Comments on UPA Strategic Planning - Ultimate Revolution!: UPA Competitive Structure

Adam -That's not quite correct. For some sections...

2007-05-25T06:37:00.000-07:00

Adam -

That's not quite correct. For some sections (SNE, for example, where Yale is) this would have worked. For ENE, as I said, they were unable to play sectionals until April 28-29, a regionals weekend. If a new tournament had to fit between ENE sectionals and regionals, then regionals would have had to be pushed back at least a week, or ENE would have not been represented.

Also, you're effectively suggesting that no non-series tournaments be played in NE. This year, only one Sunday-at-regionals open team competed at any NE tournaments other than Yale cup. So your plan would drastically change the complexion of the NE ultimate season.

I think the right solution is Div II sectionals and regionals, or perhaps just Div II regionals (along the lines of the NIT). The UPA would need to provide assistance to make this happen, since there would need to be additional coordinators and probably assistance finding field sites. But it would give lots more teams meaningful games, without requiring new weeks in the schedule that we don't have.

Sam, everything you say about weather this year is...

2007-05-24T20:21:00.000-07:00

Sam, everything you say about weather this year is true. And yet, if the northeast had had to run three tournaments in a five week span, they would have succeeded. Yale Cup went off fine, and, as you correctly point out, it was the first sectional weekend. Subregionals would have been the weekend when most sectionals were, and would have been canceled or postponed in a few cases, but rescheduled and held/completed the weekend before regionals.

So, there you have it. One of the worst years in memory, in terms of canceled series events, and it still could have supported an extra layer. I'm not saying you would never have issues, but this year seems to suggest that even extremely difficult field situations can be worked around as long as we leave an open weekend after each event.

As someone who ran a Sectional in the NE this year...

2007-05-24T19:18:00.000-07:00

As someone who ran a Sectional in the NE this year, I have a bit of new perspective.

First, UMassacre, scheduled to be held the last non-sectionals weekend, was canceled for I believe the 5th year in a row. It's been held once, ever. Second, most sectionals in the NE were scheduled for the second sectionals weekend (Yale Cup was on the first sectionals weekend), and all of those were interrupted in the middle by weather, with most of the remaining games played the following weekend. Third, the ENE open *sectionals* was played on the first *regionals* weekend this year, because no fields in the section were playable before then.

So, this year, the NE region was one freak snowstorm away from postponing regionals. As it is, there are very few sites in the region that will host ultimate tournaments in May. There just isn't room in the calendar for any more tournaments if we want everything done 3 weeks before Memorial Day.

I think they typically schedule them later because...

2007-05-24T16:36:00.000-07:00

I think they typically schedule them later because this reduces the risk of bad weather by an incremental amount. There are no guarantees, though, and the added nastiness incurred by moving sectionals up a week or two is actually not a whole lot. If this year proved anything, it was that.

A quick perusal of the college season reveals plenty of tournaments in the three weeks before sectionals in the northern parts of the country, from Big 10s to Spring Phling to Layout Pigout to Yale Cup. I've played at most of those events, and the weather is generally a crapshoot. Just like it is three weeks later.

And as I said before, even if the schedule is not expanded, you still have room for sectionals-buffer-subregionals-buffer-regionals. So a rained out event can be accounted for.

I agree that there are differences between nationa...

2007-05-24T15:14:00.000-07:00

I agree that there are differences between nationals bid and a pass through to a second level tournament.

If you look at the weekend that people chose I think that you would see that most people in the colder states picked weekends later. The main reason for this is weather (or Easter) and they will not be able to hold a sectional tournament the first weekend in March. I realize that this is repeating what I have already said but I am not as good with the links.

I would talk to the Central, NE and ME section coordinators to see what they say about moving their section events up two weeks. They already play them in snow a lot of the time.

but Adam you never addressed the fundamental issue...

2007-05-24T14:23:00.000-07:00

but Adam you never addressed the fundamental issue that the weather/season can not support another weekend of tournaments.

Josh,

As I responded on May 12th, I already addressed these concerns, in a response to Kyle on April 30th.

To quote,

"Timing is obviously the main issue with this proposal, but I still think it is needed. The simplest solution in that regard, I think, is to put subregionals in the last sectional weekend. If you put sectionals on the first available weekend and regionals on the second weekend, there's a free weekend between each event in case of weather issues.

