Vanilla 1.0.1 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
The first installment in a series of comments regarding CUSL.
Surveys:
The survey despite the best intentions will end up accomplishing very little. There are several reasons for the ineffective nature of this survey. First and foremost, because of the closed data pool the survey is essentially being taken in an echo chamber. A majority of those who respond are those who play CUSL on a regular basis anyway and while they may have issues they are limited. Those people with serious issues with CUSL either no longer play or represent the type not to complete a survey. The very small minority who respond with critical issues are exactly that a minority and thus act as outliers and inherently ignored by the survey. Second, even trained professional have difficulty drafting a survey that does not result in null responses. (I know I have hired consultants to do this very thing, usually relating to job satisfaction). An example from the survey:
Of the choices below, which one best describes the type of competition you prefer when you play Ultimate?
Very competitive
Competitive but focused on spirit
More focused on spirit than the competition
Just play for fun
Will play any of the above
Does this question refer to club play, league play or pickup. Depending on the situation I think a number of people would respond differently. This is by no means the only question with this problem, but represents the most glaring example of problematic questioning.
A better idea may be for CUSL to consider an external survey of other city boards on how they operate. Anecdotal evidence, by way of rec.disc or personal experience is all well and good, but actually contacting individual boards and setting up a spreadsheet with all the options currently out there and presenting that to CUSL may engender both more interest and better ideas without reinventing the wheel. Why the UPA does not already provide this information is beyond me and is a disservice to the majority of its constituency, ie way more players that join the upa play league then club.
Internal surveys work better if an organization makes changes and wants to see how people view those changes. -
“The survey despite the best intentions will end up accomplishing very little. There are several reasons for the ineffective nature of this survey."
On its own… yes. As a point of data among a larger pool of research and discussion, it has a lot of value.
“First and foremost, because of the closed data pool the survey is essentially being taken in an echo chamber. A majority of those who respond are those who play CUSL on a regular basis anyway and while they may have issues they are limited. Those people with serious issues with CUSL either no longer play or represent the type not to complete a survey”
I’m not disagreeing with you here regarding the limitations of a survey in general but keep in mind a couple things. The survey went out to the entire Ultimate Chicago Database which includes anyone who has played Fall, Spring, Summer (Monday Wednesday), Summer-West, Summer-Thursday, Indy League for the last five or six years (whenever we started maintain the database). That’s somewhere between 1500 and 2000 players past and present.
“The very small minority who respond with critical issues are exactly that a minority and thus act as outliers and inherently ignored by the survey. Second, even trained professional have difficulty drafting a survey that does not result in null responses. (I know I have hired consultants to do this very thing, usually relating to job satisfaction). An example from the survey:”
I don’t know final numbers yet but response as actually been very high… Don’t hold me to it but I think it’s between 20% and 25% of the population and that was prior to closing it.
Also, one of the survey designers is actually a trained professional and actively works in this field (survey creation and data analysis). This doesn’t mean that some of the inherent problems with surveys can be completely eliminated but it does mean that we have a sound methodology of accounting for those issues and framing the results in the proper context.
“Of the choices below, which one best describes the type of competition you prefer when you play Ultimate?.....Does this question refer to club play, league play or pickup. Depending on the situation I think a number of people would respond differently. This is by no means the only question with this problem, but represents the most glaring example of problematic questioning.”
This is why many of the questions at the beginning of the survey (Have you played in other league?, do you play club?, etc…) which describe the type of player and experience level are important. Like you suggest, the question like the one you referred to cannot be taken in a vacuum. It must be taken in the context of the responder and it will be and the survey, as designed, does attempt to do that.
“A better idea may be for CUSL to consider an external survey of other city boards on how they operate. Anecdotal evidence, by way of rec.disc or personal experience is all well and good, but actually contacting individual boards and setting up a spreadsheet with all the options currently out there and presenting that to CUSL may engender both more interest and better ideas without reinventing the wheel.”
