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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » New proposal for club divisions
New proposal for club divisions [message #5332] Wed, 05 November 2008 14:26 Go to next message
aghesquiere
Messages: 36
Registered: October 2008
Member
I posted yesterday about my objection to the strength bid allocation
for 2009. Someone pointed out I had no counter-proposal so here is an
outline of what I've got in mind and some justification for it. This
is not a small tweak to the strength bid system, its more of an
overhaul proposal altogether. Its pulled together from lots of ideas
that I've heard and don't claim credit that any of these ideas are
originally mine. With C1 being revealed recently, there is a lot of
overlap from that type of system to this...

The open and womens club divisions should serve as the premier
competition and publicity vehicle for the UPA; would you agree that it
is the highest level of ultimate in the world and the structure around
it should be set up to support the UPA's publicity and promotional
goals? I believe the best structure is one that promotes meaningful
games during the year, a stable set of elite clubs that can be
individually promoted, a system to allow new clubs to break into the
ranks of the elite, and a playoff with the best teams involved.

The stable set of elite club teams allow for a tradition and history
behind teams that can be used to promote ultimate to outsiders, 'wow'
the younger kids as they are just starting to play, and will allow
sponsorship deals to grow - like those Sockeye has put together based
on their recent tradition of winning. To set this stable up, the club
teams need incentive to stay together and established. Since the UPA
can't become owners of the clubs or organize them (unless we want to
discuss something really different), I think a very good way to
guarantee the club's status is to create an elite league that club
teams play in for the whole year with a small amount of turnover each
year. The elite league members would be determined from the previous
year's league results and/or national championship tournament finish.
The regular season for the league determines who qualifies for the
playoffs (nationals). More on the playoff system in a bit, after a
reviewing the benefit of league membership...

Lets say there are 12 teams in the league and the top 10 teams from
the league re-qualify for the next year (plus or minus a few, the
ideal number TBD). The results at Nationals would determine which two
(if any) replacement teams qualify for the league. The league has a
regular season of 22 games (each team plays each other twice), so
that's 4 pre-set tournaments of 5-6 games on a weekend. The
tournaments are set up in advance, the matchups known in advance, and
these can easily be promoted to local media, etc. The regular season
events could overlap with traditional tournaments to allow exhibition
games and exposure or participation from the broader ultimate
community. Finally, the league could have observers (or even referees
or whatever) possibly that came from fellow league teams... a bit like
volleyball tournaments use line judges from teams that are on bye...
so each game would have a fully supported set of line judges and
observers to give it the most polished feel possible (discussion on
active observers, travel calls, etc is for another post).

Regarding the playoffs and 'relegation'... The top 10 finishers in the
league have guaranteed spots at nationals. The rest of the 6 spots
are awarded based on the normal sectionals/regionals tournament series
- 1 bid per region, or whatever makes sense to the UPA. The bottom 2
finishers in the league can still qualify for Nationals through the
normal sectionals/regionals tournament series. Once at Nationals,
following pool play, there is a top 8 bracket competing for the
championship, and a bottom 8 bracket competing to take the final two
spots remaining in the league. The bottom 2 teams from the league
table compete against new up-and-coming teams to defend their
inclusion in the league for next year.

Call it C1 for club teams, whatever you will. With the C1 uproar, and
"change" being a popular watchword in general, perhaps the UPA could
seriously consider this proposal for debate and refinement with
possible implementation in a year or a few. Of course, it might
fizzle and get lost in all the other drowned proposals of the past
decades - but if you're intrigued by this, send a reply or post one,
I'd be interested to see how much momentum something like this could
really generate. Hard to say what will happen, or if this is even at
all a new idea. I'm interested to hear any responses. Best,

