of the criteria for the
Callahan, the two awards systems are different. I don't understand
why people are so astounded by this and think that their guy winning
one award should mean he wins another award with different criteria.
If you had two contests for "best" rock, and one defined "best" as
"heaviest" and the other contest defined it as "biggest" two different
rocks might win even though you would expect the results to be
somewhat similar.
richarda...@gmail.com
> move Joe up 7 spots. Take all the other factors combined, and Joe's
> #8. Add spirit, and he rockets up to #1. Either this guy is the
> absolute Messiah of ultimate spirit, or those top 7 guys are the
> cheatin'est grouches we've you'll ever have the mistfortune to meet;
> or, spirit got too much emphasis in the Calahan voting.
>
> That's now this Canadian, washed-up never-been sees it, anyway.
I guess spirit was emphasized that much, so long as you assume that
the small, self-selected survey of NUMP respondents was a perfect,
objective skill ranking, and judge the Callahan results as spirit-
driven aberrations from that absolute assessment. I'll just make the
humble intimation that the NUMP ranking was not a perfect
representation of raw skill among college players, and that maybe the
truth is in between.
Also what about leadership? Did that didn't factor into the NUMP
rankings? A big part of the respect people have for Kershner comes
from his ability to lead a good team to the very top. Is that a skill
that was ignored in the NUMP poll along with spirit?
I'll be clear and say that I respect the idea behind NUMP, I just
don't think at this point it should be considered the standard against
which the Callahan should be criticized as it is less than 12 hours
old.
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
> ---hopefully the fishy smell isn't from the NUMP????!!!!!
no it isnt......its from that old and stale spirit shit that expired
in the 60's
joad...@ec.rr.com
Mike Gerics
> humble intimation that the NUMP ranking was not a perfect
> representation of raw skill among college players, and that maybe the
> truth is in between.
---oooops.
you're wrong.
it was...perfect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the sheep
When you think about it, the ONLY reason Stubbs did not make all-
region or at least FOTY had to be because he was injured. Look at
the
other two Paideia kids he played with in high school and Juniors,
Ollie Honderd (GL FOTY) and Grant Lindsley (Central FOTY). Not to
mention, Lindsley and Stubbs both played on Chain Lightning in high
school, only a handful of college freshman have played on an elite
club team before they step onto campus.
How can anyone question his talent?
Stubbs for Callahan '10
Mike Gerics
> am assuming that Mike G just told everyone to pick the 7 "most
> talented" or "best" players. Note that this is different from "most
> valuable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---i'm looking for the notes that i sent the panel members...to find out
what exactly i asked them for, in terms of All Collegiate Teams.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
here's the first note about the ACTs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We ought to vote for ALL COLLEGIATE TEAM, right?
Give me your list of the TOP 7 athletes in the mens, womens or both
divisions....and from that, we ought to be able to get a nice 1st and 2nd
ALL COLLEGIATE TEAM.
What do you think?
The All Collegiate Ballot won't be due until the tues/wed after nationals.
Nationals play DOES impact the ALL COLLEGIATE TEAM....as it is an honor for
the entire season start to finish.....which does NOT mean that non-nationals
athletes shouldn't be considered, obviously.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and then i sent this one out
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----here is how i want your A.C.T............
---you get 7 votes. i want you to rank them #1 thru #7
I'm gonna treat the ACT just like the rankings.....
your #1 player will get 7 POINTS.
your #7 player will get 1 POINT.
From that, hopefully we'll get 14 athletes, first and second
ACTeams......and......the highest scoring athletes will be our MVP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in summary.....
1-Top 7 athletes=points 7-1.
2-award for 'entire season', start to finish.
3-nationals and non nationals athletes eligible, obviously.
4-hoping for 1st and 2nd teams.
5-most points=MVP, Most Valuable Player.
So, the NUMP Player of the Year.....is......the Most Valuable
Player...right?
colinm...@gmail.com
> imagine that.....the guy that WINS the calahan dosent even make the
> all collegiate 1st team. Hmmmmmmm
Imagine that, the winner of the pie-eating contest doesn't even win
his heat in the watermelon seed-spitting contest. Hmmmmm. How could
the same person not be equally competitive in both of these food-
related contests? Or are they not the same?
Oh, and top 8 isn't bad. By the way, are any of these "top athletes"
iron men?
Andrew
went to nationals. That says a lot about how silly these rankings
are...
Jed
So we agree then: the Callahan is quite different from an MVP award.
For criteria, BOTH include:
* skill/athleticism (including speed, quickness, field vision,
endurance, consistency, work ethic, throwing ability, disc reading,
jumping ability, etc., etc.,etc.)
* leadership (by example - in games, practices, workouts; and in
ability to teach and motivate one's team)
* clutch factor (a.k.a. the Messier factor) - related to leadership -
ability to step it up in big games, will your team to a win
* Team performance - it's probably overemphasized(in both contests),
but it should be considered to some degree. It definitely has some
relevance, as a proxy for a player's athleticism, leadership ability,
etc., but definitely an imperfect one.
The only difference is that the Callahan also includes spirit. I agree
with you though - it's evident that this one single factor has proven
the potential to make them markedly different contests.
richarda...@gmail.com
> with you though - it's evident that this one single factor has proven
> the potential to make them markedly different contests.
The real difference is the polled group, even more than spirit. The
Callahan is awarded by college players that are interested enough to
vote. The NUMP ACT is awarded by a selected group of people with a
certain view of what college ultimate should be. If you presented the
Callahan voters with a vote for the MVP and explicitly told them that
spirit would have nothing to do with it, you would not get a mirror of
the NUMP ACT. Poll statistics are not magic statements of fact; their
methods have to be analyzed as much as the results.
