The 2nd day of Paideia Cup is over and was filled with ups and downs. Due to potential downpour later that day the first round of the day was played yesterday. That meant that we went straight to semis today which has us play Columbia HS (Anthony Nunez). Columbia had a tough game against Grady High School (Susie Mercer) the previous day so we knew they were ready to play and prove themselves today. The game was a great game, ending with us on top after double game point (9-8).
A few thoughts on Columbia. Kyle had mentioned their resets being particular good, and that was evident. At first I through it was another instance of our marks being too flat, but the Columbia players knew how to clear the reset and then fill in from the front of the stack. The thrower would almost always throw quickly around our mark hitting the reset and then swinging the disc. Their constant resets made our downfield defense difficult. They also threw what I call the "soft" (inside) break very well. In particular #6 did a good job moving the disc back to the breakmark side with soft breaks. Last compliment (although there could be plenty) is the level of athleticism that some of their players brought to the game. Number 3 (Jordan?) and #13 were just few of a number of defenders that really worked our cutters making it difficult to advance the disc at times. Fortunately we advanced, getting a few Ds after making some adjustments.
The next game against Hopkins (Jake Raisanen) wasn't so lucky. Word on the street was that this team was big and fast, and they lived up to the hype. With a number of players over 6' our short line-up was really going to be tested. In addition to their height they had a number of seniors on that squad, which became evident in the first few points. Our offense struggled to get open against older athleticism, and they forced us into poor decisions by taking away the easy ones. When they had the disc it was clear that they had been playing together for years. They threw deep often, typically to players that had only a step or two, and frequently with risky passes (through lanes and around marks). Almost all of these hucks connected, and what impressed me was the confidence with which they released the disc. During the game I commented that they were throwing the way that I would throw to my oldest friends, where you just know they are about to cut to an area so you throw it early giving the defender almost no chance.
We lost the game to Hopkins 13-5, despite playing very well. Our boys fought hard and did what they could, but we were out matched physically and experientially. I don't think they are attending Easterns, but I wish that they would. I'll question whoever wins the "Eastern" title if they didn't beak Hopkins at some point during the year. I guess that is just part of the wacky Junior Nationals scene.
Lastly, from a coaching standpoint: Both of the teams we played today ran an (at times) isolation based sideline stack offense. Creating the one large lane out in front of the thrower. Our original defensive adjustments were pulling people off of the players in the middle of the stack to potentially help with the isolated cutter. This worked well, but they still would get some devastating deep hucks off. I wondered if we wouldn't have had success with forcing back towards the sideline stack and using the dump defender to frustrate the open side and have them swing the disc to the side of the field with the stack on it. Hopkins probably would have just switched their stack-side, but in the transition we may have gotten them to throw something they weren't comfortable with. Maybe we should have just forced middle.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Paideia Cup: Day 1
Today was the first day of the Paideia Cup in Atlanta. It is a high school tournament that draws some of the best teams in the south east and up to New Jersey. The field was a little light compared to last year (where a Seattle combo team won it all), but it was still an illuminating experience for this first year high school coach.
We had been to Deep Freeze earlier this year, but it was a first tournament of the season and the competition was still covered in winter sleet. All three of the teams we played today (Page, HB Woodlawn/Yorktown, Red Bank) were well skilled and very intense. All had coaches, and clearly had an offensive scheme of some sort. We aren't exactly the most defensively diverse team out there (we run a zone . . . AND a man), however we were able to make defensive and offensive adjustments that really opened up the games. It seemed like other teams adjusted slowly to our tweaks, but those adjustments were happening. The teams that I've had the most success with were teams that were able to defensively make on opponent change from Plan A to Plan B. We were able to do that today, and it rallied us 3 wins by more than 8 points each.
The competition was very good (despite the somewhat lopsided scores), but it seems like playing against college teams has really paid off. We were so accustomed to getting few chances with the disc on defense that we learned to be more frugal with the disc after an opponent's turn. That was the difference in most of the games today. It wasn't that we were getting tons of blocks, but we didn't give them the disc back after getting possession. It was refreshing to see our players be that intelligent and patient. Our captains also did a (slightly) better job with subbing. We kept productive lines on offense, while getting our secondary players chances to get blocks on defense. As a result it seemed that everyone felt involved and was making plays. Morale was really high, but that is easy when you are winning.
Weather permitting we will play again tomorrow, so hopefully we will continue to play well and take home a title. I'm also hoping that we can teach the team one or two more defenses to try out. There was a time that a good poachy force middle would have wrecked a team.
