What would you, and more importantly what would you NOT, be willing to give up to gain credibility and legitimacy?
Please review the findings for this topic before engaging in discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome to the official UPA Strategic Planning Blog Forum. Here you will find data from recent UPA surveys and questions regarding key strategic planning questions identified from those surveys. Please take a second to read the groundrules for contributing on these forums and we look forward to hearing from you!
18 comments:
A name change? I love the sport, but can't stand the name. Come on, "Ulitmate"?! Arrogant? Pretentious? Why isn't freestyle the "ultimate" - arguably they have better disk skills. So... how about Team Frisbee instead?
When I tell people I play Ultimate, lots think of frisbee golf. Why, probably because they know what golf is already, so they can relate. Who can relate to the "ultimate" anything? Adding the word Team might help describe the sport for people, and it might stick in their mind - people are familiar with baseball teams, football teams, basketball teams, etc. Or "Field Frisbee", kinda like Field Hockey.
"Frisbee" is a copyrighted term. "Disc" is preferred. Team disc? Field disc? I can't come up with anything simple and catchy.
For the record, I HATE "flatball".
There seem to be two common types of names for sports - (1)those that describe the action to some degree - football, baseball, basketball; and (2)those that don't even try - rugby, lacrosse, hockey, golf. The descriptive names use combinations of existing English concepts to make a name, but the non-descriptive names avoid preexisting English words that have other connotations to the casual listener.
"Ultimate" falls into the non-descriptive category but has the added drawback that it's an existing adjective that people have a hard time associating with a particular sport. The game is already marginalized enough by lack of familiarity and counterculture history - the name "ultimate" just adds to the goofy perception for many of those encountering it for the first time.
On the descriptive side, I agree that "Team Disc" and "Field Disc" aren't very catchy. "Flatball" seems pretty catchy - it may or may not be properly descriptive (BTW what is your objection gapoole? Is it just personal distaste?)
If we're going to use something non-descriptive, maybe we should make up a word or borrow from another language. Since the game started in New Jersey, we might try a word from the local Lenape (http://www.gilwell.com/lenape/index2.htm). I couldn't find "ultimate" in the dictionary, but here are some others:
Welsit = best
Achewon = strong, spiritous
amangi = great, large
majawi = right, straight, proper
I'm not sure if I like any of them, but it may be a matter of getting used to a new name. Anyways, I'd prefer them over the word "ultimate."
I believe the disc offers a far more dynamic experience than a ball, so why would we make a reference to balls? "Flatball" is too close to the names of other sports, when really this sport is very different. A disc is not a ball, balls are not flat, it just plain makes no sense.
But I don't have anything else. Team disc is my favorite so far, other than Ultimate, which I am admittedly partial to.
I'm a fan of "Ultimate" as a name, but am fine with a more marketable name if that's the way to go.
The concessions I wouldn't like to see made are rules changes to "make the game more exciting" like adding a 2 point line or anything along those lines.
I agree, rocksteady. I think that the two-point line was a misguided attempt to make games "more exciting" when the sport is already incredibly exciting. If anything, the field dimensions might be tweaked a little, but I think that they are a good compromise right now for teams of varying skill level. I really like the simplicity of the sport, and trying to add lots of "bells and whistles", so to speak, would detract from a beautiful thing.
So basically, I can concede the name, a (limited) need for Observers, scoreboards, stricter time limits for games (esp in tournaments), and better organization. But I would not be happy either if people tried to change the basic principles of the game (like SOTG or calling one's own fouls) or the simple rules (no running with the disc, no self-caught passes, no double-teaming the thrower).
I can see changes to the field size. Larger fields mean more space which means more opportunities for the offense. However, since I think D is more exciting than O, I'd keep the fields the same size... at least width-wise.
While I don't want to see double teams, it may be interesting (at high levels of play) to reduce the distance required to call a double team. That way, teams can have higher pressure on the disc without mauling the handler.
I think the timing will need to be better controlled. Game start times, length and number of timeouts, amount of time to resolve fouls, time between points... all will need to be set.
I think Ultimate will also need to examine substitutions. If a player leaves the game after a point, can he come back on (after going to the sideline) for the next point? Can the other team make a substitution to adjust for that? Can the initial player then be substituted for if he doesn't like the matchups?
Its not really a concession, but I'd like to see more statistics be recorded. I'm working on developing Fantasy Ultimate Frisbee.
a more interesting question is: what wouldn't we be willing to give up??
On the subject of names, I know Ultimate by itself sounds somewhat weird. Whenever i tell my friends i play "Ultimate" they're like, what the heck is that??I have to tell them I play Ultimate Frisbee and they all know what i am talking about.
I know alot of people may think that Ultimate Frisbee isnt a good name, but people know what it is. Not very many people know what Ultimate is, but put frisbee at the end, and they know what game it is. I think that calling it Ultimate Frisbee may help other people start to play the game.
Kyle, unfortunately "Frisbee" is a copywritten term not owned by the UPA, so while it's fine for us to call it that, the UPA can't promote it as "Ulitmate Frisbee." (UPA, correct me if this is wrong).
Peri, what would I be willing to give up? Silly hats.
I'd also be willing to give up the tournament structure in favor of more individual games.
