Great ideas along the lines of moving mixed ultimate
Justin
damages open and womens, I have some other great ideas:
1. Let's eliminate all parties other than democrats and republicans.
They are just a distraction from the real issues. If Ross Perot or
someone else wants to run for office, they can do it some other time or
in another country, but not in the USA in November. Those people make
the voting lines longer, take away TV air time from the real
candidates, and raise issues that nobody in the democtratic or
republican parties should have to think about.
2. Let's get rid of wendy's because we already have BK and McD's!
These other fast food chains are just increasing the number of parking
lots resulting in water quality degradation, traffic congestion, and
other problems. BK and McD's really are the core of fast food and we
don't need other venues distracting from our core fast food ecnomy.
3. Let's get rid of the UPA newsletter, the championship websites,
ultivillage and just have REC SPORT DISC. These other venues are
distracting the ultimate community with their coverage of upsets, their
playing of placement games [yeah what's their problem, don't they know
that only the finals are supposed to matter], their contribution to the
rapid growth in ultimate. Let's face it, REC SPORT DISC is what really
matters.
I'm sure there are other great ideas but that's the first three that
come to mind.
-Justin
Parinella
Justin wrote:
> Since everyone wants to move mixed because it is not real ultimate and
> damages open and womens, I have some other great ideas:
>
> 1. Let's eliminate all parties other than democrats and republicans.
> They are just a distraction from the real issues. If Ross Perot or
> someone else wants to run for office, they can do it some other time or
> in another country, but not in the USA in November. Those people make
> the voting lines longer, take away TV air time from the real
> candidates, and raise issues that nobody in the democtratic or
> republican parties should have to think about.
Well, if you're going to use this analogy...
While a Libertarian Party candidate might be on the ballot, I don't
seem to remember seeing
one at the big debates, either. There are certain nutjob states like
Massachusetts where fringe parties like the Green Party or Republicans
are included in debates, but on a national stage, you have to prove you
belong (Ross Perot, but not Harry Browne) before you're put on the
podium with the "real" candidates. Including the Libertarian in the
debate does nothing for the main candidates or most of the viewing
audience (but doesn't necessarily harm them, either), but the
Libertarian party and both its members would benefit greatly.
So, the question is whether there _is_ harm from having the Libertarian
at the debate and if that harm is more than the benefit (which can
include everyone benefiting from some abstract concept of fairness or
inclusion). If time isn't an issue, and if maybe just maybe the
Libertarian raises the overall level of debate, then suck it up, major
parties, and stop your whining. But it's also possible that because
the debate organizers put up a strict requirement that hosts have at
least three stands for speaking from, a lot of two-stand arenas do not
bother to submit bids to host and we might never know about them. And
maybe even if you tell the Libertarian to go to the back of the arena
and answer questions from atop a milk crate, you still might bring him
in for a final statement, and as a result, the 'Pubs and 'Rats have
_their_ final statements whittled down from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.
Anyway, if the Board thought it important, they could direct the
Administration to conduct a feasibility study on finding sites that
could host a 32 team Nationals and to estimate the impact that hosting
two Nationals would have on the Administration. In the year that Coed
Nationals were held at the end of summer, the Admin complained of the
burden involved in it, but there are a lot more people working at the
UPA now and the budget is much larger so that possibly more of the work
could be outsourced. So, if someone finds this important enough of a
topic, he could submit a proposal to the Board to direct the Admin to
complete a study in the next six months, then if it's feasible to
conduct a non-binding referendum next fall, forcing a Board vote on it
in January 2008, with implementation of separate Nationals to begin in
2009. And someone else could submit a proposal to the Board to force a
commitment or vote of confidence on having all the divisions together
just so that Admin doesn't preemptively begin looking for sites on
their own.
Jim
tom hunt
Wendy's. It's much better than either BK or McD's. As far as I know,
the Wendy's Dollar Menu is the best way to provide proper nourishment
on long road trips to frisbee tournaments. So let's not get hasty
here...
tom
Blue666
Parinella wrote:
--clip for space--
> There are certain nutjob states like
> Massachusetts where fringe parties like the Green Party or Republicans
> are included in debates,
--clip b/c the rest is N/A to my silly post
that has always been my problem with massachusetts: letting fringe
parties like the republicans play. crazy, just crazy.
-p
kkd...@bellsouth.net
> I'm sure there are other great ideas but that's the first three that
> come to mind.
