UltiTalk.Com
Welcome to the ULTIMATE Ultimate Frisbee forum. January 16, 2018, 10:05:08 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The ultimate forum for talking about Ultimate Frisbee. Aimed at bringing new life to the world of Ultimate Frisbee discussions, UltiTalk.Com (UT) combines both regional and international topics in one friendly place. So say hello to UT: The International Ultimate Frisbee forum.

Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to reveal the members-only Shout Box, Chatroom, and more!
Where are you? Pin yourself on the UltiTalk Member Map.
 
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Members Links Gallery Login Register  
Visit UltiTalk.Com on TwitterVisit UltiTalk.Com on Facebook

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot Google Bookmarks Ma.gnolia MSN Live Squidoo Yahoo My Web     Bookmark  |  Print  
Author Topic: AUG: Divisions, draw and seeding talk  (Read 53094 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« on: August 19, 2009, 12:32:42 AM »

Thought this needs it's own thread.

So registrations close at 5pm on Friday. On Monday, I will know how many teams are coming and will be embarking on the really really fun process of seeding teams and creating a draw. As far I as know, there are 20 teams, with the distinct possibility of more that I don't know about.

The key issues right now are...

One division or two?
AUS really want two divisions. The general public want one. I'm 50/50.

The reality is that if we have more than 20 teams, two divisions is going to happen. The capacity of ultimate has always been 20 teams - that hasn't changed in ever. In an ideal world everyone would pick their division and all would be hunky dory but if we find ourselves in a situation where 19 teams want to be in Div1 and 2 want to be in Div2 then obviously some smackdown will need to be applied. That being said, less than 20 teams will probably = one division.

I'm suggesting that teams who consider themselves serious medal contenders go for Div1, with everyone else going for Div2.



Seeding
Similar to last year, I don't want to mess about with seedings too much. Any swaps will be done inter-regionally, and we'll have to find somewhere to slot UQ in. Based purely on last year's AUG results, here's where the regional seedings are...

East
1. Sydney
2. Mac
3. Newcastle
4. UTS
5. ANU
6. Wollongong
7. UNSW (did not compete in 08)
8. UWS (did not compete in 08)

North
1. Griffith
2. QUT
3. UQ (did not compete in 08)

West
1. UWA

South
1. Flinders
2. Adelaide
3. Melbourne
4. Monash
5. Deakin
6. Ballarat

Other
1. NZ (did not compete in 08)

Based with these regions alone (let's not compare across regions yet), are there any suggestions for changes. Couple of things to bear in mind...
- I think UQ as North #1 is a given.
- Should we consider EUG and SUG results instead of 08 AUG results? Personal opinion: I think we should.
- Adelaide this year are a composite team (with UniSA) so they may not be able to compete in Div1 (not 100% sure on this).


Draw format
It will be a reclassification format (ie: same as last year), with maybe 1 or 2 less games than last year. Any major objections or suggestions to this?
Logged

Time to waste? Visit the Ballarat Ultimate blog!
Chris L
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +4/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 58



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2009, 01:49:44 AM »

If there ends up being 2 divisions (which I think is a good idea), will division one be based only on team strength or capped at 16 teams to allow for a nice draw format - UPA draw maybe?

Determining seeding for the eastern region will be difficult. Macquarie didn't play EUG so nobody knows what their team is like this year and Sydney will argue that their AUG team is stronger than the team they had in Bathurst. However, if it goes off last year then Newcastle will feel slightly hard done by after convincingly winning EUG. No matter how you do it someone will disagree, so I don't envy your job on this one.
Logged
biskit
Newbie
*

Karma: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 10



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2009, 02:37:50 AM »

Being relegated to div 2 has been a big concern for ANU this year due to poor results last year. Last year was 'just one of those years', where a core group of players all graduated and the Aug's squad was relatively weak (but at least they went). We don't have a problem with 2 divisions as such (if fact we are in favour of it), just that we would be heavily opposed to an 'enforced' relegation to div 2 as this years AUGs team is significantly stronger.

If it ends up going to an enforced division of *say* 16 teams in div 1 plus the remainder in div 2 based on last years results, then that must apply to everybody. Teams who had a weak year but who still attended should get priority over teams who didn't play. For the look of the seedings list, this would put 14 teams through to div 1 (if they wanted/could play), the next couple of positions should be open to the top regional qualifiers and merged teams should be considered as 'new' competitors. This way all the 'good' teams still end up in the top division.

