Just a quick announcement that I am sure everyone was waiting to hear: my training program for 2006 began yesterday.
I started my year out with the basic strength training routine given to me by Bryan Doo. Lots of balance stuff mingled in with lunges, low rows, presses on a swiss ball, etc.
55 minutes, 395 calories. I noticed my head being much more into it than last year, and I am a bit sore today.
The plan for today is a 60 minute Overdistance run.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Training: Day 1, plans for Day 2
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Vision
Do you have a vision for Ultimate for the future? If so, what is it? What do you see when you look out 5, 10, or 15 years from now?
I think that for many of us, a vision of the future is measured in terms of events that create a sense of legitimacy. When I was in high school in the late 70's/early 80's, I would play pick-up with the Cornell team. I can clearly recall the discussions in which it was put forth with absolute certainty that "Ultimate will be an Olympic sport in 20 years". Well, here we are, 25 years later, and that hasn't happened. Another pillar of legitimacy is a professional Ultimate league. Again, the failure of the WUSA raises red flags, especially since banking on youth awareness and popularity is crucial to both the WUSA and Ultimate.
It is hard, when considering a vision for the future, to not get caught up in the understood symbols of validity and legitimacy. I actually question as to whether modeling Ultimate on the current vogue constitutes a vision. I think there are folks out there that view adherence to "experiments" such as self-officiating as dooming us to a Promethean existence. There are times, like when I am playing a team of cheaters, that, I must admit, I agree that SOTG seems like an abject failure. However, there are also times when surrendering to the impatience of needing immediate validation fails to cherish the things that differentiate our sport from other athletic experiences. When I go into a school and teach clinics to a room full of 15 year olds that have never heard of the sport, it is helpful to have the self-officiating card to play as a means of getting their attention. I have thick skin, so I don't mind discussing respect and accountability with a bunch of skeptical kids. At least I have got them thinking. Sure, it hurts to be dismissed as "quaint", but, remember, Ultimate is like the rock band that you have discovered that no one knows about.
Media exposure leads to legitimacy, or at least that is what we have come to believe. Sure, it pisses me off to see poker on ESPN. I would love to be able to watch some Ultimate on TV. However, be careful what you wish for. If your motivations are based on wanting the general public to view Ultimate (and you) in a light of your design...watch out. I am not sure that I buy into the perception that sports like football and basketball are the panacea of the TV experience. If your vision for Ultimate is edited to accommodate the rigidity of the TV format, think about the impact and proliferation of TV on baseball. I think it is not a coincidence that the glory years of baseball coincided with the explosion of radio. Have you ever listened to hockey on the radio? I have, and it is terrible. My current thought is that there is great potential in webstreaming Ultimate. As I have said before, the CSTV webstreaming footage is my favorite website. The screen is tiny, the quality is terrible, the camera shots suck, and I have to suffer through Kyle's commentary and Ariel telling me how to throw a flick, but I just can't get past the potential. Can you imagine being able to go to a site and being able to select a quality game like......I was going to say the DOG vs Furious 02 semis, but that is just so obvious. How about the 98 Dark Horse v Red Tide game? Ultimate should embrace the challenge of using its unique assets to differentiate itself. Perhaps a new media, full of potential, is where we should hang our hat.
I do a lot of corporate events for my work. I see corporations struggle with balancing the need to put forth the things that make them different with the need to be familiar. I recall watching a show about Pixar, and the guys are driving around this big office space on scooters. No "veal pens" here. Offices that express creativity and imagination. Of course, the show made me think "If I decided to not be self-employed. That would be where I would want to work". Someone had a vision about a cool place to work. Don't take this time, in which your vision for Ultimate can make a difference, for granted. Finally, if you do have a vision for Ultimate, always view it with a critical eye. To what extent is it a belief system? What assumptions am I making? Is it dynamic and reactive to change? I have been lucky to know folks with vision for Ultimate. I admire their conviction, courage, and perserverance, and I appreciate them serving as role models.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Good resource for the 2-handler set
It has come to my attention somehow that Jim and Zaz's book, pages 137-145, offers a very good synopsis of the 2-handler set plus additional help if you are stuck on using 3-handlers. Thanks to those who pointed this out to me.
