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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » The Big One
The Big One [message #8452] Sun, 14 December 2008 14:23 Go to next message
joe
Messages: 40
Registered: October 2008
Member
So I was looking as to what tournaments already had postings for next
year on the UPA website and I noticed The Big One in L.A.

Is this invite only? Where in L.A. is there a place to field 64
teams? It's the week before Stanford Invite and the week after Centex
so are North/East coast teams going back to back to back weekends on
the West Coast/Southwest? And on the topic of the Stanford
Invite...how are they holding 64 teams? Or is this just C1's "plan"
and this hasn't been finalized yet?
Re: The Big One [message #8454 is a reply to message #8452] Sun, 14 December 2008 16:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Daag Alemayehu
Messages: 249
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
They're gonna play hotbox instead of ultimate. There's room for 252
men's teams (and 4 women's teams).
Re: The Big One [message #8459 is a reply to message #8454] Sun, 14 December 2008 17:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Dec 14, 4:02 pm, Daag Alemayehu <daag.alemay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They're gonna play hotbox instead of ultimate.  There's room for 252
> men's teams (and 4 women's teams).

Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.
Re: The Big One [message #8464 is a reply to message #8459] Sun, 14 December 2008 21:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bacon
Messages: 50
Registered: October 2008
Member
> Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.

How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
if so, Date?
Re: The Big One [message #8469 is a reply to message #8464] Mon, 15 December 2008 01:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joe
Messages: 40
Registered: October 2008
Member
On Dec 14, 9:56 pm, Bacon <sizilinba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> > be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.
>
> How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
> if so, Date?

A qualifier for a 64 team tournament with a simultaneous 64 team
tourney going on in D.C., highly doubt it but maybe.
Re: The Big One [message #8476 is a reply to message #8469] Mon, 15 December 2008 08:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grushk
Messages: 29
Registered: December 2008
Junior Member
On Dec 15, 4:44 am, joe <forbes....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:56 pm, Bacon <sizilinba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> > > be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.
>
> > How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
> > if so, Date?
>
> A qualifier for a 64 team tournament with a simultaneous 64 team
> tourney going on in D.C., highly doubt it but maybe.

My question is, are they actually going to invite teams to fill each
of the 64 spots or are they accepting bids? Seems impractical to me to
invite that many teams individually. But if they don't, the 'Stanford
Invite' is no longer an invite nor is it at Stanford.
Re: The Big One [message #8478 is a reply to message #8469] Mon, 15 December 2008 09:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Dec 15, 1:44 am, joe <forbes....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:56 pm, Bacon <sizilinba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> > > be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.
>
> > How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
> > if so, Date?
>
> A qualifier for a 64 team tournament with a simultaneous 64 team
> tourney going on in D.C., highly doubt it but maybe.

Roll Call is March 28 and 29, not the same weekend.
Re: The Big One [message #8479 is a reply to message #8476] Mon, 15 December 2008 09:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Dec 15, 8:43 am, "gru...@gmail.com" <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 4:44 am, joe <forbes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 9:56 pm, Bacon <sizilinba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> > > > be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual..
>
> > > How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
> > > if so, Date?
>
> > A qualifier for a 64 team tournament with a simultaneous 64 team
> > tourney going on in D.C., highly doubt it but maybe.
>
> My question is, are they actually going to invite teams to fill each
> of the 64 spots or are they accepting bids? Seems impractical to me to
> invite that many teams individually. But if they don't, the 'Stanford
> Invite' is no longer an invite nor is it at Stanford.

That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.
Re: The Big One [message #8483 is a reply to message #8479] Mon, 15 December 2008 11:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Midori
Messages: 4
Registered: November 2008
Junior Member
On Dec 15, 9:10 am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 8:43 am, "gru...@gmail.com" <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 4:44 am, joe <forbes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 9:56 pm, Bacon <sizilinba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> > > > > be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.
Does anyone know what's going on with the women's division this year?
Is there also going to be a qualifier on the same date as the men's
qualifier?


