With Socal Warmup starting up in less than 24 hours, it is time for me to finally return to this blog and the college season. I had originally planned on writing extensively about the mixed division since I was playing with LA Metro this year. I assumed some of the responsibilities of leadership, and I needed some time away from writing about Ultimate.
My team had a fantastic run to Nationals, and we finished 11th in Sarasota. Short of what we were hoping for, but all in all, we had a great season and set the bar higher for Metro and LA Ultimate as a whole. On a personal note, I ended an abysmal streak of 15 Nationals losses in a row (playing with Monster in 2006 and coaching USC this year) with a win over TAU in pool play. The next hurdle is to get to quarterfinals and beyond.
I'll write more about USC in an upcoming preview of the Southwest region, but I feel very good about our chances this year. The bulk of last year's team remains intact and reaching semifinals at Sean Ryan (despite the absence of several key players) bodes really well for the Hellions.
I'm also planning to post some thoughts about how to improve the women's college division as a whole and take a look at some of the hot topics for the 2010 season. If anyone out there is interested in contributing, drop me a line at frho@sbcglobal.net.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The College Championships - Q&A with UPenn Coach Marc Stachowski (Part 2 of 2)
FJR: Having qualified for pre-quarters after pool play, you had exceeded the expectations of outsiders (including myself). The wins over UNC and Iowa State were solid wins but what came next was something that nobody could have anticipated. The win over Carleton eliminated any doubts about the strength of your squad, and turned Venus into the story of the tourney. Talk about the lead-up to the Carleton game and the game itself. Stachowski: If we made the pre-quarters we'd match up with the winner of the Carleton vs. UNCW pool game. I was hoping it would be UNCW since I had watched them play a little bit and thought they were close to UNC in style and talent. I figured that could be a good way to encourage our team to pull off another upset. Unfortunately, Carleton beat UNCW 15-11. And since that game was happening at the same time as the Stanford/UNC game, I didn't even get to watch Carleton play. Uh oh.
So, on the minus side it looked like Carleton was playing some really good ultimate. On the plus side, I figured we'd be a little more rested since our last game of the day was over two hours before Carleton's... and also since we played a completely open rotation against Stanford to try to preserve our top players for later.
During our warmup after a five hour break, we looked a bit lethargic. Carleton was looking very efficient and sharp doing their warmup drills and I noticed with some concern that they were a very tall team. My message was the same as any other game during the series... play our game... keep a vocal involved sideline. As the game got underway we started out sluggishly but the mental toughness was there. We were making good decisions and working the disc really well and not panicking after they had a couple of monster skies by their tall receivers. We slowly got a grip on the game and took half 8-7.
During half time we seemed to find our second wind and came out very energized... running off 4-5 straight against a tired looking Carleton. When Katie Poulos, a third year player and super steady cutter and defender, made her first career layout grab on a disc that looked like nobody would get to, it was good for the 14th goal and the Penn sideline erupted. A turnover and a few throws later, Opi pointed to a corner of the endzone and Kate Anthony put it there... with Opi out-jumping a taller defender for the final goal. And just like that, we were suddenly in the quarterfinals of Nationals. And unbelievably, another goal change: "Lets make semis!"
FJR: Beating UNC and Carleton was one thing. Getting to the quarterfinals was amazing. But challenging Washington Element, a team that was on everyone's short list to win the title, took Venus from this year's Cinderella to one of the great underdogs in Ultimate history. How were you able to contend with a juggernaut like Element?
Stachowski: Honestly, I felt pretty good about our chances against Washington. We had been doing a great job of focusing on our own game the entire weekend and with a good night's rest I thought we'd be ready to pull off yet another upset. The message to the team was basically: nobody expected us to be here... everyone will be pulling for the underdog... just get out there and show everyone what we're made of and leave it all on the field.
As Penn warmed up up before the game I could tell it would be a much harder contest than anything we'd played in all year. Not only because of our opponent, but also because of the heat. I felt pretty confident that our top 9 could match up well with any other 9 at the tournament, but going against a team so deep and talented I was worried that we'd have fatigue problems towards the end of the game. Still, the girls had shown an incredible amount of fortitude so far... maybe there was another miracle to be had.
And for a while there, I really thought we were going to pull it off. At one point in the first half, we were making huge plays
everywhere... Opi got a huge deflection D then tore downfield for the score to make it 6-3. 6-3!! At that point, a girl from Pitt (we had fantastic support from players from all over the ME all weekend... Pitt, Penn State, Maryland, Cornell) stopped me on the sideline and said something like "Doc, what is going on here?" I shook my head and said "I don't know." I really didn't know. The euphoria of that early lead... the energy and excitement of the Penn sideline... the energy and buzz from the crowd... our team of underdogs playing their hearts out and taking it to the number 2 team in the nation... just an
amazing feeling. That's probably my favorite moment of the entire tournament.
Unfortunately, Washington was able to apply relentless pressure on both offense and defense and the chilly decisions we were making all weekend started thawing quickly. A couple of uncharacteristic drops... and turfed throw here and there... and suddenly it was 7-7. That focus that had been so sharp all weekend was showing some wear.
Still, we took half 8-7 and we were feeling very upbeat about our chances. But the Washington pressure was just too much for us and you could see our energy output dropping dramatically. We traded until about 10-10 or so, then Washington broke us twice I think. We traded again to 12-13 and Washington finished us off with two in a row. We'd come within 3 points of attaining a goal that we would never have thought possible just a few weeks beforehand. Our season was over.
FJR: Now that the 2009 season is over, what are your prospects going into next year?
Stachowski: It's hard to say what our prospects are for next year. We are losing Raha Mozaffari (three time all-region), Whitney Viets (captain, all-region, Callahan nominee), Rachel Shah (captain), and Kate Anthony. Basically, Raha, Kate and Whitney played every point of every victory and the quarters loss. And Rachel played every D point as a defensive handler and had zero turnovers. That's a lot of ultimate skill and leadership to have to replace.
On the other hand, to say that our remaining veterans and rookies have been galvanized by this whole incredible experience is an understatement. Every one of our rookies has signed up for a local league, and/or has written me for things to work on over the summer, and on and on. Hopefully some of the rookies will make good progress over the summer and come back with a purpose. We have a bunch of determined vets who are ready to step up and have their turn as well.
So, with some progress there and another good rookie class... maybe a transfer or two... maybe some hotshot HS player will read our story and decide to go to Penn to be part of our program... who knows?
What I can say is that by the time Sectionals 2010 rolls around, we'll come in with a low RRI but full of fire, determination, discipline and heart... and we'll be gunning for another trip to Nationals... playing our game... one point at a time.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The College Championships - Q&A with UPenn Coach Marc Stachowski (Part 1 of 2)
Lazy sportswriters have relied on finding a team to slap with the Cinderella label as a default storyline for some time now. I am certainly not above being lazy, but UPenn's performance over Memorial Day truly fits the bill and is one of the more remarkable runs in recent memory. In the short time that UPA has been maintaining scores on their score reporter, the only other run that can compete with what UPenn did this year is Northwest's 2007 performance that nearly landed them in the semifinals.
Coming into the tourney as the 20th seed, Venus more than justified the UPA's decision to expand the field to 20 teams this year. What they did this year will undoubtedly inspire future upset-minded teams to do the unthinkable and give fans a lot to chat about.
I emailed Marc 'Doc' Stachowski, the head coach of UPenn Venus, about their run to get a firsthand account of their successful showing at the College Championships. In his third year as head coach, Stachowski was recognized as the Metro East's coach of the year. As a player, Doc has qualified for mixed Nationals five times, twice with Donkey Bomb and is currently on a three-year run with AMP.
-----
FJR: Before we get to the big run in Columbus, how did you and the team leadership prepare for the College Series?
Stachowski: Sunday at sectionals was the first time all season that our entire team was on the field for a game. Our 5th year player and main handler, Raha Mozaffari, is in dental school and was barely able to make it to any tourneys at all this season. That meant a couple of things: 1. One of our main cutters, Whitney Viets, had to handle all year in Raha's place. 2. As a result of that, and the fact that I couldn't care less about things like RRI, we were a complete unknown even to our regional rivals and maybe even to ourselves.
Regardless, the mantra for our team is always "play our game". We talk a lot about making high percentage plays and factoring risk vs. reward in decision making and our players really bought into those concepts. So heading into regionals, it was all about making sure we were only thinking about the next point, and concentrating on playing our game. The only time we were rattled out of our game was in the semi vs. Maryland where they blew us out 15-4. As lopsided as that sounds, I felt like we were in every point and that most of our turnovers were mental mistakes. Fortunately, we had a great circle after that game and team captain Whitney Viets, who had a huge huge effect on team morale with her speeches, was able to rally the troops and leave everyone feeling confident and upbeat about the following day. "Three more!", was the cheer.
FJR: After a surprising upset win over Maryland (an underrated team who placed 11th at the 2008 College Championships), how did you keep the team motivated going into Nationals?
Stachowski: Prepping for Nationals was... interesting. Chaos, is probably a better word for it. As it turns out, the 2 weeks after regionals were finals weeks for everyone. And then school let out the week before Nationals. So basically, we had 1 or 2 practices between Regionals and Nationals... both of which were thinly attended. Naturally, our team was completely euphoric about our dramatic win vs. Maryland, and to be honest I was a little worried that we'd settle for just having made nationals. I basically told the team that making it wasn't enough: the whole nation thought we were lucky to be there... thought we didn't deserve our spot... nobody was giving us any respect. I told them we needed to go to Columbus and earn our respect one point at a time... with our game... the way we play it... our huge and active sideline... the whole works. If we won some games... so be it... but either way, we'd be able to hold our heads high if we just showed teams we could compete with them.
FJR: What were you and your team's expectations going into Nationals?
Stachowski: I'm a big believer in setting team goals. Our goal for every season I've coached (this was my third year) has been to play our game throughout the series... one point at a time... and ultimately make it to Nationals. So qualifying for Nationals at all would make our season a huge success.
Now that we had actually attained our goal, I had no idea what would happen next. This was the first Nationals appearance for Venus in 13 years. That, combined with the fact that we hadn't faced any other nationals qualifier left me with a lot of uncertainty as to where we'd ultimately place. I was encouraged by the fact that we had beaten Pitt, who had beaten NC a couple of times during the regular season. But beyond that, i had no idea what would happen or how good the competition would be... other than really good.
When the seeds and schedules came out it definitely seemed like we could make a run at pre-quarters if we could pull a couple of upsets... so that became our new goal: "Make pre-quarters!" We would play the 9 (NC) on Friday morning, then the 4 (Ottawa) on Friday afternoon. Then Saturday we had the 16 (Iowa St.) in the morning, and the 5 (Stanford) right after that... with a potential pre-quarters game in the evening. So, we planned to go all out for the two morning games... and if we won, we'd sub deep into our roster for the games against the 4 and the 5 to rest our starters for the potential pre-quarter matchup. That was our overall tourney strategy going in.
FJR: Opening the tourney with a win over UNC was the first surprise of the tourney and obviously huge for your team's confidence. What were the keys to winning against UNC?
Stachowski: Judging from the information we got from fellow ME teams that had faced UNC and/or had seen them play I thought we'd match up pretty well with them. The game plan going in was to poach the lane every time their main thrower Leila Tunnell had the disc, force her to give it to another handler (preferably on force side sideline) and then completely deny a reset back to her. Obviously, you can't keep the disc out of the hands of a player like Tunnell all the time, but I liked the pressure we were applying and the coverage we had downfield. I felt like we did a great job of coming out strong on D and mixing in our break mark/short game with our long shots on O.
Unfortunately one of the turning points in the game was a bad injury to one of UNC's main defenders, Kaitlin Baden. There was a long throw and Kaitlin was going stride for stride with Octavia "Opi" Payne on Penn. Both made a bid for the disc but Opi landed on Kaitlin in an awkward tangle and the play resulted in a torn ACL for Kaitlin. Seeing any player go down to that kind of injury is deflating to both teams. Nobody wants to see another player get hurt... and be reminded just how random and easy it is to be injured yourself. Without question and understandably, UNC was affected more. Kaitlin, along with her teammates had been doing a nice job covering Penn's main cutters Opi and Whitney. With her out, I feel like Penn gained a bit
of an edge both on the field and psychologically, and we were able to pull away in the second half.
I have to say a couple of things about UNC: I have to admit i groaned a little when i saw that we'd play them. Not only because they're good, but also because of that bad rap that teams from North Carolina get... "too intense"... "dirty players"... etc. Well i'm here to say that UNC was the MOST spirited team we played at Nationals. Our game was hard fought, physical, and completely fair. There were very few calls and almost all of them were uncontested. There was no "working" the rules, or ticky tack calls on bumps that had nothing to do with the play. Just ultimate being played at a high level with exciting plays everywhere. The coaches, Lindsey Hack and Brian Dobyns are class acts and their team is a reflection of them. Intense? YES! Fair? Definitely. Spirited? Unquestionably.
Also, in a display of courage that says all you need to know about the women that play this game, when I went to the sideline between one of the points in the UNC/Penn game to seek out Kaitlin Baden and offer my sympathies, she looked up from her chair, huge ice pack on her knee, shrugged, smiled gamely and said simply: "It happens." What a baller. Seriously Kaitlin, my hat is off to you. Come back strong!
FJR: After the upset win, UPenn lost to Ottawa, took care of business against Iowa State and then lost by a huge margin against Stanford, giving them a 2-2 record after pool play. UNC still had a chance to knock Venus out of the pre-quarters with a win over Stanford. Can you describe the anxiety of watching the UNC/Stanford game (knowing that UNC winning would drop you out of the pre-quarters)?
Stachowski: At that point in the tournament, our die was already cast. We had already accomplished everything we wanted to do at Nationals: Upset some teams, get some respect, and get everyone on our huge roster [FJR note: 28 players!] into a game. Of course I wanted us to continue on to pre-quarters but I was satisfied that we had done all we could to put ourselves in a good position. The rest was up to Stanford... and they managed to gut out a huge comeback win against a determined UNC team. With the Stanford win guaranteeing our appearance in the pre-quarter game, another goal had been attained. Time to reset it again: "Lets make quarters!"
Coming into the tourney as the 20th seed, Venus more than justified the UPA's decision to expand the field to 20 teams this year. What they did this year will undoubtedly inspire future upset-minded teams to do the unthinkable and give fans a lot to chat about.
I emailed Marc 'Doc' Stachowski, the head coach of UPenn Venus, about their run to get a firsthand account of their successful showing at the College Championships. In his third year as head coach, Stachowski was recognized as the Metro East's coach of the year. As a player, Doc has qualified for mixed Nationals five times, twice with Donkey Bomb and is currently on a three-year run with AMP.
-----
FJR: Before we get to the big run in Columbus, how did you and the team leadership prepare for the College Series?
Stachowski: Sunday at sectionals was the first time all season that our entire team was on the field for a game. Our 5th year player and main handler, Raha Mozaffari, is in dental school and was barely able to make it to any tourneys at all this season. That meant a couple of things: 1. One of our main cutters, Whitney Viets, had to handle all year in Raha's place. 2. As a result of that, and the fact that I couldn't care less about things like RRI, we were a complete unknown even to our regional rivals and maybe even to ourselves.
Regardless, the mantra for our team is always "play our game". We talk a lot about making high percentage plays and factoring risk vs. reward in decision making and our players really bought into those concepts. So heading into regionals, it was all about making sure we were only thinking about the next point, and concentrating on playing our game. The only time we were rattled out of our game was in the semi vs. Maryland where they blew us out 15-4. As lopsided as that sounds, I felt like we were in every point and that most of our turnovers were mental mistakes. Fortunately, we had a great circle after that game and team captain Whitney Viets, who had a huge huge effect on team morale with her speeches, was able to rally the troops and leave everyone feeling confident and upbeat about the following day. "Three more!", was the cheer.
FJR: After a surprising upset win over Maryland (an underrated team who placed 11th at the 2008 College Championships), how did you keep the team motivated going into Nationals?
Stachowski: Prepping for Nationals was... interesting. Chaos, is probably a better word for it. As it turns out, the 2 weeks after regionals were finals weeks for everyone. And then school let out the week before Nationals. So basically, we had 1 or 2 practices between Regionals and Nationals... both of which were thinly attended. Naturally, our team was completely euphoric about our dramatic win vs. Maryland, and to be honest I was a little worried that we'd settle for just having made nationals. I basically told the team that making it wasn't enough: the whole nation thought we were lucky to be there... thought we didn't deserve our spot... nobody was giving us any respect. I told them we needed to go to Columbus and earn our respect one point at a time... with our game... the way we play it... our huge and active sideline... the whole works. If we won some games... so be it... but either way, we'd be able to hold our heads high if we just showed teams we could compete with them.
FJR: What were you and your team's expectations going into Nationals?
Stachowski: I'm a big believer in setting team goals. Our goal for every season I've coached (this was my third year) has been to play our game throughout the series... one point at a time... and ultimately make it to Nationals. So qualifying for Nationals at all would make our season a huge success.
