I'm trying to live up to a bargain I made the Florida women's coach of posting more. I hope I am not boring people.
I just got 2 more videos from Ultivillage: 2008 UPA Championships and 2008 WFDF Championships. My first reaction was disappointment in the UPA video. They trimmed down to 1 DVD rather than 2, and it seems to be at the expense of content. There was no menu structure for pool play, and you didn't get a chance to see more of the games (even if only highlights). I'll comment them for going back to an elevated camera instead of the ground level cameras that have been used for the past few finals. They even used sideline cameras, which offer some great views of spacing and depth that end zone cameras can't give. Unfortunately the editing left a bit to e desired. The first half of the men's game the sideline cameras were almost always zoomed in on the thrower so close you couldn't even see the dump well. The second half was better, but they we to the end zone camera which was typically more zoomed out. The other problem I had was that the play felt stunted. We didn't see many pulls, and they disc would just magically appear on the field without any idea of what happened before. The commentary provided was good commentary, but it also felt stunted as there was no down time (between points and turnovers) for the commentators to add any color or discussion.
Contrast this with the excellent job in filming and editing for the WFDF video. The pool play and most finals were the same style Ultivillage has employed for the past few years, giving us a few extended plays during a game, but jumping from point to point. The finals (at least the men's) were excellent. There were three commentators (Match and 2 guys from blockstack.tv) that did an excellent job. The video was from an angle and elevated, with multiple cameras so they could bounce around as needed. But best of all we saw pretty much the whole game. The benefit of that, from a coaching standard, is huge. I can sit down the the kids and we can actually see what a team is doing on the field, we can discuss strategy and since there is relative down time between each point we can discuss before we have to start watching again. I would love to spend time this coming Tuesday (Tape Tuesdays) talking about Ironside's implementation of straight stack, but I can't see it on the videos. Or how Fury staged their incredible comeback, but the commentary doesn't add anything more than play by play. Instead we will be watching, and listening to the 2008 WFDF finals and talk about how team USA started calling fouls when they were down.
Hopefully Ultivillage (who I love for making these videos) will cover more events like WFDF and give us more stuff to talk about. I can watch highlights online, I buy the DVDs because I want to watch a full game and see as many of the games from a tournament as possible. I sent Rob an email to see if there was any way that I could get the full film from last years UPA finals . . . we'll see if that gets me anywhere.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Offensive Line-up
I was talking with one of my players yesterday about what was needed to have a successful offense. At the time he was of the mind-set that you need to have your "best" seven players on the field for offense (even if some of them are prone to turn-overs). This led to a conversation of what people do you need on the field to have a successful offense. We didn't really get to a conclusion before we had to head our separate ways, but I spent some more time thinking about it and I came up with the following:
For our game at Paideia (lets of working the disc with a few hucks here and there) I feel like on an offensive point we need 2 dominant under cutters, 2 excellent handles/resets, 1 dominant deep threat and 2 people to fill the gaps. Those fills are the people that know what to do when the opponent starts to poach and can do the things needed to keep the offense going.
Too many cutters lead to clogged lanes, too many handles leaves the cutting lanes barren. Too many deep threats means fewer under cuts and if we don't have those fills then the small things never get done.
I would imagine as you go from team to team and level to level the composition changes, but it remains important for a coach to think about what he or she needs on the field to score. Most of the people reading this have probably already gone through these thoughts, but it was a valuable coaching experience for our young player who had never really thought about that element of strategy.
Kyle deserves most of the credit for the conversation between my player and I, because it was something I told him about the way Kyle calls subs that really started the ball rolling for this conversation.
For our game at Paideia (lets of working the disc with a few hucks here and there) I feel like on an offensive point we need 2 dominant under cutters, 2 excellent handles/resets, 1 dominant deep threat and 2 people to fill the gaps. Those fills are the people that know what to do when the opponent starts to poach and can do the things needed to keep the offense going.
Too many cutters lead to clogged lanes, too many handles leaves the cutting lanes barren. Too many deep threats means fewer under cuts and if we don't have those fills then the small things never get done.
