Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Cup stacking vs. Ultimate
Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1249] Wed, 01 October 2008 19:01 Go to next message
Head Beagle
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
Ok, this has come up so many times that I just have to say something
about it. Here is the cry:

"Cup stacking is on ESPN!! Why isn't ultimate on ESPN??"

Here is the response:

Cup stacking is on TV because it made its way into schools. Simple as
that. In 2006, 11,000 elementary schools had cup stacking as part of
their physical education curriculum. At $400.00 a pop for a set of 30
speed stacking cups, that is a lot of money to be made.

How did cup stacking get so popular so quickly in schools while
ultimate has not? Well, first look at this:

~~~~~~~~~
Abstract from:

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetai ls/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchV alue_0=EJ733967&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno= EJ733967

Cup stacking has become commonplace in today's physical education
nomenclature. Proponents make claims that cup stacking improves
cognitive, affective, and psychomotor abilities. At physical education
conferences, scores of professional physical educators eagerly watch
cup stacking representatives construct and deconstruct a variety of
pyramids and shapes using those colorful, plastic cups. What has made
cup stacking so popular? Does it actually accomplish what its
proponents claim? What role, if any, does cup stacking have in a
quality physical education curriculum? These are but a few of the
questions the authors explore concerning this unique yet controversial
sport.
~~~~~~~~

Then read this: http://www.usatoday.com/life/2006-06-05-cup-stacking_x.htm

With quotes like:

"It's the perfect elementary activity, because you don't have to be
physically gifted to do it."

"When kids who aren't good at regular sports learn to be good at this,
what happens to them is so much bigger than the actual event itself,"
he says. "It's life-changing."

Now Martini often hauls out the cups when rain keeps kids indoors. It
"keeps kids engaged and active."

~~~~~~~~

Because it is in elementary schools, there is a huge market. Now, back
to the question of "What does cup stacking have that ultimate does
not?"

Competition: For PE teachers, ultimate at an elementary level does not
offer that much over any other outdoor field sport. The goal is to get
kids to run around. You send the kids out with a disc, a basketball, a
football, two hula hoops and some beanbags (jailbreak) or any other
number of items, the kids run around. There are a lot of options that
offer similar physical benefits as ultimate. The options for indoor
physical activities is much more limited.

Participation: Just like all the other ball sports, ultimate does not
do a great job of involving lots of people simultaneously. A few of
the biggest, most athletic kids touch the ball/disc the most, the rest
mostly jog around watching then get bored. Cup stacking involves
everyone. Every kid gets a set of cups and gets to participate.

Specific benefits: The claim is that cup stacking "improves cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor abilities." Teachers love this stuff
(believe me, I know, I am one). Yes, ultimate improves cardiovascular
health, strengthens muscles, and a whole host of other benefits, but
as highlighted in the "Competition" heading, there are a lot of
activities that do similar things so there is no need to devote
resources to ultimate.

Indoor alternative: When it rains, PE teachers need something to do.
You can stack cups in a classroom at desks. Not many other PE
activities can make that claim.


So, in conclusion, the reason cup stacking is on ESPN is because the
manufacturers of stacking cups want PE teachers to see it and they
want kids in schools to think it is cool so that teachers will keep
buying cup stacking sets at $400 a set.

THe WSSA (World Sport Stacking Association) home page is covered in
links to www.speedstacks.com, a division of Play Along Toys, which is
owned by JAKKS Pacific, one of the top 5 toy manufacturers in the US
that does hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business every
year. You can bet that Play Along/JAKKS is paying good money to the
WSSA to remain the "the only cups used in WSSA competition as featured
on ESPN." Discraft does not have the same marketing clout and does not
stand to make nearly as much money selling $20 worth of discs to
schools if ultimate gets big. Also, unlike Speed Stacks, neither
discraft or wham-o has an enforced monopoly on the market. If discraft
sponsors ultimate, there is no reason a PE teacher can't go to the
local store and buy a wham-o disc to teach it. By law, no one else can
copy the Speed Stacking product so they have a corner on the market.