Now that we had actually attained our goal, I had no idea what would happen next. This was the first Nationals appearance for Venus in 13 years. That, combined with the fact that we hadn't faced any other nationals qualifier left me with a lot of uncertainty as to where we'd ultimately place. I was encouraged by the fact that we had beaten Pitt, who had beaten NC a couple of times during the regular season. But beyond that, i had no idea what would happen or how good the competition would be... other than really good.
When the seeds and schedules came out it definitely seemed like we could make a run at pre-quarters if we could pull a couple of upsets... so that became our new goal: "Make pre-quarters!" We would play the 9 (NC) on Friday morning, then the 4 (Ottawa) on Friday afternoon. Then Saturday we had the 16 (Iowa St.) in the morning, and the 5 (Stanford) right after that... with a potential pre-quarters game in the evening. So, we planned to go all out for the two morning games... and if we won, we'd sub deep into our roster for the games against the 4 and the 5 to rest our starters for the potential pre-quarter matchup. That was our overall tourney strategy going in.
FJR: Opening the tourney with a win over UNC was the first surprise of the tourney and obviously huge for your team's confidence. What were the keys to winning against UNC?
Stachowski: Judging from the information we got from fellow ME teams that had faced UNC and/or had seen them play I thought we'd match up pretty well with them. The game plan going in was to poach the lane every time their main thrower Leila Tunnell had the disc, force her to give it to another handler (preferably on force side sideline) and then completely deny a reset back to her. Obviously, you can't keep the disc out of the hands of a player like Tunnell all the time, but I liked the pressure we were applying and the coverage we had downfield. I felt like we did a great job of coming out strong on D and mixing in our break mark/short game with our long shots on O.
Unfortunately one of the turning points in the game was a bad injury to one of UNC's main defenders, Kaitlin Baden. There was a long throw and Kaitlin was going stride for stride with Octavia "Opi" Payne on Penn. Both made a bid for the disc but Opi landed on Kaitlin in an awkward tangle and the play resulted in a torn ACL for Kaitlin. Seeing any player go down to that kind of injury is deflating to both teams. Nobody wants to see another player get hurt... and be reminded just how random and easy it is to be injured yourself. Without question and understandably, UNC was affected more. Kaitlin, along with her teammates had been doing a nice job covering Penn's main cutters Opi and Whitney. With her out, I feel like Penn gained a bit
of an edge both on the field and psychologically, and we were able to pull away in the second half.
I have to say a couple of things about UNC: I have to admit i groaned a little when i saw that we'd play them. Not only because they're good, but also because of that bad rap that teams from North Carolina get... "too intense"... "dirty players"... etc. Well i'm here to say that UNC was the MOST spirited team we played at Nationals. Our game was hard fought, physical, and completely fair. There were very few calls and almost all of them were uncontested. There was no "working" the rules, or ticky tack calls on bumps that had nothing to do with the play. Just ultimate being played at a high level with exciting plays everywhere. The coaches, Lindsey Hack and Brian Dobyns are class acts and their team is a reflection of them. Intense? YES! Fair? Definitely. Spirited? Unquestionably.
Also, in a display of courage that says all you need to know about the women that play this game, when I went to the sideline between one of the points in the UNC/Penn game to seek out Kaitlin Baden and offer my sympathies, she looked up from her chair, huge ice pack on her knee, shrugged, smiled gamely and said simply: "It happens." What a baller. Seriously Kaitlin, my hat is off to you. Come back strong!
FJR: After the upset win, UPenn lost to Ottawa, took care of business against Iowa State and then lost by a huge margin against Stanford, giving them a 2-2 record after pool play. UNC still had a chance to knock Venus out of the pre-quarters with a win over Stanford. Can you describe the anxiety of watching the UNC/Stanford game (knowing that UNC winning would drop you out of the pre-quarters)?
Stachowski: At that point in the tournament, our die was already cast. We had already accomplished everything we wanted to do at Nationals: Upset some teams, get some respect, and get everyone on our huge roster [FJR note: 28 players!] into a game. Of course I wanted us to continue on to pre-quarters but I was satisfied that we had done all we could to put ourselves in a good position. The rest was up to Stanford... and they managed to gut out a huge comeback win against a determined UNC team. With the Stanford win guaranteeing our appearance in the pre-quarter game, another goal had been attained. Time to reset it again: "Lets make quarters!"
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The College Championships - Oregon Fugue (Part 3 of 3)
GUEST BLOGGER: Lou Burruss
First of all, I want to congratulate the Burning Skirts on being very deserving champions. They handled every team they faced in Columbus and were never seriously challenged. They did it with poise and class. Nice work, UCSB.
Unlike the Ottawa game, our game against UCSB doesn’t fall into a sequential narrative sequence. It is a jumble of moments and ideas and realizations, so forgive me for jumping all over from here to there.
The biggest thing single factor we faced was fatigue. I went through and added all the scores up for us and the Skirts. By the time we started semis the Skirts had played 109 points of ultimate; we had played 141 points, enough extra for a 17-15 game. I am not making an excuse here. The Skirts took care of business in pool play and quarters in a way we did not. The Skirts rightfully earned the one seed and the easy road by winning their Region, Prez Day and Stanford Invite; we came in third in our Region. You have to play the hand you’re dealt and win with the hand you’re dealt. Also, we’d been the beneficiaries of an exhausted Michigan team that looked nothing like the team that gave Washington a hell of a time Friday afternoon. Anyway, all that said, we were tired and it showed. We had number of unforced execution errors that we had not had in since Friday. We made decision errors that arise from fatigue: rushed hucks, hucks to the wrong part of the field or to bad match ups.
Defensively, the Skirts did a great job of limiting our deep game. Some of that was the fatigue of our cutters, but some of that was just plain good defense. We were really able to work it short on them and nip and tuck for ten yards here and ten yards there. Still, when you are tired, small ball is a bad way to try to play. They also did a really good job of preventing us from scoring easy goals. We gave them a couple easy ones. In a game that was all about pressure (no team lead by more than 2 until 13-10,) easy goals make a huge difference.
I spent about five days after Nationals feeling pretty good about the season and finishing third and all that we accomplished. Then I found a scrap of time between work and the kids and I made the mistake of watching the highlight video on the UPA web site. 11-10! We were at 11-10! Argh! Looking back, I made three mistakes.
Mistake number one: losing the forest for the trees. This is the one I was angriest about because it is the most basic: the strategy that is most likely to score you the point is not the one most likely to score you the most points. At 10-9 or 11-10, with a team I knew was exhausted, I should have taken chances and played deep into the bench on defensive points. This rests the main players three or four points down the stretch. If you trade all the way out to 14-13, then you go back to stacking lines, but your players are that much fresher. Honestly, I don’t know if I would have hit on this in the moment, but I am mad that I didn’t remember the basic adage.
Mistake number two: Most of the time in good college ultimate, it is very clear who scored and why. It is very clear who is winning and why. You make a mistake, they score. They make a mistake, you score. We had been playing that level of ultimate all weekend and the other teams had abided by it. When we got in to the UCSB game, we (unknowingly) had stepped up a notch in quality of play. As well as we were playing and as well as the Skirts were playing, both teams reached a level where you do everything right and still get scored on. I played on the Sockeye D line for nine years, so to be in a game where you do everything right and get scored on was no big deal to me, but I only realized later how weird and frustrating it was for my team. So my mistake is in not recognizing this (I saw the frustration, just not the cause) and acknowledging it to the team. It was one of those moments that just required us to recognize it and then we’d have been okay with it.
Mistake number three: We didn’t do a great job of matching up defensively. UCSB has some nasty match ups and their offense allows for some real opportunism on the part of its main players (stay and handle, cut deep, run the lane,) which in turn makes matching up a lot trickier because a defender has to be good at guarding all threats. We have a deep, athletic team with a bunch of great defenders, so we didn’t get ruined by matchups; we just missed occasionally. Andrea Romano, Kaela Jorgenson and Carolyn Finney gave us trouble the whole way, but Marie Madaras played great and we never accounted for her.
In the end, the game was decided by two UCSB runs. We played wonderful, gritty ultimate to open the first half and took leads at 5-3 and 6-4. Then UCSB ran off four in a row to take half. We opened the second half with a break and then traded all the way out to 10-11. Then UCSB ran off three in a row. 10-14. Final: 11-15. Damn.
And now, some odds and ends to close up with. This year was really cool for women’s ultimate. I think the top of the division was stronger than it has ever been with six teams having a real shot at the finals (us, UCSB, UW, UW, Stanford and Ottawa.) This is the first year I’ve ever seen the women’s field stronger than the men’s field. I think the men’s division is still deeper, but the top of the women’s division was better this year than the top of the men’s (Florida and Oregon were missed.)
The weather was a huge factor in the success or failure of a lot of teams. Everyone was ready for the heat, but the total lack of wind was incredible. We played one windy half (first half against UCSB and both teams were so good at that point we just ignored it,) but the rest of the weekend was still, dead air. Who did this help? Us, Stanford, UCLA. Who did it hurt? Wisco, Ottawa, USC. It probably hurt the AC teams.
Lastly, I want to complement the UPA on a wonderful event. Hands down the best organized and best run tournament I have been to. (That’s out of ~300 tourneys, 14 College Nationals, 8 Club Nationals and 2 World Clubs.) Every year it gets better and better. This year the big improvements were in the quality of the observers and the schedule. I saw three missed calls all weekend in all games I watched and coached. I still have reservations about a four day Nationals (it is at such a cost to school, work and family,) but once it is underway, it is lovely. Two games a day makes for excellent ultimate, lots of socializing and lots of spectating.
First of all, I want to congratulate the Burning Skirts on being very deserving champions. They handled every team they faced in Columbus and were never seriously challenged. They did it with poise and class. Nice work, UCSB.
Unlike the Ottawa game, our game against UCSB doesn’t fall into a sequential narrative sequence. It is a jumble of moments and ideas and realizations, so forgive me for jumping all over from here to there.
The biggest thing single factor we faced was fatigue. I went through and added all the scores up for us and the Skirts. By the time we started semis the Skirts had played 109 points of ultimate; we had played 141 points, enough extra for a 17-15 game. I am not making an excuse here. The Skirts took care of business in pool play and quarters in a way we did not. The Skirts rightfully earned the one seed and the easy road by winning their Region, Prez Day and Stanford Invite; we came in third in our Region. You have to play the hand you’re dealt and win with the hand you’re dealt. Also, we’d been the beneficiaries of an exhausted Michigan team that looked nothing like the team that gave Washington a hell of a time Friday afternoon. Anyway, all that said, we were tired and it showed. We had number of unforced execution errors that we had not had in since Friday. We made decision errors that arise from fatigue: rushed hucks, hucks to the wrong part of the field or to bad match ups.
Defensively, the Skirts did a great job of limiting our deep game. Some of that was the fatigue of our cutters, but some of that was just plain good defense. We were really able to work it short on them and nip and tuck for ten yards here and ten yards there. Still, when you are tired, small ball is a bad way to try to play. They also did a really good job of preventing us from scoring easy goals. We gave them a couple easy ones. In a game that was all about pressure (no team lead by more than 2 until 13-10,) easy goals make a huge difference.
I spent about five days after Nationals feeling pretty good about the season and finishing third and all that we accomplished. Then I found a scrap of time between work and the kids and I made the mistake of watching the highlight video on the UPA web site. 11-10! We were at 11-10! Argh! Looking back, I made three mistakes.
Mistake number one: losing the forest for the trees. This is the one I was angriest about because it is the most basic: the strategy that is most likely to score you the point is not the one most likely to score you the most points. At 10-9 or 11-10, with a team I knew was exhausted, I should have taken chances and played deep into the bench on defensive points. This rests the main players three or four points down the stretch. If you trade all the way out to 14-13, then you go back to stacking lines, but your players are that much fresher. Honestly, I don’t know if I would have hit on this in the moment, but I am mad that I didn’t remember the basic adage.
Mistake number two: Most of the time in good college ultimate, it is very clear who scored and why. It is very clear who is winning and why. You make a mistake, they score. They make a mistake, you score. We had been playing that level of ultimate all weekend and the other teams had abided by it. When we got in to the UCSB game, we (unknowingly) had stepped up a notch in quality of play. As well as we were playing and as well as the Skirts were playing, both teams reached a level where you do everything right and still get scored on. I played on the Sockeye D line for nine years, so to be in a game where you do everything right and get scored on was no big deal to me, but I only realized later how weird and frustrating it was for my team. So my mistake is in not recognizing this (I saw the frustration, just not the cause) and acknowledging it to the team. It was one of those moments that just required us to recognize it and then we’d have been okay with it.
Mistake number three: We didn’t do a great job of matching up defensively. UCSB has some nasty match ups and their offense allows for some real opportunism on the part of its main players (stay and handle, cut deep, run the lane,) which in turn makes matching up a lot trickier because a defender has to be good at guarding all threats. We have a deep, athletic team with a bunch of great defenders, so we didn’t get ruined by matchups; we just missed occasionally. Andrea Romano, Kaela Jorgenson and Carolyn Finney gave us trouble the whole way, but Marie Madaras played great and we never accounted for her.
In the end, the game was decided by two UCSB runs. We played wonderful, gritty ultimate to open the first half and took leads at 5-3 and 6-4. Then UCSB ran off four in a row to take half. We opened the second half with a break and then traded all the way out to 10-11. Then UCSB ran off three in a row. 10-14. Final: 11-15. Damn.
And now, some odds and ends to close up with. This year was really cool for women’s ultimate. I think the top of the division was stronger than it has ever been with six teams having a real shot at the finals (us, UCSB, UW, UW, Stanford and Ottawa.) This is the first year I’ve ever seen the women’s field stronger than the men’s field. I think the men’s division is still deeper, but the top of the women’s division was better this year than the top of the men’s (Florida and Oregon were missed.)
The weather was a huge factor in the success or failure of a lot of teams. Everyone was ready for the heat, but the total lack of wind was incredible. We played one windy half (first half against UCSB and both teams were so good at that point we just ignored it,) but the rest of the weekend was still, dead air. Who did this help? Us, Stanford, UCLA. Who did it hurt? Wisco, Ottawa, USC. It probably hurt the AC teams.
Lastly, I want to complement the UPA on a wonderful event. Hands down the best organized and best run tournament I have been to. (That’s out of ~300 tourneys, 14 College Nationals, 8 Club Nationals and 2 World Clubs.) Every year it gets better and better. This year the big improvements were in the quality of the observers and the schedule. I saw three missed calls all weekend in all games I watched and coached. I still have reservations about a four day Nationals (it is at such a cost to school, work and family,) but once it is underway, it is lovely. Two games a day makes for excellent ultimate, lots of socializing and lots of spectating.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The College Championships - Oregon Fugue (part 2 of 3)
GUEST BLOGGER: Lou Burruss
Sunday morning saw us arrive at the fields two and a half hours early for our quarterfinal match-up with Ottawa. Fugue 2009 is hands down the faffing-est team I have ever been on and we really need the two and half hours to get ourselves to the fields and cleated up and so forth. As we went through our warm up, I could feel the pressure and focus building. We were relaxed and chatty and jokey like usual, but underneath was a sense of determination. By contrast, Ottawa was walking to the field 30 minutes before game time. I don’t know what happened, but the rest of the weekend they looked like a regular team in their warm ups and cool downs. Maybe they got Corvallised (not scheduling for the 20 minute walk from the parking lot to the fields) or maybe they went to the wrong field, who knows. In any case, they didn’t get in a very good warm up and it showed. I also don’t think they were ready for us defensively, either. It took them into the second half to sort their match ups out to the point where they were able to exert a lot of defensive pressure. Anyway, on to the game itself; it played out in four parts.
Part one was the entire first half. We picked up right where we had left off Saturday evening: playing great defense and punishing the other team’s mistakes. We focused pretty intensely on Ottawa’s big three: Anne Mercier, Alex Benedict and Danielle Fortin. We were fortunate to have the right combination of size, physicality and speed to matchup on those three. We played almost exclusively force flick or force backhand and challenged our defenders on the Big Three to contain the breaks as best they could. As I mentioned before, it took them a while to figure out match ups and we capitalized on this early by really opening the game up and hitting on a number of deep looks. Halftime saw us up 8-4.
Coming out of half, we traded points all the way out to 12-8. This part of the game was very well played on both sides. Ottawa’s defense picked up and we were forced to work the disc a little more, but they still weren’t generating a lot of pressure around the disc. Neither were we, though, so both teams were scoring fairly easily. Around 11-7, I called a time out and said, “Hey, let’s put this away. Let’s bank one on defense.” Two points later we got a great opportunity. We got a beautiful poach block right on their brick, but three throws later, we rushed a forehand into a little window and missed. The Lady Geegees took it 70 and scored. What would have been 13-8 (and game over) was 12-9 and another opportunity for Ottawa.
We blinked. Trading back and forth is a staple of elite men’s ultimate and I have been involved in many, many of these battles over the years with Sockeye. I love the slow build up of pressure and the constant, “We did it, now you do it!” It was very cool to be involved in a game of that caliber at the college level. Anyway, we blinked. Two points in a row, we made careless errors and they scored. Yikes. 12-11.