> > > > How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
> > > > if so, Date?
>
> > > A qualifier for a 64 team tournament with a simultaneous 64 team
> > > tourney going on in D.C., highly doubt it but maybe.
>
> > My question is, are they actually going to invite teams to fill each
> > of the 64 spots or are they accepting bids? Seems impractical to me to
> > invite that many teams individually. But if they don't, the 'Stanford
> > Invite' is no longer an invite nor is it at Stanford.
>
> That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.
Re: The Big One [message #8485 is a reply to message #8483] Mon, 15 December 2008 12:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Dec 15, 11:44 am, Midori <midori.niik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:10 am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:> On Dec 15, 8:43 am, "gru...@gmail.com" <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 4:44 am, joe <forbes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 14, 9:56 pm, Bacon <sizilinba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> > > > > > be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.
>
> Does anyone know what's going on with the women's division this year?
> Is there also going to be a qualifier on the same date as the men's
> qualifier?
>
> > > > > How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
> > > > > if so, Date?
>
> > > > A qualifier for a 64 team tournament with a simultaneous 64 team
> > > > tourney going on in D.C., highly doubt it but maybe.
>
> > > My question is, are they actually going to invite teams to fill each
> > > of the 64 spots or are they accepting bids? Seems impractical to me to
> > > invite that many teams individually. But if they don't, the 'Stanford
> > > Invite' is no longer an invite nor is it at Stanford.
>
> > That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> > of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.
>
>

Womens Division invites should be going out soon. If there is a
qualifier (for either men or women), it will most likely be for entry
into the elite division, not the tournament itself.
Re: The Big One [message #8489 is a reply to message #8479] Mon, 15 December 2008 14:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tal1286
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
On Dec 15, 12:10 pm, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 8:43 am, "gru...@gmail.com" <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 4:44 am, joe <forbes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 9:56 pm, Bacon <sizilinba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> > > > > be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.
>
> > > > How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
> > > > if so, Date?
>
> > > A qualifier for a 64 team tournament with a simultaneous 64 team
> > > tourney going on in D.C., highly doubt it but maybe.
>
> > My question is, are they actually going to invite teams to fill each
> > of the 64 spots or are they accepting bids? Seems impractical to me to
> > invite that many teams individually. But if they don't, the 'Stanford
> > Invite' is no longer an invite nor is it at Stanford.
>
> That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.

Ryan - Is Stanford Invite on March 7-8 or March 27-28? There's a
Stanford Invite on the 7th and The Stanford Invite on the 28th listed
on score reporter.
Re: The Big One [message #8493 is a reply to message #8489] Mon, 15 December 2008 15:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Dec 15, 2:37 pm, tal1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 15, 12:10 pm, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 8:43 am, "gru...@gmail.com" <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 4:44 am, joe <forbes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 14, 9:56 pm, Bacon <sizilinba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> > > > > > be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.
>
> > > > > How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
> > > > > if so, Date?
>
> > > > A qualifier for a 64 team tournament with a simultaneous 64 team
> > > > tourney going on in D.C., highly doubt it but maybe.
>
> > > My question is, are they actually going to invite teams to fill each
> > > of the 64 spots or are they accepting bids? Seems impractical to me to
> > > invite that many teams individually. But if they don't, the 'Stanford
> > > Invite' is no longer an invite nor is it at Stanford.
>
> > That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> > of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.
>
> Ryan - Is Stanford Invite on March 7-8 or March 27-28?  There's a
> Stanford Invite on the 7th and The Stanford Invite on the 28th listed
> on score reporter.

