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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals?
What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2390] Mon, 13 October 2008 11:12 Go to next message
Keith.Larsen.TX
Messages: 41
Registered: September 2008
Member
I know that there has been an "Ultimate Revolution" going on with the
idea of making a Division II Nationals for College. Well what advances
are in the works for extending the Club Series? Here is my idea, and
something that I would love to see done in the next two years.

So the Club series consisted of 301 teams this year (that is including
Masters teams playing as Open teams at Sectionals) of those teams only
87 continued on to Regionals (of the 96 regional spots) and well over
30 teams had to pass on a regionals bid for those 9 spots to be open
(e.g. all the RM, DES, SCAL, WP, FL, etc. sections)

After those 87 competed only 16 advanced to Nationals. So 285 teams of
the 87 were done (285 because 16 masters team went on of the 301...)
so 70% of teams paid their dues for one tournament, most with less
than 10-12 teams attending. And 16 of the remaining 87 were done after
this 2nd tournament... another 81%

So if the UPA offered a Division II Nationals inviting the next 16
teams (e.g. the top 5 from each Region, with 2 extra) 32 of 87 would
go on, another 20%. You have to think that the 30+ teams that turned
down their bids to Regionals were not just because Regionals were too
far away... I'm sure finances were a part of it, but maybe it was
because they knew they wouldn't finish in the top 2-3 and weren't
going to get more than 3 games.

If 5 teams from each Region had a prospect of a 2nd tournament I think
teams would not turn regionals bids down, and Regionals would be that
much more exciting.

So who would go this year?
http://www.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=20&id=5601
Seeding is based on teams results for this season, and there are
plenty so that seeding wasn't too hard, and not really the point here
plus we have a lot of tied for 5th's (I dropped Sons of Liberty since
their region got 4 bids to Nationals, not the point though...). Just
that this is still a hell of a good tournament. Including 5 teams that
have made nationals in the last 2 years, and obviously all teams that
are very close to Nationals.

Where can this tournament be held?
16 teams, 2-3 days, only 8 fields needed, just about anywhere with an
airport close.

What can this tournament become and hkow would teams be motivated to
attend?
What about only giving 14 bids to Nationals from Regionals, the top 2
in each region and 2 strength bids. The next 16 go to the Div.II play-
in tournament and this tournament provides the last 2 bids to
Nationals.

When would this tournament take place?
Give the time teams would need to arrange flights it would have to be
2-3 weeks after Regionals. So regionals would have to be limited to
only the first of the now two (actually makes it easier on teams
flying to regionals to plan the correct weekend) and would be the
weekend before Nationals.

I've very serious about seeing this happen. The UPA needs to provide
more tournament to top regional level teams. Abviously it couldn't
happen this year but what does it take to push this through for next
year or even 2010? What does the community think of this. Do any of
these 16 teams want to comment on if they would [HAVE BEEN] interested
in attending? If this was approved I would be happy to put in a bid to
host it in Dallas at our field location 5 miles from DFW airport.

-Keith Larsen
Texas2Finger TD
College Section Coord of the Year 2005
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2392 is a reply to message #2390] Mon, 13 October 2008 11:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Josh Thornton
Messages: 4
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
Think the idea here is great. Lots of 'cusp' teams would love to be
able to battle other teams that are on the verge of nationals, but I'm
afraid teams that are used to attending nationals or are a strong
contender for the bid would not attend this tournament. The NIT isn't
too enticing to Duke or North Carolina for instance...so would Furious
attend this tournament- doubt it. But I'm not on their team, so I
can't say for sure.

Teams that have a solid legitimate chance at nationals, probably just
want to walk away from the season if they haven't gotten 'the bid'.
From your potential brackets, I think the lower teams (seeded 10-16)
are the most likely to attend, whereas #s 1-6 are least likely.

I think this might be better served up as an 'invitational' for the
teams that didn't make it, but meet certain criteria (ex: top x finish
at tournaments x, y, z; beating a national qualifier; finish regionals
in the top x).

Our team joking talked about 'nationinals' this weekend - an invite
for all the teams finishing 9-12 or 9-16 out of their regions.
Amusing that others are thinking there should be another tournament
for teams that didn't make the big dance

Josh



On Oct 13, 1:12 pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
> I know that there has been an "Ultimate Revolution" going on with the
> idea of making a Division II Nationals for College. Well what advances
> are in the works for extending the Club Series? Here is my idea, and
> something that I would love to see done in the next two years.
>
> So the Club series consisted of 301 teams this year (that is including
> Masters teams playing as Open teams at Sectionals) of those teams only
> 87 continued on to Regionals (of the 96 regional spots) and well over
> 30 teams had to pass on a regionals bid for those 9 spots to be open
> (e.g. all the RM, DES, SCAL, WP, FL, etc. sections)
>
> After those 87 competed only 16 advanced to Nationals. So 285 teams of
> the 87 were done (285 because 16 masters team went on of the 301...)
> so 70% of teams paid their dues for one tournament, most with less
> than 10-12 teams attending. And 16 of the remaining 87 were done after
> this 2nd tournament... another 81%
>
> So if the UPA offered a Division II Nationals inviting the next 16
> teams (e.g. the top 5 from each Region, with 2 extra) 32 of 87 would
> go on, another 20%. You have to think that the 30+ teams that turned
> down their bids to Regionals were not just because Regionals were too
> far away... I'm sure finances were a part of it, but maybe it was
> because they knew they wouldn't finish in the top 2-3 and weren't
> going to get more than 3 games.
>
> If 5 teams from each Region had a prospect of a 2nd tournament I think
> teams would not turn regionals bids down, and Regionals would be that
> much more exciting.
>
> So who would go this year?http://www.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=20&id=5601
> Seeding is based on teams results for this season, and there are
> plenty so that seeding wasn't too hard, and not really the point here
> plus we have a lot of tied for 5th's (I dropped Sons of Liberty since
> their region got 4 bids to Nationals, not the point though...). Just
> that this is still a hell of a good tournament. Including 5 teams that
> have made nationals in the last 2 years, and obviously all teams that
> are very close to Nationals.
>
> Where can this tournament be held?
> 16 teams, 2-3 days, only 8 fields needed, just about anywhere with an
> airport close.
>
> What can this tournament become and hkow would teams be motivated to
> attend?
> What about only giving 14 bids to Nationals from Regionals, the top 2
> in each region and 2 strength bids. The next 16 go to the Div.II play-
> in tournament and this tournament provides the last 2 bids to
> Nationals.
>
> When would this tournament take place?
> Give the time teams would need to arrange flights it would have to be
> 2-3 weeks after Regionals. So regionals would have to be limited to
> only the first of the now two (actually makes it easier on teams
> flying to regionals to plan the correct weekend) and would be the
> weekend before Nationals.
>
> I've very serious about seeing this happen. The UPA needs to provide
> more tournament to top regional level teams. Abviously it couldn't
> happen this year but what does it take to push this through for next
> year or even 2010? What does the community think of this. Do any of
> these 16 teams want to comment on if they would [HAVE BEEN] interested
> in attending? If this was approved I would be happy to put in a bid to
> host it in Dallas at our field location 5 miles from DFW airport.
>
> -Keith Larsen
> Texas2Finger TD
> College Section Coord of the Year 2005
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2405 is a reply to message #2392] Mon, 13 October 2008 13:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Leonardo
Messages: 101
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Div II for Open is overdue and the new UPA Board should recognize and
take steps to make this happen. It will only increase the rolls for
UPA members and give many disenfranchised male players a better
opportunity to play and compete
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2409 is a reply to message #2392] Mon, 13 October 2008 13:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pkurshan
Messages: 63
Registered: September 2008
Member
> > I've very serious about seeing this happen. The UPA needs to provide
> > more tournament to top regional level teams. Abviously it couldn't
> > happen this year but what does it take to push this through for next
> > year or even 2010?


This is something I too am very excited about. In fact, it's already a
part of the UPA's 5 year strategic plan (http://upa.org/upa/
strategicplanning/2008-2012/series). As I've posted here before, the
UPA is beginning work on a college div II, and unfortunately there's
only so much we can tackle at one time, so the time line you've
outlined might not be realistic for the UPA. Of course, there's
nothing stopping anyone else from hosting such a tournament in the
meantime!

-Peri Kurshan
UPA BoD

These statements are my own personal opinion and do not reflect
official UPA policy.
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2414 is a reply to message #2409] Mon, 13 October 2008 13:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Keith.Larsen.TX
Messages: 41
Registered: September 2008
Member
Peri,

Thanks for taking a look at this. I know we have spoken before, I just
didn't think the UPA had been exploring Club expansion to this point,
just college.

I would love to host an event like this, but there IS something
stopping me.

Where is the incentive? As Josh already noted, 1/2 of the teams would
not be interested unless there was a bid to nationals. Flying
somewhere to wax 15 other teams that didn't make Nationals is not
something Furious would add to their schedule. But a redemption bid to
Nationals... that would be a different story.

-Keith
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2425 is a reply to message #2409] Mon, 13 October 2008 14:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 13, 4:36 pm, pkurs...@gmail.com wrote:
> UPA is beginning work on a college div II, and unfortunately there's
> only so much we can tackle at one time


thats because you are so worried about the youth (the players and
payers of tomarrow) that you are neglecting those payin the bills
NOW. tighten up and dont make it sound so overwhelming.......just put
a little time and effort into it and get it on the schedule.
---------------------------------------



, so the time line you've
> outlined might not be realistic for the UPA. Of course, there's
> nothing stopping anyone else from hosting such a tournament in the
> meantime!
>
> -Peri Kurshan
> UPA BoD
>

thats the upa for ya...."gimme your 40 bucks and smell ya later".
wierd how they cant seem to make time for the majority of the people
payin dues......but boy, do they make time when it comes to spending
that money.
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2431 is a reply to message #2414] Mon, 13 October 2008 15:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pkurshan
Messages: 63
Registered: September 2008
Member
yep, very good point. and definitely something to consider when we
begin working on this.
-peri

On Oct 13, 4:59 pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
> Peri,
>
> Thanks for taking a look at this. I know we have spoken before, I just
> didn't think the UPA had been exploring Club expansion to this point,
> just college.
>
> I would love to host an event like this, but there IS something
> stopping me.
>
> Where is the incentive? As Josh already noted, 1/2 of the teams would
> not be interested unless there was a bid to nationals. Flying
> somewhere to wax 15 other teams that didn't make Nationals is not
> something Furious would add to their schedule. But a redemption bid to
> Nationals... that would be a different story.
>
> -Keith
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2433 is a reply to message #2414] Mon, 13 October 2008 15:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
The incentive is a chance to play in a very competitive tournament in
which you won't have to play a bunch of games against teams who are
not very talented. There aren't many tournaments that offer this.
You have a commodity. I think plenty of teams would be interested in
flying somewhere to compete against some very talented, similarly-
situated teams. If you host it near Tampa so that teams confident in
finishing in the top 4/5 can buy their tickets ahead of time, that's
an added bonus.

