Callahan winner?

13 views
Skip to first unread message

hapyschizo

unread,
May 17, 2008, 10:42:53 PM5/17/08
to
Just want someone at nationals to post the winner as soon as it
announced.
Hoping it is Stephen Presley, as i believe he deserves it the most for
not only being the most all around and underrated player in ultimate.
And being the primary reason Texas did as well as they did (up to
nationals, though they lost their three placement games, all by no
more than 3 points).
Note: Gibson is pretty fucking dominant though, and he is also on the
best team in the country
Which leads to another topic: should the success of a team as a whole
be a factor in winning the Callahan? If one player is truly one of, if
not the, most spectacular in the game, but the team is unable to
advance, should that negate the chances of that player to win the
Callahan?

Reid K

unread,
May 17, 2008, 10:59:07 PM5/17/08
to
5. Franchise
4. Sherwood
3. Gibson
2. Jolian
1. Kershner

Courtney Kiesow won it on the women's side, barely beating Kira Frew.
Surge was 3rd, Taz was 4th, Wake Forest girl was 5th.

hapyschizo

unread,
May 17, 2008, 11:00:20 PM5/17/08
to
just as i posted this i saw that the other post stated joe kershner
won the 2008 callahan.
A well deserved win for a player that truly helped Arizona make it to
the elite of the college division.
Also does go to show that you do now have to be on a nationals winning
team to win the award, which says even more about kershner.
Congrats to him and arizona for doing well at nattys
dub dub
Seuss

Russell

unread,
May 17, 2008, 11:19:32 PM5/17/08
to
The Callahan award is now officially a popularity contest. What a
joke.

Theodore Hex

unread,
May 17, 2008, 11:47:05 PM5/17/08
to
On May 17, 9:19 pm, Russell <russh...@ufl.edu> wrote:
> The Callahan award is now officially a popularity contest. What a
> joke.

Yes, many of us thought Jolian should win. But at least it didn't go
to some dick who got a TMF in his first game at Nationals. Instead it
went to the dude who threw a 40-yard hammer on dgp in pre-quarters.

Justin #5

unread,
May 17, 2008, 11:53:05 PM5/17/08
to
On May 17, 11:19 pm, Russell <russh...@ufl.edu> wrote:
> The Callahan award is now officially a popularity contest. What a
> joke.

Agreed. Gisbon deserved the award.

hapyschizo

unread,
May 17, 2008, 11:55:11 PM5/17/08
to

Who got the TMF and why
(clarify for those who did not get to go)

mtwi...@gmail.com

unread,
May 17, 2008, 11:58:10 PM5/17/08
to

Congrats to Kershner, giving hope to all who aren't on the best team,
but...

Gibson and Dahl are both scarier.

schmidtacular

unread,
May 18, 2008, 1:45:31 AM5/18/08
to
On May 17, 11:19 pm, Russell <russh...@ufl.edu> wrote:
> The Callahan award is now officially a popularity contest. What a
> joke.

Isn't that what the essence of democracy is? The popular vote...

Unless you suggest we vote for representatives to make the Callahan
selection for us based upon how they perceive our interests. Better
yet, let's just allow the UPA to pick without consulting anyone...

daze

unread,
May 18, 2008, 1:46:56 AM5/18/08
to
I agree that Jolian and Gibson are scarier, but here is my two cents
for Lop.

Arizona, never in National contention, has become a big time contender
this year. They qualified for their first nationals, and made it all
the way to quarters (on Lop's 40 yard double game point hammer against
Darthmouth). The callahan winner is not the best player in college,
or at least that is not how I see it. Or it would obviously be
Jolian. Lop embodies Ultimate's ideals while still being one of the
top 10 players in the game at the collegiate level. Never have I met
a person so dominating yet so poised. He is the heart and soul of
Sunburn and it true, it could have gone to a better player (Jolian and
Gibson), but not to a more deserving candidate. Congrats Lop and
Sunburn on a great season.

xha...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 3:40:28 AM5/18/08
to

This is exactly why Kershner deserves it. Nothing against Kurt and
Jolian, who obviously have the respect of the country for their
playing abilities, but Lop is the embodiment of what Ultimate is and a
true ambassador of the game. He gives everything he has into every
point, every game, every tournament, and Arizona's success is evidence
of that. Evidence of Kurt's spirit is well documented, and it is the
usual absence of that kind of attitude that attracts more people to
the game. If that's what it takes for Kurt to be the player he is,
than so be it, but I am proud to have the Player of the Year (as it
were) be somebody that I has the ability to bring more people and
great spirit into the game than otherwise (less people, with worse
spirit).

Powderkeg

unread,
May 18, 2008, 6:48:44 AM5/18/08
to

While I do agree Arizona has had a phenomenal season and that kershner
played a huge role in that with some sweet highlights to show for
it... this award has gotta go to the best player, seriously I
understand the whole spirit thing and all that but come on.
Gibson or Jolian should've won this.
Same on the womens side. Kira was robbed. period. no question. I'm
sure there were other candidates with impressive credentials but no
one dominates the womens game like kira does.

michae...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 7:18:35 AM5/18/08
to

Look, the guy has PLAY ULTIMATE tattooed on his calf. What more do
you people want???

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 9:14:23 AM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 3:40 am, xhay...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 17, 10:46 pm, daze

> but Lop is the embodiment of what Ultimate is

which is what?

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 9:16:07 AM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 7:18 am, michaelpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Look, the guy has PLAY ULTIMATE tattooed on his calf.  What more do
> you people want


for him to be the best player too

Theodore Hex

unread,
May 18, 2008, 10:49:05 AM5/18/08
to
On May 17, 9:55 pm, hapyschizo <hapysch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, many of us thought Jolian should win. But at least it didn't go
> > to some dick who got aTMFin his first game at Nationals. Instead it

> > went to the dude who threw a 40-yard hammer on dgp in pre-quarters.
>
> Who got theTMFand why

> (clarify for those who did not get to go)

Gibson. Warned after accompanying a spike with saying "Suck it, 17,"
did something similar the next point, boom, TMF.

daze

unread,
May 18, 2008, 11:09:30 AM5/18/08
to
Excerpt from UPA rules:

"Ultimate relies upon a spirit of sportsmanship that places the
responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly competitive play is
encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual respect among
competitors, adherence to the agreed upon rules, or the basic joy of
play. Protection of these vital elements serves to eliminate
unsportsmanlike conduct from the Ultimate field. Such actions as
taunting opposing players, dangerous aggression, belligerent
intimidation, intentional infractions, or other 'win-at-all-costs'
behavior are contrary to the Spirit of the Game and must be avoided by
all players."

