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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1
The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2572] Tue, 14 October 2008 18:52 Go to next message
Bearseth
Messages: 174
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Hey all,

We've got big news about this year's college division and the plans
Cultimate have. Take a look:

http://www.the-huddle.org/

More info and articles to come this week as this story develops.

Thanks for reading.

Andy & Ben
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2578 is a reply to message #2572] Tue, 14 October 2008 19:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
elliottt
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2008
Member
My favorite informative article is the "Deatiled Breakdown"
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2580 is a reply to message #2578] Tue, 14 October 2008 19:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearseth
Messages: 174
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 8:15 pm, ellio...@grinnell.edu wrote:
> My favorite informative article is the "Deatiled Breakdown"

decent snark, typo fix. Thanks.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2581 is a reply to message #2578] Tue, 14 October 2008 19:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
elliottt
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Oct 14, 9:15 pm, ellio...@grinnell.edu wrote:
> My favorite informative article is the "Deatiled Breakdown"

well now it's changed.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2590 is a reply to message #2581] Tue, 14 October 2008 19:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wabartenstein
Messages: 143
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 9:22 pm, ellio...@grinnell.edu wrote:
> On Oct 14, 9:15 pm, ellio...@grinnell.edu wrote:
>
> > My favorite informative article is the "Deatiled Breakdown"
>
> well now it's changed.

wow:

http://www.the-huddle.org/features/conference-1/an-interview -with-brodie-smith/

No spirit of the game? Brodie Smith is an idiot who just wants
everyone to see his hammer on EPSN. Guess what dude, no one gives a
shit. No one in the world of sports cares how far you can throw a
disc.

That's why ultimate's great though. Except for teams like Florida who
make ultimate suck, everyone else plays it for fun, not because we
want to be on TV or get paid.

If you are going to take away spirit of the game than you can call it
something else. Don't call it ultimate though.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2593 is a reply to message #2590] Tue, 14 October 2008 19:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tom Shane
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
On Oct 14, 10:39 pm, wabartenst...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 14, 9:22 pm, ellio...@grinnell.edu wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 9:15 pm, ellio...@grinnell.edu wrote:
>
> > > My favorite informative article is the "Deatiled Breakdown"
>
> > well now it's changed.
>
> wow:
>
> http://www.the-huddle.org/features/conference-1/an-interview -with-bro...
>
> No spirit of the game? Brodie Smith is an idiot who just wants
> everyone to see his hammer on EPSN. Guess what dude, no one gives a
> shit. No one in the world of sports cares how far you can throw a
> disc.
>
> That's why ultimate's great though. Except for teams like Florida who
> make ultimate suck, everyone else plays it for fun, not because we
> want to be on TV or get paid.
>
> If you are going to take away spirit of the game than you can call it
> something else. Don't call it ultimate though.

Gonna though.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2601 is a reply to message #2593] Tue, 14 October 2008 20:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scoop
Messages: 76
Registered: September 2008
Member
Here's a recent link to one of the better recent RSD hissy-fits
featuring Brodie, the guy backing Cultimate on the Huddle.
http://tinyurl.com/4rk34r
What fun!
Cultimate
"Saving RSD from Toad and Frank since October 2008"
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2629 is a reply to message #2601] Tue, 14 October 2008 22:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jacob
Messages: 576
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
In response to The Huddle's take on Conference 1:

"This is similar to the competitive model that we believe the UPA
Strategic Planning indicates would be in the UPA's future, though
probably on an 8-15 year timeline."

I do not think this should take until 2023 to implement. If this is
really the UPA's schedule, it's hard to defend its right to run
college ultimate.

"The UPA has had no competition in this arena, which has been, in many
ways, a good thing (the UPA can focus on other aims like Youth
Development)."

As a former youth player, I respect the UPA's efforts in youth
ultimate. However, it sounds as though you are implying that due to
lack of competition, the UPA has been free to keep college ultimate
treading water while it (the UPA) focused on youth. Is this really
what you meant? And if this is what you meant, wouldn't the UPA be
even more free to promote youth ultimate if a separate entity like
Cultimate took over the elite men's college division?

"Conflict with the UPA is major potential liability"

A conflict for whom exactly?

"it is hard to say right now what any negotiation might look like."

