Santa Barbara @ natties
La Maldad
are dq'ed from nationals.
somebody tell me i'm wrong.
Hh
Edward Lee
Peter Washington
> I just heard something wicked that they played with an ineligible player and
> are dq'ed from nationals.
> somebody tell me i'm wrong.
I too have heard this rumor from what appear to be reliable sources.
Clearly the only fair thing to do is to give Black Tide's spot to the UBC women.
Andy Fisher
Sadly, the rumor is true. The story goes like this:
One of our captains, who had been injured for most of the year, played
a smattering of points at sectionals and regionals. He suffered a
concussion and jaw dislocation in our semi-finals game at regionals
and sat out a large part of that game. He played MAYBE 4 points
against Colorado during the finals. There seems to be some confusion
over how many years he has actually played, and at what level. The
captain may also have had a brother who played at one point, and this
may be the cause of it all. At this point, most of the team, myself
included, does not really know the whole story.
We are appealing the decsion to the UPA, as NOBODY on the rest of the
team had any idea this person was ineligable. As the captain who was
serving as more of a coach than a player for most of the year, he was
also in charge of filling out and submitting the rosters. I assure
you, had we known, steps would have been taken. We have asked the UPA
not to punish the team for the actions of one person.
This is where things stand at this point. Any and all support would
be welcome.
-Andy
Daag Alemayehu
points:
1) the allegedly ineligible player was injured a lot/injury prone and didn't
play that much this season
2) the player may have a brother (may?!) that may have played ultimate in
some past that may have existed
3) no one else on the team knew, so the whole team shouldn't be punished
I don't think point #1 is relevant in any way. If someone is truly
ineligible, playing even for half a point in a pool play blowout at
sectionals will taint the integrity of the series.
Point #3 may seem like a good argument to you, but there's really no way for
the UPA to verify who knew what about whose eligibility on a given team.
The only feasible way to correct the situation is to disqualify the whole
team.
Point #2 doesn't make sense to me, but it seems like your only hope for
winning an appeal. There must be more to the issue, but if you're obligated
to keep quiet, then feel free to just ignore me. If this is not the case,
assuming this brother actually exists, couldn't he be able to easily verify
his ultimate history? Shouldn't this be open and shut?
And what's with all the eligibility controversy this year??
Adam Tarr
> And what's with all the eligibility controversy this year??
The UPA is on top of their shit. This stuff has been going on for
years, we just didn't find out about it. Now, when teams try to slip a
player in under the wire, they get DQ'ed.
Shamus McGillucutty
have nothing to say right now besides....don't be the ones to let San
Diego into Nationals.
ShaMc
"Andy Fisher" <afi...@chem.ucsb.edu> wrote in message
news:72df0e8c.04051...@posting.google.com...
Mike Gerics
Mike Gerics
> Congrats UC-San Diego, your Nationals bid was well deserved.
---is this the case?
will UCSD be at Nationals?
great for Spring Collegiates! a Finalist making nationals, that is.
Moose and all.....we can expand on the pull lessons you got in Baton Rouge!
Adam Tarr
> agreed. the arguement does not carry much weight when the man in
> question has been playing for 8 years of college. 8 years. that's
> ridiculous. his name is all over both the northwestern and black tide
> web sites. the only question is does this mean the tide did or did
> not play at nationals in spokane. are they the michigan of the
> ultimate world and are going to have a few years of their history
> erased?
I think he's "only" been playing seven years - going by a blurb on the
Northwestern website that said he joined the team in (fall) 1997. So
Spokanne would still be legit, but last year's third place finish is
wiped from the records (like they care).
-Adam
Pizzaslot
1997 might make him ineligible for the college series? If he's been in
college for 7 years, maybe he could learn to read the rules.
"Andy Fisher" <afi...@chem.ucsb.edu> wrote in message
news:72df0e8c.04051...@posting.google.com...
cathy lee
http://www.santabarbaraultimate.com/blacktide/Pg/2003BlackTideTourneys.html#anchor2003Regionals
scroll down to the team picture in the middle of the page from
regionals 2003.
Daag Alemayehu
news:4dfb3097.04051...@posting.google.com...
That's gotta be a front runner for Unintentionally Funny Caption of the
Year.
Miguel Tavarez
were trying to help UCSB with their appeal, The Black Tide had
absolutely no idea this player may have been ineligible.
There are various stories going around saying that Northwestern put
him on the roster just in case he might have decided to play at the
end of the year (He was friends with many of the players, and I think
even roomates with one).
It is unfortunate that this player was not even an active contributor
on the field, being more of a coach than a player.
It is my understanding that UCSB has retained some what of a big shot
attorney and will file an injunction shortly.
Adam Tarr <atarr...@purdue.edu> wrote in message news:<40A7E64B...@purdue.edu>...
Edward Lee
> From what it sounds like from speaking with other college programs
> who were trying to help UCSB with their appeal, The Black Tide had
> absolutely no idea this player may have been ineligible.
>
> There are various stories going around saying that Northwestern put
> him on the roster just in case he might have decided to play at the
> end of the year (He was friends with many of the players, and I think
> even roomates with one).
It's been a while since I played in a UPA championship series, but
don't you have to sign your name to a roster and/or waiver in order to
be eligible to play?
Eddie
frankie four-fingers
> were trying to help UCSB with their appeal, The Black Tide had
> absolutely no idea this player may have been ineligible.
Since when does this matter? I seem to remember a couple weeks ago
the University of Minnesota had the EXACT same thing happen to them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, as maybe I haven't caught slight differences.
If it is the same situation, then this entire argument is bull. Just
because a program may be a little more "established" does not mean
they get special treatment. It comes down to the fact that every team
must know and play within the rules. If I am not ignorant to any
facts of the case, then the Tide should be out and have to wait til
next year. San Diego, good luck.
ZJ
> years, we just didn't find out about it. Now, when teams try to slip a
> player in under the wire, they get DQ'ed.
My question is why has it taken 10+ years of college ultimate for the
UPA to become actively involved with eligibility?
Because they didn't care? Because some UPA staff had been there (on
those teams) themselves? Because everything was "all good"?
I don't know, I'm asking.
But I am skeptical of a "we didn't have the resources" argument, if
that is what it is.
Because I can't really think of many things more important to the
sport than protecting the right of legitimate teams to fairly compete
for a trip to nationals.
Z
Peter Washington
> From what it sounds like from speaking with other college programs who
> were trying to help UCSB with their appeal, The Black Tide had
> absolutely no idea this player may have been ineligible.
This is the part that is really a shame. Basically a team put their
trust in someone (it sounds as though he was something of a leader,
even), and he single-handedly destroyed their season. That sucks.
However, the rules are very clear that playing with ineligible players
at the series is grounds for team disqualification. If it were not,
there would be no disincentive to cheat; after all, if you don't
cheat, you can't play in the series; if you cheat and don't get
caught, you can play in the series. If you cheat and do get caught,
there needs to be some increased penalty beyond the individual not
being able to play. The team disqualification is effective because it
should make a person think many more times than twice about cheating
-- presumably the people that will suffer are his friends, and
hopefully he won't want to take that risk.