>
> -Justin
Here is one Justin. Lets add some more divisions, Grand Masters,
Masters Mixed, wheelchair division, etc. etc. then we can get the other
polo fields in Sarasota, fill them up and never have Nationals anywhere
else.
TRG
Berrou's.
kkd...@bellsouth.net
TRG wrote:
> 4. Let's get rid of your bad analogies, because we already have Billy
> Berrou's.
>>>>>
miles of them
TRG
And a Fat Blasters SuperHeavyweight division, while we're at it. I
might play in the series again...
kkd...@bellsouth.net
TRG wrote:
> Hey, I wasn't talking to you. I'm all for a Grand Masters division.
> And a Fat Blasters SuperHeavyweight division, while we're at it. I
> might play in the series again...
> >>>>>>
OK
Larky
go to jail for being on a team with 30+ on the roster of assorted sexes
and species. But consider that mixed players WANT to play mixed.
Shocking, but true. Some people just dig the mixed scene, at whatever
level they want to play on. Maybe some folks just want to go to
Nattys, and will pick whichever local Open/Womens/Mixed team is more
likely to bring them there. But others have chosen to play with their
team bc those are the folks they want to play and party with.
WHat's with this trend of posts suggesting ways to limit who may
congregate with whom? Mixed arose bc people wanted it. They tried
Mixed in the Spring back in the 90s and the div was composed mostly of
the same players from O + W in the fall. Maybe there should be a UPA
series for O+W+M in both the fall and spring. Why not have them
monthly? Why not move Masters to June and ..a nd .. why fix it when
it doesn't seem broke?
yeesh
Parinella
prevent others from playing Mixed if that's what they want, so please
don't argue against that person. When it comes down to it, there are
just two camps of "anti-Mixed" people, who would have different
"solutions" to the Mixed "problem."
1. The level of play in the Mixed division is not high enough to
deserve a spot at the showcase of our sport on an equal billing with
Open and Women's. Besides hurting our sport's already thin
credibility, it alters the schedule (the most important game of the
year between the two best teams in the UPA was poorly attended because
it was so late and many had to catch planes) and takes away potential
sites due to the extra fields. Solution: Move Mixed in either time or
space. (btw, it was tried in the summer in 2000, finals held over
Labor Day weekend. The champs were largely O/W players, runners-up
were Coed players, most cities didn't have high-level O/W players
compete.) If you say that O/W should be moved, do a thought
experiment. If O/W and Mixed were held at separate venues at about the
same time, which group would feel slighted?
2. It's much more difficult now for mid-level players who want to play
single-sex ultimate to do so. While some truly prefer Mixed play, it
is also the path of least resistance, and few of us are driven enough
to be team organizers, recruiters, cajolers, strategists, and whatever
else is needed to persuade 12-20 players to travel and get beat down by
top teams. This is especially the case for women's teams in
sparsely-populated areas. Solution: Do something at the grassroots
level to attract and retain players in all divisions. It is much more
difficult here to come up with a feasible solution.
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Parinella wrote:
> 1. The level of play in the Mixed division is not high enough to
> deserve a spot at the showcase of our sport on an equal billing with
> Open and Women's. Besides hurting our sport's already thin
> credibility, it alters the schedule (the most important game of the
> year between the two best teams in the UPA was poorly attended because
> it was so late and many had to catch planes) and takes away potential
> sites due to the extra fields.
First, on the schedule point, there were people who argued last year
that having the Open final first was wrong, because we should have the
"best" game at a time when more people would watch, i.e. not early in
the morning. So the real complaint is that not enough people want to
watch the Open finals, a problem that can't really be solved by
changing the schedules.
Second, in what way does your argument not apply to Women's? By any
measure that would put Open ahead of Mixed, Mixed would be ahead of
Women's. I certainly don't think this is an argument for moving any
of the divisions, but I don't see how you can make this argument for
Mixed alone.
> 2. It's much more difficult now for mid-level players who want to play
> single-sex ultimate to do so. While some truly prefer Mixed play, it
> is also the path of least resistance, and few of us are driven enough
> to be team organizers, recruiters, cajolers, strategists, and whatever
> else is needed to persuade 12-20 players to travel and get beat down by
> top teams. This is especially the case for women's teams in
> sparsely-populated areas.