I would also be perfectly [fine] with allowing sectionals to be earlier (up to two weeks earlier) in regions with a subregional event. You [might] say this makes the season shorter, but there's an extra UPA series event in there.

This leaves less time for tournaments in the Metro East between spring break and sectionals, sure. But in a sense, this is trading "preseason" for "regular season". Is that a bad thing? If so, why?"

Let alone all of the issues about being given passes through the first round based on last year's performance. People complain about wildcard, can you imagine what they would do if it was related to regionals?

Frankly, I think there would be a little less complaining, for two reasons:

1) It would be a little lower profile. Nationals is the big prize and gets a lot of attention.

2) Rather than getting an extra bid for your region, you would be getting a pass for your team, based solely on your teams' play. Emotionally, I think this is easier for other teams to stomach.

Either way, I would NOT suggest going straight to a system that included direct qualification for subregionals. We should start with just implementing subregionals, and once this is well established, we can start to look at allowing top teams to skip sectionals. I see the "free pass" as a bridge to a separate div 2, while subregionals is crucial for other reasons.

but Adam you never addressed the fundamental issue...

2007-05-24T14:00:00.000-07:00

but Adam you never addressed the fundamental issue that the weather/season can not support another weekend of tournaments.

Let alone all of the issues about being given passes through the first round based on last year's performance. People complain about wildcard, can you imagine what they would do if it was related to regionals?

Bingo. I still think the answer is a gradual shif...

2007-05-24T11:11:00.000-07:00

Bingo. I still think the answer is a gradual shift that starts with subregional events.

We begin by implementing subregional events in the larger regions that need the event to maintain the integrity and quality of the series. Once the subregional concept is well-established, we set up rules that allow top teams to proceed directly to subregionals (skipping sectionals) based on some measure of strength (top XX place at last year's subregionals/regionals, or some current year measure).

At some point, the system of free passes to subregionals could be expanded to such a degree that it becomes more of a play up - play down system. The big key is when you shift to "next year" qualifying - i.e. that teams in the lower division can't qualify for subregionals this year, only next year. Once that stage is reached, you have two formal divisions, and having the lower division have a seperate regionals (and, potentially, nationals) is a logical extension.

So, basically, it's a three step process. Start with having subregionals, then give prequalifying status to some teams, and finally expand the preqalifying status into a seperate tier.

ah but there is the issue. How do you create the ...

2007-05-24T09:18:00.000-07:00

ah but there is the issue. How do you create the split? The option to split voluntarily has been there for a few years and is not being adopted.

It is unheard of to "force" people into a Div II tournament because everybody wants to be in the main event.

Also the split is only sustainable in 2 or 3 regions because of size/distance. We would need some sort of hybrid model and criteria about when to switch a region from the standard process to the new split one.

The biggest issue is how to get critical mass in the second division because it is not happening voluntarily.

Well said,I have not run the numbers, but my guess...

2007-05-23T11:26:00.000-07:00

Well said,

I have not run the numbers, but my guess would be that if the UPA College division is split into two divisions, the large sections would quickly split into two separate tournaments, thereby, solving both issues.

-Bill

Well said,I have not run the numbers, but my guess...

2007-05-23T11:25:00.000-07:00

Bill,I think that you and Adam are arguing at oppo...

2007-05-18T09:48:00.000-07:00

Bill,

I think that you and Adam are arguing at opposite ends of the series.

You are right that college is the most likely place to be able to sustain a legitimate second tier national championship. This would be at the end of the series.

Adam is arguing that the current structure is bloated in some regions and not functional at the sectional level. In some sections there are 20+ teams going for very few bids and it is not a great experience for them. A masters style implementation gets teams to advance but does not alleviate this volume pressure.

The current structure suggests that large sections host an optional Div II tournament that would not allow teams to advance. This has not been a popular option for a variety of reasons.

As you know, the Open College Series is by far the...

2007-05-17T08:29:00.000-07:00

As you know, the Open College Series is by far the largest division with over 350 teams competing for the National Championship.

If you or anyone else has another way of incorporating a second division for smaller colleges into the UPA College Nationals I would be very intersted in hearing about it.

