UltiTalk.Com
Welcome to the ULTIMATE Ultimate Frisbee forum. October 20, 2014, 12:20:38 AM
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!
Tell us more about yourself. Modify your profile by clicking on the Profile link.
 
 
   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: NUFL  (Read 43793 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Staples
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 18



View Profile
« on: May 06, 2007, 11:17:45 PM »

Lets start a new thread to talk NUFL. Those who want to discuss Ultitalk vs. aus.sport.frisbee etc should also start a new thread.
Worthwhile getting everyone together on this issue somewhere...

My last post on NUFL was:

NUFL allocations still being worked out? Doesn't it come straight from Nats?
WA should get a bid given they beat all QLD, ACT and SA teams this year.
Logged
Drag
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +1/-3
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 82


oh o


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2007, 11:23:05 PM »

well i think that should play a part, but a better reason for having one in the western states is because they are so far away, and it is unreasonable to expect them to travel east 3 times, it just evens it out.
And you cant say i am bias as i am in VIC.

D
Logged

Reflection is noblest. Imitation is easiest. Experience is bitterest.
Staples
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 18



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2007, 12:05:17 AM »

Jangles mentions in the Nats thread that QLD will be stronger at NUFL.

I'm sure many teams can say that, we only had 6 of 12 men from Sublime WUCC team make the trip to Melb and JD was out injured.
My question is, what is the process for qualifying for NUFL? It must be written somewhere?
Logged
littletom
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +21/-7
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 295



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2007, 12:35:55 AM »

There effectively is no "process" or policy pre-defined about qualifying for NUFL.

In part, this has been because every NUFL in the past 3 years has been modified to fit the world clubs agenda.

Without this unifying theme this year, there has been lots of talk about the upcoming NUFL and how it is to be run and under what rational. Most of this discussion has taken place on the AFDA-HP yahoogroups list

A lot of the suggestions put forward there have been mentioned here already. There is a selection of things that I *do* know and a selection of stuff I can make probable comments about but a lot of it is speculation until the board and Pottsy make their policy release this week.

Okay to begin:
-NUFL teams have not previously been based on state allocations or state teams. They have been club teams, largely in line with the Men's and Women's club teams that went to World Clubs. Discussions about state teams have taken place but there has not been a strong show of support for any proposal for figuring out teams for NUFL as yet.

-NUFL allocations will probably not be based on results from nationals. This was a suggestion made to the HP list, as a simple way of figuring who should play but again "there has not been a strong show of support for any proposal for figuring out teams for NUFL as yet." However, because this policy was not in place before nationals, it will be unlikely to come about, as teams may have pursued their nationals campaigns differently if the policy was in effect. Nevertheless, still a very viable option for deciding future NUFLs.

-NUFL locations have *not* been decided. The Canberra one mentioned was organised by me at the start of 2006, so its old news. The locations mentioned on the NUFL website are old.

-NUFL is seen by some of its chief organisers as a venue for conducting initial selections and training for the 2008 National squad going to Vancouver. This has been a hotly debated issue. While there has been some opposition to this idea, no alternative for selections/training has been proposed and so NUFL will probably be linked to the selection process

-There is a limited amount of NUFL fatigue in the Eastern state. Basically, people are whinging about money/time etc. The usual. Of course, they'll ultimately put up and play anyway...

-The format is likely to be five or six teams with 12-14 regular players and 3-4 free agents each. The only four teams that are certainities for the comp are Fak, Chilly, Barefoot and the yet to be named QLD team. (Which might play as firestorm? Jangles?) If required the comp might even be limited to five teams but no more then six are considered. Newcastle and Canberra don't have enough interest for their own teams, Deathstar will not happen and Heads of State have indicated some interest in playing.

Well thats about all I know.

Feel free to question me further if somethings unclear.

-Tom
Logged
Staples
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 18



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2007, 02:00:19 AM »

Thanks Tom,
Yeah, I realize there is talk on the HP group but that just raises the question about where we should be discussing all these issues. I guess it will be the HP list so will try and get myself added to that group.
Anyhow, that aside, you answer is about what I expected.

As for not using Nats for NUFL qualification or "there has not been a strong show of support for any... blah blah blah", I find this a bit strange. What's the point of nationals if we don't rank teams using it? As for teams who would have structured their lists differently, yes good point, but I have no understanding of going to Nats with a team other than one structured to get the highest placing possible. You guys chose a different path and that was your option.