-TMF warnings don't sound like they embody Ultimate ideals = Kurt out
of contention; he is the best player in college though

- Kobe Bryant finally won the MVP even though he has been argubably
the best player in the NBA for the last couple of years. He won in
this year with his attitude towards his teammates and his unselfish
play. I think Kurt is the best player in college, but does not have
the total package in terms of spirit.

- I personally thought Jolian was going to get it, but with Arizona's
rise to stardom, getting to quaters, albeit only to get crushed by
Florida, was inspiring. It was end of a cindarella story, to a
cindarella season. Lop dominated the competition (even getting the
layout score over Gibson against Florida at DGP at Vegas) and always
showed his class and character after, before, and during the game.
His team has said he is the heart and soul, it is great he was
recognized. Let him have his moment.

- On another note I got Florida by 3 against Wisconsin, any takers?

nichol...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 11:10:09 AM5/18/08
to

Anything unusual happen that prompted him to say that? Jake (#17) is
one of the most spirited ultimate players I've ever met, so I'm a bit
shocked that anyone would be an ass to him

mbwh...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 11:54:20 AM5/18/08
to

I was the observer that gave the TMF in that game. Gibson and Jake
got into a little bit during the point. I believe Jake said something
and Gibson responded. I was too far away to hear this exchange during
the point. Gibson scored the goal and spiked/tacoed the disc while
yelling "Suck it, 17" (17 was not near the spike). I warned Kurt to
watch the language and just play the game / talk to his own team. He
said that Jake had said something to him during the point, to which I
responded, "that's why I'm only giving you a warning, say it again and
it'll be a TMF". A point or two later Jake dropped a tough catch for
a potential goal in the front corner of the end zone. On the way to
pick up the disc, Gibson yelled "Suck it, 17" again, so I gave him the
TMF.

The only other TMF I gave this weekend was to Wisconsin for repeatedly
double teaming in their zone. I think that one is more difficult as
the threshold between something being a violation and a pattern of
violations worthy of a TMF is not clear. Wisconsin zoned for a few
points in a row. I believe they got called for double team twice in
the first point where I was behind the disc. In the two points going
the other direction, they may have been called for double team but I
couldn't hear it and play never stopped (at no point did Pitt call
violation for a second double team). The second zone point where I
was trailing, they were called for three double teams (again play
never stopped). After the point, I gave them the TMF for repeated
double teams.

I think another interesting case is travel calls. If a team calls 8
travel calls in a half and 4 are upheld and 4 are overturned, should
that be a TMF because it indicates a team is "guessing" on travel
calls to stop play or is being right 50% of the time enough.

Whit

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 12:59:06 PM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 11:54 am, mbwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I think another interesting case is travel calls.  If a team calls 8
> travel calls in a half and 4 are upheld and 4 are overturned, should
> that be a TMF because it indicates a team is "guessing" on travel
> calls to stop play or is being right 50% of the time enough.

how about just makin it a turn over whenever its upheld......or better
yet make it an active call.........and makin it a turn when called.

asdf

unread,
May 18, 2008, 1:18:49 PM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 11:54 am, mbwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think another interesting case is travel calls. If a team calls 8
> travel calls in a half and 4 are upheld and 4 are overturned, should
> that be a TMF because it indicates a team is "guessing" on travel
> calls to stop play or is being right 50% of the time enough.
>
> Whit

It should be observer discretion, but IMO travel calls are one of the
worst things about unobserved ultimate, with "revenge" calls common
after a team disagrees with a travel, or calls being made as outright
cheating to bring back goals. If the thrower pivots in an odd way such
that their foot might seem to move, I can see an incorrect travel call
being made without malicious intent, but in general, any poor travel
call should receive a warning and any pattern of poor calls should
receive punishment

Jed

unread,
May 18, 2008, 1:22:55 PM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 11:09 am, daze <ausn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> - Kobe Bryant finally won the MVP even though he has been argubably
> the best player in the NBA for the last couple of years. He won in
> this year with his attitude towards his teammates and his unselfish
> play. I think Kurt is the best player in college, but does not have
> the total package in terms of spirit.

There's a big difference between a selfish style of play that hurts
your team's performance (Kobe), and a player like Kurt who, while
perhaps not making a lot of friends on opposing teams, gets it done
for and with his team, and has their respect both as a player and a
leader.

I think what happened is that Kurt and Jolian split the votes of those
voting for the best player, allowing the spirit nuts to win the day.

And I should know, having never played college ulti, nor seen any of
these players play the game.

joe

unread,
May 18, 2008, 1:59:05 PM5/18/08
to

Whoa...didn't the Lakers have the best record in the western
conference...and they are the only western conference team to win a
game on the road this round. He didn't even take a shot in the 4th
quarter the other night. Don't knock the MVP .
But since Kurt didn't win, who says "suck it"? I mean do we really
want to honor that type of a guy? If he was a truly great player he
would let his game do the talking, he's good enough to do so. But
while he may have the respect of his team, it seems that few others
have respect for him (and those are the ones voting for this award)

Kirby

unread,
May 18, 2008, 2:08:53 PM5/18/08
to

What is TMF?

Jed

unread,
May 18, 2008, 2:38:23 PM5/18/08
to

I was referring to Kobe's old ways - and why he wasn't considered the
MVP before. He's turned it around now, and become much more valuable
to his team.