I would imagine as you go from team to team and level to level the composition changes, but it remains important for a coach to think about what he or she needs on the field to score. Most of the people reading this have probably already gone through these thoughts, but it was a valuable coaching experience for our young player who had never really thought about that element of strategy.
Kyle deserves most of the credit for the conversation between my player and I, because it was something I told him about the way Kyle calls subs that really started the ball rolling for this conversation.
Friday, March 27, 2009
High School Coaching
I've spend the past few months being an assistant coach to the Paideia High School men's team (Gruel) and the women's team (Groove). It has been an interesting and rewarding experience for many reasons, not the least of which is that I am assisting my former head coach Michael Baccarini.
Much of my time has been spent holding a clipboard, finding times to talk strategy and technique with players on the side. The set-up at Paideia is very different than I had at Emory. Much more responsibility falls on the shoulders of the players, including subbing and strategy. The pros and cons of that system are pretty obvious, we have less control of what is going on, but the players develop their knowledge of the game which is valuable down the road.
It is also strange attending tournaments where we know we are at a huge disadvantage. We have attended 1 high school tournament (Deep Freeze) which was the week after try-outs. Ever since then we have been going to college tournaments (Southern and a B-team tournaments) where we know we are at a huge size/speed disadvantage. Fortunately we typically have as many years of playing experience (if not more) than our opponents, but it is tough telling a 5'4" freshman to go guard a 5'11" college junior and protect the open side.
It seems like the athletic discrepancy would force us to improve our strategy, which it does on some level, but the main mode of thought is "go our there and play better." Being a strategy junkie I find myself craving more time to go over the minutia of our offense or slight alterations we can make to our trap zone to capitalize on a players weakness. That leads me to my question for the panel:
What type of coach are you? Are you the micro-managing coach who calls every line and then tells everyone who to guard? Are you the coach that teaches at practice then sees if your babies can swim at tournaments? Lastly, is there a better/worse method of coaching depending on the level you are coaching at? I guess I'll go answer first.
Much of my time has been spent holding a clipboard, finding times to talk strategy and technique with players on the side. The set-up at Paideia is very different than I had at Emory. Much more responsibility falls on the shoulders of the players, including subbing and strategy. The pros and cons of that system are pretty obvious, we have less control of what is going on, but the players develop their knowledge of the game which is valuable down the road.
It is also strange attending tournaments where we know we are at a huge disadvantage. We have attended 1 high school tournament (Deep Freeze) which was the week after try-outs. Ever since then we have been going to college tournaments (Southern and a B-team tournaments) where we know we are at a huge size/speed disadvantage. Fortunately we typically have as many years of playing experience (if not more) than our opponents, but it is tough telling a 5'4" freshman to go guard a 5'11" college junior and protect the open side.
It seems like the athletic discrepancy would force us to improve our strategy, which it does on some level, but the main mode of thought is "go our there and play better." Being a strategy junkie I find myself craving more time to go over the minutia of our offense or slight alterations we can make to our trap zone to capitalize on a players weakness. That leads me to my question for the panel:
What type of coach are you? Are you the micro-managing coach who calls every line and then tells everyone who to guard? Are you the coach that teaches at practice then sees if your babies can swim at tournaments? Lastly, is there a better/worse method of coaching depending on the level you are coaching at? I guess I'll go answer first.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Quick Natties Thoughts
I might write more later when I recover...but here are some quick thoughts:
(1)Congrats to Jam and Ironside...the finals was really clean, both in terms of not so many turnovers and in the sense that it was noticeably lacking in cheating, and as a result the game finished in something like 100 minutes.
(2)If Dylan Tunnell isn't on the world games team it's pretty much a huge joke. Chain was 5-0 with Dylan and 0-2 without him this weekend....not an accident...completely changes the game when he's on the field.
(3)Josh McCarthy is a very deserving winner of the Farricker award, but I just wanted to give some props to Chain's nominee, Jason Simpson. Jason has a foot injury that makes even walking incredibly painful. He decided to put off surgery until next week so he could be there for his teammates. Despite the pain, Simpson still managed to be able to play a lot of meaningful points at Natties...and as always, Jason exhibited the class and sportsmanship that makes him such a respected competitor. So yeah, KD's right, Boston bias is effing this game.
