Rosters Limits
fph
Cal States on my website:
"This is potentially the single most important issue that the UPA can tackle
immediately that will bring about immediate returns. These gargantuan
rosters that most of the Men's Open teams have are extremely bad for the
overall growth and health of the sport. Take the Condors for instance.
Many players from L.A. or even the Bay Area travel to Santa Barbara every
weekend to practice with the Condors and their practices must be huge, since
they carry 30-35 to tourneys. This is bad for the LA scene in much the same
way that Jam carrying practices with 40 people is bad for the Bay area scene
where players as far away as Davis or Santa Cruz drive to their practices.
Smaller team sizes promotes growth and parity whereas consolidation has had
the opposite affect.
Competition for talent is monopolized by one or two teams per area, with 30
guys on your roster. You can play your whole bench on Saturday and play
your starters on Sunday. This weekend, there were 12 men's teams consisting
of an average of maybe 25 per team (300 players). With a roster limit of 15
(a little low I know but it makes the math easy), we could have almost
doubled the teams to 20. I think you can see where I'm going with this.
One of the smartest things the UPA could do for the game is to both impose
roster limits for games, tournaments and practice squads. Maybe something
like 17 per game, 19 per tournament (two reserves) and 24 per club. Period.
The Australian national championship has a roster limit of maybe 16 people
and the sport is exploding down under. We should seriously consider doing
the same here. It would help tremendously.
If this is going to happen for this years tournament, it needs to happen
soon so that teams can reform and have time to prepare by the fall. Can we
get it done by July 1?"
This is not a rule change, it's good for the game and it's a relatively easy
modification to implement.
My question is, is the UPA even set up to move this deftly to get this
change done over the next few weeks. It's not complicated, it doesn't need
a 'trial balloon' in a tournament to see how it works. It's a common sense
change that needs to be done.
Soapbox or no soapbox, we can debate these issue ad nauseam on RSD and it's
not going to change anything because debating the rules at this point is
putting the cart before the horse. If the UPA can't even implement roster
limits unilaterally, then a fundamental shift within how the UPA operates
needs to occur before we start talking about the merits of penalizing
infractions.
Roster limits is a no-brainer, isn't it? Why can't the executive director
or some other leadership council act swiftly to make changes? Competition
committees meet annually for basketball, golf, baseball, football, NASCAR,
rugby, etc. to tweak the games for one reason or another. Over the past 8
years, we've had what, 1 revision of the rules?
Mike Gerics
for college...never.
jim
Mike Gerics wrote:
> roster limits for club, maybe.
> for college...never.
this is completely backwards......who cares about club roster
restriction.
14 should be the maximium numbers allowed on the roster for college
ultimate....especially for a non-contact sport!
This would make ultimate a much more athletic sport....and not give you
the need for so many subs.......on pretty much every team the top 12-14
players are always playing anyway.
I remember ECU having like 30 players on the sidline, and about 10 or
so never stepped on the field, and about 5-6 saw the field about 2
points a game.
never is a bad word.
pgw
> Mike Gerics wrote:
> > roster limits for club, maybe.
> > for college...never.
>
> this is completely backwards......who cares about club roster
> restriction.
Mike and others have discussed this a bunch; his opinion is far from
backwards.
Roster limits don't make sense in college (yet) because no matter where
you set the roster limit you will be excluding players. Let's say for
the sake of illustration that you set the roster limit at 18. There
will be some school out there that has for example 21 athletes that
want to play ultimate. That's too few to realistically split into A
and B teams, so 3 guys are just out of luck. I don't think ultimate is
quite thriving enough that we want to be excluding guys at that level
just yet. (You did say something about never being an unwise word to
use; it's possible you're right there.)
In club, this argument against roster limits has less force.
Admittedly, you could paint basically the same picture -- some
city/town out there will have 21 athletes that want to play club men's
ultimate, for example. The difference here is that in most cases,
there are other options. The three guys that get cut could commute, or
even move, to another city and still play ultimate in the same division
at the same level. College students are much more locked in to
whatever school they're attending and that is the only school whose
team they can play for.
jim
growing so much!
when i was writing my response to mike's "never", i was thinking in my
head....."if/when ultimate were an NCAA sport, these would be the
restrictions i would have for rosters".
fph
I mean I can buy the argument that my argument about regional parity is moot
at the collegiate level but every other (correct me if I'm wrong, this is
off the cuff) collegiate sport has roster limits.
"Mike Gerics" <des...@digitizing4embroidery.com> wrote in message
news:Yzhqe.6887$hk.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
fph
"jim" <rove...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118417877.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Joe Buck
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2004-05-20-scholarship-suit_x.htm
Also, I know you're more of a probball fan, but in college football,
check out the sidelines for the home team.
There will be 4 different guys wearing #68.
A team like Ohio State will dress over a hundred players for home
games.
fph
I think the question that I posed got a little sidetracked.
I really wasn't asking whether or not roster limits should exist so much as
why isn't there a commissioner in the UPA who can make these decisions, good
or bad, and then learn from them and continually adjust the game. So what
if an idea is implemented and determined to be stupid and we chuck it after
1 year, what have we lost?
Rick is the Commissioner for Goaltimate and whammy, we have a roster limit
of 8 (and any other unilateral rules changes that he wants to institute to
provide for fair competition). I'd rather not get sidetracked with the
differences between ultimate and goaltimate and the appropriateness of
roster limits in either but rather the differences between the UPA and the
GPA (for lack of a better acronym).
The ninth edition was published what, 12 years ago? That means we've had
one revision in 12 years!
Your argument below mentions that 'ultimate is not yet thriving' and I
almost choked on my gristle when I read that. I've been seeing my shrink
for 15 years now but I'm going to give him another month to see if there's
any progress.
