Thursday, December 3, 2009

"Being Classy is Free"...

Nation,

Every year, teams and players go through the unfortunate following:
  • They say no to players trying to make their teams
  • They cut current players and leaders that they longer wish to "retain"
  • They get passed over by players who leave them to join other teams
Now, we can agree that these decisions are not easy. We can only handle/train so many players, so many voices, and so many egos on a team. We have no way to retain players in this amateur sport, and players have the right to leave when they want to. We can only assume that when these tough situations happen, teams and leaders need to do it with class.

As a friend said recently, "Being Classy is Free". And yet, in ultimate we are rife every year with stories about poorly handled situations where that unlimited and free resource of Classiness is not applied in ultimate.

Non-Football Example- Bobby Bowden Gets Axed at Florida State

This week, the president and athletic director of Florida State University unceremoniously gave football coach Bobby Bowden, head coach for 33 years at the school, no choice but to "resign" at the end of this season.

Bowden, 80 years old, was clearly nearing the end. In fairness, being 80 and running a national football program is a daunting task. His ability to recruit and field a powerhouse had waned, and a conference full of coaches who are younger, more tech savvy (Does Bobby Bowden tweet?), and more effective was clearly hurting the FSU program. The school was getting all the ego and swagger of a college football coach, and none of the results. I'm sure Bowden was a jerk, but that doesn't excuse one from their actions.

On the other hand, Bowden was an icon at the school. He made that school. The football field is named after him. His teams were top 5 in the country from 1987-2000. Won two national titles. And let's be serious- He brought more money to that school that anyone ever has.

What will the FSU Football girls (pictured) do without Bowden?

The major problem with the firing.. errr resignation was the way it was done.

The President, who made the firing, and the athletic director were responsible for the decision. In order to announce it, they used two current players to face the media. They refused to address the media and answer for their actions. Not only did they fire a legend, they didn't want to explain why.

Bringing it back to ultimate, I think these kinds of awkward situations are caused by poor leaders, or simply people who focused more on their own pursuits than the feelings and dignity of others. I think people forget that we play a volunteer amateur sport that the real world doesn't really respect a whole he&& of a lot.

There is no real hard and fast rules about being classy, but I would simply advocate the 'golden rule' of doing onto others as you would would have do onto you. That's a simple start.

107 comments:

Jeff said...

anyone want to talk about the pickup teams that will be attending prague 2010?

streeter said...

what do you mean?

Bobo Eyrich said...

I do ... Although I don't know how I can go to Prague (hopefully Red Circus will get a bid, though I don't even know which city I'll be in next summer) I really really really want to go. Pick up teams for a bid. I just really want to go to Prague to play. How I get there or who I play with are 2nd and 3rd priorities at the moment.

Jeff said...

haha i was being a douche, but my real discussion point is:

is there a problem when most of the top 30-40 open players (goat/furious) in canada are going to be looking to pick up for other teams, both internationally and nationally? and second, who is to blame for that if it is a problem?

Batch said...

Mephisto tryouts are set for Jan 8 and 9. I definitely expect some Toronto folk to show up. No reason Halifax people can't be there too, Bobo. It seems impossible that Red Circus would get a bid.

T1000 said...

Well, in an ideal world, the top players would already be on teams that had won a bid to WUCC. In that respect, we have a problem.

That some of those players will be looking to pick up is not in itself a problem -- lots of players will be looking to join one of the lucky clubs.

Of course, we have a responsibility to send teams that resemble true clubs as closely as reasonably possible. THAT is the real problem -- the challenge of determining eligibility rules that are fair, practical, and enforcible for individual players, for teams as a whole, and for the international stage. Those rules need to meet goals of both WFDF and Ultimate Canada.

Those rules are still on the drawing board as we speak. So . . . there's not that much to talk about yet.

Jeff said...

I'm actually not talking about any rules, the only thing I know is that neither goat nor furious will be going to Prague and that the alternative is that a lot of them will be looking to play for teams that aren't even Canadian (Skogs, Chevron).

You seem to suggest it's not a problem, I would argue it is is a problem when a decent chunk of the top Canadian players will play worlds for international teams. As of this point though I haven't talked about any rule (except I suppose the necessity to qualify via Canadian Nats and no other way, such as UPA regional/nationals events).

I'm actually just wondering the general populations opinion - I know a lot of GOAT's opinions, and I know a few CUPA leaders opinions. I'm genuinely curious what the rest think.

T1000 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff said...

also:

"Well, in an ideal world, the top players would already be on teams that had won a bid to WUCC. In that respect, we have a problem."

Absolutely true. Whose fault is it? There are 2 places where I can see blame could be laid:

- The rules put in place to qualify a team for representing Canada.
- The teams that do not follow the rules that are put in place.

In defense of my side, if a rule is such that it's necessarily going to be broken (And I would argue going to ECC over nats is a neccessary and easy decision, regardless of WUCC considerations)... is that rule not poorly written?

Of course it's easy to say - but they knew the rules and chose ECC over WUCC (which is the real choice, Canadian Nats unfortunately is not part of the equation). Why did that choice ever have to be made though?

T1000 said...

Internationally, whilst I am not familiar with all of the rules adopted by various organizations, I am disappointed that they would allow their clubs to adopt Canadian players, because I feel it is contrary to the mandate set down by WFDF.

Nationally, I don't think any rules were "broken." There were teams that did not go to CUCs, and WFDF mandated us to choose our bid-winners based on CUCs.

Jeff said...

"and WFDF mandated us to choose our bid-winners based on CUCs."

Is this for sure true? My understanding is this has been opened up to the decision of each national body and no longer governed by wfdf except for a suggestion that it should be club teams and not pickup teams. I actually have e-mailed wfdf and they told me the same which was "don't ask us, ask CUPA - it's their decision". Obviously if this is a strict mandate by wfdf, of which CUPA has asked to change but they refuse, I would have a beef with them instead, but I don't see that as being the case right now although I could be wrong.

T1000 said...

It is not a "strict" mandate, but its intent is implicit:

"Guide teams to keep their rosters as close as possible to the rosters used at national club championships (wherever this is possible and reasonable)."

Still, I wouldn't blame WFDF. It's not an unreasonable request.

Jeff said...

I would place the argument that the rules set in place by CUPA are doing the exact opposite of what they are intended.

Other teams, both Canadian and international, will be picking up players that will have a significant impact on their team for club worlds, instead of playing for their actual and legitimate club teams.

The rules set in place are encouraging and not discouraging teams from being pick-up oriented. Exactly the opposite of both CUPA and WFDF's intent - therefore in my mind, the rules are dumb.

Jeff said...

but anyway Alex, thanks for responding, but I do know CUPA's stance... I would like to hear from people who are not affiliated with either the teams affected or the rule makers (CUPA).

T1000 said...

"Other teams, both Canadian and international, will be picking up players that will have a significant impact on their team for club worlds. . . ."

"Pick-ups" are going to be inevitable under any circumstances; it's a long trip, and captains will need to look around for help in filling out next year's rosters. But the rules defining the requirements of our teams and so-called "pick-ups" are still under discussion.

If other national organizations are freely allowing unrestricted international "pick-ups," then they are disregarding WFDF's mandate -- they're not making a reasonable effort to send "club" teams.

If it is any consolation to you, Ben Wiggins realized his mistake and will not schedule ECC on a date that conflicts with CUC in the future. I am not sure what rules you would have proposed, but I think we steered the course correctly.