(4)Buy a Chain Jersey or Disc
(5)Ugh. Really felt like we had a chance this year...gonna take a while to get over this one.
aj
(1)Congrats to Jam and Ironside...the finals was really clean, both in terms of not so many turnovers and in the sense that it was noticeably lacking in cheating, and as a result the game finished in something like 100 minutes.
(2)If Dylan Tunnell isn't on the world games team it's pretty much a huge joke. Chain was 5-0 with Dylan and 0-2 without him this weekend....not an accident...completely changes the game when he's on the field.
(3)Josh McCarthy is a very deserving winner of the Farricker award, but I just wanted to give some props to Chain's nominee, Jason Simpson. Jason has a foot injury that makes even walking incredibly painful. He decided to put off surgery until next week so he could be there for his teammates. Despite the pain, Simpson still managed to be able to play a lot of meaningful points at Natties...and as always, Jason exhibited the class and sportsmanship that makes him such a respected competitor. So yeah, KD's right, Boston bias is effing this game.
(4)Buy a Chain Jersey or Disc
(5)Ugh. Really felt like we had a chance this year...gonna take a while to get over this one.
aj
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
National Seedings
Here's my thoughts on nationals seedings:
I think the top 3 seeds are pretty uncontroversial:
1 Sockeye
2 Johnny Bravo (1-0 against Ironside)
3 Ironside
The 4-10 section becomes difficult due to Chain’s loss to Doublewide. Here is how I would handle it:
4 Ring of Fire (1-0 against Revolver, 0-2 against GOAT)
5 Revolver (1-0 against SZ, 1-0 against GOAT, must be higher than Jam)
6 Jam (1-0 against SZ, 1-0 against DW, have losses to Condors and TS, but I think it’s a mistake to push them lower)
7 Sub Zero (1-0 against GOAT, 1-0 against DW)
8 GOAT (1-0 against DW)
9 Doublewide (has to be higher than Chain, 1-0 against Condors)
10 Chain (has to be lower than DW)
11 Condors (2-0 against Truck Stop)
12 Truck Stop (has wins over Jam, Revolver, and DW, so could possibly push them higher them DW, but that just pushes Chain even lower, which seems like an error, 1-0 against Machine).
13 Machine (1-0 against Bodhi, 1-0 against PoNY)
14 Bodhi
15 PoNY
16 El Diablo
aj
I think the top 3 seeds are pretty uncontroversial:
1 Sockeye
2 Johnny Bravo (1-0 against Ironside)
3 Ironside
The 4-10 section becomes difficult due to Chain’s loss to Doublewide. Here is how I would handle it:
4 Ring of Fire (1-0 against Revolver, 0-2 against GOAT)
5 Revolver (1-0 against SZ, 1-0 against GOAT, must be higher than Jam)
6 Jam (1-0 against SZ, 1-0 against DW, have losses to Condors and TS, but I think it’s a mistake to push them lower)
7 Sub Zero (1-0 against GOAT, 1-0 against DW)
8 GOAT (1-0 against DW)
9 Doublewide (has to be higher than Chain, 1-0 against Condors)
10 Chain (has to be lower than DW)
11 Condors (2-0 against Truck Stop)
12 Truck Stop (has wins over Jam, Revolver, and DW, so could possibly push them higher them DW, but that just pushes Chain even lower, which seems like an error, 1-0 against Machine).
13 Machine (1-0 against Bodhi, 1-0 against PoNY)
14 Bodhi
15 PoNY
16 El Diablo
aj
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
UPA Coaching Corp Requirements
So, I just got an email forwarded to me from the UPA.
Here is what I consider the most objectionable part of the email:
During games at UPA Championship events where field access is restricted, teams with coaching staff are required to have at least one Level I Certified coach in order for coaching staff to have player-level field access.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the UPA Coaching Corp. I think it's a nice program that is genuinely trying to help develop the sport. But, I think this new requirement seems a bit over the top.
