And keep the logos small

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Thirkell [mailto:justin_thirkell@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 1:55 p.m.
To: 'upc-international@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [upc-international] Flags


If we have the flags long enough to wear them out then it's money well
spent.
If we fill the flags with logos then we buy more flags.
If logos are the same as previous then don't put them on.

Rachel, I am in favour of your proposal.

Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe [mailto:joe@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 1:50 PM
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] Flags


Just a thought.....

How long till the flags are worn out, lost, most importantly the space used
up, I mean Australian Nats (3 teams), aussie mixed nats (possibly 2-3
teams), world clubs (2 teams)

8 Teams this year, 6 next, 8 Again the year after, more if we send more team
to Aussie Nationals, How big is the flag??? The size of a bus...
And won't most logo's other than world clubs (which we don't send clubs) be
the NZFDA logo???

If you want to spend the money (which I think is a silly idea when we have
so many other problems in the sport) then get 1 maybe 2 flags to be kept
with the NZFDA Uniforms to be loaned to the teams going away to represent NZ

Fish


-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 13:39
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] Flags


That does make the most sense (not that I'd ever doubt you Hayden). As the
chances are that most tournaments that NZ sends teams to there will be two
teams (e.g. Aussie Nats). So the proposal is we purchase 2 flags, they will
be
both printed with a team's logo (or name/date) for every international
tournament NZ attends. They remain property of the NZFDA (UPC)

Sound ok?

Rachel

Quoting Hayden Glass <hayden@...>:

> the only logical solution is to print both logos on both flags. why not
> get
> dingle to print the pukana logo on both and then send them down to
> welly.
> someone can print the sweet as logo on both and then give one back to
> pukana
> in hawaii (or send one back to auck).
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

If we have the flags long enough to wear them out then it's money well
spent.
If we fill the flags with logos then we buy more flags.
If logos are the same as previous then don't put them on.

Rachel, I am in favour of your proposal.

Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe [mailto:joe@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 1:50 PM
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] Flags


Just a thought.....

How long till the flags are worn out, lost, most importantly the space used
up, I mean Australian Nats (3 teams), aussie mixed nats (possibly 2-3
teams), world clubs (2 teams)

8 Teams this year, 6 next, 8 Again the year after, more if we send more team
to Aussie Nationals, How big is the flag??? The size of a bus...
And won't most logo's other than world clubs (which we don't send clubs) be
the NZFDA logo???

If you want to spend the money (which I think is a silly idea when we have
so many other problems in the sport) then get 1 maybe 2 flags to be kept
with the NZFDA Uniforms to be loaned to the teams going away to represent NZ

Fish


-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 13:39
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] Flags


That does make the most sense (not that I'd ever doubt you Hayden). As the
chances are that most tournaments that NZ sends teams to there will be two
teams (e.g. Aussie Nats). So the proposal is we purchase 2 flags, they will
be
both printed with a team's logo (or name/date) for every international
tournament NZ attends. They remain property of the NZFDA (UPC)

Sound ok?

Rachel

Quoting Hayden Glass <hayden@...>:

> the only logical solution is to print both logos on both flags. why not
> get
> dingle to print the pukana logo on both and then send them down to
> welly.
> someone can print the sweet as logo on both and then give one back to
> pukana
> in hawaii (or send one back to auck).
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Just a thought.....

How long till the flags are worn out, lost, most importantly the space used
up, I mean Australian Nats (3 teams), aussie mixed nats (possibly 2-3
teams), world clubs (2 teams)

8 Teams this year, 6 next, 8 Again the year after, more if we send more team
to Aussie Nationals, How big is the flag??? The size of a bus...
And won't most logo's other than world clubs (which we don't send clubs) be
the NZFDA logo???

If you want to spend the money (which I think is a silly idea when we have
so many other problems in the sport) then get 1 maybe 2 flags to be kept
with the NZFDA Uniforms to be loaned to the teams going away to represent NZ

Fish


-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 13:39
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] Flags


That does make the most sense (not that I'd ever doubt you Hayden). As the
chances are that most tournaments that NZ sends teams to there will be two
teams (e.g. Aussie Nats). So the proposal is we purchase 2 flags, they will
be
both printed with a team's logo (or name/date) for every international
tournament NZ attends. They remain property of the NZFDA (UPC)

Sound ok?

Rachel

Quoting Hayden Glass <hayden@...>:

> the only logical solution is to print both logos on both flags. why not
> get
> dingle to print the pukana logo on both and then send them down to
> welly.
> someone can print the sweet as logo on both and then give one back to
> pukana
> in hawaii (or send one back to auck).
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Agreed

J.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hayden Glass [mailto:hayden@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 1:41 PM
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] Flags


brilliant rachel. inspired.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 09:39
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] Flags


That does make the most sense (not that I'd ever doubt you Hayden). As the
chances are that most tournaments that NZ sends teams to there will be two
teams (e.g. Aussie Nats). So the proposal is we purchase 2 flags, they will
be
both printed with a team's logo (or name/date) for every international
tournament NZ attends. They remain property of the NZFDA (UPC)

Sound ok?

Rachel




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

brilliant rachel. inspired.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 09:39
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] Flags


That does make the most sense (not that I'd ever doubt you Hayden). As the
chances are that most tournaments that NZ sends teams to there will be two
teams (e.g. Aussie Nats). So the proposal is we purchase 2 flags, they will
be
both printed with a team's logo (or name/date) for every international
tournament NZ attends. They remain property of the NZFDA (UPC)

Sound ok?