> There are various stories going around saying that Northwestern put
> him on the roster just in case he might have decided to play at the
> end of the year (He was friends with many of the players, and I think
> even roomates with one).
This, as is made quite clear by the UPA conduct committee's ruling
(www.upa.org/conduct.shtml), is irrelevant. The appropriate question
is, how long has he been a member of a national governing body (i.e.
the UPA)? He's been a member since fall of 1997, and thus he's
ineligible. Now, if he somehow joined without his knowledge (e.g.
somebody put his name and Social Security Number down and paid 30
bucks on his behalf), then he might have an argument. Is there any
suggestion that these are the true facts?
> It is unfortunate that this player was not even an active contributor
> on the field, being more of a coach than a player.
This is also irrelevant. He played during the series. Maybe not
much, maybe not well, maybe not in games against other good teams...
It just doesn't matter. The rules is the rules.
> It is my understanding that UCSB has retained some what of a big shot
> attorney and will file an injunction shortly.
While this is certainly their right (litigation is the American Way!),
I hope the attorney isn't charging them, and/or was realistic with
them about their chances, which would appear to be virtually nil. (A
private, member-driven organization made a ruling fully consistent
with its pre-existing internal written rules, affecting only members
of the organization who had plenty of notice about what those rules
were. I doubt very much that they could get an injunction even if the
committee had completely abandoned the rules and simply kicked them
out because they don't like men with long hair.) Otherwise he may
just using them to get a few easy billable hours. (p.s. UCSD Squids
take note -- if UCSB does apply for an injunction, you're the ones who
would be affected. You should at least make sure the UPA is defending
your rights, or find someone willing to represent you for free.)
The Tide would probably be best served to start focusing on the 2005
season, and ensuring that they won't be suspended from it. I wish
them the best in that endeavor. As for this year, it's a bitter pill
to swallow for around twenty guys who, giving them the benefit of the
doubt, didn't do anything wrong. But it is, I believe, the correct
ruling. Such a high-profile case, in a year in which at least three
teams have been disqualified from the series, should encourage teams
to take more collective responsibility for making sure that people
aren't cheating.
Now, if anyone has read this far, here is an idea which is sure to
result in more work for the UPA and God knows they don't need that.
But here it is. Take all the on-time rosters and check each player's
eligibility BEFORE sectionals. (If the roster deadline would have to
be moved up a week for this to happen, move it up a week.) Now, if
anyone comes out ineligible, give that team the chance to explain why
it wasn't their fault collectively--that person was cheating all on
his own and managed to hide it from the rest of the team. If the team
succeeds, you let them play without the bad apple(s). If not, they're
out, but they're out BEFORE sectionals so the series doesn't get all
jacked up. Now, as for teams that don't turn their roster in on-time,
they can still play, but here's the thing: if they are found to be
playing with an ineligible player, they are automatically out FOR THAT
YEAR AND THE NEXT. This creates a huge incentive to get your roster
in on time, just in case you think you have some scheister on your
team who's trying to cheat the system. And if you don't get your
roster in on time, you're probably going to be sufficiently paranoid
that you'll ask everyone on your team to somehow prove that they are
eligible. (By the way, this is easy: log in to the upa.org members
section and print out your membership details, which include your
start date.) Furthermore, it reduces the harshness of the penalty for
a team that gets its roster in on time. If you get the information to
the UPA in time for them to figure it out, then you might be saved
from what happened this year. For example, Santa Barbara could have
been investigated before sectionals, and if their story that they
didn't realize Mr. X was cheating held up, they could have played
without him. Dalhousie might have been allowed to play without their
ringers if the UPA had bought their story about not knowing the USA
rules and making an honest mistake. Et cetera. Can this system be
implemented now? Doubtful. But it makes sense to consider moving the
eligibility-investigating process to before sectionals, so the series
doesn't get tainted. For example, what if the UBC men had been ruled
ineligible this year? They lost in the game-to-go. But they beat
Washington to get there, and Washington never got to play Stanford in
the tournament. If it had turned out UBC shouldn't even have been
there, who's to say Washington wouldn't have beaten Stanford? It's a
good thing nothing quite so ambiguous happened in the Southwest.
Mike Gerics
> It is my understanding that UCSB has retained some what of a big shot
> attorney and will file an injunction shortly.
---that is awesome.
Jim Strathmeyer
On Mon, 17 May 2004, ZJ wrote:
> My question is why has it taken 10+ years of college ultimate for the
> UPA to become actively involved with eligibility?
>
> Because they didn't care? Because some UPA staff had been there (on
> those teams) themselves? Because everything was "all good"?
Or maybe things like this just haven't happened much before now, so there
was no one to catch?
Mike Gerics
> anchor2003Regionals
> >
> > scroll down to the team picture in the middle of the page from
> > regionals 2003.
>
> That's gotta be a front runner for Unintentionally Funny Caption of the
> Year.
i saw the page and the captions.
what's the funny part?
who was the ineligible player?
is that him lying?
oh jeeze....
Adam Tarr
> My question is why has it taken 10+ years of college ultimate for the
> UPA to become actively involved with eligibility?
>
> Because they didn't care? Because some UPA staff had been there (on
> those teams) themselves? Because everything was "all good"?
>
> I don't know, I'm asking.
>
> But I am skeptical of a "we didn't have the resources" argument, if
> that is what it is.
>
> Because I can't really think of many things more important to the
> sport than protecting the right of legitimate teams to fairly compete
> for a trip to nationals.
I think it's a slight variation of the "resources" argument. The issue
was that, before last year, there was no PROCESS in place. Now there is
a system whererby anyone can bring an inquiry about a player or team
to the UPA, and an eligibility committee whose job is to look into the
status of players.
So, it's possible that the UPA had the resources in the past, in a broad
sense. But now they actually have a system set up where they can
investigate infractions on more than just an ad hoc basis. And
apparently, that system works. The three DQ'ed teams were the only ones
who played in the series with known ineligibles, but several other teams
have had individual players get tossed (before the series began) in the
last two years.
-Adam
Mike Gerics
> > From what it sounds like from speaking with other college programs who
> > were trying to help UCSB with their appeal, The Black Tide had
> > absolutely no idea this player may have been ineligible.
----alright...
to me......
from across the continent...
with no idea what's going on....
the bigger issue seems to be.....
NOT that anyone or no one or everyone knew that this kid was out of
eligibility.
But rather, that the roster had been tampered with....
i mean....sure, absolutely, there had to be some kids on that team that are
young as heck, don't know much about what's going on, and simply know that
there is some old guy who plays every once and a while, who is hurt most of
the time, and helps coach us....."he used to go to school somewhere in
central america or something", they say to one another.
yeah...they didn't know he played or was on a roster 7 years ago.
they didn't care.
BUT....someone tampered with the roster or something, right?
someone's info was altered????
someone was using a changed/fake/altered/wrong upa ID number in order to
sneak by?????
right?
it sucks for everyone....the fans, the athletes(not so much the participants
since they have one less tough team to face!), the upa and the tournament
hosts.
but someone altered the roster.
Adam Tarr
> Now, if anyone has read this far, here is an idea which is sure to
> result in more work for the UPA and God knows they don't need that.
> But here it is. Take all the on-time rosters and check each player's
> eligibility BEFORE sectionals.
