How could the ratio they are looking for not be 1:1? I understand that they might not get it, but based on the format they have prescribed they have to get as close to 1:1 as possible, and 2:1 would be unacceptable unless they are changing the 4:3 plan.
With the ability to cap the league a certain number of men and women they could easily aim for a 1:1 ratio. However with the large difference we currently have between the number of men playing Ultimate in Chicago, and the number of women we have available, it would leave a lot of people out. I think they'll probably be more realistic about what the ratio they are going to allow in, but I guess we won't really know until they A) announce the ratio they are looking for, or B) teams are picked.
I think the ratio they end up picking will be a good sign of how serious they are about making the changes they've outlined.
It could not be 1:1 if the league organizers expect that most teams will choose to play 4:3 men/women (not an unreasonable expectation). In that case, a ratio of 4:3 would be ideal and likely self-fulfilling as a team with that ratio would be more likely to play 4:3 men/women. Along those lines if we make a gross simplification and assume teams have no preference for 3/4 or 4/3 other than is dictated by their composition, then every ratio between 3:4 and 4:3 is equally optimal as if all teams have the same ratio it will also be the ratio of playing time.
I'll make the argument that the ideal ratio is actually something closer to 5:3, as that would almost guarantee that teams would go out with 4:3 men/women. A man on a team that is organized 5:3 but playing 4:3 will actually get more playing time than on a team organized 4:3 but playing 3:4.
at the meeting they said it was 4:3 offense chooses. so in that case the ratio really does want to be close to 1:1 because at any point you could have to field more women than men. however i think someone said that the rule would be that if the team on d only had 4 women, the offense could not field 4 women and force their opponents to play savage.
id be curious to know what the typical ratio of men to women is for registration for spring or summer league in chicago and how it stacks against another city with a similar core / draft system (like atlanta). i mean is it 2:1 or 5:1? and whether other cities that have gone to 4:3 had better ratios before going to 4:3 or if their ratios improved because they went to 4:3.
I believe the information you are looking for is readily available at http://www.ultimatechicago.org/uc/index.php?page=leagues/history. It doesn't show the ratio compared to other leagues, but it should give you an idea of what past registration has been like here in Chicago.
ms. ultimate directed me here to add in my two cents. I sent a note to the Summer League mailbox, hoping that things are reexamined before they are set in stone for summer. Some of it covers things already mentioned in this space, so forgive the repetition. Here's what I had to say:
Dear CUSL,
I was dismayed to learn that Summer League is planning to go to a 4/3 format instead of the traditional 5/2. First of all, many of the teams on which I have played have had trouble getting women to the games consistently. On nearly every 4/3 team, most of the games end up with ten men and three women. The women are forced to play savage while the men stand around waiting their turn to get into the game. I realize this is purely anectodal, and I don't have numerical evidence of this, but I've been in such a situation time after time. Even in summer league, when the games are 5/2, it is rare to have more than four women show up. So from a standpoint of getting people to play as much as they choose, this makes no sense to me. I believe that most women do not desire playing savage.
Secondly, if the issue is about getting women more involved in the play because there are men who refuse to throw to them, I agree that this is often a problem. However, I have captained two summer league teams in recent years, and when that problem arose, my co-captain and I dealt with it directly by speaking to the problematic players. If this is the motivation behind the change, it is easily addressed through our captains if they are at all competent.
It seems to me that there is no way that all players who wish to play will be accomodated with this structure. People will be turned away and the league will shrink in terms of numbers. How exactly does this fit with the spirit of the game?
Finally, in your e-mail, you said that the number one issue from the survey was going to 4/3. However, it is my understanding that the league has an 80% satisfaction index. This would be a major change, and I think it is important to think about all the other factors that will be affected by it. If other issues that people care about include playing time and getting into the league in the first place, this will cause major problems.
I hope that the people in charge will reconsider this decision before it is too late to adjust it.