We had been to Deep Freeze earlier this year, but it was a first tournament of the season and the competition was still covered in winter sleet. All three of the teams we played today (Page, HB Woodlawn/Yorktown, Red Bank) were well skilled and very intense. All had coaches, and clearly had an offensive scheme of some sort. We aren't exactly the most defensively diverse team out there (we run a zone . . . AND a man), however we were able to make defensive and offensive adjustments that really opened up the games. It seemed like other teams adjusted slowly to our tweaks, but those adjustments were happening. The teams that I've had the most success with were teams that were able to defensively make on opponent change from Plan A to Plan B. We were able to do that today, and it rallied us 3 wins by more than 8 points each.
The competition was very good (despite the somewhat lopsided scores), but it seems like playing against college teams has really paid off. We were so accustomed to getting few chances with the disc on defense that we learned to be more frugal with the disc after an opponent's turn. That was the difference in most of the games today. It wasn't that we were getting tons of blocks, but we didn't give them the disc back after getting possession. It was refreshing to see our players be that intelligent and patient. Our captains also did a (slightly) better job with subbing. We kept productive lines on offense, while getting our secondary players chances to get blocks on defense. As a result it seemed that everyone felt involved and was making plays. Morale was really high, but that is easy when you are winning.
Weather permitting we will play again tomorrow, so hopefully we will continue to play well and take home a title. I'm also hoping that we can teach the team one or two more defenses to try out. There was a time that a good poachy force middle would have wrecked a team.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Coaching at the elite level
So . . . why don't top level teams have coaches?
I've run into this question often, and while I can easily cite why college and high school teams need coaches (have to develop players with potentially little experience in a short amount of time), I don't know why or if elite teams need coaches.
Perhaps I am just in the dark. I know that Fury is coached my Matty Tsang, but that has only been for the past three years and they have been kicking people's asses for a long time. I think Machine has a coach, but I can't name another team that has a coach (again, I will point to my possible ignorance).
I've constructed arguments around where the knowledge-base is in our sport. The smartest people in the sport are still playing. In some cases those are the younger players in the open division, but even our older/more experienced players are still on the field. Why would a great ultimate mind be trying to coach an open team when they could be playing masters. But surely there are people out there like me who's careers got cut short due to injury, what about those people? Maybe it is the financial commitment? I kind of find that hard to believe since people pay out of their own pockets to be a part of this community (at tournaments, UPA regs, etc.) we've established that we are willing to shell out coin to stay competitive and involved.
An interesting case against my points would be Stu Downs coaching the University of Georgia. Stu is definitely one of the most experienced and smartest people in the game, so it made sense that as his family developed and age (finally!) caught up to him he would stay involved as a coach. But in that case it was college, where the reasons to coach are much more obvious and the effect he would have is obvious as well.
This leads me to a second question: do elite teams even need coaches? My gut reaction is to say yes. A coach can orchestrate the game play, can see what the opponent is doing and create adjustments to maximize his/her team's chance of winning. There is nothing about ultimate that wouldn't benefit from that . . . but then again I've never played on an elite team. Surely those teams already have captains that do the things that I mentioned, so why bother with a coach?
So that's 2 questions I would love to hear so opinions on?
Why do most elite teams not have coaches?
Would elite teams benefit from coaches?
I've run into this question often, and while I can easily cite why college and high school teams need coaches (have to develop players with potentially little experience in a short amount of time), I don't know why or if elite teams need coaches.
Perhaps I am just in the dark. I know that Fury is coached my Matty Tsang, but that has only been for the past three years and they have been kicking people's asses for a long time. I think Machine has a coach, but I can't name another team that has a coach (again, I will point to my possible ignorance).
I've constructed arguments around where the knowledge-base is in our sport. The smartest people in the sport are still playing. In some cases those are the younger players in the open division, but even our older/more experienced players are still on the field. Why would a great ultimate mind be trying to coach an open team when they could be playing masters. But surely there are people out there like me who's careers got cut short due to injury, what about those people? Maybe it is the financial commitment? I kind of find that hard to believe since people pay out of their own pockets to be a part of this community (at tournaments, UPA regs, etc.) we've established that we are willing to shell out coin to stay competitive and involved.
An interesting case against my points would be Stu Downs coaching the University of Georgia. Stu is definitely one of the most experienced and smartest people in the game, so it made sense that as his family developed and age (finally!) caught up to him he would stay involved as a coach. But in that case it was college, where the reasons to coach are much more obvious and the effect he would have is obvious as well.
This leads me to a second question: do elite teams even need coaches? My gut reaction is to say yes. A coach can orchestrate the game play, can see what the opponent is doing and create adjustments to maximize his/her team's chance of winning. There is nothing about ultimate that wouldn't benefit from that . . . but then again I've never played on an elite team. Surely those teams already have captains that do the things that I mentioned, so why bother with a coach?
So that's 2 questions I would love to hear so opinions on?
Why do most elite teams not have coaches?
Would elite teams benefit from coaches?
Ultivillage Videos
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)