This is probably because the UPA has never had to negotiate the terms
of how exactly competition is organized. It might not be a bad thing
to see how the UPA does negotiate this. I think this type of
negotiation is inevitable.

"A direct competition between the UPA and Cultimate for control of the
dominant championship series could split the division."

How likely do you think this is? The captains of the top five college
men's teams are probably communicating right now about what to do.
Once they get their teams on board, all the other teams that are in
the top 25 will quickly follow. Nobody will want to be in the second
division. This would be true even without the extra perks Cultimate
is offering.

"Because the UPA has a wide-ranging and diverse mandate, and it does
not specialize in competitive administration."

The more competitive players suffer more for the game, and will
probably serve as better promotional vehicles. If they so choose,
they should have their division run by an entity that specializes in
their needs. Treating the best players with the same level of respect
as the worst players may make the UPA feel good, but this will be the
main reason why the UPA will likely eventually be an entity which
organizes only the less competitive divisions.

"we feel that a market contest between the UPA and Cultimate may see
Cultimate succeed."

Are you acknowledging that Cultimate is prepared to do more for elite
men's college ultimate than the UPA is (or are you suggesting that
elite men's college players will simply be duped by good marketing)?
If so, how can you ask these players not to choose Cultimate? Would
you ask non-competitive players to sacrifice the quality of their
ultimate experience for the sake of making things better for elite
players?

"Because this has the potential for disrupting many other extremely
worthwhile UPA investments and programs, we believe that direct and
long-term competition between the UPA and Cultimate is bad for the
sport of Ultimate."

Outside of lost revenue (25 teams x about 22 players x $30 = about
$16,500 a year lost UPA dues revenue), what type of disruption are you
talking about?

"We feel there is a potentially huge opportunity for cooperation.
Given an equitable profit sharing move between the UPA and Cultimate,
the College Division could be served well while maintaining the
valuable UPA service array."

What incentive does Cultimate have to cooperate with the UPA? Why do
you think that Cultimate can't serve part of the college division
while the UPA keeps "maintaining [its] valuable ... service array?"

"Cooperation in regards to dues payment and eligibility oversight
could, potentially, guarantee the UPA both the revenue traditionally
used while cutting back on UPA waste."

So Cultimate would share its profits with the UPA while also doing
work which the UPA currently sees as "waste," or are you suggesting
that the UPA would share money with Cultimate? One of these entities
will be making more money than the other off of college ultimate, so
unless the upa makes more off of college or takes money from other
divisions to share with Cultimate, you are talking about Cultimate
subsidizing the UPA. Why would they want to do this?

As for Cultimate basically paying the UPA to determine players'
eligibility, does the UPA really spend that much on determining
eligibility?

"We feel strongly that any College Ultimate model must allow for up-
and-coming teams to enter within the timeframe of a player's
eligibility. Any system that keeps a college player out of Conference
1, for any reason other than competition, for five years is
unacceptable to us."

Well said!

"Additionally, teams that are not invited to Conference 1 will, at the
moment, have only the UPA series to look forward to: potentially
without some/many of the top teams. This could be a significant
downgrade in the season for these teams. Finding good tournaments will
likely become more difficult for those teams on the outside looking
in, if it happens."

Good point. What if the bottom 5-10 teams at every Cultimate
championship got eliminated for one year and the top 5-10 teams from
the UPA championship qualified for the next year's Cultimate
division? Given the history of UPA college nationals, this would
represent a similar rate of turnover of teams playing at nationals,
although it would be bittersweet for the seniors on lower division
teams which qualified for the next year's Cultimate. Also, each of
the top 5-10 ranked Cultimate teams could have the option of
nominating 1 lower division team in their region to qualify for
nationals based on play at local non-Cultimate tournaments.

"We are very concerned that this is a male-only endevour. The Huddle
has been assured by the directors of Cultimate that future years will
bring significant developments in the Women's division. We feel, and
we are now confident that Cultimate agrees, that a Men's-only solution
is not acceptable in the long run, but that it may be a necessary evil
in the short run as Cultimate establishes a model."

Have you solicited any feedback from top college female teams? If
they are not into Cultimate, this is not an issue. Even if they are
into Cultimate, it seems you are on board with starting with only a
men's division.

"Finally, Conference 1 will likely experiment with rules and
officiation techniques. While we encourage experimentation, we worry
that introduction of these experiments in the Series may be too
aggressive of a change."

