From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu Oct 31 10:14:20 1996 Received: from thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk by clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id JAA04997; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:33:35 GMT Received: by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk id KAA26085; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:44:51 GMT Received: from lehman.Lehman.COM by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk with SMTP id KAA25938; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:42:00 GMT Received: (from smap@localhost) by lehman.Lehman.COM (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23802 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:40:58 -0500 Received: from relay.mail.lehman.com(192.9.140.112) by lehman via smap (V1.3) id tmp023796; Wed Oct 30 05:40:53 1996 Received: from londonvnm1.lehman.com by relay.lehman.com (4.1/LB-0.6) id AA11208; Wed, 30 Oct 96 05:40:49 EST Received: from london123.lehman.com by londonvnm1.lehman.com (4.1/Lehman Bros. V1.6) id AA11861; Wed, 30 Oct 96 10:40:12 GMT Date: Wed, 30 Oct 96 10:40:11 GMT From: aflores@lehman.com (Aram Flores) Message-Id: <9610301040.AA11861@londonvnm1.lehman.com> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Into the fray... Cc: aflores@lehman.com Sender: owner-britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Status: RO Well I must say I am pleased with the degree of debate I ignited with my comments about the structure of British Ultimate teams (the now well known geo / non-geo argument). However, I must not have been clear enough in my suggestions because some of the replies I've received seem to indicate that I favour eliminating fun and friendship from the game. I want to stress that my desire to promote geo teams is aimed at the top of the Ultimate ladder, specifically teams that strive to win Nationals and contribute players to the National squad. I believe that there should continue to be teams, at certain tourneys, made up of alumni and old friends (April fools tourney in the states is a great example of such an event). However, as it stands in the UK, Shotgun was the only semi-final team at nationals that comes close to being geo. I think that this does not bode well for the future of British Ultimate on the world stage, as these teams are not likely to be as well prepared as your average US club team which will be practicing three days a week before World Clubs next summer. At this point I will turn to what I believe should be the typical "career path" for an ultimate player (which should also address mergers!). Obviously the earlier you start the better, so lets assume that you get in a few games in school. Next stop, a university, clearly selected on the track record of their ultimate team. Universities should provide a players a chance to develop skills and fitness, and just maybe learn a bit of strategy. Then comes the crucial next step, an "old boys" team or an established club? I believe that a steady stream of fresh legs, talent and enthusiasm is essential for any serious club team. It provides new grads with an opportunity to compete and PRACTICE with better players, and allows SERIOUS clubs a chance to improve their athleticism. It also creates an environment where older and youger players are on the same teams and hopefully learning from each other. This leads me to suggest that going from university to a local club should be the logical progression. Aram Sammy Wrote: > 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?). Sorry Sammy, but during my time in NY I was party to so many mergers it made my head spin. The merger between the up and coming young team and the very serious parts of established teams is fundamental to US Ultimate. The NY team that dominated during the late 80's and early 90's was a merger of SPOT (young) and Kaboom (established). Boston is also a result of a big merger or three over the years. To be fair though there are usually two teams that form from a "merger", esentially "A" and "B" squads. So, respectfully, I remain convinced that mergers that create strong geo teams are good for the sport, especially if it involves recruiting recent grads.