T1000 said...

No problem. And I mean no insult in any of my responses.

(To be fair, for those who don't know, I am affiliated with one of the absentee teams, and with Ultimate Canada)

Jeff said...

My suggestion would be to put in place a mechanism to recognize the upa series when determining canadian bids to world clubs, or another alternative to also compete and qualify for a bid.

how can cupa possibly blame Ben Wiggins, an American player, for anything? Good for Ben - apparently he has single handedly eliminated the two best Canadian open teams from WUCC and therefore increased the standings of his country.

also, pick-ups being inevitable is one thing. Pick-ups making a very large impact on the team is a different and avoidable thing.

Jeff said...

or just a simple appeal process where teams who believe themselves to be deserving can be looked at individually and present a case on why they are a club team that can represent canada although being unable to attend canadian nats. Requiring both legitimate reason for not attending (ECC - just not wanting to go would not be a legit reason), and legitimate qualifications (club team results at other tourneys, for goat/furious it would be upa series results or maybe the undefeated record in the last 5 years against any other canadian team)

this appeal should be done before canadian nationals so that a team does know if it has to break it's other engagements.

that's why i brought this up differently, i said can we recognize there is a problem? solutions are easy when a problem is recognized... but I don't believe it is even recognized as a problem, at least by CUPA.

T1000 said...

Do you want to hear an answer from me on that one, Jeff? Or do you want to hear from someone else now?

Jeff said...

haha i more was trying to encourage other people to respond than to discourage you, go ahead.

Sport Management Steven said...

Jeff,

I'll post something related to your topic soon after world bids are finally decided.

For the meantime, I will say that teams who know the nationals will decided world club bids and don't show up are responsible for their fate. Whatever that may be.

Jeff said...

So Steve, your answer to my question of "Is there a problem?" seems to be: "No"? Is that accurate?

Second, to my argument of "Canadian Nats should not decide world club bids"... I see your rebuttal to this as: "Canadian nats decides world clubs bids".

T1000 said...

Steve is right; we don't know what that fate will be, and he may be wiser than I for witholding comment. Even we can't say for sure who is going to get bids, or what the rules will look like for all the organizations involved.

I'll say that I would like to see our best teams going to WUCC, representing Canada. I really would.

However, CUCs was our established means of determining which teams would go. It was expected and the rules were long in place, consistent with WFDF's extant guidelines. It is one of the key purposes of the national championship, one of the key incentives to attend it, and the fairest venue for that purpose.

ECC's dates were announced well after the fact. Ben is a sympathetic guy who's committed to international development and he regrets the oversight. I don't blame him.

Perhaps we could have rewritten the rules on the fly to accomodate those teams who attended ECC. But I would submit that it would not have been very good governance. I think all of us carefully considered the possibilities and their consequences. Among them, it would have been a blatant demonstration of favoritism, it would have eroded the time-honoured purpose of a national championship, and it would have been monstrously difficult to perform in a fair, respectful manner for all the stakeholders. While sending competitive teams to worlds is a goal of ours, it is not our only goal, and we had to consider those responsibilities.

You're a top-notch competitor, Jeff, and I wish your team could play for us in Prague. I understand the choice your team made; I hope you will understand the choices we make.

jhaig said...

This seems like a debate that should have happened sometime last spring when teams were picking their summer tournament schedules rather then after the fact.

Hadrian said...

Is there any way WFDF could mandate a roster freeze which would limit WUCC teams from picking up more than a preset number of players? Maybe they could do something like CUUC where teams were limited to 3 pickups. Because qualification is a year or more away from the actual competition I understand that rosters can change significantly and the team that qualifies won't necessarily be the same team that plays in WUCC, but as an ultimate fan I want to see true club teams play at WUCC, not pseudo-national teams made up of GOAT and Furious pickups.

T1000 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
T1000 said...

The roster requirements are largely in the hands of Ultimate Canada. However, WFDF does retain some influence. Notably WFDF reserves the right to veto team participation if they find the National Association is willfully abusing the guidelines.

soniak said...

2 things:
1) I agree with the above statement that this discussion should have taken place last year. It was already known then that WUCC spots for Canadian teams would be based on CUC standings. It is a moot point now for WUCC 2010.
2) If teams wanted to go to WUCC, they should have made the effort to participate at CUC. You don't play at CUC, you don't go to WUCC.

Not to say that this is the wrong or the right way to pick teams. I just find it frustrating that players didn't seem to realise this last year and now (might) regret it.

All this being said: good luck to all teams going to Prague!

sonia

Jeff said...

everyone realized this, and given the discussion teams made a decision to forego WUCC (at least - as their team) and go to ECC.

I am saying the rule, for future years, should be revised so such a decision should never have to be made. CUPA should be fighting for their club teams in my opinion, whereas it feels like they are fighting against them.

As a player I only really ever look at the next major tournament. UPAs just finished and that means WUCC is next. That's the reason for the timing. In the spring I had 0 thought about WUCC, call me shortsighted but that's what players are supposed to do isn't it? It' other people's job (CUPA, maybe the GOAT/Furious leadership) to think ahead.

also just cause an argument is late doesn't make it right or wrong. If you say "you are right, but it's too late and would have needed to be finalized before Cdn Nats" then that's fine and I can buy it. But the people who are saying it's too late are also saying it's not the right decision anyway, so let's ignore the lateness of the talk and focus on the validity. WUCC bids haven't even been decided though, and CUPA rules haven't been finalized either... so saying it's too late is a cop out answer in my opinion.

Greg King said...

"CUPA should be fighting for their club teams"

Maybe club teams should be fighting for their own National Association instead of another one south of the border? If you play ultimate I can undertstand and support the desire to play at the highest level, but at some point the best teams in the country need to play in the country if they want to see the level of play improve.

I'm with Steve and Sonia on this one. The rules were laid out in advance and the decision was made by each of the teams that skipped CUCs. Now they need to live with the decision.

To be honest I think the organizers should have a list of players from these players that are looking to pick-up and make sure they aren't on a roster. This is World Clubs. The operative word being Clubs. If teams are picking up players (especially not just local players but international pickups of the higehst calibre who made a decision not to play for chance to qualify) that defeats the entire purpose of the event.

Here's a link to the roster guidelines that were "used" for Clubs in 2006 in Perth.

http://www.wfdf.org/policies/wfdf_club_team_definitions_v_1_7_3.pdf

I have no idea how effective they were, but I can't see them becoming less strict over time. After reading them closely it looks like most of the players mentioned looking to pickup shouldn't be permitted to pickup.

Jeff said...

Greg, I can only hope you have no actual influence to decisions being made in ultimate.

Greg King said...

Jeff, care to elaborate? Or is that just a quick way of saying, "I disagree with everything you've just posted".

Jeff said...

"Maybe club teams should be fighting for their own National Association instead of another one south of the border? If you play ultimate I can undertstand and support the desire to play at the highest level, but at some point the best teams in the country need to play in the country if they want to see the level of play improve."

My argument to this is: I believe the best thing in the past 5 years for Great Britain ultimate has been Clapham coming to North America and participating in many UPA events. Hopefully you can read between the lines to get what my argument is from that.

Greg King said...