The problem here is that the number of people who want to play ultimate
is much greater than the number of people who want to run ultimate
teams. And this problem is much more severe for single-gender than for
mixed. In Boston, for example, if there were two more open teams, I
don't think they would want for players (there are already 4). But
this past year, one folded for lack of organizers. I don't think this
problem can be solved by changing Mixed ultimate.
sam th
Parinella
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Parinella wrote:
> > 1. The level of play in the Mixed division is not high enough to
> > deserve a spot at the showcase of our sport on an equal billing with
> > Open and Women's. Besides hurting our sport's already thin
> > credibility, it alters the schedule (the most important game of the
> > year between the two best teams in the UPA was poorly attended because
> > it was so late and many had to catch planes) and takes away potential
> > sites due to the extra fields.
>
> First, on the schedule point, there were people who argued last year
> that having the Open final first was wrong, because we should have the
> "best" game at a time when more people would watch, i.e. not early in
> the morning. So the real complaint is that not enough people want to
> watch the Open finals, a problem that can't really be solved by
> changing the schedules.
Sure it could. Those people would say to have the Women's final at,
say, 9:30 or 10 and the Open final at 12:30 (it was that way until
1996). Or even Open at 10 and Women's at 12:30.
> Second, in what way does your argument not apply to Women's? By any
> measure that would put Open ahead of Mixed, Mixed would be ahead of
> Women's. I certainly don't think this is an argument for moving any
> of the divisions, but I don't see how you can make this argument for
> Mixed alone.
Well, I'm sure some of those people would argue the same about Women's,
and pretty much everyone would argue that about Masters. However, the
difference is that the Women's division offers the best women players
and best play by women, and the Open division offers the best men
players and best men by women. Even the Mixed players who could or did
play single-sex Nationals generally have asterisks now, like they're
older or they don't have the time to train and practice as much or
maybe they're on their way up the ladder and have chosen friendships
and existing team over maximum competition.
You could also look at it from a social standpoint. Open and Women's
teams are closely aligned with each other. Mixed teams are aligned
with themselves.
> > 2. It's much more difficult now for mid-level players who want to play
> > single-sex ultimate to do so. While some truly prefer Mixed play, it
> > is also the path of least resistance, and few of us are driven enough
> > to be team organizers, recruiters, cajolers, strategists, and whatever
> > else is needed to persuade 12-20 players to travel and get beat down by
> > top teams. This is especially the case for women's teams in
> > sparsely-populated areas.
>
> The problem here is that the number of people who want to play ultimate
> is much greater than the number of people who want to run ultimate
> teams. And this problem is much more severe for single-gender than for
> mixed. In Boston, for example, if there were two more open teams, I
> don't think they would want for players (there are already 4). But
> this past year, one folded for lack of organizers. I don't think this
> problem can be solved by changing Mixed ultimate.
So, what are you saying? Someone is organizing the Mixed teams that
these guys are playing on. I guess it is easier to organize a team
that doesn't require as much commitment.
Elizabeth D Murray
1162573696.0...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Parinella"
<pari...@shelltown.com> wrote:
> I guess it is easier to organize a team that doesn't require as much
> commitment.
Where are you getting the idea Mixed requires less commitment than Open or
Women's teams? The top teams here in the Bay Area practice 2-3 times a week
and have weekly track workouts. Some even travel to the Sierras for high
altitude practices. They do weekly team dinners, meetings, and basically
travel as a pack for the entire season. The serious Mixed teams work hard
and spend just as much time training and practicing as the serious Open &
Women's teams.
It's not fair to make a sweeping generalization that Mixed = not much
commitment, Open & Women's = commitment when it is clear that there are
teams that fall into every level of commitment in each division.
:Elizabeth
ultimate7
where this is true of the effort put into mixed
Knappy
generalizations not backed up by any facts. We are a mixed team, and
practice more often than the local elite men's team. And we are not in
the Northwest.
Some mixed teams practice a little, some a lot, some not at all.
Some teams like to have fun first & foremost. Some think winning is
most important. Some teams are have mixed priorities.
Knappy
Amp
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Parinella wrote:
> Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> > Parinella wrote:
> > > 1. The level of play in the Mixed division is not high enough to
> > > deserve a spot at the showcase of our sport on an equal billing with
> > > Open and Women's. Besides hurting our sport's already thin
> > > credibility, it alters the schedule (the most important game of the
> > > year between the two best teams in the UPA was poorly attended because
> > > it was so late and many had to catch planes) and takes away potential
> > > sites due to the extra fields.
