I said my next post would talk about location and the role it plays in college ultimate, but the news of Conference 1 seems important enough to warrant a post. I don't play for an open team, and if I did, my school's team would not be included in any type of C1 plan, but still, the implications of C1 will be felt, eventually, in the women's division, and will affect all teams, even bagel fodder teams, in some way.
I realize that details and UPA input are forthcoming on this whole issue, so some of these concerns might be moot in about a month, but I'm going to press ahead regardless. My main concern with C1 as it's proposed now is that by sectioning off a large block of talented teams for an entire season, developing programs won't be able to reap the benefits of playing against these regional and national powerhouses. A recent example: in the semis of the central open regionals this year, Iowa managed to come back eight straight points against the Hodags, losing on universe in a truly epic game. To deny this team the chance to play against Wisconsin in next year's season seems unfair, and there are other teams not in the 25 current C1 teams that many have said deserve to be there; Arizona is another notable example among many.
A better explanation of why these specific 25 teams were included would be beneficial, but the C1 system is still too inflexible for me. Teams change every year, and one of the best ways to develop a strong, consistent program is to play against strong, consistent programs every year, something that will be impossible or difficult for growing teams, as far as I can tell, under C1 as it's currently proposed.
Also, if your team has not been selected to play in C1, what are you playing for? A UPA finals that would inevitably be viewed as second-class? Teams mentally base their training on goals, big goals...going to nationals one year, getting into the top four the next year, winning it all the next. By making nationals hard for young programs to get to (I think the current one-game play in system needs to be...well, first, better explained and then, possibly expanded), I think it will stunt growth at schools that aren't included in the conference.
I have faith that these and other issues will be resolved, however, or at least better explained. On a larger scale, I think C1 heralds a quicker end to the current college series setup as we know it. Divisions are coming-- whether they come via C1 next year or through a joint UPA/Cultimate division system over the next few years, the days when teams like the one I play for can play against the top teams in the region are numbered. Though I realize that the more people start playing and the more people clamor for mainstream acceptance this is the way it has to be, a part of me will miss the current system, warts and all.
More than any other sport I've ever played, it feels like the possibilities are endless in ultimate, and I think this is because the small community of players and teams brush up against each other often in the current system, and this system offers unique experiences for players on weaker teams. This is the one sport I know of where I can not only watch my heroes, but also play against them. The rare times when my team gets to play against, I don't know, the Georgia Bosschers and Robyn Fennigs of the world, are when I'm at my most self-evaluative of my performance and trying my hardest to play as well as I can. What better way to test your talents than against the best college players in the game? Ultimate now lets anyone, regardless of their team's talent, test their personal talent against the best. And though my team could play 100 games against Wisconsin and not win a single one, it's still so damn fun to play a game like that once in a while-- games that let you see, firsthand, in a real sweat, dirt, and exhaustion kind of way, what it means to play high-level ultimate. You do that and think, "Wow, if I work hard enough, someday I could be there." You tell your entire team, "If you work your asses off, we could begin to be at that level." That experience, that firsthand sense that the possibilities in this sport are endless, would, I believe, be diminished within a divisional system. Consider the above my lament for the inevitable end of the current one-division system.
I hope that college ultimate can find a happy medium between the current C1 proposal and my naive dreams of every tiny liberal arts school having the opportunity to play against the Bella Donnas of the world. Whatever system is in place needs to provide healthy competition for teams that are at the top but also for the teams that are trying to get there. I don't think the current C1 system, as explained now, provides that.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Experience: Players and Coaches
Sorry about the posting delay. Regionals this weekend and midsems this week have made things a little hectic around here, but without further ado...
Last time I wrote about the size of a school being a main factor in the sharp divide in quality of play between college ultimate teams. Comments on that post and some consideration of my own have led me to this post, addressing the experience question. For this post, experience can be divided in two parts: player experience and coach experience.
First, player experience. Clearly, the more experienced players you have on your team, the greater advantage your team will have. I mentioned Carleton College last time and the fact that they attract ultimate players who have played in high school and earlier because of the quality of their program. This gives them a huge advantage in that (I imagine) they don't have to spend nearly as much time on teaching the basics to their players. Size also plays a role here, as I mentioned last week: having enough players to field an A and a B team or, early on in the season, an X and Y team, gives rookies experience they will need to succeed in the competitive spring season. Legacy gives advantages to schools with strong programs because players who are extremely committed to ultimate are, I would guess, more likely to attend schools with good programs. Witness the number of junior world and national competitors on Carleton and Wisconsin's rosters in the past few years (I'm biased towards the Central region and thinking of the women's side, but it's probably true for the men's side and other regions, too).
