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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Nationals Talk
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25341 is a reply to message #25285] Sun, 24 May 2009 10:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 24, 6:54 am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Meh, basketball averages more than a foul a minute, right?  And there
> are more timeouts... and quarter breaks instead of half time.
> Football spends more time between plays than playing...  I think
> Americans flip out whenever a sport gets played non-stop.  It tweaks
> them out.  That's why soccer can't catch on.

bzzzt wrong......its because there isnt enough scoring.......and the
general bordom of it all.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------



 Too much stuff
> happening, not enough time for getting beer, drinking beer, and
> throwing the empties at the mothers and girlfriends of the opposing
> team.

them germasn soccer fans seem to find time for that.......so that cant
be it!
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25343 is a reply to message #25309] Sun, 24 May 2009 10:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 24, 11:28 am, chrisdatkins...@gmail.com wrote:.


> > I'm sure that there'll be some molehill from which a mountain can be
> > projected.

ya mean like the mountain of distrust and dishonesty that this sotg,
self officiation bullshit ultimates current ruleset was born out of?
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25391 is a reply to message #25343] Sun, 24 May 2009 14:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JSH
Messages: 174
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
yes, everybody join toad players association. no one will distrust the
guy who goes around calling everyone who does not agree 100% with him
"spirit zealots". zero bullshit toad FTW!

On May 24, 1:56 pm, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
> On May 24, 11:28 am, chrisdatkins...@gmail.com wrote:.
>
> > > I'm sure that there'll be some molehill from which a mountain can be
> > > projected.
>
> ya mean like the mountain of distrust and dishonesty that this sotg,
> self officiation bullshit ultimates current ruleset was born out of?
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25433 is a reply to message #25341] Mon, 25 May 2009 00:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 24, 10:52 am, ulticri...@live.com wrote:

>
> > Meh, basketball averages more than a foul a minute, right?  And there
> > are more timeouts... and quarter breaks instead of half time.
> > Football spends more time between plays than playing...  I think
> > Americans flip out whenever a sport gets played non-stop.  It tweaks
> > them out.  That's why soccer can't catch on.
>
> bzzzt wrong......its because there isnt enough scoring....

Nah, we worked that out already... touchdowns/minute vs goals/minute
is about even between football and soccer. Football games just last
twice as long and multiply their scores by seven, which makes things
seem bigger...

> ...and the
> general bordom of it all.

The "boring" is a lack of attention span thing. Basketball rarely has
more than a minute of unstopped action. Football and baseball never
come close to that, the average is probably under 10 seconds.
American sports fans just aren't accustomed to having to pay attention
for honest-to-god *minutes* on end. Maybe if soccer had stoppages,
resets and ult-debates (which rarely last longer than an NFL play
clock), it would be more popular in the US. Ditto rugby...

> > happening, not enough time for getting beer, drinking beer, and
> > throwing the empties at the mothers and girlfriends of the opposing
> > team.
>
> them germasn soccer fans seem to find time for that.......so that cant
> be it!

European soccer hooligans are sufficiently advanced that they can riot
AND chant AND watch the game unfolding, all at the same time, for 90
minutes straight. American fans are nowhere near that level of
sophistication. No one knows why, but experts suspect it's due to our
inferior beer.

~p
~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25444 is a reply to message #25433] Mon, 25 May 2009 07:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 25, 3:41 am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 10:52 am, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Meh, basketball averages more than a foul a minute, right?  And there
> > > are more timeouts... and quarter breaks instead of half time.
> > > Football spends more time between plays than playing...  I think
> > > Americans flip out whenever a sport gets played non-stop.  It tweaks
> > > them out.  That's why soccer can't catch on.
>
> > bzzzt wrong......its because there isnt enough scoring....
>
> Nah, we worked that out already... touchdowns/minute vs goals/minute
> is about even between football and soccer.  Football games just last
> twice as long and multiply their scores by seven, which makes things
> seem bigger...


just cause you came to that conclusion dont mean "we" all agreed with
it. Football has many games within the game that keeps us watching.
Theres the game of getting first downs, the field position game, the
one on one matchups with recievers and downfield defenders......then
theres the hitting game. Its multi dementional compared to soccer
which is pretty much one dementional......so in that respect you are
probably right.....americans do freak out when the comp is continuous
non stop sameness throughout the game. Soccer is like nascar with a
ball and no wrecks.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> > ...and the
> > general bordom of it all.
>
> The "boring" is a lack of attention span thing.

the lack of attention span is from the lack of excitement and scoring
(theres a little chicken and egg thing goin there)......but what do
yoyu expect when ya play a sport like that (big wide open field sport)
with your feet. I mean, it takes a lot of skill and is much harder to
be as accurate compared to playing sports with ones hands. (although i
DO find that sepak takraw blows vollyball away.....i guess thats
because in vollyball you cant actually hold and trow the ball)
------------------------------------------------------------


>
> European soccer hooligans are sufficiently advanced that they can riot
> AND chant  AND watch the game unfolding, all at the same time, for 90
> minutes straight.  American fans are nowhere near that level of
> sophistication.

let me get this straight......you call the loyalist hooliganism that
occurs in european soccer "sophisticated"?????
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25446 is a reply to message #25391] Mon, 25 May 2009 07:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 24, 5:46 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:

> yes, everybody join toad players association. no one will distrust the
> guy who goes around calling everyone who does not agree 100% with him
> "spirit zealots".


hey.....if youre a spirit zealot then youre a spirit zealot......me
pointing that out anit gonna change it. And if you aint a spirit
zealot then you would be in my camp and it wouldnt be a matter of
forming a new organization called the tpa.......its simply a matter of
taking control of our present collective upa organization. So i anit
really talkin about "branching off" as much as i'm talking about
"taking over".


zero bullshit toad FTW!


i dont know what ftw means......sorry
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25469 is a reply to message #25433] Mon, 25 May 2009 09:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Daag Alemayehu
Messages: 249
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 3:41 am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 10:52 am, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
> > bzzzt wrong......its because there isnt enough scoring....
>
> Nah, we worked that out already... touchdowns/minute vs goals/minute
> is about even between football and soccer.  Football games just last
> twice as long and multiply their scores by seven, which makes things
> seem bigger...
>
> > ...and the
> > general bordom of it all.
>
> The "boring" is a lack of attention span thing.  Basketball rarely has
> more than a minute of unstopped action.  Football and baseball never
> come close to that, the average is probably under 10 seconds.
> American sports fans just aren't accustomed to having to pay attention
> for honest-to-god *minutes* on end.  Maybe if soccer had stoppages,
> resets and ult-debates (which rarely last longer than an NFL play
> clock), it would be more popular in the US.  Ditto rugby...

Mr. Pinto, a master debater you might be, but there's no way you're
winning this argument. Throw that touchdowns/minute vs goals/minute
line right out the window. You say there is "too much stuff
happening" in a soccer game for poor American brains. To the
contrary, my friend. There are far, far, FAR fewer significant
"events" in a soccer match than in an American football game, a
basketball game, and dare I say even a hockey match (don't watch, so I
could be wrong on this one).

In football you have drives with sustained possession. Each drive is
a standalone event that could lead to scoring or a turnover (which is
exciting in and of itself). In basketball you have discrete
possessions, and almost half the time (sometimes more) a possession
leads to scoring. Hockey is more akin to soccer in terms of
possession and number of scores a game, but possession changes
quicker, players move faster, and there are far more scoring attempts.

Soccer is like chess on the pitch. There's a lot of give-and-go
between teammates, a lot of meaningless turnovers between the 18s, and
a lot of clearing. There might be 10-20 minutes of real time between
shots on goal. There's a lot of running around and a lot of
strategery all intended to set up an attack. Or, to put it another
way, there's a lot of running around and not a lot of attacking.

As for your attention span argument, you can phrase it pejoratively if
it makes your inner American hater feel better, but the fact remains
that watching a soccer match means you don't get breaks for your eyes,
your brain, your bladder, etc. Soccer can certainly be fun to watch,
but it can also be very monotonous. Every single other sport I can
think of breaks things up. American football (plays, timeouts,
penalties, quarters, halves), basketball (timeouts, fouls, halves,
sometimes quarters), hockey (periods, penalties), baseball (pitches,
innings), tennis (points, games, sets), golf (shots, holes, rounds)...
the list could go on forever. Meanwhile, in soccer you get one 45-
minute half... and then you got another 45-minute half. That's it.