Good idea and already largely accomplished. That’s actually been my focus regarding this initiative. I’ve thus far spoken with board members of Madison, Boston, and Washington DC and had limited correspondence with Atlanta. I’ve researched and documented their league structures as well as the challenges they’ve faced and results of solutions they’ve implemented. I also have a fair amount of ongoing correspondence with them on this topic as things come up.
I’m in the process of passing our survey along to them but much of it wouldn’t be entirely pertinent to their leagues. However, in some cases (Like DC), they have their own surveys that I’m attempting to get my hands on as well.
“Why the UPA does not already provide this information is beyond me and is a disservice to the majority of its constituency, i.e. way more players that join the upa play league then club.”
Well that would be nice, no doubt. The UPA DOES have a regular conference of league organizers however. I believe the next one is in February and I’ll probably attend.
Sorry about not quoting properly... I'm having no luck getting the quote thing to work.
-ben -
Issues Causing My Half Hearted Push For A Splinter Group (Alternatively, “How Hard Is It To Have A Set Field And To Start On Time”, OR “Why My Wife Hates League”).
Some issues that affect retention of players both inexperienced and club level has less to do with the level of competition and more to do with simple logistics. Summer league does a better job at simple issues of field location and schedules then the newer leagues, but all have issues probably more pressing then format.
Fields need to be at the same place every week and where the map says they should be. Sure there is the occasional softball game or rugby match, but fields tend to go up willy nilly depending on what captains show up first. For the more experienced players this causes problems because in moving around fields and arguing over lines is both frustrating and time consuming. For players already playing other nights "time suck" becomes important, same could be said for older players with more responsibilities, ie families. Club level players are more likely to play if they can show up at a given place and start on time, thereby allowing a quicker trip to the bar. Admittedly, this is a paradigm shift in the last 5 to 10 years at the club level, one not adopted by what could be described as “league players.” Practices and games at the club level now start early and on time and if people fail to meet these requirements there are consequences. In league, if the issue of assessing points or requiring proper ratios is brought up it is seen as poor spirit or somebody is being an asshole. (Don't even get me started)
Problems with time and fields also affect new players, particularly if they signed up with new players. Sure most people reading this board can find their team and opposition by knowing at least one other person on the aforementioned teams. How often have you seen a new player walking around asking where a field or captain is? With time new players might not be fanatical about the sport and don’t want to waste the whole evening playing. In addition, if they have played other rec league sports either in college or Chicago Sports and Social League the “game time is forfeit time” call is always around and keeps things running smoothly. The idea of "ultimate" time is something they don't understand.
Most importantly, these changes should not be difficult to institute. How hard is to have static field sites and to start on time. Granted it may cause some conflict among a certain group of players, particularly, long time “league” players. In some way this mirrors the ongoing debate even at the club level within the ultimate community. Such changes may lead to some to stop playing and a tough couple of years where there are some bad feelings all around. However, such changes would help bring in new blood and possibly satisfy certain other groups of players.
The issue that really got me going this past Fall League (My First Experience) was allowing offense to choose 4:3 women majority. Actually, the first issue was having the registration deadline prior to a posting of how much the league would cost. My issue is not having more women on the field, quite frankly our women collectively were the better group on PNT, but instead the issue is a gender ratio rule was put in place while at the same time capping the total number of women allowed on a roster. Throw in the 1/3 attendance drop (On any given Saturday 1/3 of your team won’t be there) and inevitably you have women playing savage a good deal of the time while there are men standing on the sideline for long periods of time. This problem was only exacerbated by teams with a certain kind of women playing who only has rec/league experience thinking savage is a normal process and staying in while men on the sideline freeze. -
Last comment continued:
I understand the argument that such a gender ratio helps develop women players because men don’t throw to women, etc. I think this mind set is a derivative again of “old school thinking.” Some teams are captained by the kind of player who tells their women either implicitly or explicitly, particularly newer players, to not get in the way. I hope the ultimate community is changing where this is less of a problem. From personal experience, women on our fall league team represented the majority of our cutting and scoring. (Thanks Rachael, Liz, Devon and Miss Casual). There are two possible fixes: 1) Keep a static gender ratio and put a cap and a floor on the number of women on a team; or 2)Allow the 4/3 switch but allow as many women as you want. Very clearly, the second option would completely kill any competitive balance because those teams with lots of good women would tool other teams every time.
