hi again,

from my previous message (which you can read at
groups.yahoo.com/group/upc-international/message/15), i think our goals are:

* to 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.

this email is long. it talks about the criteria for individual players, and
the criteria for picking selectors.

criteria for individual players
---------------------------------------
so it is pretty straightforward from what i have already said. desirable
player characteristics follow (note that they are desirable
characteristics - not requirements). remember that we want to set the
criteria so as to boost domestic ultimate and keep high-skilled players in
the game. we also want the team to be as skilled as possible (since that
will both help keep players in the game and help to expose the team to a
higher level of competition in the later rounds of tournaments). we are in
the fortunate position that our best players also tend to be our most
committed to domestic ulti, so setting high standards for skills or
committment to domestic ulti is unlikely to mean that we do not have enough
players interested to fill a team.

* players should be highly skilled. this includes:
- being fit enough to meet the demands of the tourney and then some
- being self-motivated and positive, and possessing enough mental
toughness to hold their game
together, and help hold the team together, under the most intense
competitive pressure
- having superior spirit
- having excellent disc skills, good field awareness and tactical
understanding, and
- knowing the rules well (except for that pesky one about what to do on a
pick call if the disc is already in the air ;-).

* players will need to have the desire and capability to apply their skills
to improve domestic ulti in new zealand after the tourney. this means that,
at minimum, they need to play domestic ultimate (and therefore that they
live in new zealand). some relevant information to help selectors make this
choice includes:
- the player's playing history - local leagues and tournaments, national
tournies, previous
international events, attitude to coaching and helping other players.
- the player's future plans - coming back to nz, or going on somewhere
else? staying in the game or
is this tournament a final swansong?

* meet eligibility requirements for tourney - at minimum this means being a
member of the nzfda or some other wfdf affiliated body. but there are also
bunches of other eligibility rules for other tournies - mostly this applies
to the world events. some of the eligibility rules for wucc 2002 are covered
in my email on club selection.

the third criterion is non-negotitable. note, though, that we may sometimes
be in situations where selectors have to trade off the skills (the first
criterion) against the boost to domestic ultimate (the second). this is
particularly where we are talking about selecting high-skilled players who
live overseas, overseas high-skilled players who live in nz but are leaving
soon, and high-skilled players who live locally but very seldom play.

there is a tricky trade off. if we do not select the highest skilled
players, then the team as a whole suffers; it won't get as far in the
tournament and thus won't have the sort of exposure that will most boost the
skills of the players. additionally, many of the highest skilled players may
feel like it is not worth being on the team. so they will pull out. others
will see the high skilled players pulling out of the team, and will pull out
themselves.

the decisions about who to pick based on the above criteria are made by the
selectors.

criteria for selectors
----------------------------
i think it is useful to start by thinking about why we have selectors. i
mean, we could just get the upc international coordinator to select a team
after soliciting email applications for spots. to me the upc appointing some
selectors to do the job for it offers three advantages:

* better information - selectors will research individual players
extensively in order to make their choices of players defensible. i think
this is the best reason to have a selection panel that chooses teams for all
international events in a season - they get better information how players
are doing over time.
* greater capability - selectors won't be doing other things (although they
might be members of the upc or fda exec, and will probably be deeply
involved in ulti in their region, they won't have to be selectors if they
are members of the upc). spreading work around makes it more likely it will
get done, and done well.
* improved incentives - selectors will be responsible to the upc only for
their selection decisions. they will have clear goals and very
straightforward accountability. accountability to the upc is most important
for when selectors pick themselves for the team.

we need to set the criteria for picking selectors and determine their tasks
with those advantages in mind.

in addition, our second goal for international representation policy is to
use a clear and transparent, simple and rational process for selection. it
needs to be clear why the selectors have been chosen, clear why the
selectors have chosen the players that they have, and clear to those who
have not been chosen why they are not on the team.

* selectors should be well-informed - relevant factors include:
- level of experience in nz ultimate, and ultimate in other places. this
helps both with knowing a bit
about the players, and with being able to figure out how well they actually
play relative to others.
- willingness to travel to tournaments and trainings to watch players. i
don't think the panel needs to
be representative necessarily, but it will make it easier (since they will
have to travel less in order to
see all the players vying for selection).

* selectors should be capable - this is the key criterion, since anyone can
travel around and watch people play ulti. relevant factors include:
- good judgement - upc has to be confident that the person actually has the
analytical skill to assess
other players' abilities on the field and committment to domestic ultimate.
previous experience (both
at playing overseas and in selecting teams) helps here, but it is not
decisive. not all previous
selectors will necessarily be the best selectors.
- good communication skills - we are dealing with a highly-sensitive
subject, assessments of the
relative ability of a bunch of different players. the more transparent the
process, the more people's
egos are on the line, and the worse they will feel if they are not treated
with some measure of
respect. tact is crucial, but so is straight-talking.
- respect of players being selected - similarly, a lot of argument and
confusion can be avoided if
the players subject to selection respect the ability of the selectors to
make a good choice, and they
can understand why the selectors have been chosen.
- available time - not too many other responsibilities, whether ultimate
stuff or not.

* motivated - relevant factors:
- selectors should be volunteers - this helps ensure that they want to do
it.
- selectors must not be afraid to have their judgements tested, and they
must be prepared to defend
in front of the upc and the players seeking selection the opinions that
they form about the abilities of
players.

expect some thoughts on the upc funding question soon.

after that come some final suggestions for actual rules and processes, based
on what i have said and on rach's original ideas. on process, it seems to
me (and to rach obviously) that transparent feedback to those selected and
(particularly) those not selected is crucial (and missing from our current
arrangements). transparent feedback from upc to selectors on their
performance also seems like a good idea.

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


h