Should the UPA focus on top-down (professional league/media exposure) or bottom-up growth (local focus/outreach/youth access)?
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!
30 comments:
This is going to sound like an indecisive answer, but it has to be both.
They go hand in hand. Soccer exploded on the youth scene in the 60s (?) when the Cosmos (?) played in NYC and were televised for the first time, and then the US played in the World Cup, and again with the media support the youth leagues flourished.
As a result of the youth leagues flourishing the sport of soccer as a whole grows.
If there are more high school kids playing ultimate, there then becomes an audience for ultimate, and the sell to a media exec becomes infinitely easier when you can say, there are 5 million kids playing ultimate in the US today, and every 2 years it doubles.
Those figures dont exist yet, to my knowledge, so id say the UPA should first focus on increasing support for the youth leagues -
1. software to run the leagues, team and player pages, easy automated roster submission and waiver submission.
2. make them public and professional, parents are more inclined to allow their kids to play something that appears legitimate.
every youth league in the country is run differently, and at the moment there is no real benefit to have them join the UPA. they pay money and gain very little in return, insurance, possibly, but many leagues already have this.
make a price point that works (less than $50), and show the benefits to joining - every member gets a disc, upa newsletter subscription, or whatever the case may be.
the league itself is given $20 per member back to pay to rent league fields maybe?
if the focus is going to be on grassroots there really need to be visible benefits to buying in. people need to be sent to individual leagues and help them set up and get an infrastructure in place with the help of local players. and then help the states set up state championships, as it is now its a requisite for admission into easterns yet as far as i can see there is very little tangible support for setting up these state championships.
it often often falls on an energetic and giving individual who donates their time for free to get things going. if the upa wants these leagues to happen they cant rely on the chance that those people will suddenly appear all over the country.
perhaps this isnt the most coherent of comments, but i think there are good ideas contained within and i hope they are listened to.
Matt,
I grew up in Upstate NY, and the soccer explosion happened there in the mid-70's. This had a lot to do with, as you mention, Pele coming to the Cosmos, but we also had a group of kids that were good athletes and loved to play. There was a point in my home town in the late 70's when the high school soccer team was as popular as the football team.
I think the points you make about growing Youth Ultimate are right on. I especially agree with that it is a difficult proposition to depend on interested/willing volunteers for growth. Perhaps one of the benefits of corporate sponsorship could be money filtering down for stable leadership in the Youth leagues.
Now, you mention that it needs to be both top-down and bottom-up. Many of the kids I work with at NUTC know and look up to Chase, Wiggins, Miranda, Zip, etc. Do you think that a priority of top-down growth should be to develop role models for Youth Players? Does this lead us to a place where, as you allude, top-down and bottom-up growth are not distinct and seperate entities, but synergistic? If the choice of this post is based on resources, should they be equally divided between top-down and bottom-up growth?
Thanks,
George Cooke
UPA SPC Blog Moderator
IMO, bottom-up growth is absolutely necessary to build a foundation for the sport. If we can introduce new, young, players to the sport, it makes sense that future generations will only become more knowledgable and more supportive of Ultimate. If we have huge amounts of participation the rest will follow somewhat naturally.
For example, Golf is not popular because it's exciting to watch. It's popular because a lot of people like to play, and now the golf industry is huge, even with its own TV Channel. I would imagine that just about every sport out there is built from the bottom up and none are marketable without broad interest and participation already established.
However, sometimes there will be opportunites to make a big impact from the top-down, as McCabe described with soccer. A well promoted event (at the right time) and/or the emergence and subsequent promotion of superstars can also create a spurt of growth and excitement (everyone wanted to be like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods!). Even a silly movie can generate increased interest in a game (Dodgeball anyone?).
I think to do any of the top-down promotion, a solid base is necessary, which Ultimate has. Is the current base of players enough to support the next level of growth? Is it the right time to promote a major event? Does Ultimate have stars who are charismatic enough to carry the banner of Ultimate and inspire everyone to play/watch? Do we have the oportunities for such promotions? Is someone going to make a major motion picture to celebrate Ultimate (hmmm, if only we knew of a big time movie producer who has historical connections to Ultimate)?
What my uneducated rambling comes down to is that with the right opportunites and abilities, top-down growth can do great things for the sport, but continuing to build from the bottom-up is absolutely necessary first and foremost.
