UltiTalk.Com
Welcome to the ULTIMATE Ultimate Frisbee forum. July 06, 2020, 05:26:44 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!
What's New? Interested in seeing a list of all the topics you have yet to read? Click the Show unread posts links at the top of the forum.
 
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Members Links Gallery Login Register  
Visit UltiTalk.Com on TwitterVisit UltiTalk.Com on Facebook

Pages: [1] 2   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: AFDA over AusUniSport: Collaboration  (Read 19041 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JMc
Guest
« on: June 26, 2007, 08:50:51 PM »

Hey all,

Read Pottsy's post first, so you know what I'm talking about: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ultimate-unis/message/496

I figure UT is a good place to discuss reasons for changing the format, so we don't spam the email groups. So:
The purpose of this thread is to give uni organisers a place to collaborate about what to send to AFDA/AusUniSport. The more sound, well-reasoned points we can come up with, the better our chances of influencing the format to a more favourable position.

Of course, if you don't think it needs changing, you're welcome to post as well.

Please also identify yourself and which uni you're connected with (if any).

John McNaughton - UQ
« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 08:56:43 PM by JMc » Logged
Chris
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +18/-20
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 368



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2007, 09:24:14 PM »

Chris Cunliffe - UQ

I think one of the key points that you could probably argue is with two tiered competition with only 1 team being relegated/promoted each year it doesn't give enough room for changing of abilities between teams from year to year, which I'd imagine is a lot more dramatic in a sport like UD considering it is still in it's infancy and picking up 3 or 5 athletic (not even necessarily skilled) players can seriously change the dynamic of a team. Where as with other sports that have massive player bases would probably find they'd have relatively high levels of athleticism shown by all AUG representatives.

Like in the past to represent the UQ soccer team you'd really have to have played soccer for at least 5 years, plus be of pretty dam high athletic ability (in comparison to UD) to even have a chance.

That would be the biggest angle I'd be pushing.

Though with that said I'd like to think that an AFDA seeded tournament isn't required. With an event like AUGs I think it is reasonable enough to base teams seeds on last year's performance, whilst there is no doubt variance from year to year I don't think it is dramatic enough to have an outside subjective seeding process. I just think that will help to keep the politics out of the process, plus minus all the NUG, EUG, SUG rubbish, teams won't be seeded on their regional performances either - which in light of the LTCC and GCC clearly are not of high importance to teams and just using the previous years results would probably be much more accurate.

And yes I do believe QUT should be seeded 17th/last for AUGs 2007!

 Grin


Sorry I couldn't help myself.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 09:32:41 PM by Chris » Logged

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

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

Karma: +7/-29
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 357



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2007, 09:30:49 PM »

Adam Beu - QUT

first yes Jangles is not my real name!! my parents didnt hate me that much.

QUT's official stance is against in its current proposed form.

Anyway i would have to include the large turn over of players as well as the pick up of international students. Also from year to year graduations such as half our team after this year including myself. Also interstate teams will be weaker just on the cost factor. We suffered bad last year.
Logged
el_joshie
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 7



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2007, 09:53:41 PM »

Josh Cukierman - Monash Uni

Id like to expand on the high player turnover and the possibility of a team being totally different over two years.

Our team, MUF (Monash Ultimate Frisbee) had a pretty ordinary AUG last year, temporarily losing good players to international exchange, travel and of course graduation. As a reault, two people in our team had played nationals before at a decent level.

This year, there are only two people who have not played nationals.

This speaks volumes for itself. We now have international experience, having 4 World Junior Champs players including the only Gaia sponsored player in Oz-  Arwyn.

We have a full time coach as well (An Australian Representative Player) whom we are paying. It would be a waste of money for us to have a coach if we did not think we have a crack at doing really well. If we were not allowed to even compete with top teams, well that would be a complete waste of money!!

We believe we deserve better.

peace
Logged
simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2007, 12:46:21 AM »

Simon Talbot - University of Ballarat

Try this on for size. If you want, you can add a bit at the end of the second paragraph about your uni's individual case. Address one copy to Pottsy/Olly (perhaps use their real names if they are going to forward them to AUS) via email. Address another one to your uni people. Voila.



Dear,

Recently we learned of a proposal to split the ultimate competition into two divisions at Australia University Games. Our team feels that this is will severely impact on the prestige of this competition. Despite having separate medals for the second division, a win will still feel like we have only finished “9th”. AUG is seen as a prominent competition on the ultimate calendar, and many teams prepare and train to perform at their best and aim to win.

Numerous factors make the competition wide open every year – the quality of players on university teams (several Australian representatives play for their university team) and the high turnover of players from year to year. There are several cases of teams substantially changing in performance from year to year, such as University of New South Wales dropping from 1st in 2005 to 9th in 2006, and University of Tasmania finishing 8th in their first AUG in 2006.

The AUS’ Division Sport Guideline document states in section 1.2 that they “will have the power to go outside these parameters if it is in the best interests of maintaining the integrity of the competition.” The field for 2007 AUG is considered to be the most open field of all time, with up to fourteen teams capable of reaching the top eight. The act of denying six rapidly developing teams the chance of finishing in the top eight will have a severe impact on the prestige of AUG in the Australian ultimate community.

We formally ask you to approach Australian University Sport with our concerns and request that they reconsider their move to split the competition into two divisions.

