Banned from the Series

[Krishna]

Ultiworld did a great QandA with USAU on the Triple Crown:
http://ultiworld.com/2012/11/05/a-live-chat-with-usa-ultimate-about-the-triple-crown-tour/

My big takeway is that teams which cannot afford to
participate in the Triple Crown will be banned from playing
in the Series and going to Nationals. To me this seems
absurd. Elite ultimate is becoming pay to play. It is one
thing to ask teams to travel significantly more if they want
to win the 'Triple Crown' it is another thing entirely to
require that they do so if they want to continue as a team.

USAU argues that the system is designed to create stability,
but it seems much more likely that it will do the opposite
as some teams opt out of the required travel and are forced
to disband, or send skeleton crews to tournaments. Look at
the Mixed division. Glancing at score reporter some of the
teams in the Mixed Pro Flight didn't fly to any regular
season tournaments this year. How many of those teams are
going to be willing to fly to 2 or 3 tournaments next year?
USAU argues that elite teams already travel as much as they
are requiring, but that doesn't seem true for a large
fraction of them.

As a side note it seems insane that a change this big was
not announced with the rest of the Triple Crown but only
comes up as part of a question and answer session on a
website.

--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com

[James]

Attn. Elite Mixed Teams: Will attend and throw games at
Triple Crown tournaments in exchange for Sarasota roster
spot. Please let me know. /s

[a.tiarsmith]

Krishna wrote on Mon, 05 November 2012 17:57

When I first saw this Triple Crown proposal, I was
interested to see what USA Ultimate would decided to do with
mixed, for the reasons you bring up.

I'm not sure that your objection is really a critique of the
Triple Crown proposal though---instead it might seem like it
is a critique of the mixed division.

It doesn't seem like mixed division players can have it both
ways. You can't both complain that Open/Women players don't
take your division seriously AND complain that USA Ultimate
is treating your elite (or pro, whatever they are calling
it) teams the same way they are treating the elite teams in
the Open/Women division. Either embrace USA Ultimate's
attempt to give the division legitimacy by happily attending
the Triple Crown events, OR (and honestly this is my
preference) move the Mixed Series to the summer and do away
with the qualification requirements.

aj

[Bulb]

Krishna wrote on Mon, 05 November 2012 17:57

Could not agree more with this post. It's also embarrassing
on USAU's part that they claim to have done a ton of
research on this topic.

[JB]

As a mixed player, I have to agree that the phrase "elite
co-ed ultimate frisbee" sounds a little silly.

[ultimate7]

It looks like top 8 teams have to play elite flight or the aren't allowed in the series. But nothing keeps a team like Capitals from just changing their team name every year and playing Select flight and the series, right?

[Krishna]

ultimate7

> It looks like top 8 teams have to play elite flight or
> the aren't allowed in the series. But nothing keeps a
> team like Capitals from just changing their team name
> every year and playing Select flight and the series,
> right?

Top 8 have to play pro and 9-16 have to play elite. Sound
like USAU will do some sort of roster check to prevent
Capitals from changing their name and playing if they skip
out on the regular season.

aj

> I'm not sure that your objection is really a critique of
> the Triple Crown proposal though---instead it might seem
> like it is a critique of the mixed division.

I think you are right that these travel requirements will
hit Mixed (which is generally lower commitment) hardest. But
required travel is also going to go way up in the other
division. Looking quickly at score reporter (and guessing a
bit) only half of Open Nationals qualifiers decided to fly
to more than 1 tournament this year during the regular
season. Next year it might have to be 3 for some of those
teams.

It definitely seems likely Open teams will just decide to
pay more to play ultimate, but seems wrong that USAU is
effectively forcing them to.

[James]

"See I think it increases inconsistency in Mixed, as there
are always teams that put together talent that isn't looking
to travel so much, and when they do well and make nationals,
they are now required to be something different the next
season. They will respond by just changing their
brand/identity." - Troy

"Troy, Roster requirements will be put in place to minimize
disbanding and rebranding. Look for those in January." -
USAU

Srs Bsns. And it's the top 16, I think.

[Torre]

My biggest frustration with this is shouldn't teams have
known these implications BEFORE their season started this
year? If they couldn't announce it until they did, they
should've said next years results would determine which
their they were placed in the following year. This would've
allowed teams to prepare for whatever was coming for an
entire year.

[anakin gerics]

> USAU argues that the system is designed to create stability,
> but it seems much more likely that it will do the opposite
> as some teams opt out of the required travel and are forced
> to disband, or send skeleton crews to tournaments.

~~~~~~~~

---maybe it's a trick technique to do away with the entire division?

[anakin gerics]

> As a mixed player, I have to agree that the phrase "elite
> co-ed ultimate frisbee" sounds a little silly.

~~~~~~~~~~~

--'coed' sounds like the way it SHOULD be....and what i've been
calling it forever(WUFF Coed Nationals)
mixed....was always fruity and super upsa-ish

[Pete]

Interesting question: if a Pro Flight team declines, what
happens if the next Elite Flight Team decides to stay in
Elite Flight.

Example: GOAT doesn't want to play Pro Flight. Madison Club
is up next. Can they decide to stay in Elite Flight, and if
they decline the upgrade do they forfeit their place in the
series? Rhino is 10th? What happens to them?

This seems to have a lot of holes in the explanation....

[mgd.mitch]

Krishna, I owe you an apology. When I first saw your thread
title relative to the content, I thought you were missing
the simple already-stated point that any team can go to
nationals through the classic flight. I never dreamed USAU
would make this leap off a cliff and restrict teams from the
post season if they opt out of their flight.

USAU can claim that other leagues structured like this all
they want, THE OTHER LEAGUES HAVE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. This
limitation is absolutely absurd until the sponsor money can
at least cover travel, or a big part of it. The more they
fill in the details, the more that I see this only working
for open, and not working well in the beginning. This seems
to really show a lack of awareness about the state of the
mixed division.

Come on USAU, you are better than this.

[Mike Tamada]

Wow, mad props to Ultiworld and the participants in the
chat. Eye-opening. This new policy of
you-gotta-play-you-can't-even-disband seems pretty
draconian; USAUltimate is correct about the advantages of
team stability but those advantages accrue to fans and
sponsors, and not to the players. And, as I've been saying
for years (actually decades now), Ultimate has only a tiny
number of fans and sponsors, but it has plenty of players,
and IMO should therefore tilt its policies in favor of
players.

Initially, I had been concerned about the opposite sort of
problem: what happens if a high quality team has a
tempestuous breakup, and next season two teams claim to be
the real Slim Shady and demand that team's slot in the
flight. But given what was said in that chat, the more
common problem, at least for some teams in some divisions,
might be teams who say "who us, huh uh, we were mere
skeleton taxi players on that Nationals squad last year,
this is a different team, the New Mixed Contenders". And
evidently there will be "roster requirements" or "roster
checks" to stop this from happening ... will Ultimate
players be forced to play for a specific team a la Curt
Flood prior to to free agency in baseball?

If USAU is correct that they did their research and that the
vast majority of teams will be okay with, or were already
playing in, the required number of tournaments then no
problem. But it appears that some teams will be told they
have to stay and play, or be barred from the series.

[ray fort]

for mixed, I think there will be stability in team names at
least - that pro cachet will make recruiting for the best
and wealthy enough players in the area easy. will we see
the best players on city's #2 team (or in SF's case, #4
team) replace the bench players on the #1 team, thus
widening the gaps and raising the level of the top teams?
More importantly, are we stuck with some of these dumb team
names forever?

it is hard to argue for the mixed teams who don't want to
play a full season and still compete for the championship,
if you ask me. Some of the players on those teams will now
commit and some will drop out - I think you still end up
with a higher level being played. If you just want to play
a few tournaments with your old friends, you'll have to go
to potlatch instead of the national championship.

[Ravi]

This opens up some new questions for me on rostering:

What are the roster requirements now? If teams now HAVE to
go to tournaments, what percent of their roster has to
attend. Can players now just hop on for regionals or
nationals like Bart did this year or not. Can teams play
for a different team during the regular season than the
series? With all this:

What is the rostering deadline? Does a team have to have a
complete roster before the US Open? Before the first pro
tournament? Before whatever? Are they allowed pickups if
they can't afford to head to one of the pro tournaments? I
think it is true that all teams do travel, but let's say one
or two players are having a rough financial year and they
can't afford to go to a couple season tournaments, but can
afford regionals and Sarasota, does this make it so they
can't play in the series now?

3. How does this affect teams like the Capitals? The way
this can be read is that a team is penalized for doing well
in the previous season but not being able to afford it in
the next. If the Capitals didn't make nationals last year,
they would have been able to do what they did this year.
However, if they did do well, nope you are out of luck? I
am not sure this system seems fair at all. How different
does the team name need to be and how different does the
roster need to be in order to be considered a new team?
Could the Kapitals with a 10 girl turnover be able to
compete starting at sectionals the next year?

Interesting to see how this all plays out. I still really
like the idea and think that it will make more sense as we
do it a few years down the line, but the hypotheticals (or
not so hypothetical in terms of the Capitals) seem to be
pretty problematic.