Mike Gerics
> certain view of what college ultimate should be.
---excuse me, DickAustinWest.....why do you keep saying that......and what
exactly do you mean by it.
what is the "certain view" that the 35 NUMPanel share?
what exactly do you know.....that makes certain that the 35 voters have ONE
single collective view?
what do you mean by that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
swill...@yahoo.com
I'm guessing Discraft would love to sponsor this. Private
contributions/sponsors could go towards funding players (gear, tourney
fees)
Perhaps funding an NUMP ACT exhibition team?
The focus should be in aiding players get better. Then, getting them
out there...everywhere...
And Mike....it's InUMP now....
richarda...@gmail.com
> exactly do you mean by it.
> what is the "certain view" that the 35 NUMPanel share?
> what exactly do you know.....that makes certain that the 35 voters have ONE
> single collective view?
> what do you mean by that?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The whole goal of NUMP is to provide ultimate with an poll-based
ranking system much like the ones that are used in NCAA sports,
correct? I'll assume you consider it as valuable or more valuable
than the algorithmic ranking system on the UPA site, and some of you
may even think that a similar system could be used to determine
championships, tournament bids, MVPs, or other awards that have an
extant UPA system in place for. Since the NUMP panel volunteered to
participate in this project, I'm guessing that they share some views
about inadequacies in the UPA college system. I didn't mean to say
that they all have a single view on something specific, but that the
panel would naturally attract people with a certain perspective on the
sport, where it is, and where it should go.
I don't know how they were selected exactly, but I believe that they
were self-selected to a strong degree. The poll result of a small
self-selected group is much harder to take empirically when compared
to a membership-wide vote.
Let me know if I've made any unfair assumptions. I just started
talking because it is ridiculous to criticize the Callahan voting
based on the NUMP results.
swill...@yahoo.com
What's the algorithmic forumla for 'level of Spirit of a player I've
never spoken to and played 5 times in one season'?
Scratch that.
Can you correlate between 'good player' and 'likeable player'?
Wait wait... I know.
On a scale of 1-10, rate the players you know the best.
=)
joad...@ec.rr.com
> talking because it is ridiculous to criticize the Callahan voting
> based on the NUMP results.
Its not the callahan voting thats being criticized, its the criteria.
rufio
> So, the NUMP Player of the Year.....is......the Most Valuable
> Player...right?
Not neccesarily. Your criteria say to pick the "Top athletes" in the
college game, but then talk about the duration of the season (so you
suggest performance should be factored in) and then you claim that the
top vote-getter will be the "MVP". So you call it both "MVP" and "Top
athlete" but it sounds like you wanted to focus more on the players
skill, athleticism, and their on-field play BUT I'm not sure because
your criteria are kind of vague. If I received your emails, I would
have just voted based on skill, but I wouldn't have thought it was
horribly wrong of me to include something like leadership or
importance to the team in the discussion.
Value is sometimes different from how good a player is, is sometimes
different from how they preformed in one season, is sometimes
different from how high of a profile they have, is sometimes different
from how good of a team they play for....
Mike Gerics
--no.
but the NUMP Executive Board IS considering some options.
Mike Gerics
> ranking system much like the ones that are used in NCAA sports,
> correct? I'll assume you consider it as valuable or more valuable
> than the algorithmic ranking system on the UPA site, and some of you
> may even think that a similar system could be used to determine
> championships, tournament bids, MVPs, or other awards that have an
> extant UPA system in place for. Since the NUMP panel volunteered to
> participate in this project, I'm guessing that they share some views
> about inadequacies in the UPA college system. I didn't mean to say
> that they all have a single view on something specific, but that the
> panel would naturally attract people with a certain perspective on the
> sport, where it is, and where it should go.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---wow.
you've thought about this a lot more than me, i gotta admit.
you've planned a revolution.....and i was just trying to rank some teams
based on a quote that i heard on sportscenter...uhm...'a panel of national
sports writers voted'...media, was in there too.....
i don't think about any inadequacies of the upa college system.
i love the upa college system.
i played in it for 5 years and have coached in it and observed in it....it's
given me the best athletic experiences imaginable.
i've been at the top of the upa algorithm and have been on the team to
finish with the most of it's points! so...i love the upa system, top to
bottom, everything about it.
the NUMP is just another way to rank....and folks at least are interested,
so, i guess the time isn't wasted entirely.
tournament bids.....IIIII would use the NUMP if i were hosting Easterns or
Collegiates or Ultimax or any other tournament where topnotched teams were
cramming my INBOX with letters of interest, yes. wouldn't you?
some people have said they hated the callahan voting and loved the nump's.
maybe next year, it'll be opposite.................who knows.
better to have people interested and writing....than reading the athlete's
name and then going to read a book.
Mike Gerics
> participate in this project, I'm guessing that they share some views
> about inadequacies in the UPA college system. I didn't mean to say
> that they all have a single view on something specific, but that the
> panel would naturally attract people with a certain perspective on the
> sport, where it is, and where it should go.
>
> I don't know how they were selected exactly, but I believe that they
> were self-selected to a strong degree. The poll result of a small
> self-selected group is much harder to take empirically when compared
> to a membership-wide vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---are you asking if there are any nerds on the panel?
i don't know if anyone is a nerd or not......
we simply may not have any dorks as members, i didn't ask.
Mike Gerics
> talking because it is ridiculous to criticize the Callahan voting
> based on the NUMP results.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---sure.
joad...@ec.rr.com
ssion.
>
> Value is sometimes different from how good a player is, is sometimes
> different from how they preformed in one season, is sometimes
> different from how high of a profile they have, is sometimes different
> from how good of a team they play for....
and has nothing to do with spirit or even sportsmanship (seeming ly to
you since you failed to include that dynamic), right?
