Reponse to Win The Fields

This is a response to Lou Burruss' post on his blog Win The Fields regarding Women's Centex, Bid Allocation, Parity, and Oregon's injuries.

On Bid Allocation: There was overwhelming feedback from players to “make the regular season meaningful” and to “stop determining bid allocation from the previous year’s nationals.” Those are two of the big driving forces behind the structure this year. I can imagine coaches challenge now of having duel, oft-conflicting goals (help earn your conference/region bids and develop the lower half of your roster), but this was a very known trade-off and I have a hard time imagining this fundamental part of the structure changing in future years.

Also on Bid Allocation: It has got to be better than having to play consolation games at Nationals to earn bids the following year both for the teams playing and the teams dependent on that strength bid (who are often not the same).

On ‘messed up’ rosters: While I’m too lazy to look back at the actual USAU rules, I believe that there was some sort of threat of penalty to intentionally “mess up” rosters. That said, it would not be too difficult. Add one unique non-playing but eligible student to your roster above and beyond your actual roster for each regular season tournament. For the events that help bolster your rating keep that player on your series roster. I do believe that this is highly unethical and am surprised to see you question whether it is or not. I like the idea that someone mentioned on the USAU board that, for teams with ineligible rosters at some events, only the games from that event that improved that teams overall season rating be dropped (any games that hurt their rating with ineligible players be dropped).

On parity: I agree with you that coaching is a factor, but the other big factor impacting that is the growth of HS Ultimate. You mentioned Flywheel. On that ’09 team they had three HS experienced freshman (Annie Fisher, Paula Seville, and Vicki Chang). Those three added depth to that team and have helped with long term continuity of the program.

In Lindsay’s response she mentioned the Tufts sophomores, Hailey and Claudia, both former HS players. Having them in addition to a solid coach and a solid groups of Juniors and Seniors makes Tufts competitive with top teams (albeit after an easier road to the top bracket).

And Lindsay’s own UNC is led by former HS player Leila Tunnel and bolstered by a solid young crop of former HS players from the work that Lindsay and others have done building the youth scene in NC (How she has time for it all, I will never understand)

On Oregon’s Injuries: I realize now that wasn’t a very fair question to ask. I know the difficulties of trying to impartially comment on a topic I have a vested interest in. I should have expected one of those stock coaching answers. That said, based on all the scores I’ve seen and all the commentaries I’ve read it seems pretty clear that the second tier of teams is large, but if Oregon is healthy they stand alone in the top tier. If Oregon is banged up, the field is wide open. At least that’s the story I’m going in to the series with.

Throwing or running: Which will benefit you more?

This past weekend, I had the pleasure of getting a ride to and from (not to mention playing) Wildwood with Josh Markette. This was the most we’d hung out in a few years, so there was a lot of chatter about ultimate-related and non-ultimate-related things. At one point, Josh mentioned that he’s not as comfortable with his throws as he used to be, because he never throws regularly anymore—outside of practice, all his workout time is dedicated to the track or gym.

This really struck me—this is Cricket we’re talking about; when have his throws not been there?—but it’s something faced by a lot of players. After a certain point (likely post-college), for those continuing to play at a high level, all of one’s discretionary workout time becomes focused on getting stronger and faster, and less on disc skills. It’s a lot easier to hit the gym for an hour than it is to find someone to throw with in the middle of the day.

Despite working out hard all winter, a friend of mine did not, as she hoped to, make BENT this year. She came to tryouts in great condition, but she’d hardly touched a disc in the preceding months. And this player is a capable handler with a monster forehand, so I can’t imagine her throws had seriously degraded since last club season. Regardless, they were not as practiced as the BENT captains would have liked to see.

Many players, looking to get to the next tier, have found themselves in situations similar to the above examples. Whether it’s the offseason and staring down tryouts, or the months of preparation leading up to the club or college series, there’s never enough time to do everything one wants to do to feel prepared. So ask yourself what’s going to benefit you the most in coming weeks: hitting the gym or track for a few more reps, or finding someone with whom you can fine-tune your throws? To further complicate things, it’s likely the answer will change over the course of the year.

Physically, I felt better at Wildwood than I have at a tournament all year, but I had some gruesome turnovers on throws I used to be able to make, so I have an idea what I could be focusing on in August.

USUA Nationals

Wow.