The UPA is supposed to make decisions that are what's best for the sport.
This is written in the bylaws.
My question here is, is it POSSIBLE for the UPA to institute roster limits
for this fall? This isn't a question about roster limits, it's a question
about how the UPA works.
What would it take? I think that telecommunications carriers operate faster
than the UPA can. No wonder the sport is not thriving.
On a side note, I think have a hard cap of on the number of players on
campuses is a GOOD thing. The players will push each other for that final
1-2 spots.
"pgw" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118418837.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jim
limits!.....you can play a sport without getting a scholarship.
as far as the number of players on the sideline:
football is one of the most dangerous contact sports in the
world......people get hurt alot.....they need a lot of subs!
eric
****
Q: How many players can be on a team?
A: Men's hockey teams are limited by NCAA rules to 18 scholarships.
Some conferences and schools impose further restrictions. There is no
NCAA-imposed limit to the amount of players that can be on a roster,
though there is restrictions when it comes to, for example, the amount
of players in the travelling party for NCAA postseason tournament
events.
****
The NCAA enforces equality by restricting the number of scholarships
rather than the number of participants.
eric
Joe Buck
fph (nospam) wrote:
>So what if an idea is implemented and determined to be stupid and we chuck it >after 1 year, what have we lost?
That idea is really stupid.
Continuity is usually important any time rules are concerned.
What you would have lost is any amount of respect. Constant change
does not lead to respect for any institution.
Alex
Roster limits is one thing, and I'm generally neutral on the subject.
I want to point out, however, that your complaint is flawed. Club
teams will 'carry' 30 players or more during tryouts, but most open
teams cut their roster down to 21-24 players by the time summer comes
around. This is, from a practical standpoint, about the right number
for an open team. Fewer players than this and your team wont be able
to survive the long season, more players than this and you have
problems with playing time and team chemistry. The roster limit you
propose has effected itself through natural selection, so to speak.
Your contention that Jam carryies 40 players, and the Condors 30-35,
thats simply not the case. If you want to support roster limits, there
must be beter arguments than "huge club teams taking away from the
local ultimate scene."
fph
The NBA tried out an Illegal defense rule, it didn't work. They chucked it.
The NBA has tweaked the distance of the three point line and they are not
through. It is bound to move again.
The NBA and NCAA are constantly redefining what players can do with regards
to hand checks, etc.
Every year in the NFL, there are adjustments made to the rules in several
areas.
Often times these adjustments lead to other revelations about the game that
leads to other rules modifications.
I doubt that a Commissioner in the UPA is going to going to adopt some bone
headed, hair brained rule change that everyone hates, does nothing for the
game and is catastrophic for the future of the sport. The sport has been in
a tailspin (at the club level) for 15-20 years and you think it's stupid to
have an organization that is a little bit more adaptive than one revision
every 12 years?
"Joe Buck" <bird...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118433691.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
fph
I've seen preseason NFL games with multiple players with the same number
too. So? NCAA, NFL, MLB, MLS etc. all have roster limits.
"Joe Buck" <bird...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118429966....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
winter...@hotmail.com
> I think I made a fairly compelling case for roster limits on my write up of
> Cal States on my website:
> "This is potentially the single most important issue that the UPA can tackle
> immediately that will bring about immediate returns. These gargantuan
> rosters that most of the Men's Open teams have are extremely bad for the
> overall growth and health of the sport. Take the Condors for instance.
> Many players from L.A. or even the Bay Area travel to Santa Barbara every
> weekend to practice with the Condors and their practices must be huge, since
> they carry 30-35 to tourneys.
I'd like to point this out as a nice example of how "off" this guy is.
We had 22 guys last weekend sporting Condor jerseys, but 3 of them were
not even playing. So we had 19 cleated up. And in Frank's mind, this
is now the "30-35" guys we carry to tourneys. He's clearly delusional
in more aspects than just thinking he's going to revolutionize the
sport or thinking he's uncoverable.
Corey
Pgoss
if it were equivelant to the scholarship limit, which it typically is
not in reality. Teams regularly have walk-on or other non-scholarship
players on the squad. But the NCAA is concerned with scholarship
limitations, so that's what they focus on primarily.
If you search for "roster limit" on the NCAA site, it doesn't actually
provide any nice, coherent information. From what I recall, while I am
certain that the NCAA does have scholarship limits, I do not believe it
has "roster limits" in the sense you suggest, but rather schools are
limited to rostering a team they are willing to support financially and
administratively. St. John's (D-3, MN), for example, lists over 100
students as "rostered" football players limited only by the number of
lockers available in the locker room (somewhere near 200, I'm told).
(http://www.gojohnnies.com/football/past_season/04roster.htm)
It is common practice, however, to only be able to 'roster' a specific
number of players for certain events, however. Whether or not D-1
soccer has a general roster limit, the championship match does.
Applied to ultimate, this would mean that different tournaments could
have different roster limits for each. Thus, a team going to Tune-Up
(or whatever it's called now) might be able to bring 24 rostered players
for that event, Sectionals might allow 18, and Champies (Will Deaver is
now regretting he ever made up the word) might set a limit of 14.
That type of event-to-event approach could be legitimate, and probably a
more sound approach than trying to set a generic roster limit for a team
in the broader sense. It would not, however, prevent what you are
decrying, which is teams keeping 25-30 guys on the 'roster' so as to
have sufficient healthy bodies to practice well and to develop players
who have potential but are not good enough yet to make the big show.
And those other ten guys may still come along to tournaments as well,
whether or not they are likely to get on the field...
just a thought,
-p
Brian
without the ability to scrimmage?
You favor your professional sports anaolgies so much... hockey,
baseball, basketball, football... all have fewer players on the field
than the bench.