(Oh yeah, let's not forget that soccer is played on a super ginormous
field where the 22 players are all spread out, sometimes doing their
own thing. American football has the 22 players all engaged in
contact at almost all times. And basketball and hockey are played on
much, much smaller playing surfaces where everyone is involved at
almost all times.)
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25478 is a reply to message #25469] Mon, 25 May 2009 09:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tim
Messages: 21
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
On May 25, 12:03 pm, Daag Alemayehu <daag.alemay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 3:41 am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 10:52 am, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
> > > bzzzt wrong......its because there isnt enough scoring....
>
> > Nah, we worked that out already... touchdowns/minute vs goals/minute
> > is about even between football and soccer.  Football games just last
> > twice as long and multiply their scores by seven, which makes things
> > seem bigger...
>
> > > ...and the
> > > general bordom of it all.
>
> > The "boring" is a lack of attention span thing.  Basketball rarely has
> > more than a minute of unstopped action.  Football and baseball never
> > come close to that, the average is probably under 10 seconds.
> > American sports fans just aren't accustomed to having to pay attention
> > for honest-to-god *minutes* on end.  Maybe if soccer had stoppages,
> > resets and ult-debates (which rarely last longer than an NFL play
> > clock), it would be more popular in the US.  Ditto rugby...
>
> Mr. Pinto, a master debater you might be, but there's no way you're
> winning this argument.  Throw that touchdowns/minute vs goals/minute
> line right out the window.  You say there is "too much stuff
> happening" in a soccer game for poor American brains.  To the
> contrary, my friend.  There are far, far, FAR fewer significant
> "events" in a soccer match than in an American football game, a
> basketball game, and dare I say even a hockey match (don't watch, so I
> could be wrong on this one).
>
> In football you have drives with sustained possession.  Each drive is
> a standalone event that could lead to scoring or a turnover (which is
> exciting in and of itself).  In basketball you have discrete
> possessions, and almost half the time (sometimes more) a possession
> leads to scoring.  Hockey is more akin to soccer in terms of
> possession and number of scores a game, but possession changes
> quicker, players move faster, and there are far more scoring attempts.
>
> Soccer is like chess on the pitch.  There's a lot of give-and-go
> between teammates, a lot of meaningless turnovers between the 18s, and
> a lot of clearing.  There might be 10-20 minutes of real time between
> shots on goal.  There's a lot of running around and a lot of
> strategery all intended to set up an attack.  Or, to put it another
> way, there's a lot of running around and not a lot of attacking.
>
> As for your attention span argument, you can phrase it pejoratively if
> it makes your inner American hater feel better, but the fact remains
> that watching a soccer match means you don't get breaks for your eyes,
> your brain, your bladder, etc.  Soccer can certainly be fun to watch,
> but it can also be very monotonous.  Every single other sport I can
> think of breaks things up.  American football (plays, timeouts,
> penalties, quarters, halves), basketball (timeouts, fouls, halves,
> sometimes quarters), hockey (periods, penalties), baseball (pitches,
> innings), tennis (points, games, sets), golf (shots, holes, rounds)...
> the list could go on forever.  Meanwhile, in soccer you get one 45-
> minute half... and then you got another 45-minute half.  That's it.
>
> (Oh yeah, let's not forget that soccer is played on a super ginormous
> field where the 22 players are all spread out, sometimes doing their
> own thing.  American football has the 22 players all engaged in
> contact at almost all times.  And basketball and hockey are played on
> much, much smaller playing surfaces where everyone is involved at
> almost all times.)

NASCAR!
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25480 is a reply to message #25478] Mon, 25 May 2009 10:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Daag Alemayehu
Messages: 249
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 12:55 pm, Tim <Andria...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> NASCAR!

You know, I thought about that, but I know even less about stock car
driving than I do about hockey so I didn't mention it. If I had to
guess, though, I'd say the appeal of NASCAR is part insanely fast
driving, part waiting for the crashes, and part enjoying a day at the
track with your friends/family/drinking buddies. Sitting at home it
DOES seem kinda monotonous in the same way as some soccer matches.
Probably why it's a much better at-the-track spectator sport than
sitting-at-home TV sport. At least it has pit stops, caution flags,
and about a bazillion other "game within the game" things to keep
people occupied.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25483 is a reply to message #25336] Mon, 25 May 2009 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 24, 10:43 am, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
> On May 23, 10:56 pm, Austin <wabartenst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > so you just hate happiness in general?
>
> wehat does happieness have to do with sports?

Nice.

~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25484 is a reply to message #25444] Mon, 25 May 2009 10:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 7:24 am, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
> On May 25, 3:41 am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > European soccer hooligans are sufficiently advanced that they can riot
> > AND chant  AND watch the game unfolding, all at the same time, for 90
> > minutes straight.  American fans are nowhere near that level of
> > sophistication.
>
> let me get this straight......you call the loyalist hooliganism that
> occurs in european soccer "sophisticated"?????

You know, I could try and explain this thing, but I think sarcasm for
you is like "red" to a blind man.

~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25488 is a reply to message #25469] Mon, 25 May 2009 10:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 9:03 am, Daag Alemayehu <daag.alemay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 3:41 am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The "boring" is a lack of attention span thing.  Basketball rarely has
> > more than a minute of unstopped action.  Football and baseball never
> > come close to that, the average is probably under 10 seconds.
> > American sports fans just aren't accustomed to having to pay attention
> > for honest-to-god *minutes* on end.  Maybe if soccer had stoppages,
> > resets and ult-debates (which rarely last longer than an NFL play
> > clock), it would be more popular in the US.  Ditto rugby...
>
> Mr. Pinto, a master debater you might be, but there's no way you're
> winning this argument.  Throw that touchdowns/minute vs goals/minute
> line right out the window.  You say there is "too much stuff
> happening" in a soccer game for poor American brains.  To the
> contrary, my friend.  There are far, far, FAR fewer significant
> "events" in a soccer match than in an American football game, a
> basketball game, and dare I say even a hockey match (don't watch, so I
> could be wrong on this one).

I think you're mis-reading my argument here. I'm saying that fans
WANT a lot of down time. Down time gives time to take a leak, get
some beer, chat with your neighbor, reset your head. What makes
football and baseball exciting is that you ANTICIPATE each play for a
long time, then it happens. In soccer you always have to be paying
attention since a counter attack can come at any time.

"Significant event" is a bit ambiguous, but any counter can lead to a
goal, just like any play in football. You're absolutely right though
that true chances are few and far between, and fans don't know when to
expect them, so the anticipation factor isn't there.

Where this connects with our on-again, off-again discussions is that
Toad wants ulty to shift more towards soccer in the time playing vs
time not-playing. He's worried that ult-debates, foul calls and time
between points are too many, and too long. He has (so far as I know),
never reconciled his desire for more non-stop action in ultimate with
the obvious fact that ultimate has more non-stop action than football,
baseball, or basketball.

Soccer fans would claim that the excitement comes from the constant
stress of things *almost* happening. It does not appear that American
fans are naturally inclined toward that kind of thing.

> Soccer is like chess on the pitch.  There's a lot of give-and-go
> between teammates, a lot of meaningless turnovers between the 18s, and
> a lot of clearing.  There might be 10-20 minutes of real time between
> shots on goal.  There's a lot of running around and a lot of
> strategery all intended to set up an attack.  Or, to put it another
> way, there's a lot of running around and not a lot of attacking.

Indeed, it's hard to be a soccer fan if all you're interested in is
final-third buildups. Appreciation for the midfield game really makes
the field more interesting. Curiously, it's the midfield game that
IMHO most resembles ulty (which is why soccer players tend to make
good ulty converts).

> As for your attention span argument, you can phrase it pejoratively if
> it makes your inner American hater feel better, but the fact remains
> that watching a soccer match means you don't get breaks for your eyes,
> your brain, your bladder, etc.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but now that you mention it, we are
the nation that made fast food and soundbites the things they are
today. We also morphed rugby into football...