As for honoring Kurt - I can't comment on his character; never met
him, or played with or against him. (I'll admit that sequence doesn't
sound good though). Seems like he's been the clear standout, on both
sides of the disc, on the most dominant college team in the nation so
far this year. Yes, I believe that deserves some recognition.

clar...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 2:52:19 PM5/18/08
to

Just a Clarification on what the Callahan Award is

Stolen from the Callahan site:
The Callahan Award has been established to recognize the most valuable
players in college ultimate. Each year the Callahan trophy is
presented to the man and woman who combine superior athleticism with
outstanding sportsmanship, leadership and dedication to the sport of
ultimate.
In the eyes of his or her peers, the Callahan winner is the
personification of the ideal ultimate player.

So whatever your take on it is it sounds to me like sportsmanship and
leadership are a factor
Also the award is voted on by peers... so yes it is a popularity
contest- but thats kinda the point isn't it

Glenn (Grinnell #16)

Jed

unread,
May 18, 2008, 2:54:20 PM5/18/08
to

I would also like to add, congrats to Joe Kershner. It sounds like
he's a great athlete, competitor, leader, and person, and it's not my
intent to take away from his honor.

My intent was to distinguish between a player who, while individually
greatly talented and skilled can hurt his team with a selfish attitude
and style of play (old Kobe); and a player who may rub opponents the
wrong way, but nonetheless is a leader and a valuable competitor in
the game (Isaiah Thomas & Larry Bird come to mind; but even Jordan was
known to talk a lot of trash).

An MVP should be judged on results, not popularity. Maybe that means
the Callahan isn't a true MVP award.

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 6:18:55 PM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 12:59 pm, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> On May 18, 11:54 am, mbwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think another interesting case is travel calls.  If a team calls 8
> > travel calls in a half and 4 are upheld and 4 are overturned, should
> > that be a TMF because it indicates a team is "guessing" on travel
> > calls to stop play or is being right 50% of the time enough.
>
> how about just makin it a turn over whenever its upheld

and how would that prevent bad travel calls?

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 6:21:18 PM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 11:54 am, mbwhi...@gmail.com wrote:

> I think another interesting case is travel calls.  If a team calls 8
> travel calls in a half and 4 are upheld and 4 are overturned, should
> that be a TMF because it indicates a team is "guessing" on travel
> calls to stop play or is being right 50% of the time enough.

I think if they call 6 and 4 are upheld and 2 are overturned, the 2nd
should warrant a TMF. Sounds like a pattern to me. The other 4
aren't terribly relevant, in my mind. Either get it right or don't
call it. If you want to walk the line, then face the consequences.
No overturned travel calls in the games I observed, that I can recall.

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 6:36:48 PM5/18/08
to
On May 17, 10:42 pm, hapyschizo <hapysch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just want someone at nationals to post the winner as soon as it
> announced.
> Hoping it is Stephen Presley, as i believe he deserves it the most for
> not only being the most all around and underrated player in ultimate.
> And  being the primary reason Texas did as well as they did (up to
> nationals, though they lost their three placement games, all by no
> more than 3 points).
> Note: Gibson is pretty fucking dominant though, and he is also on the
> best team in the country
> Which leads to another topic: should the success of a team as a whole
> be a factor in winning the Callahan? If one player is truly one of, if
> not the, most spectacular in the game, but the team is unable to
> advance, should that negate the chances of that player to win the
> Callahan?

Wisconsin is the best team in the country. It's a shame that Reb and
Muffin split votes, as I think either could have been in the running
and both were deserving candidates. However, it's no shame at all
that Kershner won. As I see it, there were a handful of deserving
candidates and the players chose the one that they most wanted to
honor with the award.

Any word on how many TMFs Arizona got this weekend? Or whether they
played fair? To not only personally exhibit outstanding
sportsmanship, but also to lead in a way that promotes it throughout
your team is certainly worth recognition. My impression is that this
is what Kershner has done, on top of having excellent skills,
athleticism and a cinderalla story.

To say that Kershner isn't deserving is absurd. He ranks highly in
every criteria for the award. Simply calling the Callahan Award the
"Most Talented Player Award" doesn't make it so. Saying you want the
latter award to exist is one thing, but you shouldn't conceal that
statement in some unjustified knock at Kershner's achievement.

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 8:01:35 PM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 6:18 pm, "colinmcint...@gmail.com"
<colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 12:59 pm, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote.:

yor right it wouldnt. Nothing does. Other than handing that call
over to the officials. Not that there still wouldnt be bad
calls.......just that they wouldnt be tit for tat or partially
motivated.

Bob Koca

unread,
May 18, 2008, 8:08:03 PM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 6:21 pm, "colinmcint...@gmail.com"


Four is twice as much as two so why not also penalize the team
that keeps traveling? That also shows a pattern of rules breaking.

Bob Koca

colinm...@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 8:43:57 PM5/18/08
to

Do you really want an answer to that?

rob.c....@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 9:10:04 PM5/18/08
to

>
> My intent was to distinguish between a player who, while individually
> greatly talented and skilled can hurt his team with a selfish attitude
> and style of play (old Kobe); and a player who may rub opponents the
> wrong way, but nonetheless is a leader and a valuable competitor in
> the game (Isaiah Thomas & Larry Bird come to mind; but even Jordan was
> known to talk a lot of trash).
>

Isaiah, Bird and Jordan never played a game with self officiation.
Talking "a lot of trash" is a lot different when the person talking is
making bad calls.

> An MVP should be judged on results, not popularity. Maybe that means
> the Callahan isn't a true MVP award.

What MVP isn't dependent on popularity? NBA? NFL? MLB? Coaches and
sports-writers (and in some cases the fans) are the voters for other
leagues. They are a group of people who get together and vote, as a
population. There is no unbiased all-knowing ultimate entity who can
bestow the most deserving player with the award. Does that make it not
a TRUE MVP award? You say it's about results, right? So now do we have
to give it to the best player on the winning team in the finals? Or
how about the one with the best stat-sheet? Better yet, just make it
the one with the most goals. Results, right?

But I think this argument for Gibson isn't an argument about merits or
results, it's about a guy you like not getting the award. And thats
why more than just one person votes, enough to make the winner
represent the entire population of votes - a player of popular
support, if you will. You might even call it a contest of mutual
popularity. But it's still those people's assessment of the Most
Valuable Player.

