NUMP ALL COLLEGIATE WOMENS TEAMS
Mike Gerics
or Womens Disisions, or both. 7 points were awarded to their #1 pick, 6 for
#2, 5 for #3 etc.......
From these votes we determine the ALL COLLEGIATE TEAM(ACT) and the top vote
getter in each Division will be named NUMP COLLEGE MVP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the NUMP's Most Valuable Player----
Kira Frew, UBC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NUMP's ALL COLLEGIATE 1st TEAM
Athlete/School Points
1 Kira Frew, UBC 59
2 Georgia Bosscher, Wisc 33
3 Shannon O'Malley, UW 28
4 Angie Sanan, UCLA 25
5 Katie Barry, UCSB 24
6 Anne Mercier, Ottawa 23
7 Sarah Griffith, Michigan 14
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NUMP's ALL COLLEGIATE 2nd Team
8 Courtney Kiesow, Wisconsin 11
9 Cheryl Prideaux, UCLA 8
10 Lisa Niemann, UW 6
11 Gina, Texas 4
12 Claire Suver, UW 4
13 Andrea Romano, UCSB 3
14 Emily Baecher, Michigan 3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Honorable Mentions:
Carolyn Finney, UCSB
Amy Smith, Colorado
mccants
to #8 as well and the runner up callahan winner finished #1?
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
> isn't anybody going to freak that the women's callahan winner dropped
> to #8 as well and the runner up callahan winner finished #1?
Well, I doubt those "Canadian-haters" will be as vocal here as they
were in the bleachers at Boulder when they didn't realize they were
being over-heard when they stated that they were relieved a Canadian
didn't win the Callahan.
Huge congrats Kira... almost twice the points of #2... that's pretty
telling.
FJR
the Callahan since it seems that there was indeed a certain amount of
anti-Canadian sentiment. That seems considerably more controversial
and interesting than the Kershner/Gibson/Dahl Debate aka 'How much
should sportsmanship factor into the Callahan Award?'
I've already expressed my support for Kira on my blog. Has there ever
been a candidate more deserving not to win the award?
rhab...@gmail.com
Enessa Janes in 2005.
joad...@ec.rr.com
> One would think there would be more controversy about Kira not winning
> the Callahan since it seems that there was indeed a certain amount of
> anti-Canadian sentiment.
i dont think the controversy is over who won it as much as why or how
they won it. It is pretty ironic that both the calahan winners were
number 8 in the nump vote though. I will take a wild guess that
wisconsin won the spirit award as a team as well.
That seems considerably more controversial
> and interesting than the Kershner/Gibson/Dahl Debate aka 'How much
> should sportsmanship factor into the Callahan Award?'
why more?
FJR
> i dont think the controversy is over who won it as much as why or how
> they won it. It is pretty ironic that both the calahan winners were
> number 8 in the nump vote though. I will take a wild guess that
> wisconsin won the spirit award as a team as well.
Wisconsin came 6th in the spirit awards. Plus, I don't think Courtney
won the award solely (or even primarily) on the basis of her spirited
play. It had much more to do with her play, her contributions as a
leader and the considerable amount of support coming from a very vocal
Bella Donna contingent.
> > That seems considerably more controversial
> > and interesting than the Kershner/Gibson/Dahl Debate aka 'How much
> > should sportsmanship factor into the Callahan Award?'
>
> why more?
Part of it is because I'm not that interested in discussing to what
extent sportsmanship/spirit should be involved in determining the
Callahan. I think that's pretty much run its course. (For what it's
worth, I think people are overlooking how good Kershner is -- it's not
like the award was given to Corky from 'Life Goes On' for inspiring
warm fuzzies and bad 80s flashbacks). You've clearly expressed your
disdain for spirit as a factor in choosing the award, so I don't want
to rehash that.
On the women's side, it seemed pretty clear that Kira espoused every
facet of what it is to be a Callahan winner. She's unquestionably a
strong leader who led her team to greatness, she is a standout player
who looks dominant on the field, and as far as I've heard and seen,
she has a good reputation in terms of spirit / sportsmanship. There
doesn't seem to be a single strike against her. The only negative
seems to be that she plays for a Canadian team.