I'm confident you could get teams to come to such a tournament, even
if you held it as a May or June "Let's Do Better This Year" Warm-up
Invitational. I agree that a bid to Nationals would be greater
incentive, but I don't think that should hold back a motivated TD.
Scheduling and implementation are far simpler without having to
incorporate those bids.

Anyway, I like the idea a lot. I wouldn't need the incentive of a bid
to Nationals to attend a tournament comprised of not-quite nationals
qualifiers.

-Colin


On Oct 13, 4:59 pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
> Peri,
>
> Thanks for taking a look at this. I know we have spoken before, I just
> didn't think the UPA had been exploring Club expansion to this point,
> just college.
>
> I would love to host an event like this, but there IS something
> stopping me.
>
> Where is the incentive? As Josh already noted, 1/2 of the teams would
> not be interested unless there was a bid to nationals. Flying
> somewhere to wax 15 other teams that didn't make Nationals is not
> something Furious would add to their schedule. But a redemption bid to
> Nationals... that would be a different story.
>
> -Keith
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2452 is a reply to message #2390] Mon, 13 October 2008 19:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
On Oct 13, 11:12 am, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
> I know that there has been an "Ultimate Revolution" going on with the
> idea of making a Division II Nationals for College. Well what advances
> are in the works for extending the Club Series? Here is my idea, and
> something that I would love to see done in the next two years.
>
> So the Club series consisted of 301 teams this year (that is including
> Masters teams playing as Open teams at Sectionals) of those teams only
> 87 continued on to Regionals (of the 96 regional spots) and well over
> 30 teams had to pass on a regionals bid for those 9 spots to be open
> (e.g. all the RM, DES, SCAL, WP, FL, etc. sections)
>
> After those 87 competed only 16 advanced to Nationals. So 285 teams of
> the 87 were done (285 because 16 masters team went on of the 301...)
> so 70% of teams paid their dues for one tournament, most with less
> than 10-12 teams attending. And 16 of the remaining 87 were done after
> this 2nd tournament... another 81%
>
> So if the UPA offered a Division II Nationals inviting the next 16
> teams (e.g. the top 5 from each Region, with 2 extra) 32 of 87 would
> go on, another 20%. You have to think that the 30+ teams that turned
> down their bids to Regionals were not just because Regionals were too
> far away... I'm sure finances were a part of it, but maybe it was
> because they knew they wouldn't finish in the top 2-3 and weren't
> going to get more than 3 games.
>
> If 5 teams from each Region had a prospect of a 2nd tournament I think
> teams would not turn regionals bids down, and Regionals would be that
> much more exciting.
>
> So who would go this year?http://www.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=20&id=5601
> Seeding is based on teams results for this season, and there are
> plenty so that seeding wasn't too hard, and not really the point here
> plus we have a lot of tied for 5th's (I dropped Sons of Liberty since
> their region got 4 bids to Nationals, not the point though...). Just
> that this is still a hell of a good tournament. Including 5 teams that
> have made nationals in the last 2 years, and obviously all teams that
> are very close to Nationals.
>
> Where can this tournament be held?
> 16 teams, 2-3 days, only 8 fields needed, just about anywhere with an
> airport close.
>
> What can this tournament become and hkow would teams be motivated to
> attend?
> What about only giving 14 bids to Nationals from Regionals, the top 2
> in each region and 2 strength bids. The next 16 go to the Div.II play-
> in tournament and this tournament provides the last 2 bids to
> Nationals.
>
> When would this tournament take place?
> Give the time teams would need to arrange flights it would have to be
> 2-3 weeks after Regionals. So regionals would have to be limited to
> only the first of the now two (actually makes it easier on teams
> flying to regionals to plan the correct weekend) and would be the
> weekend before Nationals.
>
> I've very serious about seeing this happen. The UPA needs to provide
> more tournament to top regional level teams. Abviously it couldn't
> happen this year but what does it take to push this through for next
> year or even 2010? What does the community think of this. Do any of
> these 16 teams want to comment on if they would [HAVE BEEN] interested
> in attending? If this was approved I would be happy to put in a bid to
> host it in Dallas at our field location 5 miles from DFW airport.
>
> -Keith Larsen
> Texas2Finger TD
> College Section Coord of the Year 2005

Great idea. And date wise, there is no reason Nationals couldn't be
delayed a bit to say mid-November to allow for the Div. II
championships to have the top 2 teams qualify and attend Nationals.
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2469 is a reply to message #2414] Tue, 14 October 2008 04:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manzell
Messages: 145
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 13, 4:59 pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
> Peri,
>
> Thanks for taking a look at this. I know we have spoken before, I just
> didn't think the UPA had been exploring Club expansion to this point,
> just college.
>
> I would love to host an event like this, but there IS something
> stopping me.
>
> Where is the incentive? As Josh already noted, 1/2 of the teams would
> not be interested unless there was a bid to nationals. Flying
> somewhere to wax 15 other teams that didn't make Nationals is not
> something Furious would add to their schedule. But a redemption bid to
> Nationals... that would be a different story.
>
> -Keith

There is a "private" D-3 Nationals for college already, and apparently
it doesn't bother the teams that attend that tournament that they
didn't make nationals. I feel like if you are ready to put together a
"second" club nationals, you should go for it! It might not be a huge
success right off the bad - you might get the teams that finished 6-10
in their region, etc, but that would be something. When teams that
feel they are 'verge' teams (say, Voodoo?), the opportunity to get
experience against teams of similar caliber will still be important;
just as much if not more so than other tournaments where they can look
forward to getting waxed two or three times.

An additional point, I think an entire "second division series" could
benefit the entire system. In certain places (Seattle pops to mind) a
vast majority of teams do not participate in the series, because
although they play competitive ultimate, aren't likely to advance out
of regionals and certainly won't make nationals; they are essentially
paying tourney fee + $40/player for one tournament (thus making
sectionals the single most expensive tournament of most players
careers). If there were an entire second division sectionals for them
to participate in, they would be that much more likely to participate
(and join the UPA, whatever that is worth).
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2474 is a reply to message #2469] Tue, 14 October 2008 06:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jeff
Messages: 338
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
It would probably be best for growth on the Club side not to focus on
the teams 17-32 for another National level event, but to have
something beyond sectionals for teams 33-200. If the present system
is viewed as one tiered with all teams theoretically having an
opportunity to go to Nationals, maybe a variant would be a phased
system that would allow for more play for the teams that are on the
rise or just forming. Instead of a UPA sectionals tournament being
the end point for many teams, a pre-sectionals would be a qualifying
point for one of two tiers of UPA play.

A pre-sectionals could take place in late August or early September.
Teams who have met a certain qualifying standad within a region would
be given a bye from this level of tournament. Pre-sectionals or
National Championship qualifiers could draw from a much smaller
geographic area in some of the larger sections (Founders has an 8 hour
drive from one end to the other) to entice new teams to enter the
series. Teams who qualify for the National Championship series would
then fall into the traditional Sectional/Regionals/ Nationals path.
For those teams who do not qualify, a second tournament could be held
at what is now the Sectional level to give persons a chance to play in
another UPA event, a Division 2 event. In the MA and NE there are
Division 2 tourneys at the sectional or regional level. If this type
of event would flourish among the sections in a region, you could have
a Division 2 regional.

Teams 17-32 or maybe through 50 already are UPA members, travel to
play in tournaments throughout a Region or across country and will
have played in 6 or 7 tournaments over the course of the summer and
fall. The pre-sectionals would take place while some of the National
caliber teams are at tournaments such as Labor Day. This kind of
thing would preserve the open nature of the national championship
series, give up and coming teams a chance to play at a higher level
and allow for some stratification by letting a qualifier by some
standard have a bye at the pre-sectional level.





On Oct 14, 7:58�am, Manzell <manz...@reaxion.org> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 4:59�pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peri,
>
> > Thanks for taking a look at this. I know we have spoken before, I just
> > didn't think the UPA had been exploring Club expansion to this point,
> > just college.
>
> > I would love to host an event like this, but there IS something
> > stopping me.
>
> > Where is the incentive? As Josh already noted, 1/2 of the teams would
> > not be interested unless there was a bid to nationals. Flying
> > somewhere to wax 15 other teams that didn't make Nationals is not
> > something Furious would add to their schedule. But a redemption bid to
> > Nationals... that would be a different story.
>
> > -Keith
>
> There is a "private" D-3 Nationals for college already, and apparently
> it doesn't bother the teams that attend that tournament that they
> didn't make nationals. I feel like if you are ready to put together a
> "second" club nationals, you should go for it! It might not be a huge
> success right off the bad - you might get the teams that finished 6-10
> in their region, etc, but that would be something. When teams that
> feel they are 'verge' teams (say, Voodoo?), the opportunity to get
> experience against teams of similar caliber will still be important;
> just as much if not more so than other tournaments where they can look
> forward to getting waxed two or three times.
>
> An additional point, I think an entire "second division series" could
> benefit the entire system. In certain places (Seattle pops to mind) a
> vast majority of teams do not participate in the series, because
> although they play competitive ultimate, aren't likely to advance out
> of regionals and certainly won't make nationals; they are essentially
> paying tourney fee + $40/player for one tournament (thus making
> sectionals the single most expensive tournament of most players
> careers). If there were an entire second division sectionals for them
> to participate in, they would be that much more likely to participate
> (and join the UPA, whatever that is worth).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2479 is a reply to message #2433] Tue, 14 October 2008 06:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 13, 6:50 pm, "colinmcint...@gmail.com"
<colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm confident you could get teams to come to such a tournament, even
> if you held it as a May or June "Let's Do Better This Year" Warm-up
> Invitational.  I agree that a bid to Nationals would be greater
> incentive, but I don't think that should hold back a motivated TD.


i think what jeff is sayin here is.....it souldnt hold back a
motivated administration EITHER.......whose job it is to facilitate
such playing opportunities to its paying membership in the first
place, right?
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
>
> Anyway, I like the idea a lot.  I wouldn't need the incentive of a bid
> to Nationals to attend a tournament comprised of not-quite nationals
> qualifiers.

