Thoughts.

If you’ve yet to discover it, the The Eternal Battle of Love and Hate is churning out a fair bit of women’s content of late relating to nationals.  Nice to see blogs like this and Movin’ On Up pop up to fill the coverage void.

We need more people to step up and contribute their coverage, and more importantly we need to consolidate it somehow so it presents a cogent view of our sport.  I’m not quite sure how to go about this short of the emergence of another news site with dedicated staffing; my ideal vision has something less rigid and more web 2.0, open and collaborative.  I’m willing to help put in some of the work but at a loss as to what direction to channel efforts into.



Any readers out there have ideas or visions?  Should we just continue to wait for somebody else to blog or write about it, and remain in the dark?

While writing the last post about energy demands in ultimate¹, it struck me that there is a LOT of potential data to be mined just looking at scoring trends, play durations, etc, but the data isn’t there currently–nobody really tracks that sort of thing (at least, not publicly).

We need more descriptive score keeping than the simple “X-X” final total. In much the same way that baseball scores by innings, or tennis has set-by-set counts (or really any sport has at least some temporal division), ultimate needs something more robust to help keep the fan clued in. I’ve broken it down below into a few phases based on ease of incorporation:

Phase 1, (I hope) obviously, is reporting scores at halftime. You get this all the time in written-up recaps; why not on score reporter or tournament result sites?

I’m not saying it has to be done all the time–hell, at plenty of tournaments even final scores go unreported–but at bigger tournaments that have a fan following, it’s the bare minimum to be done to build something of a “box score” and give an at-a-glance view of how the game went. Did team X cruise out to a big halftime lead before blowing it at the end? Did team A stay neck and neck with the #1 seed through the first half and fall back to earth in the second? These are stories that are out there, but often go un(der)reported.

I’m thinking a parenthetical–i.e., Team A 15(8) – Team B 12(2)–would be pretty simple and easy to incorporate into the current SRT structure.

Phase 2 is generating a score report that can really capture the flow of scoring throughout a full game, and I have just the method in mind:

Enter The Hardball Times’ sparklines (I’m amending to scorelines for ultimate’s use).

So much of what makes games into exciting stories is the string of breaks, rises and falls in momentum, or the hard-fought back-and-forth matches, and this metric would capture it perfectly–long gaps in the scoreline denote a string of breaks, whereas the back-and-forth games would have a, dare I say it, beautiful symmetry to their scorelines. Could you imagine how ridiculous the scoreline would’ve looked for Fury’s massive comeback from 10-1 against Riot in the UPA finals last year?²

Even if the scoreline doesn’t make it into mainstream use anytime soon, I imagine it’d be very useful for teams that keep any kind of stats to track their scores (if it isn’t done already)–rather than wonder “did we start off with a 2-0 or 3-0 lead before their zone shut us down?” you can look at the evidence conclusively, and with a few short notes during the game, see concretely what impact your adjustments had on the flow of the game. You could write in the score at set intervals (every 5 ticks for instance) to make it a little easier to track at a glance while still keeping the flow-tracking intact.

The other component I’d like to see go along with this is game time.

Even without shifting to a stopped-time dynamic it’d be possible to track active game duration from pull to last goal caught (or hard cap horn), using a designated scorekeeper with a stopwatch. This would give some indication of, for instance, team A’s offensive dominance with 20-second points while team B struggles to the tune of a minute per score, a prelude to team A’s eventual string of breaks (or team B’s unlikely upset despite the lower efficiency). You might see a break at 10 seconds of play, which would suggest a callahan off the pull or a short turn and quick strike. Even a simple notation of, say, 5-minute play intervals on the scoreline would help to give some idea of how rapid or drawn-out the points were.

Phase 3 moves beyond scorekeeping itself and incorporates stats. This is my baseball bias coming in to play of course, but similar to how at bats are tracked along with hits/runs/RBIs/HRs etc, you could similarly chart points played along with goals caught/assists thrown/Ds (and maybe at a high level, things like hucks and completion % and touches as well). A hockey-like +/-, if refined to account for starting on O or D, would also be a cool stat to see.

Why it’s worth it
Each level takes a greater amount of work to pull off, but each brings with it a greater amount of clarity on “what-happened” syndrome that plagues ultimate today. Outside of following real-time updates, we’re left to get the story secondhand, reading sparse/biased RSD and blog coverage, and unless we know people involved, are generally left unsatisfied. Web coverage is awesome–video feeds, etc–but when you compare the logistics of setting all that up to simply putting a little more effort into score keeping, this is a pretty simple/easy way to boost the profile of tournaments and teams to the casual (and passionate) observer.

What do you think? Would love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

---

¹I wrote this post the same time I finished the last one; I’m posting this earlier than scheduled due to a false-start posting that put this in some RSS readers on Sunday.

²I had to dig to find the UPA championship site and then the recap to get that information. Score reporter? Could’ve been a tight game that Fury pulled away at the end of, for all we know. Certainly doesn’t suggest the spectacular roller coaster. Even the halftime score of 8-1 would have said a LOT more than simply the final score.

Super-Regional | video overview
Conference | video overview
Both videos didn’t work for me, but perhaps they will for you.

First reaction: wow. Talk about big changes! Division II and III nationals/regionals will make for a ton of opportunities for teams to succeed.