Coaching a college team has come and gone for me (for now). What a blur. On one hand, I'm thinking a ton about what I would have done differently, what I could do better, suggestions for the team next year, etc. On the other hand, I'm enthusiastic about just being a player again.

Competition:

I can't help but think that this was a down year for college ultimate, talent-wise. I never saw a team dominate a la mid-2000s Hodags or Tim Gehret's Florida. It seemed like in a group of 6-7 elite teams, and the team that had the best few days any given weekend could win that tournament. The weekend of Nationals it was definitely Florida. Top to bottom, it seemed like they rallied around Brodie extremely well. Also, props to Chris Gibson for being the workhorse of that team, guy was always guarding the other team's best player.

My coaching performance:

Overall, I was pretty happy with it. I had a couple of players tell me that I seemed to grow into the role more at this tournament than at any other. I feel like in a couple of our wins I suggested some strategic adjustments that contributed to our success in those games.

One interesting idea that I came away from the games with was the unique way in which the overall amount of time on the field associated with ultimate affects coaching performance. As a player, the way that muscle fatigue over the length of a day, then the length of the weekend affects your ability to sprint, cut, and throw is pretty obvious.

What became clearer to me this weekend is the toll that playing 2 games a day for 3 days takes on your mind and on your voice. As a more vocal coach, I was unable to speak above a squeak on Sunday. More importantly, following an emotional and high-adrenaline win over Oregon on Saturday, I had trouble staying zeroed in on what was going on against Cornell later that day. As players, we tend to eat well, drink, stay in the shade, etc. to keep our bodies prepared for more exertion. I'm curious whether there are good ways to fight mental fatigue over the course of the tournament (this is of course relevant to both coaches and players.

The tournament itself:

The layout, schedule, format, facilities, and amenities were top-notch this year. I was impressed with how observers handled games, Player packs were actually full of stuff people wanted, which I'm sad I can't say is true of my only opportunity to attending natties as a player last year. I thought this year's nationals represented an awesome step forward for the sport and that Madison, which is full of ultimate enthusiasts who were fantastic as volunteers all weekend, was a great venue. I think future championship sites based in ultimate 'hubs' (ATL, Pacific Northwest, Minneapolis, Boston) would be wise choices.

Coaching certification:

Travis and I attended the required clinic for coaches who wanted sideline access during semi-finals (a credential we wouldn't end up needing, sadly). Overall, I thought that the most useful aspect of the meeting was an opportunity to get to know the other coaches that were at nationals and to learn a bit from the ones with more experience. We were generally in agreement on most subjects and I think having met some of the other coaches sets a good precedent for cordial interactions when teams meet in tournaments.

The material we covered wasn't all that interesting, mostly common sense stuff. I understand the necessity from a liability perspective, but I wasn't floored by the amount of depth that the USUA (still weird) was able to present in a shortened session.

What bothered me most about the presentation of the coaching clinic was the guy responsible for presenting and what appeared to be a "one-size-fits-all" approach to coaching. What we were presented with was clearly geared toward high school coaches and I don't believe our presenter had ever actually coached any level but high school. The presenter had this obsession with the "soccer parents of the future," an assumed demographic of moms and dads who are hyper-controlling and obsessed with their kids' well-being, even after they have left the nest and started up with college ultimate. I have yet to see one of these parents in an ultimate program I have been associated with. Moreover, I haven't seen many infringe on college activities generally.

To me, there are some obvious differences between age groups in question including, but not limited to: a) athletic ability, b) competitiveness, c) capacity for rational thought. What resulted was a program that was less geared toward players on clubs that have a lot more autonomy. The bulk of responsibility for both Georgia and Minnesota fell on the captains. I'm not totally sure that the University of Georgia's administrative folks even had an awareness that Trav and I were involved with the team, aside from spillover from when Trav dealt with them as a player/captain. I think presenting as though we have some kind of liability/responsibility related to the University proper is a bit silly, honestly.

On a related note, the whole thing was presented in terms of some kind of idealized world, what I assume to be the USUA's vision of the future. This vision projects a lot more control onto coaches than we are actually shouldered with. The requirements of coaches under this rubric such as full attendance at every practice and tournament and responsibility for good facilities were better suited to paid employees of university sponsored athletic teams. As of right now, we are volunteers (consultants really), whose role on the team is subject to decisions made by captains and officers of sports clubs that are on the periphery of a school's interest. In my opinion, it would be a lot more helpful for the USUA to provide coaches useful information based on the realities of ultimate (i.e. where we should hope to b with regard to responsibilities/administrative stuff/shaping our teams' behaviors) today than to prepare them for what they believe the future might look like (this isn't to say that investment in training ideas for this future is necessarily a bad thing...)