Seedings is another matter entirely, which we are less concerned about. Our seeding won't be great by whatever method is used, so it is a little less of a concern just as long as we make it into div 1. What is the UPA draw like? Id certainly prefer a draw that doesn't favour seedings (ie not the nationals draw, it was great for us this year but probably isn't the best for uni games).
Andrew
Logged
thebozzman
Full Member
***

Karma: +11/-7
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 187



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2009, 03:14:27 AM »

I think a cominbination of AUG08, EUG/SUG 09 results and commonsense would be the best way to do the seeding for the event.

If we have 20ish teams at AUG's, I think capping Div 1 at 12 teams and the rest in Div 2 would be ideal. That would mean both divisions would be contested hotly.

To do this, have a look at last years standings and also have a look at regional qualifying (and maybe think of it like national seedings where each state gets particular spots and the teams are put into them based on strength)

Hope that makes some form of sense...
Logged
DaveR
Full Member
***

Karma: +6/-5
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 199



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2009, 05:15:48 AM »

ha, Chris you jumped the gun on the point i would have made...that we would feel hard done by being relegated out of top spot in East based on fact that only half our AUG squad played EUG, and with our team being not to dissimilar to a medal winning team from last year. My personal opinion would be that East should be seeded:-

Sydney (2nd last year, 2nd EUG, much stronger AUG squad)
Newcastle (Won EUG, Top 8 last year)
Mac (due to not playing EUG and but a realistic knwoledge of a decent squad, they shoudlnt get shafted but should be below Newcastle despite last year)
UTS
ANU
CSU (Assuming CSU come, where you put these three would be difficult, as ANU has stronger AUG squad, CSU got bronze but no play last year and UTS has a similar team to EUG...this would be my opinion, not nesessarily based on where they will finish)
UNSW
Wollongong (no Wollongong at EUG...not many frisbee players in Wollongong at the moment judging on last year)
UWS

As for divisions...i dunno, you would hate to have an inflexible policy which would see a team like UQ which didnt compete get div 2 based entirely on last year(not saying thats being suggested). Any compulsory forcing aint cool. Also for the teams that realisitcally wont medal but will benefit alot from playing div 1 would be unfortunate to force them out based on your suggested only "serious medal contendors" idea. And what happens if you get only 6 teams or so in div 2...then it becomes a ratehr pointless exercise....although they may have a better time at the party.
Logged
Twig
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 31



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2009, 06:43:14 PM »

I wont really comment on seedings as we are the only team from our region so I guess we win that by default.

My personal opinion for draws based on 20 teams is that i really disliked the 2 pools of 10 we had two years ago, especially when seeding is going to be tough to get right.  playing initial pool games until mid-late wednesday (i found at least) became really boring as you really had no idea where you were situated in the comp unless you were dominating/be dominated.  4 pools of 5 or 5 pools of 4 (top two go into 2 power pools of 5 teams)  would be much better in my opinion

I also think that a little less workload is a good thing as well.  the 4 game day last year was absolutely a killer and would definitely prefer not to have it happen this year.

If it were to go to Divisions i would definitely support a smaller div 1 (12 -14 teams) that may have a few less games but of much higher quality ultimate. 
Logged
simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2009, 08:14:59 PM »

And what happens if you get only 6 teams or so in div 2...then it becomes a ratehr pointless exercise....although they may have a better time at the party.
Completely agree with this. Wouldn't want to have a Div2 unless there's at least 7 or 8 teams.

Also for the teams that realisitcally wont medal but will benefit alot from playing div 1 would be unfortunate to force them out based on your suggested only "serious medal contendors" idea.
This, however, I don't agree with. AUS want to see AUG return to being a "best of the best" comp across all sports, so I feel the regional events should be seen as the 'development' tournaments, with AUG being on par with Nats and Mixed Nats.

Along the lines of Twig's last point, I think there's more benefit in a week of games against a similar standard of opponent, rather than 2.5 days of 15-2 wins/losses followed by a couple of close ones.
Logged

Time to waste? Visit the Ballarat Ultimate blog!
Chris L
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +4/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 58



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2009, 08:42:10 PM »

So if it was decided to only have "serious contenders" in div 1, who would they be?