I don't think there is really much question that bottom up is the way to go. I don't think the Cosmos is really an apropos comparison. In that case, foreign soccer stars, from a sport hugely popular overseas, were brought to the US to develop interest. It was capped by the presence of Pele, the most widely known and arguably, best player in the world. In the US, few people knew or cared about soccer, but they knew of Pele. I grew up in the 70s and played soccer partially as a result of this influx of foreign talent.
The aplication to the ultimate model falls apart when one considers that ultimate is more popular here in the US than anywhere else. We cannot use foreign stars to increase our popularity here. We have no player/personality of a Pele-type stature to market to the US population. I believe a more applicable comparison would be to more "homegrown" sports such as skateboarding or other X-games sports.
I believe most, if not all, of these sports are the result of kids doing things on their own. Underground competitions that presented an exciting product. As participation grew, the sport attained a wider fan base and more main stream exposure. The increase in media exposure brought about more dollars and enabled some of the participants (Tony Hawk) to earn a living.
Which brings me to another point...in order to really support the top end of any sport, competitors train full time. Even in amatuer sports (running, gymnastics, etc), atheletes train full time and earn a living through endorsement deals and ticket prices to events/meets. Ultimate has not yet reached a level where it can support such full time professionals. Even from a marketing standpoint, a company will only plunk down big bucks to sponsor an event if they believe the fan base is large enough to support their investment.
This is a battle that soccer has been fighting for quite some time. The rise in popularity of the sport in the 70s and 80s has only recently allowed the formation of a large US professional league as the gen-Xers get older and more purchasing power which in turn commands higher dollar values from sponsors.
In the end, ultimate is fighting a terrible battle on the top end. High level ultimate may be exciting to watch, but few people are familiar enough with the rules to make it viable as a spectator sport. If people are confused by the sport, chases are high that they will not watch it. If only a small number of people watch it, media outlets and sporting venues will not schedule it as they will not recoup their expenses. If the sport is not shown or discussed in the media, people will never catch on to the rules and stratagy of the sport. This viscous circle will doom the sport to the third tier of american sports.
If, on the other hand, we develop a strong following of youth players (both competitively and recreationally), they are more likely to support the sport by watching it live and on TV. This, in turn, generates more money for sponsors and media outlets, which then creates more exposure and encourages more people to play.
I have also heard the argument that getting NCAA approval would constitute "top-down" growth, but I find it hard to believe that the NCAA would sanction any sport that does not have a substantial high school base from which to draw talent. For all their bluster about "student athletes", few universities are excited about not only fielding a team but also introducing the members of that team to the sport. Put another way, here in OH, the OHSAA will not even consider a sport until there are 175 established programs within the state. Few programs than that are just not worth their time. In much the same way, if the incoming high school talent is not sufficient to support a substantial number of college teams, NCAA support will not come. If there are 4000 youth UPA members (crude estimate of the skilled high school player base), even 25% of them are seniors and 1 in 10 are sufficiently skilled to merit an athletic scholarship, we are talking about only 100 players per year or 400 total college players across all divisions. That equates to roughly 20 teams, which does not seem to merit any NCAA interest. Increase youth participation ten-fold and NCAA sanctioning/acceptance becomes substantially more likely.
joel
Joel,
Thanks for taking the time to write.
First, I took McCabe's comments about soccer to be an example of simutaneous bottom and top growth, but not necessarily as model for the way Ultimate should proceed. I agree with you that there are many reasons why soccer is very different from the way Ultimate might grow.
In terms of the NCAA, I am also in general agreement that this will be a hard road for Ultimate. This past fall, I had a chance to speak with the Athletic Director for the college at which I coach. We chatted about many things, but one thing that jumped out at me is that she said, "I didn't realize that you guys practice all year long. Did you realize that if you were to become a NCAA sport that you could only practice for 19 weeks during the year". My point is not to say that this is a deal breaker. It is to say that the world of the NCAA is probably has more levels of regulation that I am aware of.
Now, the interesting thing is that this same AD would like to have our college team have some of the services of the varsity programs(like access to the trainers), but retain its club status. This speaks to cred/legit topic of this blog. The underlying feeling I get from this administrator is that she respects what we are doing. So, in the end, I feel positive as she seems to view us a credible.