The UPA's new "brand"

I can see the appeal of the name/image change, but I think there are more than a few problems. Some of these are unfounded fears and opinions about what we might lose by abandoning the upa. One of my favorite aspects of the old organization was how much they talked about it being a "grassroots" organization. Admittedly, this cliche is pretty devoid of meaning, but in reading about the USUA, I haven't heard any of the old democratic rhetoric being thrown around. Of course, I didn't seen a ton of anyone's suggestions taken up visibly by the upa, but I least there was some indication that the intention was there. Second, and this one's a little more silly, I'm not sure if the creating a United States Ultimate Association will mean that Canada can't play with us any more. It just seems like they've got such a strong base of interest in the game (Canadians seem to love weird sports) and their teams have provided a lot of history to our competitive Series. Who knows if these changes will actually happen, but it all seems like reasonable speculation at this point.

Probably my biggest concrete concern with these new developments is the hiring of the new "CEO of ultimate" (his words, not mine), Tom Crawford. Of course, the discursive suggestion associated with that self-given title should raise some eyebrows, given that he also told us he doesn't know much about our sport. Given his admitted lack of knowledge of the game, I wish he'd be more up front with the fact that he's more in charge of changing the public image ultimate than ultimate itself. I wouldn't want anyone with such an obvious expertise deficit to presume that he has a role to play in changing the essential mechanics of how we play, but it seems like that could be a possibility.

I saw the new CEO a couple of times over the course of the weekend. What struck me the most was his interest in telling people about the 10's of 1000's of coaches he's worked with, rather than taking an interest in our community. Despite his 'deep interest' in coaching development, he left the clinic before the coaches started talking about their concerns, leaving little chance that we could glean much useful knowledge from his experiences with the olympic committee, nfl, mlb, nasa and whoever else he's worked with. He seemed to spend a lot of time driving around in a golf cart and not much time watching the game. During finals, he tossed out hats with his new brand on them rather than actually watching Florida win the thing.

Suffice it to say, I wasn't really impressed with the UPA's choice of a fresh take on leadership.

Finals:

Really the worst ultimate I saw all weekend, with bad calls on both ends. Of course, this is a shame given the amount of talent on both teams. Chippy calls, long delays, and some less than sportsmanlike conduct made a lot of the vocal displeasure coming out of the crowd reasonable. I had watched both teams all weekend and they were playing with less unreasonable calls and unnecessary physicality in every other game. The problem of lesser sportsmanship in games of greater importance in ultimate remains one of the toughest things for me about the game.

I've been on teams with rivalries with both of these teams, so it was weird to be rooting for Carleton. I've never had much respect for the style of modern Florida ultimate and this year was much the same. Their calls and physicality really bothered me less than what I perceived to be their disinterest in the game. Brodie and a few other key players never seemed to put their full effort into working for the win (note that this is totally different than making the game seem effortless) and to me this connotes a general disrespect for opponents as well as the sport. Couple this with (limited) media exposure from CBS College Sports and I think their win was not great for the game.

From a spectating perspective, despite being able to relate to their feelings about the outcome of the game, I thought that the crowd booing Florida after their win was totally bush league. For everyone who is unfamiliar with ultimate, it makes the players who make up the majority of live audience seem like petty folks and sore losers. I honestly would have preferred crickets.

The big finish:

I don't think I'll post much more on this blog. Honestly, I meant to write more over the course of the season. If I get time, I may do a few small things on some stuff that occurred to me while we prepped for natties, but we'll see.

Thanks for reading. Good luck in club.

CUT vs. Florida

First, congratulations to Florida. I went into watching this game the same way that I went into the 2006 Final against Wisconsin. I felt like there was no way that Kurt, Tim and company could stop an army of solid ultimate players. Again, I was wrong.

I feel like I should give a nod to Florida's strategy. Say what you will about their tactics, fouls and calls, they have reminded us all that a 3 man show can still win high level games (at least in college). They run very shallow and their big three are just hard to stop. They continually got the hucks they wanted to offenders that were (50% of the time) behind all of the defense.

