Division-III Nationals...and the quality divide in college ultimate, two years later

It's been a while, again, my apologies. I finished my career as a college ultimate player this May in Appleton, Wisconsin, playing in the first ever Division-III National Championship. I'm going to frame my thoughts for this post and the next one around D-III Nationals. This post is going to focus on D-IIIs in the context of issues raised with small college teams previously in this blog and talk about my thoughts and ideas relating to that, and the next post will talk more specifically about my team's experiences this season culminating in D-III Nationals.

First, for the sake of examples, I'm going to say what team I play for.  I'll write more about this in my next post, but for now I'll let you know I play(ed...that's weird to write) for Grinnell College. Discerning readers probably already figured this out, but, yeah, I tried to keep that hidden on this blog until now to write more objectively about stuff, but I'm done with college now and feel like it's important to talk about my experiences a little more personally in the next two posts.

Anyways. I wrote in 2008 about what I called the "quality divide in college ultimate," and I explained some reasons why I thought it existed. I'm going to go through those reasons and discuss them in the context of the current state of ultimate in 2010, because with D-IIIs and my own experiences in the past two years, some things have changed, or maybe my perspective has become more informed.

1. Size-- we're never going to be able to change that; Grinnell will always be a school of 1,500 students. The creation of D-III Nationals addresses this divide nicely, though, and gives small schools a more level playing field. I was really impressed with D-IIIs this year-- playing observed games and having official merchandise and the director of the UPA (it was the last UPA tournament, by the way) there were all nice gestures/signs that this was a legitimate national championship. I do see room for improvement in two areas regarding D-IIIs. First, not all the teams who were invited to nationals accepted their invitation. We were the only women's team from the Central, for example. We were behind Carleton and Luther in terms of bid allocation, but Carleton went to D-Is and Luther declined their bid. This happened in other regions, too. It was commencement weekend for a lot of smaller schools (it was our commencement weekend, too, and therefore I was the only senior to attend...), but I think some teams who were invited from distant regions and who would have had to pay for airfare to compete were not prepared to do so. As the tournament becomes more established, though, and teams start making D-IIIs their goal, I think more and more teams will accept, and the general quality of teams will get better. Elite teams are well-practiced, I would imagine, in the costs of travleing to distant tournaments, and D-III teams will also have to begin to think about how to fundraise and save for travel to the big show. Again, I think this is a matter of time and establishing D-IIIs as a legitimate national championship that teams can and should work for.

The second, and more important issue, I think, is the ranking system used to determine who gets bids. The regular season is the only thing that determines bids. There is no regional tournament with a championship game and a game-to-go for D-IIIs. I don't think a D-III series or anything like that will happen anytime soon because there aren't enough D-III teams in some places to warrant it, and it also isn't fair to really good D-III teams like Carleton and teams on the cusp like Middlebury to have to decide early on whether to compete in a D-III series or not...the current system lets Carleton and Middlebury play for D-I qualification but still allows them to go to D-IIIs if they don't make it (and both of them made it this year, congrats). So, the ranking system is likely to remain in place, and it is not perfect. There were definitely some teams in the Central that should have/could have gone to D-IIIs but didn't because they did not make the 10 sanctioned games requirement. Again, this is something that will take time...teams are going to realize that they need these games and will get them in if they are serious about D-IIIs.  Tournaments also have to keep their end of the bargain (Vegas this year...) and teams need to get their accurate, completed rosters in (we had to attend an extra tournament this season because some games we though were sanctioned ended up not being so because our opponents messed their rosters up).

