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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » UPA statement on Cultimate meetings
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5422 is a reply to message #5411] Thu, 06 November 2008 07:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Keith.Larsen.TX
Messages: 41
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Nov 6, 8:12 am, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> Which i would assume cost them less than 15 bucks to
> produce.

Again ALL YOU DO IS ASSUME. Where is your data coming from? Did you
fill your car with gas this week? Did it cost more than $40 for you to
fill your car this month? Did it cost you more than $40 in gas to go
to your last NON-UPA tournament?

Do you had ANY idea what other sports pay annually for their dues?
US Lacrosse = $50
USA Rugby = $35 (plus $150 per team)
PDGA (Disc Golf) = $50/$100 (AMATEUR/PROFESSIONAL)
USA Karate = $100

Plus you have to pay for individual tournament, seperate insurance,
they have refs and the teams have to pay for those... observers are
free as limited as their presence might be.

$40/year is below average, I challenge you to find 3 national sports
organizations that are less than $40 a team for adult membership (not
Youth, not 1st year discounts)...

-Keith
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5425 is a reply to message #5409] Thu, 06 November 2008 07:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bslade86
Messages: 357
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 6, 9:03 am, Dave <TUFris...@aol.com> wrote:
> Stop me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone really believes/thinks
> that once C2 (and C3?) are formed that they'll get free jerseys and
> appearance fees as well..... In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that
> ends for C1 teams after the first year or two as well.  Just value
> added bribes to get the top teams on board.

Cultimate plans on launching C2 and C3 in 2009, as well as women's
divisions. They have to, to be able to afford C1. If you don't have
many teams required to go to multiple cultimate tournaments in order
to be eligible for the C2/C3/Women's nationals championships, you
don't make enough money to pay for C1's tournament bids, free jerseys,
travel stipends, administrative overhead, etc. As nice as it would be,
they don't have a 6 figure sponsor willing to pay for the top 25
schools: they have to make up those expenses with more revenue from
the teams which are paying tournament fees.
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5426 is a reply to message #5409] Thu, 06 November 2008 07:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Henry Thorne
Messages: 16
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
On Nov 6, 9:03 am, Dave <TUFris...@aol.com> wrote:
> If the argument is to
> eliminate the travel expenses and wasteed games of elite teams
> destroying low level teams at Sectionals, maybe there's a ranking
> system based on Regular Season results that gives those top X teams a
> bye into Regionals.  Beyond that, the elite teams already seem to
> pretty much play strictly each other except for at Sectional
> tournaments (and regionals depending on your region).

What if College Nationals was a 32 team tournament (instead of 16) and
16 got in through a ranking system and 16 got in through the regular
Sectionals -> Regionals structure? The top teams could play only top
teams at top tier tournaments and place directly into Nationals
avoiding any non-competitive games. Everyone else gets there shot at
the show through the regular structure.

Henry Thorne (UPA BoD running an idea up the flag pole for myself not
on behalf of the board)
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5427 is a reply to message #5406] Thu, 06 November 2008 07:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Seamus
Messages: 32
Registered: October 2008
Member
On Nov 6, 5:58 am, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:

> what is it called when the administration of an organization wants to
> control the open market and dictate its standards and practices??????

Focus?
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5430 is a reply to message #5426] Thu, 06 November 2008 07:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dave Branick
Messages: 127
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> What if College Nationals was a 32 team tournament (instead of 16) and
> 16 got in through a ranking system and 16 got in through the regular
> Sectionals -> Regionals structure?  The top teams could play only top
> teams at top tier tournaments and place directly into Nationals
> avoiding any non-competitive games.  Everyone else gets there shot at
> the show through the regular structure.
>
> Henry Thorne (UPA BoD running an idea up the flag pole for myself not
> on behalf of the board)

Might be worth exploring how you decide those 16 teams that get auto
bids. Analyzing the algorithims (RRI, UPA Ranking) to see if you take
the top 16 from those, or start a new system. Then do you guarantee
two bids per region or one per region and size bids (or strength based
on how many of each regions teams qualified in that top 16?). Also
require a minimum # of tournaments/games to qualify for the top 16, so
teams don't go to one tourney, blow a few teams out and sit on it til
decision day, ie. Smartwhores who are still #2 in the Club Mixed RRI.