Which leads me to the reason I wanted to post this here. From a coaching standpoint, I felt that I understood Florida's game plan, and was confused by CUTs. Florida slowed down the game with calls and TOs, relied on their athletic prowess to get Ds and avoided having long points. All smart with their team. Carelton moved the disc quickly, reversing the field well and forced backhand most of the game.

I was hoping someone could explain why Carleton continued to force backhand trough the end of the game. I think I understand it as an initial strategy: backhand hucks take longer to develop, Brodie has a monster flick, maybe the wind was a factor? But after watching the way that Cole and Brodie work with the disc it seemed like a losing battle.

Both Brodie and Cole would throw and try to get the disc back immediately. That's much easier to do off of backhand, where you are basically taking your first step, than off of a flick. That can easily be stopped by having your mark get the first step and stop the flow continuation, but Brodie and Cole made that difficult. Not only are they long pivots, but they continually squared their shoulders to the middle of the field. This forced the mark to shift over (more parallel to the sideline), or allow quick flick resets. Not to mention the added pressure this put on the CUT reset defenders who, despite getting some decent covers and a turn were often out of position to stop the down the line cut.

So, my question to all of you coaches out there. Is there something that I am missing behind CUT's strategy? I can understand starting backhand, but it seemed like CUT never adjusted to the way Florida was playing it. Someone please show me what I am missing?

The UPA Unofficial Ombudsman

I'm starting a new recurring "feature" where I talk about timely UPA issues and give my opinion and, where appropriate, offer suggestions. I know there will be some that say "Oh that Kyle Weisbrod, he IS the UPA." Yeah, I spent 4 1/2 years employed there and another 3 years on the Board. I still occasionally contribute to the magazine. But I work with the UPA because I care about the sport of Ultimate and felt the UPA was (and still believe it is) the best way for players to effect change in the sport. There are plenty of times when I've been frustrated by the UPA - both Board and Staff decisions and policies. There are also times when I've been proud of the UPA and what they are doing for the sport.

I also still have plenty of connections to the UPA - people on both board and staff, so hopefully I can actually get some of the inside reasoning behind some of the UPA's less popular decisions and give my subjective opinion on it.

So, here goes. The Ombudsman is open for business. What do you want me to opine on?

Summing up AC Regionals

I've been meaning to put some other thoughts up about team/coaching preparation for crucial tournaments, especially the series, but they're all still kind of half-baked. Hopefully, they'll be good fodder for later.

As for now, the fact that Jojah barely gritted out a qualifying spot at nationals seems more relevant.

A couple of observations:

-I think in Ultimate generally, but especially college, mental state has as much to do with a team's success as talent. I think it had something to do with Florida's failing to qualify last year, and we definitely had problems with it at Minnesota (as a team we were always terrified to play CUT and the Hodags when it mattered). This weekend, Florida was ready to play and play well, whupping us and everyone else they ran up against. Minnesota also seemed to get the monkey off its back with a couple of wins against Wisconsin and a close game with Carleton (this after losing to Carleton GOP at sectionals).

We brought the fire at weird times this weekend and in the end it came during our most critical points. Our game-to-go never got out of hand and the guys rallied admirably when we were down unexpectedly in an elimination game. While a couple of timeouts where Travis and I spoke (I usually yelled) about waking up generated a point or two of intensity, this usually fizzled pretty quickly. It was ultimately up to them to decide how bad they wanted it. This weekend, they wanted it just enough.

-My AC all-region based on what I've seen in the regular season and at regionals:

Rusty Ingold-Smith (UNCW)
Tyler Conger (UVA)
Nick Lance (GA Tech)
Brodie Smith (UF)
Chris Mullinix (UT)
Taylor "Tree" Goforth (Kennesaw)
Peter Dempsey (UGA)

FOTY: Fletcher Hartline (UGA). Clearly I'm biased by the fact that I coach him and by the fact that nobody from other teams has really mentioned their freshmen to me. Still, I'm confident that Fletcher played more crucial D points for us than any other frosh in the region. On the field, it's impossible to distinguish him from our best deeps.