Dutchy
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5364 is a reply to message #5332] Wed, 05 November 2008 18:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bslade86
Messages: 357
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 5, 5:26 pm, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I posted yesterday about my objection to the strength bid allocation
> for 2009.  Someone pointed out I had no counter-proposal so here is an
> outline of what I've got in mind and some justification for it.  This
> is not a small tweak to the strength bid system, its more of an
> overhaul proposal altogether. Its pulled together from lots of ideas
> that I've heard and don't claim credit that any of these ideas are
> originally mine.  With C1 being revealed recently, there is a lot of
> overlap from that type of system to this...
>
> The open and womens club divisions should serve as the premier
> competition and publicity vehicle for the UPA; would you agree that it
> is the highest level of ultimate in the world and the structure around
> it should be set up to support the UPA's publicity and promotional
> goals?  I believe the best structure is one that promotes meaningful
> games during the year, a stable set of elite clubs that can be
> individually promoted, a system to allow new clubs to break into the
> ranks of the elite, and a playoff with the best teams involved.
>
> The stable set of elite club teams allow for a tradition and history
> behind teams that can be used to promote ultimate to outsiders, 'wow'
> the younger kids as they are just starting to play, and will allow
> sponsorship deals to grow - like those Sockeye has put together based
> on their recent tradition of winning.  To set this stable up, the club
> teams need incentive to stay together and established.  Since the UPA
> can't become owners of the clubs or organize them (unless we want to
> discuss something really different), I think a very good way to
> guarantee the club's status is to create an elite league that club
> teams play in for the whole year with a small amount of turnover each
> year.  The elite league members would be determined from the previous
> year's league results and/or national championship tournament finish.
> The regular season for the league determines who qualifies for the
> playoffs (nationals).  More on the playoff system in a bit, after a
> reviewing the benefit of league membership...
>
> Lets say there are 12 teams in the league and the top 10 teams from
> the league re-qualify for the next year (plus or minus a few, the
> ideal number TBD).  The results at Nationals would determine which two
> (if any) replacement teams qualify for the league.  The league has a
> regular season of 22 games (each team plays each other twice), so
> that's 4 pre-set tournaments of 5-6 games on a weekend.  The
> tournaments are set up in advance, the matchups known in advance, and
> these can easily be promoted to local media, etc.  The regular season
> events could overlap with traditional tournaments to allow exhibition
> games and exposure or participation from the broader ultimate
> community.  Finally, the league could have observers (or even referees
> or whatever) possibly that came from fellow league teams... a bit like
> volleyball tournaments use line judges from teams that are on bye...
> so each game would have a fully supported set of line judges and
> observers to give it the most polished feel possible (discussion on
> active observers, travel calls, etc is for another post).
>
> Regarding the playoffs and 'relegation'... The top 10 finishers in the
> league have guaranteed spots at nationals.  The rest of the 6 spots
> are awarded based on the normal sectionals/regionals tournament series
> - 1 bid per region, or whatever makes sense to the UPA.  The bottom 2
> finishers in the league can still qualify for Nationals through the
> normal sectionals/regionals tournament series.  Once at Nationals,
> following pool play, there is a top 8 bracket competing for the
> championship, and a bottom 8 bracket competing to take the final two
> spots remaining in the league.  The bottom 2 teams from the league
> table compete against new up-and-coming teams to defend their
> inclusion in the league for next year.
>
> Call it C1 for club teams, whatever you will.  With the C1 uproar, and
> "change" being a popular watchword in general, perhaps the UPA could
> seriously consider this proposal for debate and refinement with
> possible implementation in a year or a few.  Of course, it might
> fizzle and get lost in all the other drowned proposals of the past
> decades - but if you're intrigued by this, send a reply or post one,
> I'd be interested to see how much momentum something like this could
> really generate.  Hard to say what will happen, or if this is even at
> all a new idea.  I'm interested to hear any responses.  Best,
>
> Dutchy