[homrbush]

I like how they've been working on this for 2 1/2 years, as
they keep mentioning, yet still haven't determined the
roster regulations (as per the Ultiworld chat).

[Joshua Hartzog]

As a player from a mixed team this year, I am disappointed
in USAU for this plan, and how much it is geared towards the
now men's division. Definitely makes me rethink what
division I want to play in next year.

[Knappy]

I agree it's "pay to play". Andy positioned it as
"unfortunate" that a team would "choose" not to play in the
series (by not attending all required events.) I found those
comments to be especially revealing of the USAU attitude
during this chat. Excerpt is below.

I interpreted this to mean that if your team's captain is
getting married on the same weekend as one of the required
events, you're banned from the postseason even if you attend
all the other events & other tournaments.

Or, if your team is a bunch of young but super talented
college/post-college players with no money, you'd better
start fundraising so you can fly to 2-3 events in addition
to flying to nationals. Bake sales, anyone?

Knappy: "Andy, thanks for doing this. If a top team in pro
flight does not attend all required events for whatever
reason/conflict, they will be denied an opportunity to
compete in post-season. That means one of the top teams in
country may not compete for the championship (I could
definitely see this possibility happening in mixed
especially). Do you agree there is an opportunity for
controversy there? Could this taint the championships
because top team(s) were not allowed to compete due to a
USAU dictate?"
by Knappy 1:59 PM yesterday

Andy: "Knappy, yes. We are simply expanding the season to
include a formalized Regular Season, like all other sports,
which is something these teams and the community have been
asking for. If teams choose not to compete in the series
currently, that is a shame. Likewise if teams choose not to
compete in the Triple Crown Tour Regular Season, it would
also be unfortunate, but that is their choice. We've created
a great opportunity for athletes and teams, yet they are
free to choose to participate or not."

[Mike Gentile]

"like all other sports"

Really?? ALL?? Help me out gang. Name 3 other sports
similar to what we now have structured in Ultimate?
Non-paid, non-sponsored players with a travel heavy,
required, regular season and a playoff system that may
exclude the top teams but will allow any ridiculous mob of
people to form a team and participate in the playoffs.


Andy said this:

"We've created a great opportunity for athletes and teams,
yet they are free to choose to participate or not."

But I heard this:
"We've created a great opportunity for [a few] athletes and
[a few] teams, yet they are free to choose [forced] to
participate or not [and be excluded]."


A sport with a deep history of inclusiveness, quickly
turning exclusive.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> A sport with a deep history of inclusiveness, quickly
> turning exclusive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

--HOLD ON

the SPORT is NOT turning 'exclusive'

ONE particular association, MAY or may not be...turning 'exclusive'

ONE association IS keeping it simple and is INVITING and WELCOMING to
anyone who wants to compete.
The UOA....all the way.

[Knappy]

Speaking of exclusive, let's say you're a top mixed team
from East coast.

In July 2011, you could drive to Philly invite & pay $225
team fee & play against the best competition.

In July 2013, you will mandated to fly to Colorado & pay
$1500 team fee. Assuming $400 flight + rental cars, I think
that's about $500 per player additional or about $10,000 per
team (20 players). (The vast majority of teams will be
flying to Colorado, since its near neither coast.)

Now, many top teams flew to Philly Invite over the years,
but that was their choice.

I can't get my head around these numbers, really. I am
trying to see USAU POV. However, I can't help but think this
plan is premature, inflexible & elitist. It might be a good
plan for a handful of men's & women's teams. Not a good plan
for the rest.

[Mike Gentile]

Exactly. Future Pro/Elite teams will consist of the best
players, that can afford to be on the roster. Talented but
financially strapped players, go f' yourselves.

Wow. I hope USAU is prepared for the massive, future growth,
especially from all the financially independent HS/college
kids coming up.

[Dan Naylor]

mgd.mitch wrote on Mon, 05 November 2012 19:51

> Come on USAU, you are better than this.

I don't think they are. I don't think Tom is. And I don't
think Will is at this point. I think most of the other
people there are, but maybe not the newest hires who are
clearly there to implement tom's vision.

I have been on the record as being against the plan, and
against the vision for the club series being implemented in
such a manner.

The funny thing is, i thought that this vision would come to
fruition in 2018 or 2020, not in 2013, even though I was on
the record as being against the intermediate step as well
because i figured teams would have the unpleasant choice
between playing in these events or playing in some
tournament with all teams that they are much strogner than.


Now it's pay up to fly or not play at all.

What a joke, and what a shame that all of the good work
being done in the youth division is being completely undone
by this catastrophe.

In their chase of the sponsorship dollar and marketing the
very top teams they have completely stepped on most people
who play this game not for sponsorships, but for love. What
a soul-less choice for Executive director, and what a shame
that instead of letting ultimate gradually evolve to
somethign resembling this vision (but in a more authentic
way) it's being crammed down our throats by an organization
seemingly hellbent on hegemony.

There's not much else to say, and the best counter-argumetns
against my initial dissent (that teams could opt out) seem
to have withered away.

[Alex Peters]

Was there really "clamor for a regular season?" Maybe in college, but it seems to me that in club people don't really want a regular season, what they want is simply for their region to get more bids to nationals when they feel their region has several strong teams. Now, a regular season is one way to accomplish that, but I really never had a problem with the old system, even when a strong region gets shorted a bid or two. When the one of the NBA conferences gets really strong for a few years, they don't alter the format so that more teams from that conference make the playoffs.

I don't need or want the USAU to do *anything* except maintain a standardized ruleset for Ultimate and run the best Series that they possibly can. Teams should just do whatever they want pre-sectionals. Let the club players play their club sport on their own terms, and leave the "showcase events" and drawing spectators and sponsors to the pro leagues.

[Dan Naylor]

YES, YES, YES. On the spot knappy.

Thank you.

What's more, The Philly community made decent money off of
this. They deserved it. Now who makes that money? How much
of the fee now goes to USA-U versus the local organizers?

Does Philly Invite still happen?

They say they've thought this out. Why don't they publish
the survey resutls, and more importantly publish them by
tier (club nationals, college regionals, etc)




Knappy wrote on Tue, 06 November 2012 08:27

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Was there really "clamor for a regular season?"

---i never heard it...and never heard of it.
~~~~~~~~~~
 Maybe in college,


---i never heard it...and never heard of it.
who DID?????
~~~~~~~~