I don't disagree at all with that. Clapham have come over and played in a number of tournaments in the States. They've gained valuable experience and then they have returned to the UK and played in all of the Tour events (and not skipped out to go and play in Florida). They also decided to play in the Tour this year, as well as the EUCFs, which were the primary qualification tournaments for the UK bids to Worlds.

So your comparison to GOAT and Furious skipping CUCs is lacking a bit.

Jeff said...

Oh and also, I'm fairly sure GB actually funds Clapham in a lot of ways for this.

And I do not think my comparison is lack, GOAT has played against Mephisto, Phoenix, GT, numerous times this year. GOAT sometimes coaches GT, Roy, and Dirt and invites them to practices on occassion. GOAT players are on Queens, Guelph, Brock, U of T, UBC, etc schools and they bring their experience back to them (I would also say this point is the single most important way GOAT contributes to Canadian Ultimate). To say GOAT does not give back to Canadian ultimate because they did not go to Canadian nats is a gross overestimation of the usefulness of Canadian nationals. in fact I would say it would be a downright arrogant statement by CUPA if they were to say that, so I'm glad it did not come from CUPA.

In fact I would say the exact opposite of you. If CUPA wants Canadian ultimate to get better they would encourage their teams to travel south of the border - like every other frigging ultimate country is doing right now.

GOAT vs Canadian teams year:
Too bad, Mephisto(twice), Furious, Medicare, Carleton Ravens, Firebird, Phoenix, Western Ontario, GT a number of times at practices.

Clapham is not allowed to participate in the UPA series but I can guarantee you if they were they would be at regionals trying to get there (although I do not believe they would qualify anyway)

T1000 said...

The committee responsible for the decisions in question comprises representatives from Stella, Lotus, Phoenix, Mephisto, Furious and GOAT. In March, the committee was in unanimous agreement that WUCC team bids should be distributed CUCs.

Instead of rewriting the rules, it was then decided that it would be more desirable to actively prevent scheduling conflicts in the future so that the teams involved would not have to make that uncomfortable choice again.

Greg King said...

I don't think I ever stated that GOAT doesn't give back to Canadian ultimate. I recognize and acknowldge the experience that is passed along to the young players who then take it back to their respective university clubs. What I did say that these teams shouldn't ask for support from CUPA (specifically in terms of getting bids for world clubs when they didn't play in the qualifying tournament) when they are only playing in CUC's every four years. At the moment, CUC's are the only club tournament that CUPA runs (I think, Alex will let me know if that isn't the case). If GOAT and Furious aren't playing at the biggest event in Canadian Club ultimate, then Canadian club teams don't get a chance to play them on this stage.

I know that GOAT still plays other Canadian teams, but every single game that you listed has taken place in the States and half of those games took place at a single tournament (Upstate NY Sectionals). What about matchups with those club teams that don't get a chance to travel that much but might come to CUCs? Is it simply not worth their time? Even when it isn't any UPA qualification tournament that would be missed.

I think, if I read it correctly, that you advocate CUPA encouraging teams to not play at the CUC's but instead play in the States. That would mean that the purpose of CUPA would be to provide funding so that teams can play in the US. That is ridiculous. It defeats the primary purpose of having our own national organization, helping to grow the sport in Canada.

Patrick Mooney said...

Greg,

GOAT has played at 3 of the past 5 nationals (they missed last year due to ECC (anyone who would pass up an invite to ecc is an idiot regardless of whether or not its a WUCC qualifying year) and the previous year was right after worlds where over half the team was participating). We played in winnipeg, halifax and toronto. i wouldnt say we only go once every 4 years. no offense dude but before you talk get your facts straight because you are insulting our team and misrepresenting us

i dont think linky is arguing that goat should get to go to worlds. i think you are all missing his point (maybe he isnt doing the best job of getting it across). he is simply stating that there might be something wrong with the way we choose who represents us at worlds. he is not saying we got screwed or we deserve a bid he is just trying to get discussion going to try to determine if there is a better way to select who goes. He feels that in the end this just creates a situation where we send teams like mephisto with 5 big pick ups and it just becomes a pick upt eam after all anyways and it doesnt really accomplish the goal we as CUPA are trying to achieve which is to get our best club teams to come to nationals as much as possible.

Teapot said...

It's likely too late for this WUCC, but maybe a source of influence for how to decide upon teams to represent Canada, can be the way BCS standings are used in college football. Anyone who follows it know that it is a heavily flawed system, but that is mostly due to how many teams that it must account for.

Ultimate Canada should maybe look into having a ranking system throughout the year, based on results from tournaments all teams have gone to, this includes American (potentially all international?) tournaments attended by each team, every year.

This would put both Furious and GOAT at the top of the list to represent Canada at WUCC, where they rightfully belong.

Jeff said...

not a terrible idea teapot, but until people acknowledge there is even a problem solution ideas aren't going to help anything... and i don't even see it at that stage for some reason beyond my understanding.

Bobo Eyrich said...

I'd like to see Canada send the best teams but for teams like Furious and GOAT, I think that they expect not to get challenged by other Canadian teams. Admitedly, I think that this is ultimately true, and that CUC with these two teams in it will have an all but predestined final, but I think that it underestimates the strength of other teams.

Furious was taken hard by Red Circus in nats 07, GOAT had some tough games against Invictus and others at the same nationals, they did end up winning but I don't think that the margins are that large that Canada's top teams can't be surprised.

I don't think that this is what this discussion should be focused on. Jeff's point about pick ups to me is vital. I can't find the email I got regarding the pick up options but as Canada is a division 1 country number of pick ups is limited. I don't think that you can pick up randoms I think that they have to practise with the team for a few weeks before the tournament, something like that.

I think that with the limited pick ups it's not likely going to change a team to that great of a degree. Given that I think the limit is 3 players.

T1000 said...

I looked into developing a system like that for our purposes a while back, Teapot, but I think you can anticipate some of the difficulties (as you seem informed of the mathematics involved). Foremost, of course, were the technical data requirements, followed by the inaccuracies caused by the sparsity of data, and the number of degrees of separation.

And in light of the inaccuracies incurred, the question of fairness quickly arises. Even if we put aside our other goals for CUCs, a national championship is an unquestionably fairer means of distributing bids.

While I feel that this year's outcome may have been suboptimal, I don't anticipate a chronic problem; I feel we can circumvent the problem to which Jeff alludes without a complete overhaul.

And even when I say "suboptimal," I think that, in the long term, good things may come of sending our current bid-winners to WUCC.

Greg King said...

Apologies to GOAT. Mooney, you are right that they (you) did play in Halifax and Winnipeg (which are the last two non-qualification CUCs and probably played in most of them before that as well). I wasn't really thinking clearly. Definitely a huge error on my part, hopefully not ruining all of my credibility (if there was any to begin with).

To be completely honest, I think GOAT and Furious playing in ECC is great and I support it 100%. But when you make any decision there will be an outcome and the outcome here was that these players decided to focus on playing at ECC and working towards the UPAs instead of WUCC. Nothing wrong with that. But you need to take that outcome in stride. I agree that arguably the two best open club teams in Canada will not be playing at WUCC. However, Bobo said it best, that maybe they do lose a game at CUCs this year and don't qualify, who knows? Should these teams just be permitted to earn their bid because it is assumed they will beat everyone else? But as Alex has said, I think you'll see less of a conflict with large tournaments such as ECC in the future, so maybe all of this discussion is moot because everyone will be able to attend every Nationals in the future and GOAT and Furious will lay a beatdown on everyone else, qualify and then all will be right in the universe.