nor would anyone else. again, i think jeff is simply asking why its
up to him to do the administrations job that he and his kind are all
thowing in their 40 to have facilitated for them. Aint no one askin
or expectin the elite players to go run their own nationals
event......so why would the admin ask that of those that want to play
in a second, third or even fourth tier of regional and national
competition........ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE THE ONES CONTIBUTING MOST
TO THE COLLECTIVE UPA BUDGET??????
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2481 is a reply to message #2390] Tue, 14 October 2008 06:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joel.houmes
Messages: 41
Registered: October 2008
Member
On Oct 13, 2:12 pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
> I know that there has been an "Ultimate Revolution" going on with the
> idea of making a Division II Nationals for College. Well what advances
> are in the works for extending the Club Series? Here is my idea, and
> something that I would love to see done in the next two years.
>
> So the Club series consisted of 301 teams this year (that is including
> Masters teams playing as Open teams at Sectionals) of those teams only
> 87 continued on to Regionals (of the 96 regional spots) and well over
> 30 teams had to pass on a regionals bid for those 9 spots to be open
> (e.g. all the RM, DES, SCAL, WP, FL, etc. sections)
>
> After those 87 competed only 16 advanced to Nationals. So 285 teams of
> the 87 were done (285 because 16 masters team went on of the 301...)
> so 70% of teams paid their dues for one tournament, most with less
> than 10-12 teams attending. And 16 of the remaining 87 were done after
> this 2nd tournament... another 81%
>
> So if the UPA offered a Division II Nationals inviting the next 16
> teams (e.g. the top 5 from each Region, with 2 extra) 32 of 87 would
> go on, another 20%. You have to think that the 30+ teams that turned
> down their bids to Regionals were not just because Regionals were too
> far away... I'm sure finances were a part of it, but maybe it was
> because they knew they wouldn't finish in the top 2-3 and weren't
> going to get more than 3 games.
>
> If 5 teams from each Region had a prospect of a 2nd tournament I think
> teams would not turn regionals bids down, and Regionals would be that
> much more exciting.
>
> So who would go this year?http://www.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=20&id=5601
> Seeding is based on teams results for this season, and there are
> plenty so that seeding wasn't too hard, and not really the point here
> plus we have a lot of tied for 5th's (I dropped Sons of Liberty since
> their region got 4 bids to Nationals, not the point though...). Just
> that this is still a hell of a good tournament. Including 5 teams that
> have made nationals in the last 2 years, and obviously all teams that
> are very close to Nationals.
>
> Where can this tournament be held?
> 16 teams, 2-3 days, only 8 fields needed, just about anywhere with an
> airport close.
>
> What can this tournament become and hkow would teams be motivated to
> attend?
> What about only giving 14 bids to Nationals from Regionals, the top 2
> in each region and 2 strength bids. The next 16 go to the Div.II play-
> in tournament and this tournament provides the last 2 bids to
> Nationals.
>
> When would this tournament take place?
> Give the time teams would need to arrange flights it would have to be
> 2-3 weeks after Regionals. So regionals would have to be limited to
> only the first of the now two (actually makes it easier on teams
> flying to regionals to plan the correct weekend) and would be the
> weekend before Nationals.
>
> I've very serious about seeing this happen. The UPA needs to provide
> more tournament to top regional level teams. Abviously it couldn't
> happen this year but what does it take to push this through for next
> year or even 2010? What does the community think of this. Do any of
> these 16 teams want to comment on if they would [HAVE BEEN] interested
> in attending? If this was approved I would be happy to put in a bid to
> host it in Dallas at our field location 5 miles from DFW airport.
>
> -Keith Larsen
> Texas2Finger TD
> College Section Coord of the Year 2005

I am intrigued by the idea of a DII, but as described, this seems less
like a DII and more like a backdoor way to get into nationals for
teams that were not good enough to come in first or second in their
region. On my slow days at work, I have spent some time thinking
about DI and DII at the college and club level. At the club level, it
seems that following the european club model might be the best idea
and in reality we are headed that way anyway without an actual
codification. I could envision 4 "divisions". Team and tournaments
would be assigned to a division. Teams would be free to play at
tournaments lower than their division, but not higher. This would
guarantee a certain level of play at more advanced tournament. In
essence, this already happens at both the college and club level
through the use of invite tournaments. After nationals, the bottom 1
or 2 or 3 teams in a division would be demoted and a corresponding
number of teams from the lower division promoted to ensure the
continued high level of play at the upper levels. It would also make
the consolation bracket at nationals mean a bit more than just being
for fun as teams fight for their spot in the upper division. By
creating a top division, Ultimate would also have the start of a
"league" that could promote the game at its best and would be an
attractive way to get some marketing dollars.

I see the divisions like this (number of teams could vary but I like
the idea of four divisions).

Championship division (DI) - Best 16 teams. Forget sectionals and
regionals. They would all go to nationals with seeding determined by
placement in 3 or 4 tournaments. Currently run tournaments could be
used for the "regular season"...Labor Day, Chesapeake, Heavyweights,
etc.

Champ DII - 2 divisions of 12 teams, one east and one west. This
division would consist of teams on the cusp. Very good teams that
haven't quite broken through or who do not have the money/desire to do
extensive cross country travel for tournaments. Like the championship
division, this one would bypass sectionals and regionals with seeding
at the DII nationals based on placement in tournaments. I would think
there would be 6 tournaments at this level, three east and three
west. Teams in this division would need to attend three tournaments,
but could go to east or west tournaments depending on which ones were
least expensive to get to. Again, currently run tournaments could be
used here and DI teams would be able to play in DII tournaments if
they wanted to get some extra PT. Top one or two or three teams would
be promoted to DI for the following season. Bottom one or two or
three teams would be demoted to regional league.

Regional leagues - This league would consist of teams not yet ready or
willing to break onto the national stage. They travel to tournaments
in their region, but don't necessarily spend the time and money to
travel extensively around the country. The number of teams could
vary, but 12-16 seems like a reasonable number. They would play in 3
or so regional tournaments to determine placement at the regional
championships, which would take the place of our current regionals.
As above, DI and DII teams would be free to participate in regional
tournaments, but would not be required. Top one or two teams from
each region would play in a seperate tournament to determine who gets
promoted to DII. Bottom 3-4 teams would be moved down to sectional
league. Regional level teams could also play in tournaments outside
their region, but results would not count toward placement at
regionals.

Sectional league - This would be for everyone else. Teams that form
to play one particular tournament, college teams looking for the
practice, youth teams, etc. Championships would be at sectionals.
Top team in each section would move up to the regional league.

Just some rough ideas.

joel
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2482 is a reply to message #2469] Tue, 14 October 2008 06:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 7:58 am, Manzell <manz...@reaxion.org> wrote:
>
> There is a "private" D-3 Nationals for college already


yes but this d3 event was created by people outside of the upa
admin......more proof of how the upa admin has no pro active abilities
or forsight.
------------------------------------------------


, and apparently
> it doesn't bother the teams that attend that tournament that they
> didn't make nationals.


that dosent mean it dosent bother them that they are being neglected
and not represented by the admin.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------



I feel like if you are ready to put together a
> "second" club nationals, you should go for it!


fuck that! they all pay their 40 bucks just like all the people bein
catored to that make it to nationals. Its shocking to me that a group
that prides itself on equality and honor can have such a blatent
disreguard for those people that are being so obviously
misrepresented.
------------------------------------------------------------


It might not be a huge
> success right off the bad - you might get the teams that finished 6-10
> in their region, etc, but that would be something. When teams that
> feel they are 'verge' teams (say, Voodoo?), the opportunity to get
> experience against teams of similar caliber will still be important;
> just as much if not more so than other tournaments where they can look
> forward to getting waxed two or three times.

teams can make up their own minds of whether or not they want to
sandbag to get in a weaker div or strive to play with the big boys.
This isnt the issue. The issue is the obligation and responsibility
of the admin to facilitate a schedule of regional and national
competition for ALL ITS PAYING MEMBERS EQUALLY!!!
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
>
> An additional point, I think an entire "second division series" could
> benefit the entire system. In certain places (Seattle pops to mind) a
> vast majority of teams do not participate in the series, because
> although they play competitive ultimate, aren't likely to advance out
> of regionals and certainly won't make nationals; they are essentially
> paying tourney fee + $40/player for one tournament (thus making
> sectionals the single most expensive tournament of most players
> careers). If there were an entire second division sectionals for them
> to participate in, they would be that much more likely to participate
> (and join the UPA, whatever that is worth).

WHICH IS YET ANOTHER REASON THAT THE UPA SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO
FACILITATE IT!!!! Your girl peri basically told an inquisitve member
that if that kind of thing is of interest to him...."no ones stopping
him from persuing that on his own". It dont get much more arrogant
than that.
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2483 is a reply to message #2474] Tue, 14 October 2008 06:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 9:12 am, Jeff <Jffr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would probably be best for growth on the Club side not to focus on
> the teams 17-32 for another National level event, but to have
> something beyond sectionals for teams 33-200.  If the present system
> is viewed as one tiered with all teams theoretically having an
> opportunity to go to Nationals, maybe a variant would be a phased
> system that would allow for more play for the teams that are on the
> rise or just forming.  Instead of a UPA sectionals tournament being
> the end point for many teams, a pre-sectionals would be a qualifying
> point for one of two tiers of UPA play.
>
> A pre-sectionals could take place in late August or early September.
> Teams who have met a certain qualifying standad within a region would
> be given a bye from this level of tournament.  Pre-sectionals or
> National Championship qualifiers could draw from a much smaller
> geographic area in some of the larger sections (Founders has an 8 hour
> drive from one end to the other) to entice new teams to enter the
> series. Teams who qualify for the National Championship series would
> then fall into the traditional Sectional/Regionals/ Nationals path.
> For those teams who do not qualify, a second tournament could be held
> at what is now the Sectional level to give persons a chance to play in
> another UPA event, a Division 2 event.  In the MA and NE there are
> Division 2 tourneys at the sectional or regional level.  If this type
> of event would flourish among the sections in a region, you could have
> a Division 2 regional.
>
> Teams 17-32 or maybe through 50 already are UPA members, travel to
> play in tournaments throughout a Region or across country and will
> have played in 6 or 7 tournaments over the course of the summer and
> fall.  The pre-sectionals would take place while some of the National
> caliber teams are at tournaments such as Labor Day.  This kind of
> thing would preserve the open nature of the national championship
> series, give up and coming teams a chance to play at a higher level
> and allow for some stratification by letting a qualifier by some
> standard have a bye at the pre-sectional level.
>
> On Oct 14, 7:58 am, Manzell <manz...@reaxion.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 4:59 pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Peri,
>
> > > Thanks for taking a look at this. I know we have spoken before, I just
> > > didn't think the UPA had been exploring Club expansion to this point,
> > > just college.
>
> > > I would love to host an event like this, but there IS something
> > > stopping me.
>
> > > Where is the incentive? As Josh already noted, 1/2 of the teams would
> > > not be interested unless there was a bid to nationals. Flying
> > > somewhere to wax 15 other teams that didn't make Nationals is not
> > > something Furious would add to their schedule. But a redemption bid to
> > > Nationals... that would be a different story.
>
> > > -Keith
>
> > There is a "private" D-3 Nationals for college already, and apparently
> > it doesn't bother the teams that attend that tournament that they
> > didn't make nationals. I feel like if you are ready to put together a
> > "second" club nationals, you should go for it! It might not be a huge
> > success right off the bad - you might get the teams that finished 6-10
> > in their region, etc, but that would be something. When teams that
> > feel they are 'verge' teams (say, Voodoo?), the opportunity to get
> > experience against teams of similar caliber will still be important;
> > just as much if not more so than other tournaments where they can look
> > forward to getting waxed two or three times.
>
> > An additional point, I think an entire "second division series" could
> > benefit the entire system. In certain places (Seattle pops to mind) a
> > vast majority of teams do not participate in the series, because
> > although they play competitive ultimate, aren't likely to advance out
> > of regionals and certainly won't make nationals; they are essentially
> > paying tourney fee + $40/player for one tournament (thus making
> > sectionals the single most expensive tournament of most players
> > careers). If there were an entire second division sectionals for them
> > to participate in, they would be that much more likely to participate
> > (and join the UPA, whatever that is worth).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