Mike Gerics
>> Player...right?
>
> Not neccesarily.
---yes....it is....neccesarily.
i asked for the top 7 athletes...and wrote directly to the members that the
top vote getter would be 'our mvp'.
that alone...right there......makes it so.
you didn't re-quote that in your post...but that's what i had written right
before..."so the nump player of the year, is, the MVP"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your criteria say to pick the "Top athletes" in the
> college game, but then talk about the duration of the season (so you
> suggest performance should be factored in) and then you claim that the
> top vote-getter will be the "MVP". So you call it both "MVP" and "Top
> athlete" but it sounds like you wanted to focus more on the players
> skill, athleticism, and their on-field play BUT I'm not sure because
> your criteria are kind of vague. If I received your emails, I would
> have just voted based on skill, but I wouldn't have thought it was
> horribly wrong of me to include something like leadership or
> importance to the team in the discussion.
----if i had gotten my emails...i would have voted for the best players in
the country...based on everything that i think makes someone one of the best
players in the country.
i'd have cast my ballot...had myself count the votes...and then announced
the MVP.
i wouldn't.....sit around trying to figure out ways that the mvp isn't a
leader or athletic or spirited or skilled or friendly or talkative or a
travel caller or if mike g had wanted me to vague in my approach or specific
in my approach to deciding what i think makes a great athlete, the most
valuabe player in the country...to his team, to any team, anywhere.....
i would pick my 7....and send them in.
and i'd pick THE BEST 7 players in college ultimate....and i'd think that my
#1 was the best.
and..............if you want to have an award for ONLY LEADERSHIP...we can
do that next year too......let me know.
Importance to their own team?.....i'm sure that that is included when
Members make their vote.......but importance to their team isn't neccesarily
MVP or best athlete or anything...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Value is sometimes different from how good a player is, is sometimes
> different from how they preformed in one season, is sometimes
> different from how high of a profile they have, is sometimes different
> from how good of a team they play for....
---all sorts of shit is different.
Daag Alemayehu
inaugural year.)
On May 22, 11:38 am, "richardaustinw...@gmail.com"
<richardaustinw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The whole goal of NUMP is to provide ultimate with an poll-based
> ranking system much like the ones that are used in NCAA sports,
> correct?
Yep! You shoulda stopped here...
> I'll assume you consider it as valuable or more valuable
> than the algorithmic ranking system on the UPA site, and some of you
> may even think that a similar system could be used to determine
> championships, tournament bids, MVPs, or other awards that have an
> extant UPA system in place for.
Well, there MIGHT be a few people out of the 35 NUMP members that
think a committee should be used to pick teams for nationals instead
of the current system, but there are plenty of people not in that 35
that feel the same way. Either way, I don't think that view has
anything to do whatsoever with the NUMP itself.
> Since the NUMP panel volunteered to
> participate in this project, I'm guessing that they share some views
> about inadequacies in the UPA college system. I didn't mean to say
> that they all have a single view on something specific, but that the
> panel would naturally attract people with a certain perspective on the
> sport, where it is, and where it should go.
This is where you lost me. I know when I first volunteered to be a
NUMP voter it was because I thought it would be cool to rank teams.
And out of the dozens of NUMP emails I sent or received, not a single
one said anything about inadequacies in the UPA's system.
You seem to think there's some sort of revolution brewing, but really
it's just a bunch of people that like to think about ultimate.
Mike Gerics
it's just a bunch of people that like to think about ultimate.
---damn....that's it...that's them...all in a nutshell....ranking some
teams....
Nathan Stock
> ---yes....it is....neccesarily.
> i asked for the top 7 athletes...and wrote directly to the members that the
> top vote getter would be 'our mvp'.
These two criteria (top athlete and mvp) and not the same, unless you
define mvp to mean top athlete. Granted what it means to be 'most
valuable' is ambiguous, but surely means more than being most
athletic, or else the award should have been called 'top athlete'
instead of 'mvp'.
Example: Let's say that the 10 most athletic (and for arguments sake,
all around best, whatever that means) ultimate players in the nation
played on the same team. Would the best player on that team be the top
athlete? Yes. But would he be mvp? Some might argue yes, but if you
removed him from that team, the team would still have the 9 best
players and still kill everyone they played. In a sense, he wasn't
particularly valuable to the team, despite being the best.
Anyway, the real issue here is the numbers, which people have alluded
to, but never really spoken of in detail. The NUMP is a great idea,
but this vote seems to suffer either from lack of consensus, or too
few voters, as follows:
Someone should check my calculations, but if 35 people actually voted,
then there would be 980 points to give out. The sum total points for
the top 14 players was 336. That means 644 points - a whopping 66% -
went to other players.
Moreover, the 14th ranked player had only five points. So while 66% of
the vote went AWL, to be considered one of the 14 best player you
needed only 0.5% of the vote. This would be indicative of a lack of
consensus
I have a feeling there were actually fewer than 35 people who voted in
this poll (I have no clue, but it would make more sense). But even in
absolute terms, this poll suffers from low numbers. Again, to be the
14th ranked player, you needed only 5 points. One voter ranking you in
his top three automatically got you onto this list. That does not
inspire confidence as to the validity of the poll outside the top two
(though, those are probably pretty accurate owing to the fact that
they had to have a majority of voters ranking them).
So I'd say that the poll is a good idea, but has some statistical
shortcomings this time around. There may also be some bias present
(someone previously pointed out that every player on that list was on
a nationals team) but that's a completely different story. Regardless,
I've no doubt these nump polls will continue to improve and be
interesting
Mike Gerics
> define mvp to mean top athlete.