I understand and appreciate the institution of gender ratios and its aims at developing and retaining women players. I of course would argue such rules have the opposite affect and only maintain the status quo(These arguments depend on a continuing lack of participation by top women’s club players, ie nemesis practicing Wednesdays). A possible solution in the case of the “other” leagues I think is the one described above. Or in the case of summer league make 1 game out of every four women only and set up a system where the points gained by winning or losing affect the set teams overall w/l record. -
Nice. This thread is taking on life in a manner as I had hoped...
Posted By: bcdavis75And 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…
I appreciate this-- a lot. We discuss 'the league' and 'the board' sorto as monolithic entities that don't change. Have to remember that things do change. That said, one of those folks you mentioned (who's quite good at the talking) has been telling me since basically the turn of the millenia that he's still trying to convince the board that BYOT and other formats need to be considered for the health and success of the leagues.Posted By: bcdavis75there’s a machine representative involved in the current survey process and data collection undertaking as well.
good. i'm glad to hear.Posted By: bcdavis75But did any Machine or Nemesis players even run last year?
to be honest, given the track recod, it's not worth it. there is a lot more bang for the buck in doing our own thing (as last year's men's league). less overheard. less convincing. less details. less talking. just put it together and do it and see what happens.
cusl and ultimate chicago (fall and spring leagues) used to be different entities. i think a lot traces to personality conflicts, but dissatisfaction with one spawned another. once promise and success were demonstrated it opened the door for rolling things all together.Posted By: pbgippersomebody is being an asshole
this woldn't be one of those personal experience / anecdotes would it?
-
Random note that I'll probably end up crossposting somewhere..
To use the quote system, either click 'quote' on the post you want to quote, or highlight a passage and hit quote on that post. The quote and citation will get put in the form box at the bottom.
Make sure you set format comments as to BBCode.. that will let you use the toolbar, text effects, etc.
Smilies are separate (javascript) and should not matter. -
Posted By: pbgipperLast comment continued:
I understand the argument that such a gender ratio helps develop women players because men don’t throw to women, etc. I think this mind set is a derivative again of “old school thinking.” Some teams are captained by the kind of player who tells their women either implicitly or explicitly, particularly newer players, to not get in the way. I hope the ultimate community is changing where this is less of a problem.
This is one of the things that drives me crazy. If you are having trouble getting the disc to, or involving women and your newer players, you need need to change what is happening on the field. It helps if you have better throws and/or can break the mark too. But change what's happening. Like run string plays called from the line that feature hidden folks prominently. Or sidestack with a cutter or two isolated. Or run all of your offense off pickup audibles. Since you'll be picking up most of the time, you can make sure to get the right people in the right places. And you can look around and reset your calls on the many stoppages. Or get lots of blocks down near your opponents endzone, so you can run your crafty spread endzone plays to your newbies.
At some point your new and inexperienced players will get better. And start to tool on your opponents' new players and even some of their intermediate players and 'veterans'. Then your team becomes scary and makes summer league quarters every year despite .500 records during the season. -
Ben- Any chance survey results will be available to the world at large?
-akira -
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?
1. I think you are pretty far off base, I think UC does a good job at what they do and they serve their base well
2. Growth is a good thing, the growth for UC I believe has been very good
3. Recruiting women is important, but the UC hasn't been extemely sucessful at this though it seems they've tried a bunch of things and I'm sure they'd accept ideas
4. YES
5. I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but the league should be appealing to as many people as possible
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.
The Men's league was also good but to expect UC to put in the time requirements to run a league for less than 10% of their membership base seems unreasonable. It should likely be a stand alone league it was and it worked like that.
Gary -
Posted By: ultimate7The Men's league was also good but to expect UC to put in the time requirements to run a league for less than 10% of their membership base seems unreasonable. It should likely be a stand alone league it was and it worked like that.
Fair.