Straight up, I'm not a fan of pickups, especially on a stage like World Clubs, although I am sure it is going to happen reagrdless. If it was Worlds then it makes complete sense to have the opportunity to pick up the best players in the country. But at Clubs to pickup 3 players (who to be honest are going to be superstars, no one picks up people who are going to sit on the bench) defeats the purpose of the tournament and we might as well have Worlds every 2 years. Sure there are going to be people on a roster of a team who qualified and can't make the trip to Prague (or Perth, other exotic locale etc.), but for a country like Canada (where ultimate has a relatively high number of players of very good quality compared to other countries) does that mean that said team needs to go and pickup the best players from other touring teams in the same division? I would be more accepting of pickups if they played the previous season with the second teams that most clubs now have (i.e. GT or Demon etc.) or if they had played in another division. I guess it comes down to the rules that the WFDF creates. It seems strange that they don't have a set of rules for this issue yet (although I understand it would be dynamic over time as countries progress).

Bobo Eyrich said...

I think that the reasons for the pick up players is to allow new players on the rosters to play. If the WFDF restricted teams to those players that helped them win the qualifying tournament then any players who joined the team in the next year would be out of luck.

I feel like I'm shooting myself in the foot because I would love to pick up with a team for WUCC. I think that only players who played with a qualified team in the qualifying year or the event year should be eligible. Otherwise, as Greg said, the "Club" title loses its meaning.

Darcy said...

People are agreeing to wanting the best Club teams to represent Canada, no one agrues that. CUPA wants CUC qualified teams to represent in WUCC which is respected and understood. I think Jeff is trying to get the organization to come up with a contigency plan in case important tournaments (like ECC) fall on CUC again, if you aren't willing to "overhaul" the current guidelines. So instead of saying saying "too bad you chose an amazing tournament over us. Now you have no choice, your team can't go and now we are going to fight to ensure you don't pick up with another club team(even though you are among the best in the country)", there should be another system in place to allow our top teams to compete against the best (yes south of the border)throughout the year and yet still have the ability to represent their country on the national stage. That is what the contigency plan would do.

(Please note - I agree any team can get beat on any given day so these two teams may not have made it but at least their would be a plan in place to let them try - deservingly so)

Yes, Ben may not schedule ECC again, but what if??? Why not have some plan in line in case this does happen again? If there was a plan perhaps these two teams would be going to Worlds, and there would be less worry about the massive amount of pickups trying to get on other club teams...as the best players would already be representing their club and Canada at WUCC.

Darcy said...

"there should be another system in place to allow our top teams to compete against the best (yes south of the border)throughout the year and yet still have the ability to represent their country on the national stage."

Sorry that should read international stage not just national...

westwell said...

We seem to be making the assumption that every team that qualifies for Worlds *wants* to pick up good players from teams that didn't qualify. I might be alone in this, but if I could make the decision everyone from PHX this season would be attending Worlds and we wouldn't pick up anyone. I am uncertain of how many (if any) pickups we will be using, but I assure you that I am much more concerned with how each of my teammates will benefit rather than some random player. I want my TEAM and TEAMMATES to grow stronger with little (or no) external influence.

Rob said...

Moving beyond the obvious point that the rules were laid down last year and were made available for all. Looking towards the future...

It may seem fairly clear who the top two Canadian teams were this year (Goat, Furious). Goat played against Mephisto/Phoenix enough times this year that the hierarchy was clear...Goat also beat Furious in their matchup...but Mephisto Furious was not tested, it might be "reasonably" inferred through common opponents what the result may have been. If the rules had been different to include UPA's this year (where neither of them left the region) would this have been enough to override Mephisto's CUC win and guarantee Furious a spot for Prague? If Furious had been going in place of a team from the East that performed well at CUC's, there would still be 46+ comments debating worlds bids, but the topic would be decidedly different.

Furthermore, the inference in future years (and other divisions) may not be as clear. It often happens in ultimate when you try to establish a hierarchy between two teams that have never played that team A has beaten a lot of teams that team B has lost to...but team B has beaten a lot of teams that team A has lost to (which then starts getting into the "yeah but that was an early season win" or "yeah but they didn't have their full squad there" arguments...you can't rely on RRI to determine closely matched teams. Bottom line, if you want to decide Worlds bids, I think you have to pick a tournament so that everyone knows when they have to peek, where everyone who wants to go to World's attends...it can't be based on peoples gut instinct of who is probably better than who, or RRI...just my opinion.

If you have to pick a tournament, well it could be possible to choose one other than CUC's...but every Canadian team should have their shot at a bid. (Most big US tourneys, Red Circus would be seeded out of contention, or not even invited) To me, everyone is probably just going to have to suck it up and go to Nationals...

Bobo Eyrich said...

Rob, for me it would never be to "suck it up, and go to nationals" ... I'll go to just about any tournament I can possibly get to.

Probably the best point that have been made in this entire post.

Jeff said...

"If Furious had been going in place of a team from the East that performed well at CUC's, there would still be 46+ comments debating worlds bids, but the topic would be decidedly different."

i disagree, i think people are assuming other people will be arguing this and in reality it would not seem unjust at all - unless you are simply pissed you went to cdn nats - which cupa can only hope is not most teams thought process.

"f you have to pick a tournament"

why do you have to pick tournament?

i also think your argument of who is better, mephisto or furious is irrelevant given the amount of bids that will be given out. There would be statistical evidence to very cleanly and irrefutably prove that the team or two that would not get a bid is not as good as goat and furious. the actual comparison would be something like grand trunk compared to goat. so unless Toronto is really screwing up the tiered structure....

Jeff said...

"Rob, for me it would never be to "suck it up, and go to nationals" ... I'll go to just about any tournament I can possibly get to."

the choice comes in when you have 2 tournaments the same weekend. can't do both. i'm in no way supporting skipping canadian nats to sit at home. although the topic of why canadian nats is not a cost effective tournament to go to is something i'd gladly jump in on - but it has no use to this topic so i will leave it alone.

Darcy said...

There was mention that Goat and Furious (and the like) should help build Canadian ultimate by playing in Canandian tournaments, but what about supporting them getting better??

By playing against obviously weaker teams in Canada, does them and Canada little value...they have to go to higher end tournaments to increase their skill to be able to make the Canadian game better. So we should be supporting their decision to play in top end tournaments like ECC.

Plus many Canadian tournaments will use top end teams to try and reel in quality American teams to better the status of their tournament, kinda like a marketing tool, and how do these Canadian teams get thanked...

Honestly, this discussion wouldn't be going down if ECC wasn't on the same weekend, granted, but that's why this should be looked at for future years to avoid a similar result.

Bobo imagine that you had Canadian nationals and your league tournament on the same weekend and if you didn't choose your league tournament you wouldn't be allowed to play league until next year...which one would you choose? You're kidding yourself if you say league...

After all this, I agree in this year's decision, especially since Goat and Furious were in on deciding it. Also I partially agree with Rob, in that one tournament should decided it (sorry Jeff). However, I don't think it should be as cut and dry; in case this situation occurs in the future. A simple amendment could satisfy everyone and perhaps that is previous records. If you deserve to go, you should be beating teams throughout the season.

Greg King said...

"There was mention that Goat and Furious (and the like) should help build Canadian ultimate by playing in Canandian tournaments, but what about supporting them getting better??"

