Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Georgia Declines Conference1 Offer

After much discussion, both internally and with our friends on other teams, Georgia has decided to decline Cultimate's offer to join Conference 1.

Here are our main concerns

(1) Logistically, Cultimate is in no-way set up to handle the complexities of the series. They simply don't have the proper infrastructure necessary to handle eligibility.
(2) As best as we can tell, the top 25, especially the teams outside the top 15, is more or less completely arbitrary. We're especially concerned about the lack of details provided about teams that are not in the initial top 25's ability to move into the series.
(3) The timing of this is very irritating. With less than 3 months until the start of the spring season, we feel like we are being forced into making a decision without full knowledge of the details. Why could this have not been presented to us earlier? What's wrong with waiting until next year to do this? Right now, Cultimate is all but guaranteeing that the 2009 Season is going to be in a state of chaos.
(4) People remember who wins the NBA Championship...no one cares who won the most ABA Titles.
(5) If Cultimate were just interested in expanding their series from last year, Georgia would be very interested in participating. Why is it so necessary for Cultimate to be in charge of the championship event?
(6) We have serious concerns about the price structuring of this event in future years. Currently, the teams are getting a pretty sweet deal to attend these events, what's to guarantee us that Cultimate won't substantially raise costs in the future?


This in no way is meant as bashing Cultimate, I think they are bringing up some very important ideas and are suggesting many needed changes. It's also quite possible that we would be willing to compete in a Conference1 series next year, if some of these difficulties can be worked out. Unfortunately, as currently proposed, we feel that the Conference1 series will not work out, and the timing of Cultimate's announcement leaves them no time to work through the logistical details.

In any event, for all of these reasons, Georgia will be attending sectionals this year, with the hope of advancing to regionals and beyond. We hope that other teams will join us, but respect that each program has to make the decision that is best for their program.

18 comments:

Nathan said...

A member of the UPA board once said "Eligibility rules ARE the college series." I could not agree more, and this is a huge question mark for Conference 1. The UPA has worked very hard to nail down eligibility (with some glaring mistakes, no doubt), and Conference 1 has no explanation for how they can approach this level of commitment to eligibility.

I applaud Georgia's decision, and very much appreciate this post.

Seamus said...

Ditto to Nathan.

Thanks for posting this publicly, as well... Cultimate looked to take advantage, for better or for worse, of a minor prisoners' dilemma regarding disclosure and communication between the teams.

Good luck this season.

angela said...

well said, AJ.

Barnes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barnes said...

The timing of this is very irritating. With less than 3 months until the start of the spring season, we feel like we are being forced into making a decision without full knowledge of the details."

exactly. you have 3 FULL months to consider this (had). why not wait it out and see if more information came out from Cultimate addressing your concerns? (which they most certainly will). why did you have to make a decision right away instead of waiting until the talks between the upa and Cultimate regarding collaboration were resolved?

At this point the top 25 teams decide what will happen in college ultimate next year. The teams have the power. By making a decision without letting things play out a bit more you have essentially lost your bargaining chip.

What if the upa and Cultimate decide to collaborate and make this thing work? Looks like you'll be winning the ABA title. Nice.

Gray said...

"why not wait it out and see if more information came out from Cultimate addressing your concerns? (which they most certainly will). why did you have to make a decision right away instead of waiting until the talks between the upa and Cultimate regarding collaboration were resolved?....."


Why didnt cultimate wait till next season after they have talked to the UPA regarding collaboration. It seems unfair to force 25 of the top teir teams to make a rushed decision that may affect them for the next 3 years. There was not enough information about this new league and it wasn't presented very professionally at all. Teams should not be waiting around for cultimate to do something they should have done 6 months ago in the summer.

BrettyBrett said...

I am not sure why everyone is criticizing and verbally attacking Cultimate for this.

I am on a team invited and we had a very informative teleconference with Cultimate which filled in a lot of the gaps. They have not required an answer immediately, so I think Barnes is right. Why directly answer no when you have time to gather information and hear more of what happens. Game theory even proves your early decision is suboptimal given the constraints.

I am not against or for Conference 1, just think that someone in control of shaping the future of frisbee should make an informed decision instead of being rash and rushing. What Cultimate did to you and us in terms of rushing, is what you just did back to them. Just think an optimal solution for the future of our sport cannot be found given the constraints of current information, and thus, should gather all resources before making a permanent decision.

Harry said...

"At this point the top 25 teams decide what will happen in college ultimate next year. The teams have the power."

We shouldn't have this power. This power should be given to everyone it affects which includes hundreds of teams, not just the top 25.

-Allen
Jojah 56

AJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ said...

Brett:

I've received many emails today, some negative. Some have asked me how we could possibly give up our "bargaining chip." You suggest that we've committed some reasoning error due to a violation of some game theory principle.

I would suggest that these sorts of claims are to have already missed what's at issue.

Since you question my reasoning, let me lay it out a little bit more formally for you.

(1) Either Cultimate will work with the UPA on Conference 1 or Cultimate will run Conference1 independently of the UPA.
(2)If Cultimate works independently of the UPA series, Georgia is not interested in being a part of Conference 1, and as such should decline Cultimate's offer.
(3)If Cultimate works within the framework of the UPA then the input of all the impacted teams (both C1 and non-C1) should be sought. In this case, Georgia's declining of C1's offer is tantamount to the claim that Georgia should be given exactly the same consideration as every other impacted team. So, Georgia should decline Cultimate's offer.

So, given our team's stance on (2) and (3) declining Cultimate's offer was the only reasonable thing to do.

I'm not saying that everyone has to agree with our position on either of these claims. That's why I closed the post stating that each team has to do what's right for their program.

But again, to claim that we have given up our "bargaining chip" is realy to have missed the point.



AJ

BrettyBrett said...

Thanks AJ, I better understand and thank you for the very logical, objective breakdown. I did not mean to infer using this knowledge as a bargaining chip, but more so, wait to know everything to make a appropriate decision. However, using your logic, you do have all the necessary info and in no way disagree with your decision given your stance.

God Bless

Muffin said...

I think your game theory is flawed. What if the other 24 teams join C1 collectively and GA is left out.

Would that be a good time to reconsider? But isn't that what game theory is - predicting others actions and acting accordingly?
Why again did you make a decision without all the information...

AJ said...

Muffin:

I think your game theory is flawed.

It's possible. I don't know much about game theory.

In my response to Brett, I was attempting to show the reason we announced our decision...I'm really not sure how to lay it out in a more direct fashion.

If you want to talk more drop me an email.

aj

AJ said...

..Also. I want to emphasize, that our rejection of this proposal is just for this year. We're basically saying let's keep the series as is for the time being so we don't end up screwing this year....and when we have more of the details worked out, we can potentially move in a new direction.

Jay Schulkin said...

I applaud your decision. It's one thing for people to criticize your decision, but like you say, it is ridiculous for them to say that you are being rash and irrational.

Abbie said...

AJ,

I also applaud Georgia's decision and your clear explanation of the team's decision. You have set an example of acting with integrity.

And, for those that think that Georgia has given up a "bargaining chip": The UPA is the PLAYERS' organization. Wouldn't staying with the UPA be "keeping the bargaining chip", meaning the ability to have input in the fairness of the process?

milf said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
milf said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.