March 7-8. The other one was a proposed date that we decided against.
Re: The Big One [message #8499 is a reply to message #8493] Mon, 15 December 2008 16:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Yugo
Messages: 7
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
On Dec 15, 3:45 pm, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:37 pm, tal1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 12:10 pm, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 8:43 am, "gru...@gmail.com" <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 4:44 am, joe <forbes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 14, 9:56 pm, Bacon <sizilinba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Stanford Invite will be March 7 and 8 for both men and women. It will
> > > > > > > be held off campus, so there is room for many more teams than usual.
>
> > > > > > How about the Stanford Qualifier, will that be held again this year?
> > > > > > if so, Date?
>
> > > > > A qualifier for a 64 team tournament with a simultaneous 64 team
> > > > > tourney going on in D.C., highly doubt it but maybe.
>
> > > > My question is, are they actually going to invite teams to fill each
> > > > of the 64 spots or are they accepting bids? Seems impractical to me to
> > > > invite that many teams individually. But if they don't, the 'Stanford
> > > > Invite' is no longer an invite nor is it at Stanford.
>
> > > That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> > > of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.
>
> > Ryan - Is Stanford Invite on March 7-8 or March 27-28?  There's a
> > Stanford Invite on the 7th and The Stanford Invite on the 28th listed
> > on score reporter.
>
> March 7-8. The other one was a proposed date that we decided against.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey Ryan,

Do you have any idea when this potential qualifier would be? Should
teams on the border of getting into the Elite Division plan on making
two trips?

Thanks,
Yugo
UCLA Smaug
Re: The Big One [message #8501 is a reply to message #8479] Mon, 15 December 2008 17:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bones
Messages: 14
Registered: November 2008
Junior Member
On Dec 15, 9:10 am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.

Okay, I hate to be "that guy," but it just sounds like you're turning
an awesomely small and elite tournament into Trouble in Vegas: Bay
Area Edition.

Don't do that. Vegas is cool and all, but so is Stanford for entirely
different reasons. Inviting more teams to an elite tournament isn't
helping grow the sport, it's money grabbing. I understand that the
school (and its associates) aren't running tournaments just for shits
and giggles, but adding non-elite divisions could end up ruining the
Stanford Invite's renown.

However, don't let my naysaying get in the way of a good tournament.
I only provide warning. If it works, and is well received, well,
shine on you crazy diamonds.

Bones
Re: The Big One [message #8502 is a reply to message #8501] Mon, 15 December 2008 18:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ilikedisc
Messages: 11
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
There's probably a lot you aren't considering about this Bones.

One of the biggest issues with the Stanford Invite are the fields.
There is always the threat that they will be closed because of
weather, and having played for a team that has had to go through that,
it's an extreme inconvenience to deal with.

Taking the fields to an off campus site solves this problem. A side
effect of this however is field costs. Now all the sudden you have a
big hole in your budget where you didn't have one at all. Solution?
More teams! You can fit them now, and they will help pay for the
fields that are no longer free.

Having everyone in the same spot also solves other problems related to
playing on campus, such as having multiple field sites and having to
provide food and water to 3 or 4 different places, figuring out where
all those people park on campus, and teams having to switch field
sites after a hard capped game to get to another game that starts in 5
minutes.
Re: The Big One [message #8508 is a reply to message #8501] Mon, 15 December 2008 20:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grushk
Messages: 29
Registered: December 2008
Junior Member
On Dec 15, 8:44 pm, Bones <dbr...@ucla.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:10 am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> > of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.
>
> Okay, I hate to be "that guy," but it just sounds like you're turning
> an awesomely small and elite tournament into Trouble in Vegas: Bay
> Area Edition.
>
> Don't do that.  Vegas is cool and all, but so is Stanford for entirely
> different reasons.  Inviting more teams to an elite tournament isn't
> helping grow the sport, it's money grabbing.  I understand that the
> school (and its associates) aren't running tournaments just for shits
> and giggles, but adding non-elite divisions could end up ruining the
> Stanford Invite's renown.
>
> However, don't let my naysaying get in the way of a good tournament.
> I only provide warning.  If it works, and is well received, well,
> shine on you crazy diamonds.
>
> Bones

For the past few years Cultimate has been running several 'elite'
tournaments. The UPA website lists Centex as also being a 64 team
tournament this year. If inviting more teams to elite tournaments is
going to ruin their renown, it seems like Cultimate may
unintentionally boost the UPA championships as THE elite tournament of
the year, or let other non-Cultimate tourneys step up and fill the
gap, unless it manages to ban dual participation like they wanted.