But then there should be no surprise, disappointment, grumbling, or any other chatter if a club bans its players from participating or actively schedules against the leagues. And likewise none if competing or conflicting alternatives emerge to serve the 10% or whatever % and try to do a better job. It should simply be expected and standard. After all the leagues aren't aligned with serving the interests of those 10%.
Fair?
Maybe the better overall model is DiscNW, where the organization serves as more of an incubator for disc across the region. Info, resources, infrastructure, field relationships, etc. are available for folks for club, league, etc. Motivated people are able to do or start their own things b/c the org. provides structures and knowledge that save reinventing the wheel every time... -
- CommentAuthordanielbaker1
- CommentTimeDec 5th 2006
Ms. Ultimate called me to let me know this was going on and I have plenty of time at work, so... Sorry if I repeat anything. There's a lot to read.
First - Akira, you mentioned something that's pretty dead-on, and that's that most of the folks on the UC board are league players, and change is difficult since we support a wide range of players. However - we're seriously trying to figure out how to change - not to mention plan summer league in January rather than May :)
Pfil - I TRIED and PLEADED to kill cool points. I'm in a minority of one. It was a no go, but more on this in a minute.
To kill something like cool points, or even to make a change, it takes interested bodies. Akira, it's okay to blog about the system being broken, but those who want change need to get involved. I'm not calling you or anyone out here, because even though I'm on the board it's hard to find time/energy to do it. I mean, we don't get paid for ultimate... But, I think Bill Finn's been putting forth solid interest, and we could see him as one of our next board members. It would be nice to see 2-3 club players on the board to push for change.
Competitive leagues - I'm not going to pretend to have an answer on how to make changes. I'm too tired today. But, I think it would be in the best interest to get the invite league under UC somehow for insurance purposes and such... As you know, it's not quite right to make leagues totally exclusive... so this is tricky. I think we're really looking to Atlanta, Madison, Boston and others on how to fix these leagues. I think we're building the framework to get there, and I wouldn't be surprised if we figure out something for this summer.
I admit - I really like mixing it up with the newbies and the strictly league players as many of them are friends. I like the social aspects. I like teaching as a captain, and I like getting a newbie hooked and seeing them the next summer. I think that Pfil may be right in having the more social league and then a corporate league. I've been pushing for one day leagues too...
I haven't really been hung up on the aspects of whether the league is "competitive" or improving my skill sets. Frankly, I'm not much of a turnover machine in club (quiet Gary), so I haven't seen bad habits develop. Each summer presents it's own challenges, and it's nearly impossible to win the league - it's tough to do. However, there is a club-style/league-style solution out there that I think would be a win-win.
Finally, about CUSL changes for this year... The league has grown, considering the west and suburb leagues. Teams in the North/South divisions were bursting with bodies (approx 18-20) which sucks for summer league and I tried to push for 36 teams to thin it out a bit, but there was a fear that it's a mistake to thin out the women. There were certainly more club people playing since summer league wasn't discouraged from Machine, and we utilized those folks to help with the clinics. A note on clinics...
...In some ways, they were wildly successful. Some people were pissed that in the middle of the season we had a clinic night when they payed to play the 'fris-bar'. But they were well attended. The women were pretty stoked that they got to play with just women, and liked drilling. Pfil is right that we need to teach the teachers. We had planned on doing this, but it's tough enough to get captains to go to a captains meeting, and frankly, time got away from us. If captains are all working from the same playbook of fundamentals it may help to increase play-level - but we all know that this is minimally true at best, and is only if the current league format doesn't change.
I've said enough - you all may be tired to talking about this - but I wanted to throw out my two cents. I really think things will change - I'm not sure how drastically, and how quickly, but it will take involvement for club players to effectively make higher level league play work. -
Posted By: ayamaguc
Posted By: ultimate7The Men's league was also good but to expect UC to put in the time requirements to run a league for less than 10% of their membership base seems unreasonable. It should likely be a stand alone league it was and it worked like that.
Fair.
But then there should be no surprise, disappointment, grumbling, or any other chatter if a club bans its players from participating or actively schedules against the leagues. And likewise none if competing or conflicting alternatives emerge to serve the 10% or whatever % and try to do a better job. It should simply be expected and standard. After all the leagues aren't aligned with serving the interests of those 10%.