Also might be tough to find a venue that holds that many fields.
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5434 is a reply to message #5409] Thu, 06 November 2008 08:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 6, 9:03 am, Dave <TUFris...@aol.com> wrote:

> Stop me if I'm wrong


STOP.......YOUR WRONG!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------



>
> My $0.02: There are some good ideas burried in the hurried attempt to
> roll the C1 idea out there.  I believe that Cultimate and the UPA
> working together on discussions of how to improve the College
> Championship Series (formalized regular season, D1, 2, 3, etc) is what
> is best for the College game as a whole, and that the focus should be
> on 2010.


SHOCKER! a upa loyalist that wants the upa to contol this. Funny how
you guys had no problem with an outside agency controling a D2 in
college ultimate.......so why the big problem with the C1. Why is
your fight to control ultimate comp only apparent at the highest
level.

Seems like this in itself shows that you care less about the lower
level teams that ply ultimate as well.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
>
> I'm not a big fan of starting those 25 teams off with a leg up on
> getting to the college championships (before the reg. season starts),


i think thats all you guys desperatly grasping for reasons to rag on
c1.......as in reality THIS only effects very few teams.

You, ESPECIALLY AS A SO CALLED "GRASS ROOTS" ASSOCIATION, should put
more emphisis and concern towards providing everyone an equal amount
of playing opportunities(HINT HINT.......70% of your membership)
rather than worring about JUST everybodys equal chance to "win it
all".
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5436 is a reply to message #5430] Thu, 06 November 2008 08:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jeff
Messages: 338
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
teams should earn bids through competition. Teams could earn a bye to
regionals based on performance but playing your way to nationals H2H
on the field is why the UPA series worth following ... teams rise,
teams fall. But expanding the bids to nationals to 20 or 24 or so
with 2 per region minimum may solve some of the problems.

On Nov 6, 10:43�am, Dave <TUFris...@aol.com> wrote:
> > What if College Nationals was a 32 team tournament (instead of 16) and
> > 16 got in through a ranking system and 16 got in through the regular
> > Sectionals -> Regionals structure? �The top teams could play only top
> > teams at top tier tournaments and place directly into Nationals
> > avoiding any non-competitive games. �Everyone else gets there shot at
> > the show through the regular structure.
>
> > Henry Thorne (UPA BoD running an idea up the flag pole for myself not
> > on behalf of the board)
>
> Might be worth exploring how you decide those 16 teams that get auto
> bids. �Analyzing the algorithims (RRI, UPA Ranking) to see if you take
> the top 16 from those, or start a new system. �Then do you guarantee
> two bids per region or one per region and size bids (or strength based
> on how many of each regions teams qualified in that top 16?). �Also
> require a minimum # of tournaments/games to qualify for the top 16, so
> teams don't go to one tourney, blow a few teams out and sit on it til
> decision day, ie. Smartwhores who are still #2 in the Club Mixed RRI.
>
> Also might be tough to find a venue that holds that many fields.
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5437 is a reply to message #5427] Thu, 06 November 2008 08:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 6, 10:38 am, Seamus <shane.ama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:58 am, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
>
> > what is it called when the administration of an organization wants to
> > control the open market and dictate its standards and practices??????
>
> Focus?

i was thinkin "GREED"
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5441 is a reply to message #5434] Thu, 06 November 2008 08:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dave Branick
Messages: 127
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 6, 11:17 am, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:03 am, Dave <TUFris...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Stop me if I'm wrong
>
> STOP.......YOUR WRONG!!!!!
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>
> > My $0.02: There are some good ideas burried in the hurried attempt to
> > roll the C1 idea out there.  I believe that Cultimate and the UPA
> > working together on discussions of how to improve the College
> > Championship Series (formalized regular season, D1, 2, 3, etc) is what
> > is best for the College game as a whole, and that the focus should be
> > on 2010.
>
> SHOCKER!  a upa loyalist that wants the upa to contol this.  Funny how
> you guys had no problem with an outside agency controling a D2 in
> college ultimate.......so why the big problem with the C1.  Why is
> your fight to control ultimate comp only apparent at the highest
> level.
>
> Seems like this in itself shows that you care less about the lower
> level teams that ply ultimate as well.