but I really never had a problem with the old system,

---me either!!!!!!!
let's rebuild it....with UOA officials!
~~~~~~~~~

> I don't need or want the USAU to do *anything* except maintain a standardized ruleset for Ultimate and run the best Series that they possibly can.

---the UOA has a ruleset and would LOVE to be involved with running or
officiating a series.
come on folks....i know ya hate to read all my posts....but come
on....let's ALL get together and give us what we all want!
the UOA wants to offer our rules and officiating experience.
i promise...you'll love it...just like everyone else!

[Krishna]

USAU has posted answers to a few question on their website:
http://www.usaultimate.org/triplecrowntour/#FAQs

Some new information but not much:
1) Qualification for the elite/select challenger is based on
Regionals in the previous year - specifically, losers of the
game to go are the select teams which are invited.
2) Canadian teams can only attend the US Open by qualifying
for the top half of the pro flight. They don't count as
international teams.

I don't understand how USAU can claim that this
implementation is not being rushed. They have missed crucial
deadlines they set by months. A week and half ago, at the
National's captain meeting they didn't seem to know what
would happen to teams that decline a spot in the flights.
Then suddenly they decide that those teams will be banned
from Nationals. Critical information is being released
piecemeal informally. Merits aside, the implementation of
this plan has been pretty terrible so far.

[colinmcintyre]

Knappy, I'm not sure the entry fees are really a meaningful
point of comparison. As an aside, "top competition" was not
available at Philly Invite in 2012. Many of the top
2010-2011 teams did choose to fly to Colorado and pay a
$1,500 entry, though (CLX, DnT, Slow White, Odyssee,
Overhaul).

In terms of difference in entry fee, the U.S. Open was 7
times better than Philly Invite. Without a doubt. Reliable
water availability, multiple trainers, properly spaced
fields with appropriate lines, observers, vendors, food,
ice, transportation from hotel, very good hotel discount,
local restaurant discounts, event activities, 4-day event,
newspaper coverage, lots of event staff, shade tents
provided, great competition, etc. As you noted, the big
expense is the travel. Tournament entry fee amount is not a
big deal (<10% difference in most all cases). Tournament
quality is the big deal, when you're traveling, committing a
weekend out of your season, etc.

As for examples of travel, looking at two prominent teams,
it looks like 2013 would require AMP or Slow White to attend
two tournaments. If one is east coast and one is west
coast, then that's likely one flight. Just like they did in
2012. I understand there are counterexamples, though I think
it's fair to say the majority of Nationals-level teams are
flying every year. My personal competitive Club experience
has typically involved 2-3 pre-Series flights, plus
sometimes a Regionals flight and sometimes a Nationals
flight.

-Colin

[Ryan Thompson]

Sure, you could say that. Or you could look at the teams that didn't
really travel at all (Seattle is on the edge of driving distance from
SF, same for Atlanta and MD):

Blackbird
Mischief
Ghosts
American BBQ
Flycoons
Bucket
Wildcard
AMP took a skeleton squad to Labor Day and was punished in the
rankings for it.

That's half of the 16 teams in the Mixed division.

[logan]

Are we really this worried about mixed?

Why not erase the division and market open and womens?
Sounds great right?

[colinmcintyre]

ryan3thompson wrote on Tue, 06 November 2012 19:00

I was replying primarily to the "top Mixed team from the
Northeast" example.

But yes, some extra travel for some teams. Suppose a
required event gets hosted in San Francisco and one in D.C.,
plus the U.S. Open somewhere. One extra flight* for
Blackbird (2012 Worlds + ECC -- did those folks drive 13 hrs
to ECC?), American BBQ, Bucket, and Wildcard. Two flights
for Ghosts, Flycoons, Mischief. Same travel for AMP.

So does the model perfectly serve teams who want to play at
the highest level but don't want to travel at all? No. Is
that the majority of teams? No. In general, are those teams
helping create a structured season, a reliable algorithm,
reliable seeding, etc? Some teams may be excited to have the
chance to compete at higher profile events, with better
assurances of event quality and competition quality.

Also worth noting, the fact that a team travels shows that
they are willing to travel. On the other hand, the fact
that a team doesn't travel in a given year does not
necessarily indicate that they are unwilling to travel or
cannot afford to travel. They might even have provided
feedback suggesting they would be interested in traveling.

Many of the comments here are based on limited anecdotal
info and speculation about other people's teams and what
they might or might not feel. On the one hand, there were
multiple stages of surveying and feedback collection, as
well as phone and e-mail conversations directly with teams
involved in development of the restructure plan.

-Colin

* understanding that flight prices vary, depending on
locations.

[thefan]

Quote:

> So does the model perfectly serve teams who want to play
> at the highest level but don't want to travel at all? No.
> Is that the majority of teams? No. In general, are those
> teams helping create a structured season, a reliable
> algorithm, reliable seeding, etc? Some teams may be
> excited to have the chance to compete at higher profile
> events, with better assurances of event quality and
> competition quality.

Colin, how many of those teams that might be excited to have
the chance to compete at higher profile events will be
excited to be told that if they opt out of one of the higher
profile events, they will be banned from the series?

just throw a guess out there.

[mgd.mitch]

The negative reactions from the mixed players in my area
regarding the series exclusion:

"They did what?!?!?!?!? Nooooo way!"
"I'm so glad we didn't make nationals."
"This whole thing just doesn't work for mixed. I see it for
open."
"I'm just making a new team every year."
"I think I just retired from high level ultimate."

The positive reactions from mixed players:

[thefan]

Quote:

> The positive reactions from mixed players:

that's weird. i would have thought people were dying to be
told that if they didn't go to a set of certain specific
tournaments ranging across the country they would be banned
from post season play.

[Mc]

The worst part about this plan is that there is no
flexibility. USAU talked about their being flexibility, but
it was pure bunkum. How is a system flexible if you're
banned from the series for not doing what you're told?

The line that was used about how this structure "mimics"
other sports is also absurd. This mimics sports where
competitors are being paid and expenses provided, not where
they themselves are paying and providing for the expenses of
the competitive institution (illud est, USAU).

Lastly, regarding the feedback process during the
development of this plan, Colin said...

Quote:
> ...there were multiple stages of surveying and feedback

> collection, as well as phone and e-mail conversations
> directly with teams involved in development of the
> restructure plan.

Yeah, I was on the conference call for the Open division.
There were six teams represented on it (all high level
clubs), and every single one of them said "we don't want to
be told that we HAVE to play certain events."

The USAU brass can say whatever they want to say about the
feedback process, and posit whatever they want to posit
about people's thoughts and feelings regarding this plan,
but the sentiment of the community is a fact, and it is
overwhelming. "The unsilent majority" seems to clearly feel
that the solicitation of feedback from the community, the
revisions of the plan based on this feedback, the
communication in connexion with the whole feedback/revision
process, the communication of the intentions of USAU to
implement this plan, the sticking to deadlines for
announcing details of this plan and other aspects of the
restructuring, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, was
seriously lacking. The community doesn't feel this way for
no reason.

USAU seems to be more concerned with cultivating plausible
deniability through fluffy (borderline meaningless) surveys
than actually trying to determine the course of development
that the community desires. When then questioned about
anything, they say "we solicited feedback through many
avenues and at many junctures," and 'that's their story' and
they 'stick to it.'

As someone who doesn't believe in democratic government, I
am fine with mandate as operative principle. But, if a
governing body is going to conduct its affairs in this
manner, at least be honest about it. Don't "front" as an
organization by and for the masses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlgsbzqr-ps

[high beams]

a.tiarsmith wrote on Mon, 05 November 2012 16:39
> I'm not sure that your objection is really a critique of
> the Triple Crown proposal though---instead it might seem
> like it is a critique of the mixed division.
>
> It doesn't seem like mixed division players can have it
> both ways. You can't both complain that Open/Women players
> don't take your division seriously AND complain that USA
> Ultimate is treating your elite (or pro, whatever they are
> calling it) teams the same way they are treating the elite
> teams in the Open/Women division. Either embrace USA
> Ultimate's attempt to give the division legitimacy by
> happily attending the Triple Crown events, OR (and
> honestly this is my preference) move the Mixed Series to
> the summer and do away with the qualification
> requirements.
>
> aj


I agree with AJ here. For all the divisions, there has
seemed to be an overwhelming desire for a more legitimate,
structured season, with fewer mismatches at Sectionals and
elsewhere. The Triple Crown is a way to do that. I'm not
sure I see a good way to create that legitimacy and
structure without requiring some more travel, and therefore
some more money. There could be many more variations other
than the Triple Crown, but how would you do it without
requiring a national level of competition for the top
teams?

To the people complaining about just the fact that they have
to travel to one or two more tournaments: Who wouldn't want
to travel across the country and play high-level ultimate in
the summer? If you don't want to travel and put the time
commitment in, should you really be playing elite ultimate?

Obviously, the major problem is the increased cost for
players. If increased cost is an inevitable consequence of
the improvement of ultimate's competitive structures, I
think the USAU should be doing a much, much better job of
providing ways to solve this problem. They seem to be
saying: the money will come in the future, but for now, just
deal with it on your own. Spirited competition is the goal,
not spirited competition for those with thousands of dollars
to spend. The tourney prizes do basically nothing. Could
USAU provide infrastructure/staff to help teams fundraise or
get sponsorships? Could they provide scholarships for
individual players? Any other ideas? I hope they have some
ideas of their own.

[thefan]

Quote:

> To the people complaining about just the fact that they
> have to travel to one or two more tournaments: Who
> wouldn't want to travel across the country and play
> high-level ultimate in the summer? If you don't want to
> travel and put the time commitment in, should you really
> be playing elite ultimate?

hell, lots of people WANT to travel across the country to
play high level ultimate. maybe even everyone. but wanting
to do it and being told you HAVE to do it or be banned from
the series are two entirely different animals.

should they be playing high level ultimate? yeah, maybe if
they've got the talent, skills and work ethic. unfortunatly
that doesn't always translate into having the money as well.

[high beams]

Quote:

> should they be playing high level ultimate? yeah, maybe
> if they've got the talent, skills and work ethic.
> unfortunatly that doesn't always translate into having the
> money as well.

I agree with you. Check out my next paragraph.

I'm saying that the Triple Crown (or something similar) is
what most people WANT to do, or maybe even everyone, as you
say. So let's figure out how we can pay for it, so that
anyone who wants to do it, can.

[thefan]

Quote:

> So let's figure out how we can pay for it, so that
> anyone who wants to do it, can.

seriously? who gets the money? where does it come from?

do you think that the USAU who was months behind it's own
deadline announcing the plans for next season and who still
don't have all the details worked out is going to get right
on top of funding the travel for 25 players per team, 8
teams per tournament, 3 tournaments a year?

so, yeah, one day when ultimate has sponsors beating down
it's doors, fans lining up to pay to watch and lucrative
television contracts, the Triple Crown is the way to go. as
long as the members are the ones paying their own way, they
ought to be able to decide which tournaments they attend and
which ones they skip out on.

[Reggie Fanelli]

details worked out is going to get right
> on top of funding the travel for 25 players per team, 8
> teams per tournament, 3 tournaments a year?

~~~~~~~~~~

--hold on......8 teams?
8 teams????
where did you get "8 teams" from?
is that published somewhere...that the upsa is running 8 team events?
wonder where they got that idea from...

[Knappy]

Colin is a USAU BOD member. I get that he wants to defend
the plan & I give him credit for being one of the few USAU
reps who actually engages folks here & elsewhere (ultiworld,
skyd).

I intentionally used Philly 2011 as my example (where I
believe 6 of the 8 "elite" div teams made nationals), since
US Open siphoned potential teams away in 2012. Your point is
fair -- a few teams chose US Open, while some chose Philly.
I think the teams should have the opportunity to make that
choice, based on team finances, schedule, etc. There could
be reasonable consequences for that choice (not eligible for
Triple crown, or reg season title), but I don't think being
banned from the series is a reasonable consequence.