not to mention be a more equitable way to fairly represent and
facilitate for ALLLLLLLL its paying members. not just the popular
ones that make it to nationals every year.
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2486 is a reply to message #2483] Tue, 14 October 2008 07:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jeff
Messages: 338
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
The 4 or 3 or maybe even two division approach may enourage the
formation of team 'brands' such as Furious George, Ring, Sockeye
Condors, Backhoe, Godiva, Riot or Fury which may be good for the
growth of the business side of the sport. But limiting play to a
particular league for a year takes a lot of the fun of paying
attention to the series and watching teams such as El Diablo or in
years past a Loose Cannon or Wicked form and make a run at a bid to
nationals. A more open series would allow for a group of people who
really wanted to make a run at a Nationals bid (time to limit team
rosters to players living in the same region) to band together and try
to take down a Jam or other team.

I am intrigued by the idea of a DII, but as described, this seems
less
like a DII and more like a backdoor way to get into nationals for
teams that were not good enough to come in first or second in their
region. On my slow days at work, I have spent some time thinking
about DI and DII at the college and club level. At the club level,
it
seems that following the european club model might be the best idea
and in reality we are headed that way anyway without an actual
codification. I could envision 4 "divisions". Team and tournaments
would be assigned to a division. Teams would be free to play at
tournaments lower than their division, but not higher.

On Oct 14, 9:42�am, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> On Oct 14, 9:12�am, Jeff <Jffr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > It would probably be best for growth on the Club side not to focus on
> > the teams 17-32 for another National level event, but to have
> > something beyond sectionals for teams 33-200. �If the present system
> > is viewed as one tiered with all teams theoretically having an
> > opportunity to go to Nationals, maybe a variant would be a phased
> > system that would allow for more play for the teams that are on the
> > rise or just forming. �Instead of a UPA sectionals tournament being
> > the end point for many teams, a pre-sectionals would be a qualifying
> > point for one of two tiers of UPA play.
>
> > A pre-sectionals could take place in late August or early September.
> > Teams who have met a certain qualifying standad within a region would
> > be given a bye from this level of tournament. �Pre-sectionals or
> > National Championship qualifiers could draw from a much smaller
> > geographic area in some of the larger sections (Founders has an 8 hour
> > drive from one end to the other) to entice new teams to enter the
> > series. Teams who qualify for the National Championship series would
> > then fall into the traditional Sectional/Regionals/ Nationals path.
> > For those teams who do not qualify, a second tournament could be held
> > at what is now the Sectional level to give persons a chance to play in
> > another UPA event, a Division 2 event. �In the MA and NE there are
> > Division 2 tourneys at the sectional or regional level. �If this type
> > of event would flourish among the sections in a region, you could have
> > a Division 2 regional.
>
> > Teams 17-32 or maybe through 50 already are UPA members, travel to
> > play in tournaments throughout a Region or across country and will
> > have played in 6 or 7 tournaments over the course of the summer and
> > fall. �The pre-sectionals would take place while some of the National
> > caliber teams are at tournaments such as Labor Day. �This kind of
> > thing would preserve the open nature of the national championship
> > series, give up and coming teams a chance to play at a higher level
> > and allow for some stratification by letting a qualifier by some
> > standard have a bye at the pre-sectional level.
>
> > On Oct 14, 7:58 am, Manzell <manz...@reaxion.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 13, 4:59 pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Peri,
>
> > > > Thanks for taking a look at this. I know we have spoken before, I just
> > > > didn't think the UPA had been exploring Club expansion to this point,
> > > > just college.
>
> > > > I would love to host an event like this, but there IS something
> > > > stopping me.
>
> > > > Where is the incentive? As Josh already noted, 1/2 of the teams would
> > > > not be interested unless there was a bid to nationals. Flying
> > > > somewhere to wax 15 other teams that didn't make Nationals is not
> > > > something Furious would add to their schedule. But a redemption bid to
> > > > Nationals... that would be a different story.
>
> > > > -Keith
>
> > > There is a "private" D-3 Nationals for college already, and apparently
> > > it doesn't bother the teams that attend that tournament that they
> > > didn't make nationals. I feel like if you are ready to put together a
> > > "second" club nationals, you should go for it! It might not be a huge
> > > success right off the bad - you might get the teams that finished 6-10
> > > in their region, etc, but that would be something. When teams that
> > > feel they are 'verge' teams (say, Voodoo?), the opportunity to get
> > > experience against teams of similar caliber will still be important;
> > > just as much if not more so than other tournaments where they can look
> > > forward to getting waxed two or three times.
>
> > > An additional point, I think an entire "second division series" could
> > > benefit the entire system. In certain places (Seattle pops to mind) a
> > > vast majority of teams do not participate in the series, because
> > > although they play competitive ultimate, aren't likely to advance out
> > > of regionals and certainly won't make nationals; they are essentially
> > > paying tourney fee + $40/player for one tournament (thus making
> > > sectionals the single most expensive tournament of most players
> > > careers). If there were an entire second division sectionals for them
> > > to participate in, they would be that much more likely to participate
> > > (and join the UPA, whatever that is worth).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> not to mention be a more equitable way to fairly represent and
> facilitate for ALLLLLLLL its paying members. �not just the popular
> ones that make it to nationals every year.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2487 is a reply to message #2483] Tue, 14 October 2008 07:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Keith.Larsen.TX
Messages: 41
Registered: September 2008
Member
I don't think ultimate teams are structured enough for a tier system.
Teams come and go every other year. Going to a tier system would
require all division to do this, I was laughing at Central Mixed
Regionals because maybe 3 teams have the same names from when I played
in the Central in 2003.

What do we do when a team changes its name? What do we do when a team
decides not to play for a year (Jam)?

Would Jam be grandfathered into Tier 1 after trying the Justice League
split? Would Ballerado get Tier 2 because some Sack Lunch guys play
with them now? Would Ronin get Tier 2 because Vicious Cycle and
Hammerheads combo'ed and they were both Tier 2. It gets way too
complicated with teams constantly changing their identity every 3-5
years.

Pre-Sectionals!? With teams getting automatic byes?

You are thinking a little close-minded here I'm sorry to say. For Mid-
Atlantic and Northeast this might be a good idea, but Northeast
already has a Division II. I'm in Texas and we had 13 teams at
Sectionals. If you gave teams that went to Regionals an automatic bye
from a pre-sectional tournament you would be left with 5 teams, I
don't think this extra tournament benefits these 5 in any way. 3 of
those 5 were just college teams that didn't have to pay dues because
they paid in spring and went because it was close and cheap. I just
don't think this solves the problem.

I think we need to take baby steps: How do we get more teams at
Regionals?

What about the idea of having a Division II in Sarasota on the same
date? Do the UPA's fields have room for 16 more teams? Our amazing
Regional Coord's and TD's in Austin were able to fit 48 teams on was
it 16 fields? It could be done... should it be done?

Would this hurt Mixed? Seems like a lot of club open players go coed
just so they can make nationals once, would players still "feel" like
they made nationals if they were at Nationals on the back fields in
D2? I think perennial Region favorites could book their flights early
if they knew they were playing in a Sarasota tournament that weekend
as long as they are in the top 5 in their Region...