Also, one thing I have come to realize, through Michelle Ng's incredible work this past season, is that as ultimate players we have the power to create positive change in our own regions. We were beat by two D-III teams at Regionals that did not go to D-III nationals, and given those results, it could be argued that they deserved to go there in our stead (Neither of them had the ten sanctioned games, and results from Regionals didn't count towards the qualification rankings, either). This was sort of a monkey on my back as we went into D-IIIs. I'd like to think tying for third sent the message that we deserved to be there, but this discrepancy in results and in rankings could be avoided earlier in the season if D-III teams have the opportunity to play each other before a late tournament like Regionals (this was the first time we'd played these particular teams all season). The ranking system will only become more accurate if D-III teams get more chances to play other D-III teams, and this also means more chances for sanctioned games. And as D-III players, we can make that happen by hosting D-III tournaments.  A tournament doesn't have to be 40 teams on polo fields-- you can easily host an 8-team tournament on four or even three fields on campus or at the local park.  Eight teams would be a good portion of the D-III women's teams in the Central region, so a huge number of teams for a D-III tournament, in most regions, isn't necessary. Make it cheap, make it sanctioned, give people water and bagels, report scores, communicate with captains, and maybe host a mixer on Saturday night. Opportunities to play regional competition will help improve the D-III rankings, and will also build bonds between D-III teams in the region. Having run a tournament before, it's not thaaat hard to do if you keep the number of teams manageable and ask for help, plus you end up making money for your team in the process.

2. Experience-- I wrote about player experience through club and high school/middle school ultimate and coaching experience in my previous post. I think this is the most important aspect that sets some teams apart from others. You can have the tallest, fastest athletes on the field, but I still think, generally, they will lose against a team with an experienced coach and some players who have been on the club circuit for a season or more. The major difference I saw between women's teams at D-III nationals and D-I nationals, besides roster size (generally a product of point number one), was the absence of coaches at the former and their large presence at the latter. I highly recommend reading Lou Burruss' blog for an inside look at what the Oregon women did at D-I nationals this year, and look at how many decisions he carefully considers and makes in his coaching, from everything to in-game strategy to how to avoid getting heat exhaustion during and after games. Over the course of a four day tournament, it seems almost impossible to do well without a coach.  And being a player and a captain/coach at the same time is really, really hard, as anyone who has tried to fill that role well will know.  I've never played for an ultimate team with a coach (except for one happy weekend in March), but I watched a lot of good coaching at D-I nationals, and it really made me realize what a big difference a good coach can be.

And then there's player experience.  By and large, the best players in the women's game play women's club, or elite mixed club.  My thoughts on this really haven't changed since 2008...the more you play at higher levels, the better you will be on your college team and, presumably, the better that will make your teammates.  D-III schools don't have a disadvantage with this, it seems, except maybe that all the really good ultimate kids who want a small-school college experience will try to get into Carleton and not Grinnell.  My experience has been limited to Iowa, which doesn't have a really developed club scene (at least for those of us not good enough to play for CLX), but I'm assuming students at smaller colleges have generally the same opportunities to be on club teams, assuming those club teams exist...which has more to do with...

...3.  Location My thoughts on this haven't changed too much since my post on it in 2008.  The Northwest and Southwest continue to dominate women's ultimate (Santa Barbara every year, Oregon this year, Washington last year, Colorado this year, Stanford almost every year, etc.).  A Northwest team won D-III nationals on the women's side this year, too (Pacific Lutheran)...and last year at the unofficial version of D-III nationals (Whitman).  Better weather, better local competition, better high school ultimate, better (and more) women's club teams?  All play a factor, I think.  Still, Wisconsin proves every year that going to school in the snowbound north, away from elite women's club (though Georgia still played with Fury), doesn't stop a team from being elite.  It remains to be seen what happens with D-III teams.  My only thought is D-III teams (at least liberal arts schools) tend to enroll students from all across the country, so maybe that will level the playing field in some ways when it comes to getting experienced high school players.  Still, if you go to school in rural Iowa, you have to drive longer to play teams and look harder to find club teams.  Insert your state/location of choice-- there are lots of other examples (Texas comes to mind).

Anyways, to wrap up, I was really pleased with D-IIIs this year, and despite some first-year kinks, I think the system will work out well for small schools in years to come.  And, addressing concerns I voiced earlier on this blog, the system doesn't stop a small team from competing with bigger schools, if they want that type of competition.  My thoughts on experience and location haven't changed so much since 2008.  Much of what I observed then continues to be true...get your players club experience, try to get a good coach, and move your school to California or Washington state.

I'm off to New Hampshire to hike for a week, but I'll try to get my second D-III post up sometime this month.