I like the idea- although travel costs could make it prohibitively
expensive. I've been working out an idea that is somewhat similar in
the college division, but with separate West Coast and East Coast
elite leagues, and with the bottom teams forced to defend their spot
in the league at each regular season event. Host a regular season
event in each region, where the best of that region get to battle the
worst of the elite league for a right to take that team's spot at the
next venue. East Coast Elite hit Florida in January, Carolina in
February, Michigan/Ohio in March, Massachusettes in April? High drama,
meaningful regular season games, professional wrestling acronyms (WCE
vs ECE!), the whole shebang, but with fewer plane tickets.
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5386 is a reply to message #5332] Wed, 05 November 2008 20:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 5, 5:26 pm, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I posted yesterday about my objection to the strength bid allocation
> for 2009. Someone pointed out I had no counter-proposal so here is an
> outline of what I've got in mind and some justification for it. This
> is not a small tweak to the strength bid system, its more of an
> overhaul proposal altogether. Its pulled together from lots of ideas
> that I've heard and don't claim credit that any of these ideas are
> originally mine. With C1 being revealed recently, there is a lot of
> overlap from that type of system to this...
>
> The open and womens club divisions should serve as the premier
> competition and publicity vehicle for the UPA; would you agree that it
> is the highest level of ultimate in the world and the structure around
> it should be set up to support the UPA's publicity and promotional
> goals? I believe the best structure is one that promotes meaningful
> games during the year, a stable set of elite clubs that can be
> individually promoted, a system to allow new clubs to break into the
> ranks of the elite, and a playoff with the best teams involved.
>
> The stable set of elite club teams allow for a tradition and history
> behind teams that can be used to promote ultimate to outsiders, 'wow'
> the younger kids as they are just starting to play, and will allow
> sponsorship deals to grow - like those Sockeye has put together based
> on their recent tradition of winning. To set this stable up, the club
> teams need incentive to stay together and established. Since the UPA
> can't become owners of the clubs or organize them (unless we want to
> discuss something really different), I think a very good way to
> guarantee the club's status is to create an elite league that club
> teams play in for the whole year with a small amount of turnover each
> year. The elite league members would be determined from the previous
> year's league results and/or national championship tournament finish.
> The regular season for the league determines who qualifies for the
> playoffs (nationals). More on the playoff system in a bit, after a
> reviewing the benefit of league membership...
>
> Lets say there are 12 teams in the league and the top 10 teams from
> the league re-qualify for the next year (plus or minus a few, the
> ideal number TBD). The results at Nationals would determine which two
> (if any) replacement teams qualify for the league. The league has a
> regular season of 22 games (each team plays each other twice), so
> that's 4 pre-set tournaments of 5-6 games on a weekend. The
> tournaments are set up in advance, the matchups known in advance, and
> these can easily be promoted to local media, etc. The regular season
> events could overlap with traditional tournaments to allow exhibition
> games and exposure or participation from the broader ultimate
> community. Finally, the league could have observers (or even referees
> or whatever) possibly that came from fellow league teams... a bit like
> volleyball tournaments use line judges from teams that are on bye...
> so each game would have a fully supported set of line judges and
> observers to give it the most polished feel possible (discussion on
> active observers, travel calls, etc is for another post).
>
> Regarding the playoffs and 'relegation'... The top 10 finishers in the
> league have guaranteed spots at nationals. The rest of the 6 spots
> are awarded based on the normal sectionals/regionals tournament series
> - 1 bid per region, or whatever makes sense to the UPA. The bottom 2
> finishers in the league can still qualify for Nationals through the
> normal sectionals/regionals tournament series. Once at Nationals,
> following pool play, there is a top 8 bracket competing for the
> championship, and a bottom 8 bracket competing to take the final two
> spots remaining in the league. The bottom 2 teams from the league
> table compete against new up-and-coming teams to defend their
> inclusion in the league for next year.
>
> Call it C1 for club teams, whatever you will. With the C1 uproar, and
> "change" being a popular watchword in general, perhaps the UPA could
> seriously consider this proposal for debate and refinement with
> possible implementation in a year or a few. Of course, it might
> fizzle and get lost in all the other drowned proposals of the past
> decades - but if you're intrigued by this, send a reply or post one,
> I'd be interested to see how much momentum something like this could
> really generate. Hard to say what will happen, or if this is even at
> all a new idea. I'm interested to hear any responses. Best,
>
> Dutchy

Again, nicely laid out. At first glance, I have no objections, though
I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about these things (various
concerns addressed by various systems).
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5408 is a reply to message #5386] Thu, 06 November 2008 06:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
patrick.eberle
Messages: 12
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
>Once at Nationals,
> following pool play, there is a top 8 bracket competing for the
> > championship, and a bottom 8 bracket competing to take the final two
> > spots remaining in the league.  The bottom 2 teams from the league
> > table compete against new up-and-coming teams to defend their
> > inclusion in the league for next year.

The one thing that sucks about this is the whole tie-breaker situation
which could pull down a team based on however the rules are set up.
Under current nationals, that team still has a chance to win, yet
under your proposed system they would be fighting for a chance to even
compete the next year.

Case in point Sockeye-Goat-Doublewide both finished 2-1 this year.
Doublewide goes down to the lower pools. Your probably thinking
that's fine, but one or two points going the other way in for point
diff and you see your trademark team in the toilet bowl. A system
that harsh is fine if it is based on elimination, but when all the
teams have beaten up on each other, it depends on which arbitrary tie
breaker you use. (See Nastia Liukin)
Patrick
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5413 is a reply to message #5332] Thu, 06 November 2008 06:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joel.houmes
Messages: 41
Registered: October 2008
Member
Back before all this C1 stuff hit the fan, I was thinking about
something very much along the lines of what you describe. I agree
strongly with several points you make. First, I think it would be
very beneficial to the sport to encourage teams to stay together. I
grew up a Cardinals baseball fan starting with the 1982 world series.
Certainly, it would not have been helpful to my "fan-dom" if the
cardinals had folded or merged or moved on to a "masters" league as
Keith Hernandez, Willie McGee, George Hendricks, Ozzie Smith and the
rest of the Cardinals got old. It would be nice to have that same
kind of thing in ultimate where a kid can grow up being a fan of
Sockeye or Chain or some other team.

Second, it would certainly be nice to have a more polished product
like what you describe to help showcase the sport to the uneducated
masses and to make it more attractive to media outlets. Arguments
about refs and such aside, Americans have come to expect a certain
level of professionalism in the presentation of their sports and if we
as players want Ultimate to become more mainstream, we need to take
steps to comform to those standards including uniforms, venues, level
of play, etc.