Err... aren't they already doing that? I think I got three messages
from various UPA officials BEFORE sectionals telling me about the
players on Purdue's roster who couldn't play (both of whom *I* had
crossed off the roster before mailing it in, not that that's relevant).
In the case of both Minnesota and UCSB, the player(s) in question
intentionally falsified the documents in an effort to deceive the UPA.
It should come as no surprise that these efforts made it past the first
examination of the roster by some temp worker at UPA HQ. I'm not sure
how the UPA figured it out in these cases, but my guess is that someone
else in those team's regions alerted the UPA that they thought there was
an ineligible playing.
In the case of Dalhousie, there was no effort to deceive, but they
didn't submit their roster until sectionals. So, there was no way to
alert them to their ineligibles. If they had mailed in their roster
before the deadline, they would have been told that two of their players
can't play, but the rest of their team could have played at sectionals
and regionals without penalty. That's yet another reason to submit your
roster on-time...
-AT
Mike Gerics
> BUT....someone tampered with the roster or something, right?
> someone's info was altered????
> someone was using a changed/fake/altered/wrong upa ID number in order to
> sneak by?????
---and if it was just that one guy...all by himself...
then he is just a fuck fuck that fucked UCSB.
Travis Finucane
news:cp6qc.51205$jU.30...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
More than just Tide, the guy has irreperably tarnished the sport by giving
UCSD a bid on a technicality. I think the field should be reduced to 15
teams before the game is forever tarnished by San Diego's participation.
I mean Air Squids at nationals? You've go to be kidding me.
Hotpants
> were trying to help UCSB with their appeal, The Black Tide had
> absolutely no idea this player may have been ineligible.
>
> on the field, being more of a coach than a player.
>
This argument keeps getting thrown out there, but i dont see how the
upa has a choice in this matter. It sucks for them that one player
put himself above the team like that, i know i would be pissed if my
team got disquaified for nationals. But it creates a moral hazard and
an incentive to cheat if there are no penalties other than "the player
doesnt get to compete in the series." If they are ineligable then
they arnt allowed to play anyway, so logically they should cheat, and
it could destroy much of the integrity of the series. I think the
threat of having the team dq'd helps deter people from trying to
cheat.
> It is my understanding that UCSB has retained some what of a big shot
> attorney and will file an injunction shortly.
This is ridiculus, if its true then that whole team needs to get a
life. If its not true then i guess thats a pretty funny joke.
Pizzaslot
news:5dc0d07.04051...@posting.google.com...
> It is my understanding that UCSB has retained some what of a big shot
> attorney and will file an injunction shortly.
Maybe another person who went to college for 7 years?
Chucktown
under your belt. My 7th year was my breakout year too....
More importantly, you could probably switch that Seattle plane ticket
to Chicago for a nominal fee and play the Northwestern Alumni "Old vs.
Young" game on June 6th. Plush fields, Old Stlye Beer, and a free
place to stay with yours truly. We've got Bando, Bjorn, Stoner, Goat,
Luke Lin, Eddie, Tun, and maybe Ethan. Come to Chicago where the rule
book says "I.1(a) A player is eligible as long as he pounds a beer
after every point he scores."
Chucktown
NU Ultimate '94-'03
cath...@yahoo.com (frankie four-fingers) wrote in message news:<4aa301b1.0405...@posting.google.com>...
H.O.V.A.
Well...this is not the exact same thing. Minnesota's captains forged
their roster after the registrar had sealed it, albeit without the
team's knowledge. UCSB admits that he is on their roster...and that
he played...and that he is a captain/coach/spawn of Satan. The
question is did he play UPA sanctioned disc more than 5 years before
regionals, albeit without the team's knowledge. In both cases,
captains ruined it for the team, but Minnesota was active deception.
I don't think that the UCSB guy tried to play under a different name.
He just didn't think anyone would notice...just like last year when he
played in the series and still was ineligible, if the dates people
have been throwing around are accurate.
The UPA should have caught it last year. Then UCSB could have booted
him upstairs to a full-time coaching position. My question is, how do
you catch a liar? How can a team prevent this from happening to them?
If some new transfer/grad student comes onto your ultimate scene
claiming to have only played 2 seasons when it's really 5, how does a
team discover the fraud? Obviuosly the UPA can't check everyone until
after the rosters are already submitted and the games are
played...since it has now been uncovered. Is the burden solely on the
team?
Can a team submit a potential roster to the UPA to determine all the
players' status prior to the series? I'm not sure, but I think that
the UPA has it's hands full without extra background checks.
What should UCSB have done differently?
Then again, he was a captain. You choose your captains as the best
possible representatives of your team. They chose this guy, and he
let them down. Evidently he's a pretty good liar or a terrible
mathematician.
(Please note that this is based on the fact that this guy played more
than 5 years ago)
Mike Gerics
> More than just Tide, the guy has irreperably tarnished the sport by giving
> UCSD a bid on a technicality. I think the field should be reduced to 15
> teams before the game is forever tarnished by San Diego's participation.
>
> I mean Air Squids at nationals? You've go to be kidding me.
---ifn' i was a squid....i'd be dancing and loving every minute of it.
Sholom Simon
> UPA to become actively involved with eligibility?
It hasn't.
> Because they didn't care? Because some UPA staff had been there (on
> those teams) themselves? Because everything was "all good"?
That's not true either. Players get DQ's often. Teams, less often.
I remember a team getting tossed from Nationals in 1993 for falsifying
college eligibility. (I can't really say if there have been any
between that incident and now, however).
Melinda Johnston
the person who is in question was in charge of turning in the rosters
(along with other administrative things due to his inability to play
much). Tampering indicates forgery much like the Minnesota case, and I
don't think that is what went on.
Im not sure why this wasn't brought up last year, as he should have
been inelligible. I suppose the UPA was focusing more of their
attention on trying make Dwight Hines inelligible.
"Mike Gerics" <des...@digitizing4embroidery.com> wrote in message news:<Df5qc.45610$V_.17...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
Adam Tarr
> Im not sure why this wasn't brought up last year, as he should have
> been inelligible. I suppose the UPA was focusing more of their
> attention on trying make Dwight Hines inelligible.
I think a lot of the confusion about this case would be cleared up if
people read the announcement about it at http://www.upa.org/conduct.shtml.
"A player on the 2004 college team University of California Santa
Barbara (UCSB) Black Tide was found on 5/14/04 by the National College
Director and the Championship Director of the UPA to be playing under a
different name and different UPA identification number than the name and
number originally supplied to the UPA in the fall of 1997 with that
player's first membership payment and appearance on a team roster"
Translation: he somehow managed to get a different name and UPA number
on the roster. It's not outright forgery, but it is submitting false
documents.
bingren
time!
The secret's out, folks! Now we know why Tide always makes it to
Nationals! Alas, now the nation will have to suffer the immature
antics of those darned Air Squids! Did you hear about the time (maybe
2-3 years ago), where they "spiked" the disc 15 different ways in one
game on their way to winning a tourney? Mother bitches!!!
A sad day in Ultimate. A happy week in SD.
Jeff Allotta
> Your saying it didn't cross his mind that playing non-juniors ultimate since
> 1997 might make him ineligible for the college series? If he's been in
> college for 7 years, maybe he could learn to read the rules.
