Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Time-saving form letter for August 25th
As a service to the community, I am providing this letter. With a few simple text replacements, this letter should be appropriate for blog entries, letters to the UPA, and most of all, posts to rec.sport.disc.
---------------
SUBJECT: Let (team) play!
I just heard that the UPA is not going to let (team) play in (location) sectionals. This is ridiculous!
From what I heard from a friend of somebody on the team, (team) had their roster 99% legit on the UPA page at the deadline, but they just needed one more day to get those last few names in. They were only ONE DAY LATE!! It was probably the UPA's fault anyway, because the site was pretty slow on the 24th. There was no way (team) could have predicted that.
(Team) is one of the top teams in the (division) division. Without their presence in the fall series, the (division) championship will carry an asterisk, because we'll never know what (team) would have done.
I know the UPA loves to screw people, and say "rules are rules", but they should make an exception here. (team) didn't do anything wrong, and deserves to play.
---------------
If you plan ahead now, you could be all ready to send it out on the 25th. If you don't get your post out until the 26th because you had to do all the search-and-replace stuff on the 25th, you have nobody to blame except yourself.
I wish every team the best of luck in lodging complaints this fall.
---------------
SUBJECT: Let (team) play!
I just heard that the UPA is not going to let (team) play in (location) sectionals. This is ridiculous!
From what I heard from a friend of somebody on the team, (team) had their roster 99% legit on the UPA page at the deadline, but they just needed one more day to get those last few names in. They were only ONE DAY LATE!! It was probably the UPA's fault anyway, because the site was pretty slow on the 24th. There was no way (team) could have predicted that.
(Team) is one of the top teams in the (division) division. Without their presence in the fall series, the (division) championship will carry an asterisk, because we'll never know what (team) would have done.
I know the UPA loves to screw people, and say "rules are rules", but they should make an exception here. (team) didn't do anything wrong, and deserves to play.
---------------
If you plan ahead now, you could be all ready to send it out on the 25th. If you don't get your post out until the 26th because you had to do all the search-and-replace stuff on the 25th, you have nobody to blame except yourself.
I wish every team the best of luck in lodging complaints this fall.
# posted by Tarr : 7/25/2007 07:05:00 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Could you perhaps also come up with a form letter for submitting complaints about where Regionals is located? I know plenty of people in the Central and Southwest Regions will be looking for one.
Nah, I actually have some sympathy for that complaint. So there's less need for a sarcastic form letter.
In the near future I'm going to be using this blog as a sounding board for a potential UPA board proposal that would set up guidelines for regional championship site selection. I definitely need some more ideas to flesh out the proposal.
In the near future I'm going to be using this blog as a sounding board for a potential UPA board proposal that would set up guidelines for regional championship site selection. I definitely need some more ideas to flesh out the proposal.
How about a form rejection letter from the UPA? Include "while your claim does have its merits" and "the preamble in the Rules [saying that all violations are unintentional and play should resume in a manner that simulates what would most likely have occurred had there been no infraction] does not apply here".
Ideas for your proposal or things to consider:
1. Consider whether US sites should have a preference over non-US sites. [I think they should, but that wouldn't be per current UPA policy].
2. Number of teams at previous Regionals will understate [overstate] the true team density of far-away [nearby] areas. (So don't simply use "number of teams at last year's Regionals" since that will trap inaccessible areas in a bad cycle.)
3. Airfare/expected travel expenses should be part of the expense calculation. Free fields in Tulsa, say, will still cost the players more, in total, than "expensive" fields near Chicago. Discuss whether near teams should subsidize far-away teams (perhaps just by paying their entry fee).
4. Think about whether the rules should be different for Regions which always get 16 teams and those who never get 16 teams (and in between). The UPA cares, to some extent, how many teams participate in its events, and perhaps would give bonus points to a bid that would result in more teams attending.
5. Don't overestimate the importance of the "UPA brand", as WFDF may have done with its Worlds selection last time. They may have thought, "People will complain but they'll come because it's Worlds." It is true, just not to the extent they thought. NE Regionals in Nova Scotia probably wouldn't attract a full complement of teams.
Ideas for your proposal or things to consider:
1. Consider whether US sites should have a preference over non-US sites. [I think they should, but that wouldn't be per current UPA policy].
2. Number of teams at previous Regionals will understate [overstate] the true team density of far-away [nearby] areas. (So don't simply use "number of teams at last year's Regionals" since that will trap inaccessible areas in a bad cycle.)
3. Airfare/expected travel expenses should be part of the expense calculation. Free fields in Tulsa, say, will still cost the players more, in total, than "expensive" fields near Chicago. Discuss whether near teams should subsidize far-away teams (perhaps just by paying their entry fee).
4. Think about whether the rules should be different for Regions which always get 16 teams and those who never get 16 teams (and in between). The UPA cares, to some extent, how many teams participate in its events, and perhaps would give bonus points to a bid that would result in more teams attending.
5. Don't overestimate the importance of the "UPA brand", as WFDF may have done with its Worlds selection last time. They may have thought, "People will complain but they'll come because it's Worlds." It is true, just not to the extent they thought. NE Regionals in Nova Scotia probably wouldn't attract a full complement of teams.
Thanks for the comments Jim. Some responses:
- I was planning on using sectional numbers. This has the risk of bringing in the influence of teams with zero intention of travelling, but as long as they would play local regional events I think that's OK.
- I think asymmetrical entry fees is a good idea. That said, even 100% fees from the local section and 0% from everyone else does not even out the travel costs in a region like the southwest.