My basic problem is this: It's not enough that I (and many other coaches like me) VOLUNTEER hours and hours of my (our) time trying to teach people how to play ultimate...now I'm required to pay the UPA if I have hopes that by VOLUNTEERING my time, I might help my team advance to the highest levels? This doesn't seem to be the ideal way to encourage people to coach.
aj
Here is what I consider the most objectionable part of the email:
During games at UPA Championship events where field access is restricted, teams with coaching staff are required to have at least one Level I Certified coach in order for coaching staff to have player-level field access.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the UPA Coaching Corp. I think it's a nice program that is genuinely trying to help develop the sport. But, I think this new requirement seems a bit over the top.
My basic problem is this: It's not enough that I (and many other coaches like me) VOLUNTEER hours and hours of my (our) time trying to teach people how to play ultimate...now I'm required to pay the UPA if I have hopes that by VOLUNTEERING my time, I might help my team advance to the highest levels? This doesn't seem to be the ideal way to encourage people to coach.
aj
Friday, April 11, 2008
Looks like it's gonna be Al over Jim...who knew?
So, I make a brief return to posting just to express my surprise at the state of the blogosphere. In the early days (pre-ultimate talk) it seemed like most of the blogs were going to follow the Parinella model, polite and respectful. George's blog, Zaz's blog, and Marshall's blog all seemed to follow that model. Even Idris' blog and this blog, which preceded Parinella's blog (and aren't quite as milk-toast as Jim's blog) utilized a similar tone.
But the recent addition of this blog has got me thinking. The new popular ultimate blogs (Match Diesel's and Karlinsky's) have followed the Count's Blog model--they're irreverent and usually pretty funny. Match Diesel's Blog is even sporting the Count's trademark flames.
I thought I was just imagining this trend until I saw Parinella post some of the old T-Man stuff in an obvious attempt claim these new wild blogs as his own.
I'm not fooled though...looks like it's Al over Jim in the battle for the future of ultimatetalk.
aj
...Luke's blog continues to resist categorization.
But the recent addition of this blog has got me thinking. The new popular ultimate blogs (Match Diesel's and Karlinsky's) have followed the Count's Blog model--they're irreverent and usually pretty funny. Match Diesel's Blog is even sporting the Count's trademark flames.
I thought I was just imagining this trend until I saw Parinella post some of the old T-Man stuff in an obvious attempt claim these new wild blogs as his own.
I'm not fooled though...looks like it's Al over Jim in the battle for the future of ultimatetalk.
aj
...Luke's blog continues to resist categorization.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Open Seeds
Experience has taught us that the single best indicator for success at nationals is the results of the previous year’s nationals. This isn’t a new idea; we’ve known this for as long as I’ve been playing. What’s interesting is that the previous year’s results have become and increasingly smaller factor in determining seeding. I think there are a few reasons for this: 1) the format gurus (ok, mostly just Tarr) have convinced us that seeds aren’t meant to be predictive 2) we now have access to a lot more regular season results 3) we have been influenced by the method for seeding college – where the amount of turnover makes the previous years results a lot less indicative of success.
Another factor which seems to be completely ignored is when teams bring less that full-strength squad to tournaments. From the standpoint of creating an algorithm, it’s not clear how you account for this. However, in ignoring the strength of the team that actually showed up to a tournament we are throwing away usual information.
I guess what I’m suggesting is that by not considering these two factors, our seeding is not as good as it could be—Chain has been in a pool with 2 semi-finalists the last 3 years. I will say the format at Club nationals is the best at minimizing the effects of initial seeding, but I think it’s naïve to claim that seeding doesn’t matter at nationals.
For these and other reasons, I’ve argued before that it might be time for the UPA to get rid of the prohibition on not seeding a team above a team it finished lower than at a series event.
That being said, here’s my shot at seeding:
The Top 3
Due to the above mentioned prohibition, there are 3 possible ways to seed the top 3. 1)Jam, Sockeye, Bravo. 2)Bravo, Jam, Sockeye, 3) Jam, Bravo, Sockeye. The third way makes the least sense to me. If you’re willing to say that Bravo’s season entitles them to a higher ranking than Sockeye, then certainly Bravo’s 3-1 record against Jam should entitle than to the 1 seed. That being said, I prefer the first seeding. I think you have to give credit to Jam for winning the hardest region.