Why would QLD/Firestorm get a team and not WA?
Logged
Chris
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +18/-20
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 368



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2007, 11:49:59 AM »

NUFL allocations will probably not be based on results from nationals. This was a suggestion made to the HP list, as a simple way of figuring who should play but again "there has not been a strong show of support for any proposal for figuring out teams for NUFL as yet." However, because this policy was not in place before nationals, it will be unlikely to come about, as teams may have pursued their nationals campaigns differently if the policy was in effect. Nevertheless, still a very viable option for deciding future NUFLs.
I agree with this. I think if qualification for NUFL is to be done via Nationals then it should disclosed well before the tournament to allow clubs/states preparation, but that said it does make sense to have somewhat of qualification process to make NUFLs. It would be cool if in future years something like a "Super 8" series could be created.


Quote
NUFL locations have *not* been decided. The Canberra one mentioned was organised by me at the start of 2006, so its old news. The locations mentioned on the NUFL website are old.
I'm not sure - but have NUFLs in the past been "cost shared"? If this was the case doesn't it make a lot of sense to have the events in location that will result in the cheapest aggregate cost - the obvious options being Sydney or Melb, and potentially Newsastle or Canberra (especially if either team get a bid).


Quote
The format is likely to be five or six teams with 12-14 regular players and 3-4 free agents each. The only four teams that are certainities for the comp are Fak, Chilly, Barefoot and the yet to be named QLD team. (Which might play as firestorm? Jangles?) If required the comp might even be limited to five teams but no more then six are considered. Newcastle and Canberra don't have enough interest for their own teams, Deathstar will not happen and Heads of State have indicated some interest in playing.
My assumption is the the QLD will continue to be called Firestorm, but the best persons to confirm this would be Johnny Mac or Mikey Neild.


As for not using Nats for NUFL qualification or "there has not been a strong show of support for any... blah blah blah", I find this a bit strange. What's the point of nationals if we don't rank teams using it? As for teams who would have structured their lists differently, yes good point, but I have no understanding of going to Nats with a team other than one structured to get the highest placing possible. You guys chose a different path and that was your option.

Why would QLD/Firestorm get a team and not WA?
I think the major reason is probably that in the past QLD has generally had a much strong showing that how we did at the 2007 Nats. Like in 2006 Nats QLD teams finished 6th and 10th of 20 teams and from my understand QLD teams have traditionally held their own at NUFL events in the past. 

As for structuring teams other than to get the highest possible placing - well in Ultimate most clubs can't claim to have 4 or 5 divisions that allows them to stack their top team and reasonably expect their B team to compete well at Nationals. Chilly and Hot Chilly are an example of this - with their top team coming first but their B team coming 14th. Fakulti on the other hand did the spilt option and achieved 2nd and 3rd which is arguably better development for all involved and the long term development of the depth of their club. This is the way many clubs approach Nationals, this would definitely change if the results of Nationals contributed to qualification of other tournaments.

Now in QLDs case, Firestorm was completely Brisbane based players and we achieved 8th, with our small squad that included no Dingo players and many rookies, but for NUFLs we expect that we will have anywhere from 4 - 5 previous Australian reps joining the squad. I believe many of these players didn't join us in Melbourne because they perceived this Nationals team to be a "development" team and giving the associated costs felt they would "sit this one out" in preparation for NUFL, which I think for many is becoming the prestige tournament of Australian Ultimate.

That said, you can rest assured that Firestorm will be extremely competitive at NUFL, and I'm arrogant enough to say that we will actually be strong contenders.

 Grin

Though I do think that Sublime, just like Newcastle's I-Beam, both have a strong case for inclusion based on Nationals results, and I'm sure both of those bids along with HoS's will be considered at great length.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2007, 11:58:08 AM by Chris » Logged

Help spread the word about the AUDL - "like" it @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/AUDL/

UQ Lovers & Firestorm
simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2007, 05:50:49 PM »

Why would QLD/Firestorm get a team and not WA?
Cost sharing. Having a WA team would make fees go up a bit. WA players can still get drafted by other teams though.

