Dave said: > Do they stifle the development of Ultimate? No. I disagree. Good players not playing with their local teams is extremely damaging to those local teams. Some might describe them as "feeder" clubs. Why shouldn't they grow to become a big club in their own right? Why should they have to put in all the hard work year after year to see their most promising players snatched away by non-geo teams?
> Do they provide a necessary function? Yes. What exactly is it? If teams want to play with their mates (see below) then fine, fair enough, but the UKU shouldn't allow them to get the benefits that geo clubs should have. The existing benefits are so small as to provide no incentive for teams to go geo... something I think should be changed. > Are they really more likely to win the Tour than a geo team? No. I agree with you but my point isn't so much aimed at the winners of the Tour as the clubs lower down who suffer more from the exploits of non-geo clubs. "Or is this really about teams whining that sometimes they dont manage to persuade people in their catchment area to play for them?" The problem being that if there is a more attractive offer, such as forming a super team with a split populace, then local teams *will* be stifled. How exactly do you persuade a player to play for you? Often incentives such as Euro/World clubs are the deciding factor, so removing those privileges from non-geo teams will force those teams to rethink their approach. >Another 2 arbitrary rulings to replace the arbitrary rulings that are > already there then? I was simply trying to acknowledge that a 40 mile radius might not be sufficient in the less populated areas. If you want to drop to 0 players outside that area that's fine by me. The point was trying to impose tighter restrictions, rather than the existing ones which basically do nothing. >Are there really > geo teams out there that would like to be handed the Tour because another > team gets deducted points for having players who like to play with their > mates? If people want to play with their mates then that's fine. Of course they can. But I don't see why they should be allowed to represent the UK, win National titles or the like. There are teams out there that put a lot of time and effort into player development; it is they who deserve the rewards, not the super teams. >A while ago the geo rule was invented for a very specific reason which no longer applies Perhaps you'd like to let us know what that was (I for one have only been involved in this sport for 4 years so this might have been before I started), and why is it no longer applicable. >I think it is right for the UKUA to encourage the growth of the sport, and >encouraging geo teams is great but the solution is not to penalise others, >rather it's to support regional development If you have an alternative idea for regional development then I'm all ears. What is yours? I think teams need to take a responsibility for the development of local players. Let's start looking at the big picture, and I mean 5-10 years down the line. Rather than having one teams stacked with all the best players, that talent will be split amongst several teams. If teams are basically forced to take on local players if they want to win the big silverware and compete abroad, then that means more youngsters being coached by the best players. It also means that superstars will be able to put something into their local teams; again, this helps that team out. In a few years you'll have a lot of players who have had access to the quality coaching that most never get exposure to, the result being *real* competition across the board. The UKU Coaching scheme is a step forward but it's too small, and giving someone a book and a weekend course doesn't make them a good coach if they don't have the experience to back it up. The junior scene is becoming bigger and bigger which is fantastic; now we need to bring those players up through the ranks of their local teams where they should also have access to good coaching every week. Time and time again, good talented young players are lured to bigger teams that they live many miles away from because those teams can offer them big incentives (play at a higher level, go to Euros, Worlds etc). This approach prevents the local teams they pull their players from from improving because they are continually removing their best players, and still get the privilege of representing their nation. Am I the only person who thinks that approach is a negative one? If you take away some of those incentives then it is more likely that teams will recruit local players (who might not be as good) over people from a long way away. Those people will stay with their local team, which evens things up. Then you actually get competition instead of some bunch of ringers crushing the teams that helped to form them in the first place. And in the longer term, all clubs will benefit. Of course if they choose to play as non-geo then they can; so anyone can play for any team you like. But they can't get the benefits that a geo team can, and the distinction between geo and non-geo needs to increase dramatically to force the hand of those who only think about themselves. Brummie On 4/6/06, David Grayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or an alternative view... > > > - you should always be able to play for your nearest Tour team (if > >you're from the UK or Ireland), regardless of distance (this may > >already be the case) > > What if they dont want you? Are clubs required to rostor all players > nearest them? Or is this really about teams whining that sometimes they > dont manage to persuade people in their catchment area to play for them? > > > - bigger margins for Scottish/Irish teams (possibly) > > - max of 1 player from outside this area. (With the ability to have > >a guest, this makes 2) > > Another 2 arbitrary rulings to replace the arbitrary rulings that are > already there then? > > > - students can register from either uni or home address (this may > >already be the case) > > This was always the case. > > > - penalties for non-geo clubs by deducting (serious amounts of) > >points from Tour results. Deductions made at the end of the season so > >as to not to have an impact on seedings during the course of the Tour, > >but to prevent non-geo teams from having a realistic shot at winning > >Tour, lower their seeding for Nationals > > - non-geo teams should not be able to qualify for international > >tournaments such as EUCC, EUCS, WUCC > > Can I ask a question? What is so awful about non-geo teams? > > Do they stifle the development of Ultimate? No. > Do they provide a necessary function? Yes. > Are they really more likely to win the Tour than a geo team? No. > > So what is this geo crap all about? I just dont get it. Are there really > geo teams out there that would like to be handed the Tour because another > team gets deducted points for having players who like to play with their > mates? > > A while ago the geo rule was invented for a very specific reason which no > longer applies. The only purpose it now serves is to demonise certain teams > for no good reason. Personally I have no problem with them at all. > > I think it is right for the UKUA to encourage the growth of the sport, and > encouraging geo teams is great but the solution is not to penalise others, > rather it's to support regional development. Lets have an organisation > that is positive rather than negative. > > Rant over. > > Dave. > LLL. Geo. But I wouldnt be if they were all a bunch of > peckers. Fortunately fewer than 5 of them are more than 75% pecker so its > officially ok though. > > > > > >If the UKU is serious about its claims of promoting geo clubs then > >some changes should be made, although not necessarily those mentioned > >above. > > > >Comments welcome... > > > >Brummie > > > >On 4/6/06, Aura Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hmm, just took a look at the Tour rules and noticed some big differences > > > between last year's rules and this year's rules. Anyone else notice the > > > same? > > > > > > I'll give you a clue: there is no mention of Geo teams. > > > > > > Could we please get an explanation as to why these rules have been removed > > > and how this decision was reached? > > > > > > Aura > > > Iceni/IF > > > __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