My ideas were more along the lines of tiering the whole club
division. This may sound a bit harsh, but it does seem that the
division is sort of doing it on its own based on invite tournaments
and teams willingness/ability to travel. I would try to fit the tier
system into the current tournament structure so that it would require
a minimum of additional TDs and other such infrastructure. It would
look something like this:

Premier division (to borrow from English soccer) - 16 teams (or some
other comvenient number) that would be the top level and the showcase
for the sport. Teams would play at 3-4 tournaments around the country
and culminate in a national championship tournament. Current
tournaments could be used as the "regular season" portion, say Labor
Day, Chesapeake (pardon my spelling), Heavyweights or any other
tournament that the top teams now include as part of their season.
Bottom, say, 2 teams would be relegated down a division at the end of
the season, which would make the consolation bracket at nationals mean
quite a bit more.

Championship Division - Two 12-team divisions divided east and west.
Teams would again play 3-4 tournaments but travel would be less as the
tournament sites would be in your half of the country. Current
tournaments that draw a few national teams could be used, for example
Motown, Cooler, Queen City, etc. There would also be a national
championship tournament for this division. Top two teams (regardless
of east and west) would move up to the Premier division and bottom two
or three finishers in both east and west would move down.

Regional League - Would be based on the UPA regions and would include
teams that are pretty good, but typically don't travel outside their
club region to play for either time or financial reasons. Again,
teams would play at 3-4 regional tournaments and the current club
regionals would serve as the regional championship. Top team would
advance up to the Championship division and bottom 2 or 3 would move
down.

Sectional league - includes everyone else. Teams that form for
specific events, casual teams, teams just starting out, etc.
Basically it would be for teams that currently play but really don't
travel much. Current sectional tournament would be the championship
event and the top team can get promoted to the Regional league.

OK....a couple other points. You could even add another level, say
sub-sectional, that could include city leagues, but that might just be
overkill. Second, teams that earn advancement would not be forced to
take it. A sectional team may not want to or be able to afford the
travel expense of playing regional tournaments. Promotion would then
fall to the next highest finisher. Third, some regions (SW) may not
have a sufficient number of teams to support all these divisions. If
that is the case, either the sectional or regional league can be
eliminated for that part of the country. Fourth, and perhaps most
controvertial, tournaments would get rated as well as teams. 3-4
tournaments would be "Premier tournaments", 6-8 would be
"Championship" tournaments and so forth. Teams may play in any
tournament at their league level or below. Thus, teams in the Premier
division, could play in any tournament they want but would only be
required to play in the Premier tournaments. Championship division
teams could play in Championship, regional and sectional tournaments,
but could not play in premier tournaments. This rule would be
instituted to ensure a certain caliber of play at a given tournament,
but also provide for top level teams to play in lesser tournaments to
evaluate players or just because the tournament is fun.

These are just rough ideas and not fully fleshed out. If you are
interested, I put together a list of how the top few divisions would
have looked in September of this year.

joel
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5415 is a reply to message #5413] Thu, 06 November 2008 06:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dave Branick
Messages: 127
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> Premier division (to borrow from English soccer) - 16 teams (or some
> other comvenient number) that would be the top level and the showcase
> for the sport.  Teams would play at 3-4 tournaments around the country
> and culminate in a national championship tournament.  Current
> tournaments could be used as the "regular season" portion, say Labor
> Day, Chesapeake (pardon my spelling), Heavyweights or any other
> tournament that the top teams now include as part of their season.
> Bottom, say, 2 teams would be relegated down a division at the end of
> the season, which would make the consolation bracket at nationals mean
> quite a bit more.


Joel's idea comes closest to my own thoughts on changes to the club
division. This past season's schedule seemed to work out well for
many of the Elite Open division teasms with Sockeye Invite in July,
then August playing out with Colorado Cup, Chesapeake Open and Labor
Day scheduled with a weekend off in between them. Feedback from teams
indicated they liked this schedule and east coast teams liked not
having to go west for every elite tournament. (side note, I'm the
Chesapeake Open TD, and we communicated with many teams regarding
scheduling to help make this "ideal" schedule work out).

I also like the added incentive to keep teams together year-to-year.

Dave Branick
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5464 is a reply to message #5413] Thu, 06 November 2008 11:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Douglas T Lilley
Messages: 674
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> These are just rough ideas and not fully fleshed out.  If you are
> interested, I put together a list of how the top few divisions would
> have looked in September of this year.
>


Great stuff, love it. Let's see the list. The US could certainly
have used a good shot of the Brit (and elsewhere) idea of relegation
implemented for a long time and where better to start than Ultimate
(we don't-yet-have the complete and total obession with $ that has
made relegation an impossibility in major league sports). Bring it
on!
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5545 is a reply to message #5464] Fri, 07 November 2008 05:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joel.houmes
Messages: 41
Registered: October 2008
Member
On Nov 6, 2:58 pm, Douglas T Lilley <q3j...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > These are just rough ideas and not fully fleshed out.  If you are
> > interested, I put together a list of how the top few divisions would
> > have looked in September of this year.
>
> Great stuff, love it.  Let's see the list.  The US could certainly
> have used a good shot of the Brit (and elsewhere) idea of relegation
> implemented for a long time and where better to start than Ultimate
> (we don't-yet-have the complete and total obession with $ that has
> made relegation an impossibility in major league sports).  Bring it
> on!