NUFL was started as a way to develop teams for World Clubs last year, but for this year it's probably going to be the first stage of selections for Worlds 08. The discussion that's going on at a board level at the moment is whether not attending NUFL will mean you get looked over for Worlds selection. There hasn't been a definitive decision made, but there'll be some announcement via email (and Pottsy's beloved aus.sport.frisbee) this week as Piers is chomping at the bit to get things underway.
Logged

Time to waste? Visit the Ballarat Ultimate blog!
Jangles
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +7/-29
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 357



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2007, 11:50:11 PM »

Well I have had a positive email from Mr Neild and assuming most of the Nats boys come we will be called Firestorm. As for a WA club coming i say you talk to your members and see how many people will commit themselves to 3 weekends. I do admit you guys had a good team at Nats but would the team get stronger for NUFL.
Logged
Staples
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-1
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 18



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2007, 11:57:56 PM »

Don't know if we would get a better team to NUFL due to cost but our best player JD was on the sideline at Nats and 6 of 12 men from the Sublime team from WUCC didn't go to Melb.
Logged
littletom
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +21/-7
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 295



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2007, 02:55:21 AM »

Again, I do know for fact that Newwie do not have the player support to play NUFL. They have six players trying out (Tatts, Tim L, Hobbit, Dave Jarrot, Chris boy (Lavis) and some chump called johnno holmes) for the National team and the rest are more focused on a break or mixed.

Again, both Firestorm and FU (Canberra) may have approached nationals differently or do so in the future if NUFL team qualification becomes a factor but no policy will be applied retroactively to a past tournament. Nevertheless, Canberra is not interested in having a team.

I think the debate about having a WA team will be less based on whether or not there is space for the team, (There is no 6th team at the moment) but instead whether or not including that team will come up positive in a cost-benefit analysis (ie, is it worth paying for the cross-country airfares to bring Sublime over instead of 5-6 players as free agents) I'm not endorsing that view, I'm just saying thats what it will probably come down too.

Nevertheless, as a possible free agent, I'm keen to see how things will pan out.

Crap, must run to class!
Logged
Dens
Newbie
*

Karma: +1/-2
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 15



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2007, 04:37:59 AM »

Being a West Australian player I'll add into this debate. 

I think nationals needs to count for something here, if NUFL is going to be a teams based event.  While I except teams had a different approach and considered development (although I'm still perplexed as to why? ... it is the national tournament), this expectation that we can sit out Nationals and wait for NUFL is unrealistic and unfair for other teams and maintains a "stagnant" status quo.  The arguement over what full strength squads could and couldn't acheive is all well and good but numerous teams are in this bracket

Additionally if we did go down that path of picking up unless you are an out and out star who would pick you up?
Logged
ulty_arnie
Full Member
***

Karma: +13/-6
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 138



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2007, 10:52:05 AM »

First off, debating the recent Nationals results and how these can be used to decide team allocations for NUFL is far from useful.  This criteria was not set up beforehand and therefore teams did not plan for it.  I know personally, our team was made as a rebuilding year and was happy with its 8th place finish, with little effort put into building the most competitive team possible for our region. 

With this, if we want to go on the debate each team's potential growth and possible future achievements, then we are wasting each others time.  You can try and justify this and that, saying someone is your best player and was injured and 6 of 12 whoevers didn't come, but then going back to even earlier results, in a completely different division mind you, Sublime lost to Bootius, the Brisbane team, in every tournament they met during the lead up to worlds and also placed lower at Worlds!  This isn't to brag or whatnot, but to show this is a pointless debate to ensue.  Lets focus on what is known and controllable.  Queensland definitely has enough interest for a highly competitive team for NUFL.  We can afford it and make it to each event.  Now, the next step would be to see who else has full teams of interest and can afford to go.  If WA, and Sydney, and Newcastle, and Melbourne, and so on and so forth, then we have our list of possible teams and work our way down to 6 teams from there, if six is the number.  But just debating why QLD might get a team and WA might not, is numbing.  Lets try and work together to make sure NUFL gets the most competitive teams into the event as possible, and stop fighting like schoolies about which team is better or whatnot.  The truth is, whether QLD or WA gets a team or not, people from both regions will get to play if they want to as free agents anyway. 

Do we know that Fakulti, Chilly, and Barefoot are in for NUFL for sure?  I would assume so and personally believe they should all get to go. 