Why don't we just leave that one up to elite college men's players?
These guys are old enough to vote and serve in the army. I think
they're old enough to decide if they want to play in an ultimate
league with a few new rules.

"Cultimate plans to create a Board of Directors, chosen by them but
hopefully representing the community, to help guide these changes in
an intelligent manner. The way that this potential board acts in
relation to this question will be important."

Well, when all the decisions about how to organize the most
competitive league don't have to be approved by people who see top
level ultimate as a potential threat to grass roots ultimate, I think
you will be amazed at how quickly and how well things get done. And
when grass roots ultimate (which I love) is alive and well in 10 years
after Cultimate begins, some people will have some explaining to do.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2640 is a reply to message #2629] Tue, 14 October 2008 22:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
"We feel strongly that any College Ultimate model must allow for up-
and-coming teams to enter within the timeframe of a player's
eligibility. Any system that keeps a college player out of Conference
1, for any reason other than competition, for five years is
unacceptable to us."

Well said!

"Additionally, teams that are not invited to Conference 1 will, at the
moment, have only the UPA series to look forward to: potentially
without some/many of the top teams. This could be a significant
downgrade in the season for these teams. Finding good tournaments will
likely become more difficult for those teams on the outside looking
in, if it happens."

Good point. What if the bottom 5-10 teams at every Cultimate
championship got eliminated for one year and the top 5-10 teams from
the UPA championship qualified for the next year's Cultimate
division? Given the history of UPA college nationals, this would
represent a similar rate of turnover of teams playing at nationals,
although it would be bittersweet for the seniors on lower division
teams which qualified for the next year's Cultimate. Also, each of
the top 5-10 ranked Cultimate teams could have the option of
nominating 1 lower division team in their region to qualify for
nationals based on play at local non-Cultimate tournaments.


One element to this that would hijack the best intentions of both is
that the top 5-10 teams at UPA Nationals in a diluted series would
likely be dominated by seniors, and the teams that fall in the
Cultimate standings would likely be ones with a high turnover that
would be more competitive the following year. There would also be
concerns with a nominations system.

I think the biggest element that makes this original plan so jarring
is the miniscule number of teams. Would people be up in quite so many
arms if they had five ten team conferences? For instance....(and
boredom sets in)

Pacific Conference
Stanford
Oregon
UCSC
Cal
Arizona
Western Washington
Gonzaga
UCLA
UCSD
UCSB

Southern Conference
Texas
Colorado
Kansas
North Texas
Texas State
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Missouri
Colorado State
Texas A+M

Midwestern Conference
Wisconsin
Carleton
Minnesota
Illinois
Michigan
Ohio State
Washington University
Iowa
Wisconsin-Whitewater
Notre Dame

Northeastern Conference
Harvard
Pittsburgh
Brown
Penn
Cornell
Dartmouth
Tufts
Williams
UMass
Boston College

Southeastern Conference
Florida
Georgia
Auburn
North Carolina
Central Florida
NC State
UNC-Wilmington
Virginia
Delaware
Maryland