-If I were to seed Nationals without much understanding of the rules beyond that you can't seed lower regionals finishers ahead at nationals:

1/ Oregon
2/ Carleton
3/ Colorado
4/ Florida
5/ Minnesota
6/ Wisconsin
7/ Cornell
8/ Cal
9/ Pitt
10/ Harvard
11/ UNCW
12/ Georgia
13/ Illinois
14/ Middlebury
15/ Michigan
16/ UCSB
17/ UCSD
18/ Tx State
19/ Iowa
20/ Kansas

I'm sure that some of the results I haven't looked over say different, but this is just where I would put them if I had to seed subjectively.

-Finally, damn it's exciting to get to coach for 3 more weeks.

Paideia Cup Finals

This past Sunday we (Paideia Men's Varisty) played Amherst in the finals of the Paideia Cup. We had played them on the last game of Saturday, losing 4-15. It was a solid drubbing where we failed to successfully deal with their 1-3-3. After a tough start to a semi-final against Columbia, we rallied in the 2nd half to win decisively (13-9). We had good momentum, and although a little banged up we felt prepared to face Amherst again.

The lone bright point from the previous day was that we knew we could play solid defense against them and get some blocks. We we're hoping to get a few of those breaks and stay in it this time. The game felt completely different than the one the previous day. We stopped their 1-3-3 and forced them to go man. We certainly made them work on offense. But, while we got a few blocks, we only mustered one break and lost 15-7.

This was my first time coaching against Amherst. What surprised me (although according to Mike this is normal) is that in a final that they had won handily they played only 9 deep. Don't get me wrong, I am no stranger to riding your horses when the time is right, and maybe it was out of respect for our team, but subbing only 9 deep felt strange. They didn't play as many points on the weekend as we did, so maybe that factored in, but Tiina told me (and I completely believe it) that her boys could run a few more like that if they had to. While our boys ran their legs off and did a great job against 5A athletes, I could see the struggle on their faces at the end of each point.

As Amherst went tight with their rotation we were "forced" to do the same. Only they have stronger horses and ours were destined to get tired in an ever losing battle. I don't normally call subs, but the times that I have my goal has been to use my bench to fill in space (on D) and run my best players hard in key moments to get breaks. Instead we ran just as tight, scored a few when things worked well, gave up breaks when they didn't, and aside from some spectacular single plays could never get those breaks back. I feel like I could have tried to sacrifice our defensive points with weaker lines in hopes of being more consistent on offense, but I don't know if it would have mattered much

Hats off to Amherst for a great tournament. I wont be there, but I will be incredibly impressed if any team can beat them at Easterns this year. If they win it will make 2 years in a row that Paideia has lost to an eventual "National" champion in the finals of our own tourney. If only we could find a way to play ourselves in the final.

'Teachable Moments'

This is a question/thought that has been brewing since before I got permission to post. I'm pretty sure it's been addressed before, but I think giving a specific scenario will clarify things. At present, I'm working with a team whose talent distribution is clustered at the top and the bottom tails. We've had a TON of development, so this question is unlikely to come up much as the series draws nearer. Still, it's worth discussing.

Earlier in the season, we brought a raw set of rookies to their first spring tournament. As to be expected, when they got out there, they looked like puppies in roller-skates on a linoleum floor. Between games, one of our rawest rookies was throwing with an older teammate, and the vet was really loading him up with tips. Everything from how to dictate on defense to cutting break on the endzone line to where to put his knee in order to throw an IO break.

For me, it was too much. I asked the vet to lay off him, expressing that I'd given the rookie 2 things to work on all tournament and we'd get to other stuff in the future. We had an argument about how to teach rookies, and I played the "I'm the coach do it" trump card, game over.

The questions here are:

What is the best way to go about teaching a rookie who has little to no experience playing Ultimate the whole of the game over the course of a season? What times are best to offer advice?

The veteran in my story seemed to be employing a sort of inundation method for teaching the kid. Tell him everything he might ever need to know all at once and then hope that the stuff that doesn't stick immediately remains tucked away, set to emerge once the player finds him/herself in the appropriate situation. This kind of teaching might also involve telling a player ten things he or she did wrong after any given point. I guess doing this also means a coach/mentor rarely has to worry about forgetting what s/he wanted to tell the player at any given moment.

For me, early tournaments are an opportunity to for young players to play the game without necessarily having someone hold their hand. This year, I tried to give rookies two or three things to think about over the course of the tournament (lanes to cut into, look upfield then dump at 6, etc) and then remind them about those things, point to point. I think a lot of what new players need to learn are (relatively) intuitive, they'll learn them as they watch good players do them or as their fellow new players do them wrong. Additionally, overthinking every little aspect of the game and then being nagged about what you've done wrong makes the game less fun, jeopardizing player retention.