>  Soccer can certainly be fun to watch,
> but it can also be very monotonous.  Every single other sport I can
> think of breaks things up.  American football (plays, timeouts,
> penalties, quarters, halves), basketball (timeouts, fouls, halves,
> sometimes quarters), hockey (periods, penalties), baseball (pitches,
> innings), tennis (points, games, sets), golf (shots, holes, rounds)...
> the list could go on forever.  Meanwhile, in soccer you get one 45-
> minute half... and then you got another 45-minute half.  That's it.

Indeed. Ultimate presently has: 6 TOs a game, breaks between points,
and play stoppages. Probably not enough breaks numerically or in
aggregate length. Perhaps we could require one lengthy ult-debate
every so often, just to break things up a bit.

~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25496 is a reply to message #25484] Mon, 25 May 2009 11:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scpoulos
Messages: 225
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 1:27 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 7:24 am, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 3:41 am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > European soccer hooligans are sufficiently advanced that they can riot
> > > AND chant  AND watch the game unfolding, all at the same time, for 90
> > > minutes straight.  American fans are nowhere near that level of
> > > sophistication.
>
> > let me get this straight......you call the loyalist hooliganism that
> > occurs in european soccer "sophisticated"?????
>
> You know, I could try and explain this thing, but I think sarcasm for
> you is like "red" to a blind man.
>
>      ~p

pinto your argument sucks once again. man, daag just crushed you!
soccer is really boring and there are only two guys on the field that
get to use their hands and they don't get to do that too often. humans
are meant to use their hands. using one's hands makes anything better
don't ya think punto? would be so cool to see ultimate become a
better product for entertainment for the fans and players. that
streaming live national finals was weak. crowd only on one side?
looked like noone was out there and ya couldn't tell what was going
on. observers looked like mimes out there. go upa! and oh yeah, the
way they picked those players for the alumni game against team upa/usa
was really lame. should of tried to get the best players that applied
but they messed that up like they usually do. gotta love the
popularity contest that they keep putting on!
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25498 is a reply to message #25488] Mon, 25 May 2009 11:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scpoulos
Messages: 225
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 1:42 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 9:03 am, Daag Alemayehu <daag.alemay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 3:41 am, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The "boring" is a lack of attention span thing.  Basketball rarely has
> > > more than a minute of unstopped action.  Football and baseball never
> > > come close to that, the average is probably under 10 seconds.
> > > American sports fans just aren't accustomed to having to pay attention
> > > for honest-to-god *minutes* on end.  Maybe if soccer had stoppages,
> > > resets and ult-debates (which rarely last longer than an NFL play
> > > clock), it would be more popular in the US.  Ditto rugby...
>
> > Mr. Pinto, a master debater you might be, but there's no way you're
> > winning this argument.  Throw that touchdowns/minute vs goals/minute
> > line right out the window.  You say there is "too much stuff
> > happening" in a soccer game for poor American brains.  To the
> > contrary, my friend.  There are far, far, FAR fewer significant
> > "events" in a soccer match than in an American football game, a
> > basketball game, and dare I say even a hockey match (don't watch, so I
> > could be wrong on this one).
>
> I think you're mis-reading my argument here.  I'm saying that fans
> WANT a lot of down time.  Down time gives time to take a leak, get
> some beer, chat with your neighbor, reset your head.  What makes
> football and baseball exciting is that you ANTICIPATE each play for a
> long time, then it happens.  In soccer you always have to be paying
> attention since a counter attack can come at any time.
>
> "Significant event" is a bit ambiguous, but any counter can lead to a
> goal, just like any play in football.  You're absolutely right though
> that true chances are few and far between, and fans don't know when to
> expect them, so the anticipation factor isn't there.
>
> Where this connects with our on-again, off-again discussions is that
> Toad wants ulty to shift more towards soccer in the time playing vs
> time not-playing.  He's worried that ult-debates, foul calls and time
> between points are too many, and too long.  He has (so far as I know),
> never reconciled his desire for more non-stop action in ultimate with
> the obvious fact that ultimate has more non-stop action than football,
> baseball, or basketball.
>
> Soccer fans would claim that the excitement comes from the constant
> stress of things *almost* happening.  It does not appear that American
> fans are naturally inclined toward that kind of thing.
>
> > Soccer is like chess on the pitch.  There's a lot of give-and-go
> > between teammates, a lot of meaningless turnovers between the 18s, and
> > a lot of clearing.  There might be 10-20 minutes of real time between
> > shots on goal.  There's a lot of running around and a lot of
> > strategery all intended to set up an attack.  Or, to put it another
> > way, there's a lot of running around and not a lot of attacking.
>
> Indeed, it's hard to be a soccer fan if all you're interested in is
> final-third buildups.  Appreciation for the midfield game really makes
> the field more interesting.  Curiously, it's the midfield game that
> IMHO most resembles ulty (which is why soccer players tend to make
> good ulty converts).
>
> > As for your attention span argument, you can phrase it pejoratively if
> > it makes your inner American hater feel better, but the fact remains
> > that watching a soccer match means you don't get breaks for your eyes,
> > your brain, your bladder, etc.
>
> I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but now that you mention it, we are
> the nation that made fast food and soundbites the things they are
> today.  We also morphed rugby into football...
>
> >  Soccer can certainly be fun to watch,
> > but it can also be very monotonous.  Every single other sport I can
> > think of breaks things up.  American football (plays, timeouts,
> > penalties, quarters, halves), basketball (timeouts, fouls, halves,
> > sometimes quarters), hockey (periods, penalties), baseball (pitches,
> > innings), tennis (points, games, sets), golf (shots, holes, rounds)...
> > the list could go on forever.  Meanwhile, in soccer you get one 45-
> > minute half... and then you got another 45-minute half.  That's it.
>
> Indeed.  Ultimate presently has: 6 TOs a game, breaks between points,
> and play stoppages.  Probably not enough breaks numerically or in
> aggregate length.  Perhaps we could require one lengthy ult-debate
> every so often, just to break things up a bit.
>
>      ~p

soccer players don't necessarily make good ulti players. good athletes
do. those come from ballers growing up playing football, basketball,
and even tennis. it's called using your hands man.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25505 is a reply to message #25488] Mon, 25 May 2009 12:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 25, 1:42 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think you're mis-reading my argument here.

maybe you are mis-telling it.....cause both i and scpou thought daags
interpretation of your post was "spot on"
-----------------------------------------------



 I'm saying that fans
> WANT a lot of down time.

no we dont
-----------------------------------------

 Down time gives time to take a leak, get
> some beer, chat with your neighbor, reset your head.  What makes
> football and baseball exciting is that you ANTICIPATE each play for a
> long time,

long time????? 24 seconds is hardly a long time......especially
compared to the 90 seconds that is aloted between point and pull. its
like a fuckin timeout every point with your sport. and fyi, i timed
todays lax game and they would consistantly get the ball back in play
within 45 secs after scoring. But thats because their players were
quickly hustling on and off the field whereas ultimates casually
meander on and off the field. THATS the kind of inefficient downtime
that kills ulti as a spectator sport.
------------------------------------------------------


then it happens.  In soccer you always have to be paying
> attention since a counter attack can come at any time.

and you look at this as a positive???
---------------------------------------------------------
 You're absolutely right though
> that true chances are few and far between, and fans don't know when to
> expect them, so the anticipation factor isn't there.


oh we know when to expect them......VERY RARELY.........hence our
paying it no mind.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Where this connects with our on-again, off-again discussions is that
> Toad wants ulty to shift more towards soccer in the time playing vs
> time not-playing.