Ok...that is my cup stacking synopsis. Actually an interesting bit of
research.
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1268 is a reply to message #1249] Wed, 01 October 2008 21:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jacob
Messages: 576
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
"Cup stacking is on TV because it made its way into schools. Simple as
that."

Then why aren't all school-related physical activities on TV? Where's
kickball? Where's hockey played on wood floors with a plastic puck?
I'm dating myself here, since I did this stuff in P.E. in the 80s. I
will defer to you, a teacher, as to whether they are current P.E.
activities. However, this is kind of beside the point. There must
currently be some common P.E. activities which do not make it to TV.

You do a great job of explaining why cup stacking has gained ground in
schools, but you don't really nail why it's on TV. ESPN doesn't care
about what is all the rage in P.E. classes, except maybe for a brief
one-time story. Cup stacking is on TV because it is fun to watch.
Those kids look like someone crossed Harry Potter with a ninja with a
street 3-card monty player.

You can also film cup stacking with one camera. In order to film
ultimate properly, you'd need a legit film crew from other field
sports.
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1272 is a reply to message #1268] Wed, 01 October 2008 21:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duchamanos
Messages: 52
Registered: September 2008
Member
Karl Doege is working at this very moment to get scooter soccer on
ESPN2. Although, scooter soccer has been deemed too unsafe for many
PE classes because of the risk of smashed fingers and kick-assedness.
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1274 is a reply to message #1249] Wed, 01 October 2008 22:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manzell
Messages: 145
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 1, 10:01 pm, Head Beagle <we...@jbu.edu> wrote:
> Ok, this has come up so many times that I just have to say something
> about it. Here is the cry:
>
> "Cup stacking is on ESPN!! Why isn't ultimate on ESPN??"
>
> Here is the response:
>
> Cup stacking is on TV because it made its way into schools. Simple as
> that. In 2006, 11,000 elementary schools had cup stacking as part of
> their physical education curriculum. At $400.00 a pop for a set of 30
> speed stacking cups, that is a lot of money to be made.
>
> How did cup stacking get so popular so quickly in schools while
> ultimate has not? Well, first look at this:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
> Abstract from:
>
> http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetai ls/detail...
>
> Cup stacking has become commonplace in today's physical education
> nomenclature. Proponents make claims that cup stacking improves
> cognitive, affective, and psychomotor abilities. At physical education
> conferences, scores of professional physical educators eagerly watch
> cup stacking representatives construct and deconstruct a variety of
> pyramids and shapes using those colorful, plastic cups. What has made
> cup stacking so popular? Does it actually accomplish what its
> proponents claim? What role, if any, does cup stacking have in a
> quality physical education curriculum? These are but a few of the
> questions the authors explore concerning this unique yet controversial
> sport.
> ~~~~~~~~
>
> Then read this:http://www.usatoday.com/life/2006-06-05-cup-stacking_x. htm
>
> With quotes like:
>
> "It's the perfect elementary activity, because you don't have to be
> physically gifted to do it."
>
> "When kids who aren't good at regular sports learn to be good at this,
> what happens to them is so much bigger than the actual event itself,"
> he says. "It's life-changing."
>
> Now Martini often hauls out the cups when rain keeps kids indoors. It
> "keeps kids engaged and active."
>
> ~~~~~~~~
>
> Because it is in elementary schools, there is a huge market. Now, back
> to the question of "What does cup stacking have that ultimate does
> not?"
>
> Competition: For PE teachers, ultimate at an elementary level does not
> offer that much over any other outdoor field sport. The goal is to get
> kids to run around. You send the kids out with a disc, a basketball, a
> football, two hula hoops and some beanbags (jailbreak) or any other
> number of items, the kids run around. There are a lot of options that
> offer similar physical benefits as ultimate. The options for indoor
> physical activities is much more limited.