At practice, however, the training wheels are on. I'll comment on pretty much everything I see them doing wrong and I'll make a point of reminding them about it if I see it again or praising them for changing their habits. Still, I try not to ever give more than one criticism at a time as I feel like a player acknowledging one fault and applying themselves to changing it is preferable to them forgetting two.

Additional paths to player improvement?

The Paideia Phenomenon

In a comment from a previous blog post "Mike" wrote "How did you (or your team more specifically) build up the ultimate culture to get where it is now at Padeia?"


It's a tough question to answer because I think there is a large confluence of factors - some of them controllable but many that happened by chance or circumstance. I'm guessing that's true for the other great Ultimate programs - Amherst, Northwest School, Hopkins, to name a few. I'll try to break down what I think are the main factors and other folks familiar with the program can add anything in the comments that they want. I'd also encourage those familiar with other top HS programs to chime in on how they became successful.

To begin with, it really is a strange phenomenon. Paideia, a school with under 400 students in the HS, has regularly been one of the top HS Ultimate teams. More impressively, the alums have consistently performed at the top level of College and Club Ultimate, winning championships and awards. Several alums have been named to the US World Games team including Dylan Tunnel ('02), Jolian Dahl ('03), Adam Simon ('01), and Miranda Roth ('00). The team started in spring of 1993 and has been at or near the top of HS Ultimate since 1996.

So, on to the factors, I'll try to go by timeline:

Paideia
It would be impossible to explain how Ultimate grew at Paideia without talking a little about Paideia. Paideia is a small, private school founded by parents in 1971. It grew out of the same roots that the sport of Ultimate did: Informal, skeptical of tradition and authority, based in mutual respect. At Paideia, kids call their teachers by their first name. Few classrooms have desks in them. Students are given a good deal of latitude in terms of their class choices, dress, and behavior. It isn't uncommon to see barefoot students or a student wandering around the classroom while the teacher is lecturing (I'm looking at you, Will Arnold).

The school is supportive of student endeavors and it is easy to start new clubs and get official school sanctioning for them. While in HS, Moses Rifkin started a "Simpsons" Club (for watching the Simpsons) while a couple of us started a group called "Comemos Montanas" ("we eat mountains" a group dedicated to gluttony). While I worked at the UPA I heard from a lot of students and parents who had faced apathy, skepticism, or even serious pushback from their schools when trying to start an Ultimate team. I faced a great deal of apathy from the school I coached in Colorado. At Paideia there are no such issues. In fact, many of the players on the team are children of teachers at the school.

Also important to note, Paideia has no football team. I think this is both representative of the culture but also a serious advantage. When the Ultimate team started, soccer was in the fall at Paideia and so the only other spring team sport was baseball. If you liked to run, Ultimate was your sport.

Alexis Revilock-Frost
The player that probably had the biggest impact on the program is one most outsiders have probably heard nothing about. Alexis was Paideia's first stand-out player and he set the bar in terms of talent. He was 5'6" and incredibly quick and explosive. At the very first practice I attended in fall of 1993, Alexis, a sophomore, had a lay-out greatest. Imagine that? Moses Rifkin, Josh Markette and I had just joined the team and we thought that was the type of thing that was normal and expected. He was also relentless - always moving and running and working hard. But beyond his talent, Alexis set the stage for the culture of the team. Quick-witted, smart, fun, and positive, he had a personality that drew people in. Because he was a dominant player and we looked to him as our leader, those personality traits pervaded the team.

Atlanta Summer League/Ultimate Community
All of the most serious Ultimate players began playing in Atlanta's summer league early on and got a great deal out of it. The community loved the Paideia kids, we split up and played on a bunch of different teams and we were treated like the community's little brothers and sisters. The community was competitive but fun and very close knit and I think it made all of us even more committed to the sport. It's different now - the summer league is much larger, there are a lot more HS players, and the Paideia kids typically put together their own team. Players who play in the summer league can still get a lot out of it, but I don't think they get the same feeling of being "special" because they are the kids.