Rachel

That does make the most sense (not that I'd ever doubt you Hayden). As the
chances are that most tournaments that NZ sends teams to there will be two
teams (e.g. Aussie Nats). So the proposal is we purchase 2 flags, they will be
both printed with a team's logo (or name/date) for every international
tournament NZ attends. They remain property of the NZFDA (UPC)

Sound ok?

Rachel

Quoting Hayden Glass <hayden@...>:

> the only logical solution is to print both logos on both flags. why not
> get
> dingle to print the pukana logo on both and then send them down to
> welly.
> someone can print the sweet as logo on both and then give one back to
> pukana
> in hawaii (or send one back to auck).
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

the only logical solution is to print both logos on both flags. why not get
dingle to print the pukana logo on both and then send them down to welly.
someone can print the sweet as logo on both and then give one back to pukana
in hawaii (or send one back to auck).

I think there is some confusion about what the flag(s?) are going to be used
for. My original impression was what Dave has described below:

> I think the idea was to have the team logo (or name) just on a small
> part of the flag, and for any further tournaments where NZ teams are
> represented they add their logo to them and carry the flags, hence the flags
> become a history of teams that have represented NZ overseas.

However this obviously poses some difficulty if we have 2 teams at an event,
they can't both have the flag - which means we then get 2 flags - but then how
do we create a history of rep teams if we have more than 1 flag floating round?

hmmm

still thinking

Rachel

well there we go. probably best we don't sell them off then.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Sanders [mailto:dave@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 08:28
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] RE: [upc] International Funds


I think the idea was to have the team logo (or name) just on a small part of
the flag, and for any further tournaments where NZ teams are represented
they add their logo to them and carry the flags, hence the flags become a
history of teams that have represented NZ overseas.

For the teams, they are to be used as a point of reference as to where we
are, we play on field No 17, so someone gets there with the flag and plants
it in the ground, we then gather around that spot, dump all our stuff there
etc until we move on.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Hayden Glass [mailto:hayden@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 12:15 p.m.
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] RE: [upc] International Funds


a fabulous idea. although just exactly what the nzfda would do with them is
unclear. for that matter, what would the team do with them?

why don't we auction them off after the last game? that way the upc can get
some money back (and doesn't have to list as an asset two flags that no one
is sure what to do with). someone around the world might want them. or, if
not, i am sure someone on the nz teams will be prepared to part with some
cash for a flag.

both flags, as i understand it, will have team logos on them, which reduces
their usefulness for other teams and other events.


h

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Thirkell [mailto:justin_thirkell@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 04:07
To: 'upc-international@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [upc-international] RE: [upc] International Funds


I am in favour, on condition that the flags become the property of NZFDA
after Worlds.

Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:44 AM
To: NZUPC
Subject: [upc] International Funds


Hi

I have been approached by the teams going to WUCC and asked if the UPC will
fund the purchase of NZ flags for the teams. The cost of the flags is around
$60 each. I think this is something which will benefit the whole team, yet
will not be a huge financial burden on the upc. Thoughts?

Rachel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: upc-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: upc-help@...


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I think the idea was to have the team logo (or name) just on a small part of
the flag, and for any further tournaments where NZ teams are represented
they add their logo to them and carry the flags, hence the flags become a
history of teams that have represented NZ overseas.

For the teams, they are to be used as a point of reference as to where we
are, we play on field No 17, so someone gets there with the flag and plants
it in the ground, we then gather around that spot, dump all our stuff there
etc until we move on.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Hayden Glass [mailto:hayden@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 12:15 p.m.
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] RE: [upc] International Funds


a fabulous idea. although just exactly what the nzfda would do with them is
unclear. for that matter, what would the team do with them?

why don't we auction them off after the last game? that way the upc can get
some money back (and doesn't have to list as an asset two flags that no one
is sure what to do with). someone around the world might want them. or, if
not, i am sure someone on the nz teams will be prepared to part with some
cash for a flag.

both flags, as i understand it, will have team logos on them, which reduces
their usefulness for other teams and other events.


h

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Thirkell [mailto:justin_thirkell@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 04:07
To: 'upc-international@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [upc-international] RE: [upc] International Funds


I am in favour, on condition that the flags become the property of NZFDA
after Worlds.

Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:44 AM
To: NZUPC
Subject: [upc] International Funds


Hi

I have been approached by the teams going to WUCC and asked if the UPC will
fund the purchase of NZ flags for the teams. The cost of the flags is around
$60 each. I think this is something which will benefit the whole team, yet
will not be a huge financial burden on the upc. Thoughts?

Rachel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: upc-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: upc-help@...


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I didn't know the logos would be on them - in which case, agreed - more
useful to sell them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hayden Glass [mailto:hayden@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:15 PM
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [upc-international] RE: [upc] International Funds


a fabulous idea. although just exactly what the nzfda would do with them is
unclear. for that matter, what would the team do with them?

why don't we auction them off after the last game? that way the upc can get
some money back (and doesn't have to list as an asset two flags that no one
is sure what to do with). someone around the world might want them. or, if
not, i am sure someone on the nz teams will be prepared to part with some
cash for a flag.

both flags, as i understand it, will have team logos on them, which reduces
their usefulness for other teams and other events.


h

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Thirkell [mailto:justin_thirkell@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 04:07
To: 'upc-international@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [upc-international] RE: [upc] International Funds


I am in favour, on condition that the flags become the property of NZFDA
after Worlds.

Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:44 AM
To: NZUPC
Subject: [upc] International Funds


Hi

I have been approached by the teams going to WUCC and asked if the UPC will
fund the purchase of NZ flags for the teams. The cost of the flags is around
$60 each. I think this is something which will benefit the whole team, yet
will not be a huge financial burden on the upc. Thoughts?

Rachel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: upc-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: upc-help@...


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

a fabulous idea. although just exactly what the nzfda would do with them is
unclear. for that matter, what would the team do with them?

why don't we auction them off after the last game? that way the upc can get
some money back (and doesn't have to list as an asset two flags that no one
is sure what to do with). someone around the world might want them. or, if
not, i am sure someone on the nz teams will be prepared to part with some
cash for a flag.

both flags, as i understand it, will have team logos on them, which reduces
their usefulness for other teams and other events.


h

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Thirkell [mailto:justin_thirkell@...]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002 04:07
To: 'upc-international@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [upc-international] RE: [upc] International Funds


I am in favour, on condition that the flags become the property of NZFDA
after Worlds.

Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:44 AM
To: NZUPC
Subject: [upc] International Funds


Hi

I have been approached by the teams going to WUCC and asked if the UPC will
fund the purchase of NZ flags for the teams. The cost of the flags is around
$60 each. I think this is something which will benefit the whole team, yet
will not be a huge financial burden on the upc. Thoughts?

Rachel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: upc-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: upc-help@...


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
upc-international-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I am in favour, on condition that the flags become the property of NZFDA
after Worlds.

Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Grindlay [mailto:rachg@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:44 AM
To: NZUPC
Subject: [upc] International Funds


Hi

I have been approached by the teams going to WUCC and asked if the UPC will
fund the purchase of NZ flags for the teams. The cost of the flags is around
$60 each. I think this is something which will benefit the whole team, yet
will not be a huge financial burden on the upc. Thoughts?

Rachel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: upc-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: upc-help@...

hey up,

this is the last one. pulling together all the stuff from my previous
messages that you can check out at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/upc-international/messages

it builds on the rules rachel proposed in her first emails and the
principles from my first email. in brief, i think we want:

* 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,

* to make that selection through a process that is clear and transparent,
simple, and rationally defensible.

because of the length of this thing and the complexity of formatting, i have
attached the proposed rules as an rtf document (any word processor should
open it: and it also has the beauty of being smaller than a word doc). i
have also uploaded it to the yahoo groups website
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/upc-international/files)

feedback is welcomed. nay, actively encouraged. to be useful, though, i
think it best if we frame our debate in terms of what is already in this
document (things you want changed, things you want added, things you love).
i.e., we should use this document as a starting point.

that's it. i am done.

hope you are all playing nice,


h

hi again,

from my first 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.

i think my views on upc funding are pretty clear from that first email as
well. i think there are better things to do with the upc's money than use it
for grants for individual players.

how much money is there?
-------------------------------------
there are 230 current members whose first interest is not golf. there are
four tour events (counting the open), and another 3 or 4 tournies that are
national enough to allow the nzupc to levy (brass monkey, taupo hat, indoor
nats, possibly disc wars). so let's say 8 tournies. let's say 150 members go
to the tour events, and 75 to the second set of four. i haven't played in nz
this year, so my numbers might be a bit out. results:

* there are 900 levy-able attendees (150*4 + 75*4).
* if the levy is $5, total collected is $5 * 900 = $4,500
* if the levy is $10, total collected is $10 * 900 = $9,000

at $10, international representation is going to make up somewhere between
25% and 50% of the total cost of the tournaments. $4,500 will get one player
to a worlds in the US and pay for almost everything. $1,000 should be enough
to cover any event in australia. so by levying every player at the 8
tournies above $10 each, we could send two players to worlds (every second
year, you see), and four or five to the various australian events (nats,
mixed nats, uni games?). upc would have no money for anything else.

rach - do we know how much is actually collected by the levy, so we can get
a feel for the accuracy of these numbers.

how much would we pay?
----------------------------------
realistically, though, we would not want to pay all costs for just one
player. the value we would want to pay is related to the amount that would
make the difference between that player going or not going, and the boost to
domestic ulti that would result from having that player on the team.

the problem is, of course, that we just do not know:

* the value to domestic ultimate in the future from sending any particular
player to worlds now, or
* how much money is the minimum required to convince a player who was
otherwise wavering to go.

one solution is to award a relatively small grant (say $500) to a couple of
attendees through a competitive process. so applicants would need to say why
we should pick them over anyone else in terms of the boost to domestic
ultimate from subsidising them. and there would be no expectation that the
upc would award any grants at all. we could make the grant repayable if
certain conditions were not met (with regard to participation in domestic
ultimate).

this might mean that some players go to international events that otherwise
would not. and that might lead boost the level of domestic ultimate.

i think this is a bad idea
--------------------------------
to me though, this kind of scheme suffers from at least three major flaws:

