ANYBODY CATCH THE NATHANS 4TH OF JULY HOT DOG EATING CONTEST????
ulticritic
spectical.....they are a big time circut of events with bigtime
sponsors and large cash prizes. Now obviously the nathans hot dog
eating contest is the pinnical of competitive eating contests so leats
look at how they PRESENTED that comp and see what ultimate can learn.
Ah fuck that and lets get to how THEY dressed their officials (of
which it looked as if each eater had one (maybe two). Who woulda
thought.......they were wearing the traditional referee stripes AND
EVEN HAD WHISTLES AROUND THEIR NECKS!!!!!. And its not like the
competitors had to be disinguished from the refs, right? so why would
ole nathan dress up his "officials" like that???? THERES GOT TO BE A
REASON.
I tells ya, it was a lesson in sports marketing (even though i know a
lot of prople dont consider competitive eating a sport)........point
is they set it up like it is, marketed it like it is and presented it
like it is.
as mike g pointed out in his "ball boy" thread, other sports make
ultimate look soooooooo bush league when it comes to the
presentational aspect of sports entertainment.......but then again, i
dont think that ultimate has really transitioned into being a form of
entertainment yet....has it???. It is largely a particapatory sport
that shuns the normal and modern enhancements that put sports into the
"entertainment" category. It wont be untill those enhancements are
EMBRACED that ultimate can really be considered a form of
"entertainment". And lets face it, some people probably still wouldnt
consider it a sport due to its "spirit" centricity. BUT, then again,
all that spirity stuff goes hand in hand with shunning modern and
expected enhancements, so...............
And one OTHER THING i noticed this weekend while checking out other
sports entertainment presentations that are trying to fill this annual
summertime lull. There was a rugby game that i watched for about two
seconds(USA vs ???) and during that time i noticed two things.....!)
the field was lined emaculantly (REMEMBER THAT WAS ONE OF MY "7 CHEAP
AND EASY WAYS" college nationals suggestions.....and, 2) they had a
ref WITH A WHISTLE (albeit not in stripes........european sport i
guess???) that cas controling when play started and stopped......WITH
A WHISTLE.
WHEN IS ULTIMATE GONNA WISE UP IN
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
MANY WAYS?????
ulticritic
> MANY WAYS?????
seriously????? noone saw this???????
ulticritic
> > MANY WAYS?????
>
> seriously????? noone saw this???????- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
we finally got an american as back to back CHAMP and noone takes
notice????
thefan
here about how to transition our sport from what it is to what it
could be, maybe more than that.
problem is, when you talk to folks, they don't want it to be what it
could be. they got different reasons, or at least they say different
things, but for the most part it comes down to selfish, lazy, short
sighted reasons that have very little to do with logic.
things like "i wouldn't enjoy it as much anymore" "refs would take
the fun out of ultimate" "i just play ultimate for fun" . . .
i'm sure you've heard all of them and more.
but the thing that struck me about the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating contest
was this: It was all over the national news for the last 2 days and i
can't get one of the local stations here in the triad to come out to
any of our tournaments.
so that's where we are at.
Jimmy
tim e
I can always bite into a good story about the gastronic fortitude of
the contestants in a Hotdog eating contest.
But I will admit, I do not relish watching most ultimate unless it is
at the highest level. It just doens't cut the mustard anymore.
Ultimate needs to catchup.
Rookie McRookie
success of a sport is the existence of referees. I don't disagree that
refs could help the sport of Ultimate but I am not as naive as you to
think that it is the be all end all.
Nathan's Hot Dog championship is not a lesson in sports marketing.
It's a lesson in promotional marketing for a food company. Nathan's
created the hot dog eating championship to build awareness of their
brand and an occassion 4th of July. The majority of Nathan's success
as a company is owed to that Hot Dog eating championship. Other
companies seeing the success of the Hot Dog championship followed suit
with their own championships. The sport of competitive eating emerged
from a group of people realizing all these championships existed and
that there was money to be made by winning. The competition format was
already set up with sponsors lined up, all the competitors had to do
was show up and form a governing body and make it look like a sport.
That Rugby match (I assume it was the Churchill Cup) was played on the
first ever Rugby specific stadium built in the United States (about 5
miles from my house). It was the result of a Rugby fanatic Mayor of
Irish decent with a serious amount of disposable tax dollars
(collected mostly from strip clubs, hotels, and commercial businesses)
who convinced the local government that building a 5,000 seat Ruby
stadium for $22 million dollars would help boost economic development.
So that's how they were able to play the game on immaculate fields.
What you failed to see in your terse analysis of Rugby, was the
comprehensive effort by US Rugby to build the sport at the grass roots
level. High School and College programs are popping up across the
country and are feeding into local clubs and eventually the U.S.
National team. In this way U.S. Rugby and Ultimate are very similar
and I would argue that the growth of Ultimate has even been more
successful. Rugby does have a distinct advantage over Ultimate,
because the sport is established and incredibly popular worldwide.
There are professional leagues overseas and players get paid a fair
sum for their services. Meaning there is more attraction for elite
athletes, and there are existing corporate sponsors who are eager to
tap the potential American market.
The reality is each sports success is a result of a unique set of
factors, and not simply the one you choose to harp on (refs).
The UPA board of directors are competent people who were elected by
UPA members to decide which factors to focus our limited resources
on.
thefan
doesn't seem to me that he thinks that simply putting two or three
guys with striped shirts on the field is going to solve everything.
it's what they bring to the presentation of the game that he argues
for.
sure, some will be comforted by the existence of the refs in striped
shirts. but the refs will control gameplay, moving ultimate along
without those boring ass 30 second discussion about whether my foot
slid or not, whether i hit your hand or you hit mine, was the disc
already released or was i still holding it, were you within 10 feet of
me, was it up or down, in or out, blah blah blah. wistle. decision.
restart.
they also take the ambiguity out of a game. what did that guy call?
was it a strip or foul call, a pick or travel? why are those two
players reenacting everything? why is the disc going back? honestly,
is ultimate fun to watch? have you ever gone to an ultimate
tournament and just watched it? it's boring unless you have some
stake in the game. maybe we should get involved in betting or
something to make it more fun.
referees bring a sense of professionalism to the game not just by
running around in their striped shirts, but by changing the speed of
the game and limiting or eliminating drawn out stoppages of play and
misunderstandings by spectators.
and to address your grassroots growth thing. ultimate will never be a
varsity college or high school sport without referees on the field. i
cannot cite any legislation, creed or manifesto that makes this true,
but i would be willing to argue it to my grave. never will any state
create varsity status for a field sport without impartial arbitrators
there to regulate play. until then, the ultimate teams that exist
will be neat and all, but will just be the creation of an ultimate
player who happens to work at or attend said school. not any sort or
official arm of the state high school sports body. and until ultimate
achieves that varsity status, it's grassroots growth will be stunted
at best.
and as far as Toads dancing girls go. i'm not going to make any sort
of huge push for them. but i dang sure ain't gonna fight it.
jimmy
ulticritic
> Toad, i love you. and i agree with about 90% of the things you say on
> here about how to transition our sport from what it is to what it
> could be, maybe more than that.
what parts DONT you agree with? not the dancin girls thing i hope.
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> problem is, when you talk to folks, they don't want it to be what it
> could be.
yea, theyre mediocre like dat
------------------------------------------------
they got different reasons, or at least they say different
> things, but for the most part it comes down to selfish, lazy, short
> sighted reasons that have very little to do with logic.
tell me bout it
---------------------------------------------
>
> things like "i wouldn't enjoy it as much anymore" "refs would take
> the fun out of ultimate" "i just play ultimate for fun" . . .
but "they" are the minority. Its the progressive thinking people that
erk me even more because they not only let that minority spirit zealot
faction dictate whats what but then they do next to nothing to evoke
change. That whole spirity/fun angle that the sport has gained a
reputation for being is totally propagated from the administration.
So all we have to do is take over the administration and we can fix
the sport.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> i'm sure you've heard all of them and more.
who hasnt?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> but the thing that struck me about the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating contest
> was this: It was all over the national news for the last 2 days and i
> can't get one of the local stations here in the triad to come out to
> any of our tournaments.
well, ultimate has made a reputation for itself as being NON NEWS
WORTHY. Shit, ultimate has a ways to go before they can even
transition from the "public interest" section of the news paper into
the sports section.
The thing that people really fail to understand about ultimate is that
theres no "show" to it.........therefore no "business" either. And
dont think that "news" isnt a business either. So from where i sit
its just a matter of makin ultimate into a show........which is an
easy fix that we accomplished 15 years ago.
------------------------------------------------------
>
> so that's where we are at.
so how do we get from where we are "at" to where we (the
progressionists anyways) want it to be. Lets make a list of people
that want change and work as a unit rather than disgruntal individuals
here on rsd. I think that dude steve poluos is making one??????
Sam TH
> and to address your grassroots growth thing. ultimate will never be a
> varsity college or high school sport without referees on the field. i
> cannot cite any legislation, creed or manifesto that makes this true,
> but i would be willing to argue it to my grave. never will any state
> create varsity status for a field sport without impartial arbitrators
> there to regulate play. until then, the ultimate teams that exist
> will be neat and all, but will just be the creation of an ultimate
> player who happens to work at or attend said school. not any sort or
> official arm of the state high school sports body. and until ultimate
> achieves that varsity status, it's grassroots growth will be stunted
> at best.
Ultimate already has varsity status at numerous high schools.
sam th
ulticritic
> No one responds to you because the only thing you identify with
> success of a sport is the existence of referees. I don't disagree that
> refs could help the sport of Ultimate but I am not as naive as you to
> think that it is the be all end all.
i dont think its the "end all".......i think its the "start all".
dancin girls are the end all. So what i'm talking about adding to the
game are refs, dancin girls and everything in between. there was a
lot more to the best ultimate showcased game ever than just the refs.
it was a whole production......its just that refs were a key
component.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nathan's Hot Dog championship is not a lesson in sports marketing.
> It's a lesson in promotional marketing for a food company.
it was both. they killed two birds with one stone. but dont think
that promo's like that wont raise awarness for the sport of
competitive eating
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan's
> created the hot dog eating championship to build awareness of their
> brand and an occassion 4th of July. The majority of Nathan's success
> as a company is owed to that Hot Dog eating championship.
eh, oscer myer dosent have one.....and they, along with countless
other hot dog manufactures, still sell the hell outa their product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Other
> companies seeing the success of the Hot Dog championship followed suit
> with their own championships. The sport of competitive eating emerged
> from a group of people realizing all these championships existed and
> that there was money to be made by winning. The competition format was
> already set up with sponsors lined up, all the competitors had to do
> was show up and form a governing body and make it look like a sport.
yea, thats all...........like you know
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> That Rugby match (I assume it was the Churchill Cup) was played on the
> first ever Rugby specific stadium built in the United States (about 5
> miles from my house). It was the result of a Rugby fanatic Mayor of
> Irish decent with a serious amount of disposable tax dollars
> (collected mostly from strip clubs, hotels, and commercial businesses)
> who convinced the local government that building a 5,000 seat Ruby
> stadium for $22 million dollars would help boost economic development.