Having a good club team in the area also helps with player experience. Club teams can, as a commentator on my last post said, take a college team "under their wing" and give promising players exposure to high-level ultimate. These players can come back after the club season with this experience and help out their college teams.
Player experience like this tends to create a feedback loop of sorts. The best high school players tend to play for the best college teams, who build a legacy of greatness and keep attracting the best young players. The best club teams tend to develop talent from the best college teams or invite players from the best college teams if they don't have open tryouts. This creates a bias towards teams that are already strong. Enter my second point: coach experience, or the experience coaches can bring and develop in younger teams.
As a college captain myself, I can attest to the difficulties of serving the dual role as a team captain and coach. Just because you're a good player doesn't mean you'll make a good coach, and though I have more experience than most players on my team, I still have much to learn about the game and sometimes feel overwhelmed with the task of teaching and leading a young team. Having a knowledgeable coach is, in my opinion, one of the main ways for teams to push themselves to a higher competitive level and even out the playing field in college ultimate, in particular, college women's ultimate.
Gwen Ambler has already beat me to this point with an excellent article she wrote for MSSUI. She writes, first, that coaches will usually have more experience than even a veteran college player, and this experience can help the team decide what to focus on to improve most effectively. I've found developing and finding drills for my team to focus on specific improvements difficult, and I imagine a coach would help with this immensely. Second, a coach can see things in games that players simply can't see because they are never entirely off the field in an observer position. Yup...I play probably 75 - 90 percent of the points in any given game just because I am one of the most experienced players on my team, and this means that I miss out on the "big picture" of the game, the view that can only come from watching everything from the sideline. Third, a coach can help with all the logistics of leading a team that make it difficult for college captains who are both trying to play and lead on the field and who also have to deal with calling lines, playing time, and watching what works and doesn't work against opponents. Ambler has this to say in her article:
"Many coached players probably do not realize what an advantage they have over the un-coached squads that are forced to have captains do everything from teaching new players to calling lines to adjusting defenses mid-game to planning practices to leading the team on the field."
And I agree with every word.
I also think a coach adds legitimacy to a college ultimate program. I'm going to devote a later post to this, but I feel like a coach can help focus a team and motivate them to go beyond their usual limits. Especially with new programs, having a coach set a regular training and conditioning schedule can, from the very start, establish the tone of a team. Ambler mentions UCLA as the perfect example of a young program that established itself very quickly as a national contender because of strong coaching.
As usual, there is always an exception, and the notable exception this time is Wisconsin, who has not needed a coach to establish both the men and women's teams as a top or the top college ultimate program in the country. I don't want to pretend to know how they do it, but it speaks volumes of the intensity, dedication, talent, and focus of the captains who organize everything. Like the size issue I addressed last week, having a coach isn't a necessity for success, but because Wisconsin is the one notable exception I can think of, I think it does give a big advantage to teams who have coaches.
So, in conclusion, I strongly encourage players who want to develop more experience for themselves and for their college teams to try out for a local club team. Even non-elite club teams have experienced players from which to learn, and at tournaments you will get to play against some very good players, which is in itself a learning process. My one year of club ultimate has helped me recognize what I need to focus on as a player and has exposed me to new tactics and drills that I use with the college team I captain. Also, if you live by a college that has an ultimate program, contact them to see if they'd like help with coaching. I think anyone with some club ultimate experience and a desire to spread ultimate knowledge and love of the game can be useful as a coach to a college team, serving as a separate set of eyes on the field, giving the team a sense of legitimacy, and helping ease the burden on college captains who have to try to fill the role of captain, coach, and, oftentimes, an essential player on the field.
Some teams, unfortunately, are located in areas that don't have a large pool of available coaching talent or much of an ultimate scene outside of college players. That's a little preview of my next post, focusing on location, coming soon to this blog, assuming I get through midsems week.
Last time I wrote about the size of a school being a main factor in the sharp divide in quality of play between college ultimate teams. Comments on that post and some consideration of my own have led me to this post, addressing the experience question. For this post, experience can be divided in two parts: player experience and coach experience.
First, player experience. Clearly, the more experienced players you have on your team, the greater advantage your team will have. I mentioned Carleton College last time and the fact that they attract ultimate players who have played in high school and earlier because of the quality of their program. This gives them a huge advantage in that (I imagine) they don't have to spend nearly as much time on teaching the basics to their players. Size also plays a role here, as I mentioned last week: having enough players to field an A and a B team or, early on in the season, an X and Y team, gives rookies experience they will need to succeed in the competitive spring season. Legacy gives advantages to schools with strong programs because players who are extremely committed to ultimate are, I would guess, more likely to attend schools with good programs. Witness the number of junior world and national competitors on Carleton and Wisconsin's rosters in the past few years (I'm biased towards the Central region and thinking of the women's side, but it's probably true for the men's side and other regions, too).