---yep. that's what i'm sayin' i did.
vote your top 7 athletes/players...from that, we'll get our MVP.
see how they're stuck together, one meaning the other and vice versa?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Example: Let's say that the 10 most athletic (and for arguments sake,
> all around best, whatever that means) ultimate players in the nation
> played on the same team.
---ECU Irates of 1994....ok.
let's say we're the 94 Irates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would the best player on that team be the top
> athlete?
---the best player on the team with all the best players would be the MVP.
yes....the best of the best is the best and is the MVP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some might argue yes, but if you
> removed him from that team, the team would still have the 9 best
> players and still kill everyone they played. In a sense, he wasn't
> particularly valuable to the team, despite being the best.
---if he went to another team and was still the best player in College
Ultimate then yes, he would still be the MVP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The NUMP is a great idea,
> but this vote seems to suffer either from lack of consensus, or too
> few voters, as follows:
--i don't know about "too few voters".......more members could vote and that
would be fine....there could be more panel members, and that would be fine
too.
i don't think the NUMP "suffers" at all.
haven't seen a sign of that yet.
plus...the crazy awesome quality....makes up for any lack of quantity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
> Someone should check my calculations, but if 35 people actually voted,
> then there would be 980 points to give out. The sum total points for
> the top 14 players was 336. That means 644 points - a whopping 66% -
> went to other players.
---you need to do more calculations.
tons more.
a lot more.
or....you could just look at the number of 1st place votes in the mens and
womens divisions to see how many people voted for each div....then...you
could sort of guess how many members voted for the mvp.
or...just keep doing that math.
yeah...do more figuring.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Moreover, the 14th ranked player had only five points. So while 66% of
> the vote went AWL, to be considered one of the 14 best player you
> needed only 0.5% of the vote. This would be indicative of a lack of
> consensus
---i don't even know what consensus is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I have a feeling there were actually fewer than 35 people who voted in
> this poll (I have no clue, but it would make more sense).
---you're an idiot....
LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF FIRST PLACE VOTES IN THE POLLS ding-a-ling!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But even in
> absolute terms, this poll suffers from low numbers.
---i don't see or feel the suffering.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> So I'd say that the poll is a good idea,
---no duh.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but has some statistical
> shortcomings this time around.
---i completely disagree.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regardless,
> I've no doubt these nump polls will continue to improve and be
> interesting
---i've got to know.....HOW could they improve?
with 50 voters....how would the rankings have been different?
Which athlete not on an ACTeam would replace one ON the ACTeams?
swill...@yahoo.com
If you're serious, you should research into some applied statistics to
which you can tailor the current poll so that it can produces
conclusive results....mathematically speaking.....
Geeky? Perhaps (old man =) but numbers don't lie and if you're
serious, this is the way to do it.
Versus an expansive repetitive survey with no statistical
value.....say.....like the Ultimate Revolution survey....which had
hundreds of questions......thousands of respondents.....and
interestingly.....no error margin.
Simply amazing...
sp...@yahoo.com
Nathan Stock
>
> ---you need to do more calculations.
> tons more.
> a lot more.
> or....you could just look at the number of 1st place votes in the mens and
> womens divisions to see how many people voted for each div....then...you
> could sort of guess how many members voted for the mvp.
This assumes that everyone who voted for mens' teams in general also
voted for the individual players. Apparently, that's the case (though
it's by no means obviously so). So 12 people voted for top athletes.
> ---i've got to know.....HOW could they improve?
> with 50 voters....how would the rankings have been different?
> Which athlete not on an ACTeam would replace one ON the ACTeams?
Simply by having more people vote, such as the 23 members of nump who
didn't. I'm curious as to why only a third of the members of the media
panel submitted a final vote? Was everyone too busy, too uninterested,
feel too unqualified? Again, with 12 people voting, a player needed
only one top three vote by one wayward voter to make the list.
Also, the criteria could use clarification. "Top athlete" only refers
to the player that's the most in shape (in the most common sense of
the word). Being the most athletic doesn't mean you're the strongest
leader, the most skilled or the best under pressure, it just means you
can run fast, jump high and keep it up. If by athletic something other
than this is meant, it should be spelled out. Perhaps something like
'The player who best demonstrates athletic ability, intensity and
playing skill'
Mike Gerics
nearly missed it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<swill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a7da46e3-b387-494c...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
adam wiseman
i think everyone that voted probably understood mike's idea of
athlete. that is why the list is populated by the best players in the
country and not the best former cross-country runners. LTPYC
bsla...@yahoo.com
> move Joe up 7 spots.
Nobody was moved up (or down) since these are different data sets. The
only overlap is NUMP members who are also current college ultimate
players (maybe 12% of the NUMP, less than 1% for the Callahan
voting).
>Take all the other factors combined, and Joe's #8.
>Add spirit, and he rockets up to #1.
>Either this guy is the
> absolute Messiah of ultimate spirit, or those top 7 guys are the
> cheatin'est grouches we've you'll ever have the mistfortune to meet;
> or, spirit got too much emphasis in the Calahan voting.
More like, poll 30 NUMP members for their all-college team and Joe
Kershner is 8th in votes. Poll X number of current college ultimate
players for their MVP and they choose Joe Kershner as #1. These
populations are likely dissimilar both in terms of personal connection
to Joe/Jolian/Kurt and in their conception of what's important for an
MVP candidate. Aside from being different populations, perhaps they
are also asking themselves different questions? Some possible
questions that could help you choose your MVP (depending on your
priorities):
-What's the most spectacular play I've ever seen in person?
-If one player from any team heading to nationals was detained by the
FBI for the entire weekend, which player's loss would cripple their
team the most?
