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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

On game tape

I love watching game tape. Being a mostly defensive coach my goal is almost always to see what offenses a team runs, what they do with their dumps, who their main cutters are (and how they cut) and how they respond to a zone.

This weekend at regionals we will be watching tape on saturday night in preparation for sunday play. I was wondering what other things people have found useful to focus on while watching tape. I feel that game tape us under utilized in ultimate, not only because there isn't as much of it, but more because people either aren't looking for the right things, or aren't translating what they see into coaching points for their players well. Ideas?

On subbing

I wonder if other coaches think about the psychological aspect of their subbing players when they call subs. We currently have a situation that I am waffling on and the reason why is because it is a situation where I think we should not play one of our best players on offense (reference Idris' post from a while ago?).

I have a player that is very good on both sides of the disc. She is a fast cutter who doesn't tire easily and she plays intelligent D. She is easily amongst our top seven players, however I find myself wanting to take her off of the starting O line because she is somewhat prone to drops. At the same time she also makes great catches at key moments.

My raionale is that she will be much more effective as a defensive starter who is expected to jump start the offense and move the disc on a turn that she would be as an offensive cutter. The team has plenty of offensive cutters, so she would be a tertiary target at best, but aside from that I wonder if her dropping the disc would have a lesser impact if we had already gotten a D.

On offense her drops can seem catastrophic since there is so much more pressure to score without a turnover. This leads to a stressful situation which I think increases her likeliness to drop the disc. On defense, while her drops may be costly, they shouldn't have the enormous impact they do on the other side of the disc because of the idea that defense doesn't have to be perfect. This should reduce the stress she feels and probably improve her catching.

So I guess the discussion I'm trying to start is whether or not anyone pays attention to their players generic mental state when scheming for that player or if people focus on putting their best players in at the most important times? Hell, if any discussion starts on this blog it would be a miracle.

CCC

So I began my college men’s coaching career this weekend at CCC. After a first round loss to Ohio State, Barrett informed me that the alumni were restless. One loss and the UGA alumni are already calling for my head – a slightly different scenario than when I started with the Emory women, a team that had never won a game at sectionals. In those days, I received congratulatory emails from the alumni following every tournament.

We have only had 1 week of practice and this weekend really made me realize just how different coaching here is going to be. At this point, I could insert some generic comments about how different it is coaching men instead of women. But really, the main difference is that I’m coming into an already established program with a lot of players that already know how to play. My last couple of years at Emory, every player on the team had learned almost all of what they knew about ultimate from me and the other coaches. They all had been trained since they started to play in the Emory system and it was therefore pretty easy to make adjustments during the game. As I tried to explain to Barrett after our first round loss – you can’t really blame me – it’s not my fault Stu can’t recruit. In all seriousness, it is going to be a substantial challenge to convert these players into doing things the way I think they should be done. There is also the question of whether it would be more prudent to just leave things as they are given the recent success of the program. Honestly, I don’t know – obviously my belief is that the way I do things is better otherwise that wouldn’t be the way I do things…but if the team crashes and burns this year I’ll deserve all of the blame.

In general, I was pretty pleased with the level of effort from the men this weekend. They really do play incredibly hard. I think if we can clean up the offense a little bit, we’re gonna be pretty darn good.

My general thoughts about the weekend – Wisconsin is for real. This is probably surprising to exactly zero people, but I was incredibly impressed with them. There man-to-man defense was disgusting and they’re shockingly disciplined with the disc. I haven’t seen the west-coast teams yet, but it seems like right now the Hodags have to be the early favorites to win this year. Colorado also looks really good. The loss of Adam Simon is definitely noticeable, but they’re very big and athletic – they will create match-up nightmares for anyone.

I only got a chance to watch the semis and finals on the women’s side. Emory is greatly improved after a coaching change. Their top end players are exceptional and they have a few solid role players. Of course, I believe their system is strong. Their depth is still a big question though. In terms of the AC right now it looks like once again it’s some order of Georgia, Florida and Emory at the top. On the national scene, Wisconsin looked very good to me. Stanford seems to be in something of a rebuilding year, but it’s Stanford so they’ll be good.

Chain at Nationals

There will undoubtedly be those who consider Chain’s success at nationals a fluke. Those who think Chain’s run was legitimate might still say that a single tournament is too small of a sample size to draw any worthwhile conclusions. I think both of these criticisms are at least potentially reasonable – let that serve as a caveat for what follows.

I think Chain’s success at 2006 Nationals was primarily the result of two strategic principles. The first is that relentless (perhaps reckless) aggression is a powerful strategy. The second is that the point at which the replacement value of a fresh tier two player exceeds the value of a fatigued tier one is somewhat closer to 60% of points played (for the tier one player) rather than 50% of points played.

In an earlier post, I defended the value of relentless aggression. There my argument was basically two-fold. First, I argued that The Rule demands that all things being equal, a player should throw a longer pass rather than a shorter pass. 2) I also made the more controversial claim the advantageous implications of the huck extend beyond the calculation of giving your team the highest percentage chance of scoring this goal. This claim is based on the fact that once a team believes you are crazy enough to huck at any point they will over commit to protecting the deep cut opening up the underneath. The nice thing about this second point is that it can extend to later games in a tournament/season without your team even having to bear the burden of the additonal turnovers early in a game. I think FG and Sockeye both currently benefit from (2) due to their reputation as mindless huckers.

In any event, we (the blogosphere, although not sure I’m still a member) have had this discussion and I don’t mean to rehash old territory. Another facet of our relentless aggression was an insistence on forcing the disc upfield whenever possible. A dump has to be considerably higher percentage than a 20 yard gainer if the dump is to be justified by The Rule. Honestly, I still don’t think HnH is optimal in perfect conditions, but this year’s nationals was far from perfect conditions. I think that anyone arguing that a possession style offense is optimal in this year’s conditions (with the exception of Sunday) is either bad at math or simply not being honest with themselves.

The second strategic principle can basically be restated as “you should play your studs more than you are now.” Jim posted on this subject with some fictional numbers a while ago, I’m too lazy to find the link now, sorry. At early tournaments this year we had three considerable comebacks at the end of games when we just put in our top 7 for several points in a row. This led us to make the conscious decision to play our studs more at nationals. It sounds pretty obvious, but the current dominant strategy of splitting O/D has led a lot of top players to play only about 50 percent of the points. In most situtaions, your studs could play more than 50 percent of the points without fatigue impacting their play to the extent that it would make sense to put in your next tier of player.