For the record, I haven't seen any other agency step up to "control a
D2 in college ultimate", so not sure if I "have a problem" with it.
I've heard rumors that C1 wants to include a D2 (in either 2009
according to Ben Slade, or 2010 in rumors on RSD) and I've seen Ohio
Northern Univ. put on a "D-3 Championship" tournament. If C1 happens,
I think a D2 (and possibly D3 if that's the plan) need to be
implemented simultaneously. Serve all the customers at once, not have
some teams wait til next year for their piece of the Conference 1
pie. As far as ONU's D-3 tourney, I think more opportunities for
teams to play is great (though CUT's lack of participation hurts it's
validity in my eyes).
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5444 is a reply to message #5370] Thu, 06 November 2008 08:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 5, 8:48 pm, Akira wrote:

> > Oh come on.  That's a ridiculous fallacy.  People always complain
> > about everything.  Everyone's talking about it because it's talk of
> > big change and there are definitely emotions and excitement about a
> > sport we all care about a lot.  So yes some people are unhappy but
> > rsd traffic is no sort of barometer.
>
> I still contend the door never opens if everything was hunky-doory.
> Instead outcomes are unclear meaning there is at least some
> sentiment among the chosen 25 to try something new.

That's certainly true. The thing is, the UPA is moving to satisfy
those needs. That's what the whole strategic planning and re-draw is
about.

Fast-forward to 2010. Imagine the UPA has a seperate college div 1
and div 2, with top teams (based on regular season results) going
straight to div 1 regionals, a revised nationals bid structure, an
expanded observer system for regionals and nationals, and possibly a
relegation/promotion system for div 1/2. All of these things are in
the works.

At that point, if Skip and CVA tried to step in and pry the top teams
loose from the college division, the collective response would
probably be, "huh?", because they would not be offering a
significantly differentiated product.

In my opinion, this is why Cultimate is moving so quickly, when they
don't have the set infrastructure in place for eligibility and so many
other things. They know that the window they have to turn the elite
college series into a for-profit venture is closing.

-Tarr
speaking for myself only
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5454 is a reply to message #5444] Thu, 06 November 2008 10:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jackson
Messages: 97
Registered: October 2008
Location: Stanford Bubble
Member
On Nov 6, 8:50 am, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 8:48 pm, Akira wrote:
>
> > > Oh come on.  That's a ridiculous fallacy.  People always complain
> > > about everything.  Everyone's talking about it because it's talk of
> > > big change and there are definitely emotions and excitement about a
> > > sport we all care about a lot.  So yes some people are unhappy but
> > > rsd traffic is no sort of barometer.
>
> > I still contend the door never opens if everything was hunky-doory.
> > Instead outcomes are unclear meaning there is at least some
> > sentiment among the chosen 25 to try something new.
>
> That's certainly true.  The thing is, the UPA is moving to satisfy
> those needs.  That's what the whole strategic planning and re-draw is
> about.
>
> Fast-forward to 2010.  Imagine the UPA has a seperate college div 1
> and div 2, with top teams (based on regular season results) going
> straight to div 1 regionals, a revised nationals bid structure, an
> expanded observer system for regionals and nationals, and possibly a
> relegation/promotion system for div 1/2.  All of these things are in
> the works.
>
> At that point, if Skip and CVA tried to step in and pry the top teams
> loose from the college division, the collective response would
> probably be, "huh?", because they would not be offering a
> significantly differentiated product.
>
> In my opinion, this is why Cultimate is moving so quickly, when they
> don't have the set infrastructure in place for eligibility and so many
> other things.  They know that the window they have to turn the elite
> college series into a for-profit venture is closing.
>
> -Tarr
> speaking for myself only

Tarr, I disagree with your assertion that this hypothetical 2010
season will satisfy the desires of the top college teams. I am not
necessarily pro-c1, and I would like to see more of the specifics, but
I do like many of the ideas it presents, and I think most of the
backlash against it is not well thought out.

You say regular season results will qualify teams for regionals, but
will there actually be a regular season (with preplanned games), or by
regular season results do you mean whoever your team happens to play
at tournament x? Also, I don’t believe that any top team is worried
about qualifying for _regionals_. An automatic qualification to
regionals is essentially saying that the pre-series results will be
used in the same way they are now: as tools for seeding for regionals
and nationals, and nothing more.

One of the major selling points for me about c1 is that the same
organization that runs the championship series runs the regular
season. This is not the case now, and does not appear to be the case
in your proposed UPA 2010 season. I think it is unfortunate that right
now the UPA runs the championship tournaments and little else. Their
involvement with sectionals is almost non-existent and with regionals
it is minimal. The only tournaments that are actually run by the UPA
are their various championship (aka nationals) tournaments. As a
result, the quality between various sectionals and regionals
tournaments varies greatly.

