An actual serious thought from me here.. and something to distract me from the workday for sure-

I filled out a surveymonkey thing on the city league system a few weeks ago. I got a reminder to fill it out in my email today, which got me thinking. That and my learning not long ago that the fall league had 34 teams or something large like that.

I have this theory that the league system in Chicago is broken. Rather, that's my opinion. My opinion is that the league system is broken. Why? Well, I look at the leagues (spring and summer especially-- no experience with fall but guessing similar) as down-the-middle intermediate leagues. They are that way, and after a number of experiences in a number of situations in a number of leagues (this is me bashing my head against something hard) I've concluded that the folks who play like it that way and the culture actively promotes it. The people who play tend to be of a certain consitutency, and like all good bureaucracies, it perpetuates itself. It is what it is. I can get into examples here if desired.

Now, these folks are happy. And we all naturally shape the world around us to suit. The only problem is that I think this is occurring to the detriment of growth (assume for a second here that growth is something we/ultimate want or need) and retention (especially of the XX set). That and my personal feeling that a league system by its nature should truly be offering something to all ends of the interest spectrum, and that given all things equal, it's better to play better, more fluid, skilled ultimate than not.

I'm pretty sure the audience reading this forum right now skews a certain way, so I'm guessing I won't get much disagreement, but I would be curious of any and all viewpoints.

1. So am I totally off base here?
2. Is growth a good thing and supportable given resources (especially fields)?
3. Is recruiting and keeping women a good thing?
4. If we're going to play, does it matter to care to play well or learn?
5. Conceptually is it a league's mandate to appeal to the very new and the very experienced in addition to whatever constitutes the average player?


My club has a recent history of discouraging league play (summer really). Last year we specifically approached the league folks (applying generically here) with some proposals, ideas, alternatives but got nowhere. So we went out on our own and piloted higher level one-night-a-week men's league. I never saw the results of the wrap questionnaire but I think it was considered wildly successful and maybe had a role in the different open combinations that spun out into the fall to form Haymaker. I guess ultimately the market speaks. If we're motivated, have a few resources, and know the landscape, we can go make our space. That's how spring and fall leagues sprang up here before the big merger anyways.

6. Would you play in a single gender seasonal league?
7. Would you play in a coed seasonal league?
8. Preference?
7. Would you play in an elite, invite-based, or exclusive draft (must get drafted to play) seasonal league?


Unfortunately, off the top of my head I can only think of about 30-35 women playing club in the city...

Growing pains is my guess. No, not with Alan Thicke. But I'm going to assume that league participation has increased every year. And maybe there are enough high level players to support a stratified league system. But there wasn't before.

Should league appeal to everyone? It used to, when it was the only game in town. I used to think you could be guaranteed a Z player on your team, if not the captain, then someone who could help teach and develop players. Now, not so much.

Also, how many club players have come out of the league system? That didn't play in college?

I used to think League was a place to improve your skills as a club player, a chance to play more frisbee. Now, even though I'm 2-3 years removed from my last summer league, I'm guessing it's more recreation than education.

Farm system or Chicago Softball/Dodgeball league?

Posted By: miss casualrick and i had a discussion about the disorganization of league ultimate and decided cu should start an alternative summer league that could be invite only. this works great for me cause otherwise i probably wouldnt be invited.

I'm conflicted on invite-only. It's the easy way to ensure an experience that the organizers want. But it's inevitably going to leave out folks who would have fit in really well. I think I slightly prefer the idea of exclusive draft, like the SF winter league, where anyone can apply and get put in, but to stick someone has to draft you. So you gotta be known or convince someone, else your check gets cancelled and you don't get to play.

I was wondering if anyone would bring up Becky. Turns out, it's Becky. Excellent point, and I know it's happened that way with other people, but I don't think it happens much anymore. I think there's a chance that the way the league is now, it actually discourages a lot of women from continuing to play. I'm specifically referring to a lack of good female role models / teachers in the league. Loved my two female captains in summer league this year, but they would have benefited much more from having an experienced woman to play with. One could argue that there are some guys out there who can be good CUSL role models for both men and women players, but I think the quality of male players in the league has dropped dramatically as well. There are too many teams being led by perennial summer league players. That sounds mean. Some of them are great people, but if that's the way your summer league team is, then your inexperienced folks turn into perennial summer league players, and that's as far as it goes. Used to be there were more Mercers and Beckys.

I filled out the CUSL survey yesterday, and while in general I'm happy with the summer league format, I suggested two potential avenues for improvement: (1) a stratified but random draft system or (2) allow 7-person core formations for summer league, as is the current format for spring league, but then random drafting to fill out the rest of the teams (as opposed to the in-person spring league draft system, which I only experienced once but seems to be easily corrupted). You can't have a summer league that's BYOT - that's called the club season. Summer league has to be, to some degree, a bit more casualultimate. But it shouldn't have to be a waste of time.