Just more ideas...
-Keith
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2489 is a reply to message #2481] Tue, 14 October 2008 07:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Johnny O
Messages: 34
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Oct 14, 7:39 am, joel.hou...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2:12 pm, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > I know that there has been an "Ultimate Revolution" going on with the
> > idea of making a Division II Nationals for College. Well what advances
> > are in the works for extending the Club Series? Here is my idea, and
> > something that I would love to see done in the next two years.
>
> > So the Club series consisted of 301 teams this year (that is including
> > Masters teams playing as Open teams at Sectionals) of those teams only
> > 87 continued on to Regionals (of the 96 regional spots) and well over
> > 30 teams had to pass on a regionals bid for those 9 spots to be open
> > (e.g. all the RM, DES, SCAL, WP, FL, etc. sections)
>
> > After those 87 competed only 16 advanced to Nationals. So 285 teams of
> > the 87 were done (285 because 16 masters team went on of the 301...)
> > so 70% of teams paid their dues for one tournament, most with less
> > than 10-12 teams attending. And 16 of the remaining 87 were done after
> > this 2nd tournament... another 81%
>
> > So if the UPA offered a Division II Nationals inviting the next 16
> > teams (e.g. the top 5 from each Region, with 2 extra) 32 of 87 would
> > go on, another 20%. You have to think that the 30+ teams that turned
> > down their bids to Regionals were not just because Regionals were too
> > far away... I'm sure finances were a part of it, but maybe it was
> > because they knew they wouldn't finish in the top 2-3 and weren't
> > going to get more than 3 games.
>
> > If 5 teams from each Region had a prospect of a 2nd tournament I think
> > teams would not turn regionals bids down, and Regionals would be that
> > much more exciting.
>
> > So who would go this year?http://www.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=20&id=5601
> > Seeding is based on teams results for this season, and there are
> > plenty so that seeding wasn't too hard, and not really the point here
> > plus we have a lot of tied for 5th's (I dropped Sons of Liberty since
> > their region got 4 bids to Nationals, not the point though...). Just
> > that this is still a hell of a good tournament. Including 5 teams that
> > have made nationals in the last 2 years, and obviously all teams that
> > are very close to Nationals.
>
> > Where can this tournament be held?
> > 16 teams, 2-3 days, only 8 fields needed, just about anywhere with an
> > airport close.
>
> > What can this tournament become and hkow would teams be motivated to
> > attend?
> > What about only giving 14 bids to Nationals from Regionals, the top 2
> > in each region and 2 strength bids. The next 16 go to the Div.II play-
> > in tournament and this tournament provides the last 2 bids to
> > Nationals.
>
> > When would this tournament take place?
> > Give the time teams would need to arrange flights it would have to be
> > 2-3 weeks after Regionals. So regionals would have to be limited to
> > only the first of the now two (actually makes it easier on teams
> > flying to regionals to plan the correct weekend) and would be the
> > weekend before Nationals.
>
> > I've very serious about seeing this happen. The UPA needs to provide
> > more tournament to top regional level teams. Abviously it couldn't
> > happen this year but what does it take to push this through for next
> > year or even 2010? What does the community think of this. Do any of
> > these 16 teams want to comment on if they would [HAVE BEEN] interested
> > in attending? If this was approved I would be happy to put in a bid to
> > host it in Dallas at our field location 5 miles from DFW airport.
>
> > -Keith Larsen
> > Texas2Finger TD
> > College Section Coord of the Year 2005
>
> I am intrigued by the idea of a DII, but as described, this seems less
> like a DII and more like a backdoor way to get into nationals for
> teams that were not good enough to come in first or second in their
> region.  On my slow days at work, I have spent some time thinking
> about DI and DII at the college and club level.  At the club level, it
> seems that following the european club model might be the best idea
> and in reality we are headed that way anyway without an actual
> codification.  I could envision 4 "divisions".  Team and tournaments
> would be assigned to a division.  Teams would be free to play at
> tournaments lower than their division, but not higher.  This would
> guarantee a certain level of play at more advanced tournament.  In
> essence, this already happens at both the college and club level
> through the use of invite tournaments.  After nationals, the bottom 1
> or 2 or 3 teams in a division would be demoted and a corresponding
> number of teams from the lower division promoted to ensure the
> continued high level of play at the upper levels.  It would also make
> the consolation bracket at nationals mean a bit more than just being
> for fun as teams fight for their spot in the upper division.  By
> creating a top division, Ultimate would also have the start of a
> "league" that could promote the game at its best and would be an
> attractive way to get some marketing dollars.
>
> I see the divisions like this (number of teams could vary but I like
> the idea of four divisions).
>
> Championship division (DI) - Best 16 teams.  Forget sectionals and
> regionals.  They would all go to nationals with seeding determined by
> placement in 3 or 4 tournaments.  Currently run tournaments could be
> used for the "regular season"...Labor Day, Chesapeake, Heavyweights,
> etc.
>
> Champ DII - 2 divisions of 12 teams, one east and one west.  This
> division would consist of teams on the cusp.  Very good teams that
> haven't quite broken through or who do not have the money/desire to do
> extensive cross country travel for tournaments.  Like the championship
> division, this one would bypass sectionals and regionals with seeding
> at the DII nationals based on placement in tournaments.  I would think
> there would be 6 tournaments at this level, three east and three
> west.  Teams in this division would need to attend three tournaments,
> but could go to east or west tournaments depending on which ones were
> least expensive to get to.  Again, currently run tournaments could be
> used here and DI teams would be able to play in DII tournaments if
> they wanted to get some extra PT.  Top one or two or three teams would
> be promoted to DI for the following season.  Bottom one or two or
> three teams would be demoted to regional league.
>
> Regional leagues - This league would consist of teams not yet ready or
> willing to break onto the national stage.  They travel to tournaments
> in their region, but don't necessarily spend the time and money to
> travel extensively around the country.  The number of teams could
> vary, but 12-16 seems like a reasonable number.  They would play in 3
> or so regional tournaments to determine placement at the regional
> championships, which would take the place of our current regionals.
> As above, DI and DII teams would be free to participate in regional
> tournaments, but would not be required.  Top one or two teams from
> each region would play in a seperate tournament to determine who gets
> promoted to DII.  Bottom 3-4 teams would be moved down to sectional
> league.  Regional level teams could also play in tournaments outside
> their region, but results would not count toward placement at
> regionals.
>
> Sectional league - This would be for everyone else.  Teams that form
> to play one particular tournament, college teams looking for the
> practice, youth teams, etc.  Championships would be at sectionals.
> Top team in each section would move up to the regional league.
>
> Just some rough ideas.
>
> joel

Joel's ideas are intriguing to me. It seems that any expansion of the
current system needs to be thinking of motivating teams to
participate, having a system of reward and making the "divisions"
meaningful in order for that expansion to be successful. I've always
thought that a 4 team NCAA - NIT semifinalists (basketball)
championship would be exciting to watch, motivate teams who are
invited to play in the NIT, and help restore some of the past glory to
the NIT. There could be some sort of reward system in a similar
fashion to Ultimate divisions.
What if the starting point was sectionals and you either advanced to
"A" regionals or "B" regionals? It might decrease participation in
sectionals at first as there are plenty of teams that never intend to
advance in the first place and are either playing because of location,
to support the local ultimate community, or for plain old fun. Maybe
the top two from "B" regionals have a chance to play in a play-in
bracket for nationals and the next 2-4 from "B" regionals go to "B"
nationals that take place at the same time, in the same town as "A"
nationals? Just as their is a strength bid system, maybe there are
regions who have a slot go to "B" regional winners?
The only problem I see with basing placement in any division incumbent
on placement at key tourneys is the whole concept of how some teams
form...some form right before sectionals as players jostle for
position and teams look to add talent before roster deadlines.
At any rate, I'm rambling but I do feel Keith's original post has
merit...we need to address the 70% plus teams and members who are done
after sectionals. In the least, we should have a membership fee
structure that takes into consideration playing in the championship
series or not.

Johnny O
MTF #15
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2490 is a reply to message #2479] Tue, 14 October 2008 07:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 9:25 am, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:

> i think what jeff is sayin here is.....
> . . .
> nor would anyone else. again, i think jeff is simply asking . . .

I was responding to Keith.
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2492 is a reply to message #2489] Tue, 14 October 2008 07:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 10:23 am, Johnny O <jto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  In the least, we should have a membership fee
> structure that takes into consideration playing in the championship
> series or not.


WORD!!!! because to do otherwise would be a blantent misappropriation
of funds, right?
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2493 is a reply to message #2487] Tue, 14 October 2008 07:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jeff
Messages: 338
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Texas would be a prime example of why a pre- tournament would work.
Not being familiar with the exact location of various leagues (or the
numbers of players or level of play) throughout the state, it appears
that there 5 distinct areas with leagues. Houston, Dallas, Austin,
College Station and El Paso. If you are getting only 13 teams from an
area with at least 5 leagues and 18 college teams at the last college
open sectons you may be underperforming as a state/section. Maybe
more persons would be encouraged to play if you had 2 or 3 sub-
sections.

On Oct 14, 10:27�am, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't think ultimate teams are structured enough for a tier system.
> Teams come and go every other year. Going to a tier system would
> require all division to do this, I was laughing at Central Mixed
> Regionals because maybe 3 teams have the same names from when I played
> in the Central in 2003.
>
> What do we do when a team changes its name? What do we do when a team
> decides not to play for a year (Jam)?
>
> Would Jam be grandfathered into Tier 1 after trying the Justice League
> split? Would Ballerado get Tier 2 because some Sack Lunch guys play
> with them now? Would Ronin get Tier 2 because Vicious Cycle and
> Hammerheads combo'ed and they were both Tier 2. It gets way too
> complicated with teams constantly changing their identity every 3-5
> years.
>
> Pre-Sectionals!? With teams getting automatic byes?
>
> You are thinking a little close-minded here I'm sorry to say. For Mid-
> Atlantic and Northeast this might be a good idea, but Northeast
> already has a Division II. I'm in Texas and we had 13 teams at
> Sectionals. If you gave teams that went to Regionals an automatic bye
> from a pre-sectional tournament you would be left with 5 teams, I
> don't think this extra tournament benefits these 5 in any way. 3 of
> those 5 were just college teams that didn't have to pay dues because
> they paid in spring and went because it was close and cheap. I just
> don't think this solves the problem.
>
> I think we need to take baby steps: How do we get more teams at
> Regionals?
>
> What about the idea of having a Division II in Sarasota on the same
> date? Do the UPA's fields have room for 16 more teams? Our amazing
> Regional Coord's and TD's in Austin were able to fit 48 teams on was
> it 16 fields? It could be done... should it be done?
>
> Would this hurt Mixed? Seems like a lot of club open players go coed
> just so they can make nationals once, would players still "feel" like
> they made nationals if they were at Nationals on the back fields in
> D2? I think perennial Region favorites could book their flights early
> if they knew they were playing in a Sarasota tournament that weekend
> as long as they are in the top 5 in their Region...
>
> Just more ideas...
> -Keith
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2497 is a reply to message #2487] Tue, 14 October 2008 08:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Josh Thornton
Messages: 4
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
A few thoughts...

I don't know that I agree with the idea of the winner of a D2
nationals getting a bid to the big show, or the concept of a D2
sectionals/regionals who can work their way back up. I think the
success of these types of initiatives would vary greatly by section/
region.

If it were to be in Sarasota, on the 'back fields'...wouldn't it make
sense to just increase the number of bids to 32, but have the brackets
split after Thursday or Friday play. The bottom 16 would probably
sort themselves to the bottom in a day pretty easily, and then they
could play out their games against similar caliber teams. And if a
3rd or 4th place team out of a region pulled an upset they could play
in the top. It's more incentive to go. This is how it *could*
work...

32 teams qualify for Nationals
Thursday is pool play, 8 pools of 4, after day 1:
- bottom 16 immediately drop to bottom brackets (i.e. Division 2
placement brackets (17th-32nd place)
- top 16 (top 2 from each pool) go to upper pool play (i.e. D1 -
1st-16th place)

Friday is 2 split fields, no crossover between divisions, 4 pools of
4:
- play is most similar to typical 2-day regionals tournament schedule
(3 pool play games + 1st round of bracket play)

Saturday continue's bracket play:
D1 field would play up through the Semi-finals
D2 field would play through finals (so as to allow greatest # of
spectators for finals on Sunday at D1)

Sunday:
D1 finals

*Some notes on this:
- It would eliminate powerpools
- Thursday play would be of greater importance (can be eliminated from
contention for the championship if you get 3rd in your pool)
- It puts more importance on winning each game - thursday isn't a
'throw away' day


However, I'd say that this doesn't necessarily really help the teams
that feel like attendance at Sectionals/Regionals is pointless. This
really just helps 'cusp' teams, not teams further down. We have
trouble getting teams to attend our section (Illinois/Indiana) because
there are 1-3 really strong teams, and then a huge drop off. Machine
always wins, then there are 1-3 other good teams, then college teams
that usually get rolled pretty bad. So fewer and fewer college teams
and start-up club teams want to attend...its no fun for them to show
up and get bageled. Particularly when they know we're only getting 2
bids to regionals.