Jed

unread,
May 18, 2008, 9:33:10 PM5/18/08
to
On May 18, 9:10 pm, rob.c.hil...@gmail.com wrote:
> > My intent was to distinguish between a player who, while individually
> > greatly talented and skilled can hurt his team with a selfish attitude
> > and style of play (old Kobe); and a player who may rub opponents the
> > wrong way, but nonetheless is a leader and a valuable competitor in
> > the game (Isaiah Thomas & Larry Bird come to mind; but even Jordan was
> > known to talk a lot of trash).
>
> Isaiah, Bird and Jordan never played a game with self officiation.
> Talking "a lot of trash" is a lot different when the person talking is
> making bad calls.
>
> > An MVP should be judged on results, not popularity. Maybe that means
> > the Callahan isn't a true MVP award.
>
> What MVP isn't dependent on popularity?

None of them.

>NBA? NFL? MLB? Coaches and
> sports-writers (and in some cases the fans) are the voters for other
> leagues. They are a group of people who get together and vote, as a
> population.

But they vote based on who they thought was the most valuable player;
had the biggest impact on their team's results; NOT on some
combination of that, and how nice a guy/girl they were. See the
difference?

>There is no unbiased all-knowing ultimate entity who can
> bestow the most deserving player with the award. Does that make it not
> a TRUE MVP award?

No, the fact that it's partially based on factors other than
performance and results make it not a true MVP award.

>You say it's about results, right? So now do we have
> to give it to the best player on the winning team in the finals? Or
> how about the one with the best stat-sheet? Better yet, just make it
> the one with the most goals. Results, right?

All of of those things should be criteria to consider, along with many
others. There's no perfect algorithm to spit out the answer.

>
> But I think this argument for Gibson isn't an argument about merits or
> results, it's about a guy you like not getting the award. And thats
> why more than just one person votes, enough to make the winner
> represent the entire population of votes - a player of popular
> support, if you will. You might even call it a contest of mutual
> popularity. But it's still those people's assessment of the Most
> Valuable Player.

Let me reiterate - I've never met Kurt, nor seen him play. I wouldn't
have voted for him, or anyone else, because I personally don't have
enough info.

My impression, based on all I've read, is that he's was the undisputed
leader and best player on the 2nd best team in the country, playing
the vast majority of points, getting a huge number of touches on O and
playing a pivotal role on D. I take from this that he's got a pretty
strong case for MVP. Jolian's got a good case too, based on somewhat
similar logic. The hodags don't have a similar standout (just a TON of
depth), but if they did, he'd likely be a contender.

rob.c....@gmail.com

unread,
May 18, 2008, 10:17:37 PM5/18/08
to
So the winner of the Callahan has to make it to the finals? Semis?
Gee, what is the cut off? I mean, silly not to have a cut off, right?
I say semis. We pick one guy from each team in the semis, put it in a
hat, and find the lucky winner.

Better yet, I say we make an algorithm. It would be a much better way
of ensuring that the "right" guy gets picked, because we don't want
human judgment to interfere. The BCS has an algorithm, and that never
fails to select a disputed "best in the nation," right?

If you want a most talented player in College Ultimate Award, just
measure the nominees 40 times, their verticals, and their throwing
accuracy, then figure out the winner.

If you want a "Best Player on the Best Team" award, you should get the
stat sheet from the finals.

If you want an "undisputed leader and best player on the 2nd best team


in the country, playing the vast majority of points, getting a huge

number of touches on O and playing a pivotal role on D" award, then it
sounds like Kurt Gibson is your guy.

The Callahan award is intended to select the player with "superior
athleticism, outstanding sportsmanship, leadership and dedication to
the sport of ultimate." Looks like in some people's eyes, Kurt fell
short on some of this.

And on a personal note, I have played against Kurt. Surprise, very
solid talent, not very good spirit. He had a drop in the middle of a
zone-O point, and called a foul with no player around him. After half
a minute of bad arguing, his team shamed him into conceding the drop.
Stories like this are common. I'd be willing to guess he's a decent
guy, but the "win at all costs" playing/calling style is what cost him
the award. In a sport where players (as in the third part of MVP) are
responsible for making calls, there is a lot on the shoulders of the
players to hold up the integrity of the game. These things make a
player valuable, not only to their teams but to the sport. Nothing
wrong with being committed to winning, but it turns out there is more
to winning the Callahan.

PS. If you haven't seen him play, ever, why do you care so much? and
how do you know he got a huge number of touches and played a pivotal
role on O or D? I'm sure he did, but it seems like a curious position
for you to be making this argument.

schmidtacular

unread,
May 19, 2008, 12:47:22 AM5/19/08
to
To be honest with you, I think you can make the argument that Joe is
the best player in college ultimate. He may not have the supporting
cast that Jolian and Gibson had, but you can't label them better just
because they are on better teams. I did not see him play at nationals,
but I did at Vegas. He made some very sick plays and one notably to
win the game in a one-on-one situation against Gibson. I would say
that day he was better than Gibson. So how can you honestly say he
isn't?

jacob...@gmail.com

unread,
May 19, 2008, 12:53:58 AM5/19/08
to
"I would say that day he was better than Gibson. So how can you
honestly say he isn't?"

A lot of people who dislike Gibson but like Joe state that Gibson is a
better player. I'd say that is pretty compelling evidence that Gibson
is a better player. Not that I'm weighing in on who should have won
the Callahan.

Derferman

unread,
May 19, 2008, 3:28:01 AM5/19/08
to
I first saw Kershner at Vegas, and was blown away by not only his
skill but his great attitude. Also, his awesome layout on DGP against
Florida was awesome. As a rookie Ultimate player, Kershner is a role-
model for me and all the others new to the sport. He completely
deserves this award.

Conroy (Thugmo #47)

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 19, 2008, 8:29:35 AM5/19/08
to
On May 18, 8:08 pm, Bob Koca <bob_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Four is twice as much as two so why not also penalize the team
> that keeps traveling?

exactly.....make it a turn.

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 19, 2008, 8:36:24 AM5/19/08
to
On May 18, 9:10 pm, rob.c.hil...@gmail.com wrote:
> . But it's still those people's assessment of the Most
> Valuable Player.


no its not.......its an assessment of the most valuable "spirited"
player. Is there anyone that would deny that if kurt had a more
spirited attitude that he wouldnt have won the award hands down.

face it, "those people" that voted are somewhat handcuffed by the
criteria to place a lot of emphisis on spirit when placing those
votes.