I think that was me and it is a bit off the topic, but that's what the internet is for, so I would like to calrify. I obviously don't think GOAT and Furious should be playing Jazzfest, because it doesn't make a lick of sense. I support these teams (which are arguably the best in the country) to play in the best tournaments possible, which generally take place in the US. However I do think they should be playing Canadian Nats. This year I agree ECC provides better competition, so no arguement from me there (but as you said, they knew it would have the result of not being able to qualify for WUCC). However apparently the scheduling this year was an oversight and it won't happen again. So, I really don't think that Canadian Nationals is that much weaker than any tournament that might be scheduled during that period in August. Maybe a few years ago it would have been, but there has been improvement in the level of play from a lot of teams in the past few years. And, I think a lot of that can be attributed to playing more competitive tournaments (primarily in the States).

Rob said...

Jeff, I think where we are diverging is that you are focusing in "hindsight" on "2010's" results in the "open" division...

You can't create a loosely defined set of rules pre-season that will present clear cut world's bids when there are so many unknowns (how many bids will be available, what if the disparity between top two and top four is narrowed and they don't get the opportunity of a heads up game? What if TFP only comes to Nationals while the other top coed teams decide its not worth the money, what if team A doesn't do the Fall series, what if Team B starts training seriously in August...what if...what if...what if.

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff said...

of course i am focusing on 2010 open division scenario... it is the one that is screwed up. that doesn't mean the solution shouldn't apply to the future etc, but if i can't prove something's broken why would people even look for a fix? I am using this specific situation to try to prove something i broken. I also don't believe 'hopefully Ben Wigging will not schedule this again'. to me that's blatant blame passing to a third party not even remotely involved.

so rob, you are saying since things are unknown the rules need to be very specific and unchanging? seems to me the more unknowns at the table the more room for flexibility there needs to be as facts come to light... it makes a significant difference what those facts are. if there is only 1 bid what argument could I possibly have on the 1 team that goes? While they haven't done it yet, Mephisto is a team that can beat GOAT and Furious. (only a 1 point win by GOAT at Caz).

the fact is we do 'know' a decent amount already(>1, <8??), and for what we don't know why not leave room open for decisions after we know all the rules. in fact rob i feel like you are helping my argument.

T1000 said...

Look, if anyone has a contingency alternative they genuinely want in place, I invite them to commit it to writing, including details for the criteria for its activation as well as execution. Send it to me, and I will evaluate its merits according to Kepner-Tregoe methods. If it scores sufficiently well, I will present it in committee.

T1000 said...

"'hopefully Ben Wigging will not schedule this again'.to me that's blatant blame passing to a third party not even remotely involved."

Please, Jeff, that's a straw man interpretation of what I said. What I said was an acknowledgement of risk, with the intent to actively mitigate said risk. You have been asking for a contingency plan in addition to said strategy. Thus far, we have not found a palatible contingency plan. I invite you to produce one and send it to me.

M-W said...

"Please, Jeff, that's a straw man interpretation of what I said. What I said was an acknowledgement of risk, with the intent to actively mitigate said risk."

Thank you Alex

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff said...

Sorry Alex i guess i just took your phrasing of ben "realizing his mistake" too far. I don't see what he did as a mistake is my point, as canadians using our system I just think there should be accommodations of other parties 'mistakes'.

if goat were to have run a tournament the weekend of canadian nationals in toronto with all the same teams as ECC - i would agree with you cupa could say that was dumb of goat and that is not a valid reason to miss CUC.

and Alex I did raise 2 proposals

1. Recognize the UPA series for bids
or
2. Allow teams that are unable to attend CUC to appeal with the following conditions: 1) a valid reason for missing CUC, and 2) sufficient evidence that this team is deserving of a bid to represent Canada.

Jeff said...

Although Alex, I do think that if the only current plan looking forward is 'ECC will not be scheduled in the future during CUC' and the only way of enforcing that is 'Ben said so', and also saying 'they scheduled ECC after we scheduled nats' you are in fact putting the blame for this current year on ECC - not CUPA (Because I am standing by the fact GOAT had absolutely no decision in this matter, going to ECC was a given). So I don't completely take back what I've said. ECC is blameless in this decision is my point.. so where are you putting the blame for this year if not on ECC? GOAT and Furious?

T1000 said...

If Ben had realized CUCs were on the same weekend, he would not have scheduled for that date. We know this. However, I don't assign blame to anyone for our current situation -- it connotates a certain judgmentality I don't possess.

Our intent is to better communicate our CUC dates (e.g., listing them early in the UPA Score Reporter & communicating with TDs who traditionally schedule near the same time), and keeping an avid early lookout for conflicts. It is generally accepted that it is not in anyone's interest to position tournaments in conflicting dates. Heck, Ben might even have been able to get Capitals to attend had it not been for CUCs.

You've made some nascent suggestions, Jeff, but they're insufficiently detailed to present and to evaluate. As the governing organization, we need codified rules and objective measures at every step to remain fair and credible.

Flesh them out in precision: how to decide when the contingency plan activates, and how, exactly, the plan is executed. Explain how you would make the relevant decisions, where applicable. When you're ready, we can talk some more.

T1000 said...

". . . that it is not in anyone's interest to position MAJOR tournaments in conflicting dates."

T1000 said...

Anyway, Jeff/Darcy, I want to stress that we are not inflexible curmudgeons, nor are we the faceless enemy of elite competition. We're your friends and teammates. This isn't the proper forum to develop policy, but if you put in the effort to form a detailed proposal, I'll make the effort to listen. You don't often get to see everything we do, but it may surprise you to know that we're fairly smart, open-minded, and hardworking people.

Just please remember that we have responsibilities to WFDF and to the general membership as well. We have so many objectives to balance. There will be times that the compromise is not what you wanted. At least you know that we have to live with the decision too.

ryan said...

This is an interesting debate, but I would like to ask all these people another question:

What's the cheapest way to get to Prague? Flights look expensive.

Bobo Eyrich said...

You can build a rowboat to take you across the atlantic. It will likely take about 2 months, then after landing in Hamburg, you can hitch hike, though the German police aren't big fans of hitch hikers.

Alternatively, I imagine that it's possible to get on board a cargo ship. A friend of mine was going to try using a cargo ship to get across the Atlantic, but didn't end up going through on the plan so I don't know whether it's feasible.

I think that you're likely going to have to fly if you want to get there.

Greg King said...

If a flight directly to Prague is expensive you could look into flying into another airport (I would suggest looking for flights to smaller cities where airport fees will be lower) because in Europe they have this crazy notion of how transportation by rail is a good thing (unlike Canada). There are also numerous budget airlines that make air travel within Europe very inexpensive.

I do like the stowaway idea though Just make sure to budget a couple of weeks for travel...

fitty said...

There are many assumptions being made. here's one:

given the choice between ECC and CUC (during a WUCC qualifying year, which is an important distinction), teams such as GOAT/FG have no real choice but to attend ECC because of much better competition at the time (absolutely true) and overall development for canada and the individual team making this choice. The latter point is arguable, and here's why:

1) How is "long term" being defined? If going to CUC (during a world club qualifying year) means attending WUCC the following year, then how is this not a "long term" plan for the team (either GOAT/FG) AND for canada. WUCC has great competition, and you're palying against teams outside of North America, where you might be exposed to crazy-ass playing styles you've never played against in the US circuit.