Zone O: 2-Handler set
There was an article several years ago about the death of the 3-handler set(3 handlers, 2 wings, a popper, and a deep). I believe that Al and Nathan wrote it, and it might have appeared in Chasing Plastic, I am not sure.
In any case, the article was well-written, and I agree that once a team goes with 2 handlers(2 handlers, 2 wings, 2 poppers, and a deep) against a zone that there is no going back to the traditional 3-handler, dump and swing mentality.
So, how predictive was this article? Are club teams primarily in 2-handler sets? How about Open college teams?
In college Women's Ultimate, most teams use the 3-handler set.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Look, but Don't Touch
I must have been is a weird mood the other day because I posted more to RSD than I have in total over the past few years. RSD is like my crazy extended family. If you answer the phone and are willing to speak with them about some inane family drama, before you know it, you are sucked into a black hole of need, pain, and hurt. Thank god for caller ID.
Anyway, the day started off fine as I was able to pontificate somewhat clearly on all the refined aspects of my knowledge. Slowly, though, as the dialog increased in pace and more and more folks put their hooks into the slithering thread, I started to develop a real "RSD Voice". Then I lost my mind and self-control. I started spewing out vile and belligerent retorts. I frothed on my computer as I made it a personal vow to skewer those that couldn't see the subtle nuances of my well-reasoned points.
I awoke from this frenzy when my computer made its "new mail" beep. One of my friends, who I just skewered, had, out of kindness for my plight, sent me an e-mail that basically said "What the fuck are you doing?"
My apologies seemed like non-Bounty paper towels in the face of a deluge. I had to promise that I would get back my "look, but don't touch" mode, and, once again, be thankful for caller ID.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
In The Trenches
Well, I just finished another year of work as the Youth Educator for BUDA. I gave a spring summary in this blog this past May, so I will try not to repeat myself.
If you ever want to feel good about yourself and want to give back to the sport, spend a day teaching Ultimate to 5-6 high school gym classes. A humbling activity if there ever was one. I most certainly need my nap when the classes are finished, and I wonder how teachers do this day in and day out.
It is my understanding that this program is one of the few outreach programs in the country. We face a large task in that we are trying to get into as many schools as we can in the Metro Boston area. Our big successes are Newton North High School and Lincoln-Sudbury High School. In both cases, the faculty has bought into the value of the sport. Both schools now offer Ultimate as part of their curriculum. We provide the clinics and a Teaching Kit (10 discs, cones, rules, literature, etc), for free, and in the case of Newton North, the faculty has said that they now have more confidence to teach the sport correctly. Both schools are welcoming to me as a visitor and do not carry themselves with a sense that I am treading on their turf.
The clinic agenda is short and to the point. I go over the basics of both throws, the kids practice the throws, and then we play. As I said in May, there is a lot of skepticism about SOTG. I think, when framed as it means to be respectful and that it empowers the players as referees, that they sort of get it. I hope that, for the most part, they feel that it is a real sport by the end of the clinics.
A lot of girls stand around in a clump, and the boys try to throw it as far as they can. At Newton, though, I had one team (the teacher divided the kids up into teams for a week long tournament) that realized that if they played real defense that they would have success. They had one good thrower, and two girls totally pumped to shut anyone down. The team rolled through everyone, and they were fun to watch.
When you stand in a gym with 30 loud teenagers, it feels like we have a long way to go. I think we only have the option to keep chipping away at the iceberg.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Crap Formats
One of the things I have enjoyed about my UPA job is that I have learned about formatting tournaments. I am certainly still in diapers compared to Adam Tarr, but I have enjoyed learning from him and the others in the formatting committee. I have great respect for their concern for fairness and well as their attention to detail. If you are a TD or tournament planner, I think the Formats Manual is a must read.