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 19, 2008, 8:47:12 AM5/19/08
to
On May 18, 10:17 pm, rob.c.hil...@gmail.com wrote:

> players to hold up the integrity of the game. These things make a
> player valuable, not only to their teams but to the sport.

i say its detramental to both their team and the sport. Back in the
day when NY used to spank boston on a regular basis it might have been
partially due to the fact that boston was too spirited. As for the
sport, all this spirit crap is holding the sport back. So to me there
is no value to "these things". The real value lies in impartial
arbitrators enforcing sportsmanship thus allowing the players to focus
on playing. All the spirit shit will sort itself out.


Nothing
> wrong with being committed to winning, but it turns out there is more
> to winning the Callahan.


exactly.......thats why we are poo pooing it. Or poo pooing the fact
that there isnt a dual award that is void of any spirit bs.

Adam Tarr

unread,
May 19, 2008, 9:59:51 AM5/19/08
to
On May 18, 6:08 pm, Bob Koca <bob_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>     Four is twice as much as two so why not also penalize the team
> that keeps traveling?  That also shows a pattern of rules breaking.

Travelling, like throwing a turnover, is not against the rules.

Rich Johnston

unread,
May 19, 2008, 10:12:25 AM5/19/08
to

Traveling is listed as a violation (XVI.J). How does that make it not
against the rules?

Adam Tarr

unread,
May 19, 2008, 11:28:59 AM5/19/08
to

Fair enough, you're right. My kneejerk reaction was to go back to
earlier discussions about whether a stall is a violation (which it is
not).

The more accurate response is that the penalty for traveling is
already sufficient. No team decides to travel as a strategy because
the PENALTY is too small. Some players do travel habitually, but this
is because they are not consistently called for traveling, not because
the penalty is too small.

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 19, 2008, 11:52:43 AM5/19/08
to
On May 19, 11:28 am, Adam Tarr

>
> The more accurate response is that the penalty for traveling is
> already sufficient.

a do-over is a sufficient penalty????
--------------------------------------

 No team decides to travel as a strategy because
> the PENALTY is too small.

exactly......so what they end up doing is deciding not to put all that
much effort into not traveling.
---------------------------------------------

 Some players do travel habitually, but this
> is because they are not consistently called for traveling, not because
> the penalty is too small.


so maybe inconsistant travel calls are because of there being no real
deterant.......or is it the other way around. There might be a little
"chicken and the egg" thing going on there. Either way, its all due
to the fucked up rule enforcement process.

Why not just simplify it by giving the call to the observers, thus
lending it to more consistancy.......and create a sufficient deterant,
thus motivating your habitual travelers (not to travel)

rufio

unread,
May 19, 2008, 12:15:09 PM5/19/08
to

> Gibson or Jolian should've won this.


Obviously, most people who have votes don't agree with you.

Jed

unread,
May 19, 2008, 4:30:21 PM5/19/08
to

No doubt he's great. Maybe the best. What makes me doubt this fact is
that, even his biggest supporters weren't touting him as the best
player, placing more emphasis on his spirit and leadership.
Conversely, even those slamming Kurt acknowledged that he was, if not
the best, within the top 2-3 players putting spirit aside.

Jed

unread,
May 19, 2008, 4:52:58 PM5/19/08
to
On May 18, 10:17 pm, rob.c.hil...@gmail.com wrote:
> So the winner of the Callahan has to make it to the finals? Semis?
> Gee, what is the cut off? I mean, silly not to have a cut off, right?
> I say semis. We pick one guy from each team in the semis, put it in a
> hat, and find the lucky winner.
>
Nice straw man. Putting aside the fact that voting has to happen
before any of this is known....

No, a team's performance is not an absolutely all-emcompasing factor,
but it's not irrelevant either, which you seem to be implying.

> Better yet, I say we make an algorithm. It would be a much better way
> of ensuring that the "right" guy gets picked, because we don't want
> human judgment to interfere. The BCS has an algorithm, and that never
> fails to select a disputed "best in the nation," right?
>

Fallible human judgement will always be involved in deciding which
player was the most valuable. Different people will put more emphasis
on various factors, and there's no way to completely eliminate biases;
but at least the goal for a true MVP award should ultimately be to
select the player that the voter feels made the most valuable
contribution to his team's on field performance.

That's quite a bit different than having people judge this, but then
skew their decision as much as they see fit based on how spirited
(i.e. likeable) a player is. Having people take spirit into account is
akin to saying " Figure out who the best of the best is, but if it
turns out you don't like that guy, pick someone else" or "...if theres
someone not quite as good, but he's a really good guy, feel free to
vote for him."

Any hockey fans out there? The Callahan, as it exists today, is akin
to the Lady Byng Trophy, for "Most Gentlemanly Player", or something
along those lines. This always goes to an excellent, classy player,
who displays great sportsmanship, etc.

Then there's the Hart trophy, for the MVP. Never the same guy, as far
as I know.

> ...


>
> PS. If you haven't seen him play, ever, why do you care so much? and
> how do you know he got a huge number of touches and played a pivotal
> role on O or D? I'm sure he did, but it seems like a curious position
> for you to be making this argument.

I don't understand what your asking here. Are you having trouble
grasping the principle of honoring the best? I'm a fan. I follow the
series. I spend too much time on RSD, Ultivillage, etc.

lucill...@gmail.com

unread,
May 19, 2008, 4:57:08 PM5/19/08
to

> Same on the womens side. Kira was robbed. period. no question. I'm
> sure there were other candidates with impressive credentials but no
> one dominates the womens game like kira does.

There was no robbery. Kira's outstanding ability as a player and a
leader are undeniable. But the fact that she is an amazing player does
not cancel out the talent, leadership, and determination of other
players. I have had the pleasure to play aside Courtney Kiesow for the
past 4 years. She is a selfless leader and outstanding player. Her
dedication to her team and the sport of ultimate are the key factors
that have allowed the Wisconsin women's team to not only attend but
truly compete in the past three national competitions. She has earned
fellow-frisbee players' respect by constantly giving 100% while
playing with incredible composure. The consensus was that with the
loss of Holly Greunke, Anna Schott, and Claire Mowbray, Wisconsin
would crumble apart. Courtney's leadership has held this team
together. She truly embodies what the Callahan stands for. The fact
that Kira also deserved it does not take away the fact that Courtney
earned this award.