The Condors brought 22 to Santa Cruz. They have 4 guys that live in
the Bay Area, and I think 6 guys in LA/OC. Where did you get 30-35?
Although drawing LA ballers to Santa Barbara certainly doesn't help LA
produce an "elite" level team, consider the alternative: The Condors
lose 6 good players, making them a little worse, and Monster (who
should revert back to "Traffic", btw) gains 6 good players, making them
a little better.
If you've lived in LA, you'd know the reason they can't field a
superstar team comes down the the size of the city and the nature of
the Los Angelino agenda. LA people are NOT LIKE Bay Area people.
Thoughts, Frank?
Brian
Los Angeles Summer League - Team Pink
winter...@hotmail.com
and his Pink team is terrible.
tdemet...@whww.com
try outs and cuts etc. . . In an amateur sport such as ours, that just
doesn't feel right. If the 20th guy on your squad wants to play,
knowing the minimal playing time he is likely to get, so be it.
So, it is not a question of "why isn't the UPA moving more quickly or
deftly?" There is no universal consensus on the issue that would merit
such quick action. Moreover, I do not see why compare penalizing
infractions with roster sizes. These are two different issues.
Finally, your proposed limit on roster sizes focuses only on the fall
series and, at most, the fall constitutes three tournaments. So, if we
are not going to cap teams in nonchampionship events, why should this
have an appreciable impact for the rest of the year which is when the
majority of the tournaments take place?
Moreover, while roster size limitations my raise the number of teams
that play at sectionals or regionals, it would also deny the
opportunity to go to nationals for many people (with or without the
playing time).
Todd
Joe Buck
> That article is about scholarships, not roster limits.
Since I was treating you like you weren't stupid, and you ended up
being stupid, I will now talk down to you like you want. That was an
article about expanding scholarship limits. More scholarships means
more players. Non scholarship players rarely play, unless they are
kickers for Notre Dame.
Ultimate is not a professional sport.
Professional basketball is.
Professional sports have rosters to make sure the Yankees don't just
sign every player in the major leagues to a contract just so they can't
play for the Red Sox.
(the same theory applies to major college sports, substitute Duke and
UNC)
The players on the Condors have lives outside of ultimate, not every
player can make every tournament, they can't make every practice.
Roster limits would hurt growth by forcing teams to make cuts of people
who are volunteers. You don't tell volunteers to go home Frank. You
tell crackpot old men to go home, and stay away. The top flight teams
pick up younger players and teach them how to be even better, these
younger players aren't going to play important points in finals, but by
being on a quality team they learn more, and become better. Maybe they
end up starting a new team later.
There already is an unofficial roster limit. Every team in North
America has decided to limit their roster to having exactly zero
Huegenards. So far it is working out well.
I know you get upset that you can't be the best player in the world now
that you are over 40, but remember even Jordan sucked when he was 40.
Since you didn't leave a legacy on the field, don't try and leave your
legacy as the Ultimate equivalent of the woman who lives in a trailer
with 70 cats.
And so I can be nice too, I think it is great that you can throw with
both hands.
It is a valuable skill if you rip ligaments in one thumb.
Now write a z boys article about why Tayshaun Prince sucks because he
doesn't shoot jumpers right handed.
fph
I thought I counted at least 30 Condors but if I'm wrong, I stand corrected.
I thought it was Jam with only 22.
LA has never had a good team, not sure why.
"Brian" <recogniz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118440887.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
fph
However, since we don't have scholarships like the NCAA does to bring about
parity, roster limits are a valid alternative and also, they are used in
*most* NCAA sports.
"eric" <dicke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118433388....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
fph
I counted a lot of condors. Perhaps there were other people wearing black
racing out on to the field everytime you scored but, if you say you had 22,
I have no reason to doubt your word.
I don't think I ever said that I'm uncoverable. I've said that when I have
the disc, I'm fairly unstoppable. Try playing goaltimate against me
sometime.
There will be evolution in ultimate. People will learn how to be triple
threats sophisticated offenses beyond your imagination. Whether or not I'm
recognized for this is completely immaterial to me. I'd just like to out
sometime and watch some ultimate that is intellectually stimulating and that
is not what I got this past weekend.
<winter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118435004.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
fph
<tdemet...@whww.com> wrote in message
news:1118442615.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> With a roster size cap, essentially you would be forcing teams to have
> try outs and cuts etc. . . In an amateur sport such as ours, that just
> doesn't feel right. If the 20th guy on your squad wants to play,
> knowing the minimal playing time he is likely to get, so be it.
That's fair.
> So, it is not a question of "why isn't the UPA moving more quickly or
> deftly?" There is no universal consensus on the issue that would merit
> such quick action. Moreover, I do not see why compare penalizing
> infractions with roster sizes. These are two different issues.
Perhaps I picked the wrong example. But then again, what pressing issue out
there is so obvious that we all agree on? Nothing. That's another thread
in and of itself.
I just wanted to know whether or not the UPA is even capable of making this
kind of change in the game.
> Finally, your proposed limit on roster sizes focuses only on the fall
> series and, at most, the fall constitutes three tournaments. So, if we
> are not going to cap teams in nonchampionship events, why should this
> have an appreciable impact for the rest of the year which is when the
> majority of the tournaments take place?
I dunno. Good point. It just seems to me, living in the bay area, that the
lack of roster limits has really been bad for the sport. Ever since the
late eighties, there's been the perenial consolidation of teams where two
decent teams merge into one. You don't need to know the history of which
teams merged with whom but there's been this trend for a long time where
you'd have 40 guys merge with cuts down to 25 or 30 and the remaining 10-15
players just went away and didn't find other teams to play on. Year after
year this occured and we lost a lot of teams in the process. I think in
2002, Jam carried something like 42 players throughout the spring into the
summer before they had cuts and that had a devastating effect on other teams
in the area and some teams were never able to recover.