We have some comments that credibility comes from "social" recognition. Then there is corporate sponsorship. Does money equal credibility? If Ultimate had sponsorship and money, would we be less concerned with people saying "Oh...yeah...I have heard of Ultimate"? Now, are there metrics by which we could define legitimacy? If so, what are they?
-George Cooke
UPA SPC Moderator
George,
Why are we being asked to choose top-down or bottom up?
Bluffton,
Well, that is a great question. I think it is to create a point of discussion and get a sense that, if framed in a polarized fashion, what the general sense of people's priorities are.
I also think with this question being in context of the "Credibility or Legitimacy" topic that the focus is on whether people have an opinion about which type of growth impacts legitimacy more....or which one would lead to more credibility.
Finally, I think the question does open the door for suggestions that both could/should occur.
-George
Two comments about the NCAA:
First, the vast majority of NCAA athletes are not on scholarship. For example, Division III, which represents more than half of the NCAA membership, has no athletic scholarships whatsoever. And many smaller sports, even at large Division I schools, have few-to-no scholarship athletes. Certainly if Ultimate became an NCAA sport, we wouldn't have lots of scholarships at the beginning.
Second, the rules George describes about having only 19 weeks a year vary greatly between sports, schools, NCAA divisions and athletic conferences. For example, 19 weeks is prescribed by the NCAA Division III manual (which I encourage you to read if you think there's a lot of regulation in Ultimate now). But Division I sports teams often practice much more than this (eg, spring football).
Also, my cousin plays for the Wellesley women's tennis team, and they have both a spring and a fall season, and track teams typically have an indoor and an outdoor season. So these limitations are much more complicated than they might appear.
Finally, even for not-top-tier Division III minor sports, the time committment expected of athletes is vastly more than that expected of almost any ultimate player (do any college ultimate teams practice 5 days a week?).
I hope this isn't off topic, but I think the comments on the NCAA are interesting. I know almost nothing about NCAA regulations, but I hope that the additional complications that the NCAA would bring wouldn't cause so much fear that Ultimate never makes it that far.
The grassroots, anti-establishment culture of Ultimate may cause many players to avoid taking the next steps to achieve legitimacy in sports, to avoid "selling out." If we want to keep growing, if Ultimate is going to someday be included in the NCAA, in the Olympics, on the front page of the sports section, with professional superstars, garnering lots of sponsorship money, then Ultimate will have to continue to get organized, and probably make some changes. I'm sure some people won't want to go that far, but if the goal is to grow Ultimate, I think we need to keep on open mind about regulatory implications and future change.
To come back on topic, I think the draw for many new players (at the youth level) as Ultimate gets bigger, from the bottom-up, is to play in this exciting, athletically demanding, fun sport. As Joel said, we will need many more players at the local levels to get the NCAA's interest, and as Samth indicated, it may be complicated, but I think it will be a necessary step at some point..
George,
Thank you for the clarification. Within the context of the discussion, I think that it is very important to gain legitimacy. I believe a bottom-to-top strategy will effectively lead to growth in numbers, while top-to-bottom will more directly lead to legitimacy.
Within the context of a values discussion; bottom-to-top will more closely align with the current membership’s value system as expressed in my perception of SOTG.
These would be my questions:
1) Is there not a current value shift among the players adding weight to the legitimizing value, where it now in some ways balances against SOTG?
2) Is it not possible that an unbalanced bottom-to-top strategy could result in large numbers of new players in disproportionate measure to the number of new fields available to an illegitimate sport?
3) Does the possibility exist that it is easier to legitimize SOTG at the junior’s and recreational levels then it is at elite levels?
4) To what extent do we fear a values rift which disenfranchises those who place a high value on legitimacy?
5) Are we at risk if another entity creates a game very much like ultimate and begins to compete for resources?
Baer -
You write:
If we want to keep growing, if Ultimate is going to someday be included in the NCAA, in the Olympics, on the front page of the sports section, with professional superstars, garnering lots of sponsorship money, then Ultimate will have to continue to get organized, and probably make some changes.
I think this comment reflects something widespread and incorrect in the ultimate community - that legitimacy for ultimate means that ultimate will look like baseball or football do today.
I think some perspective is in order here. No new team sports have been added to the Olympics recently - and baseball and softball were just removed. No new team sports have become popular to the level of the "Big 4" in the last 50 or so years. Soccer, by far the most popular sport in the world, is still not widely popular in the US.
