politics
This crazy blog world never slows down. I'd been thinking about this topic, and the pups almost stole it from me with a throw away, multi-topic post including a rant on cities with two teams.
Two teams in one city? It's not rare to Boston. It's almost every frisbee town. OK, maybe they don't all have two teams in one division that go to natties, but most decent sized cities have lots of teams with talent level across the charts. And in almost all these towns, teams don’t usually field the best 20 players on their squad. Why? Politics. You could use Boston as an example, but San Fran always has been the paragon of ultimate politics discussion. One of the old NYNY guys always told me that the best talent was in San Fran, but it never was all on the same team. And it doesn't have to be a big city for politics to get in the way of fielding the best team. What about Gainesville? They made it to Sarasota this year in two different divisions and coed players like Dan and Palmer must be as good as anyone on their open team. Almost every team that is put together does not always have the best 20 people available in that town. It's got people that supposedly gel together, but we all know that isn't necessarily true either, as every team has tensions by the time you've all spent months playing together.
So why is it that it’s hard to get all the best players on one team? The reasons are different, here are some good examples:
- up and coming players think they are the shit, but still want to play with old friends
- old dudes not ready to play with new young guys
- some players packaged together, usually around someone that is an amazing player and his buddies
- And my personal favorite, the old “I won’t play with that guy anymore”
So then why is it that politics and friendships become so important? Don't all of us trying to make it to and/or win nationals want to play on the best teams we can? Or is this some sort of secret admission that ultimate also is truly a social diversion for most of us? Why are we all party to this game where we know for a fact that certain players get cut and others make the team, and that talent is not the final decision maker in those cuts?
Beats me why it is, I just like playing politics.
posted by Corey at
7:52 PM
3 Comments:
I agree with all this, but it's not just ultimate. Baseball players factor chances of winning, lifestyle, and fellow players (see Roger Clemens signing with Houston after retiring because Andy Pettite talked him into it) into their decisions.
I would also add that the market is inefficient and that the decision-makers have incomplete information. They also evaluate talent differently. Captains probably have little idea of the strengths or weaknesses of the bottom half of anyone else's roster but do know about their own, so would have little reason to prefer one of those other guys whose strengths are unknown to him.
On average, I'd guess that what we generally call "politics" and these other factors are about equal, although any particular case could be anywhere.
By
parinella, at 12/12/2005 11:58 AM
Captains probably have little idea of the strengths or weaknesses of the bottom half of anyone else's roster but do know about their ownI had a rule on Jam, that if a new guy was going to take the spot of a returner, he had to be top ~10. No reason to take a guy who was only marginally better than player 16 or so.
In the end, the top players end up on the best team. The rest of the best.. well... yeah, they might end up here or there.
By
Idris, at 12/12/2005 12:13 PM
Although it's not a phenomenon in Corey's neck of the woods as much as other major cities, a key point is that often the top players themselves choose to break away from the #1 area team. Maybe they've already won a championship & are more interested in having a good time (and want to practice less). Maybe they don't think the city's #1 team has a shot at a title, so they'd rather play with people they know better (and want to practice less). Maybe they just don't like the structure of the top area team... how they call lines, the organizational hierarchy, or the frequency of team practices.
In the Denver/Boulder area, Sack Lunch emerged when a young Johnny Bravo player, arguably one of the best 5 defensemen on the team, decided he would rather lead a team of rising talent than work under the established Bravo system. The player formed Sack Lunch with Colorado School of Mines players, a few CU players who likely wouldn't have made Bravo, and top players from Colorado's strong coed teams. Bravo, menewhile, continued to draw its top young talent from CU, and other smaller schools didn't really get the nod.
When Boulder Beer faded away in the late 90's, Johnny Bravo formed from the new, young players in the area. Rumor had it they wouldn't take players older than 27... perhaps there was a bitterness because Beer looked off some of the young talent when their tryout seasons ended.
LA and San Diego once played jointly as Peligro. I think this was after the days when SD was a top team (if there were ever such days) in the area. Now I feel like few players in San Diego would consider pooling their talent with LA... although this is largely because PBR's goal of qualifying for Nationals was attained this year. Maybe different decisions would be made if that goal is changed to "place higher than 16th at Nationals."
What about Boston? I'm talking specifics... no names need be named, but DOG combines with Boss Hogg, presumably because DOG players feels it's been long enough of a slide, so it's time to infuse the top team with new talent. How many of Boss Hogg's top players jumped at the chance to elevate their game? How many declined the invitation? Who was involved in the decision?
Less than a year later, a team I'd never heard of, Twisted Metal, loses by a mere 1 point to GOAT, barely missing a Nationals berth. Next thing I know, they're beating my team in the first round of Nationals. It seemed like a few DOG guys who never played with Boss Hogg had bailed onto Metal. Are there a lot of other guys on Metal that are ex-DOG? What about guys who are ex-Hogg?
Now I'm in the Bay, and it's just open team kaos. You got Jam, and (like Idris mentioned) I feel like if you didn't get in a couple years ago, the only way you're making the team is if you were the #1 or #2 player on your college team. They have a lot of success, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt... but I'm not sure how much they take chemistry into consideration, at least over & above sick-playmaking-history.
Then there's Kaos, another crew of historically strong playmakers, but who have played less together. I'm not sure how deeply (if at all) the mentality of "no way, we'd never play for Jam" runs.
I haven't been here long enough to know about the other open teams (not that I'm any authority on the 2 I mention) but I'm curious as to who their top players are... and if they'd be competitive on Jam or Kaos.
Okay, that's quite enough from me on my first blog post.
By
Anonymous, at 12/12/2005 4:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home