Lucille #42, Wisconsin

Ryan Kelly

unread,
May 19, 2008, 5:57:07 PM5/19/08
to
On May 18, 9:49 am, Theodore Hex <calmerthanyou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 9:55 pm, hapyschizo <hapysch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Yes, many of us thought Jolian should win. But at least it didn't go
> > > to some dick who got aTMFin his first game at Nationals. Instead it
> > > went to the dude who threw a 40-yard hammer on dgp in pre-quarters.
>
> > Who got theTMFand why
> > (clarify for those who did not get to go)
>
> Gibson. Warned after accompanying a spike with saying "Suck it, 17,"
> did something similar the next point, boom, TMF.

What does "TMF" stand for?

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 19, 2008, 6:11:22 PM5/19/08
to

team misconduct foul

Josh Drury

unread,
May 19, 2008, 6:30:38 PM5/19/08
to
> Any hockey fans out there? The Callahan, as it exists today, is akin
> to the Lady Byng Trophy, for "Most Gentlemanly Player", or something
> along those lines. This always goes to an excellent, classy player,
> who displays great sportsmanship, etc.
>
> Then there's the Hart trophy, for the MVP. Never the same guy, as far
> as I know.

There have been a few players who have won the Lady Byng and Hart in
the same season:
Bobby Hull, 1964-65
Stan Mikita, 1966-67 and 67-68
Wayne Gretzky, 1979-80
Joe Sakic, 2000-01

Adam

unread,
May 19, 2008, 7:10:54 PM5/19/08
to
If you were to call the Callahan the MVP (as in Most Valuable Player)
award as some have called for it to be, then Kurt and Jolian probably
wouldn't win either (nor would Kershner for that matter). Without
those three, Florida, Colorado and Arizona still likely make nationals
because of the significant supporting casts (Arizona is a stretch
though). However, without Sherwood, Stanford making top five in the
NW would have been a stretch.

Also, Conroy - good choice of role model. Now you can start by
carrying a chest of booty with you to tournaments...

Adam.Cre...@gmail.com

unread,
May 19, 2008, 10:41:02 PM5/19/08
to
I'll chime in.

To start: nothing personal to Joe or Courtney. I think both of you are
great Callahan winners, and I would relish the opportunity to be
teammates with either of you (in Courtney's case, to be teammates
again). But I can make a pretty strong case for Jolian and Kira being
robbed.

Let's say that my life hangs in the balance on a game of ultimate. A
firing squad is stationed on the sideline with orders to execute me
upon losing and spare me upon winning. They may use their discretion
to execute me despite winning if I do so by cheating. I am given the
list of every callahan nominee and I get the first pick. Who do I
take? Seems like a dumbing down of the criteria for the award, but I
assure you it's not. I would want a strong leader--someone around whom
my team could rally. I would want someone with good sportsmanship and
grace--a pick of which you can proud at all times in all games, so
that when I win, the squad has no case for my termination. And
obviously, I would want the best player--the best skill set in the
areas of the game relevant to winning.

I have played against Kurt. Many times. I like him just fine. However,
I don't think he and his Florida teammates are all that great at
playing hard, shutting up, and following the rules. I think they make
a lot of shitty calls. I think they whine harder than they play, and I
think I'm not alone here (anyone else hear the "nobody likes you"
chant from the South endzone?).

That said, I can't cover that guy. Not many can. Props to Shane for
the D he got in the air on him. Take Kurt's throwing skill away, and
he's still scary. Add his throws, and we really may be witnessing the
most complete player in the game today. Can you think of anyone else
that is as good at throwing and receiving as Kurt? I can come up with
a fairly long list of better decision makers, but not really anyone
that has more raw skill. Jolian and Dylan are close, but I don't think
they are quite as good as Kurt. Chase's throws aren't quite as
reliable at full field distance. Seth Wiggins would be on my short
list, and AJ from Chain. MG previously, but I haven't seen a non-gimpy
version of him in a while. Maybe Hassell from Goat, though he concedes
way too much in speed. But really, I think Kurt is equal or superior
in all areas of the game to all of these guys.

Ok, so I still don't take him as my first pick in lieu of his
sportsmanship or lack thereof. I didn't hear the suck it exchange, but
I believe it because Whit isn't capable of lying, and it seems
perfectly plausible. I don't want the firing squad considering an
executive decision.

My first pick is Jolian. Kershner does not even enter my thinking.
Props to him for taking Arizona from a low regional finish to the top
8. Not easy to do. But I don't even consider him. I agree with the
gentleman that said the people voting for the best player split votes
to Kurt and Jolian and the spirit heads won the day. If the marquee
match-up of the game for my life is Kershner on Jolian, with all other
matchups being somewhat even, I'm spared. And I'm chuckling all the
way to my powerpoint survival.

Same for the women. I know Courtney personally, I have only met Kira
once or twice. But Courtney cannot take over a game like Kira did in
the final. Put me in a life threatening women's game with the first
pick, I take Kira and with Courtney as her matchup, I again powerpoint
my way to survival.

my $.02
-Adam

rufio

unread,
May 19, 2008, 11:50:38 PM5/19/08
to
Jed-

I think popularity has something to do with MVP awards, and not all of
these "results" as you claim. The Heisman isn't always given to the
best player on the best team in the nation. It isn't always given to
the guy with the best stats (22 QBs had more passing yds than Tebow
last year, Sam Bradford had a better passer rating, 7 guys threw more
TDs) and all of the guys hyped for it don't even have the best stats.
McFadden had over 700yds less rushing (with a lower YPC, even!) AND 13
TDs less than Kevin Smith. Sure, Florida and Arkansas were good, but
they weren't the best in the country, and nobody thought they were.

Kobe wasn't the best player in the NBA stat-wise this year, he wasn't
on the best team, and he didn't do more with less than some of the
other contenders for the MVP (LeBron, Chris Paul).