2) the open division is the "screwed up" division because GOAT and FG made that choice (because it was known that CUC was going to be the qualifying tournament). The women's division is not screwed up because Lotus and Stella decided to go to CUC and not ECC. So let's compare GOAT and Capitals. Caps is going to WUCC (BIG assumption here, I know) and, arguably, going to improve in the long run... and potentially even the following year (2011) when it's a worlds qualifying year. And how did going to CUC/ECC change UPA results for each team? perhaps that's fallacious. But there's been a lack of comparison here, one which I think highlights some important assumptions being made.

THAT being said, I'm not defending the argument that CUC should be the qualifying tournament for worlds, or that there isn't a problem in CUPA's current system for determining WUCC teams.

-laurel

fitty said...

woah. i had no idea my nickname was fitty... when the hell did that happen!?

Jeff said...

tree-fitty: two responses to why it's a no-brainer to go to ECC.

1 - ECC is still stronger than WUCC, I believe.
2- GOAT can go to ECC, and then many of GOAT players can then pick up for WUCC still. If GOAT skips ECC, it can only do one ...this way it can do 1.5. I think it should be able to do both and not have to decide.

json said...

Though I agree that it's a shame that GOAT/Furious doesn't get to go to WUCC, they did get to go to ECC, which no other canadian teams got to do.
Because of this, other teams that wouldn't have been able to go to WUCC had GOAT/Furious played CUC are now looking at a great oppurtunity.
Maybe if each of the teams headed to WUCC picks up 2 or 3 of the best players in Canada whose teams didnt qualify, those teams benefit from not only the international competition but also the abilities and knowledge of our country's best, if even for just a couple weeks. I mean even if the pick ups are ten times better than the rest of the team, 3 players can't win a whole tournament.

Ben said...

Do you guys really think UPA would have changed their rules if Sockeye and Revolver went to a Japan tournament during UPA Nationals ?

Moreover do you think Clapham would have gone to ECC if that same week-end it was their Nationals qualification for WUCC 2010 ?

Bobo Eyrich said...

I'm still not quite sure what the whole argument is in this posting. It varies between GOAT/FG should get bids to WUCC 2010, restricting pick up players, how should CUPA/Ultimate Canada allocate bids for future tournaments.

It does not make sense to simply give FG/GOAT bids for future tournaments because that is operating on the presumption that these teams will always place on top of the qualifying tournament. This (although likely) is wrong.

Secondly, how do we allocate bids. Sure we could try to rank Canadian teams but this, to me, is not sufficient. Rosters vary between tournaments and consequently results between tournaments do not carry over. Thus it appears that to allocate bids we have to have a tournament that all teams who want bids have to attend.

Admittedly, there are times (like this year) that the qualifying tournament will overlap with another tournament and then the teams have to make a choice regarding what they want to do. GOAT and FG were preparing for the UPA club series and chose the better competition at ECC. When the captains made this choice, they must have realised that this prevented them from being able to go to WUCC.

Sure, playing at ECC helped these two teams get better (which is good for Canada ultimate) but they didn't help other Canadian teams that attended CUC improve. These teams shouldn't have to make this kind of a choice, but they had to make one and accept the following consequences, both the positives and the negatives. Sorry Jeff, but that's just the way life is.

soniak said...

how is Caps going to WUCC exactly? Doesn't that completely go against the rules?

fitty said...

Sonia, I have no idea whether it's possible. I was just making an assumption for the sake of the argument (so I could compare goat and caps at upas).

BUT. Considering lotus and stella finished in the top two, and they have a history of combining into another club team, I don't see any strong arguments for CUPA to not allow lotus/stella to go as caps?

This is all hypothetical, of course...

Darcy said...

Laurel or Fitty (cause you're a gangsta)

3 agruments against the capitals going to WUCC

1) CUPA's strong argument against Goat/FG is that they did not compete as a club at CUC, therefore, can not go. The Capitals themselves did not compete either; therefore, should not be allowed to compete as Capitals at WUCC.

2) As many are stating Goat/FG may have gotten beaten if they had attending CUC so we shouldn't give them a spot to go...likewise for the capitals...YES hugely doubtful they'd lose obviously...but it was also hugely doubtful BMF could beat Mischief at WUCC in Perth in 06 but it happened...

3) Another argument against Goat/FG is they have to live with their choice of not attending CUC. Similar should apply to the Capitals too, as Stella/Lotus decide to enter as split squads knowing it was a qualifying year.

Bonus to not being allowed is the bottom end of both teams will be headed overseas to play some of the best ultimate that they wouldn't get a chance to do if the Capitals went themselves.

T1000/ M-W/Jeff - who cares who's fault it is- it won't change anything. I think the main point of this ---never ending, fill my inbox with crap topic (yes I add to the crap)--- is that CUPA should look to the future and become proactive of these types of situations should they arise again. Accidents happen but why not be prepared for them?
I believe the committee should actively look at other possibilities to become more flexible with their policies should something similar in nature occur again. Instead, of banking on "ECC won't schedule their tournament on the same weekend again"...If in their search they find what rules are in place now are the best, that's fine, but at least they are listening to the members of CUPA and some analysis happened.

Batch said...

Lotus and Stella go as Canada 1 and Canada 2.
Capitals get to go as USA 3. (not really, but yeah!)

I'm also not sure why it would be against the goals of Ultimate Canada to let Capitals and Lotus merge the top two bids and give the resulting extra bid to Zephyr. Stella and Lotus BOTH earned bids. So share one bid and allow a bid to go to the Vancouver ladies would very nice of them. I don't think that will actually happen but it's certainly not something that should annoy those that don't have bids.

This is not at all similar to the GOAT/FG situation, where neither team earned a bid as a result of the predefined process.

Daniel said...

Jeff,

You knew what CUPA's rules regarding WUCC qualification were before Goat chose ECC over CUC. If you really had a big problem with it you/Goat/FG should have raised a stink about it then; not now. Now it's too late to do anything about it except complain and feel hard done by. If you think you know of a better way to allocate the spots please suggest it, otherwise your ideas won't ever be taken into consideration for future qualifying years.

I understand that Goat and Furious had to make some sacrifices in order to attend ECC. I don't think that anyone is debating that. However your view that Goat and Furious should be given some special consideration belittles the sacrifices that other teams made in order to attend CUC. Do you seriously think that players on Mephisto wanted to spend as much money as we had to on CUC? Knowing full well that in order to have a chance to attend WUCC we needed to attend CUC, we sucked it up, scheduled our summer around CUC and paid the ridiculously high tournament fee to go.

The reality is that like it or not, CUC is the one tournament of the year that brings together the greatest variety of Canadian teams from coast to coast. CUPA would be foolish to not use that to allocate the spots for WUCC.

I'm sorry that Goat chose not to attend CUC and missed out on a spot but if you guys really, really, really wanted to go to WUCC as a team you would have skipped ECC and come to CUC. It is as simple as that.

Dan

btw - you can always just "pick-up" with Mephisto for Prague... I hear they are getting rid of all their core players and loading up on pick-ups since most of the 30-40 top open players in the country are on Goat or FG... that leaves very few top open players for teams like Mephisto, Phoenix, etc.

lank89 said...