History and Legacy

Team legacy and history seems to be one of these things that benefits larger teams. Teams like Carleton, Wisconsin, or Georgia have such a strong history of good play that good players from those areas are going to want to stay there. These schools also have very strong youth ultimate play underneath them in the area, and have an excellent pitch for those that are looking at colleges; namely continuing the legacy. Who doesn't want to be a part of a program that knows how to get it done, that has won in the past. It may not equate to national championships, but always contending for top spots in your region for limited bids to nationals is a great place to be. Long, winning histories tend to help out with things other than just recruitment though.

Established teams are often given first choice of practice times and fields. After all, these teams will actually be using the fields regularly and are not unreliable in that the school often knows them pretty well. Many of these teams build strong relationships with their pertinent administrators if just to get what they need to practice. Alumni can greatly help a team throughout a team's development. Teams can get alumni who are playing on local club teams to come out and coach them, whether that is full time or part time. Even if it is just to add some numbers to practice, this can greatly help younger players as they can solidly see what was needed to succeed on earlier teams, and what is needed now in the club scene. I have also heard that some alumni have donated or even created funds for their alma mater teams. Whether it is a scholarship or a temporary donation to help out that season, this can be a great help to otherwise cash-strapped teams.

Having a team legacy and history is not something that is given to you, but it must be created itself. My team has only been around for 10 years, but it has been difficult to create a lasting legacy or history. The team's identity changes quickly with each year's captain, but I am attempting to change that. The first thing that I noticed that was difficult with our history was that incoming captains often had no experience or help leading the team. Most of the teams had seniors leading everything the team did including drills and games. This leaves almost no room for underclassmen to develop their own leadership skills. One way to get them involved is to allow underclassmen to run certain drills when you have separation. We like to play 10-pull and I often appoint a junior to take on as captain of the offense. I think he is going to be a great future leader and want him to see what it is like leading a team even if it is just during practice.

In a break from tradition, I am also constructing a sort of "captain's handbook" to help out later captains. When I was thinking of drills to do, I at first just had to remember what we did last year and try to emulate that. Since the year has begun though I have been tweaking these drills to better suit our needs and writing these notes down. I plan to compile all of these thoughts into drill sheets with variations all in one notebook. I also plan on putting in guides to finding tournaments to go to, qualities that I looked for in selecting players for roles, and other things such as reports on what went well and wrong at tournaments concerning strategy. I have also been using a program called Evernote that makes it very easy to clip things from the internet, including pictures. Over the course of the year I have been clipping good Huddle articles, blog entries, and diagrams on plans to put this into the handbook. As much as I want this document to include my thoughts, future captains should see where I pulled those ideas from in case they want to make their own thoughts on the subject. I am hoping that this handbook will be passed from captain to captain now. This will start a history of help from captain to captain.

People other than captains can help out too. We have recently figured a way to help out with getting the field times and space that we need. Since our school has a board that governs all club sports, we have been trying to get people onto the committee. This requires a modicum of extra work every week; about 1 or 2 hours worth some weeks, sometimes less. This year we have two ultimate people on the board and can help directly influence any policies that may affect us as a team. This year, I am sure that I have one of the sophomores ready to take my spot on the board. While you do need to be voted onto the board, most people run unopposed every year due to general apathy towards the positions. While I can understand this, it looks great on a resume (as leadership position) and does not require that much work at all.

It is also in a small team's best interest to start building relationships with people that are useful such as fundraising or sponsorships. Recently we have been taking advantage of a connection that allows us to sell beer at the local NFL and NBA games. These are great fundraisers for us and bring in money both for the team and the members that participate. We are also building a relationship so that the team can continue to be considered for this opportunity in the future. Neither the NFL or NBA franchise looks like it is going anywhere anytime soon. Sponsorships have been a little more difficult to do in this tough economy, but we are still looking around for those.

Here's to hopes that this can help other new captains or team leaders that are having a difficult time with forging a new team our of nothing. A team history is built up over the time and it does require some hard work to get it going. You don't want this to just be a phase that people go through while in college, but rather a complete experience that they will remember. Hopefully this will mean they are willing to come around and help you out later.

P.S. I think I will be digitizing this "handbook" that I will be making. Keeping in mind that it is mostly my thoughts and opinions, I would be willing to help out other small teams with a copy of it. Let me know in the comments if this is something that teams are interested in.

Location and the Quality Divide in College Ultimate

Sorry it's been so long between posts. The end of the semester is coming, and with it comes seminar papers and sleepless nights. But here it goes...