It would seem the simplest method for starting the second division in the UPA College National Series is to somehow use the structure already in place (there are probably many ways to do this). The second division will then change over time to best meet the needs of the UPA and the players.

-Bill T.

Well, I strongly oppose anything that will create ...

2007-05-16T12:40:00.000-07:00

Well, I strongly oppose anything that will create a second instance of the "masters teams at open sectionals" problems. So I wouldn't support the combined sectional event followed by a split.

I agree that voluntary entry into Div 2 is the way to go, if we have a parallel series.

Adam,The main idea of the proposal is to allow sma...

2007-05-16T11:43:00.000-07:00

Adam,

The main idea of the proposal is to allow smaller universities to compete against similar universities for a national championship. (For example, Bluffton University does not have to play Michigan, OSU, or Illinios to get to the National Championship in basketball)

There are a number of ways to accomplish this. Part of the proposal I have submitted is:

*******
I. Team Eligibility for D-II Nationals (two examples: UPA decides which to follow)
A. Enrolment: All colleges with undergrad enrolments under 6,000 (or 8,500) are eligible for the Second Open Division. This will include most traditional D-III Colleges and leave out most large D-I universities, or

B. NCAA Divisions: All NCAA D-III (and maybe D-II and Community colleges) are eligible for the Second Open Division.

II. The College Series for the Second Open Division Nationals

OPEN SECTIONALS
a) All teams must compete in the UPA College Sectionals
b) Teams planning to compete in the Second Open Division (D-II) at Regionals must declare their intent one week before Sectionals
c) College sectionals are seeded and played out as usual. This is very similar to how Masters teams play at sectionals
d) Place amongst other D-II teams at sectionals determines qualification for D-II Regionals

OPEN D-II REGIONALS
a) D-II Regionals is played at the same time and place as D-I Regionals
b) 16 teams qualify for each D-II Regionals (out of sectionals)
c) Qualifying for Nationals: First year would be two teams each Region. Thereafter, same procedures as currently used in the college open division

OPEN D-II NATIONALS
a) D-II Nationals is played at the same time and place as D-I Nationals
b) 16 teams qualify for D-II Nationals
***********

SUMMARY: Sectionals runs the same as now and the rest is similar to the masters division, teams which qualify under the criteria can choose which division to play in.

Certainly as the number of teams grows D-II can host its own sectionals and regionals, which might help solve other issues.

-Bill T

Bill,If you are arguing that we should have separa...

2007-05-16T10:30:00.000-07:00

Bill,

If you are arguing that we should have separate sectionals for D-III and D-I teams, then I agree, your argument is consistent. But if the problem is the size of the series, then splitting the series AFTER sectionals solves little. Additionally, it introduces lots of thorny formats issues. I have to deal with this every fall, when there's a few sections where the breakpoint between teams advancing to regionals and not advancing gets muddied up by the presence of masters teams.

Fundamentally, I have a few questions/concerns about a divisional split:

* since Ultimate is not a scholarship sport anywhere, should we base our divisions on the Div I/II/III model, which is really more about funding and scholarships than it is about the size of the student bodies? UCSC is div 3, but they have around 15k students; contrast this to a div 1 school like, say, Dartmouth, which has about a third as many students to draw on. Both of these schools have been successful at Ultimate; my point is simply that I'm not sure the NCAA divisions are significant when the rationale for the divisions don't apply to Ultimate.

* Do you see this as a voluntary split, or a mandatory one? Do we force the Carletons of the game to give up their chance at the top title?

* When does the split occur? Do you want a parallel sectionals/regionals/nationals series? Same sectionals, but split regionals/nationals? Or just an invitational national event for small/Div 3 schools?

AdamThere is no conflict. we are promoting a secon...

2007-05-15T13:15:00.000-07:00

Adam

There is no conflict. we are promoting a second division in the UPA College Nationals Series.

The reason that D-III Nationals has recieved so much interest is because all the other sports at our colleges compete against other D-III institutions for a national title. And thus so should we.

For 2006 there were over a 110 traditional (NCAA) D-III colleges in the UPA rankings, however, a look at the top 25 teams shows a clear domination by (NCAA) D-I universities. There was only one traditional D-III college in the UPA top 25 and there were only five traditional D-III colleges in the UPA top 50.