4
Furious – the team has been in at least the semis for 8? years. Was strong at ECC before losing to Jam.
5
Sub Zero, If Goat wins NE regionals they are the obvious 5 seed, I think there loss pushes Zero up to 5. They’ve had a good season, only losing to teams above them with the exception of 1 loss to Goat.
6-9
6)Boston, 7)Goat, 8)Ring, 9)Condors. I honestly have no idea how to seed this group. Ring is 2-0 against Boston and 0-2 against Goat. Condors has no head-to-head games with this group. I’m gonna go with this seeding to avoid regional re-matches, but I think any shuffling within this group can be justified.
10-12
The three teams in this grouping are Rhino, Doublewide, and Truckstop. Rhino has a four point win over Doublewide, and Truckstop has a one point win over Rhino. I’m going to going to give credit to Rhino for making quarters last year and generally having a slightly better season than Truckstop, despite the 1 point Truckstop win. 10)Rhino, 11)Doublewide, 12)Truckstop.
13-
It’s kind of strange for me to say that Chain should be the 13 seed. This is the sixth year in a row Chain has been to nationals, and this will be the lowest we’ve ever been seeded. This, despite the fact they we’re coming off our best year ever, and added several strong players.
14-16
14) Machine – featuring a bunch of guys who wish they still played for Chain, and some new guy from the west coast.
15) Pike – the comeback kids.
16) Van Buren Boys – we were all a little nervous about the poor spirit in the mixed division spilling over into open when these guys decided to make the switch. After regionals, it seems like our fears were justified.
That gives me the following (obviously correct) seeds:
1. Jam
2. Sockeye
3. Bravo
4. Furious
5. Sub Zero
6. Boston
7. Goat
8. Ring
9. Condors
10. Rhino
11. Doublewide
12. Truck Stop
13. Chain
14. Machine
15. Pike
16. Van Buren Boys
Another factor which seems to be completely ignored is when teams bring less that full-strength squad to tournaments. From the standpoint of creating an algorithm, it’s not clear how you account for this. However, in ignoring the strength of the team that actually showed up to a tournament we are throwing away usual information.
I guess what I’m suggesting is that by not considering these two factors, our seeding is not as good as it could be—Chain has been in a pool with 2 semi-finalists the last 3 years. I will say the format at Club nationals is the best at minimizing the effects of initial seeding, but I think it’s naïve to claim that seeding doesn’t matter at nationals.
For these and other reasons, I’ve argued before that it might be time for the UPA to get rid of the prohibition on not seeding a team above a team it finished lower than at a series event.
That being said, here’s my shot at seeding:
The Top 3
Due to the above mentioned prohibition, there are 3 possible ways to seed the top 3. 1)Jam, Sockeye, Bravo. 2)Bravo, Jam, Sockeye, 3) Jam, Bravo, Sockeye. The third way makes the least sense to me. If you’re willing to say that Bravo’s season entitles them to a higher ranking than Sockeye, then certainly Bravo’s 3-1 record against Jam should entitle than to the 1 seed. That being said, I prefer the first seeding. I think you have to give credit to Jam for winning the hardest region.
4
Furious – the team has been in at least the semis for 8? years. Was strong at ECC before losing to Jam.
5
Sub Zero, If Goat wins NE regionals they are the obvious 5 seed, I think there loss pushes Zero up to 5. They’ve had a good season, only losing to teams above them with the exception of 1 loss to Goat.
6-9
6)Boston, 7)Goat, 8)Ring, 9)Condors. I honestly have no idea how to seed this group. Ring is 2-0 against Boston and 0-2 against Goat. Condors has no head-to-head games with this group. I’m gonna go with this seeding to avoid regional re-matches, but I think any shuffling within this group can be justified.