* we just don't know in advance whether our money is likely to be well spent
on a subsidy or not. the idea of picking winners just does not appeal to me
at all. indeed, it could be argued that those most likely to pay for
themselves to get to an international event are the most motivated, and
therefore the most likely to contribute to domestic ultimate regardless of a
subsidy. there are other ways to find funds to travel (sponsorship,
fund-raising) that don't put the funds of nz ultimate players at risk.
* it opens up a whole host of issues around who gets funding and who does
not that are very difficult to navigate. questions of how the upc decided to
subsidise someone are inherently very difficult to justify on any rational
basis. even if we had principles enshrined in the policy about who should be
chosen, we face significant difficulty in applying them in a particular
case. and the upc would always be open to complaints of bias and
favouritism. this hassle might be worth enduring if the goal were
worthwhile, but, as i said, i don't think the payoffs are that big or that
certain from this kind of policy.
* most players would be happy to support a new zealand team to some degree.
but most players would be much less likely (it seems to me) to be keen to
pay a substantial sum to a person that they might know very little about for
that person to go have a great time at a tournament overseas.

i say stick with what we know
----------------------------------------
so 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.

as i said before, if the upc wants to support international teams, i think
the best thing to do is to provide a recognition of achievement and a
gesture of support. the existing ideas on paying for uniforms or entry fees
are good ones.

thoughts anyone?

my last email (i promise) is processes and rules, building on what rach sent
through before.


h

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

hi all,

i am still working on the individual policy. but I decided to start with
this one, since it is easier. You can read my previous message at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/upc-international/message/15

from that, you will know that I think we should encourage the winning clubs
from the tour to send teams to world clubs (note that this only applies once
every four years; there is a wucc this year. the next is in 2006). the
rationale to me is that doing this will boost the level of domestic ultimate
considerably more than if the teams are handpicked players from around the
country.

competition for places on a world's team boosts people's training efforts
off the field and achievement on the field directly. this is the same as the
effect from picking a 'national' team.

awarding the places to clubs adds some things.  it encourages clubs to
invest in finding promising new players, and developing both experienced and
new players, so as to share in the prize of a world clubs spot.  teams will
be more cohesive, better organised, and have more continuity.  the
competition between clubs (rather than between players) encourages
high-skilled players to make an additional effort to keep their fellow team
members in line; not only is it enough that they play their best to get
selected - they also need to be in a club with other high-quality players.

i also believe that club development is the single best way to continue to
expand NZ ulti. and awarding the WUCC spots to the clubs that win the tour
is a natural way to extend upon it.

some details:

which tour?
----------------
the wucc is only every 4 years. we won't get to test this policy for a
while. but far sighted clubs will start thinking about it for the next
summer season (i.e., 2002/03). we need to figure out timing. my
understanding is that preliminary rosters need to be sent to wucc 4 months
before the wucc, with final rosters due just a couple of weeks out. if this
is so, then the results of the tour ending march 2006 will be the ones that
matter (there is just four months between the end of our tour and early
august when wucc usually is). there may be an issue around team names (since
we might have to advise these sooner than four months out). it is not the
winners of the last event that count, but the winners of the tour overall.

how many places?
-------------------------
this depends on how many we get offered by the organising committee and
wfdf. last time we got offered 1 open and 1 womens space. this time 2 mixed,
1 open, 1 womens and 1 masters.

which divisions?
-----------------------
our tour is mixed ultimate. so this system only determines which clubs can
send teams to the mixed division. if we change to mens and womens (or
develop a masters tour), then we can use this system to determine those
places as well.

which players?
--------------------
there is a high likelihood that not everyone on the club team that wins the
tour in 2005 or 2006 will be able to go to world clubs 2006.

for wucc 2002 there is a minimum of 12 on the final roster. teams that can
not field 10 players at the beginning of any game risk disqualification. 51%
of the players must be regular players on the team. with the rest being not
closer geographically to any other team than the team they are going to play
for. players can not have played for any other team at wucc in the four
months before the tourney. players also have to be members of the nzfda or
some other wfdf affiliated body. we can expect similar rules for wucc 2006.

from this, if the club cannot field enough players (at least 12), it will
have to use some selection process to decide who to take from the rest of
the country. our strong preference would be that they use some criteria very
similar to our criteria for individual selection.

for wucc 2002 (and presumably future wuccs), the nzfda (read nzupc) has to
approve the final player rosters. this gives the nzupc the power to insist
on particular methods of selection, or even particular players. we should be
cautious with this power though. we are not as well placed as the clubs to
determine who is best to represent them. and pressure from other players
within the club (particularly as numbers grow) should ensure that clubs do
not just pick their friends if they manage to qualify for a spot at wucc and
can not field 12 players.

the best way to run this might be a little regulatory threat; i.e., say in
the rules that clubs should take into account the individual selection
criteria when making their picks for spare spots. and that they will need to
explain their selection criteria to the upc before the team roster can be
finalised.

if there is no tour
-------------------------
(seems unlikely, but you never know) - selection is as for the individual
selection policy for all other international teams.

thoughts? things i have not covered? things you hate? things you mildly
disagree with? things that are not clear? things that you wholeheartedly
support? there are 20 of us, after all.


h

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

i agree with you ben. selection should be about skills. but one key reason
to select players for worlds teams is to make them more skilled, so that
they will come back and improve domestic ultimate a little by their
influence.

this doesn't mean that, if a player announces that, say, worlds is her
absolutely last tournament ever, she can not be selected. it just means that
if there is a choice to be made between two highly skilled players, one who
is going to continue to play nz ultimate after worlds, and one who is not,
the logical choice (in terms of the one that benefits nz ultimate most) is
the former person. i suspect it has less to do with age than to do with
commitment to the game myself.

it is a similar thing to picking players who live overseas (and thus can not
boost the quality of domestic ultimate by definition). you don't take them
if you have highly skilled people in the domestic game.

speaking as somene who is quickly approaching the cutoff point for masters
:-)


h

The intention is to ensure that we don't hamstring ourselves for the future by
only including proven experience. The suggestion is not that we only select
young teams but that consideration be taken to ensure a balance between old
hands and up & comers..