If that is the reason (and while I don't think it's the sole reason, I
think it's a pretty huge one), that would make me feel rather
ashamed. It's one thing to promote the USA v. Canada rivalry and
debate whether Canada should be part of our National Championships,
but it's completely another to discredit any individual or team just
because they happen to be on the other side of the border. I think
that's the case here.
That to me is a big controversy worth discussing -- the existence of
an ugly jingoistic sentiment within a community that is supposed to be
relatively enlightened and forward-thinking.
swill...@yahoo.com
A player is supposed to ascertain an objective viewpoint of 'level of
Spirit' on a player they've played against maybe 6-8 times, let alone
talk to maybe twice?
Then, using this 'Spirit level' (or lack thereof) as reason for not
giving a Callahan nod.
You're absolutely correct. There is a lack of serious thought on this
matter.
An intelligent person will realize that skill alone doesn't warrant a
Callahan. Nor leadership and years of contribution to the sport...
But an equally intelligent person should realize you can't gauge
'Spirit' without actually knowing a person.
Whatever... Kira knows where she stands in ultimate.
robyn
the discussion about the Callahan award sucking this year is
ridiculous. The award takes into account spirit, it is clearly laid
out there. I think that spirit of the game is something that needs to
be honored since it is one of things that sets ultimate apart from
other sports.However, I think that expanding the prestige of the NUMP
MVP title is a good idea as well. Many sports have multiple awards, so
why not? I personally think that the Callahan means more, because it
embodies what ultimate is about...skill, leadership ability, spirit of
the game.
Second...quick question about the NUMP panel: was the same group of
players and non-players used for voting in the women's division as the
open division?
Third...I know that "non-Nationals qualifiying" players were looked
at, but it seems like if they don't make it to nationals, they aren't
considered at all. It is a team sport, is it not? You can a lot of
leadership capability, but it doesn't mean that the rest of your team
is nationals caliber...especially the smaller schools where they are
lucky to field enough for two full lines of players.
Every single player on that list comes from a division-I school where
there are more resources and a larger student body. I think that one
important program that got overlooked was Carleton College. Megan
Molteni is a phenomenal leader on her team and excutes play after
play...she makes things happen. I think that she was completely
overlooked, because she can ball with the rest of that list easily.
They made it to the quarters, did they not? Something to be said of
the only non-division-I team at nationals.
Rather than having a "vote for your seven best players" system, you
could have some sort of nomination system first, and then vote? Just a
suggestion.
The NUMP panel voting is a good idea...not perfect, but maybe in a few
years.
-Robyn
Ryan Thompson
players and non-players used for voting in the women's division as the
open division? "
Panelists could vote for one division or both or neither.
joad...@ec.rr.com
> an ugly jingoistic sentiment within a community that is supposed to be
> relatively enlightened and forward-thinking.
OK i missed you angle but now i see what you are saying. So ultimate
players are not only racists(segregationists......accept for those
guys in DC)) but they are also typical arrogant americans......what
would the word be for that kind of discrimination against
canadians....canadianists? Or still segregationists......but in this
case against non americans?
And what makes it worse is that they front like they are all inclusive
and progressive, right?
Mike Gerics
> First, I would like to say that I respect what the NUMP has done.
--respect.
~~~~~~
All
> the discussion about the Callahan award sucking this year is
> ridiculous. The award takes into account spirit, it is clearly laid
> out there.
--i'm a fan of any award, really. the more the merrier.
~~~~~
I think that spirit of the game is something that needs to
> be honored since it is one of things that sets ultimate apart from
> other sports.
--i don't know about all that...but i understand what you mean....and the
Callahan does this and more.
~~~~~
However, I think that expanding the prestige of the NUMP
> MVP title is a good idea as well. Many sports have multiple awards, so
> why not?
--word.
~~~~
I personally think that the Callahan means more, because it
> embodies what ultimate is about...skill, leadership ability, spirit of
> the game.