Fair?
No one should be expected to play in leagues, so yes I guess if UC wants the Elite players in their leagues then they should help them out, I have no idea if that is what they desire -
Well, if I ran the world, I'd do something like the following:
Spring league: core plus open draft (not blind/random draft)
Beginner Friendly Division: 4/3 or 3/4, offense chooses.
This league is for you if:
--You are a brand new player interested in learning the game,
--You have played before but not in an organized league (i.e. you are still learning how to throw forehand or are not familiar with strategies such as a stack, a force, or zone offense and defense)
--You are an experienced player interested in a fun, less competitive league, or
--You are an experienced player interested in helping new player have fun and learn the game
Intermediate to Advanced Division: 5/2 or 4/3, offense chooses.
This league is for you if:
--You are an experienced player looking for a more challenging league
--You already understand basic strategies and don't want to spend time discussing stacking, clogging, zone, etc.
Summer league: core plus open draft
All Skate Division: 5/2 or 4/3 offense chooses. Meets M/W
This league is for you if:
--You want to play with people of all experience and skill levels.
--You are a new player who is up for a challenge and willing to learn new strategies and skills.
--You are an experienced player who likes a challenge but is also willing to help new players get involved.
Beginner Friendly Division: 4/3 or 3/4 offense chooses. Meets T/Th.
This league is for you if:
--You are a brand new player interested in learning the game,
--You have played before but not in an organized league (i.e. you are still learning how to throw forehand or are not familiar with strategies such as a stack, a force, or zone offense and defense)
--You are an experienced player interested in a fun, less competitive league, or
--You are an experienced player interested in helping new player have fun and learn the game
Advanced/Competitive Division: Open. Meets T/Th
This league is for you if:
--You are an experienced player looking for a more challenging league
--You already understand basic strategies and don't want to spend time discussing stacking, clogging, zone, etc.
Fall league
BYOT: 4/3 or 3/4 offense chooses. Meets Saturdays.
This league is for you if:
--You want to play with a specific group of people of your choice,
--You're willing to organize your own team and play at your level with teams of all levels.
Individuals: Open. Meets Sundays
This league is for you if:
--You're not part of an organized team for BYOT
--You don't want to commit to a team for a full season
--You want to meet lots of new people and play with different people every week.
--You are interested in playing with people of all levels.
Competitive: If you want competitive ultimate in the fall, join a dang club team. Geeze. -
Posted By: popeBeginner Friendly Division: 4/3 or 3/4, offense chooses.
Good ideas Pope. I like the high-level view you've taken.
How about we make this a 5v5 league for beginners, with smaller teams, shorter games, etc/whatever..? Make sure you get a couple-few experienced folks per team, so that you always get a thrower on the field, but let people play lots of involved points (nowhere to hide or get lost) against people their own level? -
That would be pretty cool. I can see advantages to having the beginners league be either 5v5 or 7v7.
5v5 lets you get involved and touch the disc a lot. great experience in that way.
7v7 lets you learn about field position with a full team.
ideally, it would be nice if beginners could get a chance to do some of each. maybe different seasons could be set up differently . . .
And I agree, it's definitely nice to have a few more experienced players in the mix to help the new people along. -
- CommentAuthorms. ultimate
- CommentTimeMar 14th 2007
And so it begins....my coworker was going to play ultimate for the first time ever in Chicago and he's been rejected due to the gender cap:
Ultimate Chicago Player:
Unfortunately, Chicago Spring League 2007 is full, and we are forced to cut off the pool of applicants at a certain point to match the gender constraints. You happened to be one of the last people to completely register (sign up, waiver, and pay), so you will not be admitted to the draft. We will refund your money to you either via paypal or check, so make sure to update your address in your CUSL account. There will be pick-up games at Schiller during the spring league games, and you are more than welcome to come out.
Sorry we were unable to accomodate you this year.
The Spring League Committee -
Ouch...
I thought they were going to do an organized overflow league instead of pickup.
Denver is doing something like that, and it sounds like people are pretty happy with it.