I thought about calling our last time out, but wanted to save it if we really needed it. Ottawa was playing crazy defense at this point, shutting down the deep game and locking down our handlers. In that circumstance, there is nothing to do but to step up and make plays. Again and again, we made tough catches, robbed defenders of blocks and threw timely breaks. We inched down the field ten yards at a time finally scoring on a high-backhand around the mark. 13-11. Ottawa scores to make it 13-12. We shake loose on a big backhand 14-12. Then Ottawa blinks. A beautiful forty yard forehand gets dropped (dropped!) in the endzone and we go seventy to win, closing with a Sherwood to Sharman backhand.
Final 15-12. UCSB, here we come!
Sunday morning saw us arrive at the fields two and a half hours early for our quarterfinal match-up with Ottawa. Fugue 2009 is hands down the faffing-est team I have ever been on and we really need the two and half hours to get ourselves to the fields and cleated up and so forth. As we went through our warm up, I could feel the pressure and focus building. We were relaxed and chatty and jokey like usual, but underneath was a sense of determination. By contrast, Ottawa was walking to the field 30 minutes before game time. I don’t know what happened, but the rest of the weekend they looked like a regular team in their warm ups and cool downs. Maybe they got Corvallised (not scheduling for the 20 minute walk from the parking lot to the fields) or maybe they went to the wrong field, who knows. In any case, they didn’t get in a very good warm up and it showed. I also don’t think they were ready for us defensively, either. It took them into the second half to sort their match ups out to the point where they were able to exert a lot of defensive pressure. Anyway, on to the game itself; it played out in four parts.
Part one was the entire first half. We picked up right where we had left off Saturday evening: playing great defense and punishing the other team’s mistakes. We focused pretty intensely on Ottawa’s big three: Anne Mercier, Alex Benedict and Danielle Fortin. We were fortunate to have the right combination of size, physicality and speed to matchup on those three. We played almost exclusively force flick or force backhand and challenged our defenders on the Big Three to contain the breaks as best they could. As I mentioned before, it took them a while to figure out match ups and we capitalized on this early by really opening the game up and hitting on a number of deep looks. Halftime saw us up 8-4.
Coming out of half, we traded points all the way out to 12-8. This part of the game was very well played on both sides. Ottawa’s defense picked up and we were forced to work the disc a little more, but they still weren’t generating a lot of pressure around the disc. Neither were we, though, so both teams were scoring fairly easily. Around 11-7, I called a time out and said, “Hey, let’s put this away. Let’s bank one on defense.” Two points later we got a great opportunity. We got a beautiful poach block right on their brick, but three throws later, we rushed a forehand into a little window and missed. The Lady Geegees took it 70 and scored. What would have been 13-8 (and game over) was 12-9 and another opportunity for Ottawa.
We blinked. Trading back and forth is a staple of elite men’s ultimate and I have been involved in many, many of these battles over the years with Sockeye. I love the slow build up of pressure and the constant, “We did it, now you do it!” It was very cool to be involved in a game of that caliber at the college level. Anyway, we blinked. Two points in a row, we made careless errors and they scored. Yikes. 12-11.
I thought about calling our last time out, but wanted to save it if we really needed it. Ottawa was playing crazy defense at this point, shutting down the deep game and locking down our handlers. In that circumstance, there is nothing to do but to step up and make plays. Again and again, we made tough catches, robbed defenders of blocks and threw timely breaks. We inched down the field ten yards at a time finally scoring on a high-backhand around the mark. 13-11. Ottawa scores to make it 13-12. We shake loose on a big backhand 14-12. Then Ottawa blinks. A beautiful forty yard forehand gets dropped (dropped!) in the endzone and we go seventy to win, closing with a Sherwood to Sharman backhand.
Final 15-12. UCSB, here we come!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The College Championships - Oregon Fugue (part 1 of 3)
This post is brought to you by Lou Burruss, coach of Oregon Fugue and one of the great minds in Ultimate. His passion for the game is plain to see, and since I first met him at the 2008 Stanford Invite, he has motivated me to become a better coach and to contribute more to the sport on the writing end. Fugue's emergence from a solid regional team in 2007 to an appearance at Nationals in 2008 to this year's elite status owes a lot to the presence of Lou on the sidelines.
----
GUEST BLOGGER: Lou Burruss
I want start with thanks. First and foremost I want to thank Fugue for taking me on a great ride; it was a wonderful, wonderful season. Thanks, Tobey and Megan for showing up in Columbus, carrying water and wrestling with the tent. Thanks, Guns for momming the team to victory. Thanks Luke, for filming all of our games! Thanks, Gator, for two games of SuperFan-dom. Thank you, U of O Senate, for bankrolling our trip to Columbus. And a huge thanks to all the parents who came to support their daughters and the team. Now to the tourney itself…
It’s hard not to feel disappointed. I know not to measure a season by the outcome of one game, but I can’t help myself. I know we had a shot to win it all, that we were playing well enough to win it all, so to lose, sucks. That said, I also know that as time stretches out, the scope of our accomplishment the last several years will slowly overtake the sting of losing. In 2007, we finished 7th at Regionals. To come so far in such a short span of time has been exhilarating and difficult.
There was a span at Nationals where we played some of the best ultimate I’ve been a part of: focused, disciplined and inspired. That run began Saturday morning with Dartmouth and carried us through the play-in game and quarters into the Semis.
The hardest work has been the mental adjustment to playing top-shelf ultimate. It is incredibly mentally trying to play great ultimate point after point, game after game. This is the challenge that Fugue accepted and met. Most of the season was easy. Prez Day: finals. Stanford Invite: finals. We worked hard, but we weren’t ever challenged mentally. Regionals: Lose twice, once to the UW and once to Stanford. Manage to gut out a win over UBC in the game to go. We talk a lot about playing tough and playing hard and that we actually have to play to win, that we’re not good enough to show up and win without trying. The last two weeks of practice before Nationals, rather than being the pleasant tune-up and taper you’d expect, were the hardest two weeks of the year. Physically, do we get anything out of them? No, it’s too late. Mentally, though, we raise the bar on effort and toughness. Still, we go to Nationals with a lot of questions about how good we really are.
Friday was perfunctory. We just went and did it, but without much passion. Lucky for us, our first game was against USC. USC looked just like we did a year ago in Boulder when we stumbled to a 2-4 record. Like us, they had challenged the top teams in some games. Like us, they’d failed to win any of those games. Like us, they’d backed into Nationals with the last bid. Like us, none of their players had been to College Nationals before. Like us, they thought their season ended at Regionals. Like us, they looked uncertain and like us, they played far worse than they could have and should have.
USC was one of the teams most affected by the weather. Lots of teams were affected by the heat, but USC was a victim of something more sinister: no wind. Not a puff. For a team that plays exclusively zone, a windless weekend is going to be rough.
The game was even early, then we straightened a couple loose ends and steadily pulled away, finishing 15-8.
Our next game was against Wisconsin. They’d beaten us in pre-quarters in Boulder, which was still stinging all of us. They’d also (justifiably) gotten a lot of hype as a contender and we wanted a shot at them. They played well, Georgia played phenomenal and we gave away a few too many plays. 10-15 Wisco. Damn. We didn’t say much after the game, just a reminder that our goal for the first half of the tourney was to make quarters.
Wisconsin would go on to be another victim of the doldrums. You never want to play a team from the Central on a windy day, but it wasn’t windy Sunday morning. Stanford and their Emily-Jenny-Elaine chip-and-putt is frustratingly difficult to stop in still air.
Saturday morning was a new day and we were a new team. This day would begin as lovely a streak as I’ve ever been a part of. We started with Dartmouth, a team that surprised everyone to finish 3-4 (and probably would’ve been the feel-good story of the tourney if it weren’t for UPenn.) They came out playing well on offense with Rohre Titcomb providing the poise and Molly Roy providing the legs with one up-the-line cut after another. I’m 90% sure we were tied at sixes. I’m 100% sure it was close late in the first half. We made a couple defensive adjustments, mainly a switch to The-Best-Defense-Ever, but also some match-up changes. This worked. They struggled to move the disc upfield and our depth let us cash in on their mistakes. Final score: 15-8.
Saturday afternoon’s matchup loomed: Colorado. This match-up had been looming since I looked at the schedule. Colorado and Oregon have had a love affair for a couple years now. Last May, we stayed at one of their houses in Boulder (thanks, yo!) and a couple Fuguers lived in Boulder over the summer. Courtney even came to my house for a barbeque! Plus, Tina and I have had a sneaky rivalry since Carleton and JoJah battled three Nationals in a row: 93-94-95 with the 94 match up leading to a Semis berth. This was a team that had knocked off UCLA twice at Regionals. Twice!
We came in flying. After two points we started playing The-Best-Defense-Ever and walked away from them. It was a bummer of a game for Colorado. A loss in this game is survivable, but it has to be a well-played loss if you are going to take any confidence into the pre-quarters. Tina was bummed about how they’d played and all of their players were looking pretty glum as they walked off to play UCLA. Final: 15-6.
Last game of the day with quarters on the line: Michigan. We came into this game playing our best ultimate of the season, confident in our path and physically rested. Our infrastructure was magnificent: tent, cooler for water, cooler for towels and ice, sandwiches and crazy helpers. Guns mommed everyone into eating enough food. Megan and Tobey had water for the players on the line point after point. It was awesome.
Michigan had just come from a devastating loss to UCLA in pool play. Michigan had their chances late, but UCLA pulled away down the stretch to win 14-10. Walking from losing in pool play to the play-in game sucks. It is one of the hardest tasks in ultimate. Welcome to the dirt road. This is where the weather made Michigan its next victim. They had to play a 10-14 heartbreaker and then walk. We played 15-6 and waited. Remember, Michigan played that UCLA game during Round 4 (3:15-5:30.) You think it was hot?
We played an almost flawless first half, which took 28 minutes and ended in 8-2. We played great defense (but not TGDE because I didn’t want to give Ebae a chance to throw her backhand.) They rallied a little in the second half and made a run, but we were able to answer each time they tried to make a move. Final: 15-7. Quarters, here we come!
----
GUEST BLOGGER: Lou Burruss
I want start with thanks. First and foremost I want to thank Fugue for taking me on a great ride; it was a wonderful, wonderful season. Thanks, Tobey and Megan for showing up in Columbus, carrying water and wrestling with the tent. Thanks, Guns for momming the team to victory. Thanks Luke, for filming all of our games! Thanks, Gator, for two games of SuperFan-dom. Thank you, U of O Senate, for bankrolling our trip to Columbus. And a huge thanks to all the parents who came to support their daughters and the team. Now to the tourney itself…
It’s hard not to feel disappointed. I know not to measure a season by the outcome of one game, but I can’t help myself. I know we had a shot to win it all, that we were playing well enough to win it all, so to lose, sucks. That said, I also know that as time stretches out, the scope of our accomplishment the last several years will slowly overtake the sting of losing. In 2007, we finished 7th at Regionals. To come so far in such a short span of time has been exhilarating and difficult.
There was a span at Nationals where we played some of the best ultimate I’ve been a part of: focused, disciplined and inspired. That run began Saturday morning with Dartmouth and carried us through the play-in game and quarters into the Semis.
The hardest work has been the mental adjustment to playing top-shelf ultimate. It is incredibly mentally trying to play great ultimate point after point, game after game. This is the challenge that Fugue accepted and met. Most of the season was easy. Prez Day: finals. Stanford Invite: finals. We worked hard, but we weren’t ever challenged mentally. Regionals: Lose twice, once to the UW and once to Stanford. Manage to gut out a win over UBC in the game to go. We talk a lot about playing tough and playing hard and that we actually have to play to win, that we’re not good enough to show up and win without trying. The last two weeks of practice before Nationals, rather than being the pleasant tune-up and taper you’d expect, were the hardest two weeks of the year. Physically, do we get anything out of them? No, it’s too late. Mentally, though, we raise the bar on effort and toughness. Still, we go to Nationals with a lot of questions about how good we really are.
Friday was perfunctory. We just went and did it, but without much passion. Lucky for us, our first game was against USC. USC looked just like we did a year ago in Boulder when we stumbled to a 2-4 record. Like us, they had challenged the top teams in some games. Like us, they’d failed to win any of those games. Like us, they’d backed into Nationals with the last bid. Like us, none of their players had been to College Nationals before. Like us, they thought their season ended at Regionals. Like us, they looked uncertain and like us, they played far worse than they could have and should have.
USC was one of the teams most affected by the weather. Lots of teams were affected by the heat, but USC was a victim of something more sinister: no wind. Not a puff. For a team that plays exclusively zone, a windless weekend is going to be rough.
The game was even early, then we straightened a couple loose ends and steadily pulled away, finishing 15-8.
Our next game was against Wisconsin. They’d beaten us in pre-quarters in Boulder, which was still stinging all of us. They’d also (justifiably) gotten a lot of hype as a contender and we wanted a shot at them. They played well, Georgia played phenomenal and we gave away a few too many plays. 10-15 Wisco. Damn. We didn’t say much after the game, just a reminder that our goal for the first half of the tourney was to make quarters.
Wisconsin would go on to be another victim of the doldrums. You never want to play a team from the Central on a windy day, but it wasn’t windy Sunday morning. Stanford and their Emily-Jenny-Elaine chip-and-putt is frustratingly difficult to stop in still air.
Saturday morning was a new day and we were a new team. This day would begin as lovely a streak as I’ve ever been a part of. We started with Dartmouth, a team that surprised everyone to finish 3-4 (and probably would’ve been the feel-good story of the tourney if it weren’t for UPenn.) They came out playing well on offense with Rohre Titcomb providing the poise and Molly Roy providing the legs with one up-the-line cut after another. I’m 90% sure we were tied at sixes. I’m 100% sure it was close late in the first half. We made a couple defensive adjustments, mainly a switch to The-Best-Defense-Ever, but also some match-up changes. This worked. They struggled to move the disc upfield and our depth let us cash in on their mistakes. Final score: 15-8.
Saturday afternoon’s matchup loomed: Colorado. This match-up had been looming since I looked at the schedule. Colorado and Oregon have had a love affair for a couple years now. Last May, we stayed at one of their houses in Boulder (thanks, yo!) and a couple Fuguers lived in Boulder over the summer. Courtney even came to my house for a barbeque! Plus, Tina and I have had a sneaky rivalry since Carleton and JoJah battled three Nationals in a row: 93-94-95 with the 94 match up leading to a Semis berth. This was a team that had knocked off UCLA twice at Regionals. Twice!
We came in flying. After two points we started playing The-Best-Defense-Ever and walked away from them. It was a bummer of a game for Colorado. A loss in this game is survivable, but it has to be a well-played loss if you are going to take any confidence into the pre-quarters. Tina was bummed about how they’d played and all of their players were looking pretty glum as they walked off to play UCLA. Final: 15-6.
Last game of the day with quarters on the line: Michigan. We came into this game playing our best ultimate of the season, confident in our path and physically rested. Our infrastructure was magnificent: tent, cooler for water, cooler for towels and ice, sandwiches and crazy helpers. Guns mommed everyone into eating enough food. Megan and Tobey had water for the players on the line point after point. It was awesome.
Michigan had just come from a devastating loss to UCLA in pool play. Michigan had their chances late, but UCLA pulled away down the stretch to win 14-10. Walking from losing in pool play to the play-in game sucks. It is one of the hardest tasks in ultimate. Welcome to the dirt road. This is where the weather made Michigan its next victim. They had to play a 10-14 heartbreaker and then walk. We played 15-6 and waited. Remember, Michigan played that UCLA game during Round 4 (3:15-5:30.) You think it was hot?
We played an almost flawless first half, which took 28 minutes and ended in 8-2. We played great defense (but not TGDE because I didn’t want to give Ebae a chance to throw her backhand.) They rallied a little in the second half and made a run, but we were able to answer each time they tried to make a move. Final: 15-7. Quarters, here we come!
Apologies...
First, apologies as I've been busy with life matters. I've been getting sucked into the club season (I am playing with LA Metro this year), and frankly, I am also trying to overcome exhaustion from the long college season.
On a side note, I dislocated my shoulder last week at a summer league game right after Cal States. I took a crash course in how to type with my toes and remarkably, with my left hand and both feet, I am up to about 90 wpm. Once my right arm is back in commission, I might be able to set records and fulfill my childhood dream of becoming a court stenographer. That's only partly true; I wanted to be a regular on 'Night Court'. Details.
Over the next few days, I will be posting a series of accounts on this year's Nationals. I promise!
On a side note, I dislocated my shoulder last week at a summer league game right after Cal States. I took a crash course in how to type with my toes and remarkably, with my left hand and both feet, I am up to about 90 wpm. Once my right arm is back in commission, I might be able to set records and fulfill my childhood dream of becoming a court stenographer. That's only partly true; I wanted to be a regular on 'Night Court'. Details.
Over the next few days, I will be posting a series of accounts on this year's Nationals. I promise!