I see option (1) as making club people happier, but it clearly separates the better players from the less experienced and ulta, ultra casual ones and therefore takes away from the educational experience of league play (yes, even in casualultimate, winning matters if you're spending several hours a week in competition). In support of a stratified system I'd say it may make the games more fun for the beginner players, because they won't have a bunch of frustrated club players yelling at them. And for the higher levels, personally I think it would be great if summer league games could be like an extra low-key practice or two a week (maybe just because my club team is allergic to practice, though...). It's at least worth a shot I'd say. The mediocrity isn't just limited to summer league, of course, but like you said it's the heart of the league system.

On the contrary, a stratified *co-ed* system is cliquey by nature and that sucks for new players. I was talking to someone this weekend who plays league in Madison (no club) and he said it's impossible to break into the scene there because the super-good players all know eachother and have no need for new blood. And, as Akira says and Becky''s case clearly supports, that kind of attitude can shut out hot-but-new players...

....Which is why I made my second suggestion. A 7-person buddy group - without some strict "total points in core must not exceed 154" rule, which is lame and made to be broken - would allow club players (or any group of 7) the opportunity to play together in the funnest league there is. There would be no skill-based stratification. If you wanted to get serious about core formation you could have the D line and O lines sign up in separate groups for practice time against fresh opponents every week. Sure you would have teams with very very good cores and teams with beginner cores (just like you have summer league teams that can appear to be rigged or cursed), but the talent would be spread around all of Chicago ultimate rather than restricted to its "A" league. Those who don't sign up in cores (those who don't care as much, college players in town for the summer, newbies, etc.) would get randomly drafted to each core. I think the skill level of the core should not be taken into consideration when drafting the remainder of the team (so all the non-core teams are theoretically evenly matched), but I'm not sure on that last point.

I'm actually not sure on any of these points, I'm just taking a break from work. Akira, what are you planning to offer to retain the ladies? Don't overextend yourself personally here. ;-) On your first points about certain individuals perpetuating the mediocrity of league play, by the way, I'd have to agree with you there. I totally respect the fact that the CUSL board donates much time and effort so that we can all have fun, but I think they put too much weight on educating new players and not enough on playing good ultimate. If you look at the current board I think only one or two of them play club - which is totally fine, but if that's going to remain the case then there's going to be no internal push for more competitive play, and club-level players are going to continue to drop out. At some point Chicago Ultimate needs to decide where to steer the ship. I also fear some of the loudest voices in leadership consider summer league, and their involvement, to be primarily a social endeavor. (I hope I'm not offending anyone here, just being blunt - if you haven't figured it out, C.U. enjoys the social side of the frisbee folk). For a club player who may be practicing 2+ times a week, works out on the side and plays in tourneys every other weekend, though, frisbee's already eating up enough of your non-frisbee life to consider league play a desired social event if it's not competitive enough to satisfy and therefore frustrating. Maybe whereas you're arguing for the market to speak, I'm arguing for more competitive candidates for the CUSL board? What ever happened to democracy, you dirty capitalist?

Posted By: bkMercers and Beckys.

Mercer got into 'cause he was friends with a woman on Riot.

Jeff Gill? (Godzilla)

Who else? There've gotta be more examples. Or have we forgotten them all b/c it was so long ago?

How/where did the Shiels start?

chris reynolds from BAT is a product of the AA summer league

humorous story: my first year on a pan-Michigan club team, Chris would never catch his d's leading to many tip completions. We brought it up to him at practice one day and he informed us that his first summer legue captain told him it was unspirited to catch d's!!! and no one had corrected that guy until then.

AA summer league is like the ugly step-sister to CUSL

I'm going to try going forward to actually read all the posts before getting excited and starting to respond...

Posted By: miss casualisnt the point of league just to screw around and have fun and play with people of different levels?
i might not be the person to ask since ive never played club and ive learned a heck of a lot more playing beach than playing league.

i don't know what the answer is. i hope this thread helps open that up. league is absolutely abot screwing around, having fun, and meeting new people. i think you make my point though-- the crowd you play beach with is dramatically different than the average league team. there's a selection bias to a certain personality type, and the level is higher with almost everyone having started in college, never stopped, and still active. plus that crowd is usually pretty tapped into current best thinking and techniques and has experience learning and teaching. plus a selection bias to a certain age group and personality..

somewhere along the way CUSL made a decision that competitive balance and 'fairness' in some way was a top priority. maybe the top one, or close. hence

1. arranged teams
   
2. small cores (4)
   [*] coolpoints

i'm sure there are more. 7 players would never fly-- there are only like 80-100 club players in the whole city. 7 really good ones would get together and roll the league. i project here that this would be unacceptable to the league administrators, who by and large are and represent the intermediate player who is typical. i'm not sure that this serves anyone's ends really.

7.
Finally, Claire kinda touched on this. This league has no idea what it wants to be. It is trying to be all things to all people, but frankly, I am not sure that is possible anymore. The leadership of UC needs to decide, very clearly, what it is they want to do.

This is certainly absolutely true. Perhaps the survey is intended to help with that. I hope someone decides soon.

Posted By: pfil6.
Teach the teachers. I think the majority of summer league captains dont really know how to teach ultimate. Its not the easiest thing in the world to do and there alot of bad habits being passed down (i saw a team full of wrong pivoters this summer). If there is going to be time devoted to teaching, then make sure the captains know what they are talking about. This should go for the rules too.