And yes, I absolutely think more bids to nationals, or even a D2
nationals-type tournament or a high-caliber invite in the late fall
(post regionals) would change the coed game. Everyone has an
opinion. Mine is that showcasing mens and womens sports is much more
likely to be covered by the media - a coed game is difficult to
understand to most common-folk. But not trying to start up that whole
issue again. The goal here is to help a lot of men's open players who
feel like their $$ and time investment is pointless if they aren't on
a top 16 national team.

Josh



On Oct 14, 9:27 am, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't think ultimate teams are structured enough for a tier system.
> Teams come and go every other year. Going to a tier system would
> require all division to do this, I was laughing at Central Mixed
> Regionals because maybe 3 teams have the same names from when I played
> in the Central in 2003.
>
> What do we do when a team changes its name? What do we do when a team
> decides not to play for a year (Jam)?
>
> Would Jam be grandfathered into Tier 1 after trying the Justice League
> split? Would Ballerado get Tier 2 because some Sack Lunch guys play
> with them now? Would Ronin get Tier 2 because Vicious Cycle and
> Hammerheads combo'ed and they were both Tier 2. It gets way too
> complicated with teams constantly changing their identity every 3-5
> years.
>
> Pre-Sectionals!? With teams getting automatic byes?
>
> You are thinking a little close-minded here I'm sorry to say. For Mid-
> Atlantic and Northeast this might be a good idea, but Northeast
> already has a Division II. I'm in Texas and we had 13 teams at
> Sectionals. If you gave teams that went to Regionals an automatic bye
> from a pre-sectional tournament you would be left with 5 teams, I
> don't think this extra tournament benefits these 5 in any way. 3 of
> those 5 were just college teams that didn't have to pay dues because
> they paid in spring and went because it was close and cheap. I just
> don't think this solves the problem.
>
> I think we need to take baby steps: How do we get more teams at
> Regionals?
>
> What about the idea of having a Division II in Sarasota on the same
> date? Do the UPA's fields have room for 16 more teams? Our amazing
> Regional Coord's and TD's in Austin were able to fit 48 teams on was
> it 16 fields? It could be done... should it be done?
>
> Would this hurt Mixed? Seems like a lot of club open players go coed
> just so they can make nationals once, would players still "feel" like
> they made nationals if they were at Nationals on the back fields in
> D2? I think perennial Region favorites could book their flights early
> if they knew they were playing in a Sarasota tournament that weekend
> as long as they are in the top 5 in their Region...
>
> Just more ideas...
> -Keith
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2499 is a reply to message #2497] Tue, 14 October 2008 08:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ryan Thompson
Messages: 364
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 8:05 am, Josh Thornton <josh.d.thorn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A few thoughts...
>
> I don't know that I agree with the idea of the winner of a D2
> nationals getting a bid to the big show, or the concept of a D2
> sectionals/regionals who can work their way back up.  I think the
> success of these types of initiatives would vary greatly by section/
> region.
>
> If it were to be in Sarasota, on the 'back fields'...wouldn't it make
> sense to just increase the number of bids to 32, but have the brackets
> split after Thursday or Friday play.  The bottom 16 would probably
> sort themselves to the bottom in a day pretty easily, and then they
> could play out their games against similar caliber teams.  And if a
> 3rd or 4th place team out of a region pulled an upset they could play
> in the top.  It's more incentive to go.  This is how it *could*
> work...
>
> 32 teams qualify for Nationals
> Thursday is pool play, 8 pools of 4, after day 1:
> - bottom 16 immediately drop to bottom brackets (i.e. Division 2
> placement brackets (17th-32nd place)
> - top 16 (top 2 from each pool) go to upper pool play (i.e. D1 -
> 1st-16th place)
>
> Friday is 2 split fields, no crossover between divisions, 4 pools of
> 4:
> - play is most similar to typical 2-day regionals tournament schedule
> (3 pool play games + 1st round of bracket play)
>
> Saturday continue's bracket play:
> D1 field would play up through the Semi-finals
> D2 field would play through finals (so as to allow greatest # of
> spectators for finals on Sunday at D1)
>
> Sunday:
> D1 finals
>
> *Some notes on this:
> - It would eliminate powerpools
> - Thursday play would be of greater importance (can be eliminated from
> contention for the championship if you get 3rd in your pool)
> - It puts more importance on winning each game - thursday isn't a
> 'throw away' day
>
> However, I'd say that this doesn't necessarily really help the teams
> that feel like attendance at Sectionals/Regionals is pointless.  This
> really just helps 'cusp' teams, not teams further down.  We have
> trouble getting teams to attend our section (Illinois/Indiana) because
> there are 1-3 really strong teams, and then a huge drop off.  Machine
> always wins, then there are 1-3 other good teams, then college teams
> that usually get rolled pretty bad.  So fewer and fewer college teams
> and start-up club teams want to attend...its no fun for them to show
> up and get bageled.  Particularly when they know we're only getting 2
> bids to regionals.
>
> And yes, I absolutely think more bids to nationals, or even a D2
> nationals-type tournament or a high-caliber invite in the late fall
> (post regionals) would change the coed game.  Everyone has an
> opinion.  Mine is that showcasing mens and womens sports is much more
> likely to be covered by the media - a coed game is difficult to
> understand to most common-folk.  But not trying to start up that whole
> issue again.  The goal here is to help a lot of men's open players who
> feel like their $$ and time investment is pointless if they aren't on
> a top 16 national team.
>
> Josh
>
> On Oct 14, 9:27 am, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I don't think ultimate teams are structured enough for a tier system.
> > Teams come and go every other year. Going to a tier system would
> > require all division to do this, I was laughing at Central Mixed
> > Regionals because maybe 3 teams have the same names from when I played
> > in the Central in 2003.
>
> > What do we do when a team changes its name? What do we do when a team
> > decides not to play for a year (Jam)?
>
> > Would Jam be grandfathered into Tier 1 after trying the Justice League
> > split? Would Ballerado get Tier 2 because some Sack Lunch guys play
> > with them now? Would Ronin get Tier 2 because Vicious Cycle and
> > Hammerheads combo'ed and they were both Tier 2. It gets way too
> > complicated with teams constantly changing their identity every 3-5
> > years.
>
> > Pre-Sectionals!? With teams getting automatic byes?
>
> > You are thinking a little close-minded here I'm sorry to say. For Mid-
> > Atlantic and Northeast this might be a good idea, but Northeast
> > already has a Division II. I'm in Texas and we had 13 teams at
> > Sectionals. If you gave teams that went to Regionals an automatic bye
> > from a pre-sectional tournament you would be left with 5 teams, I
> > don't think this extra tournament benefits these 5 in any way. 3 of
> > those 5 were just college teams that didn't have to pay dues because
> > they paid in spring and went because it was close and cheap. I just
> > don't think this solves the problem.
>
> > I think we need to take baby steps: How do we get more teams at
> > Regionals?
>
> > What about the idea of having a Division II in Sarasota on the same
> > date? Do the UPA's fields have room for 16 more teams? Our amazing
> > Regional Coord's and TD's in Austin were able to fit 48 teams on was
> > it 16 fields? It could be done... should it be done?
>
> > Would this hurt Mixed? Seems like a lot of club open players go coed
> > just so they can make nationals once, would players still "feel" like
> > they made nationals if they were at Nationals on the back fields in
> > D2? I think perennial Region favorites could book their flights early
> > if they knew they were playing in a Sarasota tournament that weekend
> > as long as they are in the top 5 in their Region...
>
> > Just more ideas...
> > -Keith
>
>

Instead of trying to get more teams to go to Regionals, make Regionals
8 teams and then only SW women don't fill it, right?