(And yes it is most definitely your place to make comments - thank you)

Quoting BEastman <beastman@...>:

> I don't really know if it is my place to make coments but...
>
>
> >
> > Desirable Qualities of Team
> > 1. Contains necessary leadership skills
> > 2. Contains sufficient youth to safeguard the development of future
> teams
>
>
> I think that a player should be chosen on skill level rather than age,
> race
> etc.
>
>
> > 3. Contains sufficient experience to ensure the success of the team
> > 4. Matches the skills required of the playbook
> >
>
> Ben

I don't really know if it is my place to make coments but...


>
> Desirable Qualities of Team
> 1. Contains necessary leadership skills
> 2. Contains sufficient youth to safeguard the development of future teams


I think that a player should be chosen on skill level rather than age, race
etc.


> 3. Contains sufficient experience to ensure the success of the team
> 4. Matches the skills required of the playbook
>

Ben

Draft Selector Policy

Selection Committee

Eligibility of Selectors
1. Must be a current financial member of the NZFDA.
2. Must be willing and able to attend tournaments where team is being
observed.
3. May be a member of a Selection Committee for another team.
4. Need not be eligible to play in the division for which they are
selecting.

Committee Tasks
1. Develop a list of tasks for the Team Manager.
2. Develop an application form for players.
3. Create Player Dossiers for each player.
4. Update Player Dossiers after each tournament or training camp.
5. Keep in contact via an email list.
6. Organize training sessions and a training calendar in conjunction with
the Team Manager and Coaches.
7. Convene regular meetings (both physically and over the Internet) to
discuss team-building and selection issues.
8. Appoint and manage Team Coaches.
9. Appoint and manage Team Leaders.

Desirable Qualities of Committee
1. Include comprehensive first-hand knowledge of the players
2. Be representative of the entire New Zealand Ultimate community.
3. Include expert knowledge of elite-level Ultimate.
4. It may be desirable to have committee members sitting on more than one
team’s selection committee in the cases where a number of players are vying for
selection on both teams.

Desirable Qualities of Members
1. Be open-minded.
2. Be impartial.
3. Have expert knowledge of Ultimate at the elite world level
4. Have expert knowledge of the competition in the relevant division
5. Have previous selection experience
6. Attend training camps, training sessions, tournaments and leagues to
observe squad members
7. Have email and web access
8. Have previous experience in administration and committee work

Aims of Appointment Process
1. To appoint a Selection Committee which best fits the criteria outlined
above.
2. To make the appointment process fair, open and accountable.

Appointment Process
1. At least one year before the Tournament, the International Coordinator
should call for applicants for the Selection Committee.
2. The International Coordinator determines the timing of the application
process.
3. The International Coordinator develops an application form for
Selectors.
4. The Executive approves the application form.
5. The International Coordinator produces and distributes the application
form to applicants.
6. The applicants return the completed application forms to the
International Coordinator.
7. The International Coordinator conducts any interviews with applicants
deemed necessary by the Executive.
8. Based on the completed application forms, recommendations by the
International Coordinator and any other information available, the UPC appoints
between 3 and 5 Selectors to form the Selection Committee. This appointment
should be done within 1 week of receiving the recommendations of the
International Coordinator.
9. If not enough suitable applicants are found, the UPC may appoint fewer
than 3 Selectors.
10. If there are fewer than 3 Selectors at any time, then the International
Coordinator will sit on the Selection Committee and hold the balance of votes
to bring the total votes to 3.
11. At any time after the initial application process, the UPC may appoint
additional or replacement Selectors as it sees fit, as long as that does not
bring the total above 5.

Removal Process
1. A Selector may resign at any time with 4 weeks written notice.
2. The UPC may remove a Selector at any time with 4 weeks written notice.
3. Notice to remove should include clear indications of the actions or
omissions leading to their removal, and their repercussions.
4. The notice to remove should be cancelled if the person addresses those
issues to the Executive’s satisfaction.

Draft Team Selection Policy

Selection of Team

Eligibility of Players
1. Be a current financial member of the NZFDA.
2. Satisfy eligibility requirements for the Tournament.

Player Tasks
1. Attend local Team training sessions
2. Play competitive ultimate at the highest level
3. Learn the Playbook
4. Provide feedback to the Selection Committee on the Playbook
5. Play at all Nationals in the chosen division or be excused by the
Selection Committee.
6. Pass all drug tests required by the NZFDA and the Tournament.
7. Sign all legal waivers and contracts required by the NZFDA and the
Tournament.
8. Meet all financial obligations associated with participation in the
Team.
9. Attend National Training Camps unless excused by the Selection
Committee or Team Manager.
10. Attend overseas National Training Camps and designated warm-up
tournaments unless excused by the Team Manager.

Desirable Qualities of Team
1. Contains necessary leadership skills
2. Contains sufficient youth to safeguard the development of future teams
3. Contains sufficient experience to ensure the success of the team
4. Matches the skills required of the playbook

Desirable Qualities of Players
1. Fitness
2. Punctuality
3. Self-motivation
4. Skills
5. Tactical knowledge
6. Knowledge of the rules
7. Ability to be part of a team
8. Good ambassador of Spirit of the Game

Aims of Selection Process
1. To select a team which best fits the criteria outlined above, as well
as any other criteria determined by the Selection Committee.
2. To have a selection process which is fair, open and accountable.