Having a good club team in the area also helps with player experience. Club teams can, as a commentator on my last post said, take a college team "under their wing" and give promising players exposure to high-level ultimate. These players can come back after the club season with this experience and help out their college teams.
Player experience like this tends to create a feedback loop of sorts. The best high school players tend to play for the best college teams, who build a legacy of greatness and keep attracting the best young players. The best club teams tend to develop talent from the best college teams or invite players from the best college teams if they don't have open tryouts. This creates a bias towards teams that are already strong. Enter my second point: coach experience, or the experience coaches can bring and develop in younger teams.
As a college captain myself, I can attest to the difficulties of serving the dual role as a team captain and coach. Just because you're a good player doesn't mean you'll make a good coach, and though I have more experience than most players on my team, I still have much to learn about the game and sometimes feel overwhelmed with the task of teaching and leading a young team. Having a knowledgeable coach is, in my opinion, one of the main ways for teams to push themselves to a higher competitive level and even out the playing field in college ultimate, in particular, college women's ultimate.
Gwen Ambler has already beat me to this point with an excellent article she wrote for MSSUI. She writes, first, that coaches will usually have more experience than even a veteran college player, and this experience can help the team decide what to focus on to improve most effectively. I've found developing and finding drills for my team to focus on specific improvements difficult, and I imagine a coach would help with this immensely. Second, a coach can see things in games that players simply can't see because they are never entirely off the field in an observer position. Yup...I play probably 75 - 90 percent of the points in any given game just because I am one of the most experienced players on my team, and this means that I miss out on the "big picture" of the game, the view that can only come from watching everything from the sideline. Third, a coach can help with all the logistics of leading a team that make it difficult for college captains who are both trying to play and lead on the field and who also have to deal with calling lines, playing time, and watching what works and doesn't work against opponents. Ambler has this to say in her article:
"Many coached players probably do not realize what an advantage they have over the un-coached squads that are forced to have captains do everything from teaching new players to calling lines to adjusting defenses mid-game to planning practices to leading the team on the field."
And I agree with every word.
I also think a coach adds legitimacy to a college ultimate program. I'm going to devote a later post to this, but I feel like a coach can help focus a team and motivate them to go beyond their usual limits. Especially with new programs, having a coach set a regular training and conditioning schedule can, from the very start, establish the tone of a team. Ambler mentions UCLA as the perfect example of a young program that established itself very quickly as a national contender because of strong coaching.
As usual, there is always an exception, and the notable exception this time is Wisconsin, who has not needed a coach to establish both the men and women's teams as a top or the top college ultimate program in the country. I don't want to pretend to know how they do it, but it speaks volumes of the intensity, dedication, talent, and focus of the captains who organize everything. Like the size issue I addressed last week, having a coach isn't a necessity for success, but because Wisconsin is the one notable exception I can think of, I think it does give a big advantage to teams who have coaches.
So, in conclusion, I strongly encourage players who want to develop more experience for themselves and for their college teams to try out for a local club team. Even non-elite club teams have experienced players from which to learn, and at tournaments you will get to play against some very good players, which is in itself a learning process. My one year of club ultimate has helped me recognize what I need to focus on as a player and has exposed me to new tactics and drills that I use with the college team I captain. Also, if you live by a college that has an ultimate program, contact them to see if they'd like help with coaching. I think anyone with some club ultimate experience and a desire to spread ultimate knowledge and love of the game can be useful as a coach to a college team, serving as a separate set of eyes on the field, giving the team a sense of legitimacy, and helping ease the burden on college captains who have to try to fill the role of captain, coach, and, oftentimes, an essential player on the field.
Some teams, unfortunately, are located in areas that don't have a large pool of available coaching talent or much of an ultimate scene outside of college players. That's a little preview of my next post, focusing on location, coming soon to this blog, assuming I get through midsems week.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The Size Issue
I think there are a few main reasons for the sharp difference in quality of play between different college ultimate teams. In the next few posts, I'd like to outline my thoughts on the causes of these differences. I'm going to start with the most obvious and most important reason: the size of the school.
The obvious point is that the bigger the school, theoretically, the more people will likely turn out for the ultimate team. But simply having a lot of people come out for the team does not necessarily guarantee quality of players. Rather, I think it has to do more with the options available to college athletes at small schools compared to large schools.