BULLSHIT!!!!!! I think it should shift more towads lax in the
"stopped time management" aspect..........i really wouldnt want it to
be anything like soccer in any way shape or form. Also, i'm an
advocate of a stopped timed game.......like football, b-ball and
lax.........not a runnning timed game like soccer. So get your shit
straight before you bring me into your bullshit arguments.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------




 He's worried that ult-debates, foul calls and time
> between points are too many, and too long.

who isnt?
------------------------------------------------------


 He has (so far as I know),
> never reconciled his desire for more non-stop action in ultimate with
> the obvious fact that ultimate has more non-stop action than football,
> baseball, or basketball.

its how the time is compartmentalized and managed that is my problem
with the way ultimate is currently presented......not the nature of
the "in play" potential for action in its comparison to those other
sports.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
>
> Soccer fans would claim that the excitement comes from the constant
> stress of things *almost* happening.  It does not appear that American
> fans are naturally inclined toward that kind of thing.

exactly.....we want immediate gratification........and waiting while
people ult-debate calls, poorly manage disputes and take twice as long
as needed between points and pulls is just not immediate enough for us
either.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>  Curiously, it's the midfield game that
> IMHO most resembles ulty

except for the scoring part eh?
-----------------------------------------------


(which is why soccer players tend to make
> good ulty converts).


dont discount the "white boy sport" factor
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
>  We also morphed rugby into football...


just like we morphed basketball and football into ultimate
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
>
> >  Soccer can certainly be fun to watch,



yea, once every 4 years
----------------------------------------------------
> > but it can also be very monotonous.

yea, like during the 3 years and 11 months in between.
------------------------------------------------------------


..
>
> Indeed.  Ultimate presently has: 6 TOs a game, breaks between points,


more like to's between points,,,,,,,and the to's are like period
breaks (i think i clocked a to today at 3 minutes. thats way too
long)
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------
> and play stoppages.  Probably not enough breaks numerically or in
> aggregate length.  Perhaps we could require one lengthy ult-debate
> every so often, just to break things up a bit.

thats the thing you dont get punto.......every sport will have a
different time dynamic based on its nature. most sports take carful
efforts to manage and minimize such downtime. So the only real
comparison you can make with other sports is HOW that stopped time is
managed.........and in ultimate, that "time", due to the player/ref
hybrid dynamic is simply very poorly managed. So the first flaw is
letting/obligating them to manage it in the first place while the
second flaw is not understanding that, as players, they are gonna try
and strategically milk out extra time for a variety of reasons.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25523 is a reply to message #25505] Mon, 25 May 2009 14:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JSH
Messages: 174
Registered: March 2009
Senior Member
no, you just all have piss-poor reading comprehension. stupid anti-
spirit zealots.

On May 25, 3:51 pm, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
> On May 25, 1:42 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think you're mis-reading my argument here.
>
> maybe you are mis-telling it.....cause both i and scpou thought daags
> interpretation of your post was "spot on"
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25526 is a reply to message #25498] Mon, 25 May 2009 15:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 11:40 am, scpou...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 25, 1:42 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> soccer players don't necessarily make good ulti players. good athletes
> do. those come from ballers growing up playing football, basketball,
> and even tennis. it's called using your hands man.

Hrmph. You don't run with your hands.

~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25528 is a reply to message #25505] Mon, 25 May 2009 15:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 12:51 pm, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
> On May 25, 1:42 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I think you're mis-reading my argument here.
>
> maybe you are mis-telling it.....cause both i and scpou thought daags
> interpretation of your post was "spot on"

All three of you can be wrong if you want. The point is that soccer
is non-stop, and you find it boring. Football, basketball and
baseball spend more time stopped than going, and you find them going.
Ergo, your theory that making ultimate more non-stop will make it more
exciting to you is... suspect.

You all offer as a counter-argument that... you find soccer boring.
So I'm saying "Given X and Y, Z seems likely." Your counter-argument
is: "Well, X is true! So THERE!"

>   I'm saying that fans
>
> > WANT a lot of down time.
>
> no we dont

Then why would you ever watch football? A football game is somewhere
in the vicinity of 20-30 minutes of action, distributed relatively
evenly among 200 or so minutes of downtime.

>   Down time gives time to take a leak, get
>
> > some beer, chat with your neighbor, reset your head.  What makes
> > football and baseball exciting is that you ANTICIPATE each play for a
> > long time,
>
> long time?????  24 seconds is hardly a long time......especially
> compared to the 90 seconds that is aloted between point and pull.

24 second play clock is the maximum possession, that's uptime, not
downtime. The football playclock is downtime, and it's 30 seconds,
but there are many more downs in a game than points in ulty. Football
also has more and longer time outs, and quarter breaks in addition to
halftime, and the amount of time between score and kickoff is longer
than 90 seconds... and it's followed by another break after the
kickoff before the O-line takes the field...

Don't get me wrong, I love football, but there's no question that it
has more downtime.

>  then it happens.  In soccer you always have to be paying
> > attention since a counter attack can come at any time.
> and you look at this as a positive???

Actually, I was saying that it puts pressure on fans, so it's probably
not a good idea to have ulty follow suit by rushing things along all
the time. I'm a soccer fan, so I'm up the the herculean task of
actually paying attention to the sporting event that I came to see. I
understand however that some folks aren't up to that task, so it's
best to give them periodic breaks to chill out every so often. Breaks
between points could be good for that. Or maybe reduce the inter-
point breaks, but give teams more time outs?

> > Where this connects with our on-again, off-again discussions is that
> > Toad wants ulty to shift more towards soccer in the time playing vs
> > time not-playing.
>
> BULLSHIT!!!!!!  

Au contraire. Football, baseball, and basketball have WAY more down
time than ultimate. Soccer has considerably less. These are
arithmetic facts. Your desire is to reduce the downtime in ultimate,
which, on this continuum, would move it in the direction of soccer.
This is an arithmetic fact. Unless you're actually disputing the
numerical calculations... I don't see how there can be any argument
here..

>   He's worried that ult-debates, foul calls and time
>
> > between points are too many, and too long.
>
> who isnt?

Folks who realize that you can add all of that time up for an entire
game, and you won't get as much time as Kobe and LeBron spend alone
spent going to, milling around, or on the foul line in the past two
days.

> > Soccer fans would claim that the excitement comes from the constant
> > stress of things *almost* happening.  It does not appear that American
> > fans are naturally inclined toward that kind of thing.
>
> exactly.....we want immediate gratification........and waiting while
> people ult-debate calls, poorly manage disputes and take twice as long
> as needed between points and pulls is just not immediate enough for us
> either.

What's the difference between waiting for an ult-debate, and waiting
for a ref's huddle in football? Or a coach's challenge? Or even a
drive late in the fourth that runs something like "up the middle for
minimal gain, up the middle for minimal gain, up the middle for
minimal gain, punt"?

> >  Curiously, it's the midfield game that
> > IMHO most resembles ulty
>
> except for the scoring part eh?

No, the scoring part is actually way more exciting in soccer. But
most cuts and most passes don't result in scores.

> dont discount the "white boy sport" factor

Whose your favorite white boy? Drogba, Henri, Ronaldinho, or Eto'o?

> > >  Soccer can certainly be fun to watch,
>
> yea, once every 4 years

Champions League is just as high level as world cup. Possibly higher,
since the clubs spend more time getting to know each other and
practicing, and usually feature all stars from many different
countries. Almost every player on a team that could make quarters in
the world cup plays for one of ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool,
Barca, or Real Madrid. The CL final in Rome between Barca and ManU is
this week. It'll probably compete for the superbowl in ratings, and
justifiably so.