Kobe and Tebow were percieved to be the best (or most valuable,
whichever criteria you use) but their awards weren't based on
results. What are your criteria? Wins? Colt Brennan, KG, Glenn
Dorsey. Stats? Kevin Smith, Bradford, Harrell, LeBron, Paul. Results
do not directly equal awards, and popularity (or at least perceptions,
but still not "results") sometimes is a factor. Simply saying "you're
wrong, no awards involve popularity" is a crappy argument.

Also, think about who is voting on this award. If Kobe was a complete
dick to everyone in the media who was voting, would he still have
won? No way. He would've had to be superlatively better than
everyone else, and it would have been to easy to just vote for the guy
who wasn't a cock to you. If Kobe is a dick to Chris Duhon, nobody
gives a shit because Duhon doesn't have a vote. I'm not saying Jolian
or Kurt were or were not dicks (I have played them both once, and they
weren't nice, but they didn't punch anyone on my team in the face) but
it seems like they were mean to some people who were voters (and just
so happened to be opponents), and that just isn't going to win voters
over I don't care what level or sport it is. I am not sure either
Kurt or Jolian care though, they know they are great players who play
for great teams.

Furthermore, if you have never played against these players, or even
seen them, how can you be SO sure they are the best? Just because
somebody said so (even though they like Kershner more)? That's still
a PERCEPTION and not a result (results being, what you argued earlier
should determine the winner).

Lastly, you have recently changed your position to one where whatever
award we have in place should honor the most VALUABLE player. This is
not some hippie-shit concept unique to ultimate, as "MVP" is a popular
chant while Kobe, LeBron, KG, Gilbert Arenas, and others appear at the
free throw line. Now, (and I am sure this argument has already been
made) why does the MVP have to play for one of the 3 best teams in the
college game? No one seems to be arguing for any of the Wisconsin
players, (the consensus best team in the nation) and both of their
nominees are great players as well. Its not about talent, or results,
its about VALUE. Its pretty clear from watching 'Zona, and hearing
the confessions of their players that Joe meant everything to that
team. If you take him off of it, they certainly aren't one of the top
5 teams in the nation, and I don't know if they even make it to
nationals. Take off one of the Wisco guys and they still might win it
all because they are so deep. You might have an argument for Kurt
because Florida only plays 10 deep, but Colorado just keeps reloading
year after year and it doesn't seem to matter who plays for them, they
always seem to make nationals, and they do well pretty often. Maybe
it wasn't just "spirit BS", maybe people just thought Joe was more
valuable to his team than Kurt. Did anyone who supported Joe say he
was LESS VALUABLE when they said he was not the better player? I
doubt they would.

Douglas T Lilley

unread,
May 20, 2008, 12:02:33 AM5/20/08
to
>
> > What does "TMF" stand for?
>
> team misconduct foul


Take that MotherFucker (depending on who's getting it)...

James

unread,
May 20, 2008, 12:52:17 AM5/20/08
to
Message has been deleted

mtwi...@gmail.com

unread,
May 20, 2008, 2:39:15 AM5/20/08
to

I completely disagree with a travel being a turnover. One of the great
holding pieces of self-officiating is that there are low penalties for
violation of the rule. If you think about it, the penalty for nearly
everything in the game is a do-over. This is on purpose. It's why the
game has lasted as long as it has without officials.

Travels are almost never a conscious decision by the thrower. Think of
all the times you've been called for it. Were you actually thinking
about it when you took an extra step to make a throw, or didn't slow
down fast enough? No, you weren't. Travels are an unfair advantage,
but no one really intends to, and people really aren't thinking about
it when they do it.

If It were made a turnover:

1. It would be the automatically become the stiffest penalty one could
receive in a game.

2. In games without observers, (because you can't just change a basic
rule depending on the presence of observers, you have to have
consistency there), travel calls would increase immensely, which would
theoretically leave one more thing that a defender is thinking about,
(probably leading to poorer marking, because marking is based on
looking at hands and eyes, not feet), and the fact that the thrower
doesn't really pay attention to his feet usually leaves him clueless
on whether or not he traveled, meaning that the proper spirit call is
no contest. Yes this would work with observers, but without them, the
nature of the call defeats the new-intended purpose.

Your argument here will be that no one in basketball means to travel
either, but in that sport they have referees to decide the call. In
98% of Ultimate games, there is no form of outside officiating.

3. Who's to say how long a person gets to stop after running down a
catch? Right now, if one were to feel that a travel was in order, it
just says that they need to go back a few steps. No big deal. If that
travel was a turnover, can you imagine the stupid arguments that would
result from this already very subjective call? It's too stiff of a
penalty.

4. Changing the travel call to a turnover would change the rules in a
variety of ways. It would bring in a strong strong need for officials
(right now the need is honestly quite minimal, people pretty much as a
whole understand the spirit thing, and the stakes aren't high enough
that any sort of majority cheats on purpose), and it would lead to
more calls being turnovers, like Picks and offensive fouls. Right now,
the state of ultimate rules needs low penalties, to keep self-
officiating plausible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides all of that, the more I hear about the stated goals of the
Callahan award, and the more I hear about how Kershner is an MVP of
his team in every sense of the word, I'm starting to agree with the
pick. I would also like to announce that I am in favor of keeping the
Callahan award as it is. Taking the spirit aspect of an MVP award
subsequently gives the right to and invites every ultimate player to
give their praises up to players that regularly exhibit poor
sportsmanship, changing the role models of the game. I think for a
player like Kershner, a player that no one seems to be able to say
anything bad about, winning the award is a good sign of our grasp on
the pinnacle goals of the sport.

That being said, I don't understand the reasons why Jolian wouldn't
have been a better choice here. There's not really much bad to say
about his spirit, and he is definitely the glue guy on his team as
well as a (subjectively, but most agree here) more skilled and more
athletic player on a better team. I'm inclined to believe in that
theory that Gibson/Dahl split votes, and Kershner won on spirit.

James

unread,
May 20, 2008, 3:50:57 AM5/20/08
to

> Any hockey fans out there? The Callahan, as it exists today, is akin
> to the Lady Byng Trophy, for "Most Gentlemanly Player", or something
> along those lines. This always goes to an excellent, classy player,
> who displays great sportsmanship, etc.