Anyways, try and be more objective and cooperative, and we can reach a end result beneficial for all parties.
Logged
Chris
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +18/-20
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 368



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2007, 03:51:32 AM »

OK I'm going to chime in and say that it does suck for WA but at the same time I don't think it is a problem that can be solved this year, but it definitely raises some points for discussion for next years NUFL.

Don't know if we would get a better team to NUFL due to cost but our best player JD was on the sideline at Nats and 6 of 12 men from the Sublime team from WUCC didn't go to Melb.
Well the point of NUFL is to have an "elite National league" if WA can't consistently field at stronger team than they did at Nationals this year they would probably struggle to compete at NUFLs.

So I guess what is more important than the fact that you had 6 guys missing is whether or not the 6 guys that were missing REALLY make your team better. Now in Queensland's case we had 6 Australian reps not play with us at Nationals, and didn't have any Open Australian reps playing with Firestorm this year.

So I guess we can easily argue that with the incorporation of at least 3 or 4 of these players our team will get significantly better, plus we had a number of other quality players that were unable to come for an assortment of reasons that otherwise would have been a part of the Nationals team and greatly improved Firestorm's strength. Not to mention that a few of the better North QLD players who played with Thor in the past have played with the QLD NUFL team.

So whilst it might suck that Sublime finished above Firestorm at Nationals, as Brett mentioned above this is  a reflection of what the QLD/Firestorm NUFL team will perform like, and traditionally QLD has been stronger than WA in both the Mixed and Open division with two QLD teams finishing above WA last year at Nationals, QLD finishing above QA in Mixed Nationals and QLD finishing above WA in WUCC not to mention that QLD also had 7 of our strongest guys playing in the Open division with Thong and Deathstar.

So I think that this year's Nationals isn't a true reflection of QLD's strength, and I'm quietly confident that the NUFL organisers will consider this more important than the Nats 07 result.


Again, both Firestorm and FU (Canberra) may have approached nationals differently or do so in the future if NUFL team qualification becomes a factor but no policy will be applied retroactively to a past tournament. Nevertheless, Canberra is not interested in having a team.
I think it is fair to say that I'm sure a lot of teams would have approached things differently if qualifications for NUFL were based on National performance. I mean no doubt Canberra would have done things differently, I'd probably even argue that Fakulti may have even considered opting for a more Chilly style split of teams to secure a sport at NUFLs because I mean if only 5 spots are up for grabs you run a big risk going for an even split.

So I also can't help but feel a policy change after Nationals probably isn't fair, but then again WA not being considered also is a bit unfair as well, but like I said it definitely raise the point that in the future results at Nationals potentially should influence NUFL "bids"/"qualification".


Quote
I think the debate about having a WA team will be less based on whether or not there is space for the team, (There is no 6th team at the moment) but instead whether or not including that team will come up positive in a cost-benefit analysis (ie, is it worth paying for the cross-country airfares to bring Sublime over instead of 5-6 players as free agents) I'm not endorsing that view, I'm just saying thats what it will probably come down too.
It really is a shame that Perth is so far away and there isn't really a cost effective way of integrating them into the competition.

I can see why the tournament is cost shared, but I can't help but feel that in the longer run it just makes things overly complicated and places too much empahsis on "can we afford to let this team in" rather than  "is this team good enough to play". I mean even if Sublime came in the top 3 at Nationals this year, you could probably argue that they still wouldn't have been allowed to compete as a team in NUFL due to the finances of their involvement.

So is there the possibility of running 4 NUFL tournaments a year hosting an event in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth but not making them cost shared or only partially cost shared? I mean this still probably favours Melbourne and Sydney, but I think would be a much more favourable system for most involved, and would put the onus back on clubs to do fund raise for the events rather than rely on the cost shared aspect and it gives each region somewhat of a "home" advantage.

Is this the sort of direction NUFL is looking to head?


I think nationals needs to count for something here, if NUFL is going to be a teams based event.  While I except teams had a different approach and considered development (although I'm still perplexed as to why? ... it is the national tournament), this expectation that we can sit out Nationals and wait for NUFL is unrealistic and unfair for other teams and maintains a "stagnant" status quo.  The arguement over what full strength squads could and couldn't acheive is all well and good but numerous teams are in this bracket
I tend to agree that Nationals should count for something, but if it doesn't really count for anything I can completely understand why clubs take different approaches a lot to achieve different outcomes from the tournament.