~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25532 is a reply to message #25528] Mon, 25 May 2009 16:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 25, 6:36 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All three of you can be wrong if you want.  The point is that soccer
> is non-stop, and you find it boring.

what are you talking about.....i see people stoped(and standing still)
in soccer all the time........so its hardy non stop in that reguard.
Any way ya slice it though, non stop bordom is still bordom. I mean,
marathoins are non stop too. see the corelation? You arent saying
you find marathions to be exciting and entertaining just because its
non stop,are you?
-------------------------------------------



 Football, basketball and
> baseball spend more time stopped than going,

BUT they spend less time stopped than if they were to allow the
players to get involved in the rule enforcement process AND control
the game management, right? so its all relitive.
------------------------------------------------------------ --



and you find them going.
> Ergo, your theory that making ultimate more non-stop will make it more
> exciting to you is... suspect.


no, making it better managed and more efficient will make it better to
me.......not making it a "non stopped" make it take it type on going
soccer style presentation.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>
> Then why would you ever watch football?


for the hits, athletisism, continuity, straegy, hitting, action, multi
demention, games within the games, eye candy between points, AND the
effeciently run rule set
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------


 A football game is somewhere
> in the vicinity of 20-30 minutes of action, distributed relatively
> evenly among 200 or so minutes of downtime.

and just think how much more downtime ther would be if they played
under a self officiated rule set? now THEN you might find people
complaining about watching it........kinda like how you do now ithe
ultimate. Dont you get it? its often no so much the sport that makes
it hard or painful to watch but rather the way in which its managed
and presented. i'd say soccer is the exception although if they were
to tweek that game quite a bit (play stopped time, quarters, foul
limits, soften the offsides rule, eliminate red card/man down
scenerios, do corner kicks rather than shootouts for tie scores)
american fans would probably be more receptive of it
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------
>
> Don't get me wrong, I love football, but there's no question that it
> has more downtime.


theres also no question its more entertaining than ulti and that the
rule enforcement, game management and presentational aspects of
football are waaaaay better than ulti. you just refuse to look a the
big picture dont ya?
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------
>
> Actually, I was saying that it puts pressure on fans, so it's probably
> not a good idea to have ulty follow suit by rushing things along all
> the time.  I'm a soccer fan, so I'm up the the herculean task of
> actually paying attention to the sporting event that I came to see.  I
> understand however that some folks aren't up to that task, so it's
> best to give them periodic breaks to chill out every so often.


youre such a cock punto......you do realize that dont you? are you
actually trying to proclaim that you are a superior sports fan because
you like a sport where you have to concentrate on it 100% of the
time? get over yourself......you aint shit but a puss cake chump.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------


>
> Au contraire.  Football, baseball, and basketball have WAY more down
> time than ultimate.  Soccer has considerably less.  These are
> arithmetic facts.  Your desire is to reduce the downtime in ultimate,
> which, on this continuum, would move it in the direction of soccer.
> This is an arithmetic fact.  Unless you're actually disputing the
> numerical calculations... I don't see how there can be any argument
> here..

i'm disputing the fractional time differences between a professionaly
managed competitive event and one thats structured in a "player
controled"(and there for managed) pick up type atmousphere IN ANY
SPORT. Which sport it may be MATTERS NOT?
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Folks who realize that you can add all of that time up for an entire
> game, and you won't get as much time as Kobe and LeBron spend alone
> spent going to, milling around, or on the foul line in the past two
> days.

there you go again making invalid comparisons. Put it this
way......you think it bugs you to watch basketball now.......just
think how bad it would be watching them argue each and every call for
30 econds prior to and resolution? take your head outa your ass
punto.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------
>
> > exactly.....we want immediate gratification........and waiting while
> > people ult-debate calls, poorly manage disputes and take twice as long
> > as needed between points and pulls is just not immediate enough for us
> > either.
>
> What's the difference between waiting for an ult-debate, and waiting
> for a ref's huddle in football?

refs arent partial to their team getting the call to go one way or
another AND they have a responsibility to manage time contstraints in
an effecient and effective manner.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------


 Or a coach's challenge?  Or even a
> drive late in the fourth that runs something like "up the middle for
> minimal gain, up the middle for minimal gain, up the middle for
> minimal gain, punt"?

how about the fact that they supply eye candy on the sidelines
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
>
> > except for the scoring part eh?
>
> No, the scoring part is actually way more exciting in soccer.  But
> most cuts and most passes don't result in scores.

that is IF they sore in the first place
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
>
> > yea, once every 4 years
>
> Champions League is just as high level as world cup.

yet american sports fans pay it no mind.......where as we do watch
world cup
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25538 is a reply to message #25526] Mon, 25 May 2009 16:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scpoulos
Messages: 225
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 6:15 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 11:40 am, scpou...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 1:42 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > soccer players don't necessarily make good ulti players. good athletes
> > do. those come from ballers growing up playing football, basketball,
> > and even tennis. it's called using your hands man.
>
> Hrmph.  You don't run with your hands.
>
>      ~p

so ultimate only involves running? you must be that guy that runs
around in circles on the field but is never a threat because he has no
skills. gosh, you gotta have some skills man! cool though how you
avoid trying to counter what I said. you da man pinto and apparently
the best kind of sports fan there is!
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25541 is a reply to message #25246] Mon, 25 May 2009 17:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manzell
Messages: 145
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
On May 23, 7:31 pm, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
> On May 23, 6:41 pm, Daag Alemayehu <daag.alemay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 6:18 pm, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > actually a game between two teams that are rivals? and have some
> > > obvious chippyness/intensity to em IS the kind of thing that you would
> > > want written about the sport.  Contrary to what ultimate has
> > > brainwashed you to believe, sports arent about a bunch of boy scout,
> > > nice guy, spirity bullshit.
>
> > It could go either way.  They could see a tight, callfest-y type game
> > and think, "Damn, I didn't realize frisbee games could get so
> > intense.  This is kinda cool."  Or, they could see the same game and
> > think, "God what a bunch of whiners.  How can anybody stand to watch
> > this garbage?  They stop running every 30 seconds.  I could play this
> > 'sport' in my house shoes."
>
> well, as long as mike g was working the game youde figure the whinney
> ult-debating woulda been kept in check........speaking of which, whats
> the deal with any refzerver reports and the use of the irs on travels
> and active up/down calls?  any controversies as of yet?

my thoughts as a spectator:

1 - the long stoppages don't occur as much with the quasi-active
observers. There is a call, sometimes a debate and sometimes not. Any
long stoppages are only due to figuring out continuation if a call is
not heard and reseting for downfield players.

2 - On the other hand, with observers, there were a lot more calls in
general. players could safely make a questionable call and have it
overruled by an observer without any harm done. This seemed to lessen
as the tournament went on, perhaps because the players realized that
poor or questionable calls were more likely to be overruled than sent
back.

3 - Because observers needed to uphold most calls for them to stick,
players now "sold" calls more than I've seen before, essentially to
influence the observer.

Overall, the fan experience was "better" with observers. Hand signals
were good when done well, but not all observers seemed very into it.
If there were stoppages, it seemed pretty clear why and a uninformed
spectator could understand the flow of a game a little better. It'd be
better if the observer signaled the call being made immediately,
rather than once the call was settled.

- MRB
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25548 is a reply to message #25528] Mon, 25 May 2009 17:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Douglas T Lilley
Messages: 674
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
>  Almost every player on a team that could make quarters in
> the world cup plays for one of ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool,
> Barca, or Real Madrid.  The CL final in Rome between Barca and ManU is
> this week.  It'll probably compete for the superbowl in ratings, and
> justifiably so.

2:30 Wednesday PM on the east coast in fact. If it's as good as I
think it will be even some of you futbal hating TV zealots might enjoy
it. I will definitely be taking a long, late lunch.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25554 is a reply to message #25538] Mon, 25 May 2009 18:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 4:54 pm, scpou...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 25, 6:15 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 11:40 am, scpou...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 1:42 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > soccer players don't necessarily make good ulti players. good athletes
> > > do. those come from ballers growing up playing football, basketball,
> > > and even tennis. it's called using your hands man.
>
> > Hrmph.  You don't run with your hands.
>
> >      ~p
>
> so ultimate only involves running? you must be that guy that runs
> around in circles on the field but is never a threat because he has no
> skills. gosh, you gotta have some skills man! cool though how you
> avoid trying to counter what I said. you da man pinto and apparently
> the best kind of sports fan there is!

Running in multiple circles? I just run one, then give up! If one
isn't enough, I think it just wasn't meant to be.

Multiple circles... I'm tired just thinking about it.

Anyway, I was kind of referring to (by reversing) that old Ditka quote
about how if God had wanted us to play soccer, he wouldn't have given
us hands.

~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25555 is a reply to message #25528] Mon, 25 May 2009 18:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Daag Alemayehu
Messages: 249
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 6:36 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All three of you can be wrong if you want.  The point is that soccer
> is non-stop, and you find it boring.  Football, basketball and
> baseball spend more time stopped than going, and you find them going.
> Ergo, your theory that making ultimate more non-stop will make it more
> exciting to you is... suspect.

The (main) flaw in your argument is that you seem to think all action
(i.e., what goes on between stoppages of play) was created equal.
This is wrong.