OK...here's the list. It is a little dated as I made it before the
club championships. I placed teams in their initial leagues based on
their RRI for lack of a better measure. The Championship division is
split east/west along the Mississippi (roughly). I have also set up
regions according to the current college format as it made splitting
east and west a bit easier.

Premier Championship
East West
  RRI   Team   RRI   Team   RRI   Team
2770 Sockeye 2515 Bodhi 2505 Prairie Fire
2714 Ironside 2503 Madcow 2502 Thompson High
2710 Johnny Bravo 2501 PoNY 2499 SD United
2672 Chain Lightning 2475 El Diablo 2478 Voodoo
2663 Jam 2451 BAT 2460 Rhino
2663 Furious George 2450 Los 2460 Nomads
2651 Ring of Fire 2444 Forge 2459 YR
2629 Sub Zero 2438 Mephisto 2443 Paul Bunyan's Revenge
2618 Revolver 2434 Phoenix 2418 Invictus
2616 Madison Club 2417 Florida 2387 Ballerado
2606 Machine 2390 Burgh 2379 Ludicrous Speed
2587 GOAT 2385 LouEVIL 2377 Last Call
2577 Truck Stop
2569 Doublewide
2566 Ronin
2546 Condors

I'll leave off the regional teams as it would make the post really
long. Lets assume that this list reflect who went to nationals and
their order of finish there (which of course isn't true). If we
bumped three teams down from the the Premier league, DW, Ronin and
Condors would be relegated. The three teams that moved up would be
the top three finishers in the Championship division tournament.
Based on RRI, that would be Bodhi, Prairie Fire and Madcow. Bottom
2-3 both east and west championship division would be relegated.

Food for thought.

joel
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5547 is a reply to message #5332] Fri, 07 November 2008 06:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Fetch
Messages: 28
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
> I think a very good way to guarantee the club's status is to create an elite league that club
> teams play in for the whole year with a small amount of turnover each year.


Every sport has their off season. No or even little off season sounds
rough.
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5549 is a reply to message #5547] Fri, 07 November 2008 07:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joel.houmes
Messages: 41
Registered: October 2008
Member
On Nov 7, 9:13 am, Fetch <discoscalien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think a very good way to guarantee the club's status is to create an elite league that club
> > teams play in for the whole year with a small amount of turnover each year.
>
> Every sport has their off season.  No or even little off season sounds
> rough.

I think "the whole year" implies the whole season and not a calendar
year. It would certainly not be wise to play year round.

joel
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5565 is a reply to message #5413] Fri, 07 November 2008 09:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jywhitt
Messages: 47
Registered: October 2008
Member
On Nov 6, 8:13 am, joel.hou...@gmail.com wrote:
> These are just rough ideas and not fully fleshed out.  If you are
> interested, I put together a list of how the top few divisions would
> have looked in September of this year.

Actually, you could use the English Football Association model without
losing the Series that we have already. In the English system, there
is no end-of-season tournament for the premier league, although there
is a promotion playoff for the lower levels. So, in the Ultimate
version, the Premier teams would play a (double? triple?) round-robin
season spread over a few weekends. The team with the best record
would be the league champs. You would do the same thing for the lower
divisions as well, with an additional weekend for the promotion
playoff (league champ is automatically promoted, with teams 2-5
battling it out for promotion, as an example).

In the English system (really European system) there is at least one
cup competition (think UPA series) that runs concurrently with the
different league seasons. So, one weekend an elite team might play in
a Premier League event, and the next weekend they might play in a cup
tournament (UPA Series) that mixes in ALL the teams. This gives the
lesser teams (minnows) a shot at the big boys. With the English FA
Cup, the premier teams are exempt from the first few rounds of the cup
competition. This would be equivalent to not requiring an elite
ultimate team to play Secitonals. Sectionals would be for the non-
premier teams, and the teams that survive Secitonals would go to
Regionals to play with the big boys.