Instead, we should aim for more realistic goals. Lacrosse has about about 10 times as many members of their national organization, but probably only twice as many players. They also have professional leagues that are occasionally on television, as well as serious and popular college teams.
However, most people probably don't know how many people are on each side (I just looked up all those numbers, and I still don't), nor do they know the name of their local professional lacrosse team.
If the UPA brought Ultimate to the level of lacrosse, I think we should all be ecstatic. We shouldn't allow unrealistic expectations to cloud our judgments about how "legitimate" Ultimate is or should become.
Samth,
Good points. While I agree that it is unrealistic that Ultimate will rival the "Big 4" sports in our lifetimes, and I realize that the Olympics are now limiting the number of events, I also wanted to give an optimistic thought to where the sport could go generations into the future. To me, part of that means looking at what those other sports have done to get to where they are. That doesn't mean that we have to follow one particular model or expect to look like another sport, however.
I like that you brought up lacrosse. It's true that lacrosse is an unknown in many areas of the country, but in others, it is very popular, and marketed well. In Denver, for example, high school lacrosse is fairly big, and the professional indoor team nearly sells out the Pepsi Center for many games. However, in neighboring states, people have never heard of lacrosse.
Ultimate may be spread to more areas than lacrosse (I haven't done the research) but is not as familiar to the general public. That may be a function of time, as we still need lots of growth to occur. The development of lacrosse is something else we can look at to learn more, just as studying the growth of any sport will be useful, but we don't want Ultimate to look exactly like lacrosse either.
My point, in comparison to yours, is that we should THINK BIG, and learn what it takes to get to where the other sports are, but understand that it does take baby steps (supporting your contention of "realistic expectations") in the short term.
I'm clearly getting ahead of myself, but I'm more of a big picture guy, and I'm missing some of the finer details. Having said that, what do you think it will take to get Ultimate's growth to a more satisfying level (on par with, say, lacrosse), and how long would it take to get there?
Baer -
I totally understand the desire for optimism (who doesn't want to see ultimate on SportsCenter every night?) and I think it is important to look at other sports that have succeeded as role models.
But I think that which sports we choose, and which aspirations we set, are very important for deciding what we do to get there.
If we wanted to be in the Olympics, or be on TV all the time, we would follow a path probably involving tournaments for prize money (this got Goaltimate on ESPN), changing the rules to be more exciting (2 point line, etc), attempting to start a pro league, and that sort of thing.
In contrast, if we look to something like Lacrosse, we would see that over half of their active players are in high school or *younger*. The way they grew is by growing the audience before trying to grow the top level. I think this is the right model for Ultimate to follow.
As to what we need to do to get there, I think the answer is youth development. The UPA has fewer than 10,000 youth members. If we increase that 10-fold, I think all the other goals will follow. There are lots of kids in High Schools and Middle Schools that would play sports, but don't currently. But I think it will take many years - at least 20 before Ultimate is significantly more mainstream.
Good points, Samth. We do need to be careful choosing what path to go down for future growth if we are going to do it right. I agree that the model you described with lacrosses participation is a good place to look. Youth development will continue to be vital. We'll see how the Sportscenter/Olympics/"Big 4" discussion sounds in 20 years! :)
Hi all,
Thank you for continuing the conversation. I think the comments about Lacrosse as a model are interesting. I do think that it is an interesting exercise to look for specific an appropriate role models. It is easy, but maybe not realistic, to look at the Big 4 right now in terms of specifc modeling.
I would like to go back to Bluffton's questions, and just address them from my point of view...not as moderator.
1) Interesting question. Am I correct in that it assumes a tension between legitimacy and SOTG?
2) Very interesting point. I have never really considered that before.
3) I do think this is a distinct possibility.
4) Do you mean like a MLU type of thing? I think this question opens up a huge issue which is what happens when money is introduced into the sport. To me, this a big deal future question that is a bit under the radar.
-George
Sorry for removing a post – I really shouldn’t trust spell check quite so much.
George,
Thanks for your post, and for your positive tone. To answer your questions: Indeed, I do think there is some “tension,” between legitimacy and SOTG. I believe the legitimacy of an elite-level, fast moving field sport with lots of contact is in some ways challenged by our concept of SOTG. It is not the social norm and onlookers don’t seem to expect it to be that way. Conversely, “Keep Ashville Weird,” works because it creates an understandable sense of place.