I believe this gets to the heart of my dissatisfaction. And it's not personal. Most folks I meet in the league system are great, fun people. That said, 90% of what they know is wrong or wildly out of date. How do I know this? B/c 80% of what I heard about ultimate pretty much every year has been wrong or incomplete. And has to be thought about. Understood. Unlearned. Rediscovered. Relearned. Rinse. Repeat.

The body of knowledge about the game that the league as a collective possesses maxes out at the intermediate level. And that's being kind. Across the board. If you can't throw well, or at least understand deeply why your throws are limited the way they are, then you can't possibly teach someone to throw. If you can't throw more than 20 yards, you're not going to see lanes, cutters, opportunities, and the risk reward of choices on a field where many people can throw 50 and some can 75. This applies to offense, defense, technique, body mechanics, strategy, mental game, lines, captaining, dispute resolution, and everything else. There's a reason why all the kids coming out of Carleton for a good decade and a half all had the same stance, same balance, same grips, same throwing mechanics, etc.

So the league perpetuates itself by passing wrong or outdated knowledge on to new folks. Worse, it tells them that this is 'correct'. There's too much intertia then, and unlearning and relearning stuff is hard and not that fun. So these things never get corrected. Then on to the next generation...

ugh, this all makes me want to toss. Too bad it got dark around lunchtime.

Do you really think there are enough women to put together a women's league? If your estimate is correct and there are only 30 in the city, that's two, maybe three very committed teams. It should bring them out of the woodwork, though, especially in the beginning of the season. And potentially give Nemesis a lot more to work with.

I'd play in a co-ed league, but I doubt the boys would go for it. Beach is kind of like that, actually, but its exclusivity means we got to play 5 on 5, like, once. Gents, do you think club men would play a co-ed private mini league in the spring? it would conflict with the boys-only league, though.

Part II

“I suggested two potential avenues for improvement: (1) a stratified but random draft system or (2) allow 7-person core formations for summer league, as is the current format for spring league, but then random drafting to fill out the rest of the teams (as opposed to the in-person spring league draft system, which I only experienced once but seems to be easily corrupted).”

Agreed. That’s an interesting idea... I think that’s how Atlanta runs there summer league. Spring league has really taken off in the last few years but there are obvious problems with the rating system.

“On the contrary, a stratified *co-ed* system is cliquey by nature and that sucks for new players. I was talking to someone this weekend who plays league in Madison (no club) and he said it's impossible to break into the scene there because the super-good players all know each other and have no need for new blood. “

True however, I have to look at Madison as another example of a hugely successful league. They have nearly 1400 players (larger than Chicago) with a city population of only 140,000. The Summer league is BYOT and stratified into 4 levels. They have great club level participation in the leagues and there year over growth has been explosive. Similar to Boston, they run a gender split learner league in the Spring as “Learner Leagues” which are suppose to dove-tail you into playing summer. So yes I imagine it’s a little more difficult to break directly into Madison Summer. Part of that has to do with the field space limitation which is capping total teams (same thing in Boston).

Your 7 person core idea is interesting though and does seem to work in Atlanta (I played a season there). There’s no stratification yet the teams are relatively well-matched up. The playing level is also very high.

“I totally respect the fact that the CUSL board donates much time and effort so that we can all have fun, but I think they put too much weight on educating new players and not enough on playing good ultimate. If you look at the current board I think only one or two of them play club - which is totally fine, but if that's going to remain the case then there's going to be no internal push for more competitive play, and club-level players are going to continue to drop out. At some point Chicago Ultimate needs to decide where to steer the ship. I also fear some of the loudest voices in leadership consider summer league, and their involvement, to be primarily a social endeavor.”

Thanks. Are you referring specifically to the clinics or just in general regarding the emphasis on educating new players?

Actually I think it’s about 50 / 50 board members who play club. Myself, Erin, Sandy, Baker all play or have presently played club. Gwinn played college but I don’t think he’s played Chicago club. And of course many of the former board members who remain involved (at least in terms of expressing their opinions) played… Goff, Hixson, Emily LeDonne. We may be a little underrepresented in terms of “Elite” club players… lord knows I don’t qualify. But did any Machine or Nemesis players even run last year?

In any case, my point is that I think it’s fair to say that club level players have a very strong voice on board and beyond that, we’ve reach outside the board to Several Elite players regarding the direction of Chicago Ultimate. I won’t mention the name in case he for some reason prefers to remain anonymous but there’s a machine representative involved in the current survey process and data collection undertaking as well.

It’s been my experience thus far that the views expressed by the “perennial Summer League player” and the Elite club player can in fact be reconciled and addressed under s single organization umbrella given a certain productive level of communication. And Akira, I’m aware there have been some missteps between the board and Machine players but I really think that’s all it was---moreover, I think we’re actively working to correct it… which is part of the reason I’m writing all this because I think it’s important that those of you out there in the communittee are aware that the board isn’t sitting on their hands and we’re trying to be as inclusive as we can and still get stuff done. How was that for a run on sentence?