Yes, the USAU, with paid staff & many more resources, are
able to provide a more robust tournament experience than 1
club team in Philly. Point conceded. Whether that produces a
tournament opportunity that is worth spending an additional
$10,000/team+ (probably more) should be up to the team to
decide.

Perhaps I was wrong to get in the weeds of a specific
tournament comparison. However, my larger point still
stands: this plan is elitist & assumes that teams are not
already maxed out on dollars & time invested in an amateur
sport. I believe the USAU is imposing an inflexible
structure on many players who do not want it, in order to
meet the needs of an elite (pro?) few.

[Pippin]

My club team, 7Express, missed out on the elite division this year.
Personally, I would have liked to have qualified into the next tier,
but I also hate the plan and the travel that would have been required
and the restrictions that seem to be in place.

This might be a bit off topic for this specific thread, but people are
talking constructively here, so:

As a member of a team that missed out (from a strong NE region) my
biggest issue with this new system is that it looks like it will be
limiting 'Select Tier' teams ability to play against other top teams.
In 2012 my team beat and played a bunch of close games against many of
the teams that are now in tier 1 & 2. Next year it seems we are going
to have very limited opportunities to play against our peers; instead
we will be forced to play against many teams that we are likely to
beat soundly.

As a non-paid (non-professional) athlete, I think many of us play
because it is fun and we like to challenge ourselves and compete
against our peers. If I was making boatloads of money to play I might
not mind being told I have to play almost exclusively against the
lower tiers. But, like most other players/USAU members, I make zero
dollars playing and being told I am now inferior and not going to be
given a chance to play against many teams I have played against and
beaten the past 6 years...because of one season's results...THAT IS
FRUSTRATING! Does USAU only care about the best teams in the
land?...because they don't make up the bulk of the membership.

Colin, I would love to hear some thoughts about teams that missed out
on Nationals this year, and the new hardships they will face while
trying to draw in new talent and develop as a program. This system
seems to only favor the top 16 teams in each division. Open teams like
Southpaw and Condors are annually contenders to make nationals, now
they are forced to play down with weaker teams most of the season. A
very large portion of USAU membership does not qualify for nationals,
but many come close...this system seems to punish those teams. Why is
USAU strongly focusing on the top 16 and kicking everyone else while
they are down?

Also, I heard that many captains in Florida expressed they do not like
the new system, can anyone expand on that?

-Pippin
also I wrote this about the subject if anyone wants to give it a read:

http://ultiworld.com/2012/11/01/will-the-triple-crown-system-hurt-the-almost-elite/

[Anonymous]

Here's a simple solution to the whole thing:

Captains, contact captains of other teams in your "flight"
and find out how many want in, and how many want out, of the
current system. If there's a critical mass of folks that
want out, basically unionize and boycott the entire thing.
Form your own "series" and deprive USAU of your membership.
Think about what it would say to USAU if 10 out of the top
16 mixed teams opted out... of USAU.

If there's enough backlash, USAU will be forced to make a
decision: back off, or lose a good chunk of their talent,
and a bigger chunk of their credibility. Sitting around and
bitching about it clearly won't get through to them. Hit
them in the pocketbook and they'll pay attention. Also, i
doubt that sponsors would be thrilled that they're putting
up money to support an organization who's members are
fleeing en masse.

If there's not enough backlash, then USAU truly has an
understanding of its membership and its only a vocal few who
are bothered by these moves.

I find it hard to believe that generally liberal-minded,
easy-going ultimate crowd aren't all feeling a bit bullied
by these proclamations from the governing body. Did USAU
forget who pays their salary and pumps their coffers full of
sponsor money?

[Reggie Fanelli]

 If there's a critical mass of folks that
> want out, basically unionize and boycott the entire thing.
> Form your own "series"

~~~~~~

---The UOA will officiate and organize!!!!!
we want to be involved with a simple easy to understand ALL INCLUSIVE
league/division

come on....no one wants to be involved more than us!

[thefan]

Quote:

> Captains, contact captains of other teams in your
> "flight" and find out how many want in, and how many want
> out, of the current system. If there's a critical mass of
> folks that want out, basically unionize and boycott the
> entire thing. Form your own "series" and deprive USAU of
> your membership. Think about what it would say to USAU if
> 10 out of the top 16 mixed teams opted out... of USAU.

that's definitely a radical plan . . . BUT it kind of makes
one wonder if maybe the AUDL, MLU step in to fill the gap or
if Space City and the UIC weren't one step ahead of the
curve.

it will be interesting to be sure to see how it shakes out.
this time next year, what will we be saying about this new
structure?

[high beams]

Quote:

> Here's a simple solution to the whole thing:
>

> Captains, contact captains of other teams in your
> "flight" and find out how many want in, and how many want
> out, of the current system.

This is a great suggestion. If a significant number of
Pro/Elite flight teams don't want this, and say it publicly,
the USAU doesn't have much to stand on. It wouldn't have
much to do with money, it's more that the parties involved
just wouldn't be interested.

It's very hard to tell at this point whether the
self-identified elite players who've posted on RSD and
Ultiworld represent a "vocal few", or if there is actually a
large backlash. I would really like to know how many teams
are in and how many are out.

[Joshua Hartzog]

I think it is also very difficult for the USAU to be
implementing this system during the 1st season the new rules
for at-large bids to nationals. Many teams were trying to
feel out exactly how to go about the regular season in order
to earn the bids to nationals. If you didn't get it right,
then you were stuck with only 1 bid (thinking MA in
particular, but also SE mixed as well as others). Seems
unfair, but I suppose fairness isn't really a part of the
new system anyways.

[thefan]

Quote:

> Seems unfair, but I suppose fairness isn't really a part
> of the new system anyways.

it's early days yet, but it looks like the operative word
for the new system is "separation."

separate these teams from those.

[//isra]

colinmcintyre wrote on Tue, 06 November 2012 18:30

Aforementioned counterexample:

The majority of CLX and I think most of DNT drove to US Open
(11 hour drive from Iowa, 15 hour drive from Minnesnowta).
Outside of nationals, CLX did not fly to any other
tournament. Traditionally CLX has attended one "major"
non-nationals tournament a year ("Tune Ups", now known as
CHC used to be bigger but hasn't enjoyed the same pull it
once did).

As far as Philly Invite 2011 vs US Open 2012, my experience
was USO was only a little better than PI. Bear in mind, PI
was a well run 2-day tournament that I thought reached near
its max potential. However, the USO concept has a much
higher ceiling -I'd agree w/ ~"7 times" more- but was
severely, understandably, and unfortunately limited by the
wildfires*.

The rescheduling meant I could not attend the event
activities I was most excited about because our games were
scheduled simultaneously, nor could I see/play on the much
hyped AA fields, nor did we have observers for the majority
of our games (all of which I had expected for the $1500 fee/
"showcasing our sport"). As Colin mentioned, USO did have an
edge with spacing between fields, player swag/hang out area,
and staff support, but the negatives, however fair, weighed
heavily against them.

I have some thoughts on the play-or-banned, but will take
some time to collect both my thoughts and more information.
I'd like to note, my opinions are my own and not necessarily
that of my teammates, as I've been busy in my 'other'
professional career, you know that one that I'm paid to do.


-Miz
CLX #7
aka father of that cute curly haired sideline baby

*I also thought it was borderline irresponsible to host the
US Open in wake of the tragedy. The audacity to suggest that
our tournament could bring some joy to people devastated by
the loss of their home and neighborhood, personal
possessions still charred and smoldering, and their
community being declared a federal disaster zone was
shocking. Worse than replacement refs. I digress.

[Brandon]

ProUltimateTeamInsider wrote on Wed, 07 November 2012
11:21

> Captains, contact captains of other teams in your
> "flight" and find out how many want in, and how many want
> out, of the current system. If there's a critical mass of
> folks that want out, basically unionize and boycott the
> entire thing. Form your own "series" and deprive USAU of
> your membership. Think about what it would say to USAU if
> 10 out of the top 16 mixed teams opted out... of USAU.

Honestly, this isn't really going to have the effect you
believe it will. While some people may say mixed is more
watchable then women's, it is much less marketable. Of the
three divisions (Open/Womens/Mixed) mixed would be the most
likely to be cut. You just don't see mixed sports anywhere
else and I feel like as the sport evolves, mixed will grow
smaller.

ProUltimateTeamInsider wrote on Wed, 07 November 2012
11:21

> If there's enough backlash, USAU will be forced to make
> a decision: back off, or lose a good chunk of their
> talent, and a bigger chunk of their credibility. Sitting
> around and bitching about it clearly won't get through to
> them. Hit them in the pocketbook and they'll pay
> attention. Also, i doubt that sponsors would be thrilled
> that they're putting up money to support an organization
> who's members are fleeing en masse.

Hit them in their pocketbooks? I think you have a very
skewed idea of how important your teams are to USAU. While I
feel that the move may make them rethink things based on the
extreme reactions, it definitely will not be because of any
monetary reasons. I'll say again Mixed is the least
marketable, it will get the least airtime if games were ever
televised and it will draw the least sponsorship for
anything outside ultimate gear.

[thefan]

Quote:

> I think you have a very skewed idea of how important
> your teams are to USAU. While I feel that the move may
> make them rethink things based on the extreme reactions,
> it definitely will not be because of any monetary reasons.
> I'll say again Mixed is the least marketable, it will get
> the least airtime if games were ever televised and it will
> draw the least sponsorship for anything outside ultimate
> gear.

your point is both on and off. yes, mixed may be less
marketable than even women but at this point the men, the
most marketable of all, draws in exactly no money for the
USAU outside of the player dues, tourney fees, etc. so
monetarily, until these hypothetical TV deals materialize,
the 16 mixed teams at nationals were exactly as important as
the 16 Open teams.

the poster with the idea of breaking off may or may not have
been speaking directly to mixed teams or all teams but he
does have a point. on this thread, which may or may not be
indicative of how the ultimate community at large (the ones
affected by the restructure) feels about this Triple Crown
thing. but what i see on here is a lot of voices saying
with no uncertainty that this is NOT what they want and a
couple of voices saying "no, no, trust us, this will work
out." if the ultimate community is really as up in arms
about this restructure as it might seem then the USAU may
have finally overstepped their bounds and a mass exodus may
be the exact reaction to make them realize that the thin air
in Boulder has separated them from their member and money
base.

i don't know who the mixed teams are but in our neck of the
woods (NC) the (open) sectional champs, Cash Crop, are
likely ineligible to play in state rival Ring of Fire in any
competitive setting until Regionals. and if that's the
case, it ain't right.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> > I'll say again Mixed is the least marketable, it will get
> > the least airtime if games were ever televised and it will
> > draw the least sponsorship for anything outside ultimate
> > gear.