>
> Participation: Just like all the other ball sports, ultimate does not
> do a great job of involving lots of people simultaneously. A few of
> the biggest, most athletic kids touch the ball/disc the most, the rest
> mostly jog around watching then get bored. Cup stacking involves
> everyone. Every kid gets a set of cups and gets to participate.
>
> Specific benefits: The claim is that cup stacking "improves cognitive,
> affective, and psychomotor abilities." Teachers love this stuff
> (believe me, I know, I am one). Yes, ultimate improves cardiovascular
> health, strengthens muscles, and a whole host of other benefits, but
> as highlighted in the "Competition" heading, there are a lot of
> activities that do similar things so there is no need to devote
> resources to ultimate.
>
> Indoor alternative: When it rains, PE teachers need something to do.
> You can stack cups in a classroom at desks. Not many other PE
> activities can make that claim.
>
> So, in conclusion, the reason cup stacking is on ESPN is because the
> manufacturers of stacking cups want PE teachers to see it and they
> want kids in schools to think it is cool so that teachers will keep
> buying cup stacking sets at $400 a set.
>
> THe WSSA (World Sport Stacking Association) home page is covered in
> links towww.speedstacks.com, a division of Play Along Toys, which is
> owned by JAKKS Pacific, one of the top 5 toy manufacturers in the US
> that does hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business every
> year. You can bet that Play Along/JAKKS is paying good money to the
> WSSA to remain the "the only cups used in WSSA competition as featured
> on ESPN." Discraft does not have the same marketing clout and does not
> stand to make nearly as much money selling $20 worth of discs to
> schools if ultimate gets big. Also, unlike Speed Stacks, neither
> discraft or wham-o has an enforced monopoly on the market. If discraft
> sponsors ultimate, there is no reason a PE teacher can't go to the
> local store and buy a wham-o disc to teach it. By law, no one else can
> copy the Speed Stacking product so they have a corner on the market.
>
> Ok...that is my cup stacking synopsis. Actually an interesting bit of
> research.

No wonder our schools are failing. They'd rather buy a $400 kit rather
than a $6 set of Solo "Keg" cups?
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1283 is a reply to message #1268] Wed, 01 October 2008 23:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 1, 9:22 pm, jacob <jacobsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You do a great job of explaining why cup stacking has gained ground in
> schools, but you don't really nail why it's on TV.

Wasn't the consensus from the last time(s) this was discussed that 1)
they might well be paying ESPN, 2) it's cheap to record, 3) they run
it during "dead" time during mid-day so the time is cheap. There are
other whacky elementary school comps on ESPN though: spelling bees,
scrabble and the like.

Also not on ESPN:
Soccer (most popular sport in the world): ESPN aired 1 of the 4 UEFA
games today, with a second available on the pay-extra ESPN Classic.
Rugby Union (second most popular football sport in the world after
soccer, also popular in the US): ESPN doesn't air any Rugby
whatsoever, whether US leagues or international play (World Cup, Tri-
Nations, 6 Nations, etc)

Also ON ESPN:
That thing where guys blow a whistle so a dog can find something in a
marsh
That thing where guys climb a tree, lop off the top, and then slide
down
Women's billiards, but almost never men's
Bowling (who watches that? WTF?)
That karate competition where there's always the one crazy dude that
puts his finger through a full, unopened coke can

I think the overriding message here is that you want a sport that 1)
you can pre-record cheaply (few cameras, little editing) and 2) has
some sponsorship tie-in. Stihl sponsors the lumberjack stuff for
instance, the pool table guys sponsor the billiards, etc.

Team sports where you have to fly teams around the country, put them
up, pay officials, pay a large camera and editing crew, and where
folks want to see them live or near-live are way more expensive.
Still, ultimate might well be popular enough to support a semi-pro
league now or in the near future. Toad's suggestions notwithstanding,
those things require a bit of seed investment and we haven't seen that
yet.