-Who represents the best quailities that college ultimate has to
offer?
-If your life depended on a pickup game of ultimate, and everyone in
college ultimate is waiting to play, which player do you pick first?
-If you could choose any player to be your captain and/or teammate for
a season, who would it be?
Which question do you care about the most? Do you also have other
questions you would want to ask before deciding who the MVP in College
Ultimate should be?
bsla...@yahoo.com
votes were entered, it's possible that some of the NUMP votes may be
reactionary.
i.e. They believe Kurt didn't get enough Callahan votes (in their
opinion) so they make sure they put him first, Joe got too many votes
(in their opinion) so he is voted
lower than they ordinarily would, Brodie didn't get voted all region
so ensure that he gets a NUMP nod, etc.
Not that any NUMP panelist would ever consider ordinary college
ultimate players to be idealistic spirit-mongers that don't actually
understand what an mvp is.
Mike Gerics
---sure.
i'd have love for each member to cast their vote each week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm curious as to why only a third of the members of the media
> panel submitted a final vote? Was everyone too busy, too uninterested,
> feel too unqualified?
---can't say.
i'm the tabulator...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, with 12 people voting, a player needed
> only one top three vote by one wayward voter to make the list.
---pretty cool that despite the low-ish voter turnout...that the rankings
and ACTeams seem pretty perfect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Also, the criteria could use clarification. "Top athlete" only refers
> to the player that's the most in shape (in the most common sense of
> the word).
---i don't think clarification needs to be made.
why do i have to tell the voters exactly what they have to vote for?
let them make up their own minds......they've got minds.....let them use
them.
top athlete, best player, mvp......i think asking for a top 7 list of
that......is as clear as it needs to be.
otherwise...it'd be some completely different all star team.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Being the most athletic doesn't mean you're the strongest
> leader, the most skilled or the best under pressure, it just means you
> can run fast, jump high and keep it up.
---i guess i give the nump members more credit than i would give you for
being able to use their brains.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If by athletic something other
> than this is meant, it should be spelled out. Perhaps something like
> 'The player who best demonstrates athletic ability, intensity and
> playing skill'
---how about...most athletic, best player and mvp.
can you wrap your brain around that and come up with 7 athletes who you'd
vote for?
Mike Gerics
athlete. that is why the list is populated by the best players in the
country and not the best former cross-country runners. LTPYC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--jeeze...i was startin' to wonder.
Mike Gerics
> -If your life depended on a pickup game of ultimate, and everyone in
> college ultimate is waiting to play, which player do you pick first?
>
> -If you could choose any player to be your captain and/or teammate for
> a season, who would it be?
---these two are my favorites.
i love them.
wow....
hold on....
reading them again.....
life depended....teammate for a season....everyone who plays college is
waiting...who do you pick.
that's the way to play.....all the time.
Mike Gerics
> Oh, one more thought. Since Callahan votes were published before NUMP
> votes were entered, it's possible that some of the NUMP votes may be
> reactionary.
> i.e. They believe Kurt didn't get enough Callahan votes (in their
> opinion) so they make sure they put him first, Joe got too many votes
> (in their opinion) so he is voted
> lower than they ordinarily would, Brodie didn't get voted all region
> so ensure that he gets a NUMP nod, etc.
---i like it.
i mean......i try NOT to tell the voters at all what to do with their
votes....and i don't mind if they take things like this into consideration
when voting.
if they do, great.
if they don't, just as great.
colinm...@gmail.com
> The only difference is that the Callahan also includes spirit. I agree
> with you though - it's evident that this one single factor has proven
> the potential to make them markedly different contests.
Where are the NUMP MVP criteria listed? You just pulled your list out
of thin air, right? Is "dedication to the sport" an official NUMP MVP
factor?
My only point is that the Callahan and the NUMP MVP have enough
differences that chalking the different results up to one factor is
stupid. I hope my stating that explicitly will help you figure out if
you agree with me.
Mike Gerics
---criteria is in the initials.....Most....Valuable...Player.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You just pulled your list out
of thin air, right?
---uhm....what?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is "dedication to the sport" an official NUMP MVP
factor?
---uhm...."dedication to the sport"..............how can that even be an
"official" anything?
i mean....hopefully....if an athlete become one of the top 7/14/honorable
mention.....hopefully, they, at some point have been or were or are
dedicated to the sport that they are/have become really good at?
i mean...how would anyone be good...with out some amount of "dedication to
their sport"?
certainly...there could be an ACTeam member who hates ultimate and never
goes to practice and has no interest in improving.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My only point is that the Callahan and the NUMP MVP have enough
differences that chalking the different results up to one factor is
stupid. I hope my stating that explicitly will help you figure out if
you agree with me.
---yes...maybe...sure.
i don't care about the differences personally.....
and i don't think your note was to me....
rufio
Mike, explaining it like this (and other things you say to clarify)
makes things a lot more clear as to what you are/were looking for in
the NUMP MVP. If you really want to improve this thing, or care at
all about what "the people" think and making your awards more
significant, then I have some suggestions. Clarifying what you mean
will help things, you know?
You call it an "MVP" award, but calling it that doesn't make it one
(if I call my car a BMW, that doesn't make it a BMW). MVP=Most
VALUABLE Player, but you asked for the BEST player, the "Top
Athlete". What I meant by "Value is different than talent, is
different from...." is that all of those things (talent, performance,
value, being the best player on the best team, etc.) are criteria by
which people judge whether someone is the "Top Athlete" or not.
Someone might think that the NUMP MVP should go to the most talented
player, someone might think it should go to the best player on the
best team. Those two people can be different. Which one should a
voter choose? If you say that this person should be the "best
player", then I vote for the best player. But when you ask for the
"MVP" and the "best player" I don't know who you want me to choose.