When you expand it out to this many teams, the league looks much more
plausible. In fact, if you compare it to something like the BCS, with
the play-in game possibility still existing each season, it's much
more reasonable to see a team or two relegated from each conference
each year to provide more of a natural cycle. (Say a bad season in the
Midwestern for Notre Dame and a UPA final for Luther would be that
sort of element.) The limited number of teams in the original proposal
is something that seems quite damning at first. Otherwise, it could be
a reasonable proposal, if concerns like eligibility are addressed as
well.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2646 is a reply to message #2640] Tue, 14 October 2008 23:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jay Schulkin
Messages: 48
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Oct 14, 10:41 pm, Pete <hockeypeteschr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "We feel strongly that any College Ultimate model must allow for up-
> and-coming teams to enter within the timeframe of a player's
> eligibility. Any system that keeps a college player out of Conference
> 1, for any reason other than competition, for five years is
> unacceptable to us."
>
> Well said!
>
> "Additionally, teams that are not invited to Conference 1 will, at the
> moment, have only the UPA series to look forward to: potentially
> without some/many of the top teams. This could be a significant
> downgrade in the season for these teams. Finding good tournaments will
> likely become more difficult for those teams on the outside looking
> in, if it happens."
>
> Good point.  What if the bottom 5-10 teams at every Cultimate
> championship got eliminated for one year and the top 5-10 teams from
> the UPA championship qualified for the next year's Cultimate
> division?  Given the history of UPA college nationals, this would
> represent a similar rate of turnover of teams playing at nationals,
> although it would be bittersweet for the seniors on lower division
> teams which qualified for the next year's Cultimate.  Also, each of
> the top 5-10 ranked Cultimate teams could have the option of
> nominating 1 lower division team in their region to qualify for
> nationals based on play at local non-Cultimate tournaments.
>
> One element to this that would hijack the best intentions of both is
> that the top 5-10 teams at UPA Nationals in a diluted series would
> likely be dominated by seniors, and the teams that fall in the
> Cultimate standings would likely be ones with a high turnover that
> would be more competitive the following year. There would also be
> concerns with a nominations system.
>
> I think the biggest element that makes this original plan so jarring
> is the miniscule number of teams. Would people be up in quite so many
> arms if they had five ten team conferences? For instance....(and
> boredom sets in)
>
> Pacific Conference
> Stanford
> Oregon
> UCSC
> Cal
> Arizona
> Western Washington
> Gonzaga
> UCLA
> UCSD
> UCSB
>
> Southern Conference
> Texas
> Colorado
> Kansas
> North Texas
> Texas State
> Oklahoma
> Arkansas
> Missouri
> Colorado State
> Texas A+M
>
> Midwestern Conference
> Wisconsin
> Carleton
> Minnesota
> Illinois
> Michigan
> Ohio State
> Washington University
> Iowa
> Wisconsin-Whitewater
> Notre Dame
>
> Northeastern Conference
> Harvard
> Pittsburgh
> Brown
> Penn
> Cornell
> Dartmouth
> Tufts
> Williams
> UMass
> Boston College
>
> Southeastern Conference
> Florida
> Georgia
> Auburn
> North Carolina
> Central Florida
> NC State
> UNC-Wilmington
> Virginia
> Delaware
> Maryland
>
> When you expand it out to this many teams, the league looks much more
> plausible. In fact, if you compare it to something like the BCS, with
> the play-in game possibility still existing each season, it's much
> more reasonable to see a team or two relegated from each conference
> each year to provide more of a natural cycle. (Say a bad season in the
> Midwestern for Notre Dame and a UPA final for Luther would be that
> sort of element.) The limited number of teams in the original proposal
> is something that seems quite damning at first. Otherwise, it could be
> a reasonable proposal, if concerns like eligibility are addressed as
> well.

I'm sure cultimate is clamoring for Gonzaga and Missouri to join up.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2651 is a reply to message #2646] Tue, 14 October 2008 23:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> I'm sure cultimate is clamoring for Gonzaga and Missouri to join up.

The teams could be subject to change, I threw some other schools in at
random without much look at the regions, or records or what not. The
point to be made is that it is always better to make an argument like
yours, about teams that were included, than have an argument about the
teams that were excluded.

A 25 team season, elite or not, does not represent to me any sort of
actual college championship. If you expand the original field, even
some, it takes away the "You should have this team" argument. Say what
you want about the UPA Series, but no one can say every team doesn't
have an equal chance. This plan makes the BCS look like a wide-open
competition.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2689 is a reply to message #2572] Wed, 15 October 2008 07:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Head Beagle
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
Who wrote the material in "A Detailed Breakdown"???
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2706 is a reply to message #2580] Wed, 15 October 2008 07:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
seanc
Messages: 322
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 7:19 pm, Bearseth <andy.lovs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 8:15 pm, ellio...@grinnell.edu wrote:
>
> > My favorite informative article is the "Deatiled Breakdown"
>
> decent snark, typo fix. Thanks.

also, in last paragraph, "either..." what?

"Most notably, if the UPA were to eventually lose the revenue created
by the College Series they would be likely forced to either massively
scale back operations."

sean
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2734 is a reply to message #2689] Wed, 15 October 2008 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Douglia
Messages: 7
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
On Oct 15, 10:10 am, Head Beagle <we...@jbu.edu> wrote:
> Who wrote the material in "A Detailed Breakdown"???

Seriously... Who wrote the material in "A Detailed Breakdown"???