> >
> > First, on the schedule point, there were people who argued last year
> > that having the Open final first was wrong, because we should have the
> > "best" game at a time when more people would watch, i.e. not early in
> > the morning. So the real complaint is that not enough people want to
> > watch the Open finals, a problem that can't really be solved by
> > changing the schedules.
>
> Sure it could. Those people would say to have the Women's final at,
> say, 9:30 or 10 and the Open final at 12:30 (it was that way until
> 1996). Or even Open at 10 and Women's at 12:30.
Perhaps. I guess what I want to say is there are two sets of desires:
one to have multiple finals on Sunday, with some semblance of equality,
and another to have the Open final get the attention it "deserves".
These are not desires that scheduling can reconcile, nor do they really
have anything to do with Mixed. And do you think when Open was at
9:30, people wouldn't complain that it was too early, and that Open
should always have the later slot?
> > Second, in what way does your argument not apply to Women's? By any
> > measure that would put Open ahead of Mixed, Mixed would be ahead of
> > Women's. I certainly don't think this is an argument for moving any
> > of the divisions, but I don't see how you can make this argument for
> > Mixed alone.
>
> Well, I'm sure some of those people would argue the same about Women's,
> and pretty much everyone would argue that about Masters. However, the
> difference is that the Women's division offers the best women players
> and best play by women, and the Open division offers the best men
> players and best men by women. Even the Mixed players who could or did
> play single-sex Nationals generally have asterisks now, like they're
> older or they don't have the time to train and practice as much or
> maybe they're on their way up the ladder and have chosen friendships
> and existing team over maximum competition.
I don't see how any of that changes the argument. If the claim is:
"The level of play in the Mixed division is not high enough to deserve
a spot at the showcase of our sport", then what criteria for "level of
play" are you choosing that sends Mixed to some other location, but not
Women's? Maybe "the people on the field are currently the best
ultimate players of their respective genders"? That sounds like
choosing a criteria to fit your goals, when instead you could have
chosen "is most fan-friendly".
> You could also look at it from a social standpoint. Open and Women's
> teams are closely aligned with each other. Mixed teams are aligned
> with themselves.
I think this proves little other than the heterosexuality of a large
portion of the ultimate community (a non-shocking fact).
>
> > > 2. It's much more difficult now for mid-level players who want to play
> > > single-sex ultimate to do so. While some truly prefer Mixed play, it
> > > is also the path of least resistance, and few of us are driven enough
> > > to be team organizers, recruiters, cajolers, strategists, and whatever
> > > else is needed to persuade 12-20 players to travel and get beat down by
> > > top teams. This is especially the case for women's teams in
> > > sparsely-populated areas.
> >
> > The problem here is that the number of people who want to play ultimate
> > is much greater than the number of people who want to run ultimate
> > teams. And this problem is much more severe for single-gender than for
> > mixed. In Boston, for example, if there were two more open teams, I
> > don't think they would want for players (there are already 4). But
> > this past year, one folded for lack of organizers. I don't think this
> > problem can be solved by changing Mixed ultimate.
>
> So, what are you saying? Someone is organizing the Mixed teams that
> these guys are playing on. I guess it is easier to organize a team
> that doesn't require as much commitment.
No, what I'm saying is that more people are willing to organize
low-commitment (but non-pickup) Mixed teams than similarly
low-commitment Open/Women's teams.
sam th
Justin
different divisions. i would suspect mixed and open are pretty close.
if the hits count for mixed was below all the others, i'd concede it
might be worth moving mixed out of the upa fall series. i'll bet
dollars to donuts however that web hits for scores in the mixed
division is first or second, fairly close to open.
maybe someone from the UPA could share that info.
thefan
are there people out there who really think that mixed is dragging
open/womens ultimate down.
think people stay away from ultimate tournaments so they don't have to
be near some freaks playing a game that is coed?
the reason that no one comes to watch open or womens finals is that no
one cares. how many people do you think actually came to watch the
womens or mens final that weren't A. already in the Sarasota area. and
B. already involved in ultimate.
to read these posts you would think that the reason that ultimate is
not more popular is that there is a mixed division attached to it
instead of the 2 minute arguements about travels, stalls and fouls,
fans that get on the field in the semi's and then make obsene gestures
to people who set up in a perfectly legitimate (not on the playing
field proper) seat who cannot see through them, or the flippant,
disrespectful attitude taken by so many players towards the would be
sponsors who might drag our sport out of the realm of "hippie college
pasttime.
it seems to me that instead of restructuring out tournament format to
exclude some people who are dedicated to the sport, we might
restructure a few things that might make our sport more attractive to
people who are not yet enraptured by our quaint little game.
jimmy
Keith H
> think people stay away from ultimate tournaments so they don't have to
> be near some freaks playing a game that is coed?