> So that's how they were able to play the game on immaculate fields.
i wasnt refering to the fields being emaculant........i was refering
to how they were marked
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> What you failed to see in your terse analysis of Rugby, was the
> comprehensive effort by US Rugby to build the sport at the grass roots
> level. High School and College programs are popping up across the
> country and are feeding into local clubs and eventually the U.S.
> National team. In this way U.S. Rugby and Ultimate are very similar
> and I would argue that the growth of Ultimate has even been more
> successful. Rugby does have a distinct advantage over Ultimate,
> because the sport is established and incredibly popular worldwide.
> There are professional leagues overseas and players get paid a fair
> sum for their services. Meaning there is more attraction for elite
> athletes, and there are existing corporate sponsors who are eager to
> tap the potential American market.
these are no excuses for how lame ultimate is promoted, presented and
marketed
------------------------------------------------------
>
> The reality is each sports success is a result of a unique set of
> factors, and not simply the one you choose to harp on (refs).
refs are just part of the modern package that ultimate stubbornly
refuses to conform to
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The UPA board of directors are competent people
compitant at what? if you say preserving sotg then i agree.......if
you say selling ultimate as a sport then i say your full o shit
------------------------------------------------------------
who were elected by
> UPA members
but only 6% of em
----------------------------------------
to decide which factors to focus our limited resources
> on.
limited resources???????? they are sittin on some serious bank from
what i understand. but if they are so competent, as you say, then why
do all the REALLY innovative things that occur with this sport get
initiated by non administative independants........that have
absolutley NO BANK?????
ulticritic
>
> Ultimate already has varsity status at numerous high schools.
where?
ulticritic
>
> I can always bite into a good story about the gastronic fortitude of
> the contestants in a Hotdog eating contest.
> But I will admit, I do not relish watching most ultimate unless it is
> at the highest level. It just doens't cut the mustard anymore.
> Ultimate needs to catchup
CLASSIC
Rookie McRookie
expedited calls would make Ultimate more watchable. But the UPA's main
objective isn't to make the sport more spectator friendly and easier
to follow. That's a key philosophical difference between you and the
majority of the 6% of UPA voting members. They feel its more important
to allow playing opportunities for Ultimate players and to grow the
sport as a whole.
I don't care to take the time to dig through the rest of your hack
arguments.
ulticritic
> I agree Refs would add a great deal of professionalism and their
> expedited calls would make Ultimate more watchable. But
but nuthin......you hit the nail on the head, so go ref you next pick
up game ya loser
------------------------------------------------------------
the UPA's main
> objective isn't to make the sport more spectator friendly and easier
> to follow.
well, first off, when you say "upa", do you mean the membership or the
administration? you must distingwish the two..........BECAUSE, its
quite clear that the administrations main objective is to preserve
sotg......at any cost. whereas the memberships main objective is
ANYTHING BUT clear......what with only 6% membership feedback and
all. Of course said apathy suits the admin just fine so that they can
carry on their spirit campaign unfettered. its quite the clusterfuck
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a key philosophical difference between you and the
> majority of the 6% of UPA voting members.
no argument there......which is why i'm out here tryin to activate the
other 94%
---------------------------------------------
They feel its more important
> to allow playing opportunities for Ultimate players and to grow the
> sport as a whole.
but without refs etal how can it grow as a whole? seems it can only
grow as a half.........and since the half you are left with has
relitively NO entertainment value you are doing the whole a disservice
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't care to take the time to dig through the rest of your hack
> arguments.
its your funeral.........or should i say, ultimates funeral. and i
dont see how you can consider them hack when you agree with them
Reggie Fanelli
> Ultimate already has varsity status at numerous high schools.
---12 in the nation isn't numerous.
it is a 'number', yes...but not numerous.
ulticritic
which 12 are they? all in one area? whats the catch?
Joe Buck
ultimate isn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15m_i6QPAXE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Td0jz8kKx0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Zo0R7amY8
Maybe it's because those spirit zealots hate the hornet ball.
ulticritic
which 12 are they? all in one area? whats the catch?
3jane.
> I agree Refs would add a great deal of professionalism and their
> expedited calls would make Ultimate more watchable. But the UPA's main
> objective isn't to make the sport more spectator friendly and easier
> to follow. That's a key philosophical difference between you and the
> majority of the 6% of UPA voting members. They feel its more important
> to allow playing opportunities for Ultimate players and to grow the
> sport as a whole.
It's also the reason why he isn't going to accomplish shit besides
making a bunch of people he's never met think he's a raving lunatic
and make people reconsider their support of third party refereeing and
the UPA is going to continue to grow the game.
bww
of observer dress.
i vote full tuxedos.
pinto
> > majority of the 6% of UPA voting members.
>
> no argument there......which is why i'm out here tryin to activate the
> other 94%
Are you then of the opinion that the other 94% reads RSD? Really?
Additionally, even if they did, how did you fail to activate them in
your last hundred, thousand, ten thousand posts? What will you do
differently in your next hundred, thousand, ten thousand?
~p
ulticritic
> On Jul 6, 7:51 pm, Rookie McRookie <irish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree Refs would add a great deal of professionalism and their
> > expedited calls would make Ultimate more watchable. But the UPA's main
> > objective isn't to make the sport more spectator friendly and easier
> > to follow. That's a key philosophical difference between you and the
> > majority of the 6% of UPA voting members. They feel its more important
> > to allow playing opportunities for Ultimate players and to grow the
> > sport as a whole.
>
> It's also the reason why he isn't going to accomplish shit besides
> making a bunch of people he's never met think he's a raving lunatic
first off, arent you one of those people that deleted me from your
computer........in an effort to get me outa your head? yet you are
still here talking about me.......and i'm still in your head?
Secondly, its only the 1 and 2 spirit zealot types that think i'm a
lunatic YET its me, the progressionists AND maintream america that
think you spirit zealots are lunitics. Point being.......you guys are
severly out numbered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> and make people reconsider their support of third party refereeing and
> the UPA is going to continue to grow the game.
uhmmm, wouldnt that be like throwing the baby out with the
bathwater?????........me being the bathwater here of course.
so for a guy like rokkie mcrookie to say "I agree Refs would add a
great deal of professionalism and their
expedited calls would make Ultimate more watchable" but then turn
around and campaign against them(or even show indifference) wouldnt
that be selling out and doing the sport a disservice? I mean, its
quite flattering to think that people would go against their inner
beliefs AND trying to help advance the sport just to spite lil ole
me. How does that saying go......"cut off your nose to spite your
face"......not that i know what the hell that means........but for
some reason i have a feeling its relevant here.
ulticritic
sa they say......."god is in the details"
ulticritic
> On Jul 6, 5:07 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
> > other 94%
>
> Are you then of the opinion that the other 94% reads RSD?
no
---------------------------
Really?
yes ......really i'm not
-------------------------------------------
>
> Additionally, even if they did, how did you fail to activate them in
> your last hundred, thousand, ten thousand posts?
well, they are a hard nut to crack i guess. Point is, "i'm like a
commercial gingle.....kinda irritating at first but after a while it
grows on ya and the next thin you know your singing it in the shower"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will you do
> differently in your next hundred, thousand, ten thousand?
youll have to tune in to find out
ulticritic
> On Jul 6, 11:53 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 5:07 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > majority of the 6% of UPA voting members.
>
> > > no argument there......which is why i'm out here tryin to activate the
> > > other 94%
>
> > Are you then of the opinion that the other 94% reads RSD?
>
> no
> ---------------------------
>
> Really?
>
> yes ......really i'm not
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> > Additionally, even if they did, how did you fail to activate them in
> > your last hundred, thousand, ten thousand posts?
>
> well, they are a hard nut to crack i guess. Point is, "i'm like a
> commercial gingle.....kinda irritating at first but after a while it
> grows on ya and the next thin you know your singing it in the shower"
>
> What will you do
>
> > differently in your next hundred, thousand, ten thousand?
>
> youll have to tune in to find out
KEEPIN IT REAL
jim
I would like to know where as well???
thefan
have varsity status.
12? so then has one state high school athletic association made the
move to make these 12 teams varsity teams.
sounds more like one school system which has granted some sort of
pseudo varsity status to the high school ultimate teams in it's
system.
i mean, this is a great start and would go along way towards helping
other hs ultimate teams achieve said status and would do some good in
quelling the arguement that the lack of referees hinders the
legitimacy of the sport at an administrative level.
so please.
tell us more about these 12 varsity teams.
is that an echo?
Ryan Thompson
Amherst HS (MA)
Paideia HS (GA)
Woodward Academy (GA)
Pennsbury HS (PA)
Watchung Hills (NJ)
Urbana HS (MD)
Many New England prep schools
Several Seattle private schools
Ridgewood? (NJ)
And probably more that are not as high profile.
Peterson
I tried that new search engine bing and saw a few listed:
Stuyvesant in NYC
Padeia (sp?) - GA
I think Seattle has some
Amherst ?
Seems like they may be spread out amongst a few metro areas.
Peterson
jim
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who do they play....or how do they play if there are not other varsity
teams in the area?
Woodward and Paideia are both in Atlanta...but that game would get old
after a couple times, so how is the varsity program/league set up?
Not just asking you peterson...asking anyone.
thefan
when you talk about varsity soccer, volleyball, cross country or
football you're talking about a team that is part of a State High
School Athletic Association.
so yeah, a handful of private schools around the country have granted
some sort of varsity status to ultimate at their school, but it's a
far cry from where the real, actual varsity sports are, which is a
shame because ultimate trumps Title IX in that it offers a team for
both boys and girls.
Jimmy
ulticritic
> Amherst HS (MA)
1
> Paideia HS (GA)
2
> Woodward Academy (GA)
3
> Pennsbury HS (PA)
4
> Watchung Hills (NJ)
5
> Urbana HS (MD)
6
> Many New England prep schools
bzzt sorry, dosent count
> Several Seattle private schools
bzzt nope
>
> Ridgewood? (NJ)
????is right
so thers 6, not 12. who the fuck do they play against is what i want
to know.........and is this "varsity status" recognized or umbrellaed
under any state wide athletic association? i'd bet the house they
arent
> And probably more that are not as high profile.
but then again, probably not
DK
Jimmy,
That Varsity status is actually a big advantage for ultimate. Woodward
is a huge school and the Varsity status gives ulti legitimacy to bring
better athletes and parental goodwill. Those are the kinds of things
that push ultimate forward. The local HSAA doesn't really have any
reason to add a new sport until both parents and schools are calling
and writing letters, etc. While refs would help a little, high school
athletic associations act based on pressure, not on logical things
like giving more kids an opportunity to play sports. There are more
than 12 varsity teams i'm sure, but it will take a lot of work from
kids, coaches, parents, and some administrator/AD support before any
high school leagues obtain recognition from the state.