Your 2010 season also makes no mention of pushing the season later
into warmer months (maybe it does, but you didn’t mention it). I think
this is vital, because it is inherently unfair for so many teams to
come to sectionals with ~2 weeks of outdoor practice time, and then
end their season just as the weather is becoming ultimate friendly.

-----

I think I’m a little bit more skeptical about the UPA than most of the
people who have been posting against c1 and in support of the UPA, so
I should give a little bit of my background with the UPA.

I have been sectional coordinator twice, (once for club: Founders
section, once for college: Metro New York section).

Last year I was the captain of the Rutgers men’s team and we were
initially prohibited from participating in college sectionals because
our roster was turned in late (the situation was a little bit more
bizarre because I was the sectional coordinator at the time). It’s a
long and complicated story, but it essentially boils down to the fact
that our club sports director lied to us and told us that our roster
had been mailed, when she had not in fact mailed it. I contacted the
UPA and tried to plead our case, and they were initially unwilling to
let our team (or the Rutgers women’s team) play. It was only when the
Rutgers administration got lawyers involved, that the UPA decided to
let us play. Had we not been lucky enough to have a player on our team
whose parents were high up in the Rutgers administration, we would
have not had access to the resources that persuaded the UPA to let us
participate in the college series.

While I was very happy that in the end we were allowed to play, I was
less than pleased with the way the UPA handled the situation. For the
UPA’s stance see here: http://www.upa.org/upa/about/publicstatements/rutgers

However, my experiences with the UPA have not been all bad. Last year,
Rutgers decided to host a high school tournament for the first time.
We viewed it as a chance to raise funds and promote youth ultimate in
the surrounding area (which would payoff for our college team in the
future). Approximately 1-2 weeks before the tournament, our club
sports director (the same woman who lied to us about mailing in our
roster) told us we would have to cancel the tournament because Rutgers
would not provide insurance coverage for high school teams, and that
in all of our planning for the tournament this was not something she
previously considered. In this case the UPA was very helpful in
sanctioning the tournament in a very compressed time frame, so that we
could be covered by UPA insurance and hold the tournament.

I think the UPA does some things well, and other things not very well.
They seem to have done a good job in fostering youth participation and
this has been and will continue to pay off as the biggest factor in
growing the sport and advancing the level of play. However, based on
my experiences I don’t think that the UPA does a particularly good job
of running a championship series and regular season.