--i don't think that the NUMP MVP EXCLUDES any of the aspects of the above
list.
i did just ask for the most athletic....and asked members to rank their top
players from 1-7...but in our sport...which features 'spirit of the game'
and sportsmanship and playing by the rules IN THE RULES of the
sport.........you cannot exclude spirit and fairness and loyalty to the
sport by asking only for the "best athletes/players".....right?
it's all included.....
~~~~~~~~
> Second...quick question about the NUMP panel: was the same group of
> players and non-players used for voting in the women's division as the
> open division?
--uhm.......
everyone was offered the opportunity to vote in the mens or womens
divisions, or for both.
~~~
> Third...I know that "non-Nationals qualifiying" players were looked
> at, but it seems like if they don't make it to nationals, they aren't
> considered at all. It is a team sport, is it not? You can a lot of
> leadership capability, but it doesn't mean that the rest of your team
> is nationals caliber...especially the smaller schools where they are
> lucky to field enough for two full lines of players.
--every team and every athlete was considered. that's all i know.
i could ask...but won't....which small school athlete with bad teammates
should replace which member of one of the ACTeams?
i mean.....i trust the Panel Members to consider everything they are offered
for consideration.
~~~~~
> Every single player on that list comes from a division-I school where
> there are more resources and a larger student body. I think that one
> important program that got overlooked was Carleton College. Megan
> Molteni is a phenomenal leader on her team and excutes play after
> play...she makes things happen. I think that she was completely
> overlooked, because she can ball with the rest of that list easily.
> They made it to the quarters, did they not? Something to be said of
> the only non-division-I team at nationals.
--based on what i know, which is 'history' and 'tradition' more than current
events...i find it hard to believe a Carleton lady didn't make 1st or 2nd
ACTeam....
but that's the votes......
Robyn....YOU should be on the Panel next year.
don't miss out.
~~~~
> Rather than having a "vote for your seven best players" system, you
> could have some sort of nomination system first, and then vote? Just a
> suggestion.
--i/we could.....yes.....but then.......that would be some totally different
MVP award.
The NUMP uses this super complicated vote counting method that i have
devised.
~~~~
> The NUMP panel voting is a good idea...not perfect, but maybe in a few
> years.
---no offense....it makes me laugh...lol you kids call it, i think.
'not perfect'???????
what IS?
i don't think perfection is the goal....but what we set out to do....we did
perfectly....i'd say.
MrP...@gmail.com
> players are not only racists(segregationists......accept for those
> guys in DC)) but they are also typical arrogant americans......what
> would the word be for that kind of discrimination against
> canadians....canadianists? Or still segregationists......but in this
> case against non americans?
"Nationalist" might do it, "jingoist" was suggested and frequently
applies (though not really here), but we tend towards the more
euphemistic "patriotic." There certainly did seem to be a bit of
Canada vs USA pervading the women's finals, and I can't say that I
approve. Both teams had supporters in the stands with "Go Canada" and
"Go USA" signs. The UBC girls had maple leaf temp tattoos and their
fan section actually started singing "O Canada" at one point. My view
is that UBC represents British Columbia, and UCSB represents Santa
Barbara. Leave the nationalist crap for... um... worlds. Still, it
is what it is.
More likely in the Callahan situation, Wisco had more publicity behind
their campaign and organized more voters. Which of course leads to a
more general suggestion: everyone needs to chill out about the whole
Callahan thing. There's no run off or absolute majority required, so
schools will vote for their nominee, regions will tend to support the
folks in their region (probably more a result of familiarity than
regional pride), and so on. A small gap in the electorates commitment
to the process in one place or another can make the difference.
Comparing the Callahan results to the NUMP results is a silly, silly
thing to do. A few of the NUMP finishers that can in above Kersh and
Kira weren't even Callahan nominees to begin with...
joad...@ec.rr.com
> A few of the NUMP finishers that can in above Kersh and
> Kira weren't even Callahan nominees to begin with...
I think thats the point of this whole controversy.
FJR
> > Kira weren't even Callahan nominees to begin with...
>
> I think thats the point of this whole controversy.
Actually, no. In order to be voted on for the Callahan, your team has
to nominate you. There's really no controversy in someone not winning
the Callahan if they were not nominated by their team.
