2000 COLLEGE NATIONALS: POST-TOURNAMENT NOTES

It has been a week and a half since Nationals and I've been taking care of family affairs, traveling, and watching the Pacers. I have been trying to keep in mind some other things to wrap up my nationals coverage and have been the recipient of several clarifications from readers and players alike.

There are bound to be errors in instances of what I write. I can't be everywhere at once, and analyzing teams that I haven't yet seen play can be trying. Reminding me of my mistakes is good: it lets me know more about teams and helps me to set the record straight. I'm not a guy to try and get all huffy and puffy about coverage. I cover Ultimate because it is fun and the games are thrilling to watch. So flip me an email if there's something I should know about.

Here are some things that have been noted to me:

* Paul Sackley, coach of the Tufts women, pointed out that my Thursday post described the Tufts team as having a bunch of Grad Students. I don't know where I got that from -- I must've have mixed up my notes with those for UC Davis. So you should know that Tufts is made up almost entirely of Juniors and will be back next year in full force, with their Callahan winner leading the charge. Sackley has vowed revenge on my erroneous reporting and will be sending a representative from Lady Godiva to my house with a baseball bat.

Lori Parham from Brown noted that my coverage of Brown's Disco Inferno was also a little off. Indeed, I did not have the opportunity to attend Northeast Regionals or Yale Cup and thus missed many opportunities to properly scout these teams.

Clearly, I painted the NE in black and white terms, citing Tufts as an unorthodox team with a few big stars and Brown as an unchanging "regimental" squad. Neither description is correct. I was sadly 0 for 2 and that's not a good percentage for a reporter.

My apologies then to the Northeastern women. No slights were intended and I vow to do better in the future.

* Two people from Rice University told me that contrary to what I wrote about the Rice men achieving their first-ever Nationals victory, Cloud Nine had won two games at 1997 Nationals (duh! I was there!). I apologize for making that mistake. I pass blame to Kate Bergeron who had mentioned this nugget of information on the side. She was likely referring to the Rice women. Is this correct??

* It has been observed that the two-handed rim catch, hereafter known as a Grabber, has been a part of Cribber's repertoire, whereas I credited it solely to Billy Rodriguez. However, a fellow on the West Coast pointed this out, and there is all likelihood that Cribber learned this style from Rodriguez when they played together on NYNY's five-championship run. Cribber or Billy: anyone from NYNY want to clarify?

Undoubtedly, players in the 70's caught discs like that, but I still believe the younger generation stars (like Alex Nord and Justin Safdie and Forch, Brian Snyder and others) really grooved on it from watching Rodriguez over the last six championships.

* Rhett Nichols of UNC Chapel Hill wants to say that he actually had a good first half against UCSB, whereas I said he had a good second half and a not-so good first half. I didn't see the first half, but got word instead from a player on the sideline. That being hearsay, I hereby declare that Rhett's performance in the first half is to not be admitted as evidence into this proceeding and it shall be stricken from the record.

Other thoughts

* In the Men's division, there continues to be a tiered division between the top six teams seeking a championship and the bottom twelve happy to be at Nationals. But the difference in the level of play has blurred recently and this is a good thing. Wisconsin and Salisbury State provided excellent examples, showing that teams that run hard, make smart decisions, and can step it up when the pressure is on are not only among those elite schools (read: those in the hunt to win it all).

The Women's division revealed a couple of things. One, superstars can make all the difference. UC Davis made semifinals and won Regionals primarily on the strength of two women, Kari Deleeuw and Melanie Carr. Graduate students Carr and DeLeeuw, after finishing school at Cornell, got the Davis women's team back together last year. Together with a host of new players they proved a difficult challenge for teams on the West Coast and proved it going all the way to semis before losing to eventual Champion Carleton. In essence, the team at Nationals had been together for only two years.

Likewise, Oregon with Robin Birdsong, Johanna from Tufts and Sarah Hagen from Minnesota were bright stars on their respective teams, leading them to the tournament. Only a handful of teams displayed power all around, such as Carleton, UNCW, Colorado, Georgia and Brown.

* Sunday, after the Women's finals, UNCW had finally let their game faces evaporate into tears and hugging. It was a rough end to a rough day. They hadn't played one of their best games, not really even close to how they can play, and it was a disappointing loss.

Crowded together on the other side of the field was Carleton's Syzygy, all a-gog and celebrating and exchanging hugs and dances and such. They were overjoyed and concentrated the love on their team.

In between, out of nowhere, strode a contingent of CUT faithful, alumni and current members of the Men's team. They came across the field directly to the UNCW women and extended a round of appreciative clapping for the distraught team. It was as much a sign of class as I have seen in Ultimate and deserves to be noted.