-Ariel Jackson
Former Captain, Rutgers #28
Currently at Stanford #??
(Also speaking for myself only)
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5455 is a reply to message #5454] Thu, 06 November 2008 10:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, Jackson <arieljack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 8:50 am, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 8:48 pm, Akira wrote:
>
> > > > Oh come on.  That's a ridiculous fallacy.  People always complain
> > > > about everything.  Everyone's talking about it because it's talk of
> > > > big change and there are definitely emotions and excitement about a
> > > > sport we all care about a lot.  So yes some people are unhappy but
> > > > rsd traffic is no sort of barometer.
>
> > > I still contend the door never opens if everything was hunky-doory.
> > > Instead outcomes are unclear meaning there is at least some
> > > sentiment among the chosen 25 to try something new.
>
> > That's certainly true.  The thing is, the UPA is moving to satisfy
> > those needs.  That's what the whole strategic planning and re-draw is
> > about.
>
> > Fast-forward to 2010.  Imagine the UPA has a seperate college div 1
> > and div 2, with top teams (based on regular season results) going
> > straight to div 1 regionals, a revised nationals bid structure, an
> > expanded observer system for regionals and nationals, and possibly a
> > relegation/promotion system for div 1/2.  All of these things are in
> > the works.
>
> > At that point, if Skip and CVA tried to step in and pry the top teams
> > loose from the college division, the collective response would
> > probably be, "huh?", because they would not be offering a
> > significantly differentiated product.
>
> > In my opinion, this is why Cultimate is moving so quickly, when they
> > don't have the set infrastructure in place for eligibility and so many
> > other things.  They know that the window they have to turn the elite
> > college series into a for-profit venture is closing.
>
> > -Tarr
> > speaking for myself only
>
> Tarr, I disagree with your assertion that this hypothetical 2010
> season will satisfy the desires of the top college teams. I am not
> necessarily pro-c1, and I would like to see more of the specifics, but
> I do like many of the ideas it presents, and I think most of the
> backlash against it is not well thought out.
>
> You say regular season results will qualify teams for regionals, but
> will there actually be a regular season (with preplanned games), or by
> regular season results do you mean whoever your team happens to play
> at tournament x? Also, I don’t believe that any top team is worried
> about qualifying for _regionals_. An automatic qualification to
> regionals is essentially saying that the pre-series results will be
> used in the same way they are now: as tools for seeding for regionals
> and nationals, and nothing more.
>
> One of the major selling points for me about c1 is that the same
> organization that runs the championship series runs the regular
> season. This is not the case now, and does not appear to be the case
> in your proposed UPA 2010 season. I think it is unfortunate that right
> now the UPA runs the championship tournaments and little else. Their
> involvement with sectionals is almost non-existent and with regionals
> it is minimal. The only tournaments that are actually run by the UPA
> are their various championship (aka nationals) tournaments. As a
> result, the quality between various sectionals and regionals
> tournaments varies greatly.
>
> Your 2010 season also makes no mention of pushing the season later
> into warmer months (maybe it does, but you didn’t mention it). I think
> this is vital, because it is inherently unfair for so many teams to
> come to sectionals with ~2 weeks of outdoor practice time, and then
> end their season just as the weather is becoming ultimate friendly.
>
> -----
>
> I think I’m a little bit more skeptical about the UPA than most of the
> people who have been posting against c1 and in support of the UPA, so
> I should give a little bit of my background with the UPA.
>
> I have been sectional coordinator twice, (once for club: Founders
> section, once for college: Metro New York section).
>
> Last year I was the captain of the Rutgers men’s team and we were
> initially prohibited from participating in college sectionals because
> our roster was turned in late (the situation was a little bit more
> bizarre because I was the sectional coordinator at the time). It’s a
> long and complicated story, but it essentially boils down to the fact
> that our club sports director lied to us and told us that our roster
> had been mailed, when she had not in fact mailed it. I contacted the
> UPA and tried to plead our case, and they were initially unwilling to
> let our team (or the Rutgers women’s team) play. It was only when the
> Rutgers administration got lawyers involved, that the UPA decided to
> let us play. Had we not been lucky enough to have a player on our team
> whose parents were high up in the Rutgers administration, we would
> have not had access to the resources that persuaded the UPA to let us
> participate in the college series.
>
> While I was very happy that in the end we were allowed to play, I was
> less than pleased with the way the UPA handled the situation. For the
> UPA’s stance see here:http://www.upa.org/upa/about/publicstatements/rutgers
>
> However, my experiences with the UPA have not been all bad. Last year,
> Rutgers decided to host a high school tournament for the first time.
> We viewed it as a chance to raise funds and promote youth ultimate in
> the surrounding area (which would payoff for our college team in the
> future). Approximately 1-2 weeks before the tournament, our club
> sports director (the same woman who lied to us about mailing in our
> roster) told us we would have to cancel the tournament because Rutgers
> would not provide insurance coverage for high school teams, and that
> in all of our planning for the tournament this was not something she
> previously considered. In this case the UPA was very helpful in
> sanctioning the tournament in a very compressed time frame, so that we
> could be covered by UPA insurance and hold the tournament.
>
> I think the UPA does some things well, and other things not very well.
> They seem to have done a good job in fostering youth participation and
> this has been and will continue to pay off as the biggest factor in
> growing the sport and advancing the level of play. However, based on
> my experiences I don’t think that the UPA does a particularly good job
> of running a championship series and regular season.
>
> -Ariel Jackson
> Former Captain, Rutgers #28
> Currently at Stanford #??
> (Also speaking for myself only)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OUCH......boy thats gotta hurt when one of there own "tells it like it
is".........but, such is the nature of THE TRUTH!
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5466 is a reply to message #5454] Thu, 06 November 2008 12:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Messages: 56
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, Jackson <arieljack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 8:50 am, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 8:48 pm, Akira wrote:
>
> > > > Oh come on.  That's a ridiculous fallacy.  People always complain
> > > > about everything.  Everyone's talking about it because it's talk of
> > > > big change and there are definitely emotions and excitement about a
> > > > sport we all care about a lot.  So yes some people are unhappy but
> > > > rsd traffic is no sort of barometer.
>
> > > I still contend the door never opens if everything was hunky-doory.
> > > Instead outcomes are unclear meaning there is at least some
> > > sentiment among the chosen 25 to try something new.
>
> > That's certainly true.  The thing is, the UPA is moving to satisfy
> > those needs.  That's what the whole strategic planning and re-draw is
> > about.
>
> > Fast-forward to 2010.  Imagine the UPA has a seperate college div 1
> > and div 2, with top teams (based on regular season results) going
> > straight to div 1 regionals, a revised nationals bid structure, an
> > expanded observer system for regionals and nationals, and possibly a
> > relegation/promotion system for div 1/2.  All of these things are in
> > the works.
>
> > At that point, if Skip and CVA tried to step in and pry the top teams
> > loose from the college division, the collective response would
> > probably be, "huh?", because they would not be offering a
> > significantly differentiated product.
>
> > In my opinion, this is why Cultimate is moving so quickly, when they
> > don't have the set infrastructure in place for eligibility and so many
> > other things.  They know that the window they have to turn the elite
> > college series into a for-profit venture is closing.
>
> > -Tarr
> > speaking for myself only
>
> Tarr, I disagree with your assertion that this hypothetical 2010
> season will satisfy the desires of the top college teams. I am not
> necessarily pro-c1, and I would like to see more of the specifics, but
> I do like many of the ideas it presents, and I think most of the
> backlash against it is not well thought out.
>
> You say regular season results will qualify teams for regionals, but
> will there actually be a regular season (with preplanned games), or by
> regular season results do you mean whoever your team happens to play
> at tournament x? Also, I don’t believe that any top team is worried
> about qualifying for _regionals_. An automatic qualification to
> regionals is essentially saying that the pre-series results will be
> used in the same way they are now: as tools for seeding for regionals
> and nationals, and nothing more.
>
> One of the major selling points for me about c1 is that the same
> organization that runs the championship series runs the regular
> season. This is not the case now, and does not appear to be the case
> in your proposed UPA 2010 season. I think it is unfortunate that right
> now the UPA runs the championship tournaments and little else. Their
> involvement with sectionals is almost non-existent and with regionals
> it is minimal. The only tournaments that are actually run by the UPA
> are their various championship (aka nationals) tournaments. As a
> result, the quality between various sectionals and regionals
> tournaments varies greatly.