Rookie McRookie
> so for a guy like rokkie mcrookie to say "I agree Refs would add a
> great deal of professionalism and their
> expedited calls would make Ultimate more watchable" but then turn
> around and campaign against them(or even show indifference) wouldnt
> that be selling out and doing the sport a disservice? I mean, its
> quite flattering to think that people would go against their inner
> beliefs AND trying to help advance the sport just to spite lil ole
> me.
Because I don't believe that Refererring would help the growth of
Ultimate. In fact in many cases it would hurt the growth of Ultimate.
- Self-officiating provides a point of difference for Ultimate that
appeals to many parents. It relies on sportsmanship and the integrity
of the players vs. the integrity of a third party. This is a very
enriching part of the sport, that many parents and youth players
value. As an added benefit you don't have parents yelling at an
underpaid referee about making bad calls, because the kids are
settling it out on the field.
- Referees cost money - As a high school coach, I have witnessed many
kids are able to play Ultimate because of its relatively low barriers
to entry vs. other sports. Between club fees, coaches fees, league
dues, field costs, and Refs sports like B-Ball, Soccer, Baseball, and
LAX are rising above $1,000 per season. If Ultimate can provide a fun,
and low cost alternative to the youth sports that are driving kids out
because of burnout then I am all for it.
If Ultimate can attract full time active observers for the highest
level competition I support that, but I don't want to recklessly
pursue that in expense of our efforts in youth and local league
development. The fact is most people wouldn't tolerate the price hikes
it would take to get full fledged referees, both at the local and
elite levels.
You have to crawl before you can run, and right now we're crawling
fast because of the hard work of a lot of great volunteers.
Reggie Fanelli
---i made that number up.
let's see how far off i am.
amhurst?
pie day uh?
ulticritic
> On Jul 7, 1:41 pm, thefan <jimmyholtz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > but that's not really varsity status.
>
> > when you talk about varsity soccer, volleyball, cross country or
> > football you're talking about a team that is part of a State High
> > School Athletic Association.
>
> > so yeah, a handful of private schools around the country have granted
> > some sort of varsity status to ultimate at their school, but it's a
> > far cry from where the real, actual varsity sports are, which is a
> > shame because ultimate trumps Title IX in that it offers a team for
> > both boys and girls.
>
> > Jimmy
>
> Jimmy,
>
> That Varsity status is actually a big advantage for ultimate.
what varsity status????
---------------------------------------------------
Woodward
> is a huge school and the Varsity status gives ulti legitimacy to bring
> better athletes and parental goodwill.
where is woodward, is it public and what other varsity ultimate teams
do they get to compete against?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are the kinds of things
> that push ultimate forward.
but there are lots of other things that can push it forward
too.......and changes that could even help push hs ultimate forward at
a faster rate too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The local HSAA doesn't really have any
> reason to add a new sport until both parents and schools are calling
> and writing letters, etc.
but is it likley there letters/requests for hsaa affiliation would be
accepted without refs? i dont think so
--------------------------------------------------------------
While refs would help a little,
as pete townsend sang "a little is enough"
-------------------------------------------------------------
high school
> athletic associations act based on pressure, not on logical things
> like giving more kids an opportunity to play sports.
but they also have standards and regulations.......of which refs are
probably one of them
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are more
> than 12 varsity teams i'm sure,
i'm not........in fact i would bet there isnt one public school with
hsaa varsity affiliation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
but it will take a lot of work from
> kids, coaches, parents, and some administrator/AD support before any
> high school leagues obtain recognition from the state.
and dont forget about refs.........i'm sure they will be a prerequisit
too
ulticritic
> > so for a guy like rokkie mcrookie to say "I agree Refs would add a
> > great deal of professionalism and their
> > expedited calls would make Ultimate more watchable" but then turn
> > around and campaign against them(or even show indifference) wouldnt
> > that be selling out and doing the sport a disservice? I mean, its
> > quite flattering to think that people would go against their inner
> > beliefs AND trying to help advance the sport just to spite lil ole
> > me.
>
> Because I don't believe that Refererring would help the growth of
> Ultimate.
so you dont think that speeding up the game an make it more watchable
wouldnt.....
make it more marketable..........which would, in turn......
expose it more/better..............which would, in turn......
make it grow more
thas wierd!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact in many cases it would hurt the growth of Ultimate.
> - Self-officiating provides a point of difference for Ultimate that
> appeals to many parents.
uhmmm, then why so many kids playing refereed sports?????
-------------------------------------------------------------
It relies on sportsmanship and the integrity
> of the players vs. the integrity of a third party.
yea, we know ALLLLLLL about it.......you dont have to explain it
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very
> enriching part of the sport, that many parents and youth players
> value.
again.....then how do you explain all the kids playing refed sports.
and dosent that presupose that parents put MORE value in the type of
structure, disipline and enforcement that refs provide?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an added benefit you don't have parents yelling at an
> underpaid referee about making bad calls, because the kids are
> settling it out on the field.
well if they act like some of the adults ive seen use self officiation
thats not a pretty picture.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - Referees cost money - As a high school coach, I have witnessed many
> kids are able to play Ultimate because of its relatively low barriers
> to entry vs. other sports.
yea, low barriers of entry but HIGH (economic) barrieres to KEEP
playing.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Between club fees, coaches fees, league
> dues, field costs, and Refs sports like B-Ball, Soccer, Baseball, and
> LAX are rising above $1,000 per season. If Ultimate can provide a fun,
> and low cost alternative to the youth sports that are driving kids out
> because of burnout then I am all for it.
your full of shit
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> If Ultimate can attract full time active observers for the highest
> level competition I support that,
how? and wont they have equal costs as refs?
-----------------------------------------------------------
but I don't want to recklessly
> pursue that in expense of our efforts in youth and local league
> development.
how would it be "reckless". are the use of refs/umps in other youth
(or adult for that matter) reckless to you? seems to me how reckless
your ref system is is all based on how well they are trained, right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is most people wouldn't tolerate the price hikes
> it would take to get full fledged referees, both at the local and
> elite levels.
how is that even slightly factual?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You have to crawl before you can run, and right now we're crawling
crawling at the age of 40........sounds like you got some serious
developmental problems to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> fast because of the hard work of a lot of great volunteers.
like who? mike g? tinna booth? no argument there
ulticritic
>
> ---i made that number up.
> let's see how far off i am.
i think you are off by 12
H
bump
thefan
"varsity" status but then state that the low cost of an unofficiated
game helps the game grow. all those schools are private schools,
which means that instead of going to the publicly funded free school,
those kids parents have already chosen to shell out a wad of cash just
to get their kids in that school. so the $s per ref might be low,
once you have shelled out the $$$$s to get your kid in that school.
how available have you really made the sport to those that would
actually have a problem with funds? none really it seems.
the cost of ultimate is already low, even with refs. no pads, not LAX
sticks, no helmet, no shin guards, no $40 soccerballs. shoes, shorts,
shirt, disc. so, let's say that a varsity program sprang up, and you
needed three refs per game, each making 15$ per game, season is say 20
games. so we've got $900 per season in ref bills, but that number is
actually cut in half since two teams get together to play and only
have one set of refs, back down to $450 per season, per team for
refs. now lets say that the kids folks have to put up the money for
the refs, which is not the case because the refs are hired by the HSAA
which is payed by the state and/or school system, which comes out of
the academic budget which is tax dollars, but lets just say that the
team of 15 players has to front that money all by themselves.
$30bucks per kid per season. hardly huge numbers, and since these
kids parents aren't sending them to a $15G a year private school, they
can come up with the $30 they need to pay the refs for the entire
season. and let's just say they can't come up with that. how much
does it pay for a kid to mow a lawn? wash some cars? babysit? how
many kids, if they wanted to play ultimate for their school varsity
team couldn't figure out a way to come up with $30 for an entire
season of refereed ultimate frisbee games?
your arguement about money is not holding up very well to the
numbers. and go to your local high school and ask how much each
football player has to pay for the officials. how much does each
soccer, volleyball, baseball or lacrosse player pay each year for the
officials that keep the game moving and keep the kids safe?
most don't pay a dime.
so, for the record, you think it's great that a few PRIVATE schools
have varsity status and that it's good for the growth of the sport,
but you think that having officials on the field would somehow hinder
the growth of the sport and make it financially unavailable?
is that right?
then the whole, my school has a team so that means growth arguement.
what if the entire state HSAA named ultimate as a sanctioned varsity
sport? started hosting playoffs and state championships just like in
soccer, football, volleyball and crosscountry? would that spur growth
of sports as ADs scrambled to provide the same opportunities at their
schools that other schools are offering their students?
once again, you seem to think that a few private schools across the
country will spur growth, but that a state HSAA getting behing
ultimate is not a good idea for growing the sport at the "grass roots
and youth" level. keep alienating the administrative bodies that
could bring ultimate to massive #s of high school and middle school
students through a lack of referees and see where that gets ya.
The Fan
thefan
> Because I don't believe that Refererring would help the growth of
> Ultimate. In fact in many cases it would hurt the growth of Ultimate.
> - Self-officiating provides a point of difference for Ultimate that
> appeals to many parents. It relies on sportsmanship and the integrity
> of the players vs. the integrity of a third party. This is a very
> enriching part of the sport, that many parents and youth players
> value.
kids and parents might value it, but it is going to be a sticking
point for Athletic Directors and state HSAAs. you just can't have
high school students running around on a field without an impartial
arbitrator. it's dangerous.
>As an added benefit you don't have parents yelling at an
> underpaid referee about making bad calls, because the kids are
> settling it out on the field.
i've reffed about a million soccer games in my life and one thing that
i can say is that if an adult is going to go to a youth game and yell
at a ref for a blown call, then that same adult will have little
problem yelling at the kid that makes the same call. no problem is
going to be solved by removing the referee. jackass parents, and they
are out there, are going to yell at something to let everyone know
that their kid is special, it's not about the kids or the refs, its
about that parent, and removing the ref isn't going to change
anything.
The Fan
StockOption
Hmm, if it's all about the parent, then the solution seems simple...
remove the parent. Now we can't forcibly keep them away, but what if
we made it so they didn't want to show up? We've been looking at this
backwards. We don't want to make the game more watchable, we want to
make it LESS watchable. If there are no parents yelling on the
sidelines then you remove a huge chunk of the anger present at most
youth games. Plus, the kid doesn't feel pressured to live up to mommy
and daddy's expectations. They are out there just for the sake of
playing the game.
I can see how making the sport unwatchable would actually draw more to
playing it. I think we all agree ultimate is a pretty great sport. I
mean, we're here on rsd talking about it, right? There must be
something good about it to make us all so passionate. If other people
could see that we had something great, but were unable to stand
watching it, the only way they could understand would be to experience
it for themselves. It's like the Matrix. By making the sport wholly
unwatchable, we'd naturally draw more people in.