East: Sydney, Newcastle, Macquarie, ANU(?), UTS(?), CSU(?)
North: UQ, Griffith(?)
South: Flinders, Melbourne, Monash, Adelaide/USA(?), Deakin(?), LaTrobe(?)
West: UWA
New Zealand(?)

There's 16 teams for a nice draw structure (although it should be noted my knowledge of teams from the other regions is pretty bad)
Logged
Rickert
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2009, 09:10:10 PM »

IMHO:
Raising the standard of AUG Ultimate is a laudable goal.  However, having two divisions (at least this year) is probably not the way to do it.  The AFDA national-level tournaments have qualifying events, which, in principle, weed out the weak teams that bring down the overall quality of the sport that is played.  The AUS, in contrast, seems to accept all-comers (or perhaps I am wrong about this?): it is this fundamental fact that will prevent AUG Ultimate from becoming an overall high-level event.  The only reasonable way to achieve the goal of "raising the standard" (at least within the current framework) is to restrict the total number of teams (say, less than 20, if this is the logistical limit) and hold true qualifying events in the larger regions.  In this case, a second division could still be utilized for those squads not making the cut (or those who recognize that are not competitive).  Obviously it is too late to do it this year.

A two-division split is only sensible (this year) if there is a truly bimodal distribution in squad skill, and there is an objective measure of this "skill".  As squads have varied significantly from regional events to AUGs (as there was no indication that the results from these tournies would affect play at AUGs and therefore no incentive to use it as anything but a development tool), using these as a metric for dividing teams is highly arbitrary.  The same argument holds, for results of AUGs in previous years.

If the bimodality constraint is not satisfied, squads that have worked hard to develop new players and build a true University Club will find their season culminating in a week of smashing loosely affiliated groups of people (I hesitate to call them "teams") and playing precious little Ultimate.  Informing teams this late in the season (after we have all paid our rego fees!!) that they are to be playing "frisbee" rather than "Ultimate" at AUGs this year, and coming up with arbitrary criteria for this relegation, is a terrible way to run a tournament.

The only reasonable option is to carry over these considerations to next year, where they can be presented to clubs at an appropriate time (i.e., at the beginning of the year).  If logistical constraints require some semblance of a "2-division draw" simply divide teams equally between the divisions and have crossovers for placing games.  This has the downside that the high-functioning Clubs will have to play some of the "loosely affiliated groups of people" (although this is what would have happened anyways in a single division), but has the benefit that individual teams will not be arbitrarily punished.

-Ryan (ANU)
Logged
biskit
Newbie
*

Karma: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 10



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2009, 09:56:33 PM »

A 12 team 'top pool' is just simply too small (it excludes to many 'serious' teams), I think twig's suggestion of multiple smaller pools could work really well, however Id like to see the top three go up (from 4 pools of 5). Top 2 go into 2 x 4 team power pools, 3rd places go into a 4 team 'second chance' pool.

The top two teams from the second chance pool play off against the bottom two teams of the power pools for the final 2 spots in the quarter finals. The second chance reduces the risk of a reasonable team being knock out due to being seeded into a tough initial pool. It means 1 extra game for the teams coming into the bottom of the quarters. I think this is reasonable to give them a chance to play back up.

If a team comes 3rd in their initial pool, they probably dont deserve 'much' of a chance at winning  the tournament. The winners of the 'second chance' pools will be against the top 2 teams from the power pools, but it will give a team who was unfairly seeded (or who was playing poorly seeded opponents) a good chance of playing back up into the main draw and finishing in a reasonable position. It also prevents teams from being 'safe' once they make the power pools (which only skews the draw further next year).

For the finalists, this would mean 4 initial pools games + 3 'second stage' pool games (including power, second chance and bottom pools) + potentially 1 'bottom of the power pools games) + quarters, semi and final = realistically 10 games.

At the end of the day, I just want to play good ultimate. I hope we are given a chance to play in a fair draw, that recognizes that seeding for uni games is really really hard to get right.

The list below are the teams currently registered on the afda site. Is there anybody else who is coming? This list is only 17 teams long...
UTSexperience   
UQ Ultimate Lovers
Flinders Fury
BUUF   
UWA
Griffith
Newcastle
Monash
AU
Mac
QUT
ANU
UWS
UNSW
MUtation
USYD
Vic Wildcats (NZ)   
Logged
Jangles
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +7/-29
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 357



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2009, 12:06:08 AM »

So if it was decided to only have "serious contenders" in div 1, who would they be?