It is from this historical perspective that I've formed my opinion and on
top of that, when I see some of these huge teams at tournaments, I think
that it looks more like a party than a competition. Competitions are
supposed to be designed for fairness. You do make some very good points
though.
>
> Moreover, while roster size limitations my raise the number of teams
> that play at sectionals or regionals, it would also deny the
> opportunity to go to nationals for many people (with or without the
> playing time).
That may not be such a bad thing. There are a lot of mediocre players who
didn't get any playing time at nationals and still have that experience as
part of their credentials. I think that false positives, such as this, have
many pitfalls that have not served the sport well.
> Todd
>
fph
>
> Since I was treating you like you weren't stupid, and you ended up
> being stupid, I will now talk down to you like you want.
Well that's certainly not what I want. Be nice.
>That was an
> article about expanding scholarship limits. More scholarships means
> more players. Non scholarship players rarely play, unless they are
> kickers for Notre Dame.
>
> Ultimate is not a professional sport.
> Professional basketball is.
> Professional sports have rosters to make sure the Yankees don't just
> sign every player in the major leagues to a contract just so they can't
> play for the Red Sox.
> (the same theory applies to major college sports, substitute Duke and
> UNC)
As I said in another post, from my vantage point here in the bay area, the
lack of roster limits has played a large part in reducing the total number
of teams from around 16 to 3. That's not good.
> The players on the Condors have lives outside of ultimate, not every
> player can make every tournament, they can't make every practice.
> Roster limits would hurt growth by forcing teams to make cuts of people
> who are volunteers. You don't tell volunteers to go home Frank. You
> tell crackpot old men to go home, and stay away. The top flight teams
> pick up younger players and teach them how to be even better, these
> younger players aren't going to play important points in finals, but by
> being on a quality team they learn more, and become better. Maybe they
> end up starting a new team later.
Ultimate players are not volunteers. That's one of the funniest things I've
ever heard. Tournament directors are volunteers. Ultimate players are
narcisists.
> There already is an unofficial roster limit. Every team in North
> America has decided to limit their roster to having exactly zero
> Huegenards. So far it is working out well.
That's Huguenard, with two u's and that's not very nice.
And no, it's not working out well. Not the part about me, the part about
Cal States shriveling to shell of it's former self over the past 20 years.
How is that 'working out well'?
>
> I know you get upset that you can't be the best player in the world now
> that you are over 40, but remember even Jordan sucked when he was 40.
I never was the best player in the world, never said I was and never did I
ever remotely think that.
What I said, and still say, is that I have a skillset that is unique in that
it incorporates the triple threat principal (which is a philosophical
difference not a physical one). Since there are no other triple threats
that I'm aware of (I certainly didn't see any last week), I'm the best at
what I do. I don't even think (or ever said) I'm a great athlete. Even at
45 years old, ten pounds overweight and no serious workout regimen, with my
penetration capability, I'm pretty unstoppable when I have the disc. This
is not meant to be arrogance or even trash talk. What I'm trying to say
that if an old fart like me can break down a defense anytime I want, imagine
what some 22 year old kid with proper training and superior athleticism
could do. Get it?
Once people figure out what the hell I'm talking about, ultimate will become
a phenominal sport. In the meantime, keep poking fun. The joke is squarely
on the people who think I'm delusional.
> Since you didn't leave a legacy on the field, don't try and leave your
> legacy as the Ultimate equivalent of the woman who lives in a trailer
> with 70 cats
> And so I can be nice too, I think it is great that you can throw with
> both hands.
You don't seem to get it. I don't just throw with both hands, I play with
both sides of my body. It's not just the hands, it's the footwork, the
hips, the shoulders, everything. I play point guard and you guys play
quarterback. It's a completely different mindset.
> It is a valuable skill if you rip ligaments in one thumb.
> Now write a z boys article about why Tayshaun Prince sucks because he
> doesn't shoot jumpers right handed.
Look, I don't give a rat's ass about skateboarding or the z-boys.
Apparently, some of you have seemed to entirely missed the point. When I
watch the movie Dog Town and Z-Boys, I think it has EVERYTHING to do with
Ultimate except the evolution that happened in skateboarding has never
happened in disc (yet). I do not know why although I can certainly throw
all the conjecture around I want.
I do know that there is a hauntingly familiar parallel between the pre-Del
Mar skateboarding world where Ty Page et al were doing handstands and nose
wheelies to the RUT that ultimate has been stuck in for 25 years. There's
also a parallel to what the z-boys added to boarding and what I think should
be added to disc but I'll let you be the judge of that.
Skateboarding evolved, ultimate will too.
fph
process of carrying a large team through the spring has a detrimental affect
on the local scene where other teams get gutted of their best players and
then never fully recover, even if those top players return.
Looks like I picked the wrong example of where the UPA could possibly step
in and make a edict. That said, isn't the entire rule book like this? I
could argue the entire 2.0 set of rules and we wouldn't get anywhere. Some
people for, some people against, all with valid arguments and at the end of
the day, we're stuck with the tenth edition. Is this [RSD], anyway to run a
sport? I mean, we're miles apart on the two sets of rules. It's not like
it's just a tweak here or a tweak there.
Still, no one has answered my question. Is it possible for the UPA to put
forth any such edict, given roster limits as an easy example (since it
doesn't entail rules changes per se)?
"Alex" <a...@alum.dartmouth.org> wrote in message
news:1118434051....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PeeGee
rather (well) pointed attack. Having played with you on several
occasions at Greer, and followed the last couple of years on RSD, I
have never seen you respond to a flame with such a rational,
return-to-the-point approach before. This will work much better in
getting your ideas across, I suspect. Assuming that was indeed you
responding (didn't verify IP), I commend you.