> Champions League is just as high level as world cup.  Possibly higher,

Probably. Doesn't mean everybody cares...
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25558 is a reply to message #25532] Mon, 25 May 2009 18:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 4:16 pm, ulticri...@live.com wrote:
> On May 25, 6:36 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All three of you can be wrong if you want.  The point is that soccer
> > is non-stop, and you find it boring.
>
> what are you talking about.....i see people stoped(and standing still)
> in soccer all the time........so its hardy non stop in that reguard.

Unless a foul has been called or a ball is being retrieved (and no,
they don't just have the one), someone is moving. Who cares if
there's someone, away from the play, who isn't? The one's your
interested in are moving.

Ever notice that at with the offside rule, at any moment in a lacrosse
game there are 7 players who aren't doing a damn thing?

> Any way ya slice it though, non stop bordom is still bordom.  I mean,
> marathoins are non stop too.  see the corelation?  You arent saying
> you find marathions to be exciting and entertaining just because its
> non stop,are you?

Once again, you think you're arguing with me when you're not. We both
agree that non-stop is boring, and mostly stopped isn't. The
difference is that I'm admitting it and you're not.


>   Football, basketball and
>
> > baseball spend more time stopped than going,
>
> BUT they spend less time stopped than if they were to allow the
> players to get involved in the rule enforcement process AND control
> the game management, right?  so its all relitive.

Why would it be relative? 2 minutes of down time is 2 minutes of
downtime. Unless you're watching football in a reference frame that's
moving near the speed of light, I think that we can compare our
minutes, and ratios of minutes, in absolutes, thank you. Wide
receivers might be speeding, but they're not time-dilation speedy.

If you're saying that the downtime is okay in football because it's
essential to the sport and not the result of bad management, you're
wrong too. The rules explicitly provide for (and frequently require)
that downtime.

> > Then why would you ever watch football?
>
> for the hits, athletisism, continuity, straegy, hitting, action, multi
> demention, games within the games, eye candy between points, AND the
> effeciently run rule set

Other than the cheerleaders, none of that happens except during the
actual action. That's a good reason to watch a 20 minute football
game. What are you watching the other 2 hours, 40 minutes for? I
guess there's a few cheerleader shots on the network feed, so perhaps
you can just account for the remaining 2:39:30.

>   A football game is somewhere
>
> > in the vicinity of 20-30 minutes of action, distributed relatively
> > evenly among 200 or so minutes of downtime.
>
> and just think how much more downtime ther would be if they played
> under a self officiated rule set?

What difference would it make? They stop for 20-30 seconds even if
there WASN'T a call. They could have a nice little ult-debate after
every pass and the game wouldn't take any longer...

>  now THEN you might find people
> complaining about watching it........kinda like how you do now ithe
> ultimate.  Dont you get it?  its often no so much the sport that makes
> it hard or painful to watch but rather the way in which its managed
> and presented.  i'd say soccer is the exception although if they were
> to tweek that game quite a bit (play stopped time, quarters, foul
> limits, soften the offsides rule, eliminate red card/man down
> scenerios, do corner kicks rather than shootouts for tie scores)
> american fans would probably be more receptive of it

Let the UEFA know. Maybe they'll think about it. I think we'd all
feel silly if your simple suggestions were all that had been keeping
soccer from really breaking out in the world.

> > Folks who realize that you can add all of that time up for an entire
> > game, and you won't get as much time as Kobe and LeBron spend alone
> > spent going to, milling around, or on the foul line in the past two
> > days.
>
> there you go again making invalid comparisons.  Put it this
> way......you think it bugs you to watch basketball now.......just
> think how bad it would be watching them argue each and every call for
> 30 econds prior to and resolution?  take your head outa your ass
> punto.

Who cares? Even if there's NO debate amongst the refs about the call,
foul shots take longer than 30 seconds any how. Perhaps the other 9
players should have a lively ult-debate during the free throws instead
of just milling about like slackers.

> > What's the difference between waiting for an ult-debate, and waiting
> > for a ref's huddle in football?
>
> refs arent partial to their team getting the call to go one way or
> another AND they have a responsibility to manage time contstraints in
> an effecient and effective manner.

Okay, so that makes a ref huddle (or coach challenge, or whatever)
less INTERESTING (no drama) than an ult-debate. It doesn't make it
take any less time.

>  Or a coach's challenge?  Or even a
>
> > drive late in the fourth that runs something like "up the middle for
> > minimal gain, up the middle for minimal gain, up the middle for
> > minimal gain, punt"?
>
> how about the fact that they supply eye candy on the sidelines

You're changing the subject. You'd have a problem with ult-debates
even if there were cheerleaders, wouldn't you?

> > > except for the scoring part eh?
>
> > No, the scoring part is actually way more exciting in soccer.  But
> > most cuts and most passes don't result in scores.
>
> that is IF they sore in the first place

Which of course is the reason why it's so exciting. When a shot goes
in, it means something. Folks are excited, others are bummed. When
Kobe makes a free throw, his non-debating slackass team mates amble
over for a lackadaisical high-five (actually low-five, they're not
nearly excited to actually raise their arms). The fans make a half-
assed woo-hoo, others put out a half-assed "meh..." and we all wait
around for the next one...

> > > yea, once every 4 years
>
> > Champions League is just as high level as world cup.
>
> yet american sports fans pay it no mind.......where as we do watch
> world cup

That... sounds like a YOU problem. Actually though, CL is on ESPN and
probably gets pretty good ratings for its time slot (it airs live,
which means mid-afternoon on our continent since games are played
prime time in Europe).

~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25561 is a reply to message #25555] Mon, 25 May 2009 18:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jondorty17
Messages: 15
Registered: April 2009
Junior Member
On May 25, 8:23 pm, Daag Alemayehu <daag.alemay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 6:36 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All three of you can be wrong if you want.  The point is that soccer
> > is non-stop, and you find it boring.  Football, basketball and
> > baseball spend more time stopped than going, and you find them going.
> > Ergo, your theory that making ultimate more non-stop will make it more
> > exciting to you is... suspect.
>
> The (main) flaw in your argument is that you seem to think all action
> (i.e., what goes on between stoppages of play) was created equal.
> This is wrong.
>
> > Champions League is just as high level as world cup.  Possibly higher,
>
> Probably.  Doesn't mean everybody cares...

How did the nationals talk thread turn into "why soccer sucks"? As
somebody who likes the sport of ultimate, that finals game was
actually fun to watch! I got to enjoy seeing Lindsley and Taylor
display their considerable talents without worrying about who is "most
spirited". Its amazing what happens when the ability to call travel
is taken out of the players hands.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25571 is a reply to message #25528] Mon, 25 May 2009 19:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ckerr4
Messages: 281
Registered: January 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Senior Member
Pinto wrote:

> Champions League is just as high level as world cup.  Possibly higher,
> since the clubs spend more time getting to know each other and
> practicing, and usually feature all stars from many different
> countries.  Almost every player on a team that could make quarters in
> the world cup plays for one of ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool,
> Barca, or Real Madrid.  The CL final in Rome between Barca and ManU is
> this week.  It'll probably compete for the superbowl in ratings, and
> justifiably so.

I think all the TV viewer numbers are spun and are pure estimates, but
most analysts feel the Championship League audience is about double
the Super Bowl. But the World Cup final is in a completely different
class, with a world wide audience of around a billion -- almost 10
times the Super Bowl.

The top club teams are almost certainly stronger than all but the very
best World Cup teams and both this year's finalists, Manchester United
and Barcelona, have bench players that start for their World Cup
county teams. Of course, if the entire Brazil or Spanish national
teams could magically play in Championship League, they'd be more than
competitive....

If you're a soccer skeptic, checkout this week's Championship League
final this Wednesday afternoon on ESPN2HD -- should be epic.

Charles
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25596 is a reply to message #25555] Mon, 25 May 2009 23:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 25, 6:23 pm, Daag Alemayehu <daag.alemay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 6:36 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The (main) flaw in your argument is that you seem to think all action
> (i.e., what goes on between stoppages of play) was created equal.
> This is wrong.

I think that the argument works so long as
1) any action is "better" than stoppage and...
2) all stoppage is created equal.

Action isn't equal within a sport much less between them, and it's
entirely too subjective. Most sports are learned tastes - without a
sense for the game, they're less entertaining...

