Wednesday, January 04, 2006

It looks bad for some of us.....

Jim, Ken, Aj, Tarr and others had a chat about whether Ultimate is exciting anymore.

Tim's post also discusses parity since 1999.

This article here could not have been much better timed.

I am feeling really good about my seedings for nats this past year.........

11 comments:

Kevin said...

The problem with what everbody is saying is that they are viewing the last 5 years as if this is a trend that is going to continue for the next ten years. Maybe it is... I don't know, but neither does anybody else. For all we know, next year finals is going to be PBR vs. Kaos, with Jam, Sockeye and Furious not making quarters.

Here is an example. After last Nationals everybody was ready to annoint Sockeye the greatest team/dynasty/everything to ever touch anything plastic. If you look at it, they had to fight through the pre-quarters, and ended up turning it on double game point. They then made finals this year, but didn't win it all. I mean, that's impressive, but nearly as much as anything NYNY or DoG or even the Condors or Furious did in the recent past.

Maybe these last 4-6 years were an anomaly and it was a predictable time that won't continue, or maybe it will continue for the next ten years.

These ideas plus the article bring an interesting POV to your post about World Cup seeding. Maybe the world cup people are much smarter than we give them credit for, and they realize that doing pools like they do leads to more variability and upsets, and thus more excitement.

luke said...

i think everyone was ready to 'annoint' sockeye, b/c well, of inertia. the only trend in frisbee nationals has been to repeat. so it's just human nature to assume that the weather tommorrow will be the same as today (and the persistence model of weather forcasting is very successful)... since the champ has repeated at lest once for the... what 15 years prior to sockeye's loss, it made sense... it was wrong, but it was not a bad guess...

also, isn't it possible that frisbee today is a lot like football was before cable? i don't really think there is an 'east coast' bias anymore... but i think it's quite likely that there used to be... likewise, frisbee prognostication is based on the opinions of a few educated people, (not me), a few opinionated people (guilty), and a bunch of parroting...

why was my opinion included in the UPA magazine? and then why did they butcher the life out of my words? never mind... off to my blog...

gcooke said...

Kevin,

I hadn't tied together that article with my post. Interesting. I have to say that I would really like to see that USA v Czech game in June. I even looked into tix the other day.

Yeah, it is hard to say whether things are as exciting now as they were, or what it will be like in the future. I tend to shy away from sentiment such as "back in the good old days....."

-G

sometallskinnykid said...

Kevin- I am not so sure that it is as unpredictable as you claim. Only 2 semifinalists from previous year have lost in the quarters to non-semifinalist the next year (in 03 dog lost to condors , in 04 condors lost to Pike).

That is twice out of 24 possible games. >90%, can't you say there is some predictability.

Of course, those both happened fairly recently, so you could argue 2 out of the last 12....

And the only real "upset" was Pike, the former 13th best team, beating condors the former #2 seed...

TIM

ps an announcer on the radio just said "Lyndel White's 52nd td in 3 years. It does not take a genius to figure out that is 14 td's a year"

Kevin said...

Of course their is predictability, and now is maybe a more predictable time than Ultimate has seen in awhile. What I am saying is that its too early with these Doomsday predictions that Ultimate is going to have no parity and the Northwest is going to dominate for years to come etc. Yes, the recent past has been predictable, but that is all it is, the recent past.

gcooke said...

One thing that the past five years has going for it is greater variability in the finals winner. It might not be hard to argue that the NYNY/Dog 11 year run was a bit more stale than the last five years. Of course, there was the added drama that Ken refers to.

I think it was interesting that the articlle equated parity and upsets with excitement. I am not sure that I disagree, but it does seem a bit subjective. I think some good story line (not the made for TV kind of stories that we see each Olympics) plus a sprinkle of history always helps to generate excitement. I hit the sack right after half time last night, so I didn't see what seems to be an exciting second half. I was a bit concerned that the game was going to be over-hyped, and therefore a let down.

-G

jtflynn said...

the comparison between professional sports and ultimate leaves a few big problems...

1. who is going to lure a big-time game-changing player from a top team with loads of $$$ to get their team over the hump?

2. if any star in the NFL could join any team they wanted, wouldn't dynasties be even more prevalent? (although it didn't work for the Lakers, the Shaq-Kobe-Payton-Malone team was a scary beast.) Great performance in ultimate is the best recruiting tool for a city/region, and that recruitment breeds more solid performance.

Although a stable base of players/leaders/teams is the foundation of continued success, the mechanics of how teams/cities become/remain great is very different than professional sports, thus questions of "why" involving dynasties and parity must be examined differently.

laters,
shiv
portland, or

jtflynn said...

okay, now that i have my non-sequiter post out of the way...

is ultimate "boring" when a team (or a few teams) dominate(s) for an extended period? does the excitement of the game really hinge on the outcomes, or does the gameplay itself dictate how interesting it is to watch? blowouts between mismatched opponents aren't as interesting as close matches in which the outcome is uncertain, but are complaints about today's "boring" game more about the style of play, the frequency of closely contested matches or the number of teams that seem to be superior to the rest of the competition?

i just figure... if you're gonna complain, you might as well be clear about it.

out,
shiv
pdx

gcooke said...

Shiv,

Thanks for your comments.

I think part of the excitement, from a fan's point of view, is generated from emotional investment, an awareness of history, rivalries, interesting story lines, team politics, etc. Plus, a good game never hurts either.

I guess if that article is correct then upsets and close games are more exciting.

I am not personally in the camp that views the "good old days" in a sentimental light. I think the sport progresses. There are good games and boring games. There are times when there are good stories. It moves forward without us, whether we like it or not.

-G

jtflynn said...

more and better athletes and teams.

unless we stop seeing the sport stop to grow in those respects, we're headed in a good direction. we may not get the same intimacy (and thus lose some of the stories that are easier to collectively share in a smaller community), but the game itself improves.

and hell, until ultimate is covered regularly on ESPN, blogging may be the best way to bring back some of the individual faces/voices/stories that are being diluted with growth.

good times indeed,
shiv
portland, or

Seigs said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.