With over 350 teams competing in the UPA series. A second division based on size of college makes sense, which is why many sports associations have many divisions (NCAA, HS, etc).

-Bill T.

Bill,I see a conflict between these two statements...

2007-05-15T11:57:00.000-07:00

Bill,

I see a conflict between these two statements. The first statement was:

More than 350 college teams competed in the Open College Series. There are simply far too many teams for one division.

... and the second was:

This Second Open Division (D-II) could be run similar to the current Master’s Division. Qualifying could be taken care of in the current college series. The details may be a little different than the Masters Division but the over all model could be very similar.

So... you think there are too many teams in this division, but you want the Div 2 series to start in the same division as the Div 1 series? I don't see how the solution fits the problem.

Also, I think it's premature to say "There is certainly an overwhelming desire for a Second Open Division for small colleges in the UPA College Series", based on a 19-team event. I'm not saying there's no chance of the success of such a series, but we may still be in an era where one division makes the most sense. Carleton and Brown are still regularly beating Minnesota and UMass. There are currently no varsity ultimate programs at any school. If/when these things start changing, then it will be obvious that it is time for a division split.

In the mean time, I'd like to see efforts toward a div 2 regionals in the larger regions. Once those are up and running, it gives a lot more momentum to a potential div 2 nationals.

Greenough,I agree that subdivision can only go so ...

2007-05-15T11:47:00.000-07:00

Greenough,

I agree that subdivision can only go so far. The Metro East as currently constituted needs to be six sections, not five, for logistical reasons, but at a point the dearth of regionals bids gets ridiculous.

I can get on board with some sort of "play-up, play-down" setup. Currently, I see this as working in the context of the subregional system, where top teams would get a pass directly to subregionals, skipping sectionals. If they don't do well at subregionals/regionals that year, then the next year they have to start from sectionals like everyone else.

I tend to start my re-draw thinking from the perspective of breaking up the Metro East, but if you start making second-order changes to other borders, it's all the same anyway.

Greetings,The college division is very large, as w...

2007-05-15T10:32:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

The college division is very large, as was motioned in other posts. The UPA rankings from 2006 show over 400 different colleges playing ultimate in the Open division. More than 350 college teams competed in the Open College Series. There are simply far too many teams for one division.

A solution to the situation is for the UPA to introduce a Second Open Division (D-II) in the College Nationals Series.

In order to test the idea of a second division, the first ever D-III College Nationals was held in Versailles, OH last spring. Over sixty teams were very interested in the event. Qualifying was accomplished using the current UPA College Series. Invitations were sent out and nineteen college teams came to compete from all across the country. All regions were represented. Clearly, for a first year tournament to draw this type of response is a huge success by any measure. There is certainly an overwhelming desire for a Second Open Division for small colleges in the UPA College Series.

This year, D-III Nationals has 24 committed teams and once again all regions are represented.

As with other competitive college sports, large universities have a major advantage when it comes to being successful in ultimate. Telling the huge number of smaller colleges to just, “try harder” is not the answer. The rapid rise of the juniors division will continue to make the situation worse as the majority of these students head off to major state schools (like the rest of the population). There is a reason high school state sports associations and the NCAA have various divisions based (largely) on the populations of the institution. Similarly the UPA should institute another division in the College Series for smaller colleges and universities.

This Second Open Division (D-II) could be run similar to the current Master’s Division. Qualifying could be taken care of in the current college series. The details may be a little different than the Masters Division but the over all model could be very similar.

For more information see: http://www2.onu.edu/~wtheisen/2.%20D-III%20Nationals%20Pages/D-III%20Nationals-home.html

-Bill T

I have not talked that much about a pre-sectionals...

2007-05-14T15:51:00.000-07:00

I have not talked that much about a pre-sectionals local league system or really fleshed that idea out but we can only sub-divide so many times. I could see a day in the Metro East when the region would have 16 one bid sections. I know that Kyle has talked a lot about an english soccer system where there are tiers so that people can play all the way up but get to play more games than just the couple at sectionals. I do not think that it would make sense in all regions and it would have to be implemented as specific regions/sections/divisions(m/w) got too large and needed the new system. Better serving all levels of the UPA series is a huge thing and this could have implications in club.