I just want to clarify that Jeff wasnt stating that Goat/Furious should be given the spots. (correct me if im wrong) i think he means in the future some consideration should be given to Canadian teams who do well in the UPA series. And also to allow more pick-ups for the Canadian teams that qualify so that they dont go and play for competing countries that will potentially hurt Canadian teams chances.

Darcy said...

Batch,

I agree they should be; however, if Ultimate Canada is using this rule (quoted from T1000)in reference to Goat/FG players;

"Guide teams to keep their rosters as close as possible to the rosters used at national club championships (wherever this is possible and reasonable)."

Then the same should apply to Lotus/Stella. As Daniel puts it, the teams knew going in it was a qualifying year and thus should have put in the Capitals at CUC, to play that team at WUCC...if they would have done this initially it would have opened the door for Zephyr. But to bypass this rule for the women's division and not the open is also not justified.

This again points to the thought perhaps Ultimate Canada should review their current policies.

Daniel, I don't think anyone is saying CUPA is doing a bad job, rather these are points of discussion that could hopefully be taken into consideration for the future if possible, like what was done for the women's schedule at nationals this year.

Jeff said...

dan i have a ton of respect for mephisto and i have tried to be very careful in not sleighting any teams that did qualify, but obviously the nature of the argument can look that way. i want to more lift up team like furious who deserves to represent canada, not bring down other teams... but since bringing up one is moving one down there is no way around it.

what actually bother me more is that many players (including myself probably) feel they have little choice but to play for international teams instead of within Canada. That doesn't mean I am advocating increasing the amount of pickups (i don't even know what that number is, is it out there?) but i guess it's something to consider?

if anyone is reading my argument as "goat is screwed we didn't know we wouldn't be able to go" then you are misreading me (or more likely i am saying it wrong). goat knew then, knows now, and has always known that going to ecc would forfeit wucc. what i'm saying is they shouldn't have ever had to make that choice - and let's figure something out looking forward. do I think that it's too late for 2010? No, I don't. but that doesn't mean I think it would be right to do it for 2010 either.

and i don't think it's a sleight to mephisto to say they will be a significantly stronger team if hassell and andy o would pick up with them... every single team in the world can say that. I don't think Canada wins worlds in 2008 without Furious picking up these players either.

and dan, my using the word 'most' was specifically in recognition to some mephisto players who are among the top players in canada - and there seem to be more of them every year. anyway, this has nothing to do with mephisto i just want to be very clear i'm not trying to belittle the effort they put in. just like i don't think furious's effort to be a top canadian team should be belittled by refusing their entry to wucc. that one was a bit of a stretch but there ya go hah

Ryan Todd said...

From an outsiders perspective (I don't play in Canada and know very few players involved personally) it seems clear that teams that didn't attend CUC, knowing full well that they would not be qualifying for WUCC, shouldn't earn bids to worlds. That would be hugely unfair to the lowest qualifying team whose bid would be given to someone else.

However, as a player who will be attending WUCC with Ironside, I am disappointed to hear that GOAT and Furious cannot attend. They are strong teams that would raise the level of play in the open division. But more importantly to me, having those guys pick up with various other teams could really change the dynamic of the division, depending on how it happens. I'd rather play against a country's legitimate club team (especially since I've never been to worlds before) than one stocked with pickups.

FYI, I am not sure if the rules will remain the same this year, but in previous WUCC years, the UPA requirement for team rosters was that one had to be one the team's UPA roster in either the qualifying year or worlds year (2009 or 2010 in this case) to be eligible for the WUCC roster, along with 3 pickup exemptions.

fitty said...

Yeah, Darc, those points are totally valid. I was originally using Caps as a hypothetical, and I realize now it's not even possible.

But I still think that Caps and Goats are in different situations. Goat didn't go to CUC at all, and all of Capitals did, albeit as two teams.

What's in a name, anyways?

Daniel said...

Jeff,

Before you go looking for a team internationally you should give one of the other Canadian teams a shot (Mephisto starts tryouts on Jan 8).

I agree with you that it would be nice if there was a way to allocate the WUCC spots that included teams like Goat and Furious. Unfortunately you can't use UPAs because the tournament isn't designed to rank all of the the teams from 1 to 300; it is structured with one idea in mind and that is to find the top UPA team. That means that even though Goat was there last year and Furious wasn't, it doesn't prove that Goat is a better team than Furious and it certainty isn't fair to judge Furious' standing versus teams like Phoenix or Mephisto. Yes Furious would probably beat both those teams but you don't know that unless you play the game.

The only real way to rank the teams in a fair way is a tournament that includes all of the teams interested in going to WUCC with no outside influences (American teams). The tournament that offers that opportunity more than any other tournament is CUC.

I think the way to solve this dilemma for teams like Goat and Furious is not to change the way the bids are allocated but change CUC to become attractive to teams like them. Heck, if it wasn't for the WUCC spots on the line Mephisto wouldn't have gone to CUC.

The solution is to turn CUC into a more competitive tournament. There are too many teams who are allowed to attend and the tournament is way too expensive. If CUC keeps chugging along the way it has been for the past few years I seriously think it will be time for the top teams to host their own breakaway championship (Premier League style). It is barely worth it for the top Canadian teams to go to CUC anymore and that is a problem.

Darcy said...

Fitty,

Now technically you wouldn't be breaking the rules IF say for example, the stella girls (who played capitals) went to lotus tryouts and made the team for this upcoming summer (with the lotus girls on the capitals) and went to WUCC as Lotus...then it would be legit as everyone would be on Lotus' World's year roster... and then Stella could decline their bid, giving Zephyr the road to WUCC... :) Just sayin...


I agree Caps and Goat are two different scenario's...and I feel the Caps should have had more hype about their finish at UPA's...instead of the defending of FG and Goat poor showing (considering this is 2 in a row FG didn't even make the show) and caps have never finished out of the top 10...I'm pretty sure if the Caps finished where goat did, there would have been a blog about how the Caps should change, rather then defending them...just my two cents on the matter. :) And no that has nothing to do with this topic, but I said it anyway.

Daniel, great points.

Sport Management Steven said...

"I'm pretty sure if the Caps finished where goat did, there would have been a blog about how the Caps should change, rather then defending them...just my two cents on the matter. :)"

That my friends, is a passive aggressive cheap shot. :)

I'm pretty sure that I objectively make comments about the Capitals and their progress over the years.

Here's their UPA record this decade (not counting early Fuse or Stella records)

2005- 6th
2006- 7th
2007- 5th
2008- 9th
2009- 3rd

The whole goal of playing UPAs is to win it all. So, in five years, if you are not winning it all, and not seeing a top 4 finish.. you have to give some serious evaluation for the lack of progress given the talent on the roster and the expectations from the players themselves.

I'm glad Capitals had a breakthrough. It was due. Now we will get to see if they can close the gap on the class of the division for the past ten years- Fury and Riot.

Batch said...

To follow up to Darcy's point about the Stella players trying-out for Lotus, subsequently, Lotus changes their name to Capitals and it's all the same.

And to echo Daniel's remark to Jeff, Mephisto is not the only Canadian team that would like to have you at their tryouts.

Sport Management Steven said...

By the way..

This was a post about the need to be classy in sport. Ironically, It was highjacked by another agenda.

If people continue to post about this topic, I ask that you don't ruin your valid points by flat out offending others (Telling people they hope they have no power in ultimate, saying anyone who doesn't value ECC like you is an idiot).

Finally, apologies to Dr King in Switzerland. I feel you got attacked unfairly in this topic.