~p
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1288 is a reply to message #1249] Thu, 02 October 2008 05:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Leonardo
Messages: 101
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
total fad. either the credit crisis, a bad hair day, or a lawsuit from
some parent whose kid used a Speed Stacker cup to down 12 ozs of grain
alcohol and die will kill off this "sport" by 2012.

of course they said the same thing about Ultimate in the 80s
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1315 is a reply to message #1268] Thu, 02 October 2008 08:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alan Hoyle
Messages: 51
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:22:27, jacob wrote:
> "Cup stacking is on TV because it made its way into schools. Simple as
> that."

> Then why aren't all school-related physical activities on TV? Where's
> kickball? Where's hockey played on wood floors with a plastic puck?
> I'm dating myself here, since I did this stuff in P.E. in the 80s. I
> will defer to you, a teacher, as to whether they are current P.E.
> activities. However, this is kind of beside the point. There must
> currently be some common P.E. activities which do not make it to TV.

> You do a great job of explaining why cup stacking has gained ground in
> schools, but you don't really nail why it's on TV. ESPN doesn't care
> about what is all the rage in P.E. classes, except maybe for a brief
> one-time story. Cup stacking is on TV because it is fun to watch.

Cup stacking is on TV for the same reason that paintball, Magic: The
Gathering, Scrabble, and most non-mainstream sports that get on there:

A sponsor buys air time on ESPN to show it.

An hour of ESPN, even in off-peak hours, is many tens, if not hundreds
of thousands of dollars.

We could certainly put Ultimate on ESPN if we wanted to, but I think
that would be a poor allocation of our money.

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - alanh@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1323 is a reply to message #1315] Thu, 02 October 2008 09:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jacob
Messages: 576
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Damn. Wrong again.
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1329 is a reply to message #1323] Thu, 02 October 2008 09:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Fetch
Messages: 28
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
I agree that cup stacking is very bad in the physical education
classroom. Cup stacking in a physical education classroom is grounds
for poor quality physical education and if you see this taking place
in your school please ask the teacher questions and challenge him or
her as to why cup stacking is in the classroom and what benefits cup
stacking has to offer. Ask the teacher how cup stacking meets the
state and national standards, which were created by National
Association for Sport and Physical Education, (NASPE) http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/

A physically educated person:

1. Demonstrates competency in many movement forms and proficiency in a
few movement forms.
2. Applies movement concepts and principles to the learning
development of motor skills
3. Exhibits a physically active lifestyle.
4. Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of physical
fitness.
5. Demonstrates responsible personal and social behavior in physical
activity settings.
6. Demonstrates understanding and respect for the differences among
people in physical activity settings.
7. Understands that physical activity provides opportunities for
enjoyment, challenge, self-expression, and social interaction.

I have asked, “the guy” who owns the patent as to why it’s good and he
says things like, “it is fun,” and, “it gets kids motivated.” He
doesn’t know what standard it fits under but he also doesn’t know the
standards. One might try and argue that it meets standard one,
however a movement since a movement could be defined as moving your
ear. Quality physical education should entail movements which; (4.)
achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of physical fitness.
Well I don’t think I need to site much on how much cup stacking
increases health and fitness and if the movement itself is beneficial.
Quality physical education teaching in any subject has goals and
objectives with curriculum that is well defined and is always building
upon itself. If you want the child to be good at soccer you do not
just go and put your six year old in an 11 vs. 11 game. You first
learn how to keep the ball next to you, then dribble, pass, kick,
shoot, head, and maybe by the 6th grade you are playing 3(or 4) vs.
