hey up,

thanks for the thoughts rach. mostly i agree with the things that you say.
sometimes i think you have too many details though, and therefore are trying
to exercise too much control. and i think we should start somewhere
different. and this email is that starting point.

what are we trying to achieve?
------------------------------------------
i always think of questions of skill at ulti as an equilateral triangle. the
area of the triangle represents the total number of nz players. the height
of the topmost point is the skill level of the most skillful players in nz.
conceptualised like this, it seems to me that the international selection
stuff is about achieving two goals:

* trying to lift the top of the triangle higher (to increase the skills of
the nz player base). it does this by the players at the tournament actually
getting much more skilled though exposure to a higher level of competition
(and then coming back to share their skills with nz players), and (most
importantly) through the increase in the level of ulti in nz as a result of
players competing to get in to the worlds teams.

* trying to increase the size of the triangle (to boost the number of nz
players). international representation does this by encouraging high-skill
players to stay in the game, and (less importantly) by encouraging new
players to join.

so i think international representation is really like another form of
training or tournament that helps to boost the skills of nz domestic
ultimate. we choose to play internationally because it provides a great
opportunity to boost the skills of domestic ultimate in ways that just are
not possible within nz.

why have a policy?
-------------------------
i think we want to have a policy because coordination will help us achieve
these goals. individually we can achieve nothing. but by agreeing a simple
set of rules to guide us in international selection, we can help
international representation to make its maximum contribution to the skills
and player base of domestic ulti.

we want our policy to last more than just one year. which means it needs to
be respected. to achieve this goal i suggest we use the following criteria
to assess any ideas that we come up with:

* clear and transparent - the meaning of the words we use must be
unambiguous. and it must be easy to check whether the policy has been
complied with.
* rational - the policy has to be reasoned and defensible. a useful test is
not whether every person agrees with it. but whether a reasonable person,
appropriately informed about the reasons for the policy, would think the
policy within the bounds of what was reasonable in the circumstances.
* simple - innumerable plans have been ditched (or worse, just ignored)
because of undue complexity. the simpler the better. we don't want to
overload people with rules.
* give decision-making power to the right people - we won't be able to make
all the right decisions about matters of detail. the reason, for example,
that we have selectors is that no committee like ours could make a sensible
team-picking decision with our current level of information. the best
decisions are typically made by the people with the best information, the
best capability, and the best incentives in regard to that decision. we will
come back to this a bit more in relation to selectors.

the three areas in brief
-------------------------------

this email is already too long. i will write three more. but first i will
talk about each area briefly.

* individual selection

first up, i am not sure that this will ever be non-contentious. to expect
everyone to be happy (even those not selected) is not realistic. the best we
can do is reflected in the criteria above - make a selection that, in the
opinion of the selectors, maximises the benefits for nz ultimate through
increasing the skills of the domestic player base, and encouraging players
to stay in/take up the game. and make that selection through a process that
is clear and transparent, simple, and rationally defensible.

from what i have already said, it is going to be obvious that i think that
the people selected should be those that are going to boost the level of
domestic ultimate the most by their presence on the team.

in my next email, i will talk about what i see as coming out of these
thoughts in terms of individual player qualities, selector qualities, and
what selectors should be required to do.

* team selection

to me there are really good reasons to think that allowing the winners of
the tour to take the spots at world clubs will boost the level of domestic
ultimate considerably more than if the teams are handpicked players from
around the country. this is for similar reasons to why organising club
teams to compete in the tour makes nz ultimate stronger, compared to having
a whole bunch of scratch teams contest nationals each year.

the increased competition will boost people's training efforts off the field
and achievement on the field directly. and it will encourage clubs to invest
in finding promising new players, and developing them up, so as to share in
the prize of a world clubs spot.

* upc funding

if a player who would otherwise be in the team can not go because they don't
have enough cash, there might be a theoretical case for all players (via the
upc) chipping in and subsidising that player's costs. obviously, though,
given the framework above, the value of the player going (in terms of the
boost to domestic ulti) would need be greater than the value the next best
player would add to domestic ulti plus the value of the money that would be
spent on a subsidy.

add to this the facts that:

- there just are not enough players in nz to get together any significant
sum of money, and
- individual players get stuff all out of sending someone they don't know to
play ultimate in another country, and so just won't want to pay for a direct
subsidy

and i start to think that upc funding is probably better used in other ways
than in subsidising one or two players to get to a tourney (plus all the
problems associated with figuring out how much to pay etc etc).

i think the best use of upc cash is in providing a recognition of
achievement and a gesture of support rather than as a real subsidy that
could affect whether someone goes to a tourney or not. stuff like paying for
uniforms or entry fees, while pretty tiny money per player, does actually
make a difference, and really is appreciated by players (speaking from
experience).

this is just part of making a big deal of players who do actually go and
represent nz, and making it seem like representing nz is actually the
awesome achievement that it is. so things like awards, media coverage and
official congratulations are probably good ideas as well.

anyway, enough for one night. expect more thoughts on each of these areas
soon. and eventually i will get to some very specific comments on the
individual policy areas.

comments, questions, criticism welcomed. nay, even encouraged.


h