I'm not sure why you, as a UPA volunteer, don't think that the UPA
runs sectionals and regionals. The UPA is certainly the organization
involved in running sectionals and regionals, through their volunteer
coordinators. And Conference 1 would certainly involve non-employees
running tournaments - they could hardly have a few employees running
every important tournament in the country. So I don't see why this is
such a difference.

Further, what sort of quality issues do you think sectionals and
regionals currently have? How would C1 improve them?

> Your 2010 season also makes no mention of pushing the season later
> into warmer months (maybe it does, but you didn’t mention it). I think
> this is vital, because it is inherently unfair for so many teams to
> come to sectionals with ~2 weeks of outdoor practice time, and then
> end their season just as the weather is becoming ultimate friendly.

The season can't be pushed later - Nationals is already after
graduation for many teams. The college world series is about 2 weeks
later, but the division 3 baseball championship (more analogous to
ultimate, since we don't have scholarships and sponsors) is also over
Memorial Day.

sam th
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5470 is a reply to message #5434] Thu, 06 November 2008 12:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
weston
Messages: 45
Registered: October 2008
Member
> You, ESPECIALLY AS A SO CALLED "GRASS ROOTS" ASSOCIATION, should put
> more emphisis and concern towards providing everyone an equal amount
> of playing opportunities(HINT HINT.......70% of your membership)
> rather than worring about JUST everybodys equal chance to "win it
> all".

so.... the UPA should subsidize college for the majority
of people who want to play in college but never had the opportunity?

we are NOT concerned with everybody's equal chance to win it,
just with COLLEGE STUDENT opportunities to win.

C1 does not have streamlined eligibility requirements, the UPA does.

C1 does not have a formalized method for accepting its 25 teams, and
while the bid allocation process isn't perfect,
it's better than abandoning it alltogether.

C1 may discourage the further legitimization of ultimate in the eyes
of REAL academic institutions, such as the NCAA.

C1 is a formal call for secession from our governing body. Granted,
the UPA will likely not
"lose" these players or their dues, for eventually a majority of them
will play in other divisions,
or leagues, or upa sanctioned tourneys. BUT, I do think it will
inherently alienate college players
from other college players.

Is this a problem? Yes. The College division is usually the most
robust
division of the UPA. It certainly brings in more money per age band
than
any other division.

Is the solution to fixing an errant financial allocation system in the
UPA
to create an even more erroneous HUGE TAX SHELTER for cultimate
that will likely have similar FINANCIAL PROBLEMS? Especially if
it's being run, in part, by a well known embezzler?