It sounds like you asked for two different things.
I don't care what your award is for, I just think you should be clear
what it is for. If you want people to define it for themselves and
"just vote" then you, as the guy who is in charge, can't fuck around
with things like "top athlete" or "MVP" or "over the course of the
season". Just say "send me your best 7 based on whatever you want".
This is what I meant. If you want the voters to determine the
criteria then just simply say "you choose whoever you think is the
best, and define best for yourself". If you say other shit, people
are not gonna get what you mean.
I only opened my mouth because I think its dumb for people (not you,
Mike, but other people on this thread) to think someone got robbed in
the Callahan voting because of what happened in the NUMP MVP. With
the Callahan, you are told what you are supposed to vote for. In the
NUMP MVP, it sounds like you wanted people to vote for something
different (the best 7, based on the voter's criteria). If you are
supposed to vote for 2 different things, it seems like you shouldn't
be suspicious when you get 2 different people winning. Does that make
sense?
Mike Gerics
> will help things, you know?
---uhm....no.
i ask for member to vote for their top 7....and that's what we got.
i don't mind if each seperate member has a totally different view of what
their top 7 might be.
i have a panel of voters....and i trust them to have some brains....and when
i ask for their top 7, i know they are gonna give me what they think it is.
after that....count the votes and announce the teams.
i don't feel the need to explain what a "best player" is to the panel
members.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You call it an "MVP" award, but calling it that doesn't make it one
---i used to host WUFF Coed Nationals....and the WUFF Coed InterNational
Championships.
i did.
they were.
champions were.
if it's called that...it is.
the NUMP MVP...is the most valuable athlete in college ultimate.......
it's also the NUMP Player of the Year.....and the recipient is the Player of
the Year, and Most Valuable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (if I call my car a BMW, that doesn't make it a BMW). MVP=Most
> VALUABLE Player, but you asked for the BEST player, the "Top
> Athlete". What I meant by "Value is different than talent, is
> different from...."
---get on the panel....and you can call it whatever you want and interpret
it however you want.....as long as you get your vote in on time.....then
i'll count it up....and make the announcement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Someone might think that the NUMP MVP should go to the most talented
> player,
---it should.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
someone might think it should go to the best player on the
> best team.
---maybe it should.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Those two people can be different.
---or the same....or close...or worlds apart......
a group of folks will each cast their version of it....and i'll add it
up...and that will be the NUMP Player of the Year, MVP, whatever.......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which one should a
> voter choose?
--the one that they think is #1-#7.
next year, it'll be top 1-10.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you say that this person should be the "best
> player", then I vote for the best player. But when you ask for the
> "MVP" and the "best player" I don't know who you want me to choose.
> It sounds like you asked for two different things.
---MVP of college ultimate.
i guess i couldn't give a shit if he's the worst on his team or the best or
best of a terrible team or the worst of a great team......if he/she's the
MVP of college ultimate, they'll get the most votes, i guess.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I don't care what your award is for, I just think you should be clear
> what it is for.
----it's not my award....i just count the votes.
and i don't think it needs to be more clear...just...best player, mvp of
college ultimate, best ultimate athlete.
~~~~~~~~~~~
If you want people to define it for themselves and
> "just vote" then you, as the guy who is in charge, can't fuck around
> with things like "top athlete" or "MVP" or "over the course of the
> season". Just say "send me your best 7 based on whatever you want".
---yep....that's what i told 'em, i guess.
no need to over think FOR obviously qualified voters.....right?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This is what I meant. If you want the voters to determine the
> criteria then just simply say "you choose whoever you think is the
> best, and define best for yourself". If you say other shit, people
> are not gonna get what you mean.
---?they're not gonna understand MVP? really?
they're not gonna understand the MVP of college ultimate?
they're not gonna understand that the MVP is the Player of the Year?
they're not gonna understand that hte MVP is the Player of the Year and that
makes them the best player in college ultimate?
damn.
it seems so simple to me.....that we'll probably leave it as it is.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I only opened my mouth because I think its dumb for people (not you,
> Mike, but other people on this thread) to think someone got robbed in
> the Callahan voting because of what happened in the NUMP MVP.
---i think that some people think that someone got robbed in the Callahan
voting....WITH OR WITHOUT the NUMP.
some folks thought someone got robbed in the Callahan and are fired up that
the NUMP sort of....set it straight.
i don't know one way or the other.......
i don't even consider the awards together...they're totally different...but
i do respect the thoughts of people that like one award over the
other.....or the results of them at least.
and one day, it may be opposite....
~~~~~~~~~~
With
> the Callahan, you are told what you are supposed to vote for.
---i don't want to tell the voters what to think or what to base their votes
on.
the votes tabulation takes care of everything.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the
> NUMP MVP, it sounds like you wanted people to vote for something
> different (the best 7, based on the voter's criteria).
---huh?????????????????????????????????????????????????
the NUMP wanted people to vote for something different?????????????????
different from what?
different from what the Callahan asks for? no....not different, because i
don't give that instruction.
the same as what the Callahan asks for? no...or yes....i don't
know...because i don't tell 'em.
different from each other voter? sure....
different from what?
what the nump asks for might be the same, or different....i don't know
because i don't ask.
i only ask for their top 7 athletes ranked 1-7.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you are
> supposed to vote for 2 different things, it seems like you shouldn't
> be suspicious when you get 2 different people winning. Does that make
> sense?
---yes.
people shouldn't use one award to say 'ha' to the other!
respect.
battle.
colinm...@gmail.com
> and i don't think your note was to me....
Dead on.