I will admit that I have never studied the eligibility rules since I
have only been a member of the UPA for 3 years now and I know that I
am still eligible. However, this was the first time I heard that
being a member of the UPA started the countdown against your college
ultimate. I always thought the rule was that you had 5 years of
eligibility starting from the date you start playing for a college
team. Why should playing non-juniors ultimate make you ineligible for
college ultimate?
Dan Bellinger
1988, 1989 & 1990
1996, 1997 & 1998
2004 dq'd, not beaten...
2005 & 2006, figure it out.
frisb...@hotmail.com (cathy lee) wrote in message news:<4dfb3097.04051...@posting.google.com>...
Daag Alemayehu
news:d64e21df.04051...@posting.google.com...
> 2004 dq'd, not beaten...
Hmm, but also winless.
Shamus McGillucutty
> I will admit that I have never studied the eligibility rules since I
> have only been a member of the UPA for 3 years now and I know that I
> am still eligible. However, this was the first time I heard that
> being a member of the UPA started the countdown against your college
> ultimate. I always thought the rule was that you had 5 years of
> eligibility starting from the date you start playing for a college
> team. Why should playing non-juniors ultimate make you ineligible for
> college ultimate?
Because if there were no rule, nothing would stop a team of club all-stars
who never played college, from paying $600 at their local community college
and winning a National Championship.
ShaMc
D
news:FbTqc.2731$Vv.186988@attbi_s51...
Yeah, but isn't that similar to a team of young thirtysomething Florida guys
jumping in a van, trekking a couple hours to Sarasota and winning the
"Masters" division at Club Nationals?
Brian
heynow
Hee hee hee, that's funny!
heynow
> check this website out...
>
> http://www.santabarbaraultimate.com/blacktide/Pg/2003BlackTideTourneys.html#anchor2003Regionals
>
> scroll down to the team picture in the middle of the page from
> regionals 2003.
Whoa, even funnier!!!!
heynow
> Well, if you like history so much...
>
> 1988, 1989 & 1990
>
> 1996, 1997 & 1998
>
> 2004 dq'd, not beaten...
> 2005 & 2006, figure it out.
>
This is the response from UCSB??? Y'all outta be dq'd for '05 for
having illegit player(s??) last year as well. I mean, did you not
think anyone was going to notice?? Was this fuck going to play next
year too?? Wasn't ANYONE bright enough (now I know you gotta be perdy
smart to go to UCSB) to wonder about it?? I have a real hard time
believing noone else on the team knew about it, maybe not EVERYONE
knew, but fuck, someone did.
And to Nate Bouxsein: you fucking lying son of a bitch- what makes you
think you are so special that you think you are above and can cheat an
entire community. You knew full well what you were doing when you
forged that roster and the implications it had, not only to you, but
to your team and the entire Ultimate community. I would kick the
living shit out of you if I were your teammates.
D
It's becoming increasingly clear that few, if any players on UCSB knew the
scam that was going down for the last 2 years. For Christ's sake, read Andy
Fisher's post from earlier in this thread... he's one of their best, most
involved players and doesn't have the foggiest idea what's just happened.
So don't act like they should have just figured it out.
And good work sending Nate an extra little F-U, too. With that final push,
thanks to you I bet he'll never sign up inelligibly for a college team
again. Seriously, dude, you have no concept of the scorn he is surely
getting from his Tide "team"mates since their disqualification. He f'd up
and he's getting punished severely, along with all of the Black Tide... I
don't think your own mother gives a shit about the implications it has on
you and "the entire Ultimate Community."
Easy to talk about "kicking the living shit out of you" when you won't post
a name, eh? You baby.
Brian
Los Angeles 2004 Summer League Preseason Favorite
"heynow" <ultima...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Travis Finucane
"D" <recogniz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h4r6bF...@uni-berlin.de...
> For a newbie poster, you sure are macho, kicking UCSB while they're down.
>
> It's becoming increasingly clear that few, if any players on UCSB knew the
> scam that was going down for the last 2 years. For Christ's sake, read
Andy
> Fisher's post from earlier in this thread... he's one of their best, most
> involved players and doesn't have the foggiest idea what's just happened.
> So don't act like they should have just figured it out.
>
As a program, Tide deserves a little kicking while they're down. During the
late 90's they were the most egregarious abusers of the single-team status
loophole. Santa Barbara City College might have won nationals in '98 had all
its Tide players made their own team.
Not that the Slugs were much better. In '99 we wouldn't have made nationals
without two guys taking classes at Cabrillo Community College.
But I feel bad for the current SB guys. Even the "liar" from Tide was
probably living in denial to some extent up until the point when they got
the bad news from HQ.
I think the fairest thing to do would hold a 15 team nationals. San Diego
didn't earn it. They're diluting the field and could ruin the sport forever.
Edward Lee
> As a program, Tide deserves a little kicking while they're down. During the
> late 90's they were the most egregarious abusers of the single-team status
> loophole. Santa Barbara City College might have won nationals in '98 had all
> its Tide players made their own team.
"Egregarious." Wow.
I know "egregious" means blatant or flagrant, and "gregarious" means
sociable. I have no idea what "egregarious" might mean, but Merriam-Webster
claims that both of the constituent words have the same Latin root. Hmm.
Eddie
Pizzaslot
news:OCbrc.1829$Ux....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> As a program, Tide deserves a little kicking while they're down. During
the
> late 90's they were the most egregarious abusers of the single-team status
> loophole. Santa Barbara City College might have won nationals in '98 had
all
> its Tide players made their own team.
Clarification? Are you saying not all were actually UCSB students?
Travis Finucane
"Edward Lee" <l...@nospam.math.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:c8jk2j$gsl$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
Irregardless, my point is valid.
Garrett Dyer
<tra...@finucane.org> wrote:
>I think the fairest thing to do would hold a 15 team nationals. San Diego
>didn't earn it. They're diluting the field and could ruin the sport forever.
Obviously coming from a thinly veiled UCSD-hater.
Has paying that tuition back got you a little peeved?
Joe Seidler
Who are you?
Shamus McGillucutty
ShaMc
"cathy lee" <frisb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4dfb3097.04051...@posting.google.com...
Abe
Best Word Ever. You're point defiantly stands on it's own.
Matt Guy
matt
"D" <recogniz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2h4r6bF...@uni-berlin.de>...
luke smith
>
> Irregardless, my point is valid.
sadly, through decades of misuse, 'irregardless' has entered the
dictionary. Disirregardlessness, however, is still available.
Matt Guy
big three O's. it happens to the best of us. even those with college
eligibility.
matt
"D" <recogniz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2h2if7F...@uni-berlin.de>...
Adam Tarr
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, ZJ wrote:
>
>
>>My question is why has it taken 10+ years of college ultimate for the
>>UPA to become actively involved with eligibility?
>>
>>Because they didn't care? Because some UPA staff had been there (on
>>those teams) themselves? Because everything was "all good"?
>
>
> Or maybe things like this just haven't happened much before now, so there
> was no one to catch?