3(or 4)...maybe...and that is if all teachers (who are not PE teachers
usually) taught correct skills. (Although research shows that children
learn much more (volume of knowledge) and the effectiveness, retention
and application is all much higher when taught by a Physical Education
Specialist as opposed to a “Non-PE specialist.”- Anyways the reason
you do the skills and progressions is that in a child education you
have what is called the “Diamond Curriculum,” and that is where at the
elementary school you are looking massive amounts skills based
knowledge, then at the JR High level you are exposed too lots of games
and activities where you actually put all the skills to use. In high
school you narrow it down to what kind of activities you like and
might start thinking about for life, if your goal of the program is in
fact to create physically active people for life.


Well the point of knowing this is that with cup stacking where does
that fit into a quality program? Where does the progression of a
lifetime physically active person choose to do or need the skill of
cup stacking? The answer is not many, except for special populations
– that is perhaps the only time where I would advocate cup stacking,
(i.e., retardation, some cases of Autism, Angelman Syndrome, and other
physical impairments. But that would certainly on a case-by-case
basis.)

Part of the reason I am running for the UPA BoD is to really have a
foot in both NASPE and other organizations like CASPER (which are
advocates for quality physical education) http://www.csuchico.edu/casper/
and then being able to have strong influence on the curriculum
development committee without having to move to Colorado.

David “Fetch” Janinis
UPA Board of Directors - Candidate at Large


For more on the standards based PE please check it out here:
http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/template.cfm?template=publicati ons-nationalstandards.html
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1340 is a reply to message #1249] Thu, 02 October 2008 10:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
artyw2
Messages: 19
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
On Oct 1, 10:01 pm, Head Beagle <we...@jbu.edu> wrote:
> Ok, this has come up so many times that I just have to say something
> about it. Here is the cry:
>
> "Cup stacking is on ESPN!! Why isn't ultimate on ESPN??"

And I thought "Cup Stacking" was a 4 man cup.....
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1343 is a reply to message #1315] Thu, 02 October 2008 10:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Henry Thorne
Messages: 16
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
On Oct 2, 11:36 am, Alan Hoyle <al...@unc.edu> wrote:
> Cup stacking is on TV for the same reason that paintball, Magic: The
> Gathering, Scrabble, and most non-mainstream sports that get on there:
>
>     A sponsor buys air time on ESPN to show it.  
>
> An hour of ESPN, even in off-peak hours, is many tens, if not hundreds
> of thousands of dollars.
>
> We could certainly put Ultimate on ESPN if we wanted to, but I think
> that would be a poor allocation of our money...
>
>   Alan Hoyle  -  al...@unc.edu  -  http://www.alanhoyle.com/

Exactly.

To do it right cost $40,000 to $100,000 for the "trucks" (those big
rugs you see at sporting events that have all of the equipment and
personnel to capture sports for TV).

Then the air time is anywhere from $10,000/half hour on inexpensive
channels like CSTV to $100,000/hour on ESPN, more for prime time.
(Sandie Hammerly would have more accurate numbers, you can e-mail her,
but these are roughly right)

We did the CSTV coverage for college for around $40,000 and they aired
two one hour shows (women's and open) several times each. We were
able to drum up a few sponsors. I put up $5,000 from my company
(didn't sell any extra robot calibration systems). CSTV paid for a
fair amount of it and you did as members. Different years it's been
differing amounts depending on how much help we got from CSTV and
sponsors.

But we've thought it was pretty damn important to get Ultimate on TV,
I agree with Kevin about that which is why I pushed it both on the
board and with my own dollars. I can see spending up to $40,000 of
your dollars on that depending on what we get for it (# shows, quality
of production), but I can't see spending $200,000 to get a single one
hour show on ESPN. At $40 each that'd be 5,000 of our members entire
dues dollars being spent just on that one one hour show. I don't see
anywhere near enough return in growth or legitimacy to justify that.

It doesn't mean we won't get there. We're on a path to do exactly
that. Once we can deliver a million plus eyeballs to the TV we'll be
able to provide a decent return to a sponsor choosing to associate
with us and we're at 800,000 "frequent" players and snowballing.