Jeff said...

i am pretty sure i did not offend Greg. He seems like a rational person who enjoys a good argument. if, given he were in charge of ultimate, he would make a policy that no teams could pick up any players on teams that did not qualify, that conflicts with my interest and I would hope such a person is not in the position to make that happen. so i stand by that sentiment I expressed (and explained why).

i would say, Steve, that in your posts you have only attacked people under the guise of defense of others, and refrained from speaking, or at least defending, your position (which is fine, there's no reason you have to). at the very least those of us who have been ironically without class(your words) did so in attempts to try to defend our point of view! i'm just screwing around with you here Mr. Trainor.

Darcy said...

Steve,

I am not taking a cheap shot...I am just saying I thought their would be a little more on some of the Capitals' success...like how they managed to beat Riot and take that step towards getting to the show. What was different this year then in the past? And even, what they felt happened in the semi's in the last 8 points, as they had such a strong showing all tournament...

This blog is all about opinions and feelings meaning people can have differences, and as such people should take them with a grain a salt (which I feel everyone has been)...a lot can be lost in the written word.

Sport Management Steven said...

Darcy,

I plan to have a Talking with Trainor post on both Revolver and Capitals.

I still haven't figured out who from the Capitals should do it, and I've asked some caps players locally for their ideas on a spokesperson.

T1000 said...

Darcy,

In light of Dan's comments, do you understand why it is so difficult to produce a satisfactory contingency plan? It's not that we've previously failed to give it any thought.

Batch said...

T1000, does your @carleton email still work? I have an idea that I would like to flesh out with you.

T1000 said...

Batch,

My Carleton address must have been discontinued over seven years ago. You seriously still have that? You can find more recent contact info in my OCUA Leaguerunner account.

Daniel said...

Just for fun I'll comment on the original message of this post...

Class isn't measured by a single standard; there is no barometer that says whether a person is classy or, vice versa, an ass. I think Tiger Woods is putting himself out there right now as a perfect example of this. While he had been spending years being classy on the golf course and in the public eye, he was simultaneously "putting the ass back in class" during his many trips to Vegas.

In ultimate, in the specific scenario you outline, captains and selection committees can try their best to let a player down lightly but at the end of the day rejection sucks. Some people are able to see past that, if it is done properly, but other people will hold grudges no matter how classy the organizers act. Captains aren't paid to do the jobs they do, they try to do the best they can and they don't get any extra management training in order to go about their roles. Some people are good at it and other less so. All you can do as a captain is try to treat the players you have to cut as you would want to be treated. But it still all comes down to the opinions of the person getting cut. As a captain you might want to call a player and give them an explanation but they might not want to talk to you about it and would have preferred being rejected by e-mail while the next player would have preferred being told in person rather than over the phone. There are a million things that can go on that can make a well meaning captain seem classless and it all comes down to opinions.

As for your Bobby Bowden scenario, you see what the athletics board as lacking class but others might say it was classy of them to give him the chance to close out the year (and career) with one last bowl game when they could have just fired him on the spot a la Charlie Weiss. It is all a matter of interpretation.

As for the FSU Cowgirls, now that Bowden is gone, I know of an ultimate team who could use some of their sideline cheer...

Batch said...

It's definitely the FSU girls that have made this thread so popular. =)

Darcy said...

T1000 - I believe it wouldn't be easy to make such contigency or even possible. My point (which perhaps was answered throughout the numerous responses and I missed it) was Ultimate Canada should look at their policies, to potenitally avoid such unfortunate circumstances in the future. I guess I got the feeling that the answer to Jeff's inquiry was no from the beginning, without the potential possibility of change in the future. If thought to the topic has been done legitimately already then great, if not, perhaps it needs to be.


Steve - good to hear.

Kaitlyn said...

Trainor,

I assure you any of the the capitals leaders/players would be pleased find you a official spokesperson. You can e-mail capitalsultimate@gmail.com

Unless of course you'd rather further discuss with Darcy, I'd personally nominate her as our spokesperson.

-Hoods

Darcy said...

Hoodie,

By no means do I want to step on the toes of the capitals (nor do I represent them in any of my posts - as a FYI for readers)...just my opinion, we should have praised you guys a little more for your accomplishments this year. :)

I look forward to the read when it gets posted...

Greg King said...

Not a Dr. yet Steven, but I'm working on it. Although I guess it has been a serious hijack from the original topic (despite Dan's attempt to get us back on track), I think it's great that all of these people who are interested in Canadian Ultimate can talk about it here. Think of the page hits!

For the record though, I don't think I was unfairly attacked, I just have European time zones on my side and so I was able to post in the evening here which happened to be when Jeff was looking at the page and we had a good dialog. It also doesn't hurt that I seem to have a dissenting opinion on the topic (at least with Jeff and yes, you did clearly explain your reasoning). Please don't take my silence since then as me being offended.

Are pickups classy (see what I did there...)? I was intrigued to hear from Ryan that the UPA permitted 3 pickups per team for the last WUCC (along with anyone listed on the roster, which could be anyone, no?). From this, I take it that if the largest national body of ultimate players is allowing pickups then I am missing something. I guess those WFDF guidelines I posted a link to (somewhere above) are exactly that, guidelines. It appears not to have much of an influence on the national organization (s). What are the Ultimate Canada guidelines?

However, if pickups are inevitable then I would like to see Jeff and his GOAT and Furious brethren playing for a Canadian team over playing for those UK fannys...don't worry I'm tight with the Brits.

Jeff said...

"I would like to see Jeff and his GOAT and Furious brethren playing for a Canadian team"

it's club worlds - it makes no difference to the clubs or wfdf what country someone is from who picks up - country based bids is just a regional based way to give them out in my mind. cupa is the party that should have canada in it's focus for these decisions and i'm not really on track with cupa on this one to begin with. i will probably play with the team i think i'll most enjoy and is the most competitive.

T1000 said...

The WUCC2006 rules no longer apply. As I've said before, the eligibility rules for club rosters (and "pick-ups") are in the hands of the national organizations (e.g. Ultimate Canada). WFDF has mandated certain guidelines. Where those guidelines are broken, WFDF is entitled to review the decisions; where they are blatantly abused, WFDF retains veto rights.

WFDF does care about players' countries of origin -- it is relevant in several clauses.

T1000 said...

Similarly, as indicated above, WFDF has mandated that bid-winners should have been at the national championship as a team. It is not a "strict" mandate, but it is relevant to GOAT/Furious/Traffic/Capitals:

"If the country of that team holds championships in the division in question, the team must have participated in the most recent championship."

"Guide teams to keep their rosters as close as possible to the rosters used at national club championships (wherever this is possible and reasonable). "

T1000 said...

I'm sorry if that came across as terse. I had a moment of impatience -- I feel like I've been repeating myself into the void over here.

Anyway, we really can't reveal any details about the eligibility rules while they're under discussion. They'll be unveiled in due time.

Daniel said...

In another attempt to get this thread back on topic on Steve's behalf....

http://www.americasbestonline.com/cheerleaderFSU.htm

They are the topic, right?

Greg King said...

Alex, not terse at all. I'm an idiot. I kept bringing up that 2006 document because I didn't read enough into your comments to realize that it was no longer in play at all and that it was all put into the hands of the national organizations with some very general guidelines from WFDF.

Dan, if they are featured in the picture on the blog they are in play.