C1 would ruin my college ultimate experience.
It would ruin my relationships with other aspiring college players.
Why? It would sacrifice mutual respect for the sake of competition.
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5477 is a reply to message #5454] Thu, 06 November 2008 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
weston
Messages: 45
Registered: October 2008
Member
I think
> this is vital, because it is inherently unfair for so many teams to
> come to sectionals with ~2 weeks of outdoor practice time, and then
> end their season just as the weather is becoming ultimate friendly.

you mean like... wisconsin? people who hit the weights until
internally bleeding and then show up and dominate? or how about
teams like claremont, whose every practice is in calm wind and
sunshine, but still tank big when it comes to the series?

> One of the major selling points for me about c1 is that the same
> organization that runs the championship series runs the regular
> season.

well maybe for you, but I don't care. In fact, I would almost rather
have a variety in tournament cultures before getting geared up for
the seriousness of the series. Some tournaments that I go to, I go
just to have fun,
and not care where I finish, so a heightened degree of "institutional
knowledge"
on behalf of the tournament director wouldn't amount to anything of
the reality
of my team that day, and might even end up hurting the final seeds at
nationals if the tournament director took those results seriously.

Having different tournament directors for the regular season
tournaments
is an Indexing of sorts...

To go back to your argument... Having the same organizing body
throughout the season...
Is this argument one of efficiency? You will always know where
the toilets are because they'll be X feet away from frisbee central
at an angle of Y degrees? Or maybe you'll just love buying that
same cold pizza for 2$ per slice 10 feet to the right of the
merchandise?
Maybe you just want to sit in those big fluffy couches which always
seem
to materialize outside the bracket tent...

Or wait... personally, none of those things encapsulate what it means
to play in a college tournament for me.

Just because the same group would be putting on the regular season
games as well as the championship series doesn't mean ANYTHING.
The ONLY thing this could help to serve would be the butchering of
names
by commentators.

...... and Toad? Jackson is not "one of their own." He says no such
thing. What's wrong with having worked WITHIN the system before
you find alternatives outside the system? Nothing. Might be more
appropriate even. It is true that Jackson has a more moderate view,
but some of those views I have strongly opposed above.

And honestly, even though the Athletic Director effed you (in some
regard)
that doesn't mean that you didn't have multiple opportunities to ask
them to send it in at an earlier date.

One could even ask Who has the bigger problem with Who here?
You have a problem with the UPA currently, and want C1.
You had a problem with the UPA over eligibility, and threatened them
with lawyers...
What were you gonna do?! SUE THEM, SET A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT, AND RUIN
THE SERIES FOR EVERYBODY?

( I can't believe you're arguing in favor of C1 when you ought be more
concerned about
how to ameliorate the sectionals roster deadline... sounds like you
shed
your rutgers colors quick in favor of good ol' stanford)

little snippet I found amusing on Pittsburgh's forum...
"According to UPA by-laws, rules can only be changed through a vote of
the entire membership. Callahan rules weren't likely to get voted in
by the membership so instead we used the "captain's clause" that
stated that the captains and tournament director could vote in a
change of the rules for that particular tournament. A guy from the
South who later ran for the UPA board thought that was cheating the
"membership vote" system and threatened to sue as well as have police
show up at Nationals with a court order to stop play because of the
violation."

Tactics like that are destructive to the sport. However, it would be
more
destructive to embrace the C1 all too quickly.

Don't get me wrong, I want some type of streamlining and legitimizing
moves to be made for college ultimate, I just think that Skip and
Cyle's
C1 bid is ill-timed and ill-conceived at best, and power/wealth
mongering
at worst. especially when the UPA already has guidelines in place for
how to make the changes we *all* seem to want on some level in a much
more equitable and appropriate manner.
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5488 is a reply to message #5401] Thu, 06 November 2008 14:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Daag Alemayehu
Messages: 249
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 6, 8:15 am, eric.a.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> C1 or eventually be offered a C2 or C3 spot.  Breaking into the C1 is
> fine, if the lower teams keep agreeing to pay, but where does the
> money come from when you want to start the C2.  Under the current
> model you need to heap the expense on the teams that aren't in the C1
> and C2 or sign up more teams.  You keep expanding the base of the
> pyramid, but eventually you are going to run out of blocks because
> folks will not pay the excessive tourney fees.  Hell, ultimate players

I agree with you Eric: if Cultimate expects "C2" teams to pay for C1
teams' expenses every year, C1 is doomed to fail. Because then who's
going to pay for C2 when it happens? "C3" teams? It's basically a
pyramid scheme just like you said.