Thank you for hearing me out, Reed
Since I sent that out, another idea that I discussed with some friends was to limit the summer league buddy system to a max of two men. So you could still sign up with four people, but at least two of them would have to be women. That would help with the situation where you have a lineup with four guys from the same college just throwing to one another.
Other than that - I can't wait for spring to start. I sure hope I get in! I will give you an optimistic, "See you there"! For now.
I think the major question is; is Ultimate Chicago's job to let as many people play as possible, or is it to insure that the play that occurs is fun for everyone involved? I don't know if there is currently an answer to that question.
I think the way things have been run in the past is to just let anyone who signs up play, and set the teams up based on who signs up (so they are letting as many people play as possible). However this leads to the exact situation we have now where there are teams with 12 guys and 3 girls on a team, and we play 5/2. The guys are rotating so much that they are hardly getting an PT, and the women are playing pretty much savage.
If they cap signups at specific ratios you can address the problems listed above, which with the current situation would mean you would have fewer teams (so you have more women on a team). However you would also have fewer spots available for guys, which would leave a lot of people out.
Both systems have their drawbacks, in the first you are going to lose guys who don't think sitting on the sideline is worth their time or money, and women who don't want to play savage all the time. In the second system you have a lot more potential to lose those leftover guys. I'm sure there are other options to help address these drawbacks as well.
It would be interesting to look at the growth rate of men vs. women from year to year, and also the retention of new men vs. the retention of new women.
I don't think its fair to ask "How exactly does that fit with spirit of the game?" I don't think it's a question of spirit of the game, they are not being malicious about leaving people out. They are attempting to make changes that they feel will make the Ultimate Chicago league better for everyone involved.
The solution is to have a men's league so you cap Co-ed men at 250, the rest play in the men's league. I don't understand how this is not be used as the solution.
I agree, and that is what I was thinking when I wrote "I'm sure there are other options to help address these drawbacks as well." I just wanted to try and think about other possible solutions, especially solutions that might work without capping the league (I havent' come up with anything).
i am probably a broken record at this point but the discussion at the meeting is that there would be a runoff league (which by definition would probably be all men) for whoever didnt make it into the registration for the coed league.
i thought at first that a mens league concurrent with spring/ summer league would be bad because it would strip all the good men out of the coed league but they said at the meeting that this wouldnt happen basically because this run-off league wouldnt attract any high level players. it would be the 'leftovers' and so wouldnt be fun / competitive and wouldnt pull out the high level men.
although thats problematic for other reasons obviously. if the runoff league sucks why would anyone want to play it? and if they dont then is it any better than not getting to play at all? i have no idea. thankfully because of the happy accident of my being born a girl i dont have to worry but i would hate to be one of the 'leftover' men.
I had the same though, but they have partially addressed the situation by not having registration for the runoff league. You register for the Coed league, and if your number comes in after the cutoff you get shunted over into the runoff league (at least that's my understanding). So the level of play is going to be pretty random. So you could end up seeing players like Tim Halt in the runoff league because he decided to wait until the last minute to register (btw this is a completely hypothetical situation, I don't know if Tim has registered or not, or if they've reached the cutoff).
What's interesting is if a bunch of guys tried to rig it so they ended up in the runoff league by waiting until the absolute last minute to register. But then you'd run into two problems. One it would be a race to see who could be last so who knows who would make it and who wouldn't, and it could also cause an overload on the Ultimate Chicago servers meaning some of them might not make it through the registration process anyhow.
But you don't give people the option of playing in the Men's league. I might have played Men's league instead of CoEd if I knew it would be an option, but since I couldn't chance waiting, I'm playing Coed.
Right, I think that's the point though, they don't want it to actually be an option. The "league" is the coed league. The runoff league is just that, you didn't make it into the actual league but they still want to give you the opportunity to play, so they made the runoff league. I don't even think their has been any definition to how this runoff league would run. Maybe they'll run it like a Hat league or the Individuals league so there aren't even teams; It's just basically organized pickup. Or maybe they will run it like a league with set teams each week. But I think the whole idea of the runoff league is to not exclude the people who didn't make the cutoff, not provide a different league option.