http://www.the-huddle.org/features/conference-1/a-press-release/
Stay tuned as we will continue to follow this story as it develops.
-- Ben & Andy
The Huddle
http://www.the-huddle.org/
So why is it Andy and Ben that when I proposed in my video interview on your
election cover page a massive overhaul of the collegiate system, you guys
didn't even bother touching it?
And in doing so, are you not part of the same exact problem that frustrated
Skip into going this route in the first place?
My whole platform is based on reform and overhaul.
Vote for Frank
"Bearseth" <andy.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7814683-d0a9-4807...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Bearseth" <andy.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7814683-d0a9-4807...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Do you seriously think that your rambling about ... er, I mean
discussing... overhaul of the college system is anywhere comparable to
someone actually developing and attempting to put one into place?
A platform based on reform and overhaul is nowhere near the same thing
as someone actually setting it up and making a go of it.
Although I think them using the byline, "Play in Conference 1, It's
Fun" would highlight some similarities.
--Do you seriously think that your rambling about ... er, I mean
discussing... overhaul of the college system is anywhere comparable to
someone actually developing and attempting to put one into place?
Wait, 25 teams doesn't count for putting one in place. My proposal was
comprehensive and I put it up for a vote for all the membership to decide,
not a few people in a backroom.
Furthermore, The Huddle didn't even cover it.
--A platform based on reform and overhaul is nowhere near the same thing
as someone actually setting it up and making a go of it.
No, but I'm working within the system. I put it up to you, the UPA
membership to decide.
Skip is right, the game needs a major overhaul and for those who agree with
him, vote for Frank
In the press release, Cultimate seemed to me to make two main
arguments against the current system:
1. The season ends (too early) at sectionals for half the teams.
Furthermore, the difficulty of advancing to regionals varies greatly
from section to section.
2. Sometimes, really good teams don't get to go to nationals because
of the way regional bids fall out.
I think both of these are reasonable arguments for some
reorganization, but I don't see how poaching a group of 25 top teams
away from the college series really helps solve either problem. If
they are problems at all. I don't know, but I imagine for teams that
don't advance at sectionals, the season continues just as before,
going to local tournaments. As to the second point, this comes up
every couple of years. Probably regional strength bids should be
allocated based on the current year's results or there should be a
selection committee. Consistent high-level tournaments forming a
regular-season "series" of sorts would be necessary for either--so it
would seem to me there's plenty of room for Cultimate to run their
tourneys without trying to hijack the entire series, as they are doing
now.
By the way, the reason some people find the current strength bid
system (last year's nationals results) frustrating is because regional
strength -- team strength -- changes so quickly from year to year.
Moving to a preselected 'elite' group would be a step backwards in
this regard.
Although they may not admit it in their press release, Cultimate is
clearly interested in overtaking some/all of UPA authority. Why else
would they have left them in the dark about the announcement of a
competing and exclusive championship event for the best teams that
would basically render useless the UPA's control over the entirety of
college open ultimate? Cultimate is being secretive and slightly
dishonest about their goals. However, they are finally creating an
environment, with referees and highly competitive play, which caters
to the top college players, a development I am very excited about. I
don't think it will succeed this year, mostly because nobody actually
trusts Cyle and the details of their proposal are half-baked. The
proposal needs to focus on the big picture and compromise a little bit
and then it can really become something great,
-Alex Adarichev
Wash U Alum
<a.ada...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeb8b93d-291b-4e96...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The writing is on the wall for an organization like Cultimate. They
had to make a big play before the UPA began to implement their
Division 1 and Division 2. Since they do not have the resources to
make it work they have to charge non-Conference1 members to pay for
the supposedly top 25. I think the most appropriate response is to
develop an in-house tournament staff (or coopt some of the leagues to
do so) that would run pre-series tournaments that would provide a high
level of competition, an opportunity for teams to prove themselves and
a women's side. Have paid regional based staff that would do that on
both the college and club side. If they did that, Cultimate would
have a much lesser role.
There have been a lot of people who have sacraficed a heck of a lot to
get the growth in college Ultimate. People like Kathy Pufahl created
collegiate women's Ultimate through personal perserverance.
Maybe Joe Seidler could provide a link that would help people put
where the sport is in context and understand that there clamoring is
just building on the blood, sweat and tears of a couple thousand
people to get the game to were it is.
On Oct 16, 9:29�pm, "Frankie" <billy_berrou(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> C'mon. �Their biggest motive is money.
>
> <a.adaric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Wash U Alum- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wait so they "released" a press "release" and now they want to make it
unrelease it? And you are allowing this? What reason is there for not
simply publishing the joint statement in addition to the release?
We didn't press the matter. It seemed like a gesture in the spirit of
cooperation with the UPA and their upcoming joint statement.