Monday, June 1, 2009
The College Championships - Initial Thoughts
Over the next two or three weeks, I'm going to be rolling out a series of posts on Nationals. I had planned on writing from Columbus, but we stayed at the Red Roof Inn where you had to pay for Wi-Fi service. I've been called a cheap bastard by many folks and poor fool by many others. I'll pay for the service once I've either made my first feature film or convince this blog's readership to pay for the extra coverage. Those of you who think I write way too much can pay me to hire an editor to pare down my posts.
The Big Stories
1) UPenn's Cinderella Run - I'm sure that the UPenn folks don't see themselves as a Cinderella, but coming in as the 20th seed and pushing Element with a tight match in the quarterfinals far exceeded the expectations of anyone following the women's division. More details should be coming soon from Marc 'Doc' Stachowski, the head coach of Venus.
2) UCSB wins it all - The best team won it all this year. Ending the Northwest's reign, the Burning Skirts came into the season as the favorite and had a remarkable run to the title. I think this was the most impressive season since Stanford's 2006 championship run.
3) Callahan voting - After last year's Nationals, I detailed a few thoughts on why I thought the Callahan voting was flawed. I remain convinced that the voting process is flawed. That said, Georgia Bosscher is certainly deserving of the award and congratulations are in order. I simply don't understand how Andrea Romano didn't finish in the top five, and no UCSB player finished in the top five in the three years their team has appeared in the finals. It doesn't add up.
4) The Northwest's dominance - With three teams in the semis, all doubt about which region was the strongest this season was eliminated. It'll be interesting to see what happens after the restructuring process takes effect, but it's a shame that Cal, UBC and Western Washington will have missed being potential beneficiaries of the new system.
I'll examine this more closely in a future post, but I think next year could be the year that the national balance of power shifts. The Southwest and Metro East will give the Northwest a run for the unofficial title of the strongest and deepest region.
The Big Stories
1) UPenn's Cinderella Run - I'm sure that the UPenn folks don't see themselves as a Cinderella, but coming in as the 20th seed and pushing Element with a tight match in the quarterfinals far exceeded the expectations of anyone following the women's division. More details should be coming soon from Marc 'Doc' Stachowski, the head coach of Venus.
2) UCSB wins it all - The best team won it all this year. Ending the Northwest's reign, the Burning Skirts came into the season as the favorite and had a remarkable run to the title. I think this was the most impressive season since Stanford's 2006 championship run.
3) Callahan voting - After last year's Nationals, I detailed a few thoughts on why I thought the Callahan voting was flawed. I remain convinced that the voting process is flawed. That said, Georgia Bosscher is certainly deserving of the award and congratulations are in order. I simply don't understand how Andrea Romano didn't finish in the top five, and no UCSB player finished in the top five in the three years their team has appeared in the finals. It doesn't add up.
4) The Northwest's dominance - With three teams in the semis, all doubt about which region was the strongest this season was eliminated. It'll be interesting to see what happens after the restructuring process takes effect, but it's a shame that Cal, UBC and Western Washington will have missed being potential beneficiaries of the new system.
I'll examine this more closely in a future post, but I think next year could be the year that the national balance of power shifts. The Southwest and Metro East will give the Northwest a run for the unofficial title of the strongest and deepest region.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The College Championships - Before the Storm
Here are a few final thoughts on the Callahan before I take a look at the big tourney. I meant to offer a hypothetical ballot and write a few more words of praise for the other top candidates. If I could vote, here's how my ballot would look:
1. Andrea Romano (UCSB)
2. Anne Mercier (Ottawa)
3. Georgia Bosscher (Wisconsin)
4. Emily Baecher (Michigan)
x. Anne 'Bambi' Ohliger (USC) - somewhere between 1 and 5
I forgot who it was that was describing the raw power of Mercier, and it made me think about Lebron James. I think the comparison is fair in terms of the type of player they are for their sport. Mercier brings a size and strength that you rarely see in women's Ultimate. Mercier can handle the disc, control the middle of the field and take players deep in a similar fashion to the way that Lebron can run the point, post up players (starting to) and take the ball to the rack.
This also got me thinking about other NBA comparisons for the top candidates (yes, I know it's patently absurd to compare players across sports, but it's also ridiculously fun to think about). I decided that Dre is Tim Duncan circa his MVP years. As the quiet big man, he wasn't particularly flashy but almost everyone would agree that he was unquestionably the best player in the league at the time. His team just won and he was the primary cog of that team.
I think Georgia is a hybrid of the young Vince Carter (when the sky was the limit) and Kevin Garnett. Both Vince and KG were freakishly athletic and at least in KG's case, he has always been an intense defensive player. I think a small forward would be a more appropriate comparison but the only person that I could think of was Scottie Pippen, who was an outstanding all-around player but was overshadowed by MJ and didn't have the charisma of a superstar. There's no doubt that Georgia is the star of Bella Donna and is very charismatic.
Emily Baecher is a combination of Chauncey Billups and John Stockton. She runs the offense with the same kind of poise and isn't always the flashiest player. She'll generate offense when needed but her biggest contribution is in her ability to make everyone else on the field better.
Anne Ohliger is a lot like Ray Allen (or Reggie Miller if you think Miller is better). Like Ray Allen, Bambi is someone you appreciate more and more when you see her in action. When both are at the top of their games, they are impossible to cover and run all over the court/field. Especially in his youth, Allen's game has been about mixing it up between driving the lane and getting free on set screens to spot up for the three. Bambi similarly switches between acting like a third handler/mid-cutter and running deep for the big huck.
Well, that's enough Callahan talk. We're done with the appetizers. Give me the frickin' steak (writes the pescetarian).
NATIONALS!!! ER, I MEAN THE UPA COLLEGE CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!
I meant to post this shortly after pools came out, but there weren't any real surprises in the seedings and they conform pretty close to what I had expected.
Wisconsin and Ottawa swapped spots which is certainly reasonable. I personally liked Ottawa over Wisconsin because of the Centex win, but this does prevent the intra-regional matchup between Bella Donna and Iowa State (who was a virtual lock at 16). Granted this means Ottawa and UPenn are in the same pool, but they haven't seen each other this season.
UNC ended up at 9 over Colorado and UCLA. Of all the variations between the UPA's seedings and mine, I find this one the most puzzling. If pools A and D hold seed (very strong possibility here), UNC and UNC-Wilmington will be meeting up for the fifth time this season in the pre-quarters. This seems like a mistake to me, especially since this could have been easily avoided by swapping Colorado and UNC.
The next variation occurred with Wash U. and St. Louis getting seeded ahead of USC. I thought we had the more impressive season overall, but I think St. Louis' two wins over Wisconsin in addition to beating us at Centex gave the two South teams a bump ahead of USC. I completely understand that and have no problems with the 15 seed. I was very confident that we would end up at either 13 or 15.
The final variation was putting Illinois over the two New England teams. This seemed a little odd to me because the same logic that bumped the two South teams above us should have been applied to Illinois and the New England teams. Dartmouth beat Illinois at Centex, but like the Hellions, Menace had the tougher strength of schedule. Perhaps I'm missing some other consideration here, but if we're at 15, Menace at 19 makes a lot more sense. Granted, we've played them twice already and it will be a lot of fun playing Dartmouth who we have never seen before.
Alright, that's enough discussion about the hypotheticals. Let's go to the pools.
POOL A - UC Santa Barbara, UNC-Wilmington, Carleton, Washington U., Illinois
I think Pool D is the most likely to go according to seed, but Pool A is a pretty close second. The Burning Skirts should easily win this pool. The only major stumbling block for them is facing Wilmington in their first game. As long as they are focused and ready to play, I think they will win every pool game by four points or more.
Carleton and Wash U. match up against each other immediately and a spot in the pre-quarters is likely at stake. Illinois is a dangerous five seed and have the athleticism to upset both Carleton and Wash U. Though Syzygy demolished Menace at Pres Day (13-1), that game took place in horrible conditions that played to Carleton's strengths and exposed Illinois' weaknesses. I expect the rematch to be considerably closer.
Predictions: UCSB, Carleton, Wilmington, Wash U., Illinois. It's no fun picking pools to simply go to seed. I'll go with Syzygy besting Wilmington after Carleton figures out how to create a microclimate that produces slush and sub-freezing temperatures. Yes, in order to do this, Carleton will likely have to summon the awful Mr. Freeze and brush dangerously close to the failure that is Batman and Robin, but great reward only comes with great risk. Or is that great power and great responsibility? Or great gatsby and great expectations? All these adages are so confusing.
POOL B - Washington, Michigan, UCLA, Saint Louis, Northeastern
I really love this pool. The Washington v. Michigan matchup should be a lot of fun to watch. Expect the game to look like a bombing range featuring Shannon 'the Howitzer' O'Malley and the 'B-23 Bomber' Emily Baecher. I just hope that Element doesn't sport the all-purple uniforms. It gives me a craving for a Happy Meal and those prelapsarian days when I ate mounds of Chicken McNuggets before a few rounds of shock therapy convinced me to become a vegetarian.
UCLA is well-suited to knock off Michigan. They haven't faced each other since UCLA beat them last year, and Flywheel will be eager to exact revenge. Coach Korb has been reportedly watching game footage on Michigan and found some weaknesses in the Flywheel machinery. Design flaws in a Michigan product? Crazy talk, FJR, crazy talk. (Just teasing, Flywheel. More cowbell, please).
I'm excited to see how SLU does against the top three seeds in their pool. I was a bit surprised to see them lose to Wash U. twice after doing so well at Centex. If they can recapture the magic they had in Austin, they will shock one of the top three.
Northeastern looks to be a dangerous five seed now that they are looking more like the team that was hyped in the preseason. They had a great run to 9th place last year in Boulder and having both Courtney Moores and Stephanie Barker healthy is critical for their chances of creating an upset.
Winning this pool is key because finishing 2nd or 3rd presents a potentially very challenging prequarters matchup. Also, the pool winner gets arguably the easiest quarterfinals matchup.
Predictions: Washington, Michigan, UCLA, St. Louis and Northeastern. That's some radical thinking there, FJR. The final standings aren't very exciting, but the way it is produced will be. St. Louis shocks Michigan but loses to UCLA. Going into day two, Element is 2-0, BLU is 2-0, SLU is 1-1, Michigan is 0-2 and Northeastern is 0-2. On day two, Element wins the pool with two close wins over UCLA and St. Louis. Northeastern severely damages St. Louis hopes of advancing to the pre-quarters by beating them in a nailbiter. Michigan needs to beat BLU to advance and does so by winning on double game point.
POOL C - Wisconsin, Oregon, Colorado, USC, Dartmouth
Welcome to the pool of death. Maybe that's self-serving to write since we're in the pool, but anyone who has followed the women's season will likely agree. Both Oregon and Wisconsin are among the handful of teams that have a good shot of winning it all. They will be facing each other for the first time since last year's pre-quarters where Bella Donna triumphed in a comeback win. One of the scheduling quirks is that Oregon will have played a game before this matchup while Bella Donna will be opening up their 2009 Nationals run with this game. I don't think this should really affect either team much, but it will be interesting to see if Wisconsin starts out of the gate well.
Oddly, Colorado and Southern California were both placed into the same pool, and I think both are underrated coming into the tourney. While it's likely that the matchup between the two will decide who advances to the pre-quarters, I really like the chances of one (or both) of these teams upsetting Wisconsin or Oregon. This pool has the makings of last year's Pool C where Texas upset Washington and nearly took out Wisconsin.
Dartmouth also has the look of an underrated team. The New England region is much maligned and has been seeded last in their pools for four straight years. In 2006 and 2008, one of the NE teams far exceeded expectations and finished considerably higher than their seed (Dartmouth was the 15 seed in 2006 and reached the quarterfinals; last year, Northeastern was the 14 seed and finished tied for 9th).
Predictions: There will be upsets. I was going to offer more specific predictions (no, I wasn't) but when I was staring into my crystal ball, all I saw was the haze of the blue, orange, green, red and yellow circles lingering from trying to beat Through the Fire and Flames on expert. Okay, I'm lying. I'm not that good at Guitar Hero. I'm still stuck on getting through Raining Blood. Stupid Slayer.
POOL D - Ottawa, Stanford, North Carolina, Iowa State, UPenn
Pool D is a very strong bet to go according to seed despite the close seeding among Ottawa (4), Stanford (5) and UNC (9). A number of people I've spoken with immediately thought that Ottawa was the biggest beneficiary in the UPA's new format and schedule for Nationals. I completely agree. They were lethal before. Now, they are crazygonuts lethal.
I think Superfly will have a tough time handling the power game offered by the Lady Gee Gees. It seems like a bad matchup for Stanford on paper, but Superfly has been remarkable at proving me completely wrong, so it shouldn't be a shock if Stanford reprises UCSB's role last year in the five seed upsetting the four seed.
Likewise, I think UNC matches up badly with Stanford. The two teams have a number of similarities but Stanford's roster is much deeper with skilled, athletic players. Pleiades should be motivated a little extra by their desire to avoid yet another matchup against UNC-Wilmington; meeting in the pre-quarters would be their 5th meeting of the season and UNC is currently 0-4 against Seaweed. You know the saying... the fifth time is the charm unless you are USC playing UCLA in which case the number might be four as long as the coach doesn't screw things up by writing stupid things on his blog... hey, look at the giant talking robot across the street!
Iowa State is probably the team I know the least about. Melissa Gibbs and Jasmine Draper are the two stars of the team. I think their best chance of moving on to the pre-quarters is getting into an up-and-down huck game against UNC. Give the fans what they want. Huck or die. Huck or die.
UPenn returns to the big show but I think they are going to be overmatched in all of these games. They simply haven't seen enough competition against top-tier teams this season. That said, look for them to upset teams in Sunday's placement games. As they proved during the Metro East Regionals, once they get used to the competition and gain the necessary confidence, they can take down quality teams (Maryland is definitely underrated outside of their region).
Predictions: Ottawa, Stanford, North Carolina, Iowa State, UPenn. Yes, this is a boring way to close out the preview. Yes, my logorrhea has limits. And yes, I need to pack.
I'm planning to write a couple quick posts while I'm in Columbus. If I'm highly motivated, I'll do the Twitter thing (twitter.com/fjrhox).
And now for the show!
1. Andrea Romano (UCSB)
2. Anne Mercier (Ottawa)
3. Georgia Bosscher (Wisconsin)
4. Emily Baecher (Michigan)
x. Anne 'Bambi' Ohliger (USC) - somewhere between 1 and 5
I forgot who it was that was describing the raw power of Mercier, and it made me think about Lebron James. I think the comparison is fair in terms of the type of player they are for their sport. Mercier brings a size and strength that you rarely see in women's Ultimate. Mercier can handle the disc, control the middle of the field and take players deep in a similar fashion to the way that Lebron can run the point, post up players (starting to) and take the ball to the rack.
This also got me thinking about other NBA comparisons for the top candidates (yes, I know it's patently absurd to compare players across sports, but it's also ridiculously fun to think about). I decided that Dre is Tim Duncan circa his MVP years. As the quiet big man, he wasn't particularly flashy but almost everyone would agree that he was unquestionably the best player in the league at the time. His team just won and he was the primary cog of that team.
I think Georgia is a hybrid of the young Vince Carter (when the sky was the limit) and Kevin Garnett. Both Vince and KG were freakishly athletic and at least in KG's case, he has always been an intense defensive player. I think a small forward would be a more appropriate comparison but the only person that I could think of was Scottie Pippen, who was an outstanding all-around player but was overshadowed by MJ and didn't have the charisma of a superstar. There's no doubt that Georgia is the star of Bella Donna and is very charismatic.
Emily Baecher is a combination of Chauncey Billups and John Stockton. She runs the offense with the same kind of poise and isn't always the flashiest player. She'll generate offense when needed but her biggest contribution is in her ability to make everyone else on the field better.
Anne Ohliger is a lot like Ray Allen (or Reggie Miller if you think Miller is better). Like Ray Allen, Bambi is someone you appreciate more and more when you see her in action. When both are at the top of their games, they are impossible to cover and run all over the court/field. Especially in his youth, Allen's game has been about mixing it up between driving the lane and getting free on set screens to spot up for the three. Bambi similarly switches between acting like a third handler/mid-cutter and running deep for the big huck.
Well, that's enough Callahan talk. We're done with the appetizers. Give me the frickin' steak (writes the pescetarian).
NATIONALS!!! ER, I MEAN THE UPA COLLEGE CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!
I meant to post this shortly after pools came out, but there weren't any real surprises in the seedings and they conform pretty close to what I had expected.
Wisconsin and Ottawa swapped spots which is certainly reasonable. I personally liked Ottawa over Wisconsin because of the Centex win, but this does prevent the intra-regional matchup between Bella Donna and Iowa State (who was a virtual lock at 16). Granted this means Ottawa and UPenn are in the same pool, but they haven't seen each other this season.
UNC ended up at 9 over Colorado and UCLA. Of all the variations between the UPA's seedings and mine, I find this one the most puzzling. If pools A and D hold seed (very strong possibility here), UNC and UNC-Wilmington will be meeting up for the fifth time this season in the pre-quarters. This seems like a mistake to me, especially since this could have been easily avoided by swapping Colorado and UNC.