I believe peri asked what we would NOT be willing to give up. I would not be willing to give up self-officiation. SOTG I think can be interpreted in many ways, so I don't think we will ever lose it completely, but self-officiation is more tricky. I don't think I would want to play anymore if I couldn't call my own fouls--or, at the very least, I would become an extremely bitter and spiteful player, and would try to take advantage of the referees.
Just being honest. Self-officiation and SOTG help me maintain my dignity and integrity, and I wouldn't want to lose either.
<< unfortunately "Frisbee" is a copywritten term not owned by the UPA, so while it's fine for us to call it that, the UPA can't promote it as "Ulitmate Frisbee." (UPA, correct me if this is wrong). >>
"Frisbee" is a registered trademark "Wham-O" Corp., but last year they advertised in the UPA Magazine that we could use "Frisbee" freely.
They still don't sell a "tourney quality" 175g Ulty disc though, do they?
Please correct me if I'm wrong on either of these points.
J. Invencio
Witness Protection Program (WiPPs)
BUDA south of Boston club team
Sorry I'm late on the discussion about the name...
I too really dislike the term "flatball" (it's not a ball, and it doesn't sound appealing at all).
I always thought that "Ultimate" was not the best name, and indeed it is confusing to outsiders, but I don't think we can change the name of the sport now. Even though Ultimate isn't really mainstream yet, it is established enough and played by enough people that changing the name would be like starting from scratch. We just need to do a better job educating outsiders what Ultimate is.
I agree a name change would be useful as part of a long-term strategy to broaden the sport. Ultimate alone is too arrogant, and for most people you also have to say "frisbee" to make any sense. I'm not sure what a better name is, but whatever we come up with its not too late to make a change. (Un)fortunately most people have still never heard of the sport, so if we look at a new name mainly as an expansion tool then nothing has really been lost. Also, large established companies change names every year, they absorb the temporary cost and confusion as part of a long term plan. Right now, for example, "Cingular is now the new AT&T." It will take a few years for a new name to fully take root, but it we will be glad we did it 20 years from now.
Well, since it doesn't make much sense to drop our current name without proposing a new one, here's my suggestion, and it happens to be the name of Boston's first club team from the 1970s: "Aerodisc." Its both descriptive and catchy. It also looks good and sounds good. I'm convinced; anyone else?
Ultimate is the sport of the future!
I think we need to think more towards that goal. All other sports are well-established, weighed down beaurocracies (spelling?) bent on getting money. Ultimate is everything that all other sports are not. It takes enthusiasts and makes them good athletes and good people.
And it is the only sport whose rules and future are decided by a network of thousands of PLAYERS and not a small group of board members thinking about money. Think about it: Ultimate is the MySpace of sports and it will explode in the next several years. It will be the most common family sport! And it will be started by a network of college kids who loved a sport and had a dream. And i think nothing else should be our goal.
two points:
First -regarding the Frisbee TM...this is very iffy IMHO. Many TM that became household generic names (say fridge) are abused as TM and might not be withheld in court. Since Wham-o didnt send and cease and dessit notices (not to most of us) the validity of their TM might not hold.
Second - regarding the Myspace comparison - indeed myspace has been hugely successful, mostly for its founders! the quality of created media there is on the average VERY poor. Is this who we want to be? which leads me to my main concern - at the end of the day to become a tier1 SPORT(or even tier2) one needs money, and lots of it! money corrupts people (in the long term) keeping up apprearneces with SOTG is great but i am not sure how even the narrow ultra competitve defenition of SOTG (something like - play hard but with respect and dont kill people...) would manage to persist. Do you really think that most people wouldnt do almost anythin to win an olympic medal? or get that $5M/year salary or whatever.
I am far from being an elite player. most of the current elite players will not be such if alot of $$ were involved, but even so i think we might be in need of a wake up call - we need to decide what is more important to us - being a sport or being spirited. Of course the reality is always a mix but optimizing both might not even be game theoretically possible. To the best of my knowledge there has been no precedent anywhere (not just sports) of a scenario where serious outcomes were at stake (be it fame or fortune) and a statistically large enough group of people managed to govern themselves not by the real world incentives (be they $$, power, fame or peer pressure) but by higher moral codes.
contrary to popular belief self refereeing will not guarantee steady state spirited gameplay. Of course one can devise many incentive schemes and variations (maybe different rules/guidelines for youth vs adult or pro vs amatuer, disincentive schemes for violations or whatever) but personally i feel that, like in many other aspects of life role modeling is extremely powerful and if the top teams will evolve to be cutting edge sportmen with large monitizations attached then all (or most) of us will use that as our model for the sport.
The other option (legit one althoug not my choice) is to be Myspace - be a really cool, large sweeping social phenomena that makes many people happy...but not really a sport.
Mike
Very good point on my Myspace comment, Mike C. You're right. However, i was looking at Myspace differently. Myspace had no revenue plan to speak of and yet was sold for millions of dollars. Myspace in a very short time (in the business world) grew to a behemoth and an industry leader and did it with very little advertising $. I've never seen an internet or other ad for Myspace and yet there are more than 100 million users! It grew because it was awesome. Ultimate will grow because it is awesome. It will attract people just because it exists. We won't have the complete ease that Myspace had, but with a sport led by thousands of networked young people who will be the world's leaders in the future, this will be the sport of the future.
Post a Comment