Then again, inviting more teams to a tournament doesn't necessarily
ruin their reputation. Making this post irrelevant.
Re: The Big One [message #8511 is a reply to message #8508] Mon, 15 December 2008 21:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bones
Messages: 14
Registered: November 2008
Junior Member
Here goes. That Guy, your name is Bones:

Unsigned author who showed up to me in purple as iliked...@gmail.com:
You missed the point of my post entirely. Trust me, I've been to my
fair share of Stanford tournaments. I know what it's like to get
rained out, and enjoy the wonderful part of God's green earth known as
Turlock. I don't really have any opinion on where Stanford should
hold their tournament. If it cost them more to have it at alternate
fields in the past several years, it hasn't been a budget problem
yet. Also, that issue has to do with school standards (and Pres Day
2006) more than field location and size. And I think your last
paragraph-sentence has to do with good or bad tournament managing, not
field location, which is not something I want to address.

Unsigned author who was hot pink as grushk@gmail.com:
Isn't it cooler for your team to go to the Stanford Invite than just
to go to Trouble in Vegas? I know my college team would love to be
invited to the former. They go to Vegas every year. You don't have
to agree, but the world does: the quality of play at the Stanford
Invite is high. Inviting everybody to come and play diminishes the
value assigned to the name. To draw an analogy, only the best teams
play in the World Series. Inviting more shitty teams to play next
door in the Series may not do any harm to the teams playing in the top
games, but it sure means a lot less to make it there.

Don't get me wrong: I love spirit, equity, and I think inclusiveness
is awesome. I'm not even convinced that this is bad* But it can come
at a cost. I don't expect to have an influence, but hey, this is the
internet, and damned if my voice won't be heard by a fanatical few.
For now, it's back to Netflix streaming. Damn I love the tubes.

Forever Yours,

Bones

*But I simply can't back down from an online newsgroup brawl.