Paul
Don Steg
> Looks like I picked the wrong example of where the UPA could possibly step
> in and make a edict. That said, isn't the entire rule book like this? I
> could argue the entire 2.0 set of rules and we wouldn't get anywhere. Some
> people for, some people against, all with valid arguments and at the end of
> the day, we're stuck with the tenth edition. Is this [RSD], anyway to run a
> sport?
No, it's not, and thank god. Remember that RSD is not the UPA. (If that
was the case Rhett Russ probably would have won the Callahan.) We
assume many UPA types read RSD, but to effect change you need to write
to them. There is a process for everything, and in the case of rules,
you talk to the rules people, not the fanatics that populate RSD.
> Still, no one has answered my question. Is it possible for the UPA to put
> forth any such edict, given roster limits as an easy example (since it
> doesn't entail rules changes per se)?
I'm sure it's *possible*, but -- again -- there is a process. And for
most things, to be fair to all involved, there has to be a lot of
warning. It is WAY too late to make a change such as this for the 2005
season. They could impose roster limits for 2006, but not sooner. Teams
have had tryouts based on the assumption that there weren't roster
caps; teams have made cuts; new teams have formed; new teams *will be*
formed (I bet there is going to be a pretty ridiculous Seattle 'B' team
this year, for example). They could make the change, but a lot of
people would be pissed off.
Wagenwheel
>you set the roster limit you will be excluding players.
Life is exclusion. In the early nineties Port City Slickers had like
35-40 people. The captains contacted who they considered were the top
18-20. the next practice everyone showed up and the news was broken to
the others like this, "Well, a few of us got together and decided we
needed to split up into two teams. So if you don't know whether or not
you are on the "a" team, ya'll need to set up another field." They did
so, qualified for regionals with 14 or 15 and played and got better
because of it.
No one is saying they can't practice, but you can select your tourney
squad depending on play during practice and injury status.
Mike Gerics
> > roster limits for club, maybe.
> > for college...never.
> this is completely backwards......who cares about club roster
> restriction.
>
> 14 should be the maximium numbers allowed on the roster for college
> ultimate....especially for a non-contact sport!
> This would make ultimate a much more athletic sport....and not give you
> the need for so many subs.......on pretty much every team the top 12-14
> players are always playing anyway.
> I remember ECU having like 30 players on the sidline, and about 10 or
> so never stepped on the field, and about 5-6 saw the field about 2
> points a game.
>
> never is a bad word.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----sorry, but you are the one that is backwards here.
14 max for college ultimate?....so....ya never want college teams to have
full scrimmages at practice? that....is backwards.
not sure how having only 14 on a team would make the sport "more
athletic".....do you know?
14 max...would not..."give you the need for so many subs"...it would simply
remove your subs.
"on pretty much every team, the top 12-14 players are always playing", you
wrote.....well......so what? on most NCAA basketball teams, only the top 7
or so are playing. If they have 12 or 13 on their team.....well, you do the
percentages math and determine from that how many athletes should be on an
ulimate team following that logic.....i'd say....it'd be....uhm, 7 is just
under half of 12-ish, 12-14 ultimate athletes play, so....25 or so on a
team.......
ECU Irates with 30 back in the day....actually, that was 28...."28 gel" as
we called it.....all gelling together.
College Ultimate, being a club sport....how do you tell the bottom 10 that
they are not allowed to join a club at their college?
that....is what it is all gonna come down to.
Personally.....in a college club....i feel, the more the merrier.
and no dumbass should be able to tell those clubs otherwise.
Mike Gerics
> when i was writing my response to mike's "never", i was thinking in my
> head....."if/when ultimate were an NCAA sport, these would be the
> restrictions i would have for rosters".
>
---when Ultimate is an NCAA sport....there WILL be roster limits.
obviously....just like every other sport.
duh.
and...no one was writing about that....
Mike Gerics
good
> or bad, and then learn from them and continually adjust the game. So what
> if an idea is implemented and determined to be stupid and we chuck it
after
> 1 year, what have we lost?
-----i am pretty sure that this is happening continually already in the
sport.
isn't it?
it is.
that's why there are all them different editions to the rules and what
not....
right?
Mike Gerics
> On a side note, I think have a hard cap of on the number of players on
> campuses is a GOOD thing. The players will push each other for that final
> 1-2 spots.
----naw.....that's stoopid.
the "push" is there....for playing time.
your "push"...would be to kick kids out of the sport if they aren't the last
spot under the roster limit.
keep your hands off of other colleges' clubs.
Mike Gerics
> players are always playing anyway.
>
> never is a bad word.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---weird....one sentence says "always"...the other says "never" is a bad
word.
because....the top 12-14 are not always playing.
sometimes....the bottom few get their turn, because they are members of the
school club and hard working members of the team like everyone else.
no one should tell some kids in a school club that they aren't allowed to be
part of the club.
when they get their shot....they are on top of the world.
when they aren't playing.....they are helping their team in other
ways....helping the club as best they can.
Mike Gerics
---your post didn't say anything about no dag-gone commissioner of the UPA.
and......the UP's ARE the commissioners.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Gerics
> for 15 years now but I'm going to give him another month to see if there's
> any progress.
---you've.....been seeing.....your....what....shrink.....for 15 years????
huh?
Mike Gerics
it.
>
> The NBA has tweaked the distance of the three point line and they are not
> through. It is bound to move again.
>
> The NBA and NCAA are constantly redefining what players can do with
regards
> to hand checks, etc.
>
> Every year in the NFL, there are adjustments made to the rules in several
> areas.