Jed
<colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 10:28 am, Jed <jedhen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The only difference is that the Callahan also includes spirit. I agree
> > with you though - it's evident that this one single factor has proven
> > the potential to make them markedly different contests.
>
> Where are the NUMP MVP criteria listed? You just pulled your list out
> of thin air, right? Is "dedication to the sport" an official NUMP MVP
> factor?
Dedication to the sport is sufficiently captured by the factors I
listed, most notably leadership. Besides, what good is a list of
criteria without any guideline on how to weight them?
>
> My only point is that the Callahan and the NUMP MVP have enough
> differences that chalking the different results up to one factor is
> stupid. I hope my stating that explicitly will help you figure out if
> you agree with me.
I listed what I believe most informed, objective voters (e.g. the NUMP
panel) would consider when picking an MVP. Apparently your list is
different. What are the differences? You must have them somewhat laid
out in your head, to have come to the definitive conclusion that
they're sufficient to make the two awards completely incomparable.
Speaking of differences, were both awards decided by informed,
objective voters?
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
> the NUMP MVP...is the most valuable athlete in college ultimate.......
> it's also the NUMP Player of the Year..
Oh Yea, i like that......"the nump collegiate player of the year"
award. Where would ya fit the sponsors name into that though? Either
way. I can see how its an mvp award. Them other dudes are getting
all caught up in the samantics. Technically the callahan isnt an mvp
award either. is it? To me its for the player amoungst the top
players that has earned the most boy/girl scout stripes through out
the year.
...and the recipient is the Player of
> the Year, and Most Valuable.
i'd say.......and what would florida have been like with out the "nump
collegiate player of the year" award winner. Congratulations Kurt, on
a well deverving, prestigious award.
colinm...@gmail.com
I don't think I said they were completely incomparable, but rather
that some barely surface-level analysis doesn't allow for reasonable
comparison of the results, to the extent a reasonable comparison can
be made.
Differences:
- SOTG
- Dedication to play. This is listed separately for the Callahan, in
addition to leadership. So I see that as separate emphasis.
- Likableness. I think this factors in strongly for Callahan, even
outside of any SOTG stuff. Factors in for the NUMP MVP, too, maybe,
but not nearly as much.
- The vote. Obviously, the NUMP vote will be impacted more strongly
by the imperfect information or judgment of a single voter. No need
to go into great detail, they're very different, right?
I'm not sure either award was decided by informed, objective voters.
More likely and/or to a greater extent by the NUMP, but even that's
kind of iffy.
As for a list of factors for the Callahan, I think it's helpful in
that it makes voters aware of the various considerations and what the
Award represents. Then they keep them in mind as they decide who they
would like to honor with the award. It's not an algorithm, it's a
vote.
Mike Gerics
> criteria without any guideline on how to weight them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
---does that mean...votes should be based on something specific......and
then something more specific than that?
a list of how to vote......plus a guideline of how to use the list of how to
vote?
Mike Gerics
<joad...@ec.rr.com>
Congratulations Kurt, on
a well deverving, prestigious award.
~~~~~~~~~~~
--damn. that sounds cool.....
yeah.
Mike Gerics
> by the imperfect information or judgment of a single voter. No need
> to go into great detail, they're very different, right?
----no need to get into detail?
yes, actually.
please, go into detail about the difference of perfection of information or
judgement of the single voter.
which voter?
colinm...@gmail.com
Difference in impact. If there is only one voter, that single voter
will have a 100% impact on the vote. If there are two voters, one
voter will have a 50% impact on the vote. If there are 34 voters, one
voter will have a 3% impact on the vote. If there are 1000 voters,
one voter will have a 0.1% impact on the vote.
I suspect average familiarity with players from all across the nation
is greater among NUMP voters than Callahan voters. Or maybe it goes
the other way. It's a potential difference. I don't think that all
the NUMP voters have experience with all the players in reasonable
consideration. So even there, there may be imperfect information.
Point is, there's great potential for difference one way or the other.
Judgment. The NUMP voters accepted the task of voting objectively to
the best of their ability. Or at least there's some expectation of
that. Callahan voters can vote for whatever reasons they want.
rufio
is just an eyesore for everyone, but since it still doesn't look like
I am getting my point across:
>
> ---i used to host WUFF Coed Nationals....and the WUFF Coed InterNational
> Championships.
> i did.
> they were.
> champions were.
> if it's called that...it is.
What something "is called" and what something "is" are often
different. In this case I was saying that if I was told to vote for
the US Presidency, but whoever was elected would become Governor of
New York, that wouldn't make sense. US President and Governor of New
York are two different things, that's obvious. If you tell me to vote
for who I want to be President and call the winner of the vote the
Governor of New York, the title and the voting procedure are not
appropriate for one another. It's not a huge deal, its just something
small that I think could help your award become so clear and so idiot-
proof that even people who whine about little details couldn't argue
with it. Say "vote for the top athlete" and all it "the top athlete",
don't say "vote for the top athlete" and call it the "mvp".
A lot of people think those two things are different. Let's take the
NBA as an example. When it came down to the MVP this year, the
candidates were KG, Kobe, LeBron, and Chris Paul.
Now, Kobe CLEARLY is the "best player": most if not all NBA writers/
experts would say that Kobe is the best individual player in the
league.
KG was clearly the best player on the best team. The Celtics had the
best record in the NBA and KG is the best player on the Celtics. He
was the best player who won the most games.
Chris Paul was the player who "did the most with the least". His
teammates are pretty much terrible, he doesn't play with another all-
star, and yet his team had the 2nd most wins in the west. If you take
Chris Paul off of New Orleans, they are looking at a lottery pick and
no chance of making the playoffs.