Yours sincerely,
Logged

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

Karma: +7/-29
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 357



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2007, 01:32:26 AM »

thanks simmo i was gonna type something up but i suck at english stuff. Maths all the way. i probably would have add the limited life of players due to uni degrees but ill put that in my letter.
Logged
JdR
Full Member
***

Karma: +11/-3
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 217



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2007, 02:32:31 AM »

Slightly different angle on the "player strength changes year to year" argument - its about establishing Ultimate's distinctiveness next to other sports which see tiering as valuable.

- In contrast to several other University sports, Ultimate is a sport taken up by people when they arrive at University (or late in High School).  Hence, most University Ultimate players are on steep improvement curves, so strength levels vary greatly from year to year.  Many First Year students are rank beginners in Ultimate terms, but are often complete guns by Third Year!

- In contrast to several other University sports, Ultimate is a highly international game, with a signficiant presence in North American and European Universities - the arrival and departure of individual players of such origins (these students are also likely to have shorter stays) can rapidly strengthen or weaken University Ultimate teams.

Everything else in this thread is looking good!
Logged

Tiger
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +22/-10
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 304



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2007, 07:26:24 AM »

Okay, so I'm in high school, what do I know about uni games? I did read Pottsy's post - boy, between being the intermediary for the AUS and the ratio change for Youth Nats that guy is really making friends - but what I don't get is why the option of tiering the AUG ever came up at all?

I mean, all the points I could possibly think of - Ultimate's 'unique' learning curve (as opposed to soccer, hardly anyone has been playing since they were littlies) and the short lifespan of university players - have been discussed, but what was the rationale for thinking up tiering in the first place?

T.
Logged

thoughts and stuff - sifultimate.blogspot.com
timill
Full Member
***

Karma: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 131



View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2007, 08:38:13 AM »

Tiger,

It's because there is possibly going to be 24 Ultimate teams playing at Unigames, and that's a lot for one section.
Logged

simmo
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-21
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 884



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2007, 09:46:52 AM »

24 is nothing. There were 40 teams in the Mixed division at Worlds for a 6 day comp. Last year there were 20 at Mixed Nats over 3 days! 24 teams and 5 days should not be a problem.

Tiger, the thing with AUG is that it is run by Australian University Sport (AUS), not the AFDA. AUS like to implement blanket policies across all sports (such as tiering), conveniently forgetting just how easily manageable ultimate is compared to other sports.
Logged

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

Karma: +1/-3
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 82


oh o


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2007, 09:52:51 AM »

that said AUG has been known to skip ultimate even though it is the biggest sport played at AUG's. I don't know their plans on tiering but it is to reduce games played, but basically elimates half the team from contention. Personally i think that the pro's are vastly out numbered but the con's, and tiering should not be implemented.

Daniel Lewis RMIT
Logged

Reflection is noblest. Imitation is easiest. Experience is bitterest.
littletom
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +21/-7
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 295



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2007, 07:43:11 PM »

Thomas Watson - ANU

ANU do not like the tiering system as suggested. For one year to the next, every unigames team can be subtly or vastly different. Thus, in any possible tiering system, the 2007 or 200X team must have an opportunity to qualify for its own year of competition and should not be shackled to the performances of its team from the year before.

Considering we have the luxury of 5 days of play, surely draws can be worked out to accommodate large amounts of teams, perhaps with bottom and top pools as Pottsy has suggested.

So thats the briefest of summaries for ANU's position on the matter.

Tiger, I should also clarify that Pottsy is *not* AFDA's representative with the AUS but that he has been in communication with Andrew Olennick, who is the AUS-AFDA rep. I am quite pleased that someone with some administrative firepower is going in to bat for the worries and concerns of the vast majority of uni-clubs. I have felt that Olly just isn't convinced that peoples concerns are justified and so hasn't really been that keen to actually act as our representative....
Logged
mattdowle
Guest
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2007, 08:00:19 PM »

From Mac Uni

I don't think we really mind what goes ahead - we are happy to support the concerns of the majority, so let us know what we can do to help. Haha, i guess noone else other than my fence sitting arse is going to voice a concern for Mac.

As it has been said - AUS is in charge of something like 20 sports. I can understand how they want some consistency across the board. However, the biggest problem comes because we as ultimate players are not used to other people in power influencing the way we play (or taking orders for that matter) - it shows that a lot of us have not come from other sports. But i guess that is why ultimate is so unique and the type of people it attracts.

Matt
Logged
Ud4lyF
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 6



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2007, 11:53:50 PM »


Will Churchill- UQ

i agree with all arguments being bought up here. its a shame to see really strong teams which have the chance to take the gold held back by this tiering crap and kept in a division that their playing level is above. and it goes vice versa. from my experience the nationals tournament sifted teams into their final positions quite well and i find it hard to find argument against it


 Also from year to year graduations such as half our team after this year including myself.

so this means QUT will do better next year??


OH SNAP!
Logged
Eels
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 7



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2007, 10:20:23 AM »


Jimmy Eley (Eels) - UWA

UWA are definately against the tiering system. Its a balls idea.

Its the highest level university championship in Australia, thus every university should have the opportunity to win the title. Tiering takes this away and theres not much point travelling across the Nullabor to essentially play off for 7th place.

Cheers fellas, see you at NUFL.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   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 June 15, 2020, 10:19:31 AM
SimplePortal 2.1.1