The Great Lakes actually touches 4 regions (S,ME,AC,C) so we can compromise on that. =) I do agree that a redraw needs to adjust things all over a bit but one region would have to go away so why not start there and then ripple out when making decisions. Either way it was a place to start the conversation.

how do you contrast 15 teams in a section with 2 b...

2007-05-14T14:29:00.000-07:00

how do you contrast 15 teams in a section with 2 bids with 16 teams and 1 or 2 bids at the next level?

There are two related reasons why 16 teams, 2 advance at regionals doesn't bother me as much as the same format at sectionals.

1) Teams at regionals have already played sectionals, so they've already gotten more bang for their UPA buck than a team that didn't make regionals.

2) As the series progresses, we gradually shift our focus from inclusiveness, to crowning a champion. A "two and out" format is therefore more problematic at sectionals than at regionals.

An interesting idea would be 20 team regional tournament which would help give us a few more years in the east.

To my way of thinking, this is really a stopgap measure. It helps, sure, but those 4 extra bids don't fundamentally change things the way 20 extra bids (to subregional events) would.

My initial thought to help increase by in for the series is setting up leagues where teams would play each other over the course of a few weekends to qualify for the next round and that once a geographically feasible section/region reached a certain point we would use that system.

I like this idea. It is similar in many ways to the subregional idea, as you are taking what sectionals accomplishes and expanding it to take more than one weekend. I'd be interested in more details on this idea.

I have never argued for 6 regions in college. My working thought would be to fold the Great Lakes into the regions around it because it is the only region that touches 5 other regions. This would also be a balance of the need to not making larger regions that much larger and not to make the old giant "west" region again.

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing for the old giant West region. If we went to a 6-region system, it would probably look a lot like the current club regions. That said, I tend to agree that 7 regions might be better.

The Great Lakes only border 3 regions, though. Moreover I think any redraw should probably be more nuanced than just divvying up one region.

Adam,I agree that the system needs to get the righ...

2007-05-13T17:27:00.000-07:00

Adam,

I agree that the system needs to get the right teams to regionals but how do you contrast 15 teams in a section with 2 bids with 16 teams and 1 or 2 bids at the next level?

An interesting idea would be 20 team regional tournament which would help give us a few more years in the east. My initial thought to help increase by in for the series is setting up leagues where teams would play each other over the course of a few weekends to qualify for the next round and that once a geographically feasible section/region reached a certain point we would use that system.

I have never argued for 6 regions in college. My working thought would be to fold the Great Lakes into the regions around it because it is the only region that touches 5 other regions. This would also be a balance of the need to not making larger regions that much larger and not to make the old giant "west" region again.

We also need to consider the increasing role of Canada in the UPA tournaments. I am all for it but it does impact region size/growth/strength.

Either way I strongly agree that the current system is not very good but that we have been in status quo because nobody has anything better.

One other thing -If we went to the club regions, w...

2007-05-13T05:50:00.000-07:00

One other thing -

If we went to the club regions, with 2 bids per region plus the 4 strength wild cards, we'd have the following teams at regionals (assuming RRI plus me guessing perfectly predicts performance):

Central: Wisconsin, Carleton, Minnesota
NW: Stanford, Oregon, UBC
South: Florida, Georgia, Texas, Kansas
SW: Colorado, UCSB
MA: NC, Delaware
NE: Brown, Cornell

So, now we have the same top 8 teams at nationals, plus 4 of the bottom 8. The change has been to replace the 12, 13, 35, and 51 RRI-ranked teams with the 9, 11, 14 and 33 ranked teams. And that's assuming there are no upsets

So we'd still be missing several top 16 teams, and still have 2 teams from outside the top 25.

Just thought it would be instructive to see what the actual repercussions for the Nationals field of such changes would be.

Adam -If we went to the club regionals borders for...

2007-05-13T05:28:00.000-07:00

Adam -

If we went to the club regionals borders for college, then if we kept the college sectionals borders (roughly), we'd have 6 sections in New England, leading to probably a 3-bid 20-team South NE sectional, for example. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than a 5-bid 34-team sectional. Both options are pretty bad.