My guess (and mind you it's nothing more than a guess since I don't
have any kind of inside info) is this: this year AND THIS YEAR ONLY,
C1 teams have been offered subsidized stuff, to be paid for by non-C1
teams, in order to entice them to join C1. I believe that Cultimate
felt that in addition to the competitive benefits offered (formalized
regular season, higher quality competition, better shot at making
nationals, etc.) it had to include some financial enticements (no
tournament fees, subsidized jerseys, etc.) in order to get the
selected teams to switch from the UPA to Cultimate.

Basically, Cultimate is bribing them. If C1 works this year, maybe
they'll bribe them again next year, but I get the feeling that they're
hoping C1 is a smashing success this year, and in future years teams
will join C1 for the competitive benefits alone. No more subsidizing
tournament fes and jerseys off the dollar of the lower-level teams.
Extrapolating this idea to the next level, if C2 were to take form in
2010 or 2011, C2 teams would also be joining for the competitive
benefits alone (regular season, more equal competition, C2 nationals,
etc.) and not because they'd be getting free stuff being paid for by
potential future C3 teams.
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5510 is a reply to message #5203] Thu, 06 November 2008 18:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shane
Messages: 9
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
On Nov 4, 7:37 pm, pkurs...@gmail.com wrote:
> The UPA has issued a statement about the outcome of our meetings with
> Cultimate regarding Conference1 and the upcoming college series:
>
> http://www.upa.org/upa/about/publicstatements/CollegeUltimat e
>
> -Peri Kurshan
> UPA BoD

Thank you UPA.
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5511 is a reply to message #5488] Thu, 06 November 2008 18:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
eddiegelfen
Messages: 43
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Nov 6, 5:20 pm, Daag Alemayehu <daag.alemay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 8:15 am, eric.a.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
> Basically, Cultimate is bribing them. If C1 works this year, maybe
> they'll bribe them again next year, but I get the feeling that they're
> hoping C1 is a smashing success this year, and in future years teams
> will join C1 for the competitive benefits alone. No more subsidizing
> tournament fes and jerseys off the dollar of the lower-level teams.
> Extrapolating this idea to the next level, if C2 were to take form in
> 2010 or 2011, C2 teams would also be joining for the competitive
> benefits alone (regular season, more equal competition, C2 nationals,
> etc.) and not because they'd be getting free stuff being paid for by
> potential future C3 teams.

When the gravy train ends, will the tournament fees drop down to
something normal ($300-$400), or will they remain at $500-$600? If
Conference X becomes the only show in town, what's the incentive for
them to drop? And the teams who have been subsidized thus far, are
they stuck suddenly facing extensive travel costs and inflated
tournament fees?

Sounds like signing up for one of those free trials that rolls into a
paid subscription with a hefty fee. Only difference is that by
signing up for the free trial, you contribute to the destruction of
your other options, so when you don't want to pay the hefty fee,
you're not left with much alternative.
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5555 is a reply to message #5511] Fri, 07 November 2008 07:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 6, 9:06 pm, eddiegel...@gmail.com wrote:


>.  Only difference is that by
> signing up for the free trial, you contribute to the destruction of
> your other options,

how do you figure that. the upa has already stated that they are
keeping their series in tact. So the division is a little
weaker.....bfd!!!! you will still have 375 of the 400 college teams
to compte in the upa series. so how does losing 6% of the field equal
"destruction"?

I doubt this would be an issue to ANYBODY if the botton 6% was wanting
to branch off.
Re: UPA statement on Cultimate meetings [message #5563 is a reply to message #5312] Fri, 07 November 2008 09:10 Go to previous message
Fetch
Messages: 28
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
>
> > fucked by the UPA,
>
> then why support em. give someone else a chance to ride you. maybe
> cultimate will I love you better than the upa does. Or at least maybe
> shower you with more gifts.
> -------------------------------------------------------


Way to keep Ultimate classy Toad. I am now really glad I ran against
you for the UPA board- imagine Toad telling the public about Ultimate
and that he's on the UPA board. That might be mud slinging, which by
the way I am curious where the mud slinging was in the UPA statement.
I would really like to know as well.
Previous Topic:On a Potential Women's C1
Next Topic:Florida State boycotts Cultimate related entities.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Jan 17 21:25:52 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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