The next variation occurred with Wash U. and St. Louis getting seeded ahead of USC. I thought we had the more impressive season overall, but I think St. Louis' two wins over Wisconsin in addition to beating us at Centex gave the two South teams a bump ahead of USC. I completely understand that and have no problems with the 15 seed. I was very confident that we would end up at either 13 or 15.
The final variation was putting Illinois over the two New England teams. This seemed a little odd to me because the same logic that bumped the two South teams above us should have been applied to Illinois and the New England teams. Dartmouth beat Illinois at Centex, but like the Hellions, Menace had the tougher strength of schedule. Perhaps I'm missing some other consideration here, but if we're at 15, Menace at 19 makes a lot more sense. Granted, we've played them twice already and it will be a lot of fun playing Dartmouth who we have never seen before.
Alright, that's enough discussion about the hypotheticals. Let's go to the pools.
POOL A - UC Santa Barbara, UNC-Wilmington, Carleton, Washington U., Illinois
I think Pool D is the most likely to go according to seed, but Pool A is a pretty close second. The Burning Skirts should easily win this pool. The only major stumbling block for them is facing Wilmington in their first game. As long as they are focused and ready to play, I think they will win every pool game by four points or more.
Carleton and Wash U. match up against each other immediately and a spot in the pre-quarters is likely at stake. Illinois is a dangerous five seed and have the athleticism to upset both Carleton and Wash U. Though Syzygy demolished Menace at Pres Day (13-1), that game took place in horrible conditions that played to Carleton's strengths and exposed Illinois' weaknesses. I expect the rematch to be considerably closer.
Predictions: UCSB, Carleton, Wilmington, Wash U., Illinois. It's no fun picking pools to simply go to seed. I'll go with Syzygy besting Wilmington after Carleton figures out how to create a microclimate that produces slush and sub-freezing temperatures. Yes, in order to do this, Carleton will likely have to summon the awful Mr. Freeze and brush dangerously close to the failure that is Batman and Robin, but great reward only comes with great risk. Or is that great power and great responsibility? Or great gatsby and great expectations? All these adages are so confusing.
POOL B - Washington, Michigan, UCLA, Saint Louis, Northeastern
I really love this pool. The Washington v. Michigan matchup should be a lot of fun to watch. Expect the game to look like a bombing range featuring Shannon 'the Howitzer' O'Malley and the 'B-23 Bomber' Emily Baecher. I just hope that Element doesn't sport the all-purple uniforms. It gives me a craving for a Happy Meal and those prelapsarian days when I ate mounds of Chicken McNuggets before a few rounds of shock therapy convinced me to become a vegetarian.
UCLA is well-suited to knock off Michigan. They haven't faced each other since UCLA beat them last year, and Flywheel will be eager to exact revenge. Coach Korb has been reportedly watching game footage on Michigan and found some weaknesses in the Flywheel machinery. Design flaws in a Michigan product? Crazy talk, FJR, crazy talk. (Just teasing, Flywheel. More cowbell, please).
I'm excited to see how SLU does against the top three seeds in their pool. I was a bit surprised to see them lose to Wash U. twice after doing so well at Centex. If they can recapture the magic they had in Austin, they will shock one of the top three.
Northeastern looks to be a dangerous five seed now that they are looking more like the team that was hyped in the preseason. They had a great run to 9th place last year in Boulder and having both Courtney Moores and Stephanie Barker healthy is critical for their chances of creating an upset.
Winning this pool is key because finishing 2nd or 3rd presents a potentially very challenging prequarters matchup. Also, the pool winner gets arguably the easiest quarterfinals matchup.
Predictions: Washington, Michigan, UCLA, St. Louis and Northeastern. That's some radical thinking there, FJR. The final standings aren't very exciting, but the way it is produced will be. St. Louis shocks Michigan but loses to UCLA. Going into day two, Element is 2-0, BLU is 2-0, SLU is 1-1, Michigan is 0-2 and Northeastern is 0-2. On day two, Element wins the pool with two close wins over UCLA and St. Louis. Northeastern severely damages St. Louis hopes of advancing to the pre-quarters by beating them in a nailbiter. Michigan needs to beat BLU to advance and does so by winning on double game point.
POOL C - Wisconsin, Oregon, Colorado, USC, Dartmouth
Welcome to the pool of death. Maybe that's self-serving to write since we're in the pool, but anyone who has followed the women's season will likely agree. Both Oregon and Wisconsin are among the handful of teams that have a good shot of winning it all. They will be facing each other for the first time since last year's pre-quarters where Bella Donna triumphed in a comeback win. One of the scheduling quirks is that Oregon will have played a game before this matchup while Bella Donna will be opening up their 2009 Nationals run with this game. I don't think this should really affect either team much, but it will be interesting to see if Wisconsin starts out of the gate well.
Oddly, Colorado and Southern California were both placed into the same pool, and I think both are underrated coming into the tourney. While it's likely that the matchup between the two will decide who advances to the pre-quarters, I really like the chances of one (or both) of these teams upsetting Wisconsin or Oregon. This pool has the makings of last year's Pool C where Texas upset Washington and nearly took out Wisconsin.
Dartmouth also has the look of an underrated team. The New England region is much maligned and has been seeded last in their pools for four straight years. In 2006 and 2008, one of the NE teams far exceeded expectations and finished considerably higher than their seed (Dartmouth was the 15 seed in 2006 and reached the quarterfinals; last year, Northeastern was the 14 seed and finished tied for 9th).
Predictions: There will be upsets. I was going to offer more specific predictions (no, I wasn't) but when I was staring into my crystal ball, all I saw was the haze of the blue, orange, green, red and yellow circles lingering from trying to beat Through the Fire and Flames on expert. Okay, I'm lying. I'm not that good at Guitar Hero. I'm still stuck on getting through Raining Blood. Stupid Slayer.
POOL D - Ottawa, Stanford, North Carolina, Iowa State, UPenn
Pool D is a very strong bet to go according to seed despite the close seeding among Ottawa (4), Stanford (5) and UNC (9). A number of people I've spoken with immediately thought that Ottawa was the biggest beneficiary in the UPA's new format and schedule for Nationals. I completely agree. They were lethal before. Now, they are crazygonuts lethal.
I think Superfly will have a tough time handling the power game offered by the Lady Gee Gees. It seems like a bad matchup for Stanford on paper, but Superfly has been remarkable at proving me completely wrong, so it shouldn't be a shock if Stanford reprises UCSB's role last year in the five seed upsetting the four seed.
Likewise, I think UNC matches up badly with Stanford. The two teams have a number of similarities but Stanford's roster is much deeper with skilled, athletic players. Pleiades should be motivated a little extra by their desire to avoid yet another matchup against UNC-Wilmington; meeting in the pre-quarters would be their 5th meeting of the season and UNC is currently 0-4 against Seaweed. You know the saying... the fifth time is the charm unless you are USC playing UCLA in which case the number might be four as long as the coach doesn't screw things up by writing stupid things on his blog... hey, look at the giant talking robot across the street!
Iowa State is probably the team I know the least about. Melissa Gibbs and Jasmine Draper are the two stars of the team. I think their best chance of moving on to the pre-quarters is getting into an up-and-down huck game against UNC. Give the fans what they want. Huck or die. Huck or die.
UPenn returns to the big show but I think they are going to be overmatched in all of these games. They simply haven't seen enough competition against top-tier teams this season. That said, look for them to upset teams in Sunday's placement games. As they proved during the Metro East Regionals, once they get used to the competition and gain the necessary confidence, they can take down quality teams (Maryland is definitely underrated outside of their region).
Predictions: Ottawa, Stanford, North Carolina, Iowa State, UPenn. Yes, this is a boring way to close out the preview. Yes, my logorrhea has limits. And yes, I need to pack.
I'm planning to write a couple quick posts while I'm in Columbus. If I'm highly motivated, I'll do the Twitter thing (twitter.com/fjrhox).
And now for the show!
Monday, May 18, 2009
The 2009 Callahan Award - Why You Should Vote for Andrea Romano (Part 2)
Part Two of my look at the 2009 Callahan Award will itself be comprised of three parts: (i) the qualities that define a superior Callahan candidate, (ii) an examination of the pool of the Callahan Award nominees, and (iii) a breakdown of why Andrea Romano emerges as the best candidate.
This is a really detailed look at the candidates and part two whittles the candidates down to three finalists in Survivor-style fashion. Luckily for me, I didn't have to do too much work for this post. I'll simply cut and paste my correspondence with one of this blog's fans.
Dear FJR,
My younger sister has recently made it know that all she wants for Christmas is a Callahan Award winner. I know that Christmas is seven frickin' months away. Last year, she wanted those awesome pink shorts that the USC Hellions wear, but unfortunately, Five Ultimate sold out of them on Black Friday. I got her the plaid shorts instead. She subsequently burned an effigy of me wearing the plaid shorts and wrote 'PINK!' with hot pink nail polish all over my bedroom walls. I'm scared out of my mind. I need to get her a Callahan winner, but I don't know where to start. Can you tell me where I can get one, and for that matter, can you tell me what one looks like? Your biggest fan, Stan
Dear Stan,
Glad to have you as a fan. I'm happy to help you in your search for a Callahan winner. As many people have discovered, finding one is very difficult, and you will find that people all across the US and Canada are seeking this elusive creature. In fact, many claim that they have seen one in their backyard, this despite the fact that people can't even agree on what the Callahan winner even looks like.
If you look at the official Callahan website, you'll find that the general appearance is pretty vague. They are recognizable for the following:
A. overall offensive and defensive abilities
B. dedication to ultimate and leadership ability
C. sportsmanship
At prima facie, these things are kinda difficult to ascertain about anyone. If you need an example of this, check out that guy who played Nordberg in the Naked Gun movies. I thought he was a goofy, fun-loving Heisman Award winner. Whoops! FJR FAIL!
We'll come back to the first characteristic after taking a look at the second one. Dedication to Ultimate and leadership ability seems a bit tough to assess, but I think one way to measure this is simply by looking at the team's success. A little known secret is that Callahan winners have been spotted traveling in the company of a Nationals-qualifying team. Crazy, right? The only exceptions were Jody Dozono (Oregon) in 1999 and Chelsea Dengler (also Oregon) in 2003. I think this has something to do with the fact that there is no sales tax in Oregon and Goonies being filmed in Astoria. We'll call this the Oregon Aberration.
The third aspect is also a bit tough to assess. Sportsmanship is obviously critical and can serve as a tiebreaker when evaluating two or more candidates. Poor sportsmanship is definitely grounds to eliminate a candidate though almost nobody outwardly puts this label on anyone in the women's division (behind closed doors, you'll get a different story).
Going back to the first criterion, this used to be a little more cut and dry. Past Callahan winners had the very clear appearance of being the best player on their team. This changed last year when Courtney Kiesow won the award, and suddenly the look of a Callahan winner was much more open (I think everyone can agree that Courtney is a good player but clearly not the best on her team). Whether last year was an aberration or a complete paradigm shift remains to be seen.
Well, Stan, I hope this helps you in your search for your sister's Christmas gift.
p.s. Keep your sister away from scissors and other sharp objects.
Dear FJR,
Sorry to bug you again but can I just get a list of names? I started reading what you wrote, but I don't read anything longer than what you can fit in a text message. Consider it a generational thing. Hook me up, bro! Also, thanks for the quick response. You must really love your fans! Either that or you have no friends and are desperate to connect with people. Your superfan, Stan
p.s. I just drank a fifth of vodka... dare me to drive?
If we use qualifying for Nationals to separate the Candidates from the candidates, we get the following 17 names:
KC Vampola (UCLA)
Andrea Romano (UCSB)
Heather Waugh (Colorado)
Rohre Titcomb (Dartmouth)
Tania Reitz (Illinois)
Emily Baecher (Michigan)
Kelly Tidwell (UNC-Wilmington)
Stephanie Barker (Northeastern)
Julia Sherwood (Oregon)
Anne Mercier (Ottawa)
Whitney Viets (Pennsylvania)
Kara O'Malley (St. Louis)
Anne Ohliger (Southern California)
Jenny Founds (Stanford)
Claire Suver (University of Washington)
Kate Stambaugh (Wash U.)
Georgia Bosscher (Wisconsin)
If you restrict your shopping list to the names above, I think you'll find what you are looking for. To allay any concerns that you might have overlooked someone, we'll look at those players who were eliminated in the game-to-go or late in Regionals.
Candice Chan (UBC)
Darragh Clancy (California)
Jennifer Jacobsen (UCSD)
Kristen Lamm (Florida)
Lucy Barnes (Harvard)
Charlie Katie Mercer (Maryland)
Liz Hand (Middlebury)
Claire O'Brien (Wake Forest)
All of these are good players, but do any of them stand out above and beyond players on the previous list? I don't think so. The one exception might be Candice Chan, but it can be argued that she wasn't even the most valuable player on her team (Tory Hislop looked a lot like a Callahan contender to me). Kristen Lamm has a big following too but Florida simply hasn't played on a big enough stage during the regular season to garner more consideration. Darragh Clancy is a great player as well but she also has the same issue that Candice Chan does. Speaking of Cal...
The two players that I think could have implemented the Oregon Aberration were Cree Howard and Tory Hislop. Neither were nominated so this is not an issue. Other surprising absences from the Callahan nominee list include Robyn Fennig (UW Eau Claire) and Alyssa Weatherford.
The first means to reduce the pool of 17 nominees who will be playing in Columbus is simply to eliminate those who haven't played enough at the elite tourneys. Personally, I think it is problematic to have the Callahan voting completed before the College Championships because the tourney offers the best opportunity to look closely at the top nominees. Especially this year, voters have more of an opportunity to watch the best of the best and more closely examine each nominee perform when they are on the biggest stage. Since this is not the case, it means that the teams/players who have not travelled to the elite tourneys simply do not have enough attention to be viable contenders for the Callahan Award. Of course, this only really affects Whitney Viets (UPenn) as all of the other nominees attended either Centex or the Stanford Invite.
To further refine the pool, I think you can eliminate all of the nominees whose teams didn't at least qualify for the pre-quarters or quarterfinals at any of the prestige tourneys (Pres Day, Stanford, Centex - apologies to Midwest Throwdown, Trouble in Vegas and Easterns). This is consistent with the past five Callahan winners, all of whose teams advanced to the quarterfinals at the College Championships. Applying this test eliminates Kate Stambaugh (Wash U.), Rohre Titcomb (Dartmouth), Stephanie Barker (Northeastern), and Kelly Tidwell (UNC-Wilmington). Wilmington actually has a solid shot at qualifying for the quarterfinals, and Tidwell has certainly been a major force in Seaweed's resurgence. Each of these players are obviously very good, but the remaining candidates are just simply better qualified.
With one major exception, the remaining twelve players can be further whittled down by eliminating those teams that didn't appear in the quarterfinals of any of the big tourneys. Anne Ohliger (USC), Heather Waugh (Colorado) and Tania Reitz (Illinois) bow out at this level. I love each of their games and each player means so much to their respective squads. I'm of course partial to Ohliger aka Bambi as she has played an important part in the rise of USC Ultimate from a team struggling to get seven to a tourney to one of the top 15 teams in the division. Waugh was tremendous at Regionals and the amount of respect she gets from her teammates is undeniable. Reitz was listed as one of my seven players to watch this year in the UPA magazine and I think she has proven herself as being one of the top 14 players in the division.
The one exception here that should not be eliminated because of the quarterfinals test is Emily Baecher. They lost a tight game to Wisconsin at Centex, but there is no doubt that Flywheel is capable of qualifying for the quarterfinals at Nationals. Baecher has certainly benefitted from quite a bit more exposure than Ohliger, Waugh and Reitz, but her play and leadership skills clearly merit the attention.
In reducing the list from nine to the five finalists, there are more subjective criteria that need to be employed. First, I think we can use what I'll call the Stanford Paradox: this is simply to eliminate those players who are surrounded by other very good players and consequently do not stand out as much as the others. After winning the second and third Callahan Awards, Stanford has become the poster child for this problem, and I think strong players like Enessa Janes, Christina Contreras and Lauren Casey all lost votes because outsiders couldn't agree on who Superfly's best player is. I'm sure that Stanford will gladly take the championships over the individual awards.
In employing this test, I am not suggesting that the remaining nominees aren't surrounded by very good players. I am simply offering my opinion that the disparity between the eliminated players and their teammates is much smaller than those of the other candidates. I guess you can consider this simply another name for the VORP test (Value Over Replacement Player).
The players that fall out of contention when applying the Stanford Paradox / VORP test are Jenny Founds (Stanford, of course), KC Vampola (UCLA) and Julia Sherwood (Oregon). I wish I had statistical data to back this up, but I'm fairly confident that the relative plus/minus of each of these players would be less than the others on the list. I have consistently been impressed by Founds and she deserves a ton of credit for anchoring Superfly' s handling line when Emily Damon was sidelined for a big part of the season. Vampola is underappreciated as a player and I have come to greatly respect her cutting and receiving skills. Sherwood has emerged as a fantastic defender and arguably Fugue's most lethal thrower.