LeBron James, one could argue, had the best leadership ability. Like
Paul, he took a bunch of nobodies and turned them in to Eastern
Conference contenders. LeBron was the best at making his teammates
around him better.
Now, some might argue that Paul or LeBron were the most VALUABLE
players to their teams in the NBA. If you take them off of the Cavs
and the Hornets, neither team makes the playoffs or even thinks about
it. If you take KG or Kobe off of their teams, they fall a little
bit, but not as much as the Cavs or the Hornets.
Its somewhat confusing to call it an MVP (including the word VALUE in
the title) when what you really want is the best player--or even for
the voter to determine which one to vote for (best player or most
valuable) based on what the voter thinks should happen. If you call
it an MVP, boneheads like myself might be more inclined to pick Paul
or LeBron, when we really think Kobe is the best player and want to
vote for him. I don't think you want that sort of thing to happen, so
I am suggesting you don't include the word "value" in your award, or
your description of who to vote for.
>
> ----it's not my award....i just count the votes.
What I meant by "your" award is that you created it and named it and
said what it is for and that you are in charge of it. If you didn't
do these things then I am sorry I misunderstood.
> i don't think it needs to be more clear...just...best player, mvp of
> college ultimate, best ultimate athlete.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
What I am saying is that those are 3 different things.
>
> ---yep....that's what i told 'em, i guess.
> no need to over think FOR obviously qualified voters.....right?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope
>
> i don't know one way or the other.......
> i don't even consider the awards together...they're totally different...but
> i do respect the thoughts of people that like one award over the
> other.....or the results of them at least.
> and one day, it may be opposite....
> ~~~~~~~~~~
Yep
>
> ---i don't want to tell the voters what to think or what to base their votes
> on.
> the votes tabulation takes care of everything.....
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
haha, nice.
> the NUMP wanted people to vote for something different?????????????????
> different from what?
> different from what the Callahan asks for? no....not different, because i
> don't give that instruction.
> the same as what the Callahan asks for? no...or yes....i don't
> know...because i don't tell 'em.
> different from each other voter? sure....
> different from what?
> what the nump asks for might be the same, or different....i don't know
> because i don't ask.
> i only ask for their top 7 athletes ranked 1-7.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the Callahan asks for the following:
"8. Award Criteria
When casting their ballots, voters are to take the following criteria
into account when evaluating the candidates' play during the season:
A. overall offensive and defensive abilities
B. dedication to ultimate and leadership ability
C. sportsmanship
All candidates should be judged by their performance only during the
2008 spring college season. In particular, when judging sportsmanship,
the slate should begin clean with the current spring season, i.e. when
determining suitability for the award, head-butting an opponent during
the fall season shouldn’t be held against a player. This is America --
everyone gets a second chance."
So, you are told pretty explicitly what to vote for. You are supposed
to vote based on that criteria above when you vote for the Callahan.
If you vote for the best player even though he has poor sportsmanship,
you are a bad, bad Callahan voter and should be put in timeout.
Your criteria are a lot more open than that, just "vote for whoever
you think are the best 7" and that's it. Thats how the NUMP award is
different from the Callahan. It gets confusing to talk about other
shit because then people don't know what they are voting for, they
don't know if they just go with their gut or if there are some rules
they are supposed to vote by, like the Callahan. Does that make any
sense?
If it doesnt, I am sure it won't keep you up at night so just keep
doin what you are doin and people will still like it and respect it as
much as they do. I like the NUMP and hope it will continue to get
better and bigger, but I got a thesis to write and can't spend more
time on this.
Ajax
Has anybody yet suggested that It might
be a GOOD thing that there are many
different interpretations of what is a
valuable player for our sport?
Mike Gerics
Now, Kobe CLEARLY is the "best player": most if not all NBA writers/
experts would say that Kobe is the best individual player in the
league.
---and he also won the MVP.
so...the MVP is the best player.
and the best player is the best athlete in the NBA because he's the MVP and
he's the MVP because he's the best athlete playing basketball in the NBA.
Mike Gerics
> college ultimate, best ultimate athlete.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
What I am saying is that those are 3 different things.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---oh. then....you're wrong.
because the MVP, College Athletes of the year are Kurt Gibson and Kira Frew.
Mike Gerics
--uh..................................me, i guess!
rufio
> and has nothing to do with spirit or even sportsmanship (seeming ly to
> you since you failed to include that dynamic), right?
I wouldn't say NOTHING, but if you were playing on a team where the
captain was a complete dick with no sportsmanship whatsoever, would it
be really easy to follow the guy? The most spirited/most
sportsmanlike player could have any level of talent and play on any
team. He could be not at all valuable or the MVP of college ultimate.
Sportsmanship was not necessarily included in the NUMP ACT criteria,
and it is in the Callahan...is that what you wanted to hear?
Mike Gerics
> and it is in the Callahan...is that what you wanted to hear?
---the rules call for sportsmanship.
plain and simple.
that being the fact.......sportsmanship and all else...is included.
to what degree?
we can't be in the voters' brains.
Nathan Stock
Congrats to Kurt Gibson
NUMP College Athlete of the Year
NUMP Best Collegiate player of the Year
NUMP MVP
and
NUMP Sportsman of the Year
(In all seriousness, Kurt Gibson is a ridiculous player)
Clickc...@gmail.com
However...based on what they did for their teams in Boulder, these
guys should be in the top 14.
Grant Lindsley-Carleton. No way Carleton is anywhere near semis
without him. Gotta love Paideia kids.
Tom Annen-Wisconsin. I would have taken him over Muffin for sure.
Mac Taylor-Colorado...come ON. Shane was the only guy who could deal
with him all weekend.
A bit outdated, but still worth the props.
-Cassius