If the Lady Bing Trophy were like the Callahan then a typical year's
winner would be a captain who also held the title of coach and GM. If
the player hadn't started or resurrected the franchise, he at least
would have recruited and taught the game to most of the team. Also,
since in this alternate reality, hockey has no refs, the winner would
have successfully taught many of his teammates about self-officiating,
and how to resolve conflicts on the field. In addition to all of
this, the Lady Bing Trophy Recipient would have somehow earned the
most votes for the award, despite having achieved much success at the
expense of many of the voters (who would be hockey players instead of
hockey writers). Finally, the winner would be an exceptional player
and a fierce competitor, capable of outstanding play in any hockey
contest.

So other than these minor differences, I think we can say that the
Lady Bing trophy and Callahan Award are analogous.

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 20, 2008, 8:18:11 AM5/20/08
to
On May 20, 12:52 am, James <jlev...@gmail.com> wrote:.
> > enforcing sportsmanship
>
> http://austinspad.net/downloads/sounds/ap1/getit.wav

ultimate is the only sport in the world without refs.......and i'm the
one that dosent get it?

joad...@ec.rr.com

unread,
May 20, 2008, 8:47:34 AM5/20/08
to
On May 20, 2:39 am, mtwil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I completely disagree with a travel being a turnover. One of the great
> holding pieces of self-officiating is that there are low penalties for
> violation of the rule.

which means there are weak deterants......which begets people not
trying as hard to follow the rules
-------------------------------------

If you think about it, the penalty for nearly
> everything in the game is a do-over.

which is stupid
------------------------------------


This is on purpose. It's why the
> game has lasted as long as it has without officials.


exactly......which is a bad thing to some of us. How or why you would
tout this as a good thing is CRAZY!
---------------------------------------------------


>
> Travels are almost never a conscious decision by the thrower. Think of
> all the times you've been called for it. Were you actually thinking
> about it when you took an extra step to make a throw, or didn't slow
> down fast enough? No, you weren't. Travels are an unfair advantage,
> but no one really intends to, and people really aren't thinking about
> it when they do it.

yea, and lebron didnt intend to take 4 steps on a travel that he
miracalously got away with last weekend. It dosent mean he still
didnt travel and shouldnt be penalized for it. The point is that he
didnt try hard enouph NOT to travel.

And when i got called for traveling in the past many times it was a
bailout call on the part of my defender being beat. So whats the
"intent" there?
----------------------------------------------


>
> If It were made a turnover:
>
> 1. It would be the automatically become the stiffest penalty one could
> receive in a game.

well you got to start somewhere with getting some teeth in the rule
set.
-----------------------------------------------


>
> 2. In games without observers, (because you can't just change a basic
> rule depending on the presence of observers, you have to have
> consistency there), travel calls would increase immensely, which would
> theoretically leave one more thing that a defender is thinking about,
> (probably leading to poorer marking, because marking is based on
> looking at hands and eyes, not feet), and the fact that the thrower
> doesn't really pay attention to his feet usually leaves him clueless
> on whether or not he traveled, meaning that the proper spirit call is
> no contest. Yes this would work with observers, but without them, the
> nature of the call defeats the new-intended purpose.

well obviously you couldnt make it a turn in the self officiated
version. All pick up sports use "the do-over" as the blanket rule.
Dont think its exclusive to ultimate. The only thing exclusive to
ultimate is taking this "pick up" rule enforcement process into
official comp.
-------------------------------------------------


>
> Your argument here will be that no one in basketball means to travel
> either, but in that sport they have referees to decide the call. In
> 98% of Ultimate games, there is no form of outside officiating.

More like 99.9%........which is the major malfunction with the sport
------------------------------------------------


>
> 3. Who's to say how long a person gets to stop after running down a
> catch?

thats easy.....the ref. These are whats known in the sports world as
"judgement calls".
-----------------------------------------------


Right now, if one were to feel that a travel was in order, it
> just says that they need to go back a few steps. No big deal. If that
> travel was a turnover, can you imagine the stupid arguments that would
> result from this already very subjective call?


i dont have to imagine, i've seen said "stupid arguments" hundereds of
times in the sport of ultimate.
------------------------------------------------

It's too stiff of a
> penalty.

not for basketball it isnt? I think its just a matter of ultimates
informality that has turned you, and those that agree with you, soft.
---------------------------------------------------


>
> 4. Changing the travel call to a turnover would change the rules in a
> variety of ways. It would bring in a strong strong need for officials


EXACTAMUNDO
-------------------------------------------


> (right now the need is honestly quite minimal, people pretty much as a
> whole understand the spirit thing, and the stakes aren't high enough
> that any sort of majority cheats on purpose), and it would lead to
> more calls being turnovers, like Picks and offensive fouls. Right now,
> the state of ultimate rules needs low penalties, to keep self-
> officiating plausible.


>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------


>
> Besides all of that, the more I hear about the stated goals of the
> Callahan award, and the more I hear about how Kershner is an MVP of
> his team in every sense of the word, I'm starting to agree with the
> pick.


shocker!
-------------------------------------

I would also like to announce that I am in favor of keeping the
> Callahan award as it is. Taking the spirit aspect of an MVP award
> subsequently gives the right to and invites every ultimate player to
> give their praises up to players that regularly exhibit poor
> sportsmanship, changing the role models of the game. I think for a
> player like Kershner, a player that no one seems to be able to say
> anything bad about, winning the award is a good sign of our grasp on
> the pinnacle goals of the sport.


well while you grasp to this dogmatic ideal your sport is getting
passed up by the likes of womens roller derby.
-------------------------------------------------


>
> That being said, I don't understand the reasons why Jolian wouldn't
> have been a better choice here. There's not really much bad to say
> about his spirit, and he is definitely the glue guy on his team as
> well as a (subjectively, but most agree here) more skilled and more
> athletic player on a better team. I'm inclined to believe in that
> theory that Gibson/Dahl split votes, and Kershner won on spirit.


which is bullshit

James

unread,
May 20, 2008, 9:53:45 AM5/20/08