Maybe. But check this out:
http://www.callahan-mvp.com/ca2002/men2001f.asp
http://www.callahan-mvp.com/callahan97/open97.html
Note the players nominated for 2001 Callahan. Now note the players
nominated for 1997 Callahan. Note the intersection. Now note the
"years playing ultimate" and "high school sports" listed for that player.
Interesting, isn't it?
(side note: who dropped the ball on nominating him in 1998?)
Sarah
> And good work sending Nate an extra little F-U, too. With that final push,
> thanks to you I bet he'll never sign up inelligibly for a college team
> again. Seriously, dude, you have no concept of the scorn he is surely
> getting from his Tide "team"mates since their disqualification. He f'd up
> and he's getting punished severely, along with all of the Black Tide... I
> don't think your own mother gives a shit about the implications it has on
> you and "the entire Ultimate Community."
>
Brian-
Any scorn, F-U's, punishment etc, this guy gets is more then well
deserved. From reading the earlier posts (and admittedly, this is my
only source of info on the situation), he played only a 'smattering'
of points at Sectionals and Regionals, which leads me to believe UCSB
would have made Nationals without his 'help'. He royally f-ed his
team. This was done intentionally and apparently without the consent
of his own team, for his own good. He's an a$$ and deserves all the
sh*t he gets. I feel for the UCSB team, what a way to end not only a
season, but for some their college career. Talk about blatant
disrespect for spirit!
Sarah
Maya
Arguments can be valid; points cannot.
Cash
it over the net anonymously.
Granted, since it is UCSB, everybody has been waiting for something like
this to happen ...but there were more people dq'd this year other than Nate
and yet everyone is focusing on this one person.
Unanonymously, and I'm easy to find.
$
"Sarah" <smas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b01f2db9.04052...@posting.google.com...
Travis Finucane
"Maya" <maya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e25a4552.04052...@posting.google.com...
Hey, all I know is unless somebody does something about this, the air
frickin squids are going to be playing at nationals.
Now we can either squabble over who egregarded whose point all day long, or
we can stand up to these guys and do something about it! I think Idaho has
some elegibility left, let's have him take the offending Tide player's spot
at Nationals.
Travis Finucane
Hey, all I know is unless somebody does something about this, the air
D
judgement on people they've never met. Still, it's just juvenille to say
that everything he gets is "more than well deserved." Tide getting axed
from Nationals is deserved, yes. This guy's teammates being furious with
him is well deserved, sure. A nobody from nowhere yelling obscenities based
on an act that had no effect on him is not deserved. It's a cheap shot.
It's Smokey punching a blacked-out Deebo after Craig's just hit him in the
face with a brick. Sort of.
But whatever... if you and heynow feel entitled to spit on someone who's
just been whipped, I was curious what your interpretation of "spirit" was
anyway.
Geeze.
Feeling much too warm & forgiving before a tournament weekend,
Brian
"Sarah" <smas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b01f2db9.04052...@posting.google.com...
> >
Mike Gerics
> Clarification? Are you saying not all were actually UCSB students?
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
--they were big users of the "consortium" bullshit that used to go on.
Mike Gerics
> on an act that had no effect on him is not deserved. It's a cheap shot.
--not a cheap shot.
not undeserved.
it's athletic journalism.
if ultimate were on espn, every friggin sports reporter in the nation would
be vocalizing their shamed astonishment.
Mike Gerics
> --they were big users of the "consortium" bullshit that used to go on.
>
>
---not a comment on UCSB....moreso on the 'consortium' stuff that teams were
once able to take advantage of so easily.
SpiritKiller
Joe Seidler
>
> Brian-
> Any scorn, F-U's, punishment etc, this guy gets is more then well
> deserved. From reading the earlier posts (and admittedly, this is my
> only source of info on the situation), he played only a 'smattering'
> of points at Sectionals and Regionals, which leads me to believe UCSB
> would have made Nationals without his 'help'. He royally f-ed his
> team. This was done intentionally and apparently without the consent
> of his own team, for his own good. He's an a$$ and deserves all the
> sh*t he gets. I feel for the UCSB team, what a way to end not only a
> season, but for some their college career. Talk about blatant
> disrespect for spirit!
>
> Sarah
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to let the team handle how they deal
with this rather than outsiders? SOTG is many things including, I
think, how we handle difficult situation off the field. The player in
question failed SOTG, but I hope you and others don't follow him down
that path by taking out some emotional release where it doesn't
belong.
Pizzaslot
news:d5b3a81f.04052...@posting.google.com...
> with this rather than outsiders? SOTG is many things including, I
> think, how we handle difficult situation off the field. The player in
> question failed SOTG, but I hope you and others don't follow him down
> that path by taking out some emotional release where it doesn't
> belong.
Actually, anybody who has played the college series this year (and
apparently last) has a right to be pissed. What makes him think he's above
than the rules that everyone else has to follow.
Whatever crap this guy gets from his team and from other teams is well
deserved. Sounds like whatever crap UCSB gets is well deserved. Years of
pushing the envelope of questionable eligibility to win championships.
Joe Seidler
>
> Actually, anybody who has played the college series this year (and
> apparently last) has a right to be pissed. What makes him think he's above
> than the rules that everyone else has to follow.
>
> Whatever crap this guy gets from his team and from other teams is well
> deserved. Sounds like whatever crap UCSB gets is well deserved. Years of
> pushing the envelope of questionable eligibility to win championships.
Of course he failed the entire Ultimate community, and I trust the UPA
will deal with him appropriately. I just think for non-team members to
publicly wish him such harm is not the way to demonstrate your anger.
And it only increases the damage already brought to the sport (by the
player's actions) by showing such poor personal maturity.
I was curious what you meant by "pushing the envelope of questionable
eligibility to win championships."? Did you mean having players on
the team that were enrolled in the community college? If so, I'm
confused why playing by the rules is questionable? The UPA approved
that association until a year or so ago. I personally am glad the UPA
made the ruling they did and now prohibit the association, but until
they did, UCSB (and all other teams that had associated colleges) were
playing every bit within the UPA rules. So if you need to vent (and I
don't blame you for wanting to), at least keep to relevant issues. And
of course even when the associated community college was allowed, no
player ever played more than their 5 years of UPA eligibility.
You sound like a sore loser. The better way to 'get even' if that's
what you want to do is go out and beat UCSB next year. And the year
after...
Who are you?
Mike Gerics
> Wouldn't it be more appropriate to let the team handle how they deal
> with this rather than outsiders?
---i bet no outsiders, aside from the UPA, are gonna "deal" with it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SOTG is many things including, I
> think, how we handle difficult situation off the field.
---bzzt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The player in
> question failed SOTG, but I hope you and others don't follow him down
> that path by taking out some emotional release where it doesn't
> belong.
---pointing out someone's fuck up and cheating ways...isn't a violation of
spirit of the game.
Garrett Dyer
>Of course he failed the entire Ultimate community, and I trust the UPA
>will deal with him appropriately. I just think for non-team members to
>publicly wish him such harm is not the way to demonstrate your anger.
>And it only increases the damage already brought to the sport (by the
>player's actions) by showing such poor personal maturity.