The US Juniors Team
In the summer of 1994, three players from the team Roxanne Reighard, Alexis, and myself played on the US Juniors Team. We competed in Colchester, England and finished 2nd to Sweden. That year all 20 people who applied for the team made it. While there may have been a lack of rigorous standards for making the team, it had a huge impact on the team back at Paideia. It exposed us to other HS players playing around the country (including Fortunat and Mattias at Scarsdale, Marlowe at Amherst HS, and Ben Worthen and Sam Rosenthal at Newton North) and made everyone realize how far we could go with the sport. We saw NYNY play toward the end of their dynasty and were inspired. And the attitude of worlds - the level of fun, competition, and respect resonated with us and reinforced our passion for the game. For those that didn't go, they realized that this was something to aspire to. I believe Paideia has put at least 2 players on every US Juniors/U-20 team since then including 4 girls and 3 boys on this years' teams.

Michael Baccarini
It's hard to put in to words the impact Michael has had. The first thing to note is that Michael wasn't Paideia's original coach. Jamie Epstein and Fred Peruvier were the initial coaches in spring of 1993. Jamie coached the team in 1993-1994. Michael began coaching the team in fall of 1994. Before he began coaching he worked in Paideia's after school program and began throwing with Josh Markette and Jason Simpson. Michael has a true coach's mind for the game. He is great at breaking down fundamentals and giving feedback. I guess, even before that, he is one of the best at identifying fundamentals, something that was generally missing from the sport through most of the 90's.

But beyond his skills as a coach, Michael has brought two other big attributes. Michael is a great storyteller. He has a keen memory for events and can take players that have graduated and make them heroes. He can make plays that you haven't seen (and even some that you have seen) legendary. Most of his stories involve a dramatic piece of flying, as if the player briefly defied the laws of gravity to make an incredible play. This sets players expectations for themselves high and makes them want to be in one of Michael's stories. (Unfortunately, Michael's favorite story to tell about me is a cautionary tale about me "losing my psyche").

The other huge factor that Michael brings is that he is the PE teacher at Paideia. Remember that Paideia is K-12, so Michael is teaching kids long before HS. He can get discs in their hand at an early age and get good athletes interested in the sport. I'll leave it to your imagination what that means.

Moses Rifkin and the 1996 Amherst Invite
Moses was a remarkably mature HS kid. Moses took it upon himself in the spring of 1996 to call up Tiina Booth and tell her that we were interested in playing at the Amherst Invite. We didn't really know what we were getting ourselves in to or what to expect. Michael didn't even have a credit card. I have no idea how we got up there, but Moses made it happen. It was our first HS tournament and we expected to get crushed. Instead, we (a very scrappy co-ed team of 12 players) found ourselves in an intense game with Amherst (a varsity team of great athletes - all boys) in the semifinals. We lost 14-11 but it fanned the flames and that game and tournament was a watershed moment for the team. We finished 3rd and won the spirit award (we were exceedingly proud of both) Alexis graduated a few weeks later but that event made it clear that the team would continue long after him.

Parents
Early on in the Ultimate program, the parents of the Ultimate players recognized that this was something that their kids loved to do. Several of the parents got involved with Paideia's Sports Booster club. I remember many nights where my dad, Jason's Mom, Harper Alexander's parents and others would sell beer at the Georgia Dome for sporting events or concerts to raise money for the sports booster program. Once they'd established some clout they were able to make a case for the Ultimate team to get greater recognition, status, and access to resources. In 1999 Paideia gave the Ultimate team varsity status.

Brown
Ok, this is probably a Kyle-centric view of history. If so, I apologize. Several of the early Ultimate grads (Moses, Pauline, Harper, and me) ended up at Brown during the late 90's. At that point, Brown was at the top of the college sport. In addition, Brown was being directly influenced by DoG who was at the end of their championship run and the thought leaders in the sport for most of the 90's. We took ideas and concepts directly back to Michael and he incorporated them in what he taught the HS team.

Tony Carter ('00) and Miranda Roth ('00)
Another Paideia Ultimate alum you certainly haven't heard of is Tony Carter. The team had had other varsity athletes, some that excelled at those sports, but Tony was a bonafide opinion driver in the high school. A varsity basketball player who was universally well-liked, Tony started playing Ultimate his senior year. Younger athletes saw Tony make the jump to Ultimate and realized that is was a legitimate sport.