On Dec 15, 8:15 pm, "gru...@gmail.com" <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 8:44 pm, Bones <dbr...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 9:10 am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > > That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> > > of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.
>
> > Okay, I hate to be "that guy," but it just sounds like you're turning
> > an awesomely small and elite tournament into Trouble in Vegas: Bay
> > Area Edition.
>
> > Don't do that.  Vegas is cool and all, but so is Stanford for entirely
> > different reasons.  Inviting more teams to an elite tournament isn't
> > helping grow the sport, it's money grabbing.  I understand that the
> > school (and its associates) aren't running tournaments just for shits
> > and giggles, but adding non-elite divisions could end up ruining the
> > Stanford Invite's renown.
>
> > However, don't let my naysaying get in the way of a good tournament.
> > I only provide warning.  If it works, and is well received, well,
> > shine on you crazy diamonds.
>
> > Bones
>
> For the past few years Cultimate has been running several 'elite'
> tournaments. The UPA website lists Centex as also being a 64 team
> tournament this year. If inviting more teams to elite tournaments is
> going to ruin their renown, it seems like Cultimate may
> unintentionally boost the UPA championships as THE elite tournament of
> the year, or let other non-Cultimate tourneys step up and fill the
> gap, unless it manages to ban dual participation like they wanted.
>
> Then again, inviting more teams to a tournament doesn't necessarily
> ruin their reputation. Making this post irrelevant.
Re: The Big One [message #8512 is a reply to message #8511] Mon, 15 December 2008 22:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Dec 15, 9:44 pm, Bones <dbr...@ucla.edu> wrote:
> Here goes.  That Guy, your name is Bones:
>
> Unsigned author who showed up to me in purple as iliked...@gmail.com:
> You missed the point of my post entirely.  Trust me, I've been to my
> fair share of Stanford tournaments.  I know what it's like to get
> rained out, and enjoy the wonderful part of God's green earth known as
> Turlock.  I don't really have any opinion on where Stanford should
> hold their tournament.  If it cost them more to have it at alternate
> fields in the past several years, it hasn't been a budget problem
> yet.  Also, that issue has to do with school standards (and Pres Day
> 2006) more than field location and size.  And I think your last
> paragraph-sentence has to do with good or bad tournament managing, not
> field location, which is not something I want to address.
>
> Unsigned author who was hot pink as gru...@gmail.com:
> Isn't it cooler for your team to go to the Stanford Invite than just
> to go to Trouble in Vegas?  I know my college team would love to be
> invited to the former.  They go to Vegas every year.  You don't have
> to agree, but the world does: the quality of play at the Stanford
> Invite is high.  Inviting everybody to come and play diminishes the
> value assigned to the name.  To draw an analogy, only the best teams
> play in the World Series.  Inviting more shitty teams to play next
> door in the Series may not do any harm to the teams playing in the top
> games, but it sure means a lot less to make it there.
>
> Don't get me wrong: I love spirit, equity, and I think inclusiveness
> is awesome.  I'm not even convinced that this is bad* But it can come
> at a cost.  I don't expect to have an influence, but hey, this is the
> internet, and damned if my voice won't be heard by a fanatical few.
> For now, it's back to Netflix streaming.  Damn I love the tubes.
>
> Forever Yours,
>
> Bones
>
> *But I simply can't back down from an online newsgroup brawl.
>
> On Dec 15, 8:15 pm, "gru...@gmail.com" <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 8:44 pm, Bones <dbr...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 9:10 am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> > > > of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.
>
> > > Okay, I hate to be "that guy," but it just sounds like you're turning
> > > an awesomely small and elite tournament into Trouble in Vegas: Bay
> > > Area Edition.
>
> > > Don't do that.  Vegas is cool and all, but so is Stanford for entirely
> > > different reasons.  Inviting more teams to an elite tournament isn't
> > > helping grow the sport, it's money grabbing.  I understand that the
> > > school (and its associates) aren't running tournaments just for shits
> > > and giggles, but adding non-elite divisions could end up ruining the
> > > Stanford Invite's renown.
>
> > > However, don't let my naysaying get in the way of a good tournament.
> > > I only provide warning.  If it works, and is well received, well,
> > > shine on you crazy diamonds.
>
> > > Bones
>
> > For the past few years Cultimate has been running several 'elite'
> > tournaments. The UPA website lists Centex as also being a 64 team
> > tournament this year. If inviting more teams to elite tournaments is
> > going to ruin their renown, it seems like Cultimate may
> > unintentionally boost the UPA championships as THE elite tournament of
> > the year, or let other non-Cultimate tourneys step up and fill the
> > gap, unless it manages to ban dual participation like they wanted.
>
> > Then again, inviting more teams to a tournament doesn't necessarily
> > ruin their reputation. Making this post irrelevant.
>
>

