There have been a lot of comments in the previous post about the World Club teams, one of them a question from Mick asking whether the US is going to send an all-star team one of these Worlds.
Here are some questions:
1. Would an all-star team be our best team?
1a. Of the top 20 players in the game, how many of them would commit to this team and the whole tryout process?
2. Does the Champies champ deserve to go regardless of whether they're the best team that the US could send?
3. Is this just too logistically difficult?
4. What about Mixed and Masters?
Would an all-star team be our best team?
Yes, for sure, given even a couple weekends of practice together. Schemes aren't that complicated, and enough of the top players will have played together on club teams that familiarity won't be too big of a problem.
Of the top 20 players in the game, how many of them would commit to this team and the whole tryout process?
And would be selected by the selection committee, I should add. Idris seemed to think that a lot of the best players weren't on the team, while of course acknowledging that the ones selected were pretty damn good. Perhaps with the team being coed, some of them were less excited about the idea, or maybe they were passed over because they wouldn't be good coed players, or perhaps they just couldn't find the time for the whole tryout and practice camps. Anyway, this is an issue. With the Champs going, virtually all of them go.
Does the Champies champ deserve to go regardless of whether they're the best team that the US could send?
Maybe. I know some of my teammates back in the day felt strongly about this one. And there is something to be said about familiarity, and being able to practice and train together frequently.
Is this just too logistically difficult?
This has been why the US has never seriously contemplated it before (there was a point/counterpoint editorial and questionnaire about 15 years ago in the newsletter, I'm sure you all remember). The US is just so damn big and the top players are spread out among enough teams that it would be really hard to pick the team and have them play together enough. Australia may be of comparable size, but their top players are mostly on two or three teams.
What about Mixed and Masters?
Would these teams be restricted to players who played in those divisions in the fall series? Could you apply or try out for both Open and Masters? I say that if you're holding tryouts and want the best, you take the best. This would probably infuriate the "true" Mixed and Masters players, however.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It would be silly for "true" mixed and masters players (by which I can only assume you mean, those who played in those divisions in the most recent UPA series) to object to open tryouts for all teams. Club teams are club teams; all-star teams are all-star teams. The World Games provides an obvious precendent here.
The bigger issue with an open selection process would be, how do you pick the teams. If Open and Women's get to pick their teams first, then THAT is something that mixed and masters could legitimately complain about. So, you let players list their preference order of teams along with their application (e.g. open then mixed then masters, or open and nothing else, etc). Unfortunately, this will require all four "selection committees" to get together and hash things out ("you're taking mr. x but not mr. y, so we'll take mr. y and mr. z but not mr. w, which leaves him for you"). There's no easy way around that process, I think.
Given the interest the WG team created, maybe the time has come for this. That said, a big part of what made playing on the WG team so expensive was all the travel associated with getting the team ready. I fear that if all-star teams expanded to this scale, things could degenerate into it being four teams with the best players-with-lots-of-disposable-income un the USA.
This would probably infuriate the "true" Mixed and Masters players, however.
If you're sending the National Champ, then you send the Champ - nice, simple, hard to complain about. But if you're picking the best individuals and building them into a team, most of the people you're referring to aren't going to make the team. Hell, most of the people in any division aren't getting to go anyway. I'm not saying Mixed and Masters Club players suck - there are a bunch of elite players in both divisions, and some of them may well deserve to be in the National Team pool. But the UPA has to decide what the goals are, keeping practical needs in mind, and if someone thinks that Mixed players ought to be Mixed players, then they should make sure they represent the best team we can put on the field.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should treat Mixed as a standalone division in all ways and think that the players are a totally different pool. Maybe if the UPA were picking a National Team in three divisions, they'd basically pick the top players to go as Open and Women's and the next players to go as Mixed and that will offend sensitive Mixed players' sensibilities. I'd be pretty psyched to play, but I'd give you good odds that I won't be in that pool when it gets selected, so I want my National Team to be the best team it can be, whoever is on it.
Imagine for a moment a world where ultimate is a well-funded "real" sport on the world stage, with a flush national organization. They get to call players into camp and pick the team for major world competitions (which are broadcast live on ESPN7 with good announcing and a bunch of competent camera operators). Travel and training gets paid for. Everyone wants to go. Who goes? Do they beat the current US National Team? Now there's a parlor game for the bored...
Post a Comment