~~~~~~~~~~~

---do ya think that's why coed is in the world games?

[Alex Peters]

You only need 2 players to play a game of Ultimate. What if a team just sends 2 people out to scout and play their games? They attended the tournament and haven't forfeited any games...

[thefan]

could this be closer to what we see? not sending 2 but
allowing individual players on a team by team basis to opt
out of going to some % of tournaments. we'd see Revolver
win the west coast tournament, blowing away Ring of Fire and
Chain and for the East Coast tournament It's Ironside, Ring
and Chain in the Semis with west coast teams failing to
score more than 7 in any game. then everyone goes for it
for the Championships.

this would allow teams to hang on to their spot in the upper
tiers, right?

[Drew]

Wasn't this kind of what happened this year at the inaugral
US Open? No team other than Bravo was full strength. To meet
their obligations, teams will likely send skeleton crews to
some of the required events, not exactly fulfilling USAU's
dream of creating the best games/matchups (ie, the most
marketable, best spectator-friendly etc).

I'm still amazed that they launched this great new structure
without any schedule of these events, other than the
aforementioned US Open, which they really seem to want to
make a marquee event by sheer force of will.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

> Hit them in their pocketbooks? I think you have a very
> skewed idea of how important your teams are to USAU. While
> I feel that the move may make them rethink things based on
> the extreme reactions, it definitely will not be because
> of any monetary reasons. I'll say again Mixed is the least
> marketable, it will get the least airtime if games were
> ever televised and it will draw the least sponsorship for
> anything outside ultimate gear.

This is an amazing answer, and probably hits very close to
the mark regarding how USAU feels about the mixed division
in particular. Indeed, i doubt that USAU considers the
mixed division to be nearly as important as the open
division. Think about that for a moment, and remember that
the USAU is a MEMBER DRIVEN organization. The arrogance
shown by USAU weighing the relative marketability of its
members is breathtaking. The members ARE NOT the property
of USAU! Its the other way around, people.

And yes, my thought about teams in tiers banding together
and boycotting was aimed at all divisions. Nobody wants to
be the one team going out on a limb and saying "we're not
participating"... but if they all communicate with each
other and speak in a unified voice, USAU will have to pay
attention.

I'm still flabbergasted regarding USAU's (still to be
fleshed out) plan to essentially ban players from
participating in the series if the team they played with
last year doesnt play in their assigned "flight". I mean,
how else are they going to prevent teams from disbanding and
re-branding? They're going to track YOU, the individual
player, the PAYING member, and tell YOU that you can't
play.

I've seen documented conversations where Tom Crawford has
been quoted as referring to members of USAU as "our
talent"... as if the players are under contract or
something. To anyone who thinks that this draconian grip
and control on player movement has nothing to do with the
emergence of professional ultimate and the competition for
"talent": you're fooling yourself. Tom Crawford is sitting
back and soaking up 160K a year and planning on ways for
USAU to rake in even more money, all while the membership
foots the bill for everything! Wake up!!!

[Reggie Fanelli]