The next player that I would eliminate is Kara O'Malley (St. Louis). SLULU is making their first appearance at Nationals and O'Malley is a big part of the reason why. She fits the profile of that dominant individual who is primarily responsible for a priorly unknown team's success. Similar past candidates include Lucia Derks (Wake Forest), Mia Iseman (NYU), Christina Wirkus (Truman State) and Amy Smith (Emory). When you compare O'Malley to the other candidates, especially Anne Mercier and Emily Baecher (players with the most similar profiles), I think they are simply better all-around players and offer more compelling intangibles than O'Malley. That said, for O'Malley to be on the cusp of being one of the five finalists acknowledged in Columbus would be a tremendous recognition for St. Louis Ultimate and that she is being considered here is a testament to her great contributions.
FJR,
Wow, so many words. Just give me a name. Stan
Andrea Romano. Text message version: Dre. D-R-E.
Of the five finalists (Romano, Bosscher, Mercier, Baecher, Suver), I think she has the best balance of all of the considerations that I have discussed above.
(1) Strong player with high VORP? Absolutely. UCSB was solid last year when Dre was on the sidelines, but they were a quarterfinals, maybe semifinals, team without her. With her? They got to the finals. As mentioned before, with her playing this season, they won two of the big three tourneys, reached the finals of Centex and won Regionals handily. Without her, they lost to UCLA at Sectionals. Kaela and Finney are both very good players but Dre brings an extra something that takes the Burning Skirts to another level.
(2) On-field intangibles? Check. That extra something I mentioned before is poise and confidence. She noticeably makes the other players around her better.
(3) Off-field intangibles? Yes. Dre has quietly contributed behind the scenes. She was part of the organizing force that resulted in the return of Pres Day as a national-caliber tourney and has strongly supported the growth of women's collegiate Ultimate by being part of women's teams' effort to take more control over their own division.
(4) Team success? Yes, on many levels. Over the past 3-4 years, UCSB has become a dominant force on the national level. Their growth from a mid-tier team to the number one seed at Nationals is a pretty big deal. This year, they have been regarded by most as the number one team in the division.
Objectively, if you applied the test of a hypothetical draft and who would be the first player picked, I would likely go with either Anne Mercier or Georgia Bosscher. It is really, really close between those two. I think Bosscher is the better defender and overall athlete, but Mercier has a more potent offensive arsenal and higher Ultimate IQ. If you want to vote for the player that makes the most eye-popping plays, you have to go with one of them.
But clearly, the Callahan Award is not and has never been simply a reflection of the above test. At present, I think Bosscher is the frontrunner because (a) she's very good, (b) she is very recognizable and has been a big name for a number of years, (c) the Wisconsin / Central Region voting bloc is a powerful force and clearly made a big difference last year in a year where Kira Frew was the clear favorite, and (d) she is very likable.
I also think that Kiesow winning the award last year weakens the case for Georgia Bosscher. The argument made for Courtney Kiesow over Kira Frew and the other candidates was that she brought a lot of the intangibles to Bella Donna. Kiesow is still at Wisconsin, but Bosscher's proponents maintain that she is a singular talent who deserves the award more than anyone else, including the teammate who won it last year. I find this a bit puzzling. Another problem I keep running into is that most of the arguments I can think of in favor of Georgia are also valid for Anne Mercier. As I suggested before, it's really close between these two players based purely on a skill set evaluation.
This being the case, I think Romano shines above the other finalists because of the other factors. Also, there are simply more objective reasons to support her candidacy above the others. The simplest one, of course, is that her team has made the greatest leap of all the other top candidates' teams, and there is no doubt that she has played a major role in that leap.
If you want to vote for the person who has made the biggest difference to her team, to her Section, to her Region and to her division as a whole, Andrea Romano is that player.
This is a really detailed look at the candidates and part two whittles the candidates down to three finalists in Survivor-style fashion. Luckily for me, I didn't have to do too much work for this post. I'll simply cut and paste my correspondence with one of this blog's fans.
Dear FJR,
My younger sister has recently made it know that all she wants for Christmas is a Callahan Award winner. I know that Christmas is seven frickin' months away. Last year, she wanted those awesome pink shorts that the USC Hellions wear, but unfortunately, Five Ultimate sold out of them on Black Friday. I got her the plaid shorts instead. She subsequently burned an effigy of me wearing the plaid shorts and wrote 'PINK!' with hot pink nail polish all over my bedroom walls. I'm scared out of my mind. I need to get her a Callahan winner, but I don't know where to start. Can you tell me where I can get one, and for that matter, can you tell me what one looks like? Your biggest fan, Stan
Dear Stan,
Glad to have you as a fan. I'm happy to help you in your search for a Callahan winner. As many people have discovered, finding one is very difficult, and you will find that people all across the US and Canada are seeking this elusive creature. In fact, many claim that they have seen one in their backyard, this despite the fact that people can't even agree on what the Callahan winner even looks like.
If you look at the official Callahan website, you'll find that the general appearance is pretty vague. They are recognizable for the following:
A. overall offensive and defensive abilities
B. dedication to ultimate and leadership ability
C. sportsmanship
At prima facie, these things are kinda difficult to ascertain about anyone. If you need an example of this, check out that guy who played Nordberg in the Naked Gun movies. I thought he was a goofy, fun-loving Heisman Award winner. Whoops! FJR FAIL!
We'll come back to the first characteristic after taking a look at the second one. Dedication to Ultimate and leadership ability seems a bit tough to assess, but I think one way to measure this is simply by looking at the team's success. A little known secret is that Callahan winners have been spotted traveling in the company of a Nationals-qualifying team. Crazy, right? The only exceptions were Jody Dozono (Oregon) in 1999 and Chelsea Dengler (also Oregon) in 2003. I think this has something to do with the fact that there is no sales tax in Oregon and Goonies being filmed in Astoria. We'll call this the Oregon Aberration.
The third aspect is also a bit tough to assess. Sportsmanship is obviously critical and can serve as a tiebreaker when evaluating two or more candidates. Poor sportsmanship is definitely grounds to eliminate a candidate though almost nobody outwardly puts this label on anyone in the women's division (behind closed doors, you'll get a different story).
Going back to the first criterion, this used to be a little more cut and dry. Past Callahan winners had the very clear appearance of being the best player on their team. This changed last year when Courtney Kiesow won the award, and suddenly the look of a Callahan winner was much more open (I think everyone can agree that Courtney is a good player but clearly not the best on her team). Whether last year was an aberration or a complete paradigm shift remains to be seen.
Well, Stan, I hope this helps you in your search for your sister's Christmas gift.
p.s. Keep your sister away from scissors and other sharp objects.
Dear FJR,
Sorry to bug you again but can I just get a list of names? I started reading what you wrote, but I don't read anything longer than what you can fit in a text message. Consider it a generational thing. Hook me up, bro! Also, thanks for the quick response. You must really love your fans! Either that or you have no friends and are desperate to connect with people. Your superfan, Stan
p.s. I just drank a fifth of vodka... dare me to drive?
If we use qualifying for Nationals to separate the Candidates from the candidates, we get the following 17 names:
KC Vampola (UCLA)
Andrea Romano (UCSB)
Heather Waugh (Colorado)
Rohre Titcomb (Dartmouth)
Tania Reitz (Illinois)
Emily Baecher (Michigan)
Kelly Tidwell (UNC-Wilmington)
Stephanie Barker (Northeastern)
Julia Sherwood (Oregon)
Anne Mercier (Ottawa)
Whitney Viets (Pennsylvania)
Kara O'Malley (St. Louis)
Anne Ohliger (Southern California)
Jenny Founds (Stanford)
Claire Suver (University of Washington)
Kate Stambaugh (Wash U.)
Georgia Bosscher (Wisconsin)
If you restrict your shopping list to the names above, I think you'll find what you are looking for. To allay any concerns that you might have overlooked someone, we'll look at those players who were eliminated in the game-to-go or late in Regionals.
Candice Chan (UBC)
Darragh Clancy (California)
Jennifer Jacobsen (UCSD)
Kristen Lamm (Florida)
Lucy Barnes (Harvard)
Charlie Katie Mercer (Maryland)
Liz Hand (Middlebury)
Claire O'Brien (Wake Forest)
All of these are good players, but do any of them stand out above and beyond players on the previous list? I don't think so. The one exception might be Candice Chan, but it can be argued that she wasn't even the most valuable player on her team (Tory Hislop looked a lot like a Callahan contender to me). Kristen Lamm has a big following too but Florida simply hasn't played on a big enough stage during the regular season to garner more consideration. Darragh Clancy is a great player as well but she also has the same issue that Candice Chan does. Speaking of Cal...
The two players that I think could have implemented the Oregon Aberration were Cree Howard and Tory Hislop. Neither were nominated so this is not an issue. Other surprising absences from the Callahan nominee list include Robyn Fennig (UW Eau Claire) and Alyssa Weatherford.
The first means to reduce the pool of 17 nominees who will be playing in Columbus is simply to eliminate those who haven't played enough at the elite tourneys. Personally, I think it is problematic to have the Callahan voting completed before the College Championships because the tourney offers the best opportunity to look closely at the top nominees. Especially this year, voters have more of an opportunity to watch the best of the best and more closely examine each nominee perform when they are on the biggest stage. Since this is not the case, it means that the teams/players who have not travelled to the elite tourneys simply do not have enough attention to be viable contenders for the Callahan Award. Of course, this only really affects Whitney Viets (UPenn) as all of the other nominees attended either Centex or the Stanford Invite.
To further refine the pool, I think you can eliminate all of the nominees whose teams didn't at least qualify for the pre-quarters or quarterfinals at any of the prestige tourneys (Pres Day, Stanford, Centex - apologies to Midwest Throwdown, Trouble in Vegas and Easterns). This is consistent with the past five Callahan winners, all of whose teams advanced to the quarterfinals at the College Championships. Applying this test eliminates Kate Stambaugh (Wash U.), Rohre Titcomb (Dartmouth), Stephanie Barker (Northeastern), and Kelly Tidwell (UNC-Wilmington). Wilmington actually has a solid shot at qualifying for the quarterfinals, and Tidwell has certainly been a major force in Seaweed's resurgence. Each of these players are obviously very good, but the remaining candidates are just simply better qualified.
With one major exception, the remaining twelve players can be further whittled down by eliminating those teams that didn't appear in the quarterfinals of any of the big tourneys. Anne Ohliger (USC), Heather Waugh (Colorado) and Tania Reitz (Illinois) bow out at this level. I love each of their games and each player means so much to their respective squads. I'm of course partial to Ohliger aka Bambi as she has played an important part in the rise of USC Ultimate from a team struggling to get seven to a tourney to one of the top 15 teams in the division. Waugh was tremendous at Regionals and the amount of respect she gets from her teammates is undeniable. Reitz was listed as one of my seven players to watch this year in the UPA magazine and I think she has proven herself as being one of the top 14 players in the division.
The one exception here that should not be eliminated because of the quarterfinals test is Emily Baecher. They lost a tight game to Wisconsin at Centex, but there is no doubt that Flywheel is capable of qualifying for the quarterfinals at Nationals. Baecher has certainly benefitted from quite a bit more exposure than Ohliger, Waugh and Reitz, but her play and leadership skills clearly merit the attention.
In reducing the list from nine to the five finalists, there are more subjective criteria that need to be employed. First, I think we can use what I'll call the Stanford Paradox: this is simply to eliminate those players who are surrounded by other very good players and consequently do not stand out as much as the others. After winning the second and third Callahan Awards, Stanford has become the poster child for this problem, and I think strong players like Enessa Janes, Christina Contreras and Lauren Casey all lost votes because outsiders couldn't agree on who Superfly's best player is. I'm sure that Stanford will gladly take the championships over the individual awards.
In employing this test, I am not suggesting that the remaining nominees aren't surrounded by very good players. I am simply offering my opinion that the disparity between the eliminated players and their teammates is much smaller than those of the other candidates. I guess you can consider this simply another name for the VORP test (Value Over Replacement Player).
The players that fall out of contention when applying the Stanford Paradox / VORP test are Jenny Founds (Stanford, of course), KC Vampola (UCLA) and Julia Sherwood (Oregon). I wish I had statistical data to back this up, but I'm fairly confident that the relative plus/minus of each of these players would be less than the others on the list. I have consistently been impressed by Founds and she deserves a ton of credit for anchoring Superfly' s handling line when Emily Damon was sidelined for a big part of the season. Vampola is underappreciated as a player and I have come to greatly respect her cutting and receiving skills. Sherwood has emerged as a fantastic defender and arguably Fugue's most lethal thrower.
The next player that I would eliminate is Kara O'Malley (St. Louis). SLULU is making their first appearance at Nationals and O'Malley is a big part of the reason why. She fits the profile of that dominant individual who is primarily responsible for a priorly unknown team's success. Similar past candidates include Lucia Derks (Wake Forest), Mia Iseman (NYU), Christina Wirkus (Truman State) and Amy Smith (Emory). When you compare O'Malley to the other candidates, especially Anne Mercier and Emily Baecher (players with the most similar profiles), I think they are simply better all-around players and offer more compelling intangibles than O'Malley. That said, for O'Malley to be on the cusp of being one of the five finalists acknowledged in Columbus would be a tremendous recognition for St. Louis Ultimate and that she is being considered here is a testament to her great contributions.
FJR,
Wow, so many words. Just give me a name. Stan
Andrea Romano. Text message version: Dre. D-R-E.
Of the five finalists (Romano, Bosscher, Mercier, Baecher, Suver), I think she has the best balance of all of the considerations that I have discussed above.
(1) Strong player with high VORP? Absolutely. UCSB was solid last year when Dre was on the sidelines, but they were a quarterfinals, maybe semifinals, team without her. With her? They got to the finals. As mentioned before, with her playing this season, they won two of the big three tourneys, reached the finals of Centex and won Regionals handily. Without her, they lost to UCLA at Sectionals. Kaela and Finney are both very good players but Dre brings an extra something that takes the Burning Skirts to another level.
(2) On-field intangibles? Check. That extra something I mentioned before is poise and confidence. She noticeably makes the other players around her better.
(3) Off-field intangibles? Yes. Dre has quietly contributed behind the scenes. She was part of the organizing force that resulted in the return of Pres Day as a national-caliber tourney and has strongly supported the growth of women's collegiate Ultimate by being part of women's teams' effort to take more control over their own division.
(4) Team success? Yes, on many levels. Over the past 3-4 years, UCSB has become a dominant force on the national level. Their growth from a mid-tier team to the number one seed at Nationals is a pretty big deal. This year, they have been regarded by most as the number one team in the division.
Objectively, if you applied the test of a hypothetical draft and who would be the first player picked, I would likely go with either Anne Mercier or Georgia Bosscher. It is really, really close between those two. I think Bosscher is the better defender and overall athlete, but Mercier has a more potent offensive arsenal and higher Ultimate IQ. If you want to vote for the player that makes the most eye-popping plays, you have to go with one of them.
But clearly, the Callahan Award is not and has never been simply a reflection of the above test. At present, I think Bosscher is the frontrunner because (a) she's very good, (b) she is very recognizable and has been a big name for a number of years, (c) the Wisconsin / Central Region voting bloc is a powerful force and clearly made a big difference last year in a year where Kira Frew was the clear favorite, and (d) she is very likable.
I also think that Kiesow winning the award last year weakens the case for Georgia Bosscher. The argument made for Courtney Kiesow over Kira Frew and the other candidates was that she brought a lot of the intangibles to Bella Donna. Kiesow is still at Wisconsin, but Bosscher's proponents maintain that she is a singular talent who deserves the award more than anyone else, including the teammate who won it last year. I find this a bit puzzling. Another problem I keep running into is that most of the arguments I can think of in favor of Georgia are also valid for Anne Mercier. As I suggested before, it's really close between these two players based purely on a skill set evaluation.
This being the case, I think Romano shines above the other finalists because of the other factors. Also, there are simply more objective reasons to support her candidacy above the others. The simplest one, of course, is that her team has made the greatest leap of all the other top candidates' teams, and there is no doubt that she has played a major role in that leap.
If you want to vote for the person who has made the biggest difference to her team, to her Section, to her Region and to her division as a whole, Andrea Romano is that player.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The 2009 Callahan Award - Why You Should Vote for Andrea Romano (Part 1)
My original intent was to provide a number of profiles highlighting the top players in the women’s division. I started something similar last year with profiles on Katie Barry and Angie Sanan, but I simply got busy with other things this year. Perhaps one day I'll get paid to write these profiles. While I'm being unrealistic, I might as well dream of getting paid to run an individual's Callahan campaign once I'm done with coaching.
Anyway, I was planning to take a fairly objective stance on this year's Callahan Award, but after sifting through RSD and getting a general sense of the Callahan hype, I felt deeply that a gross injustice was taking place. The current frontrunner, Georgia Bosscher, is a very strong candidate but it is insulting to the entire women's division to think that she is a singular talent that is miles above the rest of the field. I love Bosscher's game and folks in Wisconsin are fully entitled to promote her as much as they can. That said, I think the case for Andrea Romano is more compelling and deserves a lot more consideration from all of the voters.