So, you could have the promotion/relegation league system run
concurrently with the UPA series, which would act as the FA Cup.
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5569 is a reply to message #5332] Fri, 07 November 2008 09:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dusty
Messages: 159
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 5, 5:26 pm, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I posted yesterday about my objection to the strength bid allocation
> for 2009.  Someone pointed out I had no counter-proposal so here is an
> outline of what I've got in mind and some justification for it.  This
> is not a small tweak to the strength bid system, its more of an
> overhaul proposal altogether. Its pulled together from lots of ideas
> that I've heard and don't claim credit that any of these ideas are
> originally mine.  With C1 being revealed recently, there is a lot of
> overlap from that type of system to this...
>
> The open and womens club divisions should serve as the premier
> competition and publicity vehicle for the UPA; would you agree that it
> is the highest level of ultimate in the world and the structure around
> it should be set up to support the UPA's publicity and promotional
> goals?  I believe the best structure is one that promotes meaningful
> games during the year, a stable set of elite clubs that can be
> individually promoted, a system to allow new clubs to break into the
> ranks of the elite, and a playoff with the best teams involved.
>
> The stable set of elite club teams allow for a tradition and history
> behind teams that can be used to promote ultimate to outsiders, 'wow'
> the younger kids as they are just starting to play, and will allow
> sponsorship deals to grow - like those Sockeye has put together based
> on their recent tradition of winning.  To set this stable up, the club
> teams need incentive to stay together and established.  Since the UPA
> can't become owners of the clubs or organize them (unless we want to
> discuss something really different), I think a very good way to
> guarantee the club's status is to create an elite league that club
> teams play in for the whole year with a small amount of turnover each
> year.  The elite league members would be determined from the previous
> year's league results and/or national championship tournament finish.
> The regular season for the league determines who qualifies for the
> playoffs (nationals).  More on the playoff system in a bit, after a
> reviewing the benefit of league membership...
>
> Lets say there are 12 teams in the league and the top 10 teams from
> the league re-qualify for the next year (plus or minus a few, the
> ideal number TBD).  The results at Nationals would determine which two
> (if any) replacement teams qualify for the league.  The league has a
> regular season of 22 games (each team plays each other twice), so
> that's 4 pre-set tournaments of 5-6 games on a weekend.  The
> tournaments are set up in advance, the matchups known in advance, and
> these can easily be promoted to local media, etc.  The regular season
> events could overlap with traditional tournaments to allow exhibition
> games and exposure or participation from the broader ultimate
> community.  Finally, the league could have observers (or even referees
> or whatever) possibly that came from fellow league teams... a bit like
> volleyball tournaments use line judges from teams that are on bye...
> so each game would have a fully supported set of line judges and
> observers to give it the most polished feel possible (discussion on
> active observers, travel calls, etc is for another post).
>
> Regarding the playoffs and 'relegation'... The top 10 finishers in the
> league have guaranteed spots at nationals.  The rest of the 6 spots
> are awarded based on the normal sectionals/regionals tournament series
> - 1 bid per region, or whatever makes sense to the UPA.  The bottom 2
> finishers in the league can still qualify for Nationals through the
> normal sectionals/regionals tournament series.  Once at Nationals,
> following pool play, there is a top 8 bracket competing for the
> championship, and a bottom 8 bracket competing to take the final two
> spots remaining in the league.  The bottom 2 teams from the league
> table compete against new up-and-coming teams to defend their
> inclusion in the league for next year.
>
> Call it C1 for club teams, whatever you will.  With the C1 uproar, and
> "change" being a popular watchword in general, perhaps the UPA could
> seriously consider this proposal for debate and refinement with
> possible implementation in a year or a few.  Of course, it might
> fizzle and get lost in all the other drowned proposals of the past
> decades - but if you're intrigued by this, send a reply or post one,
> I'd be interested to see how much momentum something like this could
> really generate.  Hard to say what will happen, or if this is even at
> all a new idea.  I'm interested to hear any responses.  Best,
>
> Dutchy

Some relevance:

1. This league already exists. Try to get to ECC (and the like).
Elite Teams like to play Elite Teams. Tournaments/Brackets exist
based solely on that notion. Why? Better competition makes your team
better.
2. The criteria for getting into these tournaments/brackets changes
by year and by tournament.
3. Club is NOT the future of Ultimate. College is.
4. Non-Elite teams want the opportunity to "Play Up" THIS YEAR/
WEEKEND, not next year/weekend.
5. There is a way to use our current tournament structure of power
pools + open pools + the ability to play both UP and DOWN based on
results over a weekend to create effective divisions without tying it
to something that happened last year while taking into account the
performance of a team over the course of the season. I'm sure of it.
Standardize a format. Use, say... 8 teams in the power pools and go
from there. Track Results in These Tournaments and adjust on a
Tournament-Tournament basis using earlier-season results. Last
Season's results are applicable until a team competes in one of These
Tournaments.