And, at the high school level, kids are rebellious. What better way to
stick it to the parents than to play a sport they can't stand
watching? As a kid, you get to enjoy playing a sport AND you get the
satisfaction of knowing they can't live vicariously through you. Cause
dammit, you're already expected to become a lawyer and take over the
family business, but all you want to do is be a photographer. But I
digress.
So in summary, why make the sport more watchable when all it will do
is lead to angry parents on the sideline?
ulticritic
>
> Hmm, if it's all about the parent, then the solution seems simple...
> remove the parent. Now we can't forcibly keep them away,
so how is it simple?
-------------------------------------------------
but what if
> we made it so they didn't want to show up? We've been looking at this
> backwards. We don't want to make the game more watchable, we want to
> make it LESS watchable.
well you are doing a great job of that now.......but how does this
help growth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there are no parents yelling on the
> sidelines then you remove a huge chunk of the anger present at most
> youth games. Plus, the kid doesn't feel pressured to live up to mommy
> and daddy's expectations. They are out there just for the sake of
> playing the game.
yea, you could also revert back to when the game was invented, no
stall counts, no player limits, fields marked with trees or parked
cars, playing on parking lots, using a master 155 g
frisbee............you are such a dumbfuck
and again.....how does this equate to growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I can see how making the sport unwatchable would actually draw more to
> playing it.
how?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I think we all agree ultimate is a pretty great sport. I
> mean, we're here on rsd talking about it, right?
well i'm here cause it sucks....to watch anyways. if it didnt i
wouldnt be here......and this thread wouldnt exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There must be
> something good about it to make us all so passionate.
yea, that would be its potential
---------------------------------------------------------------
If other people
> could see that we had something great, but were unable to stand
> watching it, the only way they could understand would be to experience
> it for themselves.
or blow it off altogether......which again, dont do much for growth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's like the Matrix. By making the sport wholly
> unwatchable, we'd naturally draw more people in.
well obviously thats not the case because its ALWAYS BEEN totally
unwatchible and it isnt even a blip on the radar as far a sports go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And, at the high school level, kids are rebellious.
what % of em
-----------------------------------------------------
What better way to
> stick it to the parents than to play a sport they can't stand
> watching? As a kid, you get to enjoy playing a sport AND you get the
> satisfaction of knowing they can't live vicariously through you. Cause
> dammit, you're already expected to become a lawyer and take over the
> family business, but all you want to do is be a photographer. But I
> digress.
is that why you are a lowley ultimate bum today.....so you can get
back at your parents......who probably spoied the hell outa ya and
made you into the loser/idiot you are today.
thefan
of nonsense that addressed absolutely nothing in this thread.
in what has become a sad fact of life here on RSD someone has yet
again taken a post that addressed a question/problem posed by another
poster, completely bastardized it, removed the context, and gone off
on some sort of pent up tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with
the discussion at hand.
what's the matter, didn't i spell anything wrong?
The Fan
StockOption
> On Jul 8, 2:16 pm, StockOption <StarsAndSk...@gmail.com> wrote a bunch
> of nonsense that addressed absolutely nothing in this thread.
False. I was suggesting a solution to the problem you posed in the
preceding post, namely, that parents take their kids' games too
seriously. Unless you're saying that your post also had nothing to do
with the thread.
> in what has become a sad fact of life here on RSD someone has yet
> again taken a post that addressed a question/problem posed by another
> poster, completely bastardized it, removed the context, and gone off
> on some sort of pent up tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with
> the discussion at hand.
1) As stated above, the most I'm guilty of is continuing your
hijacking of the thread.
2) The OP happily responded to my post without invoking accusations of
thread hijacking. Shouldn't he be the one complaining if there's been
a foul?
3) By "discussion at hand" I assume you're speaking of the high school
varsity status of ultimate. Which has nothing to do with the OP. The
watchablility of ultimate is at the core of this thread, so my taking
a counter position to watchability = good seems especially relevant,
no?
4) I don't mean to say it's a bad thing that the discussion is
completely removed from the original post, it is what it is. This is
what happens on RSD. Did you see how quickly Toad veered the "Potlatch
Last Name Competition" off topic? I'd say 'you must be new here' but
that's not the case.
ulticritic
> On Jul 8, 2:47 pm, thefan <jimmyholtz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:16 pm, StockOption <StarsAndSk...@gmail.com> wrote a bunch
> > of nonsense that addressed absolutely nothing in this thread.
>
> False. I was suggesting a solution to the problem you posed in the
> preceding post, namely, that parents take their kids' games too
> seriously. Unless you're saying that your post also had nothing to do
> with the thread.
false.....you were TRYING to be a sarcastic prick......and you
succeeded. also, jimmy wasnt pointing out a problem he was just
pointing out that parents will be just as emotionally charged no
matter whose making the calls in response to the contention of the
nonsensical "added benenfit"
that self officiation adds......ya dumbfuck!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > in what has become a sad fact of life here on RSD someone has yet
> > again taken a post that addressed a question/problem posed by another
> > poster, completely bastardized it, removed the context, and gone off
> > on some sort of pent up tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with
> > the discussion at hand.
>
> 1) As stated above, the most I'm guilty of is continuing your
> hijacking of the thread.
nope......youre guilty of being a dumbfuck too
----------------------------------------------------------
> 2) The OP happily responded to my post without invoking accusations of
> thread hijacking. Shouldn't he be the one complaining if there's been
> a foul?
bzzt, wrong again, there was nuthin "happily" about my response. and
i dont think jimmy is charging you with highjacking but rather
dumbfuckingly taking what he said way out of context and trying to be
a cute lil faggot about it
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3) By "discussion at hand" I assume you're speaking of the high school
> varsity status of ultimate.
bzzt, wrong again. go back and read the part that you drew your cute
lil response from. or is this just you trying to be cute again
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which has nothing to do with the OP. The
> watchablility of ultimate is at the core of this thread, so my taking
> a counter position to watchability = good seems especially relevant,
> no?
no. it was completely irrelevant........just like you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4) I don't mean to say it's a bad thing that the discussion is
> completely removed from the original post, it is what it is.
which, in your case, was a bunch of stupid shit written by a dumbfuck
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is
> what happens on RSD.
chumps like you trying to be cute but coming accross as dumbfucks????
no arguement there
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you see how quickly Toad veered the "Potlatch
> Last Name Competition" off topic?
all i said was that it was a stupid thread topic to begin with. i
never took anything out of context and attempted to be cute about it.
i just told it like it was.
thefan
> On Jul 8, 2:47 pm, thefan <jimmyholtz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> False. I was suggesting a solution to the problem you posed in the
> preceding post, namely, that parents take their kids' games too
> seriously. Unless you're saying that your post also had nothing to do
> with the thread.
>
let's examine the previous posts and your "solution" stockoption.
the previous posts, under Toad's comparison of ultimate to a hot dog
eating contest went on to the drawn out topic of the growth of
ultimate and whether or not adding referees would facilitate this
growth and how much.
RookMcRook in a post i disagreed with, but that still made some sense
basically stated that he didn't believe that the addition of referees
would help the growth of the sport. he then stated that some parents
and youth players were attracted to the player controlled aspect of
gameplay. he then stated that an added benefit of not having refs
would be that the parents attending childrens games wouldn't have a
ref to yell at. he then went on to another point, $, claiming that
referees would make the sport cost prohibitive for some kids to play.
in my first response to his post i argued that the cost prohibitive
claim did not hold water because:
1. the only schools that had this varsity ultimate status were
private schools where the kids and parents would likely have little
problem shelling out a little extra money to play. and
2. in breaking down the cost of refs for an entire season and then
distributing it evenly to the players (which is not how refs in other
sports get paid for) the cost was really very small.
in my second post i quoted some of his arguments, rebutting that while
some youth and parents might be attracted to the player control
aspect, the administration of HSAAs would likely find it a drawback to
put 14 players on a field without some sort of 3rd party arbitration.
then in more of an aside to what i'm sure he would consider the 3rd of
his three arguments i stated that refs or no refs would not really
have an effect on parents that take the game to seriously, asses that
yell will find something to yell at because they want to yell.
now you come in.
and your solution to the problem of growth of ultimate at the high
school level is "remove the parent. Now we can't forcibly keep them
away, but what if
we made it so they didn't want to show up? We've been looking at this
backwards. We don't want to make the game more watchable, we want to
make it LESS watchable." then a bunch of inane babble about the
Matrix and wanting to be a photographer.
so, no you aren't offering a solution to the problem of growing
ultimate and whether or not referees would facilitate it, you are
spouting off like a bratty child and offering a non solution to a
problem that really needs addressing.
now, if you don't want refs, say so. if you like ultimate to be a
small counter culture sport that is enjoyed only by the small number
of us who play it, fine. not everyone has the same goals for the
sport and i respect that. i disagree, but that's what makes the world
go round. but don't throw a temper tantrum on your keyboard and then
try to claim that you are "suggesting a solution" or continuing the
discussion.
Jimmy
ulticritic
cant wait to head suckoptions response to this
StockOption
> On Jul 8, 7:11 pm, StockOption <StarsAndSk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:47 pm, thefan <jimmyholtz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > False. I was suggesting a solution to the problem you posed in the
> > preceding post, namely, that parents take their kids' games too
> > seriously. Unless you're saying that your post also had nothing to do
> > with the thread.
>
> let's examine the previous posts and your "solution" stockoption.
>
> the previous posts, under Toad's comparison of ultimate to a hot dog
> eating contest went on to the drawn out topic of the growth of
> ultimate and whether or not adding referees would facilitate this
> growth and how much.
That's being a little generous. I would summarize his first post as:
Toad pointed out Rugby and a hot dog eating contest had refs with
whistles and were on TV. He implies that refs were the panacea, though
never quite states it directly. He asks rhetorically if ultimate has
reached the level of 'sports entertainment,' but doubts it ever will
so long as its spirit centric.
First off, there's absolutely no mention of 'growing' ultimate in the
original post. Anywhere. In fact, the post appears mainly to be about
Toad's primary motive of turning ultimate into sports entertainment,
most notably through the use of refs. There was no mention of growth,
let alone grassroots growth, let alone growth through having high
school varsity status.
Then, there were four off topic posts: two by toad asking why no one
is listening, one by you telling him why no one is listening and one
by tim e, which was quite amusing, but wholly unrelated nonetheless.
Then, a day and a half after the initial post Rook posted that Rugby
and the hot dog eating contest were successful for reasons other than
refs alone, and that there's better ways to grow the sport, one way
which was through grassroots. Note that this was three sentences of a
much longer post, and had nothing to do with the OP, which was sports
entertainment, not growth.
Then you responded, and one paragraph of that response was dedicated
to grassroots growth. Actually, you stated that ultimate would never
be a varsity sport, argued why and then claimed with no real evidence
that grassroots ultimate would be stunted as long as it didn't have
varsity. From this one paragraph, which was responding to a sentence,
which didn't have anything to do with the original post, the whole
varsity discussion started up. How is this not going off on a tangent?