10-12
The three teams in this grouping are Rhino, Doublewide, and Truckstop. Rhino has a four point win over Doublewide, and Truckstop has a one point win over Rhino. I’m going to going to give credit to Rhino for making quarters last year and generally having a slightly better season than Truckstop, despite the 1 point Truckstop win. 10)Rhino, 11)Doublewide, 12)Truckstop.
13-
It’s kind of strange for me to say that Chain should be the 13 seed. This is the sixth year in a row Chain has been to nationals, and this will be the lowest we’ve ever been seeded. This, despite the fact they we’re coming off our best year ever, and added several strong players.
14-16
14) Machine – featuring a bunch of guys who wish they still played for Chain, and some new guy from the west coast.
15) Pike – the comeback kids.
16) Van Buren Boys – we were all a little nervous about the poor spirit in the mixed division spilling over into open when these guys decided to make the switch. After regionals, it seems like our fears were justified.
That gives me the following (obviously correct) seeds:
1. Jam
2. Sockeye
3. Bravo
4. Furious
5. Sub Zero
6. Boston
7. Goat
8. Ring
9. Condors
10. Rhino
11. Doublewide
12. Truck Stop
13. Chain
14. Machine
15. Pike
16. Van Buren Boys
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Next Year versus Right Now
I think it is harder to win a college title that it is to win the UPA championships. It feels like the open and womens divisions of club are inertial. It takes some time for a team to build up some inertia, but after that they can just keep rolling until they run out of steam and get replaced. In the college game you only have 5 years, and you are stuck with the players you have (much harder to transfer than just move cities).
With that in mind I feel that as a college coach I am always thinking about next year. Who is going to be picking up the disc? Who is going to be our defensive stopper? etc. So to what extent should a coach let that affect how they play their players at nationals?
We need to develop our talent for next year, but at the same time we have a good team and could potentially make a run and go deep . . . but probably not win.
My current mindset comes from something that I think Jim wrote about DoG at Nationals. On day 1 you just want to make it to your power pool. Day 2 you want to win one game. That will put you in the semis while avoiding a play-in, and at that point you have given yourselves a chance and it is time to start playing your best. I think at college nationals, if you have a shot of winning the pool you take it, but really you are playing to finish 2/3 and be in a preQuarter game. All the preQs are 2 v 3 games so the talent level shouldn't be that different if you come in at 3 versus coming in a 2. After winning your preQuarter game then you've given yourself a chance to win some big games.
So is the mindset to make sure you win your 1/2 games on Friday to advance then focus on talent development with the other 2/1 games for next year? Does having a large freshman class make the subbing lean more towards development for a future chance at the title? Does having a big senior class mean putting it all on the line with those players to give them their one big chance? How much of an affect does worrying about a strength bid have on the decisions? I know these are all subjective to the team, but I would like to hear other people's thoughts/experiences on the subject. Thanks.
With that in mind I feel that as a college coach I am always thinking about next year. Who is going to be picking up the disc? Who is going to be our defensive stopper? etc. So to what extent should a coach let that affect how they play their players at nationals?
We need to develop our talent for next year, but at the same time we have a good team and could potentially make a run and go deep . . . but probably not win.
My current mindset comes from something that I think Jim wrote about DoG at Nationals. On day 1 you just want to make it to your power pool. Day 2 you want to win one game. That will put you in the semis while avoiding a play-in, and at that point you have given yourselves a chance and it is time to start playing your best. I think at college nationals, if you have a shot of winning the pool you take it, but really you are playing to finish 2/3 and be in a preQuarter game. All the preQs are 2 v 3 games so the talent level shouldn't be that different if you come in at 3 versus coming in a 2. After winning your preQuarter game then you've given yourself a chance to win some big games.
So is the mindset to make sure you win your 1/2 games on Friday to advance then focus on talent development with the other 2/1 games for next year? Does having a large freshman class make the subbing lean more towards development for a future chance at the title? Does having a big senior class mean putting it all on the line with those players to give them their one big chance? How much of an affect does worrying about a strength bid have on the decisions? I know these are all subjective to the team, but I would like to hear other people's thoughts/experiences on the subject. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)