There are two types of club teams - teams that want to place as highly
as possible and teams that want to just have fun. If teams can't or
won't commit to going to Regionals, don't let them play at Sectionals.
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2501 is a reply to message #2499] Tue, 14 October 2008 08:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Messages: 56
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Oct 14, 11:14 am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 8:05 am, Josh Thornton <josh.d.thorn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A few thoughts...
>
> > I don't know that I agree with the idea of the winner of a D2
> > nationals getting a bid to the big show, or the concept of a D2
> > sectionals/regionals who can work their way back up.  I think the
> > success of these types of initiatives would vary greatly by section/
> > region.
>
> > If it were to be in Sarasota, on the 'back fields'...wouldn't it make
> > sense to just increase the number of bids to 32, but have the brackets
> > split after Thursday or Friday play.  The bottom 16 would probably
> > sort themselves to the bottom in a day pretty easily, and then they
> > could play out their games against similar caliber teams.  And if a
> > 3rd or 4th place team out of a region pulled an upset they could play
> > in the top.  It's more incentive to go.  This is how it *could*
> > work...
>
> > 32 teams qualify for Nationals
> > Thursday is pool play, 8 pools of 4, after day 1:
> > - bottom 16 immediately drop to bottom brackets (i.e. Division 2
> > placement brackets (17th-32nd place)
> > - top 16 (top 2 from each pool) go to upper pool play (i.e. D1 -
> > 1st-16th place)
>
> > Friday is 2 split fields, no crossover between divisions, 4 pools of
> > 4:
> > - play is most similar to typical 2-day regionals tournament schedule
> > (3 pool play games + 1st round of bracket play)
>
> > Saturday continue's bracket play:
> > D1 field would play up through the Semi-finals
> > D2 field would play through finals (so as to allow greatest # of
> > spectators for finals on Sunday at D1)
>
> > Sunday:
> > D1 finals
>
> > *Some notes on this:
> > - It would eliminate powerpools
> > - Thursday play would be of greater importance (can be eliminated from
> > contention for the championship if you get 3rd in your pool)
> > - It puts more importance on winning each game - thursday isn't a
> > 'throw away' day
>
> > However, I'd say that this doesn't necessarily really help the teams
> > that feel like attendance at Sectionals/Regionals is pointless.  This
> > really just helps 'cusp' teams, not teams further down.  We have
> > trouble getting teams to attend our section (Illinois/Indiana) because
> > there are 1-3 really strong teams, and then a huge drop off.  Machine
> > always wins, then there are 1-3 other good teams, then college teams
> > that usually get rolled pretty bad.  So fewer and fewer college teams
> > and start-up club teams want to attend...its no fun for them to show
> > up and get bageled.  Particularly when they know we're only getting 2
> > bids to regionals.
>
> > And yes, I absolutely think more bids to nationals, or even a D2
> > nationals-type tournament or a high-caliber invite in the late fall
> > (post regionals) would change the coed game.  Everyone has an
> > opinion.  Mine is that showcasing mens and womens sports is much more
> > likely to be covered by the media - a coed game is difficult to
> > understand to most common-folk.  But not trying to start up that whole
> > issue again.  The goal here is to help a lot of men's open players who
> > feel like their $$ and time investment is pointless if they aren't on
> > a top 16 national team.
>
> > Josh
>
> > On Oct 14, 9:27 am, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I don't think ultimate teams are structured enough for a tier system.
> > > Teams come and go every other year. Going to a tier system would
> > > require all division to do this, I was laughing at Central Mixed
> > > Regionals because maybe 3 teams have the same names from when I played
> > > in the Central in 2003.
>
> > > What do we do when a team changes its name? What do we do when a team
> > > decides not to play for a year (Jam)?
>
> > > Would Jam be grandfathered into Tier 1 after trying the Justice League
> > > split? Would Ballerado get Tier 2 because some Sack Lunch guys play
> > > with them now? Would Ronin get Tier 2 because Vicious Cycle and
> > > Hammerheads combo'ed and they were both Tier 2. It gets way too
> > > complicated with teams constantly changing their identity every 3-5
> > > years.
>
> > > Pre-Sectionals!? With teams getting automatic byes?
>
> > > You are thinking a little close-minded here I'm sorry to say. For Mid-
> > > Atlantic and Northeast this might be a good idea, but Northeast
> > > already has a Division II. I'm in Texas and we had 13 teams at
> > > Sectionals. If you gave teams that went to Regionals an automatic bye
> > > from a pre-sectional tournament you would be left with 5 teams, I
> > > don't think this extra tournament benefits these 5 in any way. 3 of
> > > those 5 were just college teams that didn't have to pay dues because
> > > they paid in spring and went because it was close and cheap. I just
> > > don't think this solves the problem.
>
> > > I think we need to take baby steps: How do we get more teams at
> > > Regionals?
>
> > > What about the idea of having a Division II in Sarasota on the same
> > > date? Do the UPA's fields have room for 16 more teams? Our amazing
> > > Regional Coord's and TD's in Austin were able to fit 48 teams on was
> > > it 16 fields? It could be done... should it be done?
>
> > > Would this hurt Mixed? Seems like a lot of club open players go coed
> > > just so they can make nationals once, would players still "feel" like
> > > they made nationals if they were at Nationals on the back fields in
> > > D2? I think perennial Region favorites could book their flights early
> > > if they knew they were playing in a Sarasota tournament that weekend
> > > as long as they are in the top 5 in their Region...
>
> > > Just more ideas...
> > > -Keith
>
> Instead of trying to get more teams to go to Regionals, make Regionals
> 8 teams and then only SW women don't fill it, right?
>
> There are two types of club teams - teams that want to place as highly
> as possible and teams that want to just have fun. If teams can't or
> won't commit to going to Regionals, don't let them play at Sectionals.

Wait, so your solution to not enough players getting opportunities
past sectionals is to reduce the number of people who play past
sectionals, and then eliminate some teams from sectionals too? How
does this benefit anyone?

In the Northeast, I expect we could have filled a 24 team Open
Regionals, in addition to the 10 team Div 2 regionals, which probably
could be expanded as well if there was field space. We had 8 actual
club teams just at East New England Sectionals in Div 1. There were,
I think, 7 *club* teams that missed Regionals in the Northeast.

Shrinking Regionals would be a terrible idea.

sam th
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2507 is a reply to message #2501] Tue, 14 October 2008 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jeff
Messages: 338
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Your points about the size of the NE region really should be taken
into account for the regional boundary redraw. The MA and NE could
probably function as 3 regions post-redraw.

On Oct 14, 11:31�am, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:14�am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 8:05�am, Josh Thornton <josh.d.thorn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > A few thoughts...
>
> > > I don't know that I agree with the idea of the winner of a D2
> > > nationals getting a bid to the big show, or the concept of a D2
> > > sectionals/regionals who can work their way back up. �I think the
> > > success of these types of initiatives would vary greatly by section/
> > > region.
>
> > > If it were to be in Sarasota, on the 'back fields'...wouldn't it make
> > > sense to just increase the number of bids to 32, but have the brackets
> > > split after Thursday or Friday play. �The bottom 16 would probably
> > > sort themselves to the bottom in a day pretty easily, and then they
> > > could play out their games against similar caliber teams. �And if a
> > > 3rd or 4th place team out of a region pulled an upset they could play
> > > in the top. �It's more incentive to go. �This is how it *could*
> > > work...
>
> > > 32 teams qualify for Nationals
> > > Thursday is pool play, 8 pools of 4, after day 1:
> > > - bottom 16 immediately drop to bottom brackets (i.e. Division 2
> > > placement brackets (17th-32nd place)
> > > - top 16 (top 2 from each pool) go to upper pool play (i.e. D1 -
> > > 1st-16th place)
>
> > > Friday is 2 split fields, no crossover between divisions, 4 pools of
> > > 4:
> > > - play is most similar to typical 2-day regionals tournament schedule
> > > (3 pool play games + 1st round of bracket play)
>
> > > Saturday continue's bracket play:
> > > D1 field would play up through the Semi-finals
> > > D2 field would play through finals (so as to allow greatest # of
> > > spectators for finals on Sunday at D1)
>
> > > Sunday:
> > > D1 finals
>
> > > *Some notes on this:
> > > - It would eliminate powerpools
> > > - Thursday play would be of greater importance (can be eliminated from
> > > contention for the championship if you get 3rd in your pool)
> > > - It puts more importance on winning each game - thursday isn't a
> > > 'throw away' day
>
> > > However, I'd say that this doesn't necessarily really help the teams
> > > that feel like attendance at Sectionals/Regionals is pointless. �This
> > > really just helps 'cusp' teams, not teams further down. �We have
> > > trouble getting teams to attend our section (Illinois/Indiana) because
> > > there are 1-3 really strong teams, and then a huge drop off. �Machine
> > > always wins, then there are 1-3 other good teams, then college teams
> > > that usually get rolled pretty bad. �So fewer and fewer college teams
> > > and start-up club teams want to attend...its no fun for them to show
> > > up and get bageled. �Particularly when they know we're only getting 2
> > > bids to regionals.
>
> > > And yes, I absolutely think more bids to nationals, or even a D2
> > > nationals-type tournament or a high-caliber invite in the late fall
> > > (post regionals) would change the coed game. �Everyone has an
> > > opinion. �Mine is that showcasing mens and womens sports is much more
> > > likely to be covered by the media - a coed game is difficult to
> > > understand to most common-folk. �But not trying to start up that whole
> > > issue again. �The goal here is to help a lot of men's open players who
> > > feel like their $$ and time investment is pointless if they aren't on
> > > a top 16 national team.
>
> > > Josh
>
> > > On Oct 14, 9:27�am, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think ultimate teams are structured enough for a tier system.
> > > > Teams come and go every other year. Going to a tier system would
> > > > require all division to do this, I was laughing at Central Mixed
> > > > Regionals because maybe 3 teams have the same names from when I played
> > > > in the Central in 2003.
>
> > > > What do we do when a team changes its name? What do we do when a team
> > > > decides not to play for a year (Jam)?
>
> > > > Would Jam be grandfathered into Tier 1 after trying the Justice League
> > > > split? Would Ballerado get Tier 2 because some Sack Lunch guys play
> > > > with them now? Would Ronin get Tier 2 because Vicious Cycle and
> > > > Hammerheads combo'ed and they were both Tier 2. It gets way too
> > > > complicated with teams constantly changing their identity every 3-5
> > > > years.
>
> > > > Pre-Sectionals!? With teams getting automatic byes?
>
> > > > You are thinking a little close-minded here I'm sorry to say. For Mid-
> > > > Atlantic and Northeast this might be a good idea, but Northeast
> > > > already has a Division II. I'm in Texas and we had 13 teams at
> > > > Sectionals. If you gave teams that went to Regionals an automatic bye
> > > > from a pre-sectional tournament you would be left with 5 teams, I
> > > > don't think this extra tournament benefits these 5 in any way. 3 of
> > > > those 5 were just college teams that didn't have to pay dues because
> > > > they paid in spring and went because it was close and cheap. I just
> > > > don't think this solves the problem.
>
> > > > I think we need to take baby steps: How do we get more teams at
> > > > Regionals?
>
> > > > What about the idea of having a Division II in Sarasota on the same
> > > > date? Do the UPA's fields have room for 16 more teams? Our amazing
> > > > Regional Coord's and TD's in Austin were able to fit 48 teams on was
> > > > it 16 fields? It could be done... should it be done?
>
> > > > Would this hurt Mixed? Seems like a lot of club open players go coed
> > > > just so they can make nationals once, would players still "feel" like
> > > > they made nationals if they were at Nationals on the back fields in
> > > > D2? I think perennial Region favorites could book their flights early
> > > > if they knew they were playing in a Sarasota tournament that weekend
> > > > as long as they are in the top 5 in their Region...
>
> > > > Just more ideas...
> > > > -Keith
>
> > Instead of trying to get more teams to go to Regionals, make Regionals
> > 8 teams and then only SW women don't fill it, right?
>
> > There are two types of club teams - teams that want to place as highly
> > as possible and teams that want to just have fun. If teams can't or
> > won't commit to going to Regionals, don't let them play at Sectionals.
>
> Wait, so your solution to not enough players getting opportunities
> past sectionals is to reduce the number of people who play past
> sectionals, and then eliminate some teams from sectionals too? �How
> does this benefit anyone?
>
> In the Northeast, I expect we could have filled a 24 team Open
> Regionals, in addition to the 10 team Div 2 regionals, which probably
> could be expanded as well if there was field space. �We had 8 actual
> club teams just at East New England Sectionals in Div 1. �There were,
> I think, 7 *club* teams that missed Regionals in the Northeast.
>
> Shrinking Regionals would be a terrible idea.
>
> sam th- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2518 is a reply to message #2492] Tue, 14 October 2008 10:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 7:36 am, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> On Oct 14, 10:23 am, Johnny O <jto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  In the least, we should have a membership fee
> > structure that takes into consideration playing in the championship
> > series or not.
>
> WORD!!!! because to do otherwise would be a blantent misappropriation
> of funds, right?