> > Champions League is just as high level as world cup.  Possibly higher,
>
> Probably.  Doesn't mean everybody cares...

Well, yeah. Folks in the US care for patriotic country vs country
reasons, not because the games are any more exciting, interesting, or
high-level than your regular old European Tuesday... Kind of like how
you watch sports in the olympics that other countries care about but
that you... definitely don't... just because it's the olympics...

~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25612 is a reply to message #25233] Tue, 26 May 2009 03:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
Pitt vs Cornell was an incredible game.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25613 is a reply to message #25612] Tue, 26 May 2009 03:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> Pitt vs Cornell was an incredible game.

Damn, halfway thru this thread, the posts fail to continue being about
College Nationals.
THAT is a shame, because Nationals was THE BOMB.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25621 is a reply to message #25613] Tue, 26 May 2009 05:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ckerr4
Messages: 281
Registered: January 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Senior Member
On May 26, 6:50 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Pitt vs Cornell was an incredible game.
>
> Damn, halfway thru this thread, the posts fail to continue being about
> College Nationals.
> THAT is a shame, because Nationals was THE BOMB.

G (and other Nationals Observers):

Give us the inside story on all the big games.

How would you judge this year's level of play?

Who did you see that really impressed you as a player?

What was the level of sportsmanship like?

Any new directions in terms of fouls or calls?

Who Observed the men's and women's semi-final games and finals?

Any huge or controversial calls have to be made by an Observer?

How many calls on average went to Observers each game?

How many TMF citations did you have to issue. (G, I know for you it
was zero!)

"Ultimate: it's all about the Observers"

Charles
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25623 is a reply to message #25558] Tue, 26 May 2009 05:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 25, 9:35 pm, pinto <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Any way ya slice it though, non stop bordom is still bordom.  I mean,
> > marathoins are non stop too.  see the corelation?  You arent saying
> > you find marathions to be exciting and entertaining just because its
> > non stop,are you?
>
> Once again, you think you're arguing with me when you're not.  We both
> agree that non-stop is boring, and mostly stopped isn't.

i dont agree with that at all. what makes sports boring to me is lack
of scoring and scoring attempts.......and a shitty ruleset with poorly
managed comp of course
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------



>
> > BUT they spend less time stopped than if they were to allow the
> > players to get involved in the rule enforcement process AND control
> > the game management, right?  so its all relitive.
>
> Why would it be relative?  2 minutes of down time is 2 minutes of
> downtime.

yea but when ya throw in the dynamic of players initiating or even
envolved in the rule enforcement process that 2 minutes becomes 4
minutes quick
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------



 Unless you're watching football in a reference frame that's
> moving near the speed of light, I think that we can compare our
> minutes, and ratios of minutes, in absolutes, thank you.

thats cause your a dumbass. Everyone thats ever been around ultimate
for more than 2 minutes fully understands how much more time it takes
for the players to settle calls, retrieve discs, come back from to's
and pull the disc after points, etc etc than if there was a ref
managing that time. (i remember watching a local coed tourny game
while at a local park with my kids and i was timing the breaks between
points and pulls at around 3 minutes). And then when you add in the
contiuity factor thats missing it makes those down time spans seem
even longer.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------



.
>
> If you're saying that the downtime is okay in football because it's
> essential to the sport and not the result of bad management, you're
> wrong too.

i'm not saying that at all........which is why i was supportive of the
college football game recently reducing its play clock. Understand,
they did this to increase the pace of the game and reduce downtime.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------



 The rules explicitly provide for (and frequently require)
> that downtime.


then why do they reduce it when and if possible. remember when there
was no shot clock in b-ball? what the fuck do you think the reasoning
was in establishing it in the first place? Increased scoring and
scoring atempts and less bordom i;d say. Look at any time constraint
in any sport and youll see that as time goes on those time limits get
lowered. Shit, the stall in ulti used to be 15.......and i'm pretty
sure there was a time when there was no set time limit between point
and pull. wouldnt common sense tell ya that as time goes on this time
constraint will become less and less.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------
>
> Other than the cheerleaders, none of that happens except during the
> actual action.

i dont care.......thats why i watch it. you asked, i answered
------------------------------------------------------------ --



 That's a good reason to watch a 20 minute football
> game.  What are you watching  the other 2 hours, 40 minutes for?


look prick, football is the shit for a reason in america.......
whereas soccer IS shit for a reason in america. just cause you cant
figure out why that is dont blame us.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------



>
> >   A football game is somewhere
>
> > > in the vicinity of 20-30 minutes of action, distributed relatively
> > > evenly among 200 or so minutes of downtime.


and a soccer game is ALL downtime(please refer to simpsons
spoof........as most of us see kicking the ball back and fourth at
midfield brutally painful ((and boring)) to watch)......escept for the
few instances where they actually attempt to score. So great punto,
you have convinced us that you are a glutton for punishment when it
comes to watching sports(you admittlidly watch a game thats completely
boring and flourish it as a merrit and you constantly watch the game
of basketball that you seem to overtly despise).......maybe that
explains why you defend the player controled system over a ref
enforced one in ulti. either way, you are no one to use as a
benchmark for desiphering whats what in the world of sports
entertainment.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------
>
> > and just think how much more downtime ther would be if they played
> > under a self officiated rule set?
>
> What difference would it make?  They stop for 20-30 seconds even if
> there WASN'T a call.

so they would stop for twice that long with out refs(and rules)
evoking "stopped time effeciency".......THATS THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES
YOU PEE BRAIN.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------


 They could have a nice little ult-debate after
> every pass and the game wouldn't take any longer...


Uhhhhh, how wouldnt it? dont ult-debates take longer in ulti without
observers? Isnt that why they are there in the first place. I dont
recall anything about a provision for using a watered down refs in
ultimate in the original rules......yet i do recall a provision for
regular "refs".
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>
> Let the UEFA know.  Maybe they'll think about it.  I think we'd all
> feel silly if your simple suggestions were all that had been keeping
> soccer from really breaking out in the world.

i'm not talking about it breaking thru into a world market......i'm
talking about it breaking thru in an american market(where its
currently kinda a joke)
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
>
> Who cares?

normal folk
-----------------------------------------------------


 Even if there's NO debate amongst the refs about the call,
> foul shots take longer than 30 seconds any how.  Perhaps the other 9
> players should have a lively ult-debate during the free throws instead
> of just milling about like slackers.

thats the thing though......without refs to manage that downtime foul
shooting would likely take minutes.......just like it takes much
longer for teams to pull when there isnt a time constraint being
enforced in ulti? get it?
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------
>
> > > What's the difference between waiting for an ult-debate, and waiting
> > > for a ref's huddle in football?

you know that refs are practicing "stopped time efficency" and will
undoubtedly speed up the process of resolving the issue. where as
players have no concern for the time factor and would gladly sacrifice
that sowntime in order to get a call to go there way (or even get a
little extra rest when warranted). point is there is less urgancy for
the players to resolve disputes quickly than there is for the call to
go their way in the end. yet another reason why most sports use refs
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------
>
> Okay, so that makes a ref huddle (or coach challenge, or whatever)
> less INTERESTING (no drama) than an ult-debate.

well, both are of little interest to me.......i just want to know the
conclusion. with refs its settled quickly and desisively......with
players its just two people butting heads(with no reguard for "stopped
time efficiency") until they finally decide to "do it over". big
difference.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------



 It doesn't make it
> take any less time.


sure it does. thats like saying that incorporating the irs wont
produce less downtime than the "conflict resolution process"
allowance.........which is insane!
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > drive late in the fourth that runs something like "up the middle for
> > > minimal gain, up the middle for minimal gain, up the middle for
> > > minimal gain, punt"?

uhmmm, that sounds more like soccer to me......only without the
hitting
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
>
> > how about the fact that they supply eye candy on the sidelines
>
> You're changing the subject.

hey, you asked the question
------------------------------------------------------------ ---


 You'd have a problem with ult-debates
> even if there were cheerleaders, wouldn't you?

not as much
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > except for the scoring part eh?
>
> > > No, the scoring part is actually way more exciting in soccer.