You've probably heard of Miranda. Miranda began playing Ultimate in the summer after her Sophomore year I believe. Girls soccer was a spring sport and Miranda was a captain of the Girls soccer team starting her sophomore year. Her senior year, Miranda quit the soccer team for the Ultimate team.

I would say that 2000 was another watershed moment for the program (along with 1996) - it was when the team evolved into full-fledged legitimacy because we got legitimate athletes. This year ('10) the Paideia girls have 7 players that are also on the girls basketball team (which finished 2nd in their division in the state).

End?
I feel like that's a pretty solid synopsis of how Paideia got the way it is. I'd say you can get a pretty good feel from this how players like Rebbecca Simon ('01), Paul Vandenberg ('01), Adam Simon ('01), Dylan Tunnel ('02), Jolian Dahl ('03), Nate Segal ('03), Brad Cochi ('04), Eldon Creer ('04), Mike Vandenberg ('05), Leila Tunnel ('06), Maisie Richards ('06), George Stubbs ('07), Grant Lindsley ('07), Ollie Honderd ('07), Michael and John Terry ('08), Alisha Kramer ('08), Paula Seville ('08), Joe Reidel ('09), Julia Fuster ('09), Chris Kocher ('10), Sophie Darch ('10), Lane Seidor ('10), India Stubbs ('11), and Jericho Barbour ('11). I think that's all of the Paideia players named to the US Juniors team in the 00's.

At some level this is definitely a little self-indulgent. But hopefully this is also helpful to those of you out there hoping to create a successful Ultimate culture at your school.

On Carts and Horses

During my rookie season at UMN, I saw a teammate throw a high-release flick, the first I had ever witnessed. Being the young, bright-eyed frisbee enthusiast I was, my I was soaked in admiration. Naturally, I asked said teammate to show me how he did it.

He laughed at me and said something smug about how I probably shouldn't add another bad throw to the ugly set I already had. I was insulted and dejected and I gave up on the throw at the time. The guy in question was arguably our best offensive handler that year, a presently dying breed of frail, slow and huck-less, but with incredible finesse on both sides. I really wanted his skillset. Ultimately, he didn't really teach me much that season, but that memory has stuck with me.

Now, I find myself playing the opposite role in that situation pretty frequently, both as a coach and as a more veteran player. Lots of times, I'll catch guys with atrocious forehands or backhands trying to summon a big hammer, a thumber, a scoober, or any number of other "special" throws while we're warming up or at throwing practice. I'm pretty inconsistent about how I respond. For some guys, I react pretty much in the way that the condescending handler did in my story. Sometimes I comment on the inadequacy of their other throws, sometimes I don't. For other guys, I'll give them tips about how to throw that "special" throw better.

Jim Parinella has a decent discussion of "junk throws" and whether or not they should be used here. What I'm interested in discussing here, though, is when and whether they should be taught.

To return to the personal anecdote: The following year, my flick was coming along nicely, my backhand had plateaued at mediocre. So I started throwing some hammers, taking a ton of advice from Charlie. Needless to say, I very quickly developed an addiction that haunts me to this day. From the push pass to the behind-the-backhand, I love 'em all. For me, having a very good scoober and a variety of release points and speeds on my backhand is a necessary thing. While my flick is excellent, my step out mid-to-low release ~20 yard backhand just stopped getting better, despite hours and hours of drilling and asking for help. Hence, I compensate for it by throwing weird, but 95% completed stuff.

So,"special throws" have become a very important supplement to my game. For others? Hard to say. Thus far, my opinion is as follows regarding how I approach my players who are experimenting with drugs...I mean unconventional throws:

-Special throws are vaguely tiered, with some (Hammers, scoobers, high-release backhand) sitting at generally nice to have but dumb to use all the time, others that are cool to know how to use but do you really have to? (lefty, push-pass, thumber) and finally absolutelynotImeanNO (corker chicken wing and friends). I encourage a healthy knowledge of upside-down throws SO LONG AS...

-The player can consistently complete a forehand or a backhand to a moving target 15 yards away. This is usually assumed at higher levels of Ultimate, but sometimes that kid was REALLY fast at tryouts.

-Finally, if I feel like there's a lot of room for growth in the basic throws, I'm more likely to encourage experimentation with angle, io/oi, and release point than I am to teach the finer points of the blade.

Still, I lean more toward teaching kids how to throw weird stuff better than chastising them for doing it at all. The jury's still out, though.

Thoughts?