* In relation to this, there weren't too many cheers to be taken in after games, but there were some. I noticed more than a few but didn't jot down team names. Cheering is always fun, but how long can the Muse last?

* Finals. Charles Kerr has done an excellent job of promoting college Ultimate and most of his keen suggestions have been realized in just a few short years. Staggering semifinals is one, the X-rules (in conjunction with Will Deaver and the UPA) has had the greatest effect on the division in recent memory, and having all the tournament games played to 15.

I agree with nearly all of Kerr's suggestions. Having games played to 15 was meant to solidify what a game of Ultimate really is. Basketball games in college are all played to the same length of time, likewise Hockey, Football, the NBA, etc. It is a good thing to standardize such things -- but for Finals, at nationals and other tournaments, it should take more to be a Champion.

Most sports play a series to determine the winner. Best of five, or usually seven, Ultimate cannot do this, but I do believe that games to 17 for the Open division, without a time cap (only must win by two) would be much more exciting for semis and finals. A blowout will still be a blowout, but a close game will have more to it, more great play and more of an accurate determination of who is the best team.

Having a team prepared to play to 15 is ideal, but the teams that can rise up and play longer and harder to 17 (perhaps 19, but 21 seems too long) should be rewarded. This is something that deserves to be looked into.

* For instance, the Carleton-Colorado semifinal could have played out longer. I mention this because I was going to clarify my position on that second-to-last play where Alex Nord and a quadrant of Colorado players collided. But I think Mike G, the Head Observer of that game, has summed it up best so I reprint part of his post to RSD here:

"The disc was coming down on an angle...not a knifing diving disc...

I see 4 guys in a line running towards the back of the endzone...running...not standing in a group waiting for some flat floating disc to descend. two CU guys on the right keep heading right, misreading the disc. 2 guys...one Carleton and one CU athlete...reading the disc properly. Changing directions to the left to head more towards the center back of the endzone. running...not standing waiting for a flat floating disc....running.

a fifth athlete...from CU...headed in the same direction as the first two guys who were reading the disc wrong...came from farther left and took the legs out from underneath the Carleton athlete who, along with the CU athlete to his immediate left, were reading the disc properly.

Foul was called. I continue my run up to the spot of the call and am met by a linesman...who is signaling that he had a call: "foul, the defender took his legs out from underneath"...or something along those lines.

I was smiling...like...no kidding...he got whacked....knocked to the ground an instant before he could make a play on the disc.

The Carleton guy was trying to be cool and send the disc back to the thrower. He must not have had as good a view as me.

After some debate I ruled. "he was undercut, foul"

One pass...goal...Carleton on to the finals.

My reaction: I felt like a dick. But it was a foul.

I had seen this guy for Carleton make some great catches...and that is not to say that he would have definitely caught this pass...or that it would not have been d'd up by the guy to his left... But the Carleton athlete and the defender to his left were reading the disc properly and were directly underneath where the disc was headed. But the CU athlete that slammed into him and took his legs out from underneath made sure that the catch wouldn't be made....that an attempt wouldn't be made.

It sucked making the call...but it was the right call..."

***

It brings up an interesting rules quandary that was later discussed on RSD. According to Mike G's first-hand account, the Carleton player (Alex Nord) was trying to send the disc back to thrower. Under the Ninth edition rules, he and the Colorado defenders could have agreed to a "do-over" and Mike G's recollection indicates that Nord realized this and proposed just such a decision.

Thus it was up to the Colorado players. They could contest the foul and appeal to the Observer at the risk of the call being upheld (which is what happened), or they could agree to a "do-over" which would have sent the disc back to Carleton at midfield.

It's a gutsy decision to make. If Colorado really thought there was no foul, then they would contest it based on the outcome that there would be no foul upheld and the play would be ruled a turnover. But if there was doubt, why give them the disc on the goalline? Why not let the do-over happen? It was quite a risk to take for Colorado to contest the foul, especially in this situation where it was sudden death, next point makes it to Finals.

So in the future, one might imagine something more strategic (oh, how shall we say it? compromising? utilitarian?) in response to a foul call, where judging the potential good effects and bad effects are weighed and the best possible option is chosen.

* There were plenty of other issues regarding the observers.

-- On field versus off-field for the Women's game. This was a decision that was left up to the two teams playing. An on-field Head Observer can have a much better perspective on travels, marking fouls, and other calls. But not all teams desired such. In the Finals, both teams consented to JD being on the field, but Carleton expressed some concern, so JD decided to take to the sidelines instead.

She regretted it afterwards, because the game nearly got out of hand in the first half with a rash of foul calls and travel calls from both sides. An Observer can cite teams for Team Misconduct Fouls should a "pattern" of fouls continue after warnings. By being relegated to the sideline, JD was unable to gage the frequency of each team's fouls. (Afterwards the linespersons assigned to one side of the field noticed much of Carleton defensive-mark fouling, while on the other side the linespersons chalked up numerous repeated fouls from UNCW. However, since neither could accurately see both sides of the field, it was impossible to establish a pattern.)