Joe, you're too close to this to offer perfectly objective thoughts on
the matter, and you must be 100% objective before your critique of
someone else's behavior can hold any weight. Everyone has a right to
be upset, including me, even though I never have - and never will -
play in the college series. A cheater pisses people off in general,
and this guy blemished college nationals this year by precluding a top
team from competing. It's simple fact that you must acknowledge and
therefore allow fallout from. The attempt to stop people short of
venting their anger about something like this is futile. And it's not
like these folks are throwing literal stones at this kid...
>And of course even when the associated community college was allowed, no
>player ever played more than their 5 years of UPA eligibility.
Of course? No player ever? Given the 100% certainty that is inherent
to those two phrases, I don't think that anyone at any school can say
as much. And hearing "we never knew" and "how could we have known"
only casts further doubt on the legitimacy of projecting such a
statement onto UCSB teams of years past.
>You sound like a sore loser.
Isn't it somewhat understandable for someone to sound like a sore
loser when they've lost because someone else cheated? Something has
long been taken for granted but will no longer be, and you've got to
admit that all college players lost here. Not making a comparison,
only an analogy: after 9/11/2001, much of the freedom we'd enjoyed
was taken away from us. There certainly will be fallout from this,
and my guess is that it will impinge upon the collective freedom of
players in the college series.
>The better way to 'get even' if that's what you want to do is go out
>and beat UCSB next year. And the year after...
I can't wait to hear UCSB folks in about 6 months to a year start in
with "yeah, but they won nationals *without* UCSB there..."
Garrett Dyer
1) UCSB submitted a roster with a player's name and UPA ID that was
fictious.
2) This was at least the 2nd year in a row that this happened.
3) UCSB players say that they didn't know, and supporters ask how
they could have known.
Now my questions: doesn't the UPA have a program that is handed out
at college nationals similar to the one handed out at club nationals?
In that program, aren't the team rosters listed? Wouldn't you think
that at least one UCSB player would've looked at the list of players
at some point between 2003 nationals and this year's sectionals?
Wouldn't it stand to reason that such a player would think to himself,
"Who is this Phil McCrackin guy, and why did Nate get left off of the
list?"
Adam Tarr
> Now my questions: doesn't the UPA have a program that is handed out
> at college nationals similar to the one handed out at club nationals?
> In that program, aren't the team rosters listed? Wouldn't you think
> that at least one UCSB player would've looked at the list of players
> at some point between 2003 nationals and this year's sectionals?
> Wouldn't it stand to reason that such a player would think to himself,
> "Who is this Phil McCrackin guy, and why did Nate get left off of the
> list?"
That would require UCSB making 2003 Nationals, which they didn't.
Garrett Dyer
wrote:
>That would require UCSB making 2003 Nationals, which they didn't.
Well there you have it...a very preventable error. I thought by
virtue of UCSD not making it, UCSB was taking their spot every year.
Oh well.
The basis of the question still has degree of uncertainty, though: is
it not true that at *some* point the roster that was turned in to the
UPA be known to the rest of the team's players? Maybe an e-mail,
maybe online somewhere, etc? Just seems odd that they never saw this
name on their roster, but admittedly it's possible.
Joe Seidler
Hey Garrett, send me an email so I can reply off rsd.
Thanks,
Joe
Dave
making an example of a team in order to prevent this from happening
later? I mean, its one thing if it happens to a lesser known team,
but this is UCSB, a very storied program. Maybe by suspending them
from natties this year, they are taking the opportunity to show that
they just won't accept this kind of action, even from a major program.
- Stack
Adam Tarr
Yeah, they would never suspend a less prominent program, like Dalhousie
or Minnesota.
JT
> I was curious what you meant by "pushing the envelope of questionable
> eligibility to win championships."? Did you mean having players on
> the team that were enrolled in the community college? If so, I'm
> confused why playing by the rules is questionable? The UPA approved
> that association until a year or so ago. I personally am glad the UPA
> made the ruling they did and now prohibit the association, but until
> they did, UCSB (and all other teams that had associated colleges) were
> playing every bit within the UPA rules. So if you need to vent (and I
> don't blame you for wanting to), at least keep to relevant issues. And
> of course even when the associated community college was allowed, no
> player ever played more than their 5 years of UPA eligibility.
You are correct, the consortium crap was not illegal. But you did not
see a program like UNCW try to get people to go to Cape Fear Community
College so that we could make another run at the championship. So
glad the consortium crap is gone. Now everybody should have a level
playing field, unless someone chooses to fu*k it up like what has
happened this year. Sketchy, very sketchy.
JT
JT
> what you want to do is go out and beat UCSB next year. And the year
> after...
Sore loser? Don't know if the guy even played against UCSB but what
about the teams that did? Did any of them not make regionals because
of this? What about the ones knocked into the losers bracket at
regionals? Was their weekend cut short? For you as a father of a
former player, a strong UCSB supporter and a UPA board member, you are
too close to the situation to be unbiased. True?
>
> Who are you?
Does it matter who he/she is? RSD is open to say whatever needs to be
said. There really has been only one offensive remark on the subject
that I can see. That probably went a little too far but the rest of
these posts are pretty much on target.
Now, go back in rsd archives and hear some of the team bashing that
used to take place against teams WITH legitimate players. Was there a
big uproar when a team finally beat Stanford women (after they had
been undefeated for umpteen thousand games) in the finals of
nationals? Where were the board of directors then to come in and calm
down the masses and say everything was legit?
JT
Mike Gerics
> Hey Garrett, send me an email so I can reply off rsd.
> Thanks,
> Joe
you could just hit "reply"
Mike Gerics
> > I think something may have been overlooked. What about the UPA simply
> > making an example of a team in order to prevent this from happening
> > later? I mean, its one thing if it happens to a lesser known team,
> > but this is UCSB, a very storied program. Maybe by suspending them
> > from natties this year, they are taking the opportunity to show that
> > they just won't accept this kind of action, even from a major program.
---uhm.....yes...making an example. yep.
yes...showing that they won't accept this kind of action.
even from a major program. yes.
Pizzaslot
UPA reviews them, "lesser" known teams are already eliminated, so it doesn't
matter?
"Dave" <zolt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa70446.04052...@posting.google.com...
Pizzaslot
Funny how that coincides with UCSB not making Nationals in 2003.....
Just because you are within the rules, does not mean you can't abuse the
rules. This is not a new debate in the Ultimate world, e.g.-west coast
travelling
I don't know if I've lost to UCSB. Which team did I play? Was it UCSB, or
some combo team with ringers registered for underwater basket weaving at the
local community college?
Mike Gerics
>This is not a new debate in the Ultimate world, e.g.-west coast
> travelling
---i don't think that there was ever a debate about the west coast's
traveling....was there?
Becca
<snip>
Maybe an e-mail,
> maybe online somewhere, etc? Just seems odd that they never saw this
> name on their roster, but admittedly it's possible.
In my experience, the team would have no need to see the roster. In
college, our captains just kept an excel spreadsheet of all players.
Players signed the release form and submitted them to the captains.
Captains filled out the roster.
The only time players would have seen the roster would be if they
happened to be at a captain's house on the night they were putting the
roster together.
Back in the old days, captains just hand copied everything over from
the spreadsheet. But the UPA is wicked smart, so they now release an
Excel version so you can just copy and paste.
Not sure how other teams do it.