>
> Often times these adjustments lead to other revelations about the game
that
> leads to other rules modifications.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---these rule changes have nothing to do with cutting some athletes from the
sport because they don't make the roster limit.
Mike Gerics
> > roster limits for club, maybe.
> > for college...never.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Why not?
> I mean I can buy the argument that my argument about regional parity is
moot
> at the collegiate level but every other (correct me if I'm wrong, this is
> off the cuff) collegiate sport has roster limits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---ah....now there is order
now, to reply.
your arguement abour regional parity, must have been too damned far into
your long post for me to have gotten to. Try to shorten your crap up.
most collegiate sports, yes, have roster limits.
but Ultimate is a club sport....and it ain't the UPA's job or anyone else's
to determine who can join a club at schools across the country....or who
gets booted from a club.
Mike Gerics
Mike Gerics
> parity, roster limits are a valid alternative and also, they are used in
> *most* NCAA sports.
---nope, you're wrong.
Mike Gerics
_____________
> No, it's not, and thank god. Remember that RSD is not the UPA. (If that
> was the case Rhett Russ probably would have won the Callahan.)
----actually....if rsd ran ultimate, RR would still not have won the
callahan, because i was the only one with a brain enough to see that he was
by far the best college athlete in 2001 and the most valuable to his team.
that would have been one vote against the rest.
weird...cause...i ain't not never been wrong here yet.
Mike Gerics
>you set the roster limit you will be excluding players.
> Life is exclusion. In the early nineties Port City Slickers had like
> 35-40 people. The captains contacted who they considered were the top>
18-20.
-----they weren't a college team. College teams are clubs.....
worlds apart.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the next practice everyone showed up and the news was broken to
> the others like this, "Well, a few of us got together and decided we
> needed to split up into two teams. So if you don't know whether or not
> you are on the "a" team, ya'll need to set up another field."
---actually....it was more like this....
"these guys over here are the Slickers....the rest of you....can fuck off"
that...."the rest of you can...fuck off"....is an exact quote from Toad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They did> so, qualified for regionals with 14 or 15 and played and got
better> because of it.
---soul monkey sperm tribe!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> No one is saying they can't practice, but you can select your tourney
> squad depending on play during practice and injury status.
---for club...yeah...i can picture this...
Mike Gerics
> Still, no one has answered my question. Is it possible for the UPA to put
> forth any such edict, given roster limits as an easy example (since it
> doesn't entail rules changes per se)?
-----you hide your simple questions in too much crap.
try a new thread with the subject line that reads....
"can the upa create roster limits?" and then ask only that one simple
question.
Mike Gerics
---huge nerd?
Mike Gerics
> I just wanted to know whether or not the UPA is even capable of making
this
> kind of change in the game.
---no.
you would have JUST asked that...if that was what you wanted to know.
Mike Gerics
"fph" <billy_(nospam)_ber...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:99lqe.26711$J12...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Why not?
>
> I mean I can buy the argument that my argument about regional parity is
moot
> at the collegiate level but every other (correct me if I'm wrong, this is
> off the cuff) collegiate sport has roster limits.
>
> news:Yzhqe.6887$hk.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > for college...never.
> >
> >
>
>
---why would you reply above my reply so that the reading is out of
order.......?
Mike Gerics
> football is one of the most dangerous contact sports in the
> world......people get hurt alot.....they need a lot of subs!
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ultimate, too, is a sport where folks get hurt, or sick, or miss
practice....
14 ain't a good number for those reasons alone.
Wagenwheel
>that...."the rest of you can...fuck off"....is an exact quote from Toad.
Yup. That was the quote. We all wished he had pursued it with a
little more tact.
Mike Gerics
---i'm sure it was meant in all kindness.......
...and it made us stronger....and more resolved to improve.
(well...myself at least...and i am sure for some others)
ain't not never thought too badly about the choice of words...
but....will always remember it.
Larry D. Hols
> College Ultimate, being a club sport....how do you tell the bottom 10 that
> they are not allowed to join a club at their college?
> that....is what it is all gonna come down to.
No, it won't. Just as football teams have the full team and the
travelling squad, ulty teams can have the full team and the roster
squad. Or are you saying that ulty players are less dedicated to the
team than football players or bigger whiners about playing time? I'm
trying to figure out why ulty teams would have a different dynamic than
football teams and your comments (and those of others against roster
limits) thus far haven't explained that.
Larry
Casey
> team than football players or bigger whiners about playing time?
Yes, on average collegiate ultimate players are much less dedicated
than collegiate football players. For every player on a college
ultimate team, there are dozens who tried the sport for a couple weeks
and decided it was a bunch of crap. For every player on a college
football team, there are dozens who wish they could be there but just
aren't good enough.
Most collegiate football players have been playing football their
entire lives, they love the sport and are willing to endure most
anything for a chance to play in college. Ultimate players, on the
other hand, are often being introduced to the game in college and as a
consequence have much less of a reason to stick it out for the long
haul; simply put: they have much less invested and as a result are much
less attached.
To be frank, Larry, you are making quite a few arguments that you
cannot support and a couple of your posts paint you as rather ignorant.
I believe this is not the case, so I would encourage you to spend some
more time examining the opposite side of this debate.
Larry D. Hols
> Most collegiate football players have been playing football their
> entire lives, they love the sport and are willing to endure most
> anything for a chance to play in college. Ultimate players, on the
> other hand, are often being introduced to the game in college and as a
> consequence have much less of a reason to stick it out for the long
> haul; simply put: they have much less invested and as a result are much
> less attached.
OK, if they're new to the sport, why would they assume they would
automatically be part of the travelling squad to the UPA Championship
Series? I can understand expecting equal practice time and travelling to
non-series tourneys to play. I just don't understand expecting to go
play in the Championship Series without having earned a spot in the
playing rotation when the whole season is on the line.