-- Observers, I believe, were requested for most games. That is, teams could agree to not have Observers at the matches, excepting Semifinals and Finals (and maybe Quarters). In that respect, there were still many games played this weekend without Observers.

-- Overall, I heard very few complaints about the Observing or the system. One that I did overhear, was a dispute between two linesperson as to a call. One person said "in" and the other "out". So who gets the call? Does it go with closest person, or seniority, or something else?

Notes found out after the tournament

* I heard that the Oregon Sneetches played without one of their captains at Nationals. There was no evident reason why she was not able to attend, but it might explain their somewhat disappointing finish (and the toughest schedule might also have explained it).

* I caught a post mentioning that Justin Safdie was injured during the tournament, noticeably in finals. Safdie was suffering back spasms last year at Nationals and was under great duress to play in their semifinal game against Brown. He had to take medication even to get to the point where he could play with the pain. This might explain why he wasn't as dominant a force as he has been in the past?

* JD posted her "Coach of the Year" honors for the Women's Division and cited Heidi Pomfrett and Curtis Manning from Colorado, Andrew Zeldin from UNCW, and Lou Burruss from Carleton.

In my opinion, Zeldin as done a tremendous job with the UNCW team in leading them to occupy the top spot in the Top 25 for most of the year and successfully, and under pressure to perform, defeating such forces as Brown, Oregon, UC San Diego, and Georgia before falling to Carleton in the finals.

Furthermore, it must be said that JD herself, likely one of the better coaches out there and a great admirer of the game, noted to me at Nationals how impressed she was with the fundamentals of the Seaweed team. They know where to cut, know how to mark defenders with the best accuracy, have a great zone, and are excellently tuned to the flow of the game.

UNCW finished the season with a sterling 41-4 record (only UCSD and Swarthmore played more games this year) en route to winning Easterns and Regionals and finishing second at Classic City Classic, Stanford Invite and Nationals. Additionally, this team ended Stanford's 106-game winning streak in March. I think there is a little doubt that Zeldin is the Coach of the Year, if there is such an award. But of course we cannot forget....

Lou Burruss has had another excellent season with Syzygy and has eclipsed everyone's expectaions by taking home the trophy. He has been a steady leader for four years now and has consistently guided them to Finals. His teams never give up, are relaxed and comfortable and in love with the game. They showed an excellent deep game, the best man defense in the nation, and unheralded offensive prowess. So hecks, let's call it a tie with Burruss and Zeldin with Colorado in second place in the voting.

* Media Coverage. Lo and behold, I return home to the heratland and my dearest mother informs me that she saw a newscast from Boise about Nationals! That's a long way for news to travel, but apprently it did via a five-minute broadcast clip. That's a good start and increases awareness. I learned of some other things from Nationals in Idaho.

The Boise scene for Frisbee is apparently a good one. It is well-known in the town and not regarded as classically fringe, drawing snickers like it does in other places. Boise, a relatively small town, has a decent summer league of 14 teams and they hope to build on the Nationals hype by recruiting more people to play.

In Boise, a local News station covered the event and the Alterntive radio station, better than any crap you'll get here in New York, aired live from the fields on the first day of play. That's good presence for Ultimate.

Sadly, to my knowledge, nothing was done nationally or through the AP to promote the event. Ultimate in general has a keen aversion to doing anything that remotely constitutes work. Placing more than two phone calls or hiring someone to get the event some coverage seems to be completely beyond the ken of the UPA (locally the tournament directors, as always, did a ton of work and should be commended. Additionally, there were more than enough volunteers from the community).

In Conclusion

Finally, as always, this was a solid tournament. Plenty of water, plenty of Carleton, UNCW, Notre Dame and Colorado alumni to serve as spectators. Games were held on time, disputes were few, the tournament ran in an orderly fashion and most everyone had a blast at the party ('cepting me because I was a writin'). Patty Sebby and Jim Dumont got a great site for the games (an outdoor Sports Complex usually home to Soccer tournaments – I talked to the man who ran the operation and he seemed to appreciate Ultimate, or at least pay it no different atention than he would any other sport). Special thanks to Mark LaSalle for putting me up Monday night in Boise.

The Observer system works and should be kept. This being its second year, I think you will find few objections to that statement.

And for Kate Bergeron, this was her final tournament. I have only known Kate for a scant three years, but every tournament I've been to where she has been involved has been run superbly. College Ultimate will miss her earnestness and willingness to change for the better.

These were posted to Ultilinks.

ARCHIVE HOME

1996–1998 • 1999–2000 • 2001–2003 • 2004–2005

OTHER LINKS