Selection Process
1. The Selection Committee determines the timing of the application
process.
2. The Selection Committee develops an application form for players,
including information about the team and the tournament, criteria for
selection, financial obligations of players, proposed list of training camps
and tournaments. The application will allow players to indicate and explain
their preference of team when eligible to play in more than one division.
3. The International Coordinator approves the application form.
4. The Team Manager produces and distributes the application form to
players.
5. The players return the completed application forms to the Selection
Committee.
6. The Selection Committee creates and maintains a Player Dossier for each
player.
7. The Selection Committee communicates regularly to discuss each player.
8. If the Selection Committee at any stage decides that a player is no
longer being seriously considered for selection then they should inform the
player at the earliest convenience. The player may then decide whether they
wish to continue to be part of the Training Squad.
9. The Selection Committee observes players at every suitable training
session and competition.
10. The Selection Committee convenes at least one player forum prior to
Nationals to discuss the expected make-up of the team, including player numbers
and issues related to players vying for more than one team.
11. The Selection Committee does not need to determine Team make-up and
player numbers before the Team is finalised.
12. The selected team is to be approved by the UPC International
Coordinator.
13. The UPC International Coordinator announces the final selection
approximately 3 months before the Tournament. The International Coordinator at
the beginning of the Team Building Process will decide this timing.

Removal Process
1. A Player may remove themselves from the Training Squad or Team at any
time with 4 weeks written notice.
2. The Selection Committee may remove a Player from the Training Squad or
Team at any time with 4 weeks written notice.
3. Notice to remove should include clear indications of the actions or
omissions leading to their removal, and their repercussions.
4. The notice to remove should be cancelled if the person addresses those
issues to the Selection Committee’s satisfaction.
5. The liability of the NZFDA and the Player in the event of removal or
resignation should be clearly dealt with in a Player agreement or contract.

From-time-to-time, representative teams must be chosen to represent New Zealand
and the NZFDA at international ultimate tournaments. I wish to create a policy
that govern all aspects of the team-building process, from conception to the
completion of the tournament or tour, including selection, coaching,
administration and leadership.

I would hope this policy is general enough to be applied to all representative
teams, including Open, Women’s, Masters, Co-Ed, Universities and Juniors.

It is intended that this document will be updated to reflect best practice as
experience and changing circumstances dictate. This document will be a Policy
of the UPC and may be updated as specified in the UPC Operating Guidelines.

This policy does not cover the selection of Club Teams to represent the NZFDA
at international Club Team Tournaments, should we decide that club teams should
be sent to those tournaments. However, it is expected that Club Teams that hope
to represent the NZFDA will use this policy as a guideline when developing
their own policy.

I am going to send out the various parts of the draft policy relating to
individual selections, selection of selectors very shortly. Much of this
material has been borrowed from the AFDA Selection Policy and is intended to be
a starting point for discussion - I will not be offended if people disagree
with it! Remember that these policies need to be acceptable to the general
public so we need good feedback....

Rachel

The last area is in relation to UPC funding. In the past the NZFDA has paid
entry fees (and in some cases for uniforms) for teams competing overseas. The
NZFDA has handed this responsibility over to the UPC.

Given that the UPC has a limited amount of funds it is important that any money
which is allocated towards international representation is used in the most
effective way. The amount of funding which is likely to be available is not
going to be a significant amount, and over a whole team it would be unlikely to
make a big difference to any one individuals ability to travel to a tournament.

I realise that anyone who makes a commitment to travelling to an overseas
tournament is making a big outlay of their personal cash, and while I would
love the upc to be able to donate significant funding, this is never going to
be a realistic option in the near future. I think that the money which is
available would be better off targeted at areas where it would make a real
difference – whether it is setting up a fund where individuals can apply for
money due to their stretched financial circumstances or some other way. There
are a lot of students who play sport and it is very disappointing when
promising players have to say no to international experience because of lack of
funds, perhaps a grant system could help this situation??

If anyone has thoughts on:
1. whether the upc should be giving money to international competitors, if
so, which ones – only those who are competing in an individually selected team?
Or only particular tournaments?
2. how money should be used (paying team fees / grants to individuals etc
etc)
3. What amount of money is appropriate for use? (either as a percentage of
UPC funds or $ figures)
then please post to the list. (or any other thoughts relating to money &
international competition) Once again I have more thoughts on this coming soon.

Rachel

The second area to address is Club Selection. This issue was more fully
discussed by Shane, so once again please read his document
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/upc-
international/files/intl_thoughts_by_shanev.doc

The question is now that we have a club system which has developed through the
Tour, is it more appropriate for us to send club teams to tournaments such as
World Ultimate Club Championships? If no, then this is not an area for
discussion as the system for selecting the individuals will be the same as for
other events. I have had enough discussions with people in the community to
know there are a lot of people out there who think we should be sending club
teams – so the next question is: how do we decide which club teams go? The
obvious answer to this is that we base it on rankings from the Tour… but what
if there is no tour? (an interesting concept now, but we are talking mainly
about the next WUCC which is a few years away)

I would prefer to get the individual selections area sorted before tackling
this, but if you have ideas on this please post them to the list – that’s what
it is there for.

Rachel

There are 3 key areas when it comes to international representation which I
want to address
1. Individual Selection
2. Club Selection
3. Funding from UPC

This email deals primarily with the first area: (more to come on the other two)

The first area has been an issue since NZ started sending teams to
international tournaments. How do we select a team with a process which is
defensible and keeps people happy, even if they don’t get selected?