Even if you have folks sign the roster, there is no reason a captain
or a coach (assuming the captain/coach takes the roster to the
registrars) couldn't include themselves at the end of the list.
Players don't have to sign the roster, just the release form.
In the case of SB, it would make sense to see this person still listed
in emails because this is your coach. I'm not sure about the online
thing - can you even check rosters online? Not that I know of...
Travis Finucane
"Mike Gerics" <des...@digitizing4embroidery.com> wrote in message
news:bumsc.56790$V_.25...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Pizzaslot
didn't know, is a load of crap. You know when you have a ringer. Do they
not talk to one another?
This conversation never happened?
"Dude, you've got good throws. Seems like you've been playing a while.
Where did you play before UCSB?" or "When did you start playing?"
The natural response out of said conversation might be, presumably if player
in question told the truth, and his teammates were halfway intelligent,
"Dude, how are you still eligible?"
"Garrett Dyer" <Shoot.t...@the.net> wrote in message
news:d562b0pmh406r371l...@4ax.com...
bil
> what you want to do is go out and beat UCSB next year. And the year
> after...
>
> Who are you?
Joe,
I'm going to agree with Garret here and say that you sound
way too close to this issue. One of the things that I hate
most is when people are too local in their convictions.
I find the defensiveness of your comments to be indicative
of qualities that I'm not comfortable with when considering
who should be on the Board of Directors. Which is a short
way of saying that you may be alienating part of your electorate.
yours,
bil elsinger
- who i am:
http://www.upa.org/club/2003_championships/open5.html
http://www.pbase.com/elsinger/ultimate_2002
Joe Seidler
> j...@seidler.com (Joe Seidler) wrote in message news:<d5b3a81f.0405...@posting.google.com>...
> > You sound like a sore loser. The better way to 'get even' if that's
> > what you want to do is go out and beat UCSB next year. And the year
> > after...
>
> Sore loser? Don't know if the guy even played against UCSB but what
> about the teams that did? Did any of them not make regionals because
> of this? What about the ones knocked into the losers bracket at
> regionals? Was their weekend cut short? For you as a father of a
> former player, a strong UCSB supporter and a UPA board member, you are
> too close to the situation to be unbiased. True?
>
The argument that I am too close to the situation is weak. You don't
agree with my statements, so just say so. If the UPA felt that a local
community college was appropriate in a consortium in NC, or anywhere
else, I would also support that school's right to use it. I am VERY
glad the UPA discovered this player's cheating, and I completely agree
with it's decision to DQ UCSB.
You (and others) are contending that even if a rule is allowed, it may
not be 'right'. That is usually a difficult argument as it calls for
deciding where to draw the line. Which rules are okay and which are
not? That is of course a judgement call that each individual makes
differently. So the only 'good' way (in my humble, old age, opinion)
is to follow the rules that the group (aka UPA in this case) makes.
When a consortium was allowed, there was no reason not to use it; and
it is not stretching anything IMO.
Not that it matters, but I don't ever remember UCSB having more than
one person from the community college playing on the A-team at any
time. And out of the 11 years I have been following the team, that
occured less than half the time (maybe much less, but I don't know the
exact numbers).
I value the discussions I have on rsd as I often learn from them. And
I think board members should do that as often as possible. RSD is not
the only, nor the best way; but it's convenient. And I value the
discussions via rsd with people who give their name much more than
those that don't.
D
> the matter, and you must be 100% objective before your critique of
> someone else's behavior can hold any weight. Everyone has a right to
> be upset, including me, even though I never have - and never will -
> play in the college series. A cheater pisses people off in general,
> and this guy blemished college nationals this year by precluding a top
> team from competing. It's simple fact that you must acknowledge and
> therefore allow fallout from. The attempt to stop people short of
> venting their anger about something like this is futile. And it's not
> like these folks are throwing literal stones at this kid...
If Joe is too close to the issue to offer "perfectly objective" thoughts,
and you'll only consider what "100% objective" individuals have to say, then
there's no need to listen to ANY of these bashers that didn't say dick when
two other teams were disqualified from the college series.
The fact that UCSB has historically been more successful than U of M does
not make their infraction worse & make them more deserving of ill-will, nor
does the idea that he "blemished" college nationals by denying the Tide from
attending. Santa Barbara wasn't hoping to go to Seattle to entertain your
bitter asses. You aren't entitled to watch the top 16 teams play at
Nationals (read: 2 bids per region).
> Of course? No player ever? Given the 100% certainty that is inherent
> to those two phrases, I don't think that anyone at any school can say
> as much. And hearing "we never knew" and "how could we have known"
> only casts further doubt on the legitimacy of projecting such a
> statement onto UCSB teams of years past.
I beg your pardon, but your innuendo that this was more than an isolated
incident and your suggestion that Tide's 2004 disqualification lends any
credibility to 90's anti-UCSB conspiracy theories just make you sound silly.
We have established time & time again that they played by the rules.
Abiding by the rules specifically designed to avoid unfair situations is not
"abusing the rules."
> I can't wait to hear UCSB folks in about 6 months to a year start in
> with "yeah, but they won nationals *without* UCSB there..."
I read a bit of rsd, and have hung out in Southern California for the last
year, and I never heard a word of "Wisconsin won Natties cuz Tide wasn't
there." Acting like a successful team is automatically relegated to
rationalizing their shortcomings indicates a bit of insecurity on your part.
Maybe they'll just accept what happened, like grown-ups. So far what I've
heard (from the post that prompted heynow's reply, and talking with a few of
them) is a group of pissed off people saying "Watch out, because we're
coming for you next year, and we'll be out to prove we're just as good
without the disqualified guy [who we didn't even know was ineligible]."
And please don't start with "they should have known" again. If I wanted to
play, and nobody knew me, I could train all year with your program, sneak my
way onto the roster, and find a way to keep you AND the UPA from knowing
about it... until they noticed my last name was identical to that of a
player from the late 90's... and they DQ'd me, screwing the team. How's
that your fault? I LIED to you, and everyone else that stood between me and
my goal of playing on a successful team.
Brian
'96-'01 Tide Hater
D
>
> This conversation never happened?
> "Dude, you've got good throws. Seems like you've been playing a while.
> Where did you play before UCSB?" or "When did you start playing?"
>
> The natural response out of said conversation might be, presumably if
player
> in question told the truth, and his teammates were halfway intelligent,
> "Dude, how are you still eligible?"
Right. And the ineligible player says "I wasn't on a roster in '97 or '98,
so I can play 2004 as my final season." Suspicion over.
That was tough. It's not like he'll all of the sudden remember he's been
lying all along and say "Okay! You got me! I thought I could get away with
it, but then you noticed by abilities, and asked me that prying question,
and I just can't go on with this charade any longer... I'm so sorry. (sob)"
Had the Tide known, their reaction may have been more along the lines of
"You played WHEN?! Dude, you're a sweet player [or not], but we can't risk
the entire team's season in order to get you on the roster."
These things happen. Not everyone is suspicious of everyone else, all the
time. In fact, we're generally quite trusting, especially of our friends &
teammates. At least, I am... should I not be?
Brian
Known Liar
Hotpants
> > You sound like a sore loser. The better way to 'get even' if that's
> > what you want to do is go out and beat UCSB next year. And the year
> > after...