Anyway, this tangent eventually got to here:
> RookMcRook in a post i disagreed with, but that still made some sense
> basically stated that he didn't believe that the addition of referees
> would help the growth of the sport. he then stated that some parents
> and youth players were attracted to the player controlled aspect of
> gameplay. he then stated that an added benefit of not having refs
> would be that the parents attending childrens games wouldn't have a
> ref to yell at. he then went on to another point, $, claiming that
> referees would make the sport cost prohibitive for some kids to play.
It's worth noting here that nowhere in his post does Rook talk about
ultimate as a varsity sport. Anywhere. Apparently, in your subsequent
post you felt that his arguments only applied to such schools. You do
realize ultimate can be played, quite legitimately, without varsity
status? Maybe not as legitimately as some people would like, but there
are youth leagues that are quite legit and recognized by the school.
Did you know Pittsburgh has a high school league with 24 open teams, a
girl's division and a JV division?
>
> in my first response to his post i argued that the cost prohibitive
> claim did not hold water because:
> 1. the only schools that had this varsity ultimate status were
> private schools where the kids and parents would likely have little
> problem shelling out a little extra money to play. and
Which, as noted above has nothing to do with Rooks post to which you
replied. It had more to do with other people's posts that were,
technically speaking, off topic.
> 2. in breaking down the cost of refs for an entire season and then
> distributing it evenly to the players (which is not how refs in other
> sports get paid for) the cost was really very small.
Which is a legit argument.
> in my second post i quoted some of his arguments, rebutting that while
> some youth and parents might be attracted to the player control
> aspect, the administration of HSAAs would likely find it a drawback to
> put 14 players on a field without some sort of 3rd party arbitration.
Again, the bringing up of varsity status. It's clear that you consider
varsity status to be a priority based on your earlier posts, but by
constantly invoking it, you pull away from the discussion at hand.
Again, Rook never talks about ultimate as a varsity sport, but you're
assuming that that is all he's talking about.
> then in more of an aside to what i'm sure he would consider the 3rd of
> his three arguments i stated that refs or no refs would not really
> have an effect on parents that take the game to seriously, asses that
> yell will find something to yell at because they want to yell.
Indeed. And you already don't you think that - unorthodox as the
suggestion may be - removing the yelling component might be a good
thing?
>
> now you come in.
>
> and your solution to the problem of growth of ultimate at the high
> school level is "remove the parent. Now we can't forcibly keep them
> away, but what if
> we made it so they didn't want to show up? We've been looking at this
> backwards. We don't want to make the game more watchable, we want to
> make it LESS watchable."
Yup, that's my argument in a nutshell. Of course it's a lot more
nuanced than that, but with the shouting match that is RSD, I don't
have any expectations that a detailed breakdown of my reasons would be
paid any heed. Speaking of which, if you're still reading, I'm
impressed.
> then a bunch of inane babble about the
> Matrix and wanting to be a photographer.
Inane, I suppose so. Kinda like saying "it's not about the kids or the
refs, it's about the parent." Just because we use a little inanity to
get across the Truisms, doesn't mean they aren't Truisms.
> so, no you aren't offering a solution to the problem of growing
> ultimate and whether or not referees would facilitate it, you are
> spouting off like a bratty child and offering a non solution to a
> problem that really needs addressing.
Actually, I am offering a solution. You don't agree with it, that's
your prerogative. In fact, I doubt hardly anyone would agree with it.
That's my problem. But I truly believe the less audience you have, the
better it will be for the sport. I'm not talking about pro and anti
ref, though obviously that's how this always gets conflated. I'm
talking about an audience, outside the players themselves, watching
the game. Why is that so good? Why is 'legitimacy' in the eyes of the
world - which by the way, are composed mostly of morons (enter Toad:
"yeah, and yur one of them") - the pinnacle of being? I personally
don't believe it is. Plus I believe that making the sport
'unwatchable' is easier achieved with the yelling type of parents than
the type that are supportive of their kids. If mommy and daddy support
their kids, they'll appreciate the sport for what it is. If they want
it to be about them, they won't stick around long. Maybe you didn't
like the tone I couched it in, maybe you thought I was joking. Yeah,
there was some tongue in cheek there. That's something you just have
to deal with.
>
> now, if you don't want refs, say so. if you like ultimate to be a
> small counter culture sport that is enjoyed only by the small number
> of us who play it, fine. not everyone has the same goals for the
> sport and i respect that. i disagree, but that's what makes the world
> go round. but don't throw a temper tantrum on your keyboard and then
> try to claim that you are "suggesting a solution" or continuing the
> discussion.
I am claiming just that. Also, temper tantrum? Really? I'm the angry
one here?
ulticritic
>
> First off, there's absolutely no mention of 'growing' ultimate in the
> original post. Anywhere. In fact, the post appears mainly to be about
> Toad's primary motive of turning ultimate into sports entertainment,
well wouldnt those two things go hand in hand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> most notably through the use of refs. There was no mention of growth,
> let alone grassroots growth, let alone growth through having high
> school varsity status.
i guess we just logically connected those dots
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Then, there were four off topic posts: two by toad asking why no one
> is listening, one by you telling him why no one is listening and one
> by tim e, which was quite amusing, but wholly unrelated nonetheless.
> Then, a day and a half after the initial post Rook posted that Rugby
> and the hot dog eating contest were successful for reasons other than
> refs alone, and that there's better ways to grow the sport, one way
> which was through grassroots. Note that this was three sentences of a
> much longer post, and had nothing to do with the OP, which was sports
> entertainment, not growth.
>
> Then you responded, and one paragraph of that response was dedicated
> to grassroots growth. Actually, you stated that ultimate would never
> be a varsity sport, argued why and then claimed with no real evidence
> that grassroots ultimate would be stunted as long as it didn't have
> varsity. From this one paragraph, which was responding to a sentence,
> which didn't have anything to do with the original post, the whole
> varsity discussion started up. How is this not going off on a tangent?
because all these things are interrelated , sequential and are reliant
on one another dipshit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's worth noting here that nowhere in his post does Rook talk about
> ultimate as a varsity sport. Anywhere. Apparently, in your subsequent
> post you felt that his arguments only applied to such schools. You do
> realize ultimate can be played, quite legitimately, without varsity
> status?
no it cant
----------------------------------------------------------
>Maybe not as legitimately as some people would like, but there
> are youth leagues that are quite legit and recognized by the school.
pfft, where?
-----------------------------------------
> Did you know Pittsburgh has a high school league with 24 open teams, a
> girl's division and a JV division?
how many of em are public schools?
.
>
> Indeed. And you already don't you think that - unorthodox as the
> suggestion may be - removing the yelling component might be a good
> thing?
no, idiot
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yup, that's my argument in a nutshell.
are you for real or are you still just tryin to be cute?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it's a lot more
> nuanced than that,
if by nuanced you mean completely stupid, i'll agree
--------------------------------------------------------
but with the shouting match that is RSD, I don't
> have any expectations that a detailed breakdown of my reasons would be
> paid any heed.
why would anybody pay heed. what sport trys to shun parents from
attending their kids games?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of which, if you're still reading, I'm
> impressed.
you should be
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Actually, I am offering a solution.
no youre not
-----------------------------------------------
You don't agree with it, that's
> your prerogative. In fact, I doubt hardly anyone would agree with it.
> That's my problem. But I truly believe the less audience you have, the
> better it will be for the sport.
now this is what i'm talking about with white people hoarding this
sport
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about pro and anti
> ref, though obviously that's how this always gets conflated. I'm
> talking about an audience, outside the players themselves, watching
> the game. Why is that so good? Why is 'legitimacy' in the eyes of the
> world - which by the way, are composed mostly of morons (enter Toad:
> "yeah, and yur one of them") - the pinnacle of being?
it just is
-------------------------------------------------------
I personally
> don't believe it is. Plus I believe that making the sport
> 'unwatchable' is easier achieved with the yelling type of parents than
> the type that are supportive of their kids.
there will always be plenty of yelling going on between the player
refs......especially when it gets to crunch time
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If mommy and daddy support
> their kids, they'll appreciate the sport for what it is. If they want
> it to be about them, they won't stick around long. Maybe you didn't
> like the tone I couched it in, maybe you thought I was joking. Yeah,
> there was some tongue in cheek there. That's something you just have
> to deal with.
youre ate up you clown
thefan
>
> That's being a little generous. I would summarize his first post as:
> Toad pointed out Rugby and a hot dog eating contest had refs with
> whistles and were on TV. He implies that refs were the panacea, though
> never quite states it directly. He asks rhetorically if ultimate has
> reached the level of 'sports entertainment,' but doubts it ever will
> so long as its spirit centric.
>
> First off, there's absolutely no mention of 'growing' ultimate in the
> original post. Anywhere. In fact, the post appears mainly to be about
> Toad's primary motive of turning ultimate into sports entertainment,
> most notably through the use of refs. There was no mention of growth,
> let alone grassroots growth, let alone growth through having high
> school varsity status.
deleted paragraph
that is true, the original post, 45 posts before mine, did not mention
high school varsity status. fast forward the the 10 posts before mine
and that's pretty much all it is. these schools have varsity status,
listed schools, some questions about the validity of varsity status.
Toads thing is making the sport prime for television entertainment.
some peoples thing is growing the sport. i believe that the solution
to both is the addition of referees. i'll get into that in a bit.
>
> Then you responded, and one paragraph of that response was dedicated
> to grassroots growth. Actually, you stated that ultimate would never
> be a varsity sport, argued why and then claimed with no real evidence
> that grassroots ultimate would be stunted as long as it didn't have
> varsity. From this one paragraph, which was responding to a sentence,
> which didn't have anything to do with the original post, the whole
> varsity discussion started up. How is this not going off on a tangent?
again, no, it has nothing to do with the original post 45 posts before
mine. it has everything to do with the direction that the discussion
had gone and the 10-15 posts prior. my argument, for which i have
plenty of evidence is that ultimate will never be accepted by state
HSAAs as a varsity sport without referees. my claim for which i don't
have evidence outside of common sense and lots of experience in high
schools is that one of the best ways to grow the sport would be to
introduce it as a competitive sport in high school, with varsity
status, for the youth. sure, you can have a league with high school
players, but why not try to get it in every school so kids don't have
to hear about it through word of mouth? what good is having a sport
available to kids if they've never even heard of it?
> Anyway, this tangent eventually got to here:
>
> > RookMcRook in a post i disagreed with, but that still made some sense
> > basically stated that he didn't believe that the addition of referees
> > would help the growth of the sport. he then stated that some parents
> > and youth players were attracted to the player controlled aspect of
> > gameplay. he then stated that an added benefit of not having refs
> > would be that the parents attending childrens games wouldn't have a
> > ref to yell at. he then went on to another point, $, claiming that
> > referees would make the sport cost prohibitive for some kids to play.
>
> It's worth noting here that nowhere in his post does Rook talk about
> ultimate as a varsity sport. Anywhere. Apparently, in your subsequent
> post you felt that his arguments only applied to such schools. You do
> realize ultimate can be played, quite legitimately, without varsity
> status? Maybe not as legitimately as some people would like, but there
> are youth leagues that are quite legit and recognized by the school.