For argument's sake.... yes. I've been playing ultimate for about four
years now, two years in mixed, one year on a pretty low quality open
and one year in on a mid-level Regionals open team. My dad wouldn't
even consider coming out to a tournament until this year when I told
him I was playing Men's Ultimate. When I first started going to
ultimate tournaments, he seemed somewhat interested in coming out to
watch. Then when we finally had a tournament close to home and he
figured out that there were girls on the team, he kinda laughed and
then claimed to be busy.... every single time. He wasn't interested in
watching a coed sport.
Now, I'm not stupid enough to argue that there aren't some very goddamn
good Mixed players that can and do smoke my ass. I'm not stupid enough
to argue that there aren't Mixed players that would and have kicked ass
in the Elite Open scene. And I'm certainly not stupid enough to argue
that Mixed players have any less dedication or love for the sport than
anyone else. However, what I am saying is that in order to win over
your typical sports fan, the people who like to see sweet dunks, hard
sacks, homerun-robbing outfield acrobatics, then we may need to
consider creating a divide between our "elite" competition and other
sectors of it.
I've never been to the show and I'm not going to comment on intensity
or devotion in Mixed vs. Open vs. Women at that level, but the truth of
the matter is that there is a social stigma against co-ed sports. Even
now, I can't help but think of those coed naked shirts from the 90s (I
really hope I'm not the only one who remembers those) when I think of
coed sports. As silly as it is, I just don't think coed sports can be
taken seriously at this time. Now, we can hope that more coed sports
do gain a place in popular culture and ten years from now we can all
look back to these days and give ourselves a big pat on the back for
sticking to our guns and being so ahead of the curve. Or we can do
something now to gain acceptance with your typical, ESPN-watching
sports fan by putting the elite ultimate on a different stage.
I'm really not trying to disparage mixed because that's where I learned
to play and I have many friends who play and I wouldn't be surprised if
I play it again someday. But my feeling is that if promoting the sport
and taking it up a notch in terms of recognizability are our goals,
then we need to adjust our strategy of "marketing" it and one of those
adjustments would be to set Elite ultimate apart and away from Mixed.
Garrett Dyer
wrote:
>My feeling is that the Northwest may be the only part of the country
>where this is true of the effort put into mixed
Yeah...I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.
Ring, Backhoe, and Olio had the same frequency of workouts and
practices: two practices and a workout. I think that was pretty
common for mixed teams in our region, actually.
tebewebb
> i'd be curious if the UPA would publish the score reporter hits for the
> different divisions. i would suspect mixed and open are pretty close.
Note quite the same thing, but Clip of the Day has hits on clips from
all four divisions:
http://www.ultivillage.com/Ultimate-Frisbee-Videos/Clip-of-the-Day/
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Open Day 3 1237
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Open Day 2 1018
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Open Day 1 1059
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Women's Day 3 722
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Women's Day 2 553
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Women's Day 1 577
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Mixed Day 3 744
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Mixed Day 2 677
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Mixed Day 1 697
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Masters Day 3 641
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Masters Day 2 533
Thursday, 02 November 2006 UCC Masters Day 1 624
By that account, Open smacks everybody by, what, 30-40%? Mixed averages
second just ahead of Womens, a nidge over Masters.
Perhaps slightly biased b/c Open is at the top of the list, but still,
I'd say Open attracts signficantly more interest.
Personally, as someone who hasn't played Open in years (and never came
close to qualifying in Open), and played Masters or Mixed for the last
decade (including playing natties in both), I still care more about
Open.
Stephen
DC Funk - lost the game to go to the game to go - by a lot
Joe Buck
We wouldn't want to appear bigotted for banishing mixed from the highly
visible and fan favorite UPA opens and womens events. But we also don't
want anyone outside of the sport to know that sometimes men and women
play on the same field, *at the same time*.
I propose constructing a large wall in between fields, so the UPA
officials could save on two trips, but so that ESPN and some other
guy's father would come watch since they wouldn't have to see them if
they didn't want to.
Masters might also have to move off to one side, because old people are
creepy and remind us of our imminent deaths.
This is a win/win proposal and I expect to receive a UPA innovation
grant to study it in more depth.