> To be frank, Larry, you are making quite a few arguments that you
> cannot support and a couple of your posts paint you as rather ignorant.
> I believe this is not the case, so I would encourage you to spend some
> more time examining the opposite side of this debate.
>
Well, I've actually supported my arguments. I've pointed out that
having roster limits for the Series doesn't have to mean that players
will have to be turned away from a team--they can practice and play
other tourneys, fill in for injuries and illness, and battle for spots
on the series squad, and then fill slots the next year. That's all much
the same as most other sports.
I'm also asking for support of claims to the contrary because I have
no experience with college ulty teams. I have experience with college
football. I'm trying to sort out the differences.
I'm also trying to find out why--exactly--folks are saying that
roster limits for the Series will *have to* result in players being
turned away. I don't see that it's necessary nor even likely. Simply
saying it will happen doesn't explain the mechanism and that's what I'm
asking about.
That, I'll point out, is how we find out about the opposite side of a
debate. We ask for the support for their claims and examine that
support. (Note: I competed in debate, judged for years, helped coach a
HS team, and taught a college class section on it.) I've offered support
for my claim and I'm asking for similar support from the opposing camp.
Once that appears, then we can hash out the details on each point and I
can figure out exactly where they're coming from. I may change my views
(I've done that before when learning more), they may change theirs, or
we may simply have to disagree due to different values placed on
principles involved. That's how informal debate and serious discussion
work.
So, if I sound ignorant on some issues, it's because I am and I'm
trying to get information on the spread sheet to understand the issues
better. I realize that at times my posts sound more harsh than intended
because I'm accustomed to impersonal debate style and use it in
discussions. I also figure that anybody who reads Mike G's arguments
regularly probably isn't gonna sweat my posts too much.
Thanks for a reasonable response, too.
Larry
Larry D. Hols
Just looking over rules for lacrosse.
From box lacrosse: Six players per side including the goalie. Each
team dresses 17 players and carries a roster of 23 players.
Regular lacrosse uses ten players (including goalie) on the field and
teams carry 25 to 30 total.
Larry
Mike Gerics
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---club football teams?
or NCAA varsity football teams?
Mike Gerics
> non-series tourneys to play. I just don't understand expecting to go
> play in the Championship Series without having earned a spot in the
> playing rotation when the whole season is on the line.
---many NCAA athletes are members of their varsity team, but never "earn a
spot in the playing rotation"....and have gone on to win NCAA Championships.
are you joking...or acting stupid?
Mike Gerics
> I'm also asking for support of claims to the contrary because I have
> no experience with college ulty teams. I have experience with college
> football. I'm trying to sort out the differences.
----college club football or college ncaa varsity football?
one, you are rectuited to play or make the team and earn a spot, no matter
how big or small on the team.
the other, ya pay your team/club dues, and get to practice and attend all of
the club functions.
college ultimate....ya pay your club dues, and get to attend all of the club
functions.
Mike Gerics
> non-series tourneys to play. I just don't understand expecting to go
> play in the Championship Series without having earned a spot in the
> playing rotation when the whole season is on the line.
---because they paid their money to join the school club and have been to
practices all year with their teammates.
are you joking around...or just acting stupid?
Mike Gerics
> having roster limits for the Series doesn't have to mean that players
> will have to be turned away from a team--they can practice and play
> other tourneys, fill in for injuries and illness, and battle for spots
> on the series squad, and then fill slots the next year. That's all much
> the same as most other sports.
-----why would telling some kids that they have to be excluded at the very
end of a long year of ultimate be so important to you?
Mike Gerics
> roster limits for the Series will *have to* result in players being
> turned away. I don't see that it's necessary nor even likely. Simply
> saying it will happen doesn't explain the mechanism and that's what I'm
> asking about.
---you're not asking about mechanisms...you're being a fucking dumbass.
Wagenwheel
remember this because they only scored 1or 2 points in a game to 15.
Gary Hurley then broke down mathematically how many players ECU would
actually need to defeat the slickers. Unfortunately, I have not the
time or brains to figure out such a simple equation but theoretically,
ECU would have needed hundreds of players to achieve victory. The
advantage of having 35 players is sideline support and noise. Black
tide, perfect example. 40 fuckers talkin' shit, 15 of them actually
touching the disc, several dudes were wearing flip flops.
Toad Leber
never told anyone to fuck off. But I do agree with mike partially in that
it was the fact that there were enough players to compete as a "b" team of
which most were 1st or 2nd year that got to experience competition relative
to their skill level. And while those of us that "got together" on the
slickers nix'd mike (I actually voted you on), his presence with the "b"
team helped them to learn at a faster rate.....BUT it was the fact that that
was the first year Wilmington had ever sent a team to club nationals and a
core of uncw players, which played for the slickers that season, got a
significant taste of a higher level of ultimate which inevitably helped uncw
to win college nationals that year.
"Mike Gerics" <des...@digitizing4embroidery.com> wrote in message
news:PmGqe.264$td.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Mike Gerics
> The way I remember it was more like the way ed had originally quoted me.
I
> never told anyone to fuck off.
----oh....yes you did.
"and the rest of you...can fuck off."
exactly like that.
i recall it just as i recall the day you taught me all i needed to know to
be a great cutter, while you were simply clearing out after not receiving
the disc on an in cut.
i recall it as plain as danny wren saying, 'put more z's on it'
i recall it as plain as kevin rhodes saying, 'grab the disc tighter like
you're making a fist'
it was a major moment in my career.
you told everyone who became the Soul Monkey Sperm Tribe...."and the rest of
you....can fuck off"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And while those of us that "got together" on the
> slickers nix'd mike (I actually voted you on),
---well....i always knew you were the smartest of the group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
his presence with the "b"
> team helped them to learn at a faster rate.....BUT it was the fact that
that > was the first year Wilmington had ever sent a team to club nationals
and a > core of uncw players, which played for the slickers that season, got
a
> significant taste of a higher level of ultimate which inevitably helped
uncw > to win college nationals that year.