Just thoughts not entirely thought.

music on tap: captain beefheart, zig zag wonderer

dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5574 is a reply to message #5569] Fri, 07 November 2008 10:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joel.houmes
Messages: 41
Registered: October 2008
Member
On Nov 7, 12:37 pm, dusty <dusty.rho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:26 pm, "aghesqui...@gmail.com" <aghesqui...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I posted yesterday about my objection to the strength bid allocation
> > for 2009.  Someone pointed out I had no counter-proposal so here is an
> > outline of what I've got in mind and some justification for it.  This
> > is not a small tweak to the strength bid system, its more of an
> > overhaul proposal altogether. Its pulled together from lots of ideas
> > that I've heard and don't claim credit that any of these ideas are
> > originally mine.  With C1 being revealed recently, there is a lot of
> > overlap from that type of system to this...
>
> > The open and womens club divisions should serve as the premier
> > competition and publicity vehicle for the UPA; would you agree that it
> > is the highest level of ultimate in the world and the structure around
> > it should be set up to support the UPA's publicity and promotional
> > goals?  I believe the best structure is one that promotes meaningful
> > games during the year, a stable set of elite clubs that can be
> > individually promoted, a system to allow new clubs to break into the
> > ranks of the elite, and a playoff with the best teams involved.
>
> > The stable set of elite club teams allow for a tradition and history
> > behind teams that can be used to promote ultimate to outsiders, 'wow'
> > the younger kids as they are just starting to play, and will allow
> > sponsorship deals to grow - like those Sockeye has put together based
> > on their recent tradition of winning.  To set this stable up, the club
> > teams need incentive to stay together and established.  Since the UPA
> > can't become owners of the clubs or organize them (unless we want to
> > discuss something really different), I think a very good way to
> > guarantee the club's status is to create an elite league that club
> > teams play in for the whole year with a small amount of turnover each
> > year.  The elite league members would be determined from the previous
> > year's league results and/or national championship tournament finish.
> > The regular season for the league determines who qualifies for the
> > playoffs (nationals).  More on the playoff system in a bit, after a
> > reviewing the benefit of league membership...
>
> > Lets say there are 12 teams in the league and the top 10 teams from
> > the league re-qualify for the next year (plus or minus a few, the
> > ideal number TBD).  The results at Nationals would determine which two
> > (if any) replacement teams qualify for the league.  The league has a
> > regular season of 22 games (each team plays each other twice), so
> > that's 4 pre-set tournaments of 5-6 games on a weekend.  The
> > tournaments are set up in advance, the matchups known in advance, and
> > these can easily be promoted to local media, etc.  The regular season
> > events could overlap with traditional tournaments to allow exhibition
> > games and exposure or participation from the broader ultimate
> > community.  Finally, the league could have observers (or even referees
> > or whatever) possibly that came from fellow league teams... a bit like
> > volleyball tournaments use line judges from teams that are on bye...
> > so each game would have a fully supported set of line judges and
> > observers to give it the most polished feel possible (discussion on
> > active observers, travel calls, etc is for another post).
>
> > Regarding the playoffs and 'relegation'... The top 10 finishers in the
> > league have guaranteed spots at nationals.  The rest of the 6 spots
> > are awarded based on the normal sectionals/regionals tournament series
> > - 1 bid per region, or whatever makes sense to the UPA.  The bottom 2
> > finishers in the league can still qualify for Nationals through the
> > normal sectionals/regionals tournament series.  Once at Nationals,
> > following pool play, there is a top 8 bracket competing for the
> > championship, and a bottom 8 bracket competing to take the final two
> > spots remaining in the league.  The bottom 2 teams from the league
> > table compete against new up-and-coming teams to defend their
> > inclusion in the league for next year.
>
> > Call it C1 for club teams, whatever you will.  With the C1 uproar, and
> > "change" being a popular watchword in general, perhaps the UPA could
> > seriously consider this proposal for debate and refinement with
> > possible implementation in a year or a few.  Of course, it might
> > fizzle and get lost in all the other drowned proposals of the past
> > decades - but if you're intrigued by this, send a reply or post one,
> > I'd be interested to see how much momentum something like this could
> > really generate.  Hard to say what will happen, or if this is even at
> > all a new idea.  I'm interested to hear any responses.  Best,
>
> > Dutchy
>
> Some relevance:
>
> 1.  This league already exists.  Try to get to ECC (and the like).
> Elite Teams like to play Elite Teams.  Tournaments/Brackets exist
> based solely on that notion.  Why?  Better competition makes your team
> better.
> 2.  The criteria for getting into these tournaments/brackets changes
> by year and by tournament.
> 3.  Club is NOT the future of Ultimate.  College is.
> 4.  Non-Elite teams want the opportunity to "Play Up" THIS YEAR/
> WEEKEND, not next year/weekend.
> 5.  There is a way to use our current tournament structure of power
> pools + open pools + the ability to play both UP and DOWN based on
> results over a weekend to create effective divisions without tying it
> to something that happened last year while taking into account the
> performance of a team over the course of the season.  I'm sure of it.
> Standardize a format.  Use, say... 8 teams in the power pools and go
> from there.  Track Results in These Tournaments and adjust on a
> Tournament-Tournament basis using earlier-season results.   Last
> Season's results are applicable until a team competes in one of These
> Tournaments.
>
> Just thoughts not entirely thought.
>
> music on tap:  captain beefheart, zig zag wonderer
>
> dusty.rhodes
> at gmail.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree that much of this already exists. Between power pools and
invite tournaments, we seem to be quite a ways towards tiered
competition already. That was actually part of the reason why I was
thinking about this, since it seems the sport is moving in that
direction on its own.