This year is an experiment - we can talk all we want about what will
turn out better, but we want to see whether inviting more teams and
holding Invite off campus is a desirable alternative. It's possible
that some sort of hybrid, dual-division tournament is the optimal
solution, but we are trying this because Cultimate is confident that
they can pull it off well and better than Qualifier and Invite, and
because we are curious to see the response we get.
Stanford Invite [message #8679 is a reply to message #8512] Fri, 19 December 2008 09:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ryanthompsor
Messages: 10
Registered: December 2008
Junior Member
On Dec 15, 10:19 pm, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:44 pm, Bones <dbr...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here goes.  That Guy, your name is Bones:
>
> > Unsigned author who showed up to me in purple as iliked...@gmail.com:
> > You missed the point of my post entirely.  Trust me, I've been to my
> > fair share of Stanford tournaments.  I know what it's like to get
> > rained out, and enjoy the wonderful part of God's green earth known as
> > Turlock.  I don't really have any opinion on where Stanford should
> > hold their tournament.  If it cost them more to have it at alternate
> > fields in the past several years, it hasn't been a budget problem
> > yet.  Also, that issue has to do with school standards (and Pres Day
> > 2006) more than field location and size.  And I think your last
> > paragraph-sentence has to do with good or bad tournament managing, not
> > field location, which is not something I want to address.
>
> > Unsigned author who was hot pink as gru...@gmail.com:
> > Isn't it cooler for your team to go to the Stanford Invite than just
> > to go to Trouble in Vegas?  I know my college team would love to be
> > invited to the former.  They go to Vegas every year.  You don't have
> > to agree, but the world does: the quality of play at the Stanford
> > Invite is high.  Inviting everybody to come and play diminishes the
> > value assigned to the name.  To draw an analogy, only the best teams
> > play in the World Series.  Inviting more shitty teams to play next
> > door in the Series may not do any harm to the teams playing in the top
> > games, but it sure means a lot less to make it there.
>
> > Don't get me wrong: I love spirit, equity, and I think inclusiveness
> > is awesome.  I'm not even convinced that this is bad* But it can come
> > at a cost.  I don't expect to have an influence, but hey, this is the
> > internet, and damned if my voice won't be heard by a fanatical few.
> > For now, it's back to Netflix streaming.  Damn I love the tubes.
>
> > Forever Yours,
>
> > Bones
>
> > *But I simply can't back down from an online newsgroup brawl.
>
> > On Dec 15, 8:15 pm, "gru...@gmail.com" <gru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 8:44 pm, Bones <dbr...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 9:10 am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > That's what tiered competition is for. There will still be a division
> > > > > of teams invited by Stanford. See, no semantics issues.
>
> > > > Okay, I hate to be "that guy," but it just sounds like you're turning
> > > > an awesomely small and elite tournament into Trouble in Vegas: Bay
> > > > Area Edition.
>
> > > > Don't do that.  Vegas is cool and all, but so is Stanford for entirely
> > > > different reasons.  Inviting more teams to an elite tournament isn't
> > > > helping grow the sport, it's money grabbing.  I understand that the
> > > > school (and its associates) aren't running tournaments just for shits
> > > > and giggles, but adding non-elite divisions could end up ruining the
> > > > Stanford Invite's renown.
>
> > > > However, don't let my naysaying get in the way of a good tournament..
> > > > I only provide warning.  If it works, and is well received, well,
> > > > shine on you crazy diamonds.
>
> > > > Bones
>
> > > For the past few years Cultimate has been running several 'elite'
> > > tournaments. The UPA website lists Centex as also being a 64 team
> > > tournament this year. If inviting more teams to elite tournaments is
> > > going to ruin their renown, it seems like Cultimate may
> > > unintentionally boost the UPA championships as THE elite tournament of
> > > the year, or let other non-Cultimate tourneys step up and fill the
> > > gap, unless it manages to ban dual participation like they wanted.
>
> > > Then again, inviting more teams to a tournament doesn't necessarily
> > > ruin their reputation. Making this post irrelevant.
>
> This year is an experiment - we can talk all we want about what will
> turn out better, but we want to see whether inviting more teams and
> holding Invite off campus is a desirable alternative. It's possible
> that some sort of hybrid, dual-division tournament is the optimal
> solution, but we are trying this because Cultimate is confident that
> they can pull it off well and better than Qualifier and Invite, and
> because we are curious to see the response we get.