---yeah...word.
which....makes me wonder why the current crew of UNCW athletes aren't
playing with the local club team.
.........seems like when the Seamen were mixed with the local clubbers, each
were always at their best.....
huhmmmmmmm
Chris Van Holmes
Ultimate is currently in a different space from the NBA. The NBA is a
league. It represents the owners of the teams, nobody else. Money
through erntertainment is the goal. The players enter the picture in a
collective bargining agreement.
The UPA is a players' organization. If you want particular rules and
particular limits,
and money....
start a league where the team owners make the decision. This is the
pro sports model people often claim should be the goal of ultimate. I'm
not convinced we should chuck the baby to chug the bathwater.
Why isn't it happening quickly? Because a pro sports model is good
only for the elite....and the owners. And guess what?...No owners in
ultimate. Goaltimate has one owner.
A lot of people claim ultimate players are not elite athletes. Not
that I agree, but if it is true, why should a players' orgainzation
promote a direction not in their favor?
CVH
fph> Hmm. The NBA tried out an Illegal defense rule, it didn't
fph> work. They chucked it.
fph> The NBA has tweaked the distance of the three point line and
fph> they are not through. It is bound to move again.
fph> The NBA and NCAA are constantly redefining what players can do
fph> with regards to hand checks, etc.
fph> Every year in the NFL, there are adjustments made to the rules
fph> in several areas.
fph> Often times these adjustments lead to other revelations about
fph> the game that leads to other rules modifications.
fph> I doubt that a Commissioner in the UPA is going to going to
fph> adopt some bone headed, hair brained rule change that everyone
fph> hates, does nothing for the game and is catastrophic for the
fph> future of the sport. The sport has been in a tailspin (at the
fph> club level) for 15-20 years and you think it's stupid to have
fph> an organization that is a little bit more adaptive than one
fph> revision every 12 years?
fph> "Joe Buck" <bird...@gmail.com> wrote in message
fph> news:1118433691.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> fph (nospam) wrote:
>>> So what if an idea is implemented and determined to be stupid
>>> and we chuck it >after 1 year, what have we lost?
>> That idea is really stupid.
>>
>> Continuity is usually important any time rules are concerned.
>> What you would have lost is any amount of respect. Constant
>> change does not lead to respect for any institution.
>>
Chris Van Holmes
Chris Van Holmes
fph> As I said in another post, from my vantage point here in the
fph> bay area, the lack of roster limits has played a large part in
fph> reducing the total number of teams from around 16 to 3. That's
fph> not good.
How many ultimate teams are there really in the the bay area? Coed,
open women, college, high school, middle school, grade school?
CV
red...@gmail.com
22 teams at mixed sectionals
10 teams at open sectionals
7 teams at womens sectionals
10 teams at club open sectionals
7 teams at club womens sectionals
12 teams at NorCal HS State Championships
Which gives you 70 teams. I believe, however, that Frank is just
referring to Open Club teams, and in that case, he's close to right.
The only Bay Area Club teams that travel to out of state tournaments
are Jam, Kaos and The Oaks. Basically every other team at club
sectionals were either college teams or reunion/thrown together for fun
teams.
Chris Van Holmes
redhand@gmail> These are approximate numbers 22 teams at mixed
redhand@gmail> sectionals 10 teams at open sectionals 7 teams at
redhand@gmail> womens sectionals 10 teams at club open sectionals 7
redhand@gmail> teams at club womens sectionals 12 teams at NorCal HS
redhand@gmail> State Championships
redhand@gmail> Which gives you 70 teams. I believe, however, that
redhand@gmail> Frank is just referring to Open Club teams, and in
redhand@gmail> that case, he's close to right. The only Bay Area
redhand@gmail> Club teams that travel to out of state tournaments
redhand@gmail> are Jam, Kaos and The Oaks. Basically every other
redhand@gmail> team at club sectionals were either college teams or
redhand@gmail> reunion/thrown together for fun teams.
70 bay area teams with UPA representation? That is awesome. When cal
states was at its height how many bay area teams were there with UPA
representation.
Tell me, are there more than 12 HS teams? What is the league picture
like in the bay area? Shrinking?
CVH
jt
> which....makes me wonder why the current crew of UNCW athletes aren't
> playing with the local club team.
> .........seems like when the Seamen were mixed with the local clubbers, each
> were always at their best.....
Very true.
jt
Love to talk shit. Too bad I can't back it up which is why I have good
teammates that have my back.
Time to break out the flip flops.
jt
Mike Gerics
> Very true.
>
-----uh huh.
Wagenwheel
The only reason College guys shouldn't play with the local club team is
if the club team cuts em'. Even if only one or two guys from the team
play at that higher level, they carry that knowledge back to the
College squad. In the Summertime you youngsters should be traveling
to every tournament money and time will allow.
(Insert Underscoring here)
In spring 1989 I slept on concrete at sectionals in Richmond, under the
rear bumber of an 84 Mustang at Regionals at Rehobeth Beach State park,
and puked most of the day under the bleachers while we played NY.NY in
Staten Island at Easterns. All to play with the Raleigh Club Team
called Ya'll. I was 19. It made me a better College Player for sure!
Be sponges college kids cause contrary to what you think, you don't
know dick....yet. I learn something new on the field everytime I play.
Mike Gerics
> if the club team cuts em'.
---the Warriors...have never cut anyone...especially NOT the college kids.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~