We're healthy, young, athletic and have values a lot of brands want to
project: freedom, strength of the individual, and integrity. Apparel
manufacturers are obvious fits but beverage companies wanting to
appear hip shouldn't be too far behind. I think this is probably a
couple years away. The flourishing at the youth level that the JPMA
study revealed will hopefully continue. The UPA's efforts to create
the multiple youth programs over the last few years will help this as
will the kits and continued presence at APHERD conferences as well as
coaching training which has now reached over 1,000 youth coaches. If
we can get more infrastructure built at the college level plus tools
for leagues especially materials to gain credibility to aid field
access, if we can do all that then those youth can keep playing. And
if we do all that, I don't see how we don't have 3-5 million players
in 5-10 years and an ability to bring some serious eyeballs to the
TV. And that should mean some really fun "coming out" for our sport
where all the people that have been quietly impressed by it really
jump in and start giving it the respect it deserves.

That's what I'll be working for if you vote me in. Please do.

Henry Thorne, UPA board member and candidate
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1362 is a reply to message #1288] Thu, 02 October 2008 12:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BJ
Messages: 197
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 2, 7:36 am, Leonardo <mistermalcont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> total fad. either the credit crisis, a bad hair day, or a lawsuit from
> some parent whose kid used a Speed Stacker cup to down 12 ozs of grain
> alcohol and die will kill off this "sport" by 2012.
>
> of course they said the same thing about Ultimate in the 80s

i vounteer to down the grain alcohol. anything for friz.
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1364 is a reply to message #1288] Thu, 02 October 2008 12:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Head Beagle
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Oct 2, 8:36 am, Leonardo <mistermalcont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> total fad. either the credit crisis, a bad hair day, or a lawsuit from
> some parent whose kid used a Speed Stacker cup to down 12 ozs of grain
> alcohol and die will kill off this "sport" by 2012.
>
> of course they said the same thing about Ultimate in the 80s

Ah ha...

This is quite humorous because one of the key features of speed
stacking cups is the holes in the bottom to allow air to flow out,
making them quite impractical for drinking. But, I agree, fad.

Jacob, you are right, I did not complete my argument very well in my
first post. I think the other replies covered it pretty well (Play
Along Toys pays for the airtime, it is basically advertising). I found
a video of some of the televised speed stacking and it is "sponsored
by Speed Stacks, Sunny D (mostly kids watching) and Comcast." Ultimate
could get a gatorade sort of sponsor and probably some random business
like Comcast, but it is the first big, highly interested sponsor that
stands to make a lot of money that is missing. Cup stacking has Play
Along ($400 sets + $15-$70 individual sets) Lumbersports has Stihl
($1000 chain saws). Billiards has Brunswick ($5000-$15000+ tables +
accessories). Ultimate has discraft ($12 discs for 10 people), We are
hampered by the simplicity of the sport.

Also, something else that I didn't bring up was the individual sales
that spillover from schools. 25 students out of 500 elementary
students go home and get their parents to buy them sport stacking gear
(from $15 cups to $70 kits), that gets them another big chunk of
money.
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1387 is a reply to message #1364] Thu, 02 October 2008 14:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 2, 3:47 pm, Head Beagle <we...@jbu.edu> wrote:.

Ultimate has discraft ($12 discs for 10 people), We are
> hampered by the simplicity of the sport.

shit, with all that money your savin you'de think you guys could
afford some refs
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1396 is a reply to message #1387] Thu, 02 October 2008 15:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jeremiahthacker
Messages: 29
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
On Oct 2, 4:14 pm, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> On Oct 2, 3:47 pm, Head Beagle <we...@jbu.edu> wrote:.
>
>  Ultimate has discraft ($12 discs for 10 people), We are
>
> > hampered by the simplicity of the sport.
>
> shit, with all that money your savin you'de think you guys could
> afford some refs

we should spring for _fields_
just in case you did not notice, real estate is (relatively) cheap
right now... and actual liquid cash (not credit) goes a long way
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1414 is a reply to message #1396] Thu, 02 October 2008 22:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Fetch
Messages: 28
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
> we should spring for _fields_
> just in case you did not notice, real estate is (relatively) cheap
> right now... and actual liquid cash (not credit) goes a long way

I agree. That is part of my platform.