I’ll try and summarize first (I know I’m not the only one who’s put off reading about the changes for worry of length), then add my thoughts:

Regular-Season Tiers

• In either plan, you’ll have a 20-team DI natties, and 16-team DII and DIII tourneys.
• There will be a “Tier 1″ distinction for the most competitive teams–in the SRP (Super-Regional Plan)teams who want to be T1 can opt-in, but in the CP (Conference Plan) the tier is made up of the top teams from last year + 12 who play in at the season’s start.
• Tier 2 is all the teams that don’t opt in Tier 1 (SRP) or teams that register to play competitively but didn’t do well enough to make T1 (CP). The CP additionally has a tier 3 for non-registrants.
• Teams in their respective tiers contribute to UPA rankings by playing in official UPA events. In the SRP only Tier 1 games count; in the CP, T1 and T2 games count, but T1 teams get automatic bids to regionals.
• Rankings are used for seeding and for determining regional/national bids.

Super-Regionals

• You have sectionals, but some teams get a bye to super-regionals (based off of reg. season rankings).
• Sectional winners advance to super-regionals; based on size, the next X teams go to regular regionals.
• There are 4 super-regions.
• Super-regionals is a 12-team tourney, top 4/each advance to nationals.

• Top 4 non-qualifiers also get bids, to make 20 teams at nationals.
• There are 8 regions.
• Regionals have more or less the same deal as this year’s format–16 teams, but a flat 2 bids/region, 16 teams at DII nationals.
• Small colleges and developing teams can opt-in to DIII nationals, which has its own sectional and regional tourney. Only in the open division to start.

Conferences

• You have teams in each of 6 regions sorted into conferences based on proximity/willingness to travel/success. There are no sectionals.
• Bids to regionals are based off of season performance, though all tier 1 teams will play at regionals.
• Regionals do not directly decide who goes to nationals–winning a bid simply adds said bid to your conference championship.
• Bids to DI, DII, and DIII nationals are at stake in each regional tournament, with a DII regionals also occuring with bids to DII and DIII nationals at stake.
• Following regionals, teams have their conference championships to determine who goes where.
• No DIII regionals–bids to DIII nationals are won through the other regionals.

My Thoughts
I LOVE the idea of conferences. Think of the rivalry! Think of the camaraderie as you and your conference mates battle through regionals for that DI nationals bid! I think it’s a huge step forward for the excitement level of the sport.

However, I dislike the idea of having to play for nationals twice. Why should a team that didn’t even make DI regionals have a shot at stealing a bid to DI nationals? If a team wins DI regionals should they really have to play again to secure their bid?

There has to be a better way to work the conference angle while not applying a double-dose of pressure to make nationals–basing bids to regionals off of conference championships, and making DI/DII regionals elimination again…or making the DI nationals bid elimination, with DII/DIII bids going back to conference championships.

I worry that the inherently unbalanced nature of the conferences will make for issues similar to what you see in New England and the Metro East–there are so many teams around the same level that, compared to areas where talent is more sparse, the road to nationals is much tougher. Perhaps that is simply the way it has to be though–in baseball, the Tampa Bay Rays stuck with it in the AL East hellhole with the Yanks and Sox and had a magical season last year despite it.

That said, leaving it as is would make for an interesting, unique quirk to ultimate, and there IS a lot of potential to excite there–and what’s more, a team that misses a bid to DI nationals would very likely wind up at DII nationals, so it’s not a win or go home proposition so much as a win or go elsewhere.

The super-regional plan is obviously a more conservative route–I like the intimate, intense nature of a 12-team tournament for 4 bids to nationals, and I think those events would showcase the sport just as much as nationals itself. I also think the increased focus on current-season results, rather than grandfathering last year’s teams in to regionals, would make for a more meaningful regular season (at the upper level at least).

If I had to choose now, I would definitely opt for the conference plan, though I would like to see the tournament structure reworked there to prevent potential complaints when teams that “win” the bid to DI nationals are usurped by another in their conference championship. Both plans have their advantages, and I’m eager to see how they are developed going forward.

---

What are your thoughts? I’m looking at this from the lens of a former (on the bubble) elite team player and potential coach of the same (with a heavy New England bias), and as such am primarily concerned with the top-tier formats, but I’d love to hear the small-mid college perspective or from other regions.

Really, though, your thoughts should go here, where the UPA is looking for feedback. Get in by the 31st, before they close comments!

Maybe this is already old hat for current UPA members, but especially internationals might be interested to read up on some of the (proposed) changes in the works for this year’s college series.

A regular season, active observer calls, wow. Could be a whole new world this year. Perhaps C1 sank so the rest could float faster and higher.

New entrant into the blogosphere James Kim ’11 has a great post on his blog looking at some of the issues addressing the image of ultimate frisbee.

I don’t read Match’s blog with any regularity, but while Match seems to rant a lot about all sorts of ideals when he talks about the future of ultimate and what he’d like to see, James definitely seems a lot more realistic and measured in his views, taking the view less of a dedicated fan wanting to make ultimate a really sweet and hugely popular sport and more of a player who simply wants his sport to be respected by the world (and public) at large. Anybody who fancies themselves advocates for the sport would do well to consider the issues he brings up.