Agreed. I'm with Toad on demanding that the UPA discontinue their
practice of making teams pay tourney fees for regionals and nationals,
even if they go out in sectionals. Or, I would be, if they did. What
actually happens is that the tourney fees past sectionals are pretty
steep, and dues isn't. All the college kids re-up with the UPA every
January to play in their tournaments, and the non-college dudes re-up
early in the summer for early season tourneys. Even a bunch of the
goof off tourneys, hats tourneys, etc are sanctioned. I wonder how
many club players play no UPA sanctioned tournaments but sectionals in
a given year? I also wonder whether they spend more on their UPA
dues, or on beer and cheese fries after Saturday's pool games?

~p
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2525 is a reply to message #2487] Tue, 14 October 2008 11:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joel.houmes
Messages: 41
Registered: October 2008
Member
Keith,

Valid points and I am certainly aware that the number of teams,
particularly in a certain section or region may not be there to
support a full 4 divisions. For example, would the southwest really
be able to support regional and sectional play. Probably not. I also
understand that teams come and go, but I actually think that hurts the
identity of the game more than it helps. I would like to encourage
the existance of teams through player generations. How great would it
be for a kid to grow up a Sockeye fan and be able to talk his/her kids
to see a sockeye game 15 years later. Having steady teams to identify
with helps create fans and not just players.

> What do we do when a team changes its name? What do we do when a team
> decides not to play for a year (Jam)?
It happens. Teams relocate and change names in other sports. The
Devil Rays are now the Rays. The Sonics are now the Thunder. The
Browns are now then Ravens and there is a new team called the Browns.
The system can survive a name change. As far as not playing for a
year, well, in my opinion you should have to work your way up again.
I would rather not see teams take a year off. In the case of Jam that
you mention, it seems to really be a case of two name changes, Jam ->
Justice League -> Jam.

> Would Jam be grandfathered into Tier 1 after trying the Justice League
> split? Would Ballerado get Tier 2 because some Sack Lunch guys play
> with them now? Would Ronin get Tier 2 because Vicious Cycle and
> Hammerheads combo'ed and they were both Tier 2. It gets way too
> complicated with teams constantly changing their identity every 3-5
> years.
Exactly. So why not encourage them to keep their identities. I am
thinking about what I would like to see in the future and sometimes
getting bogged down with the way things have always been gets in the
way of the way things could be. To go back to the team identity, it
seems to work pretty well in college. Florida has their A team and it
doesn't seem to change its identiy very often. Why? Because they
have an identity tied to the school they attend. Why can't club teams
have a similar identity tied to their city or a, for lack of a better
term, logo.

> You are thinking a little close-minded here I'm sorry to say. For Mid-
> Atlantic and Northeast this might be a good idea, but Northeast
> already has a Division II. I'm in Texas and we had 13 teams at
> Sectionals. If you gave teams that went to Regionals an automatic bye
> from a pre-sectional tournament you would be left with 5 teams, I
> don't think this extra tournament benefits these 5 in any way. 3 of
> those 5 were just college teams that didn't have to pay dues because
> they paid in spring and went because it was close and cheap. I just
> don't think this solves the problem.
Again, very fair point.

> I think we need to take baby steps: How do we get more teams at
> Regionals?
I wonder if there wouldn't be some value in having more and smaller
regions, like college. I think travel distance can be a hinderance to
some teams, especially when you are not sure you will be make regional
until a couple weeks before. That makes plane tickets more expensive
and more of a struggle to get time off work. Smaller regions mean
less travel time. As far as my initial idea, if you had, say, 12
regional level teams, then they could all plan on being at the
regional championship well in advance so time and cost would be less
of an issue. The bottom seeded team could also be more interested in
travelling to regionals because there would be less of a disparity in
level of play with the top teams participating in high leagues.


> Would this hurt Mixed?
Excellent question. I think your idea and my idea both would hurt the
mixed division by drawing away players that might otherwise
participate on a mixed team. I am not real sure how to counter that
other than to play mixed at a different time of year.

joel
Re: What if there was a Division II Open Club Nationals? [message #2528 is a reply to message #2501] Tue, 14 October 2008 11:50 Go to previous message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Oct 14, 11:31 am, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:14 am, Ryan Thompson <thomp...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 8:05 am, Josh Thornton <josh.d.thorn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > A few thoughts...
>
> > > I don't know that I agree with the idea of the winner of a D2
> > > nationals getting a bid to the big show, or the concept of a D2
> > > sectionals/regionals who can work their way back up.  I think the
> > > success of these types of initiatives would vary greatly by section/
> > > region.
>
> > > If it were to be in Sarasota, on the 'back fields'...wouldn't it make
> > > sense to just increase the number of bids to 32, but have the brackets
> > > split after Thursday or Friday play.  The bottom 16 would probably
> > > sort themselves to the bottom in a day pretty easily, and then they
> > > could play out their games against similar caliber teams.  And if a
> > > 3rd or 4th place team out of a region pulled an upset they could play
> > > in the top.  It's more incentive to go.  This is how it *could*
> > > work...
>
> > > 32 teams qualify for Nationals
> > > Thursday is pool play, 8 pools of 4, after day 1:
> > > - bottom 16 immediately drop to bottom brackets (i.e. Division 2
> > > placement brackets (17th-32nd place)
> > > - top 16 (top 2 from each pool) go to upper pool play (i.e. D1 -
> > > 1st-16th place)
>
> > > Friday is 2 split fields, no crossover between divisions, 4 pools of
> > > 4:
> > > - play is most similar to typical 2-day regionals tournament schedule
> > > (3 pool play games + 1st round of bracket play)
>
> > > Saturday continue's bracket play:
> > > D1 field would play up through the Semi-finals
> > > D2 field would play through finals (so as to allow greatest # of
> > > spectators for finals on Sunday at D1)
>
> > > Sunday:
> > > D1 finals
>
> > > *Some notes on this:
> > > - It would eliminate powerpools
> > > - Thursday play would be of greater importance (can be eliminated from
> > > contention for the championship if you get 3rd in your pool)
> > > - It puts more importance on winning each game - thursday isn't a
> > > 'throw away' day
>
> > > However, I'd say that this doesn't necessarily really help the teams
> > > that feel like attendance at Sectionals/Regionals is pointless.  This
> > > really just helps 'cusp' teams, not teams further down.  We have
> > > trouble getting teams to attend our section (Illinois/Indiana) because
> > > there are 1-3 really strong teams, and then a huge drop off.  Machine
> > > always wins, then there are 1-3 other good teams, then college teams
> > > that usually get rolled pretty bad.  So fewer and fewer college teams
> > > and start-up club teams want to attend...its no fun for them to show
> > > up and get bageled.  Particularly when they know we're only getting 2
> > > bids to regionals.
>
> > > And yes, I absolutely think more bids to nationals, or even a D2
> > > nationals-type tournament or a high-caliber invite in the late fall
> > > (post regionals) would change the coed game.  Everyone has an
> > > opinion.  Mine is that showcasing mens and womens sports is much more
> > > likely to be covered by the media - a coed game is difficult to
> > > understand to most common-folk.  But not trying to start up that whole
> > > issue again.  The goal here is to help a lot of men's open players who
> > > feel like their $$ and time investment is pointless if they aren't on
> > > a top 16 national team.
>
> > > Josh
>
> > > On Oct 14, 9:27 am, Keith.Larsen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think ultimate teams are structured enough for a tier system.
> > > > Teams come and go every other year. Going to a tier system would
> > > > require all division to do this, I was laughing at Central Mixed
> > > > Regionals because maybe 3 teams have the same names from when I played
> > > > in the Central in 2003.
>
> > > > What do we do when a team changes its name? What do we do when a team
> > > > decides not to play for a year (Jam)?
>
> > > > Would Jam be grandfathered into Tier 1 after trying the Justice League
> > > > split? Would Ballerado get Tier 2 because some Sack Lunch guys play
> > > > with them now? Would Ronin get Tier 2 because Vicious Cycle and
> > > > Hammerheads combo'ed and they were both Tier 2. It gets way too
> > > > complicated with teams constantly changing their identity every 3-5
> > > > years.
>
> > > > Pre-Sectionals!? With teams getting automatic byes?
>
> > > > You are thinking a little close-minded here I'm sorry to say. For Mid-
> > > > Atlantic and Northeast this might be a good idea, but Northeast
> > > > already has a Division II. I'm in Texas and we had 13 teams at
> > > > Sectionals. If you gave teams that went to Regionals an automatic bye
> > > > from a pre-sectional tournament you would be left with 5 teams, I
> > > > don't think this extra tournament benefits these 5 in any way. 3 of
> > > > those 5 were just college teams that didn't have to pay dues because
> > > > they paid in spring and went because it was close and cheap. I just
> > > > don't think this solves the problem.
>
> > > > I think we need to take baby steps: How do we get more teams at
> > > > Regionals?
>
> > > > What about the idea of having a Division II in Sarasota on the same
> > > > date? Do the UPA's fields have room for 16 more teams? Our amazing
> > > > Regional Coord's and TD's in Austin were able to fit 48 teams on was
> > > > it 16 fields? It could be done... should it be done?
>
> > > > Would this hurt Mixed? Seems like a lot of club open players go coed
> > > > just so they can make nationals once, would players still "feel" like
> > > > they made nationals if they were at Nationals on the back fields in
> > > > D2? I think perennial Region favorites could book their flights early
> > > > if they knew they were playing in a Sarasota tournament that weekend
> > > > as long as they are in the top 5 in their Region...
>
> > > > Just more ideas...
> > > > -Keith
>
> > Instead of trying to get more teams to go to Regionals, make Regionals
> > 8 teams and then only SW women don't fill it, right?
>
> > There are two types of club teams - teams that want to place as highly
> > as possible and teams that want to just have fun. If teams can't or
> > won't commit to going to Regionals, don't let them play at Sectionals.
>
> Wait, so your solution to not enough players getting opportunities
> past sectionals is to reduce the number of people who play past
> sectionals, and then eliminate some teams from sectionals too?  How
> does this benefit anyone?
>
> In the Northeast, I expect we could have filled a 24 team Open
> Regionals, in addition to the 10 team Div 2 regionals, which probably
> could be expanded as well if there was field space.  We had 8 actual
> club teams just at East New England Sectionals in Div 1.  There were,
> I think, 7 *club* teams that missed Regionals in the Northeast.
>
> Shrinking Regionals would be a terrible idea.
>
> sam th- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

how about having 3 divisions of regional tournies (at different
locations) in each region. Or just have enouph divisions so that
every team is guaranteed a regional event to attend. Then there could
be tiered nationals events as well (in different different locations
OR in the same......if it could be facilitated). Having 300+ teams
converge on a town might give sponsors more reason to kick in and it
would create more media stir. could you imaging the financial impact
somthing like that would have on a local economy.
Previous Topic:Bold Nationals Predictions!
Next Topic:College Ultimate Bugets
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Feb 16 11:47:55 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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