Winter is rapidly approaching in the Midwest. Daylight is shrinking, and afternoon sunlight has been drastically cut back with daylight saving time. The leaves are coming down in droves, and every night gets a little colder than the last. Soon the first snow will come, and where I go to school, that snow will stay on the ground until at least March. The shift in the weather always makes me long for warmer country, and started me thinking about location and the role it plays in helping to explain the divide in quality I see between college ultimate teams, an issue I've been exploring in a series of posts.

Weather is the first clear byproduct of location. Schools on the west coast and in the south have an advantage in being able to practice outside year-round, but the success of programs in locations that don't offer those opportunities suggests it's not as large as an advantage as it first seems. Schools in cold climes need the facilities to hold indoor practice and conditioning, however, or else location does become a big factor in the success or failure of teams. Large universities have an advantage over smaller schools, mainly because they often have field houses or sometimes even indoor soccer fields to practice on, and nice indoor tracks to condition on. I'm sure indoor practice is not much fun wherever you are, but having seen nice field houses at large public universities and compared them to the World's Worst Indoor Track that my team practices on in the cold months, there is definitely a quality gradient to indoor facilities. Any indoor practice makes throwing artificially easy, however, so teams in colder areas do have some disadvantage after months of playing inside and then moving to the windy outside world, but schools that have large and nice facilities can certainly make up for that disadvantage through hard work...witness the success of Wisconsin ultimate, and Madison is not the most hospitable of places in the winter.

Location plays a larger role, I think, in its relation to a previous post on player and coach experience. There are definitely areas of the United States with a high concentration of ultimate players and established ultimate communities. In the Midwest, I'd say the strongest ultimate hotspots are the Twin Cities, Madison, and Chicago. You could also make arguments for Ann Arbor, Columbus, and St. Louis. Maybe Cincinnati and Iowa City, too. All these places have established ultimate leagues and at least one club team, some cities boasting top club teams in all three divisions (open, women, and mixed). College players can play for those teams and in those leagues and bring the skills they learn there to their college teams. Also, there's the potential for coaches to help out college teams in these areas that already have a lot of experienced ultimate players and an ultimate community. I think you can also make an argument for the benefit of high school ultimate programs in these areas and the probability that a student who graduates from, say, Madison West or Hopkins (Twin Cities area) will be more likely to attend a local university and play ultimate for them.

Maybe the perfect example of the potential advantage of location for college teams is that of the University of Washington's Element, a women's college team based in arguably the best ultimate city in the U.S., Seattle. The team picks up excellent players from local high schools like Nathan Hale, has coaches like Miranda Roth and Jenn Willson who play for Riot, an elite women's club team based in Seattle, and some of the strongest players on Element improve their game by playing with Riot. It's a nice symbiotic relationship, grounded in Seattle and the strong ultimate community that city has developed.

Location can also determine what tournaments a team attends, and the competition a team faces in general. Teams in remote locations or locations removed from other schools who play ultimate are at a disadvantage because traveling to tournaments that offer good competition becomes difficult, especially for young teams that may not have a core of players willing to shell out lots of money to travel. This is one more potential stumbling block in the way of teams trying to develop better programs.

One last point about location that I hadn't considered until a comment brought it up on a previous post is how some locations can serve as a distraction of sorts. I've never encountered this because fun outdoor activities directly linked to location where I go to school are limited, to, well, de-tasseling corn and, uh...biking? Some schools are lucky enough to be in an awesome location, and teams in these locations can lose potential ultimate players to the allure of rock climbing, backpacking, or (this is mind-blowing to my Midwest self) surfing. I'm not sure this is a huge factor, and I certainly can't speak from any personal experience, but I thought I'd mention it.

In relation to previous posts, I'd say location isn't as big as a factor in explaining the quality differences you see in college ultimate teams, but combined with other factors, it helps to explain some of that divide. This is particularly relevant when combined with the experience factor. Schools in or near cities with well-developed ultimate communities have a big advantage over schools who aren't in such a location. Travel distance is probably the second-most important location factor, and weather, despite being obnoxious, the least-important factor, assuming schools have some way to practice and condition while the snow falls. Though the Russians don't even bother with indoor ultimate...

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.