- Good thought on the >16 team thing, but how do you capture it? By placing greater weight in strong sectional attendance in regions that struggle for 16 teams?
- I was planning on using sectional numbers. This has the risk of bringing in the influence of teams with zero intention of travelling, but as long as they would play local regional events I think that's OK.
- I think asymmetrical entry fees is a good idea. That said, even 100% fees from the local section and 0% from everyone else does not even out the travel costs in a region like the southwest.
- Good thought on the >16 team thing, but how do you capture it? By placing greater weight in strong sectional attendance in regions that struggle for 16 teams?
[Sectionals teams] Even this is subject to travel issues. I have a spreadsheet somewhere this lists teams by section for something like 1990-2000, and there is great fluctuation in each Section. I know that AZ/NM would get more teams when their Sectional was in Phoenix (I think it was) due to local rec-level teams playing. And also the timing of Sectionals can change whether college teams play.
[Subsidized] Hmm, maybe only if you submit an acceptable bid and your "area" hasn't hosted in 5 years.
[> 16 teams] Yeah, sounds reasonable. This should be coupled with a targeted survey of teams that qualify for Regionals but do not attend. But like I said, I'm not sure how much importance to place on this factor. You could probably actually use the history in the SW to see whether location has had any or much influence on how many teams show up at Regionals. But then someone official like the Board or more likely Will Deaver would have to decide whether ultimate is better served by choosing an otherwise-inferior site because three additional teams will compete at Regionals. I suspect that it isn't just the travel that leads teams to decide not to attend, it's the travel combined with the knowledge that they won't be competitive.
The guiding principle/belief that I would use in making decisions is that Sectionals should be as inclusive as possible, Nationals should be almost completely about the competition, and Regionals in between, favoring competition over inclusion.
Another confounder is when the Region is geographically small like the Northeast or the college Mid-Atlantic (Metro East?). NE Club Regionals has been at Devens every year except one since sometime in the '90s, and as far as I know there has been no complaints about this. The only teams that have to travel far are Canadians, but maybe they're just grateful for being allowed in and don't want to kill the goose by making demands. The fields are pretty good, it's centrally located in the Region, it's home to the Section with the most teams, and it's always a well-run event (water, EMT, lined fields, never a scheduling snafu other than my team once this spring had to move too many fields over between rounds). How many years in a row does Devens have to host before a competing bid from, say, NY or Nova Scotia become a more viable bid?
[Subsidized] Hmm, maybe only if you submit an acceptable bid and your "area" hasn't hosted in 5 years.
[> 16 teams] Yeah, sounds reasonable. This should be coupled with a targeted survey of teams that qualify for Regionals but do not attend. But like I said, I'm not sure how much importance to place on this factor. You could probably actually use the history in the SW to see whether location has had any or much influence on how many teams show up at Regionals. But then someone official like the Board or more likely Will Deaver would have to decide whether ultimate is better served by choosing an otherwise-inferior site because three additional teams will compete at Regionals. I suspect that it isn't just the travel that leads teams to decide not to attend, it's the travel combined with the knowledge that they won't be competitive.
The guiding principle/belief that I would use in making decisions is that Sectionals should be as inclusive as possible, Nationals should be almost completely about the competition, and Regionals in between, favoring competition over inclusion.
Another confounder is when the Region is geographically small like the Northeast or the college Mid-Atlantic (Metro East?). NE Club Regionals has been at Devens every year except one since sometime in the '90s, and as far as I know there has been no complaints about this. The only teams that have to travel far are Canadians, but maybe they're just grateful for being allowed in and don't want to kill the goose by making demands. The fields are pretty good, it's centrally located in the Region, it's home to the Section with the most teams, and it's always a well-run event (water, EMT, lined fields, never a scheduling snafu other than my team once this spring had to move too many fields over between rounds). How many years in a row does Devens have to host before a competing bid from, say, NY or Nova Scotia become a more viable bid?
Then there's the Mid-Atlantic Club Region of 06:
Regionals were in a completely sensible, aside from the fields which are nothing to write home about, location (Fredericksburg, VA) and have been there since at least 03. There were only 14 teams in attendance in 06 despite the Region having 52 teams (25 of which competed in Div 2).
In large part this was due to the Founder's Section (http://www.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=20&id=2864) being able to fill only 3 (Pike, Burgh, Philly) of our 6 bids to regionals, despite having 16 eligible teams. Which we didn't find out until Friday morning before Regionals.
That is likely an anomaly, but still... You want to be able to account for that sort of thing, right?
Regionals were in a completely sensible, aside from the fields which are nothing to write home about, location (Fredericksburg, VA) and have been there since at least 03. There were only 14 teams in attendance in 06 despite the Region having 52 teams (25 of which competed in Div 2).
In large part this was due to the Founder's Section (http://www.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=20&id=2864) being able to fill only 3 (Pike, Burgh, Philly) of our 6 bids to regionals, despite having 16 eligible teams. Which we didn't find out until Friday morning before Regionals.
That is likely an anomaly, but still... You want to be able to account for that sort of thing, right?
For the form letter this:
Without their presence in the fall series
should read:
Without their presence in the [College/Club] series
Sorry I am so late on this.
Also, I'm interested in the Regionals site selection proposal, let me know how that goes/is going (I will chip in if you like). I think it would temper some of the annual criticism.
Post a Comment
Without their presence in the fall series
should read:
Without their presence in the [College/Club] series
Sorry I am so late on this.
Also, I'm interested in the Regionals site selection proposal, let me know how that goes/is going (I will chip in if you like). I think it would temper some of the annual criticism.
<< Home