As for the MLU, this is not exactly what I was thinking. I think there are two more likely scenarios: (1) it would be logical (for those who place a high value on elite level legitimacy) to break-away from the UPA if this planning process yields an unbalanced value system in favor of SOTG as a marketing tool for all levels; and probably more likely (2) if someone with access to funding created a new ultimate game similar to ultimate and ignored the current players and organizations completely. Admittedly, I am not really sure about the relevance of this question; but the possibilities exist and as you noted there are bigger issues related to the concept.
In conclusion, I will leave you with this: The famous Harbour Town lighthouse behind the 18th green of Harbour Town Golf Links on Hilton Head Island is not a real lighthouse. Thus, all of us locals fail to identify with it; yet, to onlookers it provides an instant sense of place. My point is this; an illegitimate lighthouse legitimized an entire resort island. In ultimate, active observers in stripes might very well have the same effect even if the locals don't understand it, and the changes to the game are seemingly insignificant.
So by having striped Observers, we are stepping toward legitimacy without sacraficing SOTG or really changing the sport as it is played? I'm game for that. I think we're already moving in that direction with uniform requirements at Nationals, and I decided to support that change after some thought (I think uniforms imply a respect for the sport, even if it marginally reduces individuality).
In response to the question about whether an explosion in youth involvement would lead to difficulty in finding field space for all the new players, consider a few points: recently on RSD, a petition was posted concerning the reappropriation of land in CA, taking down golf courses for new uses, and that's a cool idea. Also, many HS leagues encourage team-vs-team matches during the season, rather than focusing purely on tournaments, for the purposes of seeding at their respective UPA State Championships (and it's easier to accomodate one or two games at a time, rather than a whole tournament). But also, by increasing the demand for field space, you would probably see field space become more available--as Ultimate becomes more legitimate and tournaments become more organized, we could see TD's get more support and accomodation. Raise enough money to rent fields, and you won't be refused. I played four years of high school Ultimate, and even though it was at times a struggle to get field space, we always managed to work something out with the school administrators or municipal organizations.
>"recently on RSD, a petition was >posted concerning the >reappropriation of land in CA, >taking down golf courses for new >uses, and that's a cool idea"
I love that idea. In my dream world, all golf courses are replaced by Ultimate fields. Thousands of new Ultimate fields.
It seems that the three topics that have gotten the most comments on this forum so far are SOTG, officiation, and legitimacy, and all of the discussions have come to the same point: Continuing to allow rules-educated players to make their own calls, closely moderated by official-looking Observers and holding players accountable for their calls will foster the SOTG that we all love and contribute to the legitimacy of the sport.
Sounds perfect. Did I miss anything?
“So by having striped Observers, we are stepping toward legitimacy without sacrificing SOTG or really changing the sport as it is played?”
Quite possibly… although in hind site I think my post was a little confused as I blurred the lines between branding, marketing and sales. The lighthouse doesn’t legitimize HHI as much as it brands it. But that fact that a fake lighthouse has become the legitimate symbol of HHI says a lot.
Here’s a true story you might find interesting: I used to live in a medium-sized metropolitan area where ultimate organizers had been completely unsuccessful in procuring lighted fields for weeknight pick-up play during daylight savings-time. They
“struck-out,” with the city and every local municipality. The “climate” for getting fields for ultimate was poor as youth soccer was exploding and the recreation people were unreceptive to the sport in general.
We decided to try it a different way. We got the interested players to sign up for a “winter league.” This time, when we approached the local recreation people, we had all of the documentation in hand; teams had been created, waivers signed, schedules created, and captains volunteered. With checkbook in hand, we “fit” ultimate into existing systems legitimizing the effort. We thought about the possible objections in advance and prepared responses. Using these techniques we were successful in getting lighted field space for a number of “leagues,” over the next year or two.
Did these leagues ever really take place? Honestly, we played pick-up most of the time, but the image was legitimate. After a few years, most of us (including myself) moved away and these specific efforts stopped. And even though ultimate organizers tried to continue to get lighted-field space, they were unsuccessful for 3 or 4 years to follow.
If I were tasked today with selling elite-level ultimate, I would plan to overcome objections to our version of SOTG. The fact that it requires so much explanation in itself is a challenge. It doesn’t make it right, wrong or indifferent; but a challenge (IMHO) none the less. At lower levels it just “fits in,” better.