 Tom Crawford is sitting
> back and soaking up 160K a year and planning on ways for
> USAU to rake in even more money, all while the membership
> foots the bill for everything!  Wake up!!!

~~~~~~~

--wake up....get out....start something new.

[Slade]

[quote title=thefan wrote on Thu, 08 November 2012
08:43]Quote:

> i don't know who the mixed teams are but in our neck of
> the woods (NC) the (open) sectional champs, Cash Crop, are
> likely ineligible to play in state rival Ring of Fire in
> any competitive setting until Regionals. and if that's
> the case, it ain't right.

This is incorrect. Pro/Elite teams are encouraged to compete
in tournaments beyond their 2 (or 3) scheduled events,
especially since they will no longer play at sectionals.

I would be surprised if elite teams only play the Pro/Elite
and Elite/Select crossovers, Regionals, and (hopefully)
Nationals. Most national participants played more than four
tournaments this year (considering that three were during
the series).

[Ryan Thompson]

Pro Flight teams have 3 scheduled events. I don't know why any of them
would play any other tournaments beyond early season tryout
tournaments.

[Slade]

druse77 wrote on Thu, 08 November 2012 10:29

> I'm still amazed that they launched this great new
> structure without any schedule of these events, other than
> the aforementioned US Open, which they really seem to want
> to make a marquee event by sheer force of will.

It would be difficult for tournament directors and existing
tournaments to submit competitive bids to host events that
they did not know existed yet...

[Slade]

Ryan,

Some won't. But many will. All Pro/Elite open teams attended
between 5 and 7 'official' tournaments (not counting tryout
tournaments) last season.

Pro Teams (average of 6.25 tournaments):
Ironside: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
GOAT: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
Chain: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
Revolver: 6 Tournaments (2 regular season + Worlds +
series)
Ring of Fire: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series)
Machine: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series)
Doublewide: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series)
Sockeye: 5 Tournaments (2 + series)

Elite Teams (average of 5.875 tournaments):
Truck Stop: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
PoNY: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
Johnny Bravo: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series
Madison Club: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series)
Rhino: 5 Tournaments (2 regular season +series)
Furious George: 5 Tournaments (2 regular season +series)
Boost Mobile: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season +series)
Sub Zero: 5 Tournaments (2 + series)

Pro teams will be expected to attend 5 scheduled tournaments
(including regionals and nationals), while elite teams are
expected to attend 4 scheduled tournaments.

[Slade]

Mixed Elite/Pro: Ranging from 5 to 8 tournament, average of
6.125 (appears to be fewer flying-distance tournaments than
open). 14 of 16 teams would play fewer tournaments under
the new system (Cosa Nostra and Blackbird would play the
same amount).

Womens: Ranging from 3 to 8 tournaments, average of 6.375.
15 of 16 teams would play fewer touranments if they only
played in 'official' events. The Capitals (a series-only
team) is the only team of the 48 that would have to play
more tournaments under the new structure.

[Dan Naylor]

I think you misunderstand what ryan means by tryout
tournament. Anything in May or June for most teams is a
tryout tournament.

Sometimes teams go under their real name. Sometimes teams go
as

Superteam X and Superteam Y

sometimes teams makeup crazy names.

but anything in may or june is pretty much a tryout
tournament. with the sport getting younger, alot of teams
havent even seen some of their most athletic tryouts yet
because they are still finishing their college seasons.

[Slade]

Open: Sockeye would play the same amount of events under the
new system, the other 15 teams would play fewer tournaments
next season if they only attended the scheduled events.

So I hope and expect that pro/elite teams in all divisions
will still be attending and competing in additional
tournaments (likely regional, non-flying tournaments).

[mgd.mitch]

bslade86 wrote on Thu, 08 November 2012 14:45

> Ryan,
>
> Some won't. But many will. All Pro/Elite open teams
> attended between 5 and 7 'official' tournaments (not
> counting tryout tournaments) last season.
>
> Pro Teams (average of 6.25 tournaments):
> Ironside: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
> GOAT: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
> Chain: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
> Revolver: 6 Tournaments (2 regular season + Worlds +
> series)
> Ring of Fire: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series)
> Machine: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series)
> Doublewide: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series)
> Sockeye: 5 Tournaments (2 + series)
>
> Elite Teams (average of 5.875 tournaments):
> Truck Stop: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
> PoNY: 7 Tournaments (4 regular season + series)
> Johnny Bravo: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series
> Madison Club: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season + series)
> Rhino: 5 Tournaments (2 regular season +series)
> Furious George: 5 Tournaments (2 regular season
> +series)
> Boost Mobile: 6 Tournaments (3 regular season +series)
> Sub Zero: 5 Tournaments (2 + series)

Including series events is not the numbers you want to look
at when making the statement at the top. Regular season is
what people are talking about. 2 of 8 elite teams attended
more than the 3 they now need to attend, 3 of 8 pro teams
attended more than their 3. If the majority stick with
their schedule, the main crossover happens at the designated
crossover events.

Now throw in that the 3 they have to attend may have just
gotten much more expensive due to travel, teams may be even
more dis-incentivized from attending additional
tournaments.

This is a tough sell until there is some money to help out
with travel.

I can very much see teams sending skeleton crews to the more
distant tournies (which already happens to some extent). If
teams are play or no post season, they are more likely to
have skeleton crews (teams don't give up their spots in the
flights and play short handed). If I'm a sponsor who is
aware of this, I'm less likely to shell out money to watch
full revolver play half of Chain/Ring/Ironside than two full
squads of teams on a financial position to travel.

[thefan]

so the Pro teams will HAVE to attend 1.25 fewer tournaments
on average than they attended all of last year, including
the ones they HAD to attend.

i don't think that's a very strong case for those teams
attending extra tournaments.

Ironside and Chain each attended a tournament IN the town
where they are based as one of their 7. I assume that was
the same for Sockeye who attended 2 optional tournaments
(and the exact same # of tournaments that will be required
of them this year). Revolver, was one of theirs Santa Cruz?
Santa Something. how far from San Fran is that? an hour?

i'm too lazy to look it up. did Machine attend Heavyweights
or C.I.?

of all of those teams probably only Ring and Goat did
anything close to the travelling that will be REQUIRED of
them next year if they want to BE ELLIGIBLE to compete in
the series.

for the Elite teams, how many of those tournaments that the
teams opted to play in were only a couple of hours away?
you see Truck Stop and PONY attending the most because they
have several options right along the MA Seaboard. meanwhile
Subzero at the bottom, i'm guessing because everything is
far away from there? how far did Furious, Rhino and Sockeye
travel last year? how far will they be required to travel
this year?

so while they may be "encouraged" to compete in tournaments
outside of the ones they have to go to, what is the
likelyhood that they do much of that unless there's some
game right nearby?

the way i'm looking at your stats, i think you might have
been better off not researching them and/or keeping them to
yourself.

[thefan]

you can talk about the number of tournaments teams played
all day long. are Sockeye's 3 required events going to be
in Seattle? only on the west coast?

how far did those teams travel last year? where are the
required events going to be and how far will that require
teams to travel this year?

[James]

Again, the worst part is going to be when a team's "home"
tournament is now allocated to the other division. Ring
plans to drive to Chesapeake but oops! now it's an Elite
flight tournament, and they have to fly to ECC. Or Boost is
required to fly to Philly and Chesapeake because Labor Day
is now Pro.

It's not just the number of tournaments - it's the number of
additional required flight tournaments.

[Slade]

Hi Mitch,

I think that eliminating one tournament from the overall
number of 'structured' events is pertinent information. The
series is now one round shorter for pro/elite teams, which
has been replaced by a more structured regular season.

Hi Jimmy,

I spent 15 minutes on score reporter to whip up a quick
estimate in response to Ryan. It certainly is possible that
teams will not play any additional events, but would
represent a reduction in the overall number of events teams
played in last season.

I'm ok with the return on my time, and have already heard
enough good points from rsd posters (including yourself)
that I'm glad I shared them. If you research the questions
you asked re: specific teams and travel, I would like to
learn what you found.

Re: Travel costs:
I agree, cross-country flights are expensive, and will make
it more difficult for some players to participate. Some
teams fly more than others, but most teams already have to
fly some to get to the most competitive events. Next year, I
would guess that some teams will continue to drive to
tournaments they have always attended or hosted, some will
continue flying to tournaments that they attended last year,
and some will fly to events they have not previously
attended.

Lots of good insights and valid concerns about the tradeoffs
with this competitive model.

[Slade]

Mitch,

Elite has moved from 3 required events to 4 (2 regular
season events in addition to regionals and nationals).

[mgd.mitch]

bslade86 wrote on Thu, 08 November 2012 15:37

> Hi Mitch,
>
> I think that eliminating one tournament from the overall
> number of 'structured' events is pertinent information.
> The series is now one round shorter for pro/elite teams,
> which has been replaced by a more structured regular
> season.

sectionals was dropped, but the span of the regular season
didn't change. teams will have to increase their "density"
of tournaments over time. plus, to rectify what people are
talking about (the lack/scarcity of crossover with teams
just outside their flights), sectionals would be replaced by
a much more competitive tournament.

heck, right now some teams are resting studs at regionals.
that's not a good sign they want to add more tournaments.

[thefan]

Quote:

> specific teams and travel, I would like to learn what
> you found.

okay, i did *some* looking. no west coast teams outside of
Boost came to the east coast. Rhino, Furious, Sockeye
played in Santa Cruz, Seattle and the series. Revolver gets
a pass on this test because they flew to Japan.

some of the East Coast teams went out West (Ironside, Ring,
Goat?) Machine played out west in either Seattle or santa
Cruz and Chicago. Ironside and Pony probably had a flight
and 3 4-5 hr drives. Doublewide looks like they had 3
flights. Ring, 3 flights and a 5 hr drive. Chain, 2
flights, home tournament, ~9hr drive/flight.

so all of this depends on where these "select" tournaments
are but you've probably got Ring, Goat, Doublewide and maybe
Chain doing a similar amount of travel and the other 4 doing
more. especially Rhino, Sockeye and Furious.

that's all well and good but those teams that DID travel a
lot probably went through the trouble of putting the
schedule to some sort of vote or discussion. now the USAU
is saying, if you want to play in the series you WILL travel
as much or more than last year. or you won't be in the
series. not you won't be as ready, or you won't see the
competition as much but "you won't be eligible"

so half the open teams will travel more. the other