And how was that Detailed? or a breakdown? sounded more like an
advertisment...
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2739 is a reply to message #2706] Wed, 15 October 2008 08:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearseth
Messages: 174
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> also, in last paragraph, "either..." what?
>
> "Most notably, if the UPA were to eventually lose the revenue created
> by the College Series they would be likely forced to either massively
> scale back operations."
>
> sean

Good catch. Thanks Sean.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2788 is a reply to message #2734] Wed, 15 October 2008 10:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 15, 9:47 am, Douglia <doug.breg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 10:10 am, Head Beagle <we...@jbu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Who wrote the material in "A Detailed Breakdown"???
>
> Seriously... Who wrote the material in "A Detailed Breakdown"???
>
> And how was that Detailed? or a breakdown?  sounded more like an
> advertisment...

My favorite line from that:

"[The UPA open college division is] a division which has been, in the
past, almost completely run for the financial betterment of individual
teams."

To which I say, whaaaaa?

Where is this mythical team that is raking in cash thanks to success
in the college series?

The college series costs money to compete in - and more money if you
actually qualify for the championship. If any part of our sport is
benefiting financially from the open college division, it's the youth
division.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2804 is a reply to message #2788] Wed, 15 October 2008 11:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rodney Jacobson
Messages: 57
Registered: October 2008
Member
My favorite line is from the start of The Huddle's "Our Take":

"I might also be a huge and disruptive failure. "

Somehow I don't think that's what it's supposed to say...
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2820 is a reply to message #2804] Wed, 15 October 2008 11:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lunders
Messages: 1
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
"[The UPA open college division is] a division which has been, in the
past, almost completely run for the financial betterment of individual
teams."

For anyone confused about what the above is talking about, it is
referring to individual teams/schools hosting tournaments in the fall
to help raise money to subsidize tournament fees, hotel rooms, etc.

That's my guess, anyways.



On Oct 15, 1:04 pm, Rodney Jacobson <rodne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My favorite line is from the start of The Huddle's "Our Take":
>
> "I might also be a huge and disruptive failure. "
>
> Somehow I don't think that's what it's supposed to say...
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2826 is a reply to message #2820] Wed, 15 October 2008 11:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 15, 11:34 am, Lunders <ilunders...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "[The UPA open college division is] a division which has been, in the
> past, almost completely run for the financial betterment of individual
> teams."
>
> For anyone confused about what the above is talking about, it is
> referring to individual teams/schools hosting tournaments in the fall
> to help raise money to subsidize tournament fees, hotel rooms, etc.
>
> That's my guess, anyways.
>
> On Oct 15, 1:04 pm, Rodney Jacobson <rodne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My favorite line is from the start of The Huddle's "Our Take":
>
> > "I might also be a huge and disruptive failure. "
>
> > Somehow I don't think that's what it's supposed to say...
>
>

I don't see how that changes in any way, though.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2838 is a reply to message #2820] Wed, 15 October 2008 12:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ott
Messages: 16
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
thanks for the clarification. So should i feel better that my money
isn't going to a university team but a few guys?

On Oct 15, 12:34 pm, Lunders <ilunders...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "[The UPA open college division is] a division which has been, in the
> past, almost completely run for the financial betterment of individual
> teams."
>
> For anyone confused about what the above is talking about, it is
> referring to individual teams/schools hosting tournaments in the fall
> to help raise money to subsidize tournament fees, hotel rooms, etc.
>
> That's my guess, anyways.
>
> On Oct 15, 1:04 pm, Rodney Jacobson <rodne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My favorite line is from the start of The Huddle's "Our Take":
>
> > "I might also be a huge and disruptive failure. "
>
> > Somehow I don't think that's what it's supposed to say...
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2872 is a reply to message #2838] Wed, 15 October 2008 13:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearseth
Messages: 174
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Hi all,

We have published a new article regarding our (The Huddle's)
involvement with Cultimate and Conference1. Take a look:

http://www.the-huddle.org/features/conference-1/our-vested-i nterests/

We'd like to apologize to all our readers for the haste with which
this feature was put together, and the sloppiness with which it was
presented. We know all of you expect a higher level of quality from
The Huddle, and we don't wish to take that for granted. If you find
anymore spelling, grammatical, semantic, or existential issues with
our articles, feel free to contact us at: info<at>the-huddle<dot>org.