In legitimizing the sport from top-down, which would be my choice personally, I would plan to overcome this challenge, by down-playing SOTG as a difference.
Here's the story of how the Ultimate Revolution grew by one member.
I'm a coach of a middle school team in the Washington (DC) Area Frisbee Club (WAFC). Most of the other youth coaches are teachers who played in college.
But what if you didn't play in college? The only other point of entry is the local rec league. WAFC has a great rec league. But maybe local leagues don't leverage a great strength, which has nothing to do with the sport.
WAFC is one of the few sports leagues where you can sign up without knowing teammates to form a team. As a young urbanite ten years ago, I didn't know anyone and wanted to meet people. I stumbled upon the WAFC website and was able to join a team, having never played and not having friends who played the game. Here we are years later and I'm helping to organize youth ultimate.
Bottom line, local leagues (maybe with help from UPA) can market themselves more heavily by advertising the following message "Hey, unlike softball, you can join our league even if you have no friends yet!"
Matthew J. Frattali
I think that there are currently enough local teams playing Ultimate Frisbee to facilitate the UF explosion that will only occur once the sport has been publicized in the media. I think that that is when Ultimate Frisbee will truly be noticed by potential players on a large scale.
Without publicity on such a large scale, Ultimate Frisbee will never reach the status of other popular sports such as soccer or football. Accordingly, local growth will occur as a result of UF's large-scale recognition.
Interesting/important thread.
It will likely require a top-down and bottom-up effort. I'd spend 80% on bottoms-up in the immediate future.
I'd recommend the biggest push, for say the next 10 years, should be solid establishment of formal COED HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUES. Everywhere.
Third Street, what would that look like? There are a lot of high school teams right now, but many struggle with recruitment and retention of players. I played four years of high school Ultimate, and trust me--it was tough to get people to come out and play. Other sports, other clubs, schoolwork, etc.
Now, my old high school has a ton of players, one of the feeder middle schools developed a club, and there are plenty of kids playing (~50 total?) but only one field and only one coach. The school doesn't have the resources to give much more, and I think that this will limit the number of players that stay with the program long-term. Are you saying that the UPA should look to develop phys-ed programs? After-school intramural leagues? Or try to increase the number of high school teams playing each other? How do we get enough coaches to ensure that SOTG and other Ultimate values are upheld?
In short, good idea with a lot of questions.
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.
What if we have a charity tournament? This way we can get our name out there and give people who know nothing about us a chance to get to know the game. There would be an easy entry for SOTG because we could relate it to the need to help the charity organization. Not only would we be publicizing (and we would have to market/advertise this event hardcore), but we would be testing the waters to see what the future of Ultimate could look like. And we would be helping some needy people.
Comparing Ultimate Frisbee to La Crosse, Soccer or any other legitimate sport is fool hardy and ignorant.
After 40 years of existance, all of the those sports evolved and the game advanced. Ultimate is stagnant and boring to watch (otherwise there would be something called FANS).
Ultimate is not the sport of the future. If players learned some actual skills and there was a rational set of rules, people would come to realize how easy and unchallenging of a game it truly is.
Frank
Dischoops
Frank, I don't think Ultimate is stagnant or boring at all. I frequently attend tournaments merely to watch, and I enjoy the experience. I think that a lot of players have already developed skill sets that are specific to this sport, and yet we see ever-increasing competition. It is tremendously challenging to play, especially in tournament formats, both physically and mentally.
You might be able to argue that the rules are "irrational" but that's in the eye of the beholder. Lots of people understand and enjoy the rules as they are written now. They aren't perfect, and that's why we update them regularly. The premises behind them are something you may disagree with, but I happen to like them. I don't think it's fair to call the game unchallenging, especially considering you have no way to show or prove that. It's like saying basketball is unchallenging: all you have to do is throw a ball in a hoop more times than the other team. But at certain levels of competition, that is extremely difficult.
This is a stale thread but I'll still respond.
Having just witnessed Jam vs. Sockeye and based on my experience, I found the game unwatchable. My opinions on the actual rationality (or lack thereof) of the rules aside, the skills and tactics of these teams is incredibly sub par and frankly, unwatchable. And these are two of the top five teams in the world.
Post a Comment