I think this is the most important issue to get sorted out, I would love to
have by the end of this year a process established which outlines, amongst
other things;
- Which tournaments we would select for
- Who is eligible for selections
- How selectors are chosen
- What criteria is used for selections

I could sit down and write a policy that I thought was great and would solve
all the problems of the past but then next year someone else could come in and
change it. So my goal with any procedures which are put in place is that they
have the support of the community so people do not want or need to change them
every five minutes. There is little point to developing procedures if people
don’t want to work within them.

This is definitely the biggest and most controversial of the areas I want to
address and will take the longest to get sorted out. Please remember this is a
discussion list and while it’s great people want to sit in on conversations it
is very difficult to know what people are thinking unless they tell us. So I’ll
throw some of my thoughts regarding this issue out over the next few days, and
hope to get some comments & criticisms flowing. I’d also like to remind people
that Shane has written some thoughts surrounding this, you can read them here
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/upc-
international/files/intl_thoughts_by_shanev.doc

Stay tuned..

Rachel

UPC International Coordinator

My thoughts..

1. I think you should set tentative dates yourself and then let those
bidding object - if their objections are legitimate then consider moving no
more than 2 weekends away from the original scheduled date. You have just as
much idea about what tournaments are being scheduled as the NZFDA does -
i.e. there is no firm schedule at the moment - that's your job :)

I would like to see a serious (i.e. competitive) Open/Womens tournament
included in the calendar as well. I think earlier in the season would be
better.

Paul Northwood (paul@...) is the man to talk to about golf tournament
dates (can also check the NZFDA website tournaments page).

2. Agree in principal with your thoughts about this. My main concern
relating to the tour/open is the premise of the Open. I see little point
with us inviting international teams to the Open if it is not our premier
competition - we do not increase our chances to beat Australia (for example)
and I think it is just rude to expect them to play teams that have just been
thrown together for the event. I would prefer to see the Open as the Tour
Final as such but where (as suggested) all teams play each other rather then
a tiered system.

3. This to me means that we have all TDs (social & competitive) tournaments
in contact with the UPC to ensure no clashes of dates (i.e. an actual
coordinated calendar). Also liaising on issues relating to sanctioned
tournaments and any other issues TDs may have. We already have some
guidelines on running tournaments but to make these more available to TDs
and to make sure they cover everything (I am happy to work on these).
Basically so that all TDs know who the first point of contact is - then you
can delegate the queries or deal with them yourself.

My preliminary thoughts.
Cheers
Rachel

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin & Vicki Thirkell [mailto:vicki.justin@...]
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2002 10:03 p.m.
To: upc-international@yahoogroups.com; upc@...
Subject: [upc] UPC tournaments - kicking things off


Hi everyone,

Sorry for the delay in getting the dialog started - hope you are still keen
to contribute to the UPC tournaments planning.  I am new to this role of
coordinating the UPC tournaments portfolio and I haven't previously had any
part in the overseeing of tournaments but I do have some new ideas about the
way tournaments could be organised and structured that I hope will be of
interest to others.

So, in the interests of kicking things off quickly here are the 3 targets
(taken straight out of the UPC guidelines) that are supposed to be met:

The National Tournament Coordinator is responsible for
1) Ensuring that all events are distributed evenly and with minimal clashes
throughout the season
2) Maintaining the National competitive tournament system and reviewing and
adjusting anything as necessary.
3) Liaison with Tournament Directors at all level of tournaments


Here is how I plan to address these targets (please add your suggestions to
this forum):

1) Is it better to set tournament dates ourselves and then ask for bids to
host them or is it better to see who is interested first and then fit the
schedules around them?  Or should I first ask the NZFDA list for what and
when tournaments are being planned?
Whatever the decision, I would like to start the process of
scheduling/asking for bids at the end of next week (17th May) so the
calendar is set well in advance.  If there seems to be no consensus either
way then I will set a tournament calendar myself and ask for bids/wait for
complaints =>.
At least to start with, are there any other tournaments known of besides the
following;
	 Brass Monkey
	 Indoor Nationals
	 Star Wars
	 Taupo Hat
	 Tour 1
	 Tour 2
	 Tour 3
	 NZ Open
	 Nelson Beach
And who is the best person to contact from Disc Golf to check their
calendar?

2) My thoughts on the Tour/NZ Open:
The tour is great - provides a set of goals to work towards through the
summer, gives teams something to play for that extends beyond just one
weekend and makes sure major tournaments are held over different
geographical areas.  I have two concerns -
a) Compared to a few years ago, the amount of game time in a weekend is
considerably less.  What used to be a guaranteed 3 or 4 games x 1 1/2 to 2
hours is now 3 (or occasionally just 2) games x 1 1/4 hours.  With the high
cost of travelling to and relative infrequency (compared to Europe, North
America) of tournaments in NZ, I think we should be aiming to provide a
couple of full days of games at each tour event.  Certainly we could be
starting earlier (like game on at 9am - Aussie Nats) than we do and we (the
UPC) could be taking a more active interest in the draw to ensure a decent
number of games for all teams on both days.  It may make the draw more
difficult but I think it would make tournament weekends more rewarding for
all the travel and training that is put in.  Your thoughts?
b) There seem to be a higher proportion of one-sided games at tour event and
the NZ open than there have been in previous years.  In addition, tour
results from last season seem to place most teams quite easily in either an
'upper' tier or a 'lower' tier.  Though I have not have any time to work
further on this, I would like to pursue the possibility of a two-tier draw
for each tour event and a single tier draw for the NZ Open.  This would mean
that for example, in a 8 team tour event weekend you could have 4 teams in
each tier who would play each of the other teams in their tier twice over
two days.  Or in a 10 team tour event you could have a round robin within
your tier and then two playoff games.  Points would be accumulated over the
tour as a whole and the winner would have the highest aggregate at the end
(just like the English Premier League).  The NZ Open would then be exactly
that - open to everyone to have a go (just like the FA Cup).  There are many
issues to sort through first but I think the idea has merit enough to
discuss further.  More thoughts to come....