David "Fetch" Janinis
Board of Directors Candidate
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1420 is a reply to message #1364] Thu, 02 October 2008 23:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
seanc
Messages: 322
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 2, 12:47 pm, Head Beagle <we...@jbu.edu> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 8:36 am, Leonardo <mistermalcont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > total fad. either the credit crisis, a bad hair day, or a lawsuit from
> > some parent whose kid used a Speed Stacker cup to down 12 ozs of grain
> > alcohol and die will kill off this "sport" by 2012.
>
> > of course they said the same thing about Ultimate in the 80s
>
> Ah ha...
>
> This is quite humorous because one of the key features of speed
> stacking cups is the holes in the bottom to allow air to flow out,
> making them quite impractical for drinking. But, I agree, fad.
>
> Jacob, you are right, I did not complete my argument very well in my
> first post. I think the other replies covered it pretty well (Play
> Along Toys pays for the airtime, it is basically advertising). I found
> a video of some of the televised speed stacking and it is "sponsored
> by Speed Stacks, Sunny D (mostly kids watching) and Comcast." Ultimate
> could get a gatorade sort of sponsor and probably some random business
> like Comcast, but it is the first big, highly interested sponsor that
> stands to make a lot of money that is missing. Cup stacking has Play
> Along ($400 sets + $15-$70 individual sets) Lumbersports has Stihl
> ($1000 chain saws). Billiards has Brunswick ($5000-$15000+ tables +
> accessories). Ultimate has discraft ($12 discs for 10 people), We are
> hampered by the simplicity of the sport.
>
> Also, something else that I didn't bring up was the individual sales
> that spillover from schools. 25 students out of 500 elementary
> students go home and get their parents to buy them sport stacking gear
> (from $15 cups to $70 kits), that gets them another big chunk of
> money.

"Ultimate has discraft ($12 discs for 10 people), We are
> hampered by the simplicity of the sport."

ooh, i strongly disagree with this statement... yes, perhaps hampered
from receiving bonus fundage from a toy conglomerate, but the low cost
of play is one of the things that allowed me to pick up the game with
stray friends in high school. come to think of it, i don't think any
of the pick up games / rec leagues / tournaments i've taken part in
would've developed if ultimate cost $400 dollars to play. also, how
much does it cost to play soccer? were goal post makers major early
sponsors of american football?

sean
Re: Cup stacking vs. Ultimate [message #1433 is a reply to message #1414] Fri, 03 October 2008 05:44 Go to previous message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 3, 1:05 am, Fetch <discoscalien...@yahoo.com> wrote:.

> > we should spring for _fields_
> > just in case you did not notice, real estate is (relatively) cheap
> > right now... and actual liquid cash (not credit) goes a long way

why not focus on taking advantage of this dip in the market by buying
a hq office so we are no longer flushing down however much its costin
us per month in rent. We HAVE to have a hq. we dont HAVE to own
fields when they are usually availiable (thru colleges or local
municipalities) at very resonable prices for rent. and this is
because owning and maintaining fields (which require lots o' acreage)
is just not reasonable, practical or equitable to the membership
collectively.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree.  That is part of my platform.
>
> David "Fetch" Janinis
> Board of Directors Candidate

isnt field/land aquisition more of a localized issue? So FETCH, how
can i, a nc resident, benefit from the upa buyin a chunck of land for
fields in boulder(OR ANY OTHER PLACE THAT I ((and other
members......which is most of us)) DONT LIVE AND OR CURRENTLY TRAVEL
TO)???
Previous Topic:UPA Consortium Program
Next Topic:I just voted for the UPA board candidates (Thoughts and endorsements)
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Feb 25 09:43:31 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software