divisions it sounds like will have more teams travelling
more.

and we don't know what the roster rules will be and we don't
know what these events will be outside of the US Open.

[thefan]

another point is that the pro teams skip on sectionals and
regionals, right? and the elite teams skip sectionals? or
however it works, the smaller geographic area tournaments
get dropped. so one of the series events that used to by
right in your backyard, or at least not that far away got
replaced by a tournament that has a chance of being further
away. ie, Ring doesn't have to go to Greeneville (1.5 hrs)
anymore but could replace that with a tournament in Georgia
(6hrs), Florida (12 hrs) or some other southeast location up
to 15 hrs away. Ironside gets to skip sectionals in Boston.

[Charlie Eisenhood]

Pro and Elite team captains weighed in on the Triple Crown:
http://ultiworld.com/2012/11/07/elite-team-captains-weigh-in-on-triple-crown-tour/

[colinmcintyre]

bslade86 wrote on Thu, 08 November 2012 15:37

> I think that eliminating one tournament from the overall
> number of 'structured' events is pertinent information.
> The series is now one round shorter for pro/elite teams,
> which has been replaced by a more structured regular
> season.

I think this is a good change. I understand some teams want
the chance to play the Nationals teams at Sectionals. But
far more often, the top team is not interested in
participating in a blow-out, nor is the lower team
interested in getting crushed (versus playing a competitive
game against a more at-level opponent). I base this
anecdotally, on personal experience (at both ends), and
general recollections of feedback I've seen.

In my case, not having to go to Sectionals saves my team a
little over $1,500, factoring entry fee, hotel, and gas.
That covers field rentals for the season or entry fee,
hotel, and rental cars for Chesapeake.

If we spend the weekend raking leaves (or otherwise
working), we also cover our flights to Chesapeake.

-Colin

[Knappy]

"Ring plans to drive to Chesapeake but oops! now it's an
Elite flight tournament, and they have to fly to ECC. Or
Boost is required to fly to Philly and Chesapeake because

Labor Day is now Pro.It's not just the number of tournaments

- it's the number of additional required flight
tournaments."

Excellent points from many posters here.

A few folks have referred to "only" 1 or 2 more tournaments,
or "only" another flight or two.

each additional tournament you have to fly to costs "only"
$10,000/team for a 20 person squad (I'm guesstimating
flight/rental costs @ $500/player.) That's in addition to
all the other costs you would normally spend (food, hotel,
tournament fee). Throw in that the USAU will have higher
standards for these tournaments (paid observers, trainers) &
thus players bare the cost of increased tournament fees, too
(e.g., $1500 US Open team fee).

PUTI (pro ulti insider) claims that this is a money grab for
Tom C, which I don't think is accurate. Without evidence,
that's a really unfair claim to throw out there. I also
disagree that teams, especially mixed & womens', have a lot
of alternative choices. The USAU puts on a great series -- I
went to Sarasota 6 times with 3 different teams, and loved
every moment of it. It takes paid staff & lots of moola to
put on that kind of a show.

I think the USAU staff is hard working & dedicated to
ultimate.

The top men's players, in certain areas, do have alternative
choices (AUDL, potentially MLU). I do agree with others that
this is a rushed, inflexible, reactionary plan to the threat
of competitive leagues like AUDL & MLU. It probably started
out with good intentions, and morphed into this as new
"threats" arrived. Men's ultimate is their best potential
source for new revenue (sponsorship, spectators, etc.) and
this plan is built to appease those top 8 pro teams.

[thefan]

summary from the captains: it might be a good thing and
will help us get more, more competitive games. it's going
to cost more money and be harder on our bodies and people
may simply have to opt out or give up the game a bit
earlier.

[thefan]

Quote:

> Men's ultimate is their best potential source for new
> revenue (sponsorship, spectators, etc.) and this plan is
> built to appease those top 8 pro teams.

potential source for revenue. potential. do you really
want to alienate the next 16 teams in Open and a fat
majority of the women's and mixed division? because they're
also your members.

[Calvin Lin]

bslade86: The number of tournaments played is not the right
metric. For example, Cosa Nostra will play the same number
of tournaments, but they will almost certainly have to fly
to 4 tournaments instead of 2.

-- Calvin

[TheWedge]

Another consideration, will the increased exclusivity of
Elite/Pro tournaments negatively impact tournament
organizers by dramatically limiting the number of teams at
their tournament? For instance in mixed, Easterns featured
32 teams, Philly Invite 24, Heavyweights 28, and Labor Day
26. If any of these events became Elite/Pro level, they
would be limited to 8 or 16 teams. While if they become
Select tournaments, they can attract a maximum of 32 teams,
only 4 of which will be from the region in which they were
held. Is it realistic to expect 16-20 teams in the Select
flight to travel from all over the country to, say,
Heavyweights or Labor Day?

Having never run a large scale tournament, I'm not
particularly qualified to talk about the economics of such a
thing, but it seems like halving (or more) the number of
teams present at any given event could dramatically impact
the ability of organizers to hold the events in the first
place, economies of scale and all that jazz, right? Will
TDs be able to run some sort of companion tournament on the
same fields on the same date involving lower level teams in
order to defer costs, a Heavyweights/Labor Day/Easterns B
tournament?

On the other hand, if they choose to not become involved in
the flight system, becoming de facto Classic tournaments,
they lose all the top and even medium competition (USAU has
said Select teams must also attend specific events, so
presumably they won't be going to a ton of other
tournaments, at least outside their own backyard) and thus
still have the problem of not having numbers any more (where
else would they get teams? summer leagues?) with the
additional problem of missing out on the participation of
elite teams which could lend the tournament credibility and
generate interest.

To me, this seems like a much graver problem then many
mentioned thus far, and seems like it will inevitably result
in a number of tournaments either shutting down, or becoming
dramatically limited in scope compared to the past. I'd
love to be wrong, however


Quote:

> Again, the worst part is going to be when a team's
> "home" tournament is now allocated to the other division.

I know that if Chicago Mixed Heavyweights becomes Elite,
Pro, OR Select then no actual Chicago mixed teams will be
eligible to participate.


~wedge

[ghughesstrange]

Couple of comments -
If I lived in Philadelphia, there would be little desire to
play in the USA-Ultimate since there is a much better/easire
opportunity in the MLU and AUDL teams that will exist there.
Machine (my team) and teamates need to decide whether to
play AUDL (an attractive different alternative) as well as
in the PRO division. Truck Stop has the same problem. It
will be a larger problem in future years if one of pro
systems takes hold. Think if the USA-Ultimate system
existed one/two years ago - SouthPaw would be a Pro team.

I fear that the new system does too much to restrict good
Ultimate from specific markets; and therefore limits growth
in these places. Do you think that Boston would like to
play Rhino/Furious/Bravo/TruckStop outside of Nationals -
well it won't happen. I loved being able to travel to
tournaments and see a wide range of teams with
friends/players that I have competed against for years. It
will be great to play the pro teams lots of times, but there
are great players/teams beyond that list.

Elite ultimate is exclusionary, but there exists beyond 16
teams/markets (Pittsburg, Philadelphia, San Diego, etc). If
I lived in these places I would probably retire earlier or
look for other options/sports to take part in.

[homrbush]

TheWedge wrote on Thu, 08 November 2012 17:58

Maybe Heavyweights/Rockford will finally have 40 yard wide
fields? :/

Seriously though, I've been wondering if tournaments are
locked into a flight.

My "local" (only tourney within 2 hours of my team)
tournament is Motown Throwdown, an EXCELLENTLY run
tournament by Colin and Overhaul/A2 Ultimate. Motown fell
on some hard times after the dissolution of BAT, and the
organizers have done a great job trying to build it back
up.

The fields are the greatest I've ever played on in my 16
years of playing, and with Colin in charge, you know they
will be spaced appropriately. Field quality is the biggest
thing I look for in a tournament.

So would Colin bid to have Motown be a Pro/Elite event next
year? If so, no one who has attended the past 2 years could
play. The tournament has featured Open and Mixed the past 2
years; if they host a Pro/Elite event, does it have to hold
all 3 divisions? Only 1? Does the event have to be for a
single flight? Can they use Motown as a Pro Flight Mixed
event as the draw for sponsors/spectators, but still have
Select and Classic divisions/pools to help those teams with
playing oppotunities/reaching sanctioned game requirements?

Just more Q's/details that should have been laid out at the
start?

As an aside, someone (thefan?) Mentioned that the meeting at
Nationals was dominated by Mixed teams asking 'what if I
just change my team's name' questions. Doesn't the lack of
clear roster requirements at this point, and the late (and
poorly thought out IMO) play or be banned policy scream late
knee-jerk reaction to an issue/end-around USAU never thought
about beforehand?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

> PUTI (pro ulti insider) claims that this is a money grab
> for Tom C, which I don't think is accurate. Without
> evidence, that's a really unfair claim to throw out there.
> I also disagree that teams, especially mixed & womens',
> have a lot of alternative choices. The USAU puts on a
> great series -- I went to Sarasota 6 times with 3
> different teams, and loved every moment of it. It takes
> paid staff & lots of moola to put on that kind of a show.

For one thing, Tom C makes 160K as head of a non profit...
approximately 10% of the budget goes to Tom. Sooo, the
money grab has already been made. My point was that all
this talk of attracting sponsors to USAU, etc fills the
coffers of USAU... not the players. The players playing the
game at a high level is the potential attraction, yet the
players are the ones that are paying the costs to play.
They pay dues, travel, accommodations, fees all to perform
for the benefit of sponsors (in this scenario) who pay USAU.
Sounds like the players need an agent. What evidence do
you need other than the actions being taken and a little bit
of logical thinking?

So yes, USAU puts on a good show at Nationals, been there
myself quite a few times. Yup, it costs money. But its the
player's money thats being spent.

Quote:

> I think the USAU staff is hard working & dedicated to
> ultimate.

I agree completely.

[sswang]

One thing I haven't seen answered... how exclusive do the
special Pro and Elite tournaments have to be? For instance,
if Chesapeake is designated as a Pro tournament, could it
treat the 8 Pro teams as 2 power pools, and then have 8/16
spots open for other teams in lower pools? The Pro teams
that lose in quarters can cross over with the best of the
other teams (which might include Elite as well as Select
teams) on Sunday.... is that an allowable format for an
official Triple Crown tournament?



I also don't understand why USAU is trying to implement this
all in one season. Do a trial run with fewer required
tournaments and fewer tiers, and in only one division,
first, as a proof of concept. If it works well then you
won't have as much of a problem in future with teams being
reluctant to take part.

[Ryan Thompson]

I don't think there's allowed crossover during the Pro events. It's
supposed to simulate a regular season in those two tournaments, where
each team plays the other 7 twice and gets a 14-game record. I see no
reason why they can't host a Pro, Elite, and Classic event all at the
same place site, and this seems like it would be encouraged because
the Classic players become "fans" of the top tiers.