3) I guess this relates to having more input into tournament draws and
timetables to ensure lots of game time for all.  Any more to it than this?


Enough from me - what are your thoughts?

Thanks

Justin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: upc-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: upc-help@...

Morning all

I'm with J here on a couple of things, 1st we need to sort out the tour
so that it becomes a competitive weekend of ultimate for all teams.
Having an upper and lower tier may be the best way of doing this, this
could fix both the number of games we play and turn almost ever game we
play a full on game of ultimate (which can only be win win)
J if you need a hand putting something together I'm more than happy to
help

We do need to sort this out sooner rather than later so the clubs in NZ
know what the summer holds and they can start planning now

later

pegs


Hi everyone,

Sorry for the delay in getting the dialog started - hope you are still
keen
to contribute to the UPC tournaments planning.  I am new to this role
of
coordinating the UPC tournaments portfolio and I haven't previously had
any
part in the overseeing of tournaments but I do have some new ideas
about the
way tournaments could be organised and structured that I hope will be
of
interest to others.

So, in the interests of kicking things off quickly here are the 3
targets
(taken straight out of the UPC guidelines) that are supposed to be
met:

The National Tournament Coordinator is responsible for
1) Ensuring that all events are distributed evenly and with minimal
clashes
throughout the season
2) Maintaining the National competitive tournament system and
reviewing and
adjusting anything as necessary.
3) Liaison with Tournament Directors at all level of tournaments


Here is how I plan to address these targets (please add your
suggestions to
this forum):

1) Is it better to set tournament dates ourselves and then ask for
bids to
host them or is it better to see who is interested first and then fit
the
schedules around them?  Or should I first ask the NZFDA list for what
and
when tournaments are being planned?
Whatever the decision, I would like to start the process of
scheduling/asking for bids at the end of next week (17th May) so the
calendar is set well in advance.  If there seems to be no consensus
either
way then I will set a tournament calendar myself and ask for bids/wait
for
complaints =>.
At least to start with, are there any other tournaments known of
besides the
following;
	 Brass Monkey
	 Indoor Nationals
	 Star Wars
	 Taupo Hat
	 Tour 1
	 Tour 2
	 Tour 3
	 NZ Open
	 Nelson Beach
And who is the best person to contact from Disc Golf to check their
calendar?

2) My thoughts on the Tour/NZ Open:
The tour is great - provides a set of goals to work towards through
the
summer, gives teams something to play for that extends beyond just one
weekend and makes sure major tournaments are held over different
geographical areas.  I have two concerns -
a) Compared to a few years ago, the amount of game time in a weekend
is
considerably less.  What used to be a guaranteed 3 or 4 games x 1 1/2
to 2
hours is now 3 (or occasionally just 2) games x 1 1/4 hours.  With the
high
cost of travelling to and relative infrequency (compared to Europe,
North
America) of tournaments in NZ, I think we should be aiming to provide
a
couple of full days of games at each tour event.  Certainly we could
be
starting earlier (like game on at 9am - Aussie Nats) than we do and we
(the
UPC) could be taking a more active interest in the draw to ensure a
decent
number of games for all teams on both days.  It may make the draw more
difficult but I think it would make tournament weekends more rewarding
for
all the travel and training that is put in.  Your thoughts?
b) There seem to be a higher proportion of one-sided games at tour
event and
the NZ open than there have been in previous years.  In addition, tour
results from last season seem to place most teams quite easily in
either an
'upper' tier or a 'lower' tier.  Though I have not have any time to
work
further on this, I would like to pursue the possibility of a two-tier
draw
for each tour event and a single tier draw for the NZ Open.  This would
mean
that for example, in a 8 team tour event weekend you could have 4 teams
in
each tier who would play each of the other teams in their tier twice
over
two days.  Or in a 10 team tour event you could have a round robin
within
your tier and then two playoff games.  Points would be accumulated over
the
tour as a whole and the winner would have the highest aggregate at the
end
(just like the English Premier League).  The NZ Open would then be
exactly
that - open to everyone to have a go (just like the FA Cup).  There are
many
issues to sort through first but I think the idea has merit enough to
discuss further.  More thoughts to come....

3) I guess this relates to having more input into tournament draws
and
timetables to ensure lots of game time for all.  Any more to it than
this?


Enough from me - what are your thoughts?

Thanks

Justin

Hi folks

To get people thinking on the topic I have uploaded a document
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/upc-international/files/) which was written by
Shane Vuletich when he was International Coordinator a couple of years ago. I
think it covers most of the things I want to get sorted out, so it would be a
good idea if people gave that a read.

I'll be pulling together a plan of attack for this area over the next couple of
weeks so more coming soon.

Cheers
Rachel