ANDREA ROMANO
Over the past three years, the UC Santa Barbara Burning Skirts have emerged as one of the dominant programs in women’s Ultimate. This year, they have had a very impressive run, notching tourney wins at Pres Day and the Stanford Invite. After a close loss to Ottawa in the Centex finals, UCSB was just short of winning the equivalent of the women's division's Triple Crown.
Beyond this year, UCSB defied expectations in both 2007 and 2008 by reaching the finals at the College Championships. In 2007, they eliminated UCLA, one of the most talented college women's teams I've ever seen. In 2008, they were up 8-5 in the finals before running out of gas.
The disparity between UCSB's accomplishments and the amount of hype they get on RSD and other blogs is enormous. The fact is that they demand considerably more attention and recognition for their rise to power. When you examine the factors responsible for the Burning Skirt's success, you will see that Andrea Romano has played a gigantic part in their ascent.
Andrea (aka Dre) grew up in San Francisco where basketball was her primary sport. She discovered Ultimate when she got to college and credits Karen Ko and Steve Dugan with her early development as a player. She recalls that Karen would "[stay] after practice and [throw] with me... encouraging me to play club after my rookie season." Her growth as a player took another big jump forward when Steve Dugan recruited her to play with the Gendors in 2006. That team qualified for the Club Championships and made it to the semifinals.
That same club season marks one of the most difficult times in Dre's Ultimate career and life. On the return trip from the Southwest Mixed Regionals tourney, just hours after celebrating their qualification to Nationals, Andrea was involved in a tragic car accident that took the lives of two of her teammates (Doug Baker and Will Wiersma). She spoke about this during CSTV's coverage of the 2007 finals against Stanford, and suffice to say, the accident was a very emotional event in her life.
The accident would also have a lasting physical effect on the field. When the 2007 college season began, the first signs of a mysterious foot injury stemming from the accident showed up and sidelined her early in the season. The same problem would put her on the sidelines for the bulk of the 2008 season. "Spending hours captaining the team and having an injury doctors can’t explain is one of the hardest things I have ever done. It’s hard not to be able to lead by example and be stuck on the sidelines not being able to work hard and run sprints with your team."
Andrea's ability to confront these adversities owes a lot to her work ethic. The Burning Skirts practice four times a week on top of conditioning during the winter and spring quarters. Their tourney schedule was among the most demanding in the women's division, and the fact that they remain highly motivated and perform consistently well is a testament to the team's leadership. Kaela Jorgenson and Carolyn Finney took on the role of captains this year, but Andrea has clearly remained a vital leader both on and off the field.
This year, UCSB has capped off their ascent by entering the College Championships as the number one seed. While she won't assume credit for it, there is a clear correlation between Dre's time on the team and their path to the top. She considers this journey to be one of the highlights of her Ultimate career. "When I started playing on the Skirts, the veterans were ecstatic to just qualify for Stanford Invite. When I was a rookie, we set a goal of making it to Nationals in 2007. Winning Centex in 2007 and transitioning from a team that was not guaranteed an invite to big tournaments to a national spotlight team was definitely one of the highpoints of my career."
Their success during the season was particularly impressive since last year's Callahan nominee Katie Barry had been on the sidelines prior to Regionals. All the while, Andrea has still been dealing with her foot injury (she sat out during their loss to UCLA at Sectionals). As part of this process, I have personally witnessed the evolution in Dre's game. Her nagging injury has at times limited her ability to dominate as a cutter the way she did early in her college career, but she has become a much smarter player and a steady handler that the rest of the team can depend on. Her presence on the field provides a great deal of confidence to her teammates, and her significance becomes more and more noticeable with every game you watch UCSB play.
Romano's confidence and demeanor also have an important impact on her teammates. By the middle of this season, the Burning Skirts looked like an unstoppable mack truck until they hit a few bumps at Centex and Socal Sectionals. Dre's manner of handling those losses provided a great example for her teammates and helped to motivate them to a dominant performance at the Southwest Regionals where they looked like the best team I had seen all season. Romano explains, “I am a very competitive person and I hate losing. However, [losing to Ottawa at Centex and UCLA at Sectionals] motivated our team to step it up at practice and work on our weaknesses."
Going into the College Championships, Dre and the Burning Skirts have their eyes on the prize. "Our goal is to bring the best possible team we can to Columbus and leave it all on the field." While there are a number of championship-caliber teams in the field, UCSB looks like a good bet to end the Northwest's reign. If the Burning Skirts are the ones hoisting the trophy on Memorial Day, let there be no doubt that Andrea Romano will be a major reason why.
------
I will be posting part two of this article tomorrow, and offer a detailed analysis on why I think Andrea Romano is the best candidate for the Callahan.
Anyway, I was planning to take a fairly objective stance on this year's Callahan Award, but after sifting through RSD and getting a general sense of the Callahan hype, I felt deeply that a gross injustice was taking place. The current frontrunner, Georgia Bosscher, is a very strong candidate but it is insulting to the entire women's division to think that she is a singular talent that is miles above the rest of the field. I love Bosscher's game and folks in Wisconsin are fully entitled to promote her as much as they can. That said, I think the case for Andrea Romano is more compelling and deserves a lot more consideration from all of the voters.
ANDREA ROMANO
Over the past three years, the UC Santa Barbara Burning Skirts have emerged as one of the dominant programs in women’s Ultimate. This year, they have had a very impressive run, notching tourney wins at Pres Day and the Stanford Invite. After a close loss to Ottawa in the Centex finals, UCSB was just short of winning the equivalent of the women's division's Triple Crown.
Beyond this year, UCSB defied expectations in both 2007 and 2008 by reaching the finals at the College Championships. In 2007, they eliminated UCLA, one of the most talented college women's teams I've ever seen. In 2008, they were up 8-5 in the finals before running out of gas.
The disparity between UCSB's accomplishments and the amount of hype they get on RSD and other blogs is enormous. The fact is that they demand considerably more attention and recognition for their rise to power. When you examine the factors responsible for the Burning Skirt's success, you will see that Andrea Romano has played a gigantic part in their ascent.
Andrea (aka Dre) grew up in San Francisco where basketball was her primary sport. She discovered Ultimate when she got to college and credits Karen Ko and Steve Dugan with her early development as a player. She recalls that Karen would "[stay] after practice and [throw] with me... encouraging me to play club after my rookie season." Her growth as a player took another big jump forward when Steve Dugan recruited her to play with the Gendors in 2006. That team qualified for the Club Championships and made it to the semifinals.
That same club season marks one of the most difficult times in Dre's Ultimate career and life. On the return trip from the Southwest Mixed Regionals tourney, just hours after celebrating their qualification to Nationals, Andrea was involved in a tragic car accident that took the lives of two of her teammates (Doug Baker and Will Wiersma). She spoke about this during CSTV's coverage of the 2007 finals against Stanford, and suffice to say, the accident was a very emotional event in her life.
The accident would also have a lasting physical effect on the field. When the 2007 college season began, the first signs of a mysterious foot injury stemming from the accident showed up and sidelined her early in the season. The same problem would put her on the sidelines for the bulk of the 2008 season. "Spending hours captaining the team and having an injury doctors can’t explain is one of the hardest things I have ever done. It’s hard not to be able to lead by example and be stuck on the sidelines not being able to work hard and run sprints with your team."
Andrea's ability to confront these adversities owes a lot to her work ethic. The Burning Skirts practice four times a week on top of conditioning during the winter and spring quarters. Their tourney schedule was among the most demanding in the women's division, and the fact that they remain highly motivated and perform consistently well is a testament to the team's leadership. Kaela Jorgenson and Carolyn Finney took on the role of captains this year, but Andrea has clearly remained a vital leader both on and off the field.
This year, UCSB has capped off their ascent by entering the College Championships as the number one seed. While she won't assume credit for it, there is a clear correlation between Dre's time on the team and their path to the top. She considers this journey to be one of the highlights of her Ultimate career. "When I started playing on the Skirts, the veterans were ecstatic to just qualify for Stanford Invite. When I was a rookie, we set a goal of making it to Nationals in 2007. Winning Centex in 2007 and transitioning from a team that was not guaranteed an invite to big tournaments to a national spotlight team was definitely one of the highpoints of my career."
Their success during the season was particularly impressive since last year's Callahan nominee Katie Barry had been on the sidelines prior to Regionals. All the while, Andrea has still been dealing with her foot injury (she sat out during their loss to UCLA at Sectionals). As part of this process, I have personally witnessed the evolution in Dre's game. Her nagging injury has at times limited her ability to dominate as a cutter the way she did early in her college career, but she has become a much smarter player and a steady handler that the rest of the team can depend on. Her presence on the field provides a great deal of confidence to her teammates, and her significance becomes more and more noticeable with every game you watch UCSB play.
Romano's confidence and demeanor also have an important impact on her teammates. By the middle of this season, the Burning Skirts looked like an unstoppable mack truck until they hit a few bumps at Centex and Socal Sectionals. Dre's manner of handling those losses provided a great example for her teammates and helped to motivate them to a dominant performance at the Southwest Regionals where they looked like the best team I had seen all season. Romano explains, “I am a very competitive person and I hate losing. However, [losing to Ottawa at Centex and UCLA at Sectionals] motivated our team to step it up at practice and work on our weaknesses."
Going into the College Championships, Dre and the Burning Skirts have their eyes on the prize. "Our goal is to bring the best possible team we can to Columbus and leave it all on the field." While there are a number of championship-caliber teams in the field, UCSB looks like a good bet to end the Northwest's reign. If the Burning Skirts are the ones hoisting the trophy on Memorial Day, let there be no doubt that Andrea Romano will be a major reason why.
------
I will be posting part two of this article tomorrow, and offer a detailed analysis on why I think Andrea Romano is the best candidate for the Callahan.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
An Open Call for Contributors
In the interest of adding more voices to this blog, I am looking for any writers who are interested in contributing and furthering the discussion on women's collegiate Ultimate. Please contact me at frho@sbcglobal.net. I'll likely want to see some kind of writing sample -- at the very least, send me a good joke or something that gives me a sense of who you are.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The College Championships - An Early Look
Seedings are coming out later today but I want to take a quick look at the teams that comprise the Nationals field. Before I do so, I want to revisit my predictions from last weekend's Regionals. Like a dumbass, I went against the Washington Corollary when I made my Northwest predictions. I desperately wanted to pick one upset in the remaining three regionals, and all three went basically according to what most would have predicted (I think the New England region was a closer call with Dartmouth, Harvard and Northeastern being the favorites).
One thing that this highlights is that qualifying for Nationals for the first time in a school's history is a big hurdle and will only become more and more difficult to do (as long as the field remains at 20 teams). After it was made known that the Southwest would get four bids, I thought it would be really easy for us. This was not the case at all. More established programs have the ability to step up and peak during the series. Both UCSD and Colorado demonstrated this.
Harvard and Middlebury (both men and women) also discovered this the hard way. Harvard had been 2-0 against Northeastern but came up short when all the chips were on the table. Middlebury had beaten Dartmouth earlier in the season but got demolished in their rematch at Regionals.
Another thing is that despite the increase in parity in the women's division this year, a clear pecking order is emerging. I see a number of distinct tiers at Nationals and I'll write about those below.
I've detailed my thoughts on what the seeds should be on RSD [link], but I thought I'd throw some other random thoughts and predictions before the pools come out.
FJR's Proposed Seedings
1. UC Santa Barbara (SW1)
2. Washington (NW1)
3. Ottawa (ME1)
4. Wisconsin (CN1)
5. Stanford (NW2)
6. Oregon (NW3)
7. Michigan (GL1)
8. North Carolina-Wilmington (AC1)
9. Colorado (SW2)
10. UCLA (SW3)
11. North Carolina (AC2)
12. Carleton (CN2)
13. Southern California (SW4)
14. Washington University (SO1)
15. St. Louis (SO2)
16. Iowa State (CN3)
17. Northeastern (NE1)
18. Dartmouth (NE2)
19. Illinois (GL2)
20. Pennsylvania (ME2)
My proposed seedings certainly do not reflect how I would rank the teams overall in terms of quality and predicted finish. I think people get really emotional about seeding and act as though their team is being disrespected. I've already gotten some flak from some folks who feel that Washington is too high (mostly fans of Wisconsin and Ottawa). I also heard from some proponents who felt that Stanford should be higher than Wisconsin. Honestly, I don't think it matters all that much who is seeded 2-7. The 1 and 2 seeds in pools B, C and D will all be very good teams and each of the 2 seeds are capable of beating the 1 seed. The big dropoff will be in pool A where UCSB will have considerably easier time in their game against the 2 seed (likely UNC-Wilmington). The tradeoff is that it means the Burning Skirts will likely have a much tougher quarterfinals opponent.
The big danger in pool play is avoiding the dangerous lower seeds. All of the likely 3 seeds (UCLA, Colorado, UNC, Carleton) are solid teams that will give problems to the top two seeds in the pool. I think the bigger concern for the top seeds comes in who draws the difficult 4 and 5 seeds. Of course, I put USC in this category, but St. Louis and Illinois also stand out as teams that could be capable of a big upset. SLU has already beaten Wisconsin twice and their style of play will give certain teams fits. Illinois is a very talented team that has the athleticism to run with almost everyone I've seen but they haven't been able to put all the pieces together. After a solid showing against Flywheel and a dominant performance in the backdoor game-to-go, the pressure should be off of Menace, and they could live up to the potential that I've seen since I first saw them at Pres Day.
One last note before I go into a look at the tiers -- I wish that the UPA had gone with power pools. The seeding wouldn't matter as much and teams would get a greater number of high-caliber games. I know the UPA is trying to highlight big matchups and allow teams to focus more on single games and enjoy the overall Nationals experience. I'm sure field space is a bit of an issue, but the power pool format is a lot of fun. There's a lot of excitement in seeing who gets to the top power pools and who emerges from the bottom.
Also, I was hoping that they would go with a full bracket of 16 instead of having byes for the top seeds. Adding another round with the potential for upsets would be fun. Granting a bye to the top teams seems unnecessary to me, and I don't think there should be any additional reward for winning a pool other than getting a better draw in bracket play.
TIER OF HEAVEN aka Ready to Play on Memorial Day
UC Santa Barbara
Ottawa
Wisconsin
I don't think there's any doubt that these three teams are primed to make it to Monday's big game. UCSB won Pres Day and Stanford and came in 2nd at Centex. Ottawa won Centex. The one knock on Wisconsin is that they haven't won a big tourney this season but that roster is loaded and ready to go.
TIER OF THE RAZOR'S EDGE aka the Fastest Way to Heaven
Washington
Stanford
Oregon
Northwest, you get a special tier of your own.
I remember some quote about the fastest way to heaven being on the edge of a razor. Whoa, morbid. Or enlightening. I tried to find this adage on the intertubes of webs but I couldn't find it anywhere. I know that Somerset Maugham's Razor's Edge has a quote from the Katha Upanishad that is supposed to help inform the reader about the title's meaning, but it's not quite the same thing that I've heard. I have not tossed out the very likely possibility that I have simply screwed up the quote and made something up that serves my needs.
Anyway, all three of the Northwest teams are no doubt in the title hunt, but it is unclear which team has the best chances in Columbus. Washington served notice at Regionals, Stanford won both previous times the Championship were decided in Columbus, and Oregon was one of the top two or three teams in the division during the regular season. All three have beaten each other once, and all three will be carrying a lot of confidence in Ohio.
I'M ALL ALONE *TIER* aka the Wildcard
Michigan
When you look at Flywheel's season, there's only one day where they lost to anyone not named Wisconsin. On the first day of Centex, they found themselves at the bottom of the A Pool after notching three losses by fairly slim margins to UCSB, Carleton and UNC. Some Flywheel fans declared that they were a juggernaut and should be considered one of the top two or three teams in the division. Fans are apt to write and say crazy things but Michigan is a very talented team. I don't think they are a good bet to rise above the teams in the top two tiers but I wouldn't be surprised to see them take down 1 or 2 of them and make a run to the semifinals.
FRANKLY, MY TIER, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHERE YOU PUT US aka Beware These Teams
UCLA
Colorado
USC
UNC-Wilmington
UNC
St. Louis
Carleton
Triple pun!
Of course, I'm putting the other three Southwest teams here. UCLA has the knowhow to peak at Nationals. They are becoming the Stanford of the Southwest (just don't compare the number of championships). Their biggest win this season was over UCSB at Sectionals, and BLU would love nothing more than to exact revenge by taking out the Burning Skirts when it counts the most.
Colorado is the most mercurial of the 20 teams. I think they match up particularly well with a team like Stanford. Kali's style of play is effective at disrupting system-type of offenses, and they will be hungry to prove that their performance at Regionals wasn't just the benefit of homefield advantage. They play with a lot of emotion and if they can harness that emotion and maintain consistency in their games, I think a quarterfinals appearance is within reach.