Don't get me wrong, college ultimate is great and is at the moment
probably the showcase for the sport. But there are a couple other
things to consider. With the explosion of college teams over the last
few years, one should expect an increase in the number of club teams
as all those players graduate and look for other places to play. It
might be nice to be slightly ahead of the curve for once. Second, one
big difference between college and club is the number of years that a
player can play in the division. At the college level, players have 5
years of eligibility, so the desire to be able to play your way up
within a given year is much great. It is completely understandable
and the ideas I have been discussing probably don't have the same
merit for the college division as they do for club. At the club
level, a players can play for almost as long as they want. Players
can start playing open club at a very young age (< 18 years old) and
can continue to play into their 30's. Playing this season in order to
move up next season becomes more viable.

As far as the FA cup idea, I had forgotten about that, but you are
completely right and make an excellent point.
Re: New proposal for club divisions [message #5596 is a reply to message #5574] Fri, 07 November 2008 15:43 Go to previous message
dusty
Messages: 159
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 7, 1:56 pm, joel.hou...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I agree that much of this already exists.  Between power pools and
> invite tournaments, we seem to be quite a ways towards tiered
> competition already.  That was actually part of the reason why I was
> thinking about this, since it seems the sport is moving in that
> direction on its own.
>
> Don't get me wrong, college ultimate is great and is at the moment
> probably the showcase for the sport.  But there are a couple other
> things to consider.  With the explosion of college teams over the last
> few years, one should expect an increase in the number of club teams
> as all those players graduate and look for other places to play.  It
> might be nice to be slightly ahead of the curve for once.  Second, one
> big difference between college and club is the number of years that a
> player can play in the division.  At the college level, players have 5
> years of eligibility, so the desire to be able to play your way up
> within a given year is much great.  It is completely understandable
> and the ideas I have been discussing probably don't have the same
> merit for the college division as they do for club.  At the club
> level, a players can play for almost as long as they want.  Players
> can start playing open club at a very young age (< 18 years old) and
> can continue to play into their 30's.  Playing this season in order to
> move up next season becomes more viable.
>
> As far as the FA cup idea, I had forgotten about that, but you are
> completely right and make an excellent point.

I think Ultimate has no more capacity to continue non-professional
play past college than does, say, swimming. Recreational versus
Dedicated. I think that we overestimate the number of folks who are
going to want to keep dedicating their lives to this sport past their
college years. I feel that we'll edge toward College Ultimate being
the Big Time and then Club Ultimate being the "Optional Time." I
could be wrong.

Overall, I feel that the successful model here will be a fluidly
tiered competition that solidifies the tiers over the course of the
season. Something along the lines of a Ranking Algorithm based just
on games in these Regular Season tournaments. Top 8-12 teams or
whatever at a tournament would be in the top bracket, you can use last
season's finish as a starting placement only in 2 tournaments per
season. These top 8-12 would be scrambled in seeding. the next X
teams would be split into pools as appropriate to produce the
opponents necessary for the bottom teams from the top pools.

These would then be the best predictor of the outcomes of Regional and
National play. Score outside of this Season and do not include those
games in the record (like "Non-Series" Competitions... Exhibitions
whatever). Then use Regular Season results, to some level, to work
determine Sectional/Regional/National seedings. Weight games in these
Regular Season events more heavily than in other tournaments. Do not
allow teams to opt-out of score reporting in these Regular Season
games. Determine which tournaments Count beforehand for Seeding, and
then let the rest sort itself out.

Really. Keep it simple, allow teams to play up and play down in a
given weekend and a given season. Encourage larger tournaments that
allow for Cinderella Stories for every weekend. Track these games.
Make a League within the structure of what we're already got. Allow
other tournaments to choose what they will do in terms of score
reporting and being "Sanctioned" but by making it worth every team's
while to play at these tournaments to *earn a shot* at teams at
Nationals, even if it is only for One Game on a weekend, serves both
the mission of Improving Skill and showcasing the Sport.

Now that seems like what I would assume a "UPA Sanctioned" Tournament
would be.
At least it did when I typed it.

music on tap: rickie lee jones, the last chance texaco -> neil young,
live at massey hall

dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
Previous Topic:Fury
Next Topic:Cyle Van Auken::The Gambler part II
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Apr 1 14:29:24 PDT 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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