IF they score, that is. either way, that level of excitement is
subjective. To me its kind of random and unexciting.......and
sometimes its just pure luck when they score.....nutin exciting about
that.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------


 But
> > > most cuts and most passes don't result in scores.

which is why "most" sports fans dont watch it!
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
>
> Which of course is the reason why it's so exciting.  When a shot goes
> in, it means something.

but what if no shots go in the whole game? so goes the excitement,
eh?
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------


 Folks are excited, others are bummed.  When
> Kobe makes a free throw, his non-debating slackass team mates amble
> over for a lackadaisical high-five (actually low-five, they're not
> nearly excited to actually raise their arms).  The fans make a half-
> assed woo-hoo, others put out a half-assed "meh..." and we all wait
> around for the next one...

hey, you are the one watching it. if ya hate it that much why not
just NOT watch......like i do with soccer? ate up!
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------
>
> That... sounds like a YOU problem.

nope.....i'm pretty sure thats a soccer problem. ya see, as an
american sports fan, i'm satisfied. So if soccer wants mine and my
american sports fans bretheren to pay attention to their sport then
THEY need to make the proper consessions(just like ulti does). Its
not a matter of me adjusting my tastes......i got my own crib.
whereas you complaining about b-ball IS a YOU problem......cause you
still watch it. see the difference?
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------



 Actually though, CL is on ESPN and
> probably gets pretty good ratings for its time slot


define "pretty good ratings"? and while your at it, find out what
those ratings are come thursday and be more specific.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25626 is a reply to message #25561] Tue, 26 May 2009 05:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 25, 9:42 pm, jondort...@gmail.com wrote:

>  Its amazing what happens when the ability to call travel
> is taken out of the players hands.


so just imagin how it would be if the rest of the calls were taken out
of the players hands. Luckily for me, i dont have to imagine as i
have been to the promise land and i can tell ya from
experience......its a thing of beauty!!!
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25627 is a reply to message #25621] Tue, 26 May 2009 05:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> How many TMF citations did you have to issue. (G, I know for you it
> was zero!)
>
> "Ultimate: it's all about the Observers"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hello Charles.
I must announce that I did, for the first time in my career, have to
issue a TMF for a late slam/dive into a receiver by a defender.

And yes, your memory IS correct, it IS all about the observers.
answers to your other questions are on the way.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25628 is a reply to message #25571] Tue, 26 May 2009 05:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 25, 10:22 pm, ckerr4 <chaske...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think all the TV viewer numbers are spun and are pure estimates, but
> most analysts feel the Championship League audience is about double
> the Super Bowl.

thats world wide viewership though........what are the statistics of
american viewership?
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------



But the World Cup final is in a completely different
> class, with a world wide audience of around a billion -- almost 10
> times the Super Bowl.

i'd bet the house that thats not the case for the american audience
though. so my question to you is.....which audience should ultimate
concern itself with......the american audience or the world audience.
IF you choose american then wouldnt it be prudent for ultimate to
understand soccers shortcomings and gravitat AWAY from mimicking that
sport and TOWARDS mimicking the popular ones......like football and
basketball (ironically the two sports ultimate was born out of.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------
>
> The top club teams are almost certainly stronger than all but the very
> best World Cup teams and both this year's finalists, Manchester United
> and Barcelona, have bench players that start for their World Cup
> county teams. Of course, if the entire Brazil or Spanish national
> teams could magically play in Championship League, they'd be more than
> competitive....

yet we still wouldnt watch......so that point is pretty irrelivant
------------------------------------------------------------ --
>
> If you're a soccer skeptic, checkout this week's Championship League
> final this Wednesday afternoon on ESPN2HD -- should be epic.

i'll check it........but it dont mean ill enjoy it.
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25630 is a reply to message #25613] Tue, 26 May 2009 05:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 26, 6:50 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Pitt vs Cornell was an incredible game.
>
> Damn, halfway thru this thread, the posts fail to continue being about
> College Nationals.
> THAT is a shame, because Nationals was THE BOMB.

didnt see you in the finals mike, what gives?
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25641 is a reply to message #25627] Tue, 26 May 2009 06:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ckerr4
Messages: 281
Registered: January 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Senior Member
> Hello Charles.
> I must announce that I did, for the first time in my career, have to
> issue a TMF for a late slam/dive into a receiver by a defender.
>
> And yes, your memory IS correct, it IS all about the observers.
> answers to your other questions are on the way.

Mike:

That just blows me away. I know you were proud of never having issued
a TMF (after what, 200+ Observed games?) and now there's this
footnote. What happened, did the defender literally kill the guy?

Anyway, I'm really impressed.

Charles
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25648 is a reply to message #25627] Tue, 26 May 2009 07:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On May 26, 8:53 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Charles.
> I must announce that I did, for the first time in my career, have to
> issue a TMF for a late slam/dive into a receiver by a defender.


mechanically, how did you signify that call.....and towards whom?
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25677 is a reply to message #25623] Tue, 26 May 2009 09:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> (i remember watching a local coed tourny game
> while at a local park with my kids and i was timing the breaks between
> points and pulls at around 3 minutes).

Sounds like a funny outing. Did you let the kids hold the stop watch
sometimes?


> i'm not saying that at all........which is why i was supportive of the
> college football game recently reducing its play clock.  Understand,
> they did this to increase the pace of the game and reduce downtime.

If football cared about downtime, why would there be 7 time outs and a
quarter break for every 30 minutes of play?
>   That's a good reason to watch a 20 minute football
>
> > game.  What are you watching  the other 2 hours, 40 minutes for?
>
> look prick, football is the shit for a reason in america.......
> whereas soccer IS shit for a reason in america.  just cause you cant
> figure out why that is dont blame us.

I have a pretty damn good idea. Folks like the sports they grow up
with. Then they invent bullshit theories for why they have the
preferences that they do. Bass-ackwards explanations, I suppose.

I'm sure you've got a bunch of bullshit theories, same as the soccer
fans have about you...


> which is why "most" sports fans dont watch it!

Most sports fans do. Soccer isn't just the number one sport in the
world, it has no close rival. Even here in the US of A where we have
tons of sports, we have a soccer league that's doing better than the
lacrosse league, and we don't call those mini-van drivers "football
moms," do we? =)

Here's a visual aid. Each X is roughly 300 million people. The first
line is those who prefer to watch American football. The latter is
those who prefer to watch soccer.

X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

> > Which of course is the reason why it's so exciting.  When a shot goes
> > in, it means something.
>
> but what if no shots go in the whole game?  so goes the excitement,
> eh?

Yeah, usually the fans tend to get bored, stay quiet, etc. Have you
ever been to a soccer game?

> hey, you are the one watching it.  if ya hate it that much why not
> just NOT watch......like i do with soccer?  ate up!

I don't watch NBA until the playoffs, and even then I only watch
select teams. It's pretty painful to watch if you don't have a strong
opinion on who you want to win.

> > That... sounds like a YOU problem.
>
> nope.....i'm pretty sure thats a soccer problem.  ya see, as an
> american sports fan, i'm satisfied.

Heh. If you're satisfied, you'd probably be a lot more... quiet.

>  So if soccer wants mine and my
> american sports fans bretheren to pay attention to their sport then
> THEY need to make the proper consessions(just like ulti does).  Its
> not a matter of me adjusting my tastes......i got my own crib.

I think soccer has its own crib too. That's 20 times the size of
yours.

~p
Re: Nationals Talk [message #25680 is a reply to message #25628] Tue, 26 May 2009 09:01 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On May 26, 5:56 am, ulticri...@live.com wrote:

> i'd bet the house that thats not the case for the american audience
> though.  so my question to you is.....which audience should ultimate
> concern itself with......the american audience or the world audience.

I don't see why it's got to be either/or... but if you had to choose,
you'd go for the one that had 20 times the number of people, right?

> > If you're a soccer skeptic, checkout this week's Championship League
> > final this Wednesday afternoon on ESPN2HD -- should be epic.
>
> i'll check it........but it dont mean ill enjoy it.

Well, not with that attitude!

~p
Previous Topic:2009 Callahan Award: Winners
Next Topic:Quad tendentious, calf/hamstring pain… advice?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Feb 25 07:06:38 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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