> Did you know Pittsburgh has a high school league with 24 open teams, a
> girl's division and a JV division?
rook doesn't explicitely use the term varsity, sure, but folks with
brains like to make connections, here is what he said:
"- Self-officiating provides a point of difference for Ultimate
that
appeals to many parents. It relies on sportsmanship and the integrity
of the players vs. the integrity of a third party. This is a very
enriching part of the sport, that many parents and youth players
value. As an added benefit you don't have parents yelling at an
underpaid referee about making bad calls, because the kids are
settling it out on the field.
- Referees cost money - As a high school coach, I have witnessed many
kids are able to play Ultimate because of its relatively low barriers
to entry vs. other sports. Between club fees, coaches fees, league
dues, field costs, and Refs sports like B-Ball, Soccer, Baseball, and
LAX are rising above $1,000 per season. If Ultimate can provide a
fun,
and low cost alternative to the youth sports that are driving kids
out
because of burnout then I am all for it. "
where in he sort of connects two unrelated arguments and pairs them,
somehow the cost of refs leads to kids getting burned out, but he does
talk about high school atheletes and growth.
deleted 3 paragraphs, 2 in which i state a point and one of yours
where you call my point valid.
> > in my second post i quoted some of his arguments, rebutting that while
> > some youth and parents might be attracted to the player control
> > aspect, the administration of HSAAs would likely find it a drawback to
> > put 14 players on a field without some sort of 3rd party arbitration.
>
> Again, the bringing up of varsity status. It's clear that you consider
> varsity status to be a priority based on your earlier posts, but by
> constantly invoking it, you pull away from the discussion at hand.
> Again, Rook never talks about ultimate as a varsity sport, but you're
> assuming that that is all he's talking about.
i am assuming that's what he's talking about because he is replying to
a discussion and not acting like a lunatic.
i do think that varsity status should be a priority if the goal is to
get more kids involved. some kids at a school can start a team. and
maybe their friends at another school could start another team. but
how is it organized? how do they propogate the team once their little
crew leaves? how do they get a team at the school across the county
where they don't know anyone? if state HSAAs start to adopt ultimate
as a varsity sport from the top, then circumstances are set so that
the opportunity for kids to play at their school trickles down through
ADs in school systems and in the state. ADs and principals don't like
for their kids at their school not to have the same opportunities as
kids at other schools so there is some pressure to create an
opportunity for students to play ultimate. i've seen it happen with
soccer and am watching it happen right now in NC with LAX. if the
sport is introduced to kids at every school, how is this not
beneficial for growth?
rook is talking about growth of youth ultimate. he may not say
"varsity" but i do. and the reason is that attaining varsity status
from a state HSAA goes a long way towards growing a sport and
introducing it to new players without them having to go out and find
it on their own. i'm sure rook, even though he is agianst refs would
agree with that statement.
> ME > then in more of an aside to what i'm sure he would consider the 3rd of
> > his three arguments i stated that refs or no refs would not really
> > have an effect on parents that take the game to seriously, asses that
> > yell will find something to yell at because they want to yell.
>
YOU> Indeed. And you already don't you think that - unorthodox as the
> suggestion may be - removing the yelling component might be a good
> thing?
>
if removing the yelling component were a reasonable thing it would be
good, but no i don't think that making a sport unwatchable or
otherwise encouraging parents not to be a part of their childrens
atheletic pursuits is a solution to anything.
>
> > and your solution to the problem of growth of ultimate at the high
> > school level is "remove the parent. Now we can't forcibly keep them
> > away, but what if
> > we made it so they didn't want to show up? We've been looking at this
> > backwards. We don't want to make the game more watchable, we want to
> > make it LESS watchable."
>
> Yup, that's my argument in a nutshell. Of course it's a lot more
> nuanced than that,
if it's more nuanced than that then you should have said so, i mean,
them quotation marks are surrounding your own words. in one of my
favorite posts ever by the great KD he said "pardon me, in my haste i
focused only on what you said, and not what you meant to say"
>but with the shouting match that is RSD, I don't
> have any expectations that a detailed breakdown of my reasons would be
> paid any heed. Speaking of which, if you're still reading, I'm
> impressed.
i am an impressive motherfucker.
>
> > then a bunch of inane babble about the
> > Matrix and wanting to be a photographer.
>
> Inane, I suppose so. Kinda like saying "it's not about the kids or the
> refs, it's about the parent." Just because we use a little inanity to
> get across the Truisms, doesn't mean they aren't Truisms.
it does if they aren't true. it was in fact your suggestion that it
was about the parents. the only mention i made about parents was that
parents will be parents. and that was in response to a brief aside
that rook made about yelling parents. parents are not the issue, and
neither are the kids. refs are the issue. for two reasons, to
promote growth by gaining acceptance from administrative powers at the
HS level and in order to make the game more watchable and increas it's
entertainment value. two obstacles, one solution.
>
> > so, no you aren't offering a solution to the problem of growing
> > ultimate and whether or not referees would facilitate it, you are
> > spouting off like a bratty child and offering a non solution to a
> > problem that really needs addressing.
>
> Actually, I am offering a solution. You don't agree with it, that's
> your prerogative. In fact, I doubt hardly anyone would agree with it.
> That's my problem. But I truly believe the less audience you have, the
> better it will be for the sport. I'm not talking about pro and anti
> ref, though obviously that's how this always gets conflated. I'm
> talking about an audience, outside the players themselves, watching
> the game. Why is that so good? Why is 'legitimacy' in the eyes of the
> world - which by the way, are composed mostly of morons (enter Toad:
> "yeah, and yur one of them") - the pinnacle of being? I personally
> don't believe it is. Plus I believe that making the sport
> 'unwatchable' is easier achieved with the yelling type of parents than
> the type that are supportive of their kids. If mommy and daddy support
> their kids, they'll appreciate the sport for what it is. If they want
> it to be about them, they won't stick around long. Maybe you didn't
> like the tone I couched it in, maybe you thought I was joking. Yeah,
> there was some tongue in cheek there. That's something you just have
> to deal with.
look if you don't want people to watch, if you don't want legitimacy,
then really, you don't want growth. legitimacy means acceptance by
the majority. if you don't want that, if you want ultimate to remain
a counter culture phenomenon, then fine. but then you don't want to
grow the sport. word of mouth has taken us this far. and ultimate is
pretty cool. what toad is arguing is a mechanism to get ultimate to a
new level. he is stating that the addition of refs will increase
entertainment value. i add that it will also give us "legitimacy"
which will foster accelerated growth at the HS and college level.
> > now, if you don't want refs, say so. if you like ultimate to be a
> > small counter culture sport that is enjoyed only by the small number
> > of us who play it, fine. not everyone has the same goals for the
> > sport and i respect that. i disagree, but that's what makes the world
> > go round. but don't throw a temper tantrum on your keyboard and then
> > try to claim that you are "suggesting a solution" or continuing the
> > discussion.
>
> I am claiming just that. Also, temper tantrum? Really? I'm the angry
> one here?
again, if being against refs is your schtick, then stick to it. don't
claim to be adding to the discussion of the validity of implementing a
3rd party arbitration system by suggesting a solution of eliminating a
4th party. could someone who is against refs please get in this
discussion with some actual drawbacks of refs and merits of not having
refs that make some sense.
so far the two main arguements against refs seem to be money and "we
like that ultimate is different by not having refs"
i propose that the money issue isn't that big. tournament fees are
climbing north of $300 bucks a pop. what harm would it do to add
$50? split it among your 20 man roster and your looking at an extra
$2.50 a player, even an extra $100 means an extra $5 a person. hell,
i'll give up the bagels if i could get refs in exchange.
the issue is REFS. stick with it. no matter how Toad frames his
posts, the issue is adding refs. his main goal is to increase the
entertainment value of ultimate, possibly because his playing days are
behind him and he wants to watch it on TV. maybe he has been struck
by a bolt of lightning and wants to increase the visibility of
ultimate for purely altruistic reasons, a vision if you will. but
either way, the issue is refs.
i also want refs in ultimate. i still play and would love it if i
didn't have to wonder what the fuck is going on with these calls. it
has become an accepted part of ultimate that is even mentioned in the
COTD titled "2009 College Open Finals". why is it okay that a close
game would see an increase in calls. why is that acceptable? calls
should be made based on infractions of the rules no matter the score
of the game. i also submit that the addition of referees would
facilitate the growth of ultimate by legitimizing it in the eyes of
high school athletic associations and encouraging the formation of
varsity teams in the schools.
now to you stockoption, if you want to impress me, reply to the
discussion at hand without spouting up a bunch of drivel about
eliminating parents from the game and making it unwatchable as a way
to grow the sport. even those crazy kids in charge of skateboarding
and BMX biking were smarter than that, and look where it got them.
they've got their own olympics with more sponsors than they can shake
a can of energy drink at.
The Fan
Rookie McRookie
Wow. Well Done.
I wanted to write something back, but I didn't have the time and my
ego kept on getting in the way. Thorough and well stated,
unfortunately the only response you are going to get are from two
people incapable of having a conversation. They just yell louder
hoping their agenda is heard.
In response to the comments about public vs. private school Ultimate,
I can only speak about the two places.
- Colorado has roughly 20 High School programs and only 2 of which are
private.
- Likewise about half of Seattle's programs are public, and many of
it's middle school feeder programs are public.
- Nearly 2/3rds of the High school Western's teams were from public
schools, and all of those were non varsity programs. Several of these
high school programs can and have beaten mid level college programs,
and feed our top college programs.
Toad/Fan, have you ever taken part in youth development? Have you ever
coached or established a high school team? Because I am not sure what
authority you have on the matter, to call out other people as liars?
ulticritic
>
> - Nearly 2/3rds of the High school Western's teams were from public
> schools, and all of those were non varsity programs.
BINGO!!! so why arent these schools trying to get varsity status????
and what, if any, would be their requirements to get varsity status?
surely varsity status would be a "good thing" for the sport, no? do
ya think that there is anyone from the upa that has looked into this
or has been placed in charge of working towards this? I'd bet the
house the answer would be NO to that?
----------------------------------------------------
>
> Toad/Fan, have you ever taken part in youth development?
special olympics
---------------------------------------------------
Have you ever
> coached or established a high school team?
nope, but i did a couple of club and college teams. both the uncw
seamen and seaweed. ever herd of them?