Fair enough.
True Dog.
If an organization makes a press release, the content should be
applicable before, during, and after a separate statement made by the
organization. Cultimate's request to have their press release
"unpublished" - which shouldn't even be a word because it defies logic
and basic principles of journalism - exhibits the hastiness and
immaturity of Cultimate as an organization.
With all due respect to The Huddle, who generally publish a fantastic
piece of work, this is a joke. Report facts. Stick to your guns. Don't
pander.
I think that if they released it, it is fair game for analysis, even
if they wanted it removed...
You call that journalistic integrity?
"pfkmerl" <pfk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:72630354-b9e0-4447...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Thanks,
Torre
Some of the changes for the top 25 would be good, but I am just having
trouble seeing this go smoothly this year if it happens.
Our goal: To give readers as much credible information as possible. We
hope we have helped limit wild speculation, and we hope we have been
able to put facts and informed opinion into the hands of people that
want them.
(Maybe we were wrong. Maybe we should have left the entire contentious
issue alone. The ramifications for us (being confused with Cultimate,
being accused of being a stooge for Cultimate, being accused of having
no journalistic integrity) may outweigh the benefit of keeping
information circulating. We may have to reconsider our policy that
'more public information is better'. )
After discussing with Cultimate/UPA, we thought that keeping a hastily
written press-release on our site would confuse the issue, and would
lead to less general understanding, not more. We think that, right
now, the focus should be on the joint UPA/Cultimate statement which is
supposedly coming out today.
As long-time Board member Henry Thorne said, the Board can act very
quickly when they need to. We hope to see an informative discussion in
today's UPA statement, or at least an understanding of when such a
discussion might be publicized. We, and you, should wait for that
memo.
Didn't the season just end for those same teams, before it even
started? I mean, if my team couldn't make it out of the section I am
not having high hopes that we will be selected to play another team in
the "play in game" for nationals. Or do you/they consider the "end"
of the season when you stop playing any games at all (not games that
would lead you to a potential championship)? Do things like DIII
nationals not provide a solution to that already?
2. Sometimes, really good teams don't get to go to nationals because
of the way regional bids fall out.
I am sure this has been talked about over and over and over on RSD,
but at what point do you draw the line on "good" teams that make it in
to the final tournament? College Football has 2 teams there, and
there seem to be at least some angry people every year about the
selection process. March Madness has 65, and there seem to be at
least some angry people every year because of the selection process.
At least right now we don't have college football's system and the
field of teams competing for the title seems big enough. Does anyone
actually dispute Wisconsin as national champs last year? 16 is big
enough, bid distribution is another story. C1 still doesn't fix the
problem because bottom teams that were in the chosen 25 will think
they are better than the play-in team and that they should have made
it, teams that lose the play-in will think that they had a harder road
than the "wild cards" from the chosen 25 and that they should have
made it. Change ≠ solution.
The underlying principle is that the organization that claims it will
be hosting Nationals and bringing collegiate ultimate into the
mainstream can't even write a decent press release. I see this as a
major problem. Imagine that the UPA had done the same thing. RSD would
be on fire about it. "I'm sorry... we're not really sure that we meant
that." Are we supposed to believe that these Cultimate/UPA discussions
will end in Kumbaya and hand-holding? No. There will obviously be
compromises made by one or both parties. If Cultimate had a well-
thought out stance on the issues in their press release, they could
have left their press release online, went through discussions, issued
a joint statement and, if necessary, issued another press release
stating that some statements in the initial press release have changed
in accordance to their joint resolution with the UPA. This is
uncomplicated and standard fare. For an entity that wants to bring
ultimate to the mainstream, they should deal with these issues as if
they are interacting with mainstream media outlets.
While The Huddle's de-publication of the press release disappoints me,
the issue reflects more strongly on the inadequacies of Cultimate to
handle this situation.
I fully agree with this, pfkmerl. I would probably be one of these to
point out such a questionable move if it was the UPA, and it would be
hypocritical of me and other critics not to have the same reaction
when Cultimate does it. While I salute their bold thinking and action,
the way this is all going down so far (while we admittedly know very
few actual details) seems very haphazard and unprofessional.
The UPA has been put in an awkward position here, but they are
apparently handling it as well as they can. Meanwhile, Cultimate is
guilty of the same thing that the UPA has been grilled on recently:
poor communication and transparency, and that is why RSD and the blogs
have exploded in such a negative fashion. I don't know any of the guys
in Cultimate, but I do know good business when I see it, and if they
want to be taken seriously as a professional organization, they need
to get their "poop in a group" (as a former boss used to say), and
fast.
I fully support progress, legitimization, referees, and capitalism,
but the more I read and think, the more I think that this will not go
well for Cultimate, and I hope that the UPA does all the right things
in this situation.