>Yeah, your funny - but addressing the half that was not in jest.
My point was that many players that were around for "the roots" of
Ultimate didn't want the sport to get any bigger, because they liked the
fact that they personally knew each and every person that played the
game. We're way beyond that now. Ultimate is way more fun now than it was
18 years ago.
Also, if the roots of Ultimate mean queueing for cold showers and having
to play on a hillside, then as Dave said, bring on the sponsors and the
TV cameras. :-)
Many of the founders of our sport didn't have any particular vision -
they just liked to smoke a lot of dope, drive around the country and
throw frisbees with their mates.
>
>I am not saying anything against "improved organisation and increased
>public awareness". However, the easiest way to grow the sport is not
>through mass media, but from within the sport.
Absolutely agreed. I just thought your list of "statements" seemed to
suggest that being more organised, and having an eye on the sport's
public image, were bad things.
>Increasing the number of
>growth centres by supporting the fledgling teams,
Yes
>producing a record of
>players so that players without a team can find one (lots are lost after
>leaving university),
I think we lose them because it gets harder to find a team to play for
once you leave University. Mad keen players will sort themselves out when
they graduate. But many others find that new aspects of their life take
priority, to the exclusion of Ultimate (certainly happened to me).
Hopefully we'd automatically keep track of players who wanted to carry on
playing via the BUA membership system. As you say, what we could do with
is more support for fledgling teams, and a wider range of types of
tournament. I still think city leagues have a lot going for them in terms
of developing the sport. Which reminds me, I'd better get on with London
League 2001...!
>keeping the cost down, continuing to make the sport
>attractive for those who play.
Frequently these two do not go hand in hand.
>If we do this then ultimate growth
>should be exponential, as its growth will depend largely on its existing
>population.
This assumes no drop-out rate. Outside of student Ultimate, there aren't
any mechanisms bringing significant numbers of new players into the
sport. And the biggest drop-out rate is probably also from students after
graduation. I imagine there's a lot of "churn" in the player base around
the 18-22 age range, but above say 25 it gets a bit stagnant. Improved
growth depends on either:
i) keeping students in the sport after they leave University
ii) promoting the sport outside of the student world
We could always do both. But who's going to do the work?
>
>Incidently, I mentioned some of these growth issues last year and we
>still haven't got a register for players, the cost of ultimate is about
>to go up, and I haven't seen Stirling or Strathclyde at any tournaments
>this year. So where is the "improved organisation".
Good question. I'm sure Ben's working on it, though key to the whole
issue is who's going to volunteer to be part of that organisation?
Paul