---------------------------------------------
Because I am not sure what
> authority you have on the matter, to call out other people as liars
who did i call a liar? if i contended anything it was the were NO
(public) highschools in the us with varsity status.....which theyre
arent, right? And i dont know what state you are from but i will try
and find out what my states rules are for hsaa vatsity status and you
can do the same for yours.....and we'll compare notes
thefan
> Toad/Fan, have you ever taken part in youth development? Have you ever
> coached or established a high school team? Because I am not sure what
short answer, yes. at multiple schools.
and i have called no one out as a liar. look, i think it's great that
those little pockets of schools have a programs. that is growth, yes.
my argument is simple so i will state it as such:
with the addition of referees will come the availability of acceptance
by State High School Atheletic Associations, which i believe will add
to the growth by encouraging administration at schools to provide the
same opportunities enjoyed at other schools.
in explanation: if say, Southwest County school gets an ultimate team
because a group of kids formed one, there is not necessarily any
recognition from the administration at that school and you can just
about guarantee there is no recognition from the administration at NW,
SE, NE and Central County schools. if however the State HSAA adopts
ultimate as a varsity sport there will be encouragement from the State
HSAA for schools to offer this opportunity to their students and there
will be pressure, both from within and without, on the ADs and
Administrators at individual schools.
this ain't my first rodeo, i do have experience working on starting
programs at multiple high schools in multiple systems and what i have
found is that without that varsity status there is little hope without
massive effort on the part of a few individuals for the sport to
spread to other schools and it can be difficult to keep the sport
alive once it has been introduced without that little incentive that
kids love: recognition.
i hope i wasn't too loud for you.
The Fan
Peterson
I recall the Fan starting and coaching a high school team. I suspect
that part of his perspective comes from the fact that once he moved on
from teaching at that school that the team seems to have folded. The
concept that varsity status would do a great deal for the sport,
setting up a framework and legitimize the sport is painfully obvious.
I'm not that into the public versus private school issue, though I
suppose that it is reasonable to assume that a more diverse group
would be exposed to the sport in a public school. The varsity status
is a huge accomplishment if it could be done for an entire state or
even a conference. The arguement lies in the details of how to get
there. Certainly if you show it off as some crappy pick-up style game
the administrators will not be interested in sanctioning it. It has
to be cleaned up and presented properly for those types of folks to
consider it. If you want to keep the spirit thingy then get refs and
then allow a player to overrule the ref only if it penalizes their own
team.
Peterson
thefan
for some folks:
Peterson wrote I recall the Fan starting and coaching a high school
team. I suspect
that part of his perspective comes from the fact that once he moved
on
from teaching at that school that the team seems to have folded. The
concept that varsity status would do a great deal for the sport,
setting up a framework and legitimize the sport is painfully obvious.
I'm not that into the public versus private school issue, though I
suppose that it is reasonable to assume that a more diverse group
would be exposed to the sport in a public school. The varsity status
is a huge accomplishment if it could be done for an entire state or
even a conference. The arguement lies in the details of how to get
there. Certainly if you show it off as some crappy pick-up style
game
the administrators will not be interested in sanctioning it. It has
to be cleaned up and presented properly for those types of folks to
consider it. If you want to keep the spirit thingy then get refs and
then allow a player to overrule the ref only if it penalizes their
own
team.
Peterson
i will add only that without refs, state HSAA will not sanction the
sport. it's a safety issue pure and simple.
The Fan
thefan
> I'm not that into the public versus private school issue, though I
> suppose that it is reasonable to assume that a more diverse group
> would be exposed to the sport in a public school. >
> Peterson
i only brought up the private versus public issue as a rebuttal to
those that claimed that the lack of referees made the sport more
accessable to the youth players. it seemed to me that the majority of
those schools that were named early on has having "varsity" teams were
private schools in which the funding of referees would hardly be
financially prohibitive.
The Fan
Ryan Thompson
(public) highschools in the us with varsity status.....which theyre
arent, right?"
Amherst, Pennsbury, Watchung, Urbana are all public.
For our HS, we decided against school affiliation as it would restrict
our travel opportunities. It wasn't worth it for us to seek varsity
status.
ulticritic
> "who did i call a liar? if i contended anything it was the were NO
> (public) highschools in the us with varsity status.....which theyre
> arent, right?"
>
> Amherst, Pennsbury, Watchung, Urbana are all public.
but are they varsity.......and recognized by any state, regional or
conference hsaa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For our HS, we decided against school affiliation as it would restrict
> our travel opportunities. It wasn't worth it for us to seek varsity
> status.
well it might be if every other school in your state had a team too.
just wondering though....were their any restrictions concerning refs?
and i thought ulti was more popular by leaps and bounds over lax, yet
they have a very strong hsaa program. why is it that ultimate is so
cheap to play and popular yet has NO hsaa affiliated program AT
ALL?????? Dosent make sense
StockOption
in vain that my reply will be in an way substantive in the way you
‘challenged’ me to make it be. I'd venture to say it will not. Nor
will you likely be impressed. Why on Earth would I want to try anyway?
What does respect on RSD get you?
> that is true, the original post, 45 posts before mine, did not mention
> high school varsity status. fast forward the the 10 posts before mine
> and that's pretty much all it is. these schools have varsity status,
> listed schools, some questions about the validity of varsity status.
You're right but it doesn't help your case. Pretty much every one of
the 10 posts before yours was about varsity status. Except for the one
you choose to reply to - Rooks. His was the only post that didn't have
anything to do with varsity status. His was a reply to an earlier post
by Toad, which also was not related to varsity status. So you replied
to the one post that was marginally related to the OP, and made it
about your pet topic.
Now if you don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, then there’s
no foul. But if you’re going to accuse other people of taking
someone’s post and going off on a tangent, you’d best tread
carefully.
> Toads thing is making the sport prime for television entertainment.
> some peoples thing is growing the sport. i believe that the solution
> to both is the addition of referees. i'll get into that in a bit.
> > Then you responded, and one paragraph of that response was dedicated
> > to grassroots growth. Actually, you stated that ultimate would never
> > be a varsity sport, argued why and then claimed with no real evidence
> > that grassroots ultimate would be stunted as long as it didn't have
> > varsity. From this one paragraph, which was responding to a sentence,
> > which didn't have anything to do with the original post, the whole
> > varsity discussion started up. How is this not going off on a tangent?
>
> again, no, it has nothing to do with the original post 45 posts before
> mine. it has everything to do with the direction that the discussion
> had gone and the 10-15 posts prior.
See my above comment. Your talking about varisty status - while in
line with the prior posts as a whole - had nothing to do with Rook’s
post. In your haste, you focused on what you wished he'd said instead
of what he said. That, or you think Rook was out of line for sticking
to an earlier topic instead of replying to the detour the thread had
taken.
> my argument, for which i have
> plenty of evidence is that ultimate will never be accepted by state
> HSAAs as a varsity sport without referees.
> my claim for which i don't
> have evidence outside of common sense and lots of experience in high
> schools is that one of the best ways to grow the sport would be to
> introduce it as a competitive sport in high school, with varsity
> status, for the youth. sure, you can have a league with high school
> players, but why not try to get it in every school so kids don't have
> to hear about it through word of mouth? what good is having a sport
> available to kids if they've never even heard of it?
I’m well aware of your argument, but restating it here is not relevant
to our conversation. To remind you: you claimed that I wrote “a bunch
of nonsense that addressed absolutely nothing in this thread.” I
responded that a) my response was not nonsense and b) you yourself
were guilty of straying off topic so be careful throwing stones.
Rehashing your belief in the necessity of varsity status does not
address either topic. Instead, it indicates you’re not even aware that
you continue to stray off topic.
To follow your digression, however: your - presumably rhetorical -
question of 'why not try to get it in every school' is incredibly
naïve. Of course it would be nice to have it in every school, but you
seem to be implying that the only way to do that is by achieving
varsity status. The fallacy in your reasoning should be obvious.
> > Anyway, this tangent eventually got to here:
>
> > > RookMcRook in a post i disagreed with, but that still made some sense
> > > basically stated that he didn't believe that the addition of referees
> > > would help the growth of the sport. he then stated that some parents
> > > and youth players were attracted to the player controlled aspect of
> > > gameplay. he then stated that an added benefit of not having refs
> > > would be that the parents attending childrens games wouldn't have a
> > > ref to yell at. he then went on to another point, $, claiming that
> > > referees would make the sport cost prohibitive for some kids to play.
>
> > It's worth noting here that nowhere in his post does Rook talk about
> > ultimate as a varsity sport. Anywhere. Apparently, in your subsequent
> > post you felt that his arguments only applied to such schools. You do
> > realize ultimate can be played, quite legitimately, without varsity
> > status? Maybe not as legitimately as some people would like, but there
> > are youth leagues that are quite legit and recognized by the school.
> > Did you know Pittsburgh has a high school league with 24 open teams, a
> > girl's division and a JV division?
Just for thoroughness, I’m guilty of straying off topic here in the
second half of the paragraph. It happens, I ain’t perfect.
>
> rook doesn't explicitely use the term varsity, sure, but folks with
> brains like to make connections
I’ll do you one better. I don’t believe rook was even thinking about
varsity status, except perhaps as one of the many means of growing
youth ultimate. I can’t be sure what he was thinking, but in a
subsequent post he seems to have validated my interpretation. The
‘connections’ being made are wholly by you and not what Rook intended.
Lord knows not enough people in the world use their brains anymore,
but when you see the world through varsity-colored glasses, the world
appears varsity. (Too inane?)
, here is what he said:
> "- Self-officiating provides a point of difference for Ultimate
> that
> appeals to many parents. It relies on sportsmanship and the integrity
> of the players vs. the integrity of a third party. This is a very
> enriching part of the sport, that many parents and youth players
> value. As an added benefit you don't have parents yelling at an
> underpaid referee about making bad calls, because the kids are
> settling it out on the field.
> - Referees cost money - As a high school coach, I have witnessed many
> kids are able to play Ultimate because of its relatively low barriers
> to entry vs. other sports. Between club fees, coaches fees, league
> dues, field costs, and Refs sports like B-Ball, Soccer, Baseball, and
> LAX are rising above $1,000 per season. If Ultimate can provide a
> fun,
> and low cost alternative to the youth sports that are driving kids
> out
> because of burnout then I am all for it. "
>
> where in he sort of connects two unrelated arguments and pairs them,
> somehow the cost of refs leads to kids getting burned out, but he does
> talk about high school atheletes and growth.
The subjects of high school athletes and growth are, I grant, related
to the concept of varsity status. However, they are not equivalent and
thus a person should be capable of talking about one without
referencing the other. To continue beating a dead horse, rook does not
appear to be talking about the benefits/drawbacks/achievement of/
nature of/anything of varsity status and ultimate, you injected it
into the conversation based on unrelated conversations happening
elsewhere in the thread.
>
> deleted 3 paragraphs, 2 in which i state a point and one of yours
> where you call my point valid.
>
> > > in my second post i quoted some of his arguments, rebutting that while
> > > some youth and parents might be attracted to the player control
> > > aspect, the administration of HSAAs would likely find it a drawback to
> > > put 14 players on a field without some sort of 3rd party arbitration.
>
> > Again, the bringing up of varsity status. It's clear that you consider
> > varsity status to be a priority based on your earlier posts, but by
> > constantly invoking it, you pull away from the discussion at hand.
> > Again, Rook never talks about ultimate as a varsity sport, but you're
> > assuming that that is all he's talking about.