As I coach a college team at "social" tournaments, I am often presented with "napkin" formats. There are often serious problems with these formats. I suspect that a lot of the mistakes come with lack of knowledge or experience. However, when my girls asked one TD about a format, the response was "Its our tournament, we can do what we want". Not only does this acknowledge an awareness that problems exist, but it also signals that there was intent to take advantage of the organizational role. I am not going to guess as to what the intentions of a TD are, but if the intent is to gain an advantage, I do not understand how someone could put themselves in a position of upholding SOTG on the field, but clearly show disrespect in devising an unfair format. I have heard the "Hey, we are here to have fun and play some games...." rationale. It seems pretty clear to me that a team can have fun and "just play some games" equally well in a fair format.
I want to make clear that what follows next makes no assumptions about intent. It will point out some interesting wrinkles, but, honestly, my point is to say that players care about formats and is not trying point fingers or call someone a cheater.
So, exhibit A of crap formats is the tournament we played in this past weekend. The link is here:
http://www2.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=34&id=1943
The first thing that one notices is the decision to run it with 3 pools of 4. While the formats manual is very clear about the specific problems of doing this, I actually think that due to having only 4 fields, this is not a terrible idea.
The most significant problem is the way that the pools break into brackets. One notices that, for some reason, pools A and B graduate 3 teams while pool C gets to send only 2 teams. Again, I am not questioning intent, but it does raise a red flag when the the two host teams (Brown A and B) just happen to be seeded third in their pools. One would assume that the break between the C2 and C3 teams would be the 8-9 break. This would make sense as the top 8 teams make it to qtrs. Looking at the seeding, however, there seems to be no clear way to get to a place in which C2 and C3 can be seeded 8 and 9.
Looking at the brackets, the top game is A1 vs B3. So far so good. If one does a traditional snake (pool A: 1, 6, 7, 12: Pool B: 2, 5, 8, 11: Pool C: 3, 4, 9, 10), then this makes the qtr the 1 v 8 game. Let's look at the 2 seed, it is B1, down at the bottom of the bracket. Their opponent: C2!!. So not only does pool C send only 2 teams, but the reward...play the 2 seed. Again, if we are going with a traditional snake, this means we have the 2v4 game in qtrs. Seed number 3 (C1) is in the same bracket with the 1 seed, and they play A3, presumably the 7 seed. This leaves us with the 5 seed playing the 6 seed in the final game.
An additional problem with this bracket is that B1 and B2 are on the same side, meaning that, if one were to mis-seed and put the 2 best teams in pool B..... both could not make finals.
The other real problem is the seeding. I won't go into specifics, but Cornell at 5 is a joke, Yale above Wellesley (we beat them 12-3 two weeks before)doesn't work, and Brown-B at 7 is really an insult to everyone 8 and below.
So, I don't think it is particularly beneficial to be solely crtical, so I do have two alternate ideas. I think a strong possibility should have been 2 pools 6, stright into semis. 4 fields means playing the round robin in 8 rounds, so with semis and finals that means 10 rounds. A bit tricky, but possible. The other idea would be 3 pools of 4, but pre-qtrs on Sunday morning. This would have kept everyone in the ballgame, possibly corrected for seeding errors, and given 4 teams a bye for finishing in the top 4.
The teams that ended up getting screwed were BU and Yale. They finish 3 and 4 in C due to point diff, and then win the swill pool against, surprise!!!, Brown A and B.
In summary, if you are a TD, show respect for the teams that are taking time to travel to your tournament. Do the right thing and devise a format that is fair. If there is a need for deviating from standard fair practice, be very clear and upfront about why you are straying from the norm. Lastly, read the Formats Manual. It is a great resource.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