Thanks for reading.

Andy & Ben
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #2952 is a reply to message #2872] Wed, 15 October 2008 14:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
I would like to know The Huddle's opinion if Western Washington had
not been invited into Conference1.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #3028 is a reply to message #2826] Wed, 15 October 2008 18:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Daag Alemayehu
Messages: 249
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 15, 2:37 pm, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > For anyone confused about what the above is talking about, it is
> > referring to individual teams/schools hosting tournaments in the fall
> > to help raise money to subsidize tournament fees, hotel rooms, etc.
>
> I don't see how that changes in any way, though.

Lunders is right, and I'm not so sure why that line puzzled everyone
so much. But to answer your question, Ryan, that changes because
there will be fewer teams running college tournaments as the C1 is
implemented and (in future years) grows. If you look at the
tournaments on the slate for the 2008-09 college season, you have
Easterns, Stanford Invite, and Centex as tournaments that used to be
run by college teams, presumably to supplement their budgets. Next
year you might have a bunch of other long-time college-run tournaments
either being taken over by Cultimate or being replaced by other
Cultimate tournaments that are nearby either in date or geographical
location or both.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #3039 is a reply to message #3028] Wed, 15 October 2008 19:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sideline
Messages: 51
Registered: September 2008
Member
The apparent addition of "Centrals" in Manhattan, KS (at least they
fixed the typo) the weekend before April Fools Day seems to
substantiate this aspect of Cultimate's business plan:
1. Find long running, successful ultimate tournament.
2. Establish another tournament kitty corner from tournament
identified above, and draw away market share from said tournament.
3. Profit!

Wait a minute, I think I've seen this before somewhere. Yep -
Cultimate is the Starbucks of Ultimate.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #3045 is a reply to message #2640] Wed, 15 October 2008 19:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bench
Messages: 4
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
> I think the biggest element that makes this original plan so jarring
> is the miniscule number of teams. Would people be up in quite so many
> arms if they had five ten team conferences?
I

I think the whole point of only having 25 teams is that C1 doesn't
want to be over ambitious. I would assume that any long term league
would eventually pull in more teams for larger conferences. Starting
with too many teams seems like a good way to fail from being
overwhelmed, especially considering that C1 is supporting the teams in
it financially. It seems like too much of the argument on RSD is that
teams are being snubbed, but when you only take 25 teams, someone has
to be left out. If cultimate is successful, it seems unlikely that
good teams would be left out for long.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #3051 is a reply to message #3045] Wed, 15 October 2008 20:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jay Schulkin
Messages: 48
Registered: September 2008
Member
> I think the whole point of only having 25 teams is that C1 doesn't
> want to be over ambitious.

You are crazy if you think this plan is not AMBITIOUS, for better or
for worse. We are talking about a wholesale replacement of the UPA
College Series.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #3149 is a reply to message #3051] Thu, 16 October 2008 09:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bench
Messages: 4
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
On Oct 15, 10:04 pm, Jay Schulkin <Jay.Schul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the whole point of only having 25 teams is that C1 doesn't
> > want to be over ambitious.
>
> You are crazy if you think this plan is not AMBITIOUS, for better or
> for worse. We are talking about a wholesale replacement of the UPA
> College Series.

Cool. That's why I said they don't want to be OVER ambitious instead
of just saying ambitious. Obviously this big of a change is ambitious.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #3165 is a reply to message #2952] Thu, 16 October 2008 10:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BJ
Messages: 197
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 15, 4:59 pm, Pete <hockeypeteschr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to know The Huddle's opinion if Western Washington had
> not been invited into Conference1.

this is unbelievable to me. fucking baylor-esque.
Re: The Huddle | Feature No. 9 | BREAKING NEWS: Conference 1 [message #3234 is a reply to message #2572] Thu, 16 October 2008 13:18 Go to previous message
Grant
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
"The UPA is not changing. Their main concern is not on the growth of
the sport, but perserving something that is setup to never go
anywhere. I don't want people asking me where my dog is anymore. I
want the sport to be known and loved by many and I believe that
Conference 1 also wants this."

Was your dog missing? Did someone find it? I didn't even know you
had a dog. That's great news!
Previous Topic:DAMN!!!!!
Next Topic:Women's seeding discussion
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Feb 18 16:08:12 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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