From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Oct 29 17:53:27 1996 Received: from thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk by clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id RAA11351; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:49:22 GMT Received: by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk id RAA17863; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:36:57 GMT Received: from pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id RAA17820; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:35:54 GMT Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:35:49 GMT Received: from [137.205.222.1] by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk with SMTP id RAA04550; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:35:49 GMT X-Sender: serai@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk Message-Id: <v01530502ae9be76231cc@[137.205.222.1]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk From: D.P.Neilson@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dave Neilson) Subject: Re: Into the fray... Sender: owner-britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am excited and interested in the discussions about geo / non-geo teams (or telephone teams as we used to call them) and feel compelled to add my thoughts to the debate. While I agree with Aram's observation about geo teams being the best way to develop and foster team strength through regular practice, I find it impossible to agree with the effective 'outlawing' of the non-geo team. By all means encourage geo teams by explaining the clear benefits in terms of training, but do not try to prevent teams who use Ultimate as the vehicle which affords them the means to keep in touch with ex-college friends. I am acquainted with the USA phenomenon of Ultimate 'whore' teams, but that is not the situation here in Britain. The non-geo teams are hardly ever formed specifically to win an event (which I know happens in the states). The non-geo teams are more closely related to the alumni teams which will eventually form the basis of a Masters division. If, as Aram has stated, the real path to quality is to form geo teams (with appropriate coaching input) - and I do not doubt this - then the non-geo teams should soon be pushed down the quality table in the natural course of things. Switching the subject to the merge / de-merge debate I (not surprisingly, perhaps) support Derek's remark about the swallowing up of Regulators by the shrinking Hombres squad. I think that the 'geo argument' of Aram's is all too convenient an excuse to explain one of (if not THE) most blatant examples of 'super-team' formation. I do not wish to sound bitter, but my impression of the 'merger' was that it put paid to the most exciting new development in British Ultimate for years. While I am not saying that de-merger is the best form of growth, I feel that it might have been in the sport's best interests (AND in keeping with the geo idea), if Shotgun had split into two teams several years ago and recruited new local players. This sort of de-merger seems to have happened many times in the competitive centres of Ultimate in the USA (am I right, Aram?). Just some thoughts ... Sam Neilson Stan (11 year old non-geo team) & Suntans (10 year old INTERNATIONAL non-geo team)