FJR
I think Megan is very good, and no doubt, she deserves plenty of
recognition for her play this year. I also think it's a mistake to
say that she was completely overlooked. A decent amount has been
written about her and most of the national-caliber teams outside the
Central region know about her. It obviously doesn't help that
Carleton doesn't nominate anyone for the Callahan.
That said, I don't think she belongs in the top ten players. I would
think she would have been on the next tier of seven players (3rd
team), but I also wouldn't have been surprised if she made the 2nd
team. The 16 players mentioned are all deserving. If you've seen all
sixteen players and feel that she was wronged, I encourage you to
speak out loudly on her behalf.
I also hope that you aren't suggesting that players from Carleton
deserve more attention because they aren't a Div I school. The NUMP
award is an absolute value - it was designed to acknowledge the seven
best players in collegiate ultimate period. That Carleton continues
to thrive despite their size is something for them to be really proud
of. It is phenomenal. It also has nothing to do with this award.
Also, I'm fairly certain that MIT was another non-Div I team at
Nationals. The Canadian teams are technically not Div I but they are
definitely the size of one.
As for considering non-Nationals players, it is really difficult to
identify anyone who is really deserving to be considered in the top 14
players in the country if they are only known on a regional level.
For that to happen, they would have to be heads and shoulders above
everyone else. If someone like UBC or UCLA had been upset at
Regionals, then Kira and Taz would still have been considered because
they are truly exceptional players who excelled during the regular
season.
When you're talking about the top 14 players (and NUMP voters could
only vote for 7), that's not even one player per team at Nationals.
That simply doesn't leave room for considering many people who didn't
qualify.
In the end, not everyone who deserves attention will receive it.
Hell, I would have taken Gizmo, Candice Chan, Tory Hislop and Kaela
Jorgensen over some of the players who were recognized. Still, all
sixteen of the players recognized by the NUMP panel are fantastic
players and deserve the accolades.
MrP...@gmail.com
Not in the least, my good sir. Wisco nominates a guy, the RC
nominates another of their guys, and then the NUMP folks choose a
third guy. This has nothing to do with your worship of asshattery and
more to do with different selection algorithms. Callahan nominees are
drawn from a pool that teams themselves select, making the Callahan an
internal, player-selected award. NUMP consideration is independent of
what the respective teams actually think about the nominees (except to
the minimal extent that current players are on the NUMP panel), so
it's more of an external, outside-looking-in perspective. Each might
be valid, but they're very different perspectives.
~p
robyn
deserving. All I'm saying is Megan should have at least received an
honorable mention slot. I forgot about MIT, which was a horrible thing
to do, on my part. They too are deserving of some recognition as well.
Like I said earlier, seeing this award get a little more hype would be
a great thing for ultimate. We wouldn't be seeing the big Callahan
Award "diasappointment" that it seems like is going on. I think that
we should let Courtney and Kershner enjoy their award, and if we want
to change the results, let's do something about it next time...like
make the NUMP MVP award mean something more than it does now.
-Robyn
Mike Gerics
> make the NUMP MVP award mean something more than it does now.
---oh...it means plenty already.
it's just not announced at a tournament....and without a sponsor, there
ain't even an actual thing to give anyone.....
maybe i'll make a plaque....and keep track of it here at NUMP HeadQuarters.
richarda...@gmail.com
There's also the fact that no team can have more than two callahan
nominees, and one of them has to be a regional coordinator choice.
There were 5 Wisconsin men in the NUMP ACTs. I believe that there was
no criterion for getting a NUMP nomination beyond being a player and
getting a vote from a panelist.
maho...@wisc.edu
I feel like what people have a problem with is not that the teams are
Canadian, but that the tournament is called "Nationals" and it
represents more than that. Wouldn't it be more correct to call it the
North American College Championships?
fwo...@gmail.com
College Championships
Nationals is just what folks call it because it used to be called
that, since it truly used to be just US college teams.
Mike Gerics
> that, since it truly used to be just US college teams.
>
---those..........were the good ole days.