>
> i am assuming that's what he's talking about because he is replying to
> a discussion and not acting like a lunatic.
And, had you been paying closer attention, you'd have noticed the
discussion he was replying to was not about the varsity status of
ultimate. Just because it involved youth development does not mean
he's having the same discussion that you were. The result is his reply
goes over your head and you heard what you wanted to hear.
> i do think that varsity status should be a priority if the goal is to
> get more kids involved. some kids at a school can start a team. and
> maybe their friends at another school could start another team. but
> how is it organized? how do they propogate the team once their little
> crew leaves? how do they get a team at the school across the county
> where they don't know anyone? if state HSAAs start to adopt ultimate
> as a varsity sport from the top, then circumstances are set so that
> the opportunity for kids to play at their school trickles down through
> ADs in school systems and in the state. ADs and principals don't like
> for their kids at their school not to have the same opportunities as
> kids at other schools so there is some pressure to create an
> opportunity for students to play ultimate. i've seen it happen with
> soccer and am watching it happen right now in NC with LAX. if the
> sport is introduced to kids at every school, how is this not
> beneficial for growth?
This is again off topic from the discussion you and I are having.
However – and I’m being completely honest here – it would be a great
topic to start in another thread, especially since you seem to have a
lot of questions concerning how a high school ultimate league could
form, thrive, grow and spread without attaining varsity status
first.
>
> rook is talking about growth of youth ultimate. he may not say
> "varsity" but i do.
this is pretty much the definition of changing the subject. He talks
about one thing, and you talk about something that, while marginally
related, does not appear to be Rooks intended subject.
> and the reason is that attaining varsity status
> from a state HSAA goes a long way towards growing a sport and
> introducing it to new players without them having to go out and find
> it on their own. i'm sure rook, even though he is agianst refs would
> agree with that statement.
Hell, I would agree with that statement. But - and this seems to be
the sticking point for you - it has nothing to do with what Rook was
actually talking about. I'm sure there are a ton of things you and
Rook would agree with - freedom, happiness, love - but unless Rook was
talking about 'A,' then you saying 'A is good, and Rook would agree'
is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
> > ME > then in more of an aside to what i'm sure he would consider the 3rd of
> > > his three arguments i stated that refs or no refs would not really
> > > have an effect on parents that take the game to seriously, asses that
> > > yell will find something to yell at because they want to yell.
>
> YOU> Indeed. And you already don't you think that - unorthodox as the> suggestion may be - removing the yelling component might be a good
> > thing?
>
> if removing the yelling component were a reasonable thing it would be
> good, but no i don't think that making a sport unwatchable or
> otherwise encouraging parents not to be a part of their childrens
> atheletic pursuits is a solution to anything.
>
I don’t think removing the sideline angry yelling component is an
unreasonable thing. Would it likely require extensively modifying the
sport? Probably, but then again getting ultimate to varsity status
would also require extensive modifications to the sport.
Also, saying that I am ‘encouraging parents not to be a part of their
childrens atheletic pursuits’ is about as accurate as me saying that
you are encouraging parents to yell angrily from the sidelines. Both
are obvious mischaracterizations which, nevertheless, are reasonably
close to what we are actually saying. I believe the term is
‘strawman.’
> > > and your solution to the problem of growth of ultimate at the high
> > > school level is "remove the parent. Now we can't forcibly keep them
> > > away, but what if
> > > we made it so they didn't want to show up? We've been looking at this
> > > backwards. We don't want to make the game more watchable, we want to
> > > make it LESS watchable."
>
> > Yup, that's my argument in a nutshell. Of course it's a lot more
> > nuanced than that,
>
> if it's more nuanced than that then you should have said so, i mean,
> them quotation marks are surrounding your own words. in one of my
> favorite posts ever by the great KD he said "pardon me, in my haste i
> focused only on what you said, and not what you meant to say"
Why should I bother to be more nuanced? I dropped in my two cents,
filled with inanity and some food for thought about what I believe to
be important about the game. Did you then ask ‘could you clarify?’ or
even ‘are you joking?’ No, you assumed I couldn’t possibly be serious,
got annoyed and lamented the downfall of RSD.
>
> >but with the shouting match that is RSD, I don't
> > have any expectations that a detailed breakdown of my reasons would be
> > paid any heed. Speaking of which, if you're still reading, I'm
> > impressed.
>
> i am an impressive motherfucker.
Indeed. I still remember your second post of this thread (a classic
piece of work for anyone who needs something light to read after
wading through all this):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.disc/browse_thread/thread/b5254bd854d739f1/21d0beacfb79aa9d?q=daze#21d0beacfb79aa9d
>
>
>
> > > then a bunch of inane babble about the
> > > Matrix and wanting to be a photographer.
>
> > Inane, I suppose so. Kinda like saying "it's not about the kids or the
> > refs, it's about the parent." Just because we use a little inanity to
> > get across the Truisms, doesn't mean they aren't Truisms.
>
> it does if they aren't true. it was in fact your suggestion that it
> was about the parents.
…right… you do realize that the quote above is taken, verbatim, from
your post, which was the post that I first replied to? Did I suggest
this to you in person which then prompted you to write it?
> the only mention i made about parents was that
> parents will be parents.
True and False. See above. Or is this a classic case of me focusing on
what you said, and not what you meant to say?
> and that was in response to a brief aside
> that rook made about yelling parents. parents are not the issue, and
> neither are the kids. refs are the issue. for two reasons, to
> promote growth by gaining acceptance from administrative powers at the
> HS level and in order to make the game more watchable and increas it's
> entertainment value. two obstacles, one solution.
You’re trying to make refs the issue. They are not, they are merely
one possible solution to the issue(s). The issue is growth and the
direction of ultimate. Do not conflate “The Issue” with your solution
to said issue.
>
> > > so, no you aren't offering a solution to the problem of growing
> > > ultimate and whether or not referees would facilitate it, you are
> > > spouting off like a bratty child and offering a non solution to a
> > > problem that really needs addressing.
>
> > Actually, I am offering a solution. You don't agree with it, that's
> > your prerogative. In fact, I doubt hardly anyone would agree with it.
> > That's my problem. But I truly believe the less audience you have, the
> > better it will be for the sport. I'm not talking about pro and anti
> > ref, though obviously that's how this always gets conflated. I'm
> > talking about an audience, outside the players themselves, watching
> > the game. Why is that so good? Why is 'legitimacy' in the eyes of the
> > world - which by the way, are composed mostly of morons (enter Toad:
> > "yeah, and yur one of them") - the pinnacle of being? I personally
> > don't believe it is. Plus I believe that making the sport
> > 'unwatchable' is easier achieved with the yelling type of parents than
> > the type that are supportive of their kids. If mommy and daddy support
> > their kids, they'll appreciate the sport for what it is. If they want
> > it to be about them, they won't stick around long. Maybe you didn't
> > like the tone I couched it in, maybe you thought I was joking. Yeah,
> > there was some tongue in cheek there. That's something you just have
> > to deal with.
>
> look if you don't want people to watch, if you don't want legitimacy,
> then really, you don't want growth.
False dichotomy. Just because a sport isn’t watched, doesn’t mean it
can’t grow. Consequently, just because someone is not advocating for
making the sport more watchable, doesn’t mean he isn’t looking for way
to make it grow. For example archery target shooting is one of the
fastest growing activities in America, and practically no one watches
it. You can try to paint me as ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against
us,’ but I promise you, I’d like there to be growth.
> legitimacy means acceptance by
> the majority.
Is that your official definition? Did you know that less than half of
all Americans believe in evolution? Does that make it illegitimate?
How can you think that a concept as complex as legitimacy could be
boiled down into such a simple definition?
> if you don't want that, if you want ultimate to remain
> a counter culture phenomenon, then fine. but then you don't want to
> grow the sport.
An interesting caricature. But it is invalid to claim: “If you don’t
agree with me on Y, then you don’t want X.”
> word of mouth has taken us this far. and ultimate is
> pretty cool. what toad is arguing is a mechanism to get ultimate to a
> new level. he is stating that the addition of refs will increase
> entertainment value. i add that it will also give us "legitimacy"
> which will foster accelerated growth at the HS and college level.
>
This, and the rest of your reply, is mostly about refs, which I have
my opinions on, but which I’m fairly apathetic. It’s good discussion
material for other posts and other people who are more passionate
about it. As for our conversation, it’s not particularly relevant.
I’ve covered most of the relevancy above. Whatever I’m forgetting,
overlooking or misstating I’m sure I’ll hear about. To sum up, I hope
I’ve made it clear that:
a) You misinterpreted Rooks post and took it off on a tangent he had
not intended
b) Both there and here you’ve gone off topic
c) There’s nothing wrong with that, per se, but instead you should
accept that it happens and move on.
d) Your solution to growth in ultimate is not the only one, and
getting mad at a different solution because it seems outlandish to you
is quite reactionary.
StockOption
>
> I wanted to write something back, but I didn't have the time and my
> ego kept on getting in the way. Thorough and well stated,
> unfortunately the only response you are going to get are from two
> people incapable of having a conversation. They just yell louder
> hoping their agenda is heard.
Thanks, I hope my interpretations of your post were accurate. Holy
crap though, writing one of those replies really makes me appreciate
the single-minded dedication Toad has to posting here.
> In response to the comments about public vs. private school Ultimate,
> I can only speak about the two places.
> - Colorado has roughly 20 High School programs and only 2 of which are
> private.
> - Likewise about half of Seattle's programs are public, and many of
> it's middle school feeder programs are public.
> - Nearly 2/3rds of the High school Western's teams were from public
> schools, and all of those were non varsity programs. Several of these
> high school programs can and have beaten mid level college programs,
> and feed our top college programs.
This is awesome to hear. High school leagues, feeder programs... that
is very encouraging. Any idea on their longevity? I know the
Pittsburgh league has been around 9 years, and grown pretty much every
year, in part because of hard work and dedication by adult volunteers,
a supportive ultimate community and enthusiastic students.
Reggie Fanelli
> year, in part because of hard work and dedication by adult volunteers,
> a supportive ultimate community and enthusiastic students.
--WUFF Camp
mark....@gmail.com
There are varsity sports without refs:
1.) golf
2.) Tennis (High school tennis is self officiated.)
ulticritic
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
are there any sports where people actually play defense in which there
arent refs. Oh and last i herd, in tennis, if things get chippy
ANYBODY is allowed to call in a ref. NOT AN OBSERVER.......a ref.
Bobus
thefan
>
> - Show quoted text -
the major difference between those sports and ultimate in terms of
state HSAA sanctioning and safety is that there is very little chance
of a collision between opposing players and or teammates in golf or
tennis.
surely we can agree on that much.
ulticritic
> We're not alone:
>
> http://blog.nj.com/hssportsextra/2009/04/high_school_tennis_players_m...
when it comes to field/team sports where ther is actual defense being
played you are. also, in tennis i believe you can ask for a ref. can
ya do that in ulti. if not, youre alone