So for me personally I am all for Nationals counting for NUFL qualifications in the future, but making the National 2007 results the basis for qualification into the 2007 NUFL really shouldn't be considered.


Quote
Additionally if we did go down that path of picking up unless you are an out and out star who would pick you up?
This does suck for WA players, but at the same time NUFL is meant to be more of an "elite" competition so the level of ability to make a NUFL team is always going to be tougher, it just makes it slightly tougher for WA players. But I guess this issue only highlights futher the need to be able to integrate a "WA Team" into NUFL in the future, and I think the best way to put further pressure on having the change come about is getting more "out and out stars" playing over in WA and competing at Nationals.

Though that said difficulty you WA players face is still somewhat similar to what person faces in NUFL club, I mean there are no doubt guys who play on Chilly B that are more than capable of being assets or fitting in well on less competitive NUFL teams, but will be overlooked, the same will no doubt will happen for players at Fak when they merge into one team. It's just the nature of higher level sports.

If WA, and Sydney, and Newcastle, and Melbourne, and so on and so forth, then we have our list of possible teams and work our way down to 6 teams from there, if six is the number.  Lets try and work together to make sure NUFL gets the most competitive teams into the event as possible, and stop fighting like schoolies about which team is better or whatnot.
I agree but I much prefer throwing my two cent Australian coins at other people.

Plus I can't help but feel most people chiming in on these forums don't really have a lot of influence over which teams actually will be in attendance at NUFL - which only really leaves us the option of resorting to bitching like little school girls. Anyway, back to my pointless and wasted opinion...


Quote
But just debating why QLD might get a team and WA might not, is numbing.
**Runs off to get old school two cent Australian coin to throw at Brett to test how "numb" Brett really is to this debate**

I think the biggest thing that can come from this "debate" is how the system works, and where it could be improved. I mean there have been a couple of valid points brought up in this thread already - but I'm sure the NUFL organisers have not doubt already considered them and spoken about them at lenght, but at the same time it is always good to have healthy discussion about things to further everyone's else understand. I mean the more people understand the system the more they can personally do to improve their regions chances of representing at NUFL and in the process the more they can do for the sport's development.

I for one would love to see more than 5 teams at NUFL in the coming years, and to have a cemented "elite" National league. And I'd love to see a proper qualification system that assure that the basis for representation in the league is primarily focused on ability and nothing else. 


Quote
Do we know that Fakulti, Chilly, and Barefoot are in for NUFL for sure?
I'd also like to know which other teams are definite, if there are any yet? LOL is NUFL even definite yet?
Logged

Help spread the word about the AUDL - "like" it @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/AUDL/

UQ Lovers & Firestorm
littletom
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +21/-7
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 295



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2007, 07:13:30 PM »

Chilly and Fak have said they will field teams whatever way NUFL is run

On last account (pre-nats) Barefoot have said they would prefer a NUFL that includes a bunch of free agents because they don't have the numbers to go it alone.

HoS is a possiblity and they are doing the sums to see if they have the player support, maybe with some SA support.

I am certain that Qld will be allowed to and can raise a team.

There is a good chance that every team will have to take a certain amount of free agents, from Canberra, Newwie, WA, one from the gong, maybe SA and Mike Baker.

Thats five. Newwie and Canberra are out, WA would be the next appropriate team but if individual players have to bare the cost-sharing burden of their travel, interest in NUFL will die out as the cost increases over $200-250. However, if AFDA use some of its cash (It has a lot due to World Clubs) it could cover the gap between a melb-sydney and a perth-sydney airfare and then no one would be concerned over WA playing any more then they bitch about melbourne or brisbane playing. (So there would still be some bitching...just not any that people listen too)

One way or another, the *mens* NUFL is going to be rammed through. The *womens* NUFL on the other hand....may not happen at all

-Tom
Logged
Joe - Barefoot
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 52



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2007, 07:50:51 PM »

Speaking to the other Barefoot guys, we're eager to field a NUFL team.

We would probably need to pick-up a couple of free agents though.
At the moment I reckon we could field a definite team of around 15, without free agents. 
Although I haven't spoken to every single player from Nats though.
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 October 03, 2014, 04:59:22 AM
SimplePortal 2.1.1