USC is one of three newcomers to the big show (Iowa State and St. Louis are the other two). I love this team. I can't write enough about them. I love the way that they play. The head coach talks too much and writes some crazy things. Go HoT Pink! Aliens are the new religion for uninspired screenwriters. My mother is a fish.
Of the two Carolina teams, I like UNC's chances of performing better than Wilmington's (despite UNC-W having a 4-0 record over UNC). Having been to the big show last year, UNC will be better accustomed to dealing with the pressure of performing well. Also, Pleiades is built to perform more consistently, and I think Wilmington's power game depends too much on a couple key players. The top West Coast and Midwest teams will know how to handle Wilmington's vertical game.
I would love to see St. Louis end up in a pool with Element, Bella Donna or the Burning Skirts. Wisconsin should be used to their style of play by now, but they do have a losing record against SLULU. I think St. Louis' slow-down offense could be really disruptive to teams that thrive on the deep game.
Somewhat like Colorado, Carleton has had a bit of an up-and-down season. Honestly, I have no idea what to expect from Syzygy. After losing in the quarterfinals the past two years, this year was expected to be a rebuilding year. I would bet on them making the pre-quarters and falling just short of making the next round.
TIERRA DEL FUEGO aka Angry at FJR for Not Ranking Them Higher
Wash U. (WUWU)
Northeastern
Dartmouth
Iowa State
Illinois
UPenn
The only team on this tier that I have seen up close this year is Illinois. I saw Northeastern briefly at Pres Day, and I felt the electric buzz in the air coming from Dartmouth's jerseys at Centex. One might think that this makes my judgment somewhere between unqualified and head-up-my-ass. I am basing these rankings on previous results, word of mouth from my trusted sources and the entrails of the goat that I slaughtered last night. According to the Idiot's Guide to Prognostication and Other Practical Applications of Santeria, these methods are actually superior to witnessing a team's play in person.
All of the teams here are capable of beating the teams on the prior tier, but I don't see them upsetting anyone above that. The one exception might be Wash U. Having clearly gotten the better of St. Louis in their recent matchups, Washington could be this year's Michigan State. [Last year, Michigan State dropped Texas after Melee had upset Washington and nearly taken out Bella Donna. Texas went from potentially winning the pool on point differential to becoming the bottom of the pool and falling completely out of contention.]
The draw means a lot for each of these teams' chances of making it to the pre-quarters, but my best guess is that Washington and Illinois are the most likely to advance past pool play.
Once the pools come out, I'll take a more detailed look at each team and offer my predictions.
One thing that this highlights is that qualifying for Nationals for the first time in a school's history is a big hurdle and will only become more and more difficult to do (as long as the field remains at 20 teams). After it was made known that the Southwest would get four bids, I thought it would be really easy for us. This was not the case at all. More established programs have the ability to step up and peak during the series. Both UCSD and Colorado demonstrated this.
Harvard and Middlebury (both men and women) also discovered this the hard way. Harvard had been 2-0 against Northeastern but came up short when all the chips were on the table. Middlebury had beaten Dartmouth earlier in the season but got demolished in their rematch at Regionals.
Another thing is that despite the increase in parity in the women's division this year, a clear pecking order is emerging. I see a number of distinct tiers at Nationals and I'll write about those below.
I've detailed my thoughts on what the seeds should be on RSD [link], but I thought I'd throw some other random thoughts and predictions before the pools come out.
FJR's Proposed Seedings
1. UC Santa Barbara (SW1)
2. Washington (NW1)
3. Ottawa (ME1)
4. Wisconsin (CN1)
5. Stanford (NW2)
6. Oregon (NW3)
7. Michigan (GL1)
8. North Carolina-Wilmington (AC1)
9. Colorado (SW2)
10. UCLA (SW3)
11. North Carolina (AC2)
12. Carleton (CN2)
13. Southern California (SW4)
14. Washington University (SO1)
15. St. Louis (SO2)
16. Iowa State (CN3)
17. Northeastern (NE1)
18. Dartmouth (NE2)
19. Illinois (GL2)
20. Pennsylvania (ME2)
My proposed seedings certainly do not reflect how I would rank the teams overall in terms of quality and predicted finish. I think people get really emotional about seeding and act as though their team is being disrespected. I've already gotten some flak from some folks who feel that Washington is too high (mostly fans of Wisconsin and Ottawa). I also heard from some proponents who felt that Stanford should be higher than Wisconsin. Honestly, I don't think it matters all that much who is seeded 2-7. The 1 and 2 seeds in pools B, C and D will all be very good teams and each of the 2 seeds are capable of beating the 1 seed. The big dropoff will be in pool A where UCSB will have considerably easier time in their game against the 2 seed (likely UNC-Wilmington). The tradeoff is that it means the Burning Skirts will likely have a much tougher quarterfinals opponent.
The big danger in pool play is avoiding the dangerous lower seeds. All of the likely 3 seeds (UCLA, Colorado, UNC, Carleton) are solid teams that will give problems to the top two seeds in the pool. I think the bigger concern for the top seeds comes in who draws the difficult 4 and 5 seeds. Of course, I put USC in this category, but St. Louis and Illinois also stand out as teams that could be capable of a big upset. SLU has already beaten Wisconsin twice and their style of play will give certain teams fits. Illinois is a very talented team that has the athleticism to run with almost everyone I've seen but they haven't been able to put all the pieces together. After a solid showing against Flywheel and a dominant performance in the backdoor game-to-go, the pressure should be off of Menace, and they could live up to the potential that I've seen since I first saw them at Pres Day.
One last note before I go into a look at the tiers -- I wish that the UPA had gone with power pools. The seeding wouldn't matter as much and teams would get a greater number of high-caliber games. I know the UPA is trying to highlight big matchups and allow teams to focus more on single games and enjoy the overall Nationals experience. I'm sure field space is a bit of an issue, but the power pool format is a lot of fun. There's a lot of excitement in seeing who gets to the top power pools and who emerges from the bottom.
Also, I was hoping that they would go with a full bracket of 16 instead of having byes for the top seeds. Adding another round with the potential for upsets would be fun. Granting a bye to the top teams seems unnecessary to me, and I don't think there should be any additional reward for winning a pool other than getting a better draw in bracket play.
TIER OF HEAVEN aka Ready to Play on Memorial Day
UC Santa Barbara
Ottawa
Wisconsin
I don't think there's any doubt that these three teams are primed to make it to Monday's big game. UCSB won Pres Day and Stanford and came in 2nd at Centex. Ottawa won Centex. The one knock on Wisconsin is that they haven't won a big tourney this season but that roster is loaded and ready to go.
TIER OF THE RAZOR'S EDGE aka the Fastest Way to Heaven
Washington
Stanford
Oregon
Northwest, you get a special tier of your own.
I remember some quote about the fastest way to heaven being on the edge of a razor. Whoa, morbid. Or enlightening. I tried to find this adage on the intertubes of webs but I couldn't find it anywhere. I know that Somerset Maugham's Razor's Edge has a quote from the Katha Upanishad that is supposed to help inform the reader about the title's meaning, but it's not quite the same thing that I've heard. I have not tossed out the very likely possibility that I have simply screwed up the quote and made something up that serves my needs.
Anyway, all three of the Northwest teams are no doubt in the title hunt, but it is unclear which team has the best chances in Columbus. Washington served notice at Regionals, Stanford won both previous times the Championship were decided in Columbus, and Oregon was one of the top two or three teams in the division during the regular season. All three have beaten each other once, and all three will be carrying a lot of confidence in Ohio.
I'M ALL ALONE *TIER* aka the Wildcard
Michigan
When you look at Flywheel's season, there's only one day where they lost to anyone not named Wisconsin. On the first day of Centex, they found themselves at the bottom of the A Pool after notching three losses by fairly slim margins to UCSB, Carleton and UNC. Some Flywheel fans declared that they were a juggernaut and should be considered one of the top two or three teams in the division. Fans are apt to write and say crazy things but Michigan is a very talented team. I don't think they are a good bet to rise above the teams in the top two tiers but I wouldn't be surprised to see them take down 1 or 2 of them and make a run to the semifinals.
FRANKLY, MY TIER, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHERE YOU PUT US aka Beware These Teams
UCLA
Colorado
USC
UNC-Wilmington
UNC
St. Louis
Carleton
Triple pun!
Of course, I'm putting the other three Southwest teams here. UCLA has the knowhow to peak at Nationals. They are becoming the Stanford of the Southwest (just don't compare the number of championships). Their biggest win this season was over UCSB at Sectionals, and BLU would love nothing more than to exact revenge by taking out the Burning Skirts when it counts the most.
Colorado is the most mercurial of the 20 teams. I think they match up particularly well with a team like Stanford. Kali's style of play is effective at disrupting system-type of offenses, and they will be hungry to prove that their performance at Regionals wasn't just the benefit of homefield advantage. They play with a lot of emotion and if they can harness that emotion and maintain consistency in their games, I think a quarterfinals appearance is within reach.
USC is one of three newcomers to the big show (Iowa State and St. Louis are the other two). I love this team. I can't write enough about them. I love the way that they play. The head coach talks too much and writes some crazy things. Go HoT Pink! Aliens are the new religion for uninspired screenwriters. My mother is a fish.
Of the two Carolina teams, I like UNC's chances of performing better than Wilmington's (despite UNC-W having a 4-0 record over UNC). Having been to the big show last year, UNC will be better accustomed to dealing with the pressure of performing well. Also, Pleiades is built to perform more consistently, and I think Wilmington's power game depends too much on a couple key players. The top West Coast and Midwest teams will know how to handle Wilmington's vertical game.
I would love to see St. Louis end up in a pool with Element, Bella Donna or the Burning Skirts. Wisconsin should be used to their style of play by now, but they do have a losing record against SLULU. I think St. Louis' slow-down offense could be really disruptive to teams that thrive on the deep game.
Somewhat like Colorado, Carleton has had a bit of an up-and-down season. Honestly, I have no idea what to expect from Syzygy. After losing in the quarterfinals the past two years, this year was expected to be a rebuilding year. I would bet on them making the pre-quarters and falling just short of making the next round.
TIERRA DEL FUEGO aka Angry at FJR for Not Ranking Them Higher
Wash U. (WUWU)
Northeastern
Dartmouth
Iowa State
Illinois
UPenn
The only team on this tier that I have seen up close this year is Illinois. I saw Northeastern briefly at Pres Day, and I felt the electric buzz in the air coming from Dartmouth's jerseys at Centex. One might think that this makes my judgment somewhere between unqualified and head-up-my-ass. I am basing these rankings on previous results, word of mouth from my trusted sources and the entrails of the goat that I slaughtered last night. According to the Idiot's Guide to Prognostication and Other Practical Applications of Santeria, these methods are actually superior to witnessing a team's play in person.
All of the teams here are capable of beating the teams on the prior tier, but I don't see them upsetting anyone above that. The one exception might be Wash U. Having clearly gotten the better of St. Louis in their recent matchups, Washington could be this year's Michigan State. [Last year, Michigan State dropped Texas after Melee had upset Washington and nearly taken out Bella Donna. Texas went from potentially winning the pool on point differential to becoming the bottom of the pool and falling completely out of contention.]
The draw means a lot for each of these teams' chances of making it to the pre-quarters, but my best guess is that Washington and Illinois are the most likely to advance past pool play.
Once the pools come out, I'll take a more detailed look at each team and offer my predictions.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Regionals Update - Northwest
A few wacky upsets in pool play and Washington defeating Oregon has resulted in a really interesting looking quarterfinals round.
UW vs. Humboldt - The Hags gave Cal a run for their money in pool play, but Element should be able to take care of business quickly in this game.
UBC vs. Davis - The Thunderbirds get the benefit of the draw with what should be the most lopsided matchup of the quarters. Both UW and UBC should be well-rested for the almost certain semifinals matchup.
Oregon vs. Cal - The bottom half of the bracket is rough. At least both winners will have had tough games before semifinals. Amazingly, these two teams haven't faced each other this year. Oregon should be the heavy favorite.
Stanford vs. Western Washington - Stanford's reward for winning all their games is a matchup with Chaos. Ouch. Superfly beat them in their one and only matchup this year.
The losers of the bottom half of the quarterfinals will face each other in an elimination game. That seems ridiculous when the other half of the backdoor will feature two considerably weaker teams. I think the reseeding creates unnecessary problems in this particular format and frankly, I'm not sure that the crossover matchups between the 1 seeds is necessary. I'm guessing that it is done to balance out the number of games, but I think it causes more potential problems than whatever benefits it is intended to bring.
The real problem here is that whoever wins the bottom two quarters has a big advantage because even if they lose in the semis, they will have a fairly easy matchup before the backdoor game-to-go. What will likely be a very interesting UW-UBC grudge match in the semis will mean a lot for the winner and loser. Win and you have a bid to Nationals; lose and you have to go through Western Washington or Cal (or if there's an upset, Oregon or Stanford) in order to get to the game-to-go.
The other semis will likely be another grudge match between Oregon and Stanford. If Cal and/or Western Washington has the game of their lives in the quarters, they will create havoc with the bracket and make their path to Nationals considerably easier.
I'm willing to bet a good amount of money that whoever loses the semis in that half of the bracket will still end up winning the game-to-go.
All of this further underscores what a tough, tough region the Northwest is this year. I think the Southwest will look something like this next year, but that's another post for another time.
For those who hated my predictions, it seems only fitting that UW and UBC will face each other with so much riding on the line. Sure, I think Element is favored in that matchup, but I think it'll be an interesting game to follow.
UW vs. Humboldt - The Hags gave Cal a run for their money in pool play, but Element should be able to take care of business quickly in this game.
UBC vs. Davis - The Thunderbirds get the benefit of the draw with what should be the most lopsided matchup of the quarters. Both UW and UBC should be well-rested for the almost certain semifinals matchup.
Oregon vs. Cal - The bottom half of the bracket is rough. At least both winners will have had tough games before semifinals. Amazingly, these two teams haven't faced each other this year. Oregon should be the heavy favorite.
Stanford vs. Western Washington - Stanford's reward for winning all their games is a matchup with Chaos. Ouch. Superfly beat them in their one and only matchup this year.
The losers of the bottom half of the quarterfinals will face each other in an elimination game. That seems ridiculous when the other half of the backdoor will feature two considerably weaker teams. I think the reseeding creates unnecessary problems in this particular format and frankly, I'm not sure that the crossover matchups between the 1 seeds is necessary. I'm guessing that it is done to balance out the number of games, but I think it causes more potential problems than whatever benefits it is intended to bring.
The real problem here is that whoever wins the bottom two quarters has a big advantage because even if they lose in the semis, they will have a fairly easy matchup before the backdoor game-to-go. What will likely be a very interesting UW-UBC grudge match in the semis will mean a lot for the winner and loser. Win and you have a bid to Nationals; lose and you have to go through Western Washington or Cal (or if there's an upset, Oregon or Stanford) in order to get to the game-to-go.
The other semis will likely be another grudge match between Oregon and Stanford. If Cal and/or Western Washington has the game of their lives in the quarters, they will create havoc with the bracket and make their path to Nationals considerably easier.
I'm willing to bet a good amount of money that whoever loses the semis in that half of the bracket will still end up winning the game-to-go.
All of this further underscores what a tough, tough region the Northwest is this year. I think the Southwest will look something like this next year, but that's another post for another time.
For those who hated my predictions, it seems only fitting that UW and UBC will face each other with so much riding on the line. Sure, I think Element is favored in that matchup, but I think it'll be an interesting game to follow.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Regionals Preview - New England
I thought about comparing the New England region to the Corleone family, but I want to save that for another day. I think the most appropriate comparison is to the pilots in Top Gun. Yup, I'm going there.
Of course, the folks in New England would even agree that the region is not the best of the best. In fact, the two bid-winners are likely to end up with 5 seeds at Nationals. Who cares? This region has five contenders and could be the most wide open of all the regions. Last weekend featured very few surprises and few true upsets. In stark contrast, this weekend is very difficult to predict. Close your eyes and let Kenny Loggins rev up your engines. It's time to go to the dan-ja zooooone.
NEW ENGLAND (2 Bids)
Before I start with the analysis of each team, I wanted to mention that the New England region is the only one that will be employing the double elimination format. I grew up with this format, so there's definitely a soft spot there. It's not practical for big regions, and it is heavily dependent on accurate seeding. If RCs would add more consolation games, I think it would be an interesting option for regions like the Metro East, Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes, but again, the seeding issue is a big one.
Anyway, the format is set for New England, and the contending teams will first be looking to ensure that they are playing on Sunday. With five legitimate contenders, the Tufts/New England matchup is going to be a key game with the loser looking at a tough road through the back door. Look for the top five seeds to get to Sunday and either Brandeis or Boston College rounding out the group.
The Model Pilot (aka Iceman played by Val Kilmer) - Harvard. They are the top seed led by Lucy Barnes of Brute Squad. Coached by Jeff Listfield, Blake Spitz and Jessica Blanton, the Quasars (Quasar? the Quasar?) are strong on fundamentals and embody everything you would expect from anything with the Harvard label. Sure, they seem like they do everything by-the-book, and you'd like to see them as more of the 'Top Secret' version of Val Kilmer, but