East: Sydney, Newcastle, Macquarie, ANU(?), UTS(?), CSU(?)
North: UQ, Griffith(?)
South: Flinders, Melbourne, Monash, Adelaide/USA(?), Deakin(?), LaTrobe(?)
West: UWA
New Zealand(?)

There's 16 teams for a nice draw structure (although it should be noted my knowledge of teams from the other regions is pretty bad)

haha if you include griffith you would have to add QUT. despite our every 2nd year wooden spoon this year we actually have some talent. unfortunately they have me as coach still when will they learn. i am not opposed to 2 divisions but if it splits 16 and 3 then there is a bit of a problem there as you play like 3 games in div 2 and one has to be a repeat game.

10 and the rest id probably be ok with but i can see some teams thinking we should be in div 1 when they probably shouldn't.
Logged
JdR
Full Member
***

Karma: +11/-3
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 217



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2009, 12:37:28 AM »

Simmo, I think you also need to factor 2010 and onwards into your thinking.  I know you want to sort 2009, but you'll make for stronger arguments if you're able to put a longer term vision out there, and then work out how 2009 fits into it.  Presumably this would also help with swinging AUS one way or the other.

I'd also encourage you to consider replicating the approach AFDA has developed for Nats and AMUC, in terms of size of the event, slots to regions, seeding and draw.  Its been devised to minimise annual arguing, and seems to be fairly well accepted.

Logged

simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2009, 02:01:50 AM »

The list below are the teams currently registered on the afda site. Is there anybody else who is coming? This list is only 17 teams long...
UTSexperience   
UQ Ultimate Lovers
Flinders Fury
BUUF   
UWA
Griffith
Newcastle
Monash
AU
Mac
QUT
ANU
UWS
UNSW
MUtation
USYD
Vic Wildcats (NZ)   

There's a couple of teams missing from that list who aren't certain starters. I will know for sure early next week who is actually coming. There's also the "holy shit who are they" entrants that seem to pop up every year. Ideally there will be 20 teams and we can just have one division and use the UPA College Nats format.

Remember that two divisions is not a certainty yet.

JdR - AUS has those kind of processes already in place, but are quite flexible in terms of our recommendations. I'd love to have things set in place from day one, but AUG has never had the same number of teams two years in a row so it's quite hard to plan.

Chris L - Your lack of Ballarat in that list upsets me Sad
Logged

Time to waste? Visit the Ballarat Ultimate blog!
thebozzman
Full Member
***

Karma: +11/-7
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 187



View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2009, 02:46:38 AM »

CSU have just confirmed with me. It will be a combined Bathurst and Wagga team... So a top candidate for a Div 2 placement.
Logged
newk
Newbie
*

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 16



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2009, 06:40:21 AM »

sorry dave,
but are you suggesting that syd should be seeded above newie because they came 2nd LAST YEAR? My god, newie won easterns in a canter and if you reckon that an extra half a team will beat chris-boy now that he has pecs, you are not only displaying the sydney-centric attitue that has plagued ultimate for the last decade but are also demonstrating your own, shall we say, unique take on the game. bring on the gold coast and watch out for the boy! he is awesome and is feared by all in newcastle (most especially by his brother)
p.s. he is coming to prague
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot Google Bookmarks Ma.gnolia MSN Live Squidoo Yahoo My Web     Bookmark  |  Print  
 
Facebook Comments

Jump to:  






Advertise on UT!



Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to remove these ads!
Change language to English Change language to Brazilian Change language to Chinese-Simplified Change language to Danish Change language to Dutch Change language to English Change language to Finnish Change language to French Change language to German Change language to Greek Change language to Hebrew Change language to Hungarian Change language to Indonesian Change language to Italian Change language to Japanese Change language to Norwegian Change language to Polish Change language to Portuguese Change language to Romanian Change language to Russian Change language to Spanish Change language to Swedish Change language to Thai Change language to Turkish Change language to Ukranian Change language to Vietnamese

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
UltiTalk.Com is the #1 forum and bulletin board for talking about, chatting about and discussing Ultimate Frisbee.
Please help spread the word to promote an international community of Ultimate Frisbee players, coaches and teachers.


Site Design By MWM Consulting, Inc. MWM Consulting, Inc.



Google last visited this page December 10, 2017, 04:12:09 PM
SimplePortal 2.1.1