Say I'm a decent high school soccer player-- good enough to play for the varsity team, in shape, committed, accustomed to the rigors and expectations of playing on a sports team, but not good enough to play on a travel team and not good enough to take the high school team to the state finals. I go to Big Public University X with a D-I soccer program, and there's no chance that I'd be able to play soccer there. So, after going to the student organizations fair, some nice people give me a flier about this sport named ultimate for which you don't need prior experience, as much of a time commitment (this is debatable considering some of the top college ultimate teams in the US...but in general, less time), but I still have the opportunity to compete in a sport against other schools, potentially at a national level. Big Public University X gains not just a player for their team, but an athlete who has played a team sport before and knows the expectations associated with playing a team sport.
I'm the same decent high school soccer player, and I decide to go to Liberal Arts College Y. There, the coaches have been courting me to play soccer for their D-III team, and I go to school knowing that I'll have a spot on the team for four years. I never give the ultimate team another thought. So, smaller schools and their less-rigorous athletics take potential athletes away from ultimate teams and ultimate teams at larger schools, in general, will get more athletic players coming from a high school varsity sports background.
The second issue with size is the ability for large schools to have tryouts and field A and B teams. Because they have, say, 10,000 or even 40,000 people at school, this means that when 20 or 30 new people sign up for ultimate, they can hold tryouts and take the best players in the group. At a smaller school, odds are only 5 or 10 new players will try out for the ultimate team, and captains there do not always have the luxury of cutting people or forming two teams.
There is, of course, one notable exception to this: Carleton College. This small liberal arts school in Minnesota has consistently fielded two national-caliber college teams and has enough players "left over" to form other teams. I don't know the entire history behind the Carleton ultimate program, but I do know that they a) attract athletes from other sports to play for them and I'd assume that b) because of their reputation, high school ultimate players come to Carleton to play ultimate. The question is how Carleton initially started its excellent program.
I also don't want to make a blanket statement that all large schools have good or even decent ultimate teams. I've beaten schools that have literally thousands more students than the school I attend (and boy, does that feel good). In general, though, I think that large schools have a big advantage over small schools because the pool of available talent is greater, and because it is greater, large schools have the luxury of cutting weaker players from their A-team rosters.
I'm also, of course, just basing this off of my own experience with college ultimate and what I've read about other teams. I'd love feedback or corrections (that goes for any post).
The obvious point is that the bigger the school, theoretically, the more people will likely turn out for the ultimate team. But simply having a lot of people come out for the team does not necessarily guarantee quality of players. Rather, I think it has to do more with the options available to college athletes at small schools compared to large schools.
Say I'm a decent high school soccer player-- good enough to play for the varsity team, in shape, committed, accustomed to the rigors and expectations of playing on a sports team, but not good enough to play on a travel team and not good enough to take the high school team to the state finals. I go to Big Public University X with a D-I soccer program, and there's no chance that I'd be able to play soccer there. So, after going to the student organizations fair, some nice people give me a flier about this sport named ultimate for which you don't need prior experience, as much of a time commitment (this is debatable considering some of the top college ultimate teams in the US...but in general, less time), but I still have the opportunity to compete in a sport against other schools, potentially at a national level. Big Public University X gains not just a player for their team, but an athlete who has played a team sport before and knows the expectations associated with playing a team sport.
I'm the same decent high school soccer player, and I decide to go to Liberal Arts College Y. There, the coaches have been courting me to play soccer for their D-III team, and I go to school knowing that I'll have a spot on the team for four years. I never give the ultimate team another thought. So, smaller schools and their less-rigorous athletics take potential athletes away from ultimate teams and ultimate teams at larger schools, in general, will get more athletic players coming from a high school varsity sports background.
The second issue with size is the ability for large schools to have tryouts and field A and B teams. Because they have, say, 10,000 or even 40,000 people at school, this means that when 20 or 30 new people sign up for ultimate, they can hold tryouts and take the best players in the group. At a smaller school, odds are only 5 or 10 new players will try out for the ultimate team, and captains there do not always have the luxury of cutting people or forming two teams.
There is, of course, one notable exception to this: Carleton College. This small liberal arts school in Minnesota has consistently fielded two national-caliber college teams and has enough players "left over" to form other teams. I don't know the entire history behind the Carleton ultimate program, but I do know that they a) attract athletes from other sports to play for them and I'd assume that b) because of their reputation, high school ultimate players come to Carleton to play ultimate. The question is how Carleton initially started its excellent program.
I also don't want to make a blanket statement that all large schools have good or even decent ultimate teams. I've beaten schools that have literally thousands more students than the school I attend (and boy, does that feel good). In general, though, I think that large schools have a big advantage over small schools because the pool of available talent is greater, and because it is greater, large schools have the luxury of cutting weaker players from their A-team rosters.
I'm also, of course, just basing this off of my own experience with college ultimate and what I've read about other teams. I'd love feedback or corrections (that goes for any post).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