Stanford Invite (Womens) has sent out their invites, and there will be
a womens Qualifier on February 28th and March 1st. More information to
come.

Stanford Invite (Mens) has secured 19 of the best teams in the country
already, and bid information for other teams will be released shortly.
One date: March 7th and 8th.
Re: Stanford Invite [message #8773 is a reply to message #8679] Sat, 20 December 2008 15:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alison Stambaugh
Messages: 11
Registered: November 2008
Junior Member
Personally I would rather play in a smaller tournament anywhere in the
Bay Area than in a huge tournament in Ripon, which appears to be 30
miles north of Turlock. I also remember playing the "Stanford Invite"
on a fog-drenched field in the middle of nowhere, and while it might
have been better than playing at all it was not exactly a weekend I'm
dying to repeat. As a back-up plan I was impressed; as Plan A simply
because the organizers want to run a tournament so large it can't be
done anywhere else I am skeptical.

I guess I don't see the point of these giant tournaments except
perhaps as money-makers, if they are in fact significantly more
profitable than smaller-scale events. From a player's perspective, if
16 teams or 64 teams attended my team would still play only 6-8 of
them over the weekend, unless any were repeats. The day is only so
long and there are only so many scheduled byes possible, so there
wouldn't be much opportunity to watch pieces of more than a few of the
other games, and those might be teams from my pool I was checking out.
For the most part, the 50-something teams I never watched or played
against would simply be a blur of jersey colors on an impressive
expanse of fields. Is that worth having the tournament in a less
desirable location?

There might be benefits to the larger number of teams, such as
increased interest and attendance from spectators, vendors, and media,
but I expect that aspect would be reduced if the tournament were held
somewhere out of the way.
Re: Stanford Invite [message #8794 is a reply to message #8773] Sun, 21 December 2008 07:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
weston
Messages: 45
Registered: October 2008
Member
On Dec 20, 3:54 pm, Alison Stambaugh <astamba...@umail.ucsb.edu>
wrote:

> on a fog-drenched field in the middle of nowhere

what... pray tell... is a fog-drenched field?
fog and waterlogged?
Re: Stanford Invite [message #8797 is a reply to message #8794] Sun, 21 December 2008 08:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alison Stambaugh
Messages: 11
Registered: November 2008
Junior Member
On Dec 21, 7:02 am, weston <Weston.J.Mil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 3:54 pm, Alison Stambaugh <astamba...@umail.ucsb.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > on a fog-drenched field in the middle of nowhere
>
> what... pray tell... is a fog-drenched field?
> fog and waterlogged?

It's when you're not sure you're in remotely the right place because
the directions end with "you will see fields," yet you've been driving
through fog so thick you can see beyond the side of the road but you
think you're driving between two cow pastures. Finally someone in he
car spots an orange cone floating around in the fog (too dense to see
the person actually carrying the cone) and you decide it must be the .
You get out of the car and fog starts soaking into your sweatshirt.
It's beaded up on the grass so your feet are soaked before you get
through the field gate. You can see the porta-potties because they are
more than 20 feet away so you guess a direction and go that way. Good
luck finding your team when you get out. Fortunately, the fog only
makes the top of the grass wet and the rain hasn't been by so you can
still play on the fields, if only you could see the other endzone.

Don't get me wrong, it was fun, but in a "this is ridiculous we must
be crazy to spend our weekend doing this" sort of way.
Re: Stanford Invite [message #8829 is a reply to message #8797] Sun, 21 December 2008 17:59 Go to previous message
Matt.Pasienski
Messages: 77
Registered: October 2008
Member
>Stanford Invite will be held in Ripon, California, in conjunction with the Open division.

So the "Stanford Invite" is not at Stanford, is not run by Stanford,
and is not an invite.

The tournament should just be renamed "Trouble in Modesto".
Previous Topic:Savannah Ultimate
Next Topic:nytimes article on rollerderby
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Apr 8 16:35:42 PDT 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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