Incidentally, this is exactly what Skip's C1 plan for college ultimate
was like.

[Knappy]

My understanding is that they want multiple divisions
represented at the pro/elite tournaments. I assume
preferably all 3, m/w/x.

Ultimate Event Organizer,

We hope you are doing well, winding down from your summer
organizing tasks, and getting excited about the Club
Championships! We are ready for another great event to
culminate the club season, and we're especially excited
about how the results of this year's Club Series and Club
Championships are going to feed into the 2013 season.

As you've hopefully heard, we just announced the
organization's strategic plan for 2013-18 and the USA
Ultimate Triple Crown Tour. The Tour is the result of over
two years of community feedback and planning, and promises
to provide more meaningful playing opportunities for players
and an exciting platform to promote the sport. Because of
the way the season works, event organizers are an essential
part of the Triple Crown Tour. It is truly a tour of events,
with specific events targeted for different groups of teams,
including more structured events for the top levels and more
flexible events for everyone else.

Please take a look at the information available on the
website, including the video and brochure. As you'll see,
there are several required events for teams in the top
flights. These are events that USA Ultimate wants to partner
with local organizers to showcase and promote the sport at
its best. We will be putting together bid documents for
these events and holding a competitive bidding process to
find the best venues and event hosts. These events will
involve the top teams in the Men's, Mixed, and Women's
divisions. They'll be designed to attract and entertain
spectators, as well as incorporate media and sponsors who
will cover and promote the events in partnership with USA
Ultimate and local host organizations.

In addition to the top flight events, the regular season
tour will be comprised of two kinds of sanctioned events,
where results will count towards teams' rankings. For Select
Flight teams, we will be looking for local organizers to
host Select Flight events, where Select teams will be given
preferred access. These are great opportunities for teams on
the verge of making it to the Elite or Pro Flights to find
meaningful cross-regional competition, and for organizers to
host small to large events catering to these dedicated teams
in any or all of the divisions. In addition to Select Flight
events, organizers can run sanctioned events that are open
to teams from any of the four flights. These events will be
the most flexible in terms of their size and/or team
composition.

The bottom line is that the Triple Crown Tour will be
comprised of high quality events where the results of the
games matter, and where at the highest levels, the community
will be watching. And the Tour is designed for local
organizers and organizations to be an important partner. We
wanted to take this opportunity to give you a special heads
up about the plan, let you know that more information is
going to be coming soon about next year's events, and to let
you know that we look forward to working with you to provide
great playing opportunities while promoting and growing the
sport.

Please let us know if you have any questions or are
interested in bidding on any specific events. We'll
obviously be pretty busy this next week with the Club
Championships, but we do want to get moving on planning for
2013 as soon as the 2012 season is finished. We look forward
to hearing back from you.

Thanks,


Will Deaver

Managing Director - Competition and Athlete Programs

[Krishna]

Unlike most of us who are content to just sit around and
complain. Ultiworld is putting in some serious work
analyzing the effects of this new tour.

Check out this article showing how the average pro and elite
teams will see increases in the cost of playing:
http://ultiworld.com/2012/11/09/analysis-triple-crown-tour-will-raise-costs-on-top-teams/

One factor which is missing from his analysis is how the
loss of flexibility for next year will also increase costs.
For example, Chain traveled a lot last year. But when they
saw that flights to Seattle for ECC were pricey, they
decided to go to Labor Day instead. With required events,
teams can no longer shop around for less expensive
tournaments.

[Mozaic]

Krishna wrote on Fri, 09 November 2012 17:10

Flip side is, Teams can also start planning their seasons
tournament travel plans once nationals is over (current year
excepted). When the tournaments are known 12 months in
advance which ones you will need to attend, you can have
your team plan those flight purchases well in advance taking
the cheap tickets rather than planning 2-3 months out when
cheap tickets have all been sold.

Plenty of people talk about $500 / flight yet with advance
purchases, most routes can be found for under $200 when they
are purchased more than 6 months in advance.

I understand newer players on squads who make the team for
the first time will not be able to do this planning from the
prior year, but there are plenty of core team members who
will plan ahead and take advantage.

[mgd.mitch]

Mosaic, you are assuming the tournaments are the same every
year, or set 12 months ahead of time. I wouldn't count on
that based on past history.

[TheWedge]

Quote:

> Mosaic, you are assuming the tournaments are the same
> every year, or set 12 months ahead of time. I wouldn't
> count on that based on past history.

Heck, there have been years where we didn't know when
sectionals was until the Thursday before the event. I
realize that this is ostensibly the fault/responsibility of
the local coordinators, but if the series is run so poorly
and in such a scattershot fashion, it's no surprise that
people are highly suspect of the USAU's ability to run a
regular season well.

[homrbush]

TheWedge wrote on Sat, 10 November 2012 17:34

Yes and no.

Is it the fault /responsibility of the coordinators? Yes.
Is it USAU's decision to put these important tournaments in
their hands instead of hiring an events coordinator to
ensure these incredibly important and cash cow tournaments
go off without a hitch? Yes.

If USAU wants this Triple Crown system to be done, and they
are using it as a way to attract sponsors, spectators and
broadcasters, then they need to hire their own people to put
on these events; even if it is something as simple as
ensuring back up fields are in place, working alongside the
local TD with the facility they are booking from to make
sure the facility doesn't yank your booking for a soccer
group willing to pay more, etc.

Also, when do spectators show up to events without a place
to sit? I'm not talking about friends/family of players
coming to support their people, but actual spectators who
want to watch the sport of Ultimate? You mean I have to
come out to the country and sit in a polo field? I have to
bring my own chair? And there aren't any bathrooms, only
port-a-john's? Those things are gross. I'm here for 8
hours, do you have anything to eat? No? I can take bagels
that have been sitting on a table all day that are supposed
to be for the players?

You want this done like other professional sports, then you
need to do this like other professional sports. This is the
big part of why Ultimate isn't a huge spectator sport. It's
not consistency of names, or matching uniforms, or lack of
refs or dancing girls. It's that tournaments are geared for
the players' needs (as they should be), even at showcase
events like Nationals or the US Open. Is USAU ready to gear
their events to spectators' needs as well?

[Knappy]

Mozaic: many, many holes in your wishful thinking.

Btw, I got $500/flight by typing in philly to denver &
philly to seattle flights for july/aug respectively & all
flights were over $400. So, in advance, with rental cars,
still $500/flight.

[colinmcintyre]

I think $400/flight is a reasonable higher end estimate,
probably mostly for crosscoast flights. In many cases, same
coast flights are probably available for half that. Some
cities dramatically cheaper than others, too -- baltimore,
for example., is reliably $200 or so from detroit, down to
$120 or less on some sales.

Three to six months notice is nice for getting flight deals.
Knowing in advance where the competition will be is nice in
that regard.

-Colin

[Krishna]

colinmcintyre wrote on Sun, 11 November 2012 23:40

> Three to six months notice is nice for getting flight
> deals. Knowing in advance where the competition will be
> is nice in that regard.
>
> -Colin

But how much uncertainty was there before? Was Revolver or
Rhino unsure if other Nationals qualifiers were going to ECC
or Labor Day? The specifics of which off coast teams will
attend are subject to some vagaries, but it is already
fairly clear which tournaments to go to to play various
levels of teams, especially at the elite/pro level. I don't
see the new plan as having a large advantage in this
regard.

[colinmcintyre]

Krishna wrote on Mon, 12 November 2012 12:09

Pretty good amount of uncertainty, outside of a few events.
The least uncertainty is at the pro level in the Open
Division, though the longer-traveling teams definitely make
a difference. This year, for example, Colorado Cup, CHC,
and Chesapeake had some uncertainty. For most events,
whether a few teams fly in makes a big difference in the
quality of the field, and this also impacts the event's
ability to recruit additional top teams. In general, more
uncertainty outside of the Open division, and more
uncertainty at the Elite level, and definitely Select.
Especially events that often pull the top local teams, and
may or may not pull in teams beyond that. And for teams
considering more expensive flights, it makes a difference.

-Colin

[thefan]

i don't know colin, i think you're trying real hard to paint
this positive picture of it. how much uncertainty was there
actually about ECC or Labor Day. for CHC there was plenty
of uncertainty because most of the top teams from the
eastern half of the country were headed to Chesapeake the
same weekend. only uncertainty about the Chesapeake Invite
was how many, if any, of the west coast teams would make the
haul. US Open in Colorado, the most uncertainty there was
if it would even happen. and if it would be any good since
it was being held during worlds. and there is more
uncertainty as i mentioned with cross country teams. but
the USAU in it's infinite wisdom has decided to remove the
uncertainty of whether or not a team is going to drop $4-500
a player on flights and cars by forcing them to do so under
threat of banishment from the series. is that really a
solution?

[davebk]

3-6 months notice is pretty nice for getting flight deals.

However, most teams (or at least most high-level mens teams
that I know of) finish up their tryouts sometime around the
beginning of June, giving just 1-3 months notice for lots of
people.

Now, maybe these teams should finish their tryouts earlier,
but that makes for a lengthy season. Some teams used to have
earlier tryouts and then take July off, but that doesn't
really seem like an option now.

[thefan]

so, if teams are moving up their tryouts to accommodate more
planning time to buy expensive plane tickets for tournaments
that they are required to go to under threat of being left
off of the series, how do they accommodate the college kids
who want to tryout but might be playing for their college
team until the end of May?

[colinmcintyre]

thefan wrote on Tue, 13 November 2012 10:36

> i don't know colin, i think you're trying real hard to
> paint this positive picture of it.

Not trying to paint a picture. Just making individual points
here and there.

I don't think there was uncertainty for ECC or Labor Day,
though mixed teams' willingness to attend ECC has been up
and down, from my understanding. CHC had some uncertainty in
Open and Mixed, as usual (Mixed especially) based largely on
the Chesapeake conflict. In the women's division, there was
definitely uncertainty between CHC and Chesapeake. And my
general point is that there is often uncertainty among teams
and organizers as to who will be attending which events,
outside of a very small handful of events, and even a few
additional top teams can have a large impact.

I understand the "banned from the Series" concerns, raised
on behalf of some teams. Interested to see more details and
info, as they roll out, as well as comments from actually
affected teams. Nice job by Ultiworld in assembling some
material.

-Colin