> former player, a strong UCSB supporter and a UPA board member, you are
> too close to the situation to be unbiased. True?
Wow... thats awesome that a upa board member is going around name
calling and talking trash to college ultimate players. But... given
their history, would anyone expect anything less from someone
associated with uscb. Dont ask who i am... it doesnt matter. But we
did beat the shit out of ucsb at centex. I wish they had their whole
team there, cause as bad as we beat them... im not sure how much of a
difference it would have made.
Patrick Corn
> >The UPA approved that association until a year or so ago.
>
> Funny how that coincides with UCSB not making Nationals in 2003.....
It was probably their weakness in 2002 that did them in in 2003.
The SW got only one bid last year. However, UCSD did finish second ahead
of UCSB at Regionals last year.
--Pat.
Adam Tarr
> Wow... thats awesome that a upa board member is going around name
> calling and talking trash to college ultimate players. But... given
> their history, would anyone expect anything less from someone
> associated with uscb.
I think calling Joe's responses "trash talking" is a big exageration.
He obviously comes from the perspective of a UCSB fan, but he's been
very up-front about admitting that they were in the wrong and supporting
the UPA response.
While it's not a job requirement, I definitely like having board members
that post to r.s.d. regularly. Commumication is good. I imagine Joe
would recuse himself if a matter directly involving UCSB actually
reached the board.
> Dont ask who i am... it doesnt matter.
Anybody with half a brain and 90 seconds of spare time can figure out
that you're Jonathan Daugherty from Texas. Especially when you narrowed
it down to two schools with your Centex story. Well, I guess it's less
than 90 seconds, now.
-Adam
pseudonym-free
Daag Alemayehu
> And please don't start with "they should have known" again. If I wanted to
I think I will, sorry.
> play, and nobody knew me, I could train all year with your program, sneak my
> way onto the roster, and find a way to keep you AND the UPA from knowing
> about it... until they noticed my last name was identical to that of a
> player from the late 90's... and they DQ'd me, screwing the team. How's
> that your fault? I LIED to you, and everyone else that stood between me and
> my goal of playing on a successful team.
So here's the thing. I don't know how it works on other college teams,
but I know that whenever we got a new player that was either a grad
student or a transfer (i.e., not a freshman), we always asked him where he
came from, usually before he even started practicing with us. We wouldn't
do it just to interrogate him, we were simply curious. You know, see what
he might be able to bring to the table and how long he'll be able to play
with us.
When Nate showed up at UCSB 4 years ago (or longer??), someone must have
known he wasn't a freshman. In fact, I'll bet EVERYONE knew he wasn't a
freshman. What did he say when his teammates asked him how long he'd been
playing? Or how much eligibility he still had left? You can't tell me he
came into the program and knew that in 2 years he was going to pull some
trickery and try to get 2+ extra years of eligibility and thus kept his
ultimate past a total secret. Just not buying that.
Adam Tarr
> So here's the thing. I don't know how it works on other college teams,
> but I know that whenever we got a new player that was either a grad
> student or a transfer (i.e., not a freshman), we always asked him where he
> came from, usually before he even started practicing with us. We wouldn't
> do it just to interrogate him, we were simply curious. You know, see what
> he might be able to bring to the table and how long he'll be able to play
> with us.
Yes, that's how it would work. The story I've heard is that after
playing three years at Northwestern and arriving in fall 2000, he
claimed he had played some with Northwestern but had never been on their
roster.
> When Nate showed up at UCSB 4 years ago (or longer??), someone must have
> known he wasn't a freshman. In fact, I'll bet EVERYONE knew he wasn't a
> freshman. What did he say when his teammates asked him how long he'd been
> playing? Or how much eligibility he still had left? You can't tell me he
> came into the program and knew that in 2 years he was going to pull some
> trickery and try to get 2+ extra years of eligibility and thus kept his
> ultimate past a total secret. Just not buying that.
That appears to be exactly the story. I agree that, without any extra
info, it sounds pretty strange.
Edward Lee
> Yes, that's how it would work. The story I've heard is that after
> playing three years at Northwestern and arriving in fall 2000, he
> claimed he had played some with Northwestern but had never been on their
> roster.
Maybe every UPA college player's eligibility should be made publicly
available...
Eddie
Joe Seidler
> > You sound like a sore loser. The better way to 'get even' if that's
> > what you want to do is go out and beat UCSB next year. And the year
> > after...
> >
> > Who are you?
>
>
> Joe,
>
> I'm going to agree with Garret here and say that you sound
> way too close to this issue. One of the things that I hate
> most is when people are too local in their convictions.
>
> I find the defensiveness of your comments to be indicative
> of qualities that I'm not comfortable with when considering
> who should be on the Board of Directors. Which is a short
> way of saying that you may be alienating part of your electorate.
>
> yours,
>
> bil elsinger
>
Thanks Bil. Hope I'm not alienating too many. I am mostly trying to
communicate... and yes even listen. I may sound 'too close' but I
would be saying the same thing about the validity of using an approved
consortium by any other team in the country. I don't feel defensive
(but I guess it sounds that way).
And if I choose to run for the board again, you'll get a chance to use
the power of the ballot this Fall for or agin' me ;)
D
> I'm going to agree with Garret here and say that you sound
> way too close to this issue. One of the things that I hate
> most is when people are too local in their convictions.
Right. You wouldn't know anything about that, would you, Bil? From what
I've seen in the last year, you make no secret of your distaste
(subconscious or otherwise) for Santa Barbara teams. I'm not surprised in
the slightest to find you here trying to turn this into a issue between Joe
& the UPA.
> I find the defensiveness of your comments to be indicative
> of qualities that I'm not comfortable with when considering
> who should be on the Board of Directors. Which is a short
> way of saying that you may be alienating part of your electorate.
As Mr. Tarr says, Joe is certainly not hiding the fact that he supports the
UPA's decision wholeheartedly. Both he and I have said time & time again
that we agree with the disqualification of the 2004 Tide. Besides that, all
we've said is that it's unfortunate that a few individuals have taken to
personally attacking the ineligible player.
Read what Joe has written here...
> The player in question failed SOTG, but I hope you and others don't follow
him down that path by taking out some emotional release where it doesn't
belong.
... or here...
> If the UPA felt that a local community college was appropriate in a
consortium in NC, or anywhere else, I would also support that school's right
to use it. I am VERY glad the UPA discovered this player's cheating, and I
completely agree with it's decision to DQ UCSB.
... or many other places in this thread.
The only "defensiveness" I read of any kind is when morons try to turn this
into an issue with the late-90's championship Black Tide teams. If you're
not comfortable with a Board Member who stands up against completely
unfounded accusations and supports abiding by the rules set forth by the
UPA, then you're a dimmer bulb than I thought.
I didn't like the Tide any more than the next guy during my college career,
probably less. They aren't my good buddies now. But you dumbasses that are
trying to turn this ONE individual's actions into a Santa Barbara conspiracy
between the current Tide, 90's Tide, Mr. Seidler, and whoever else just
sound like f*cking idiots.
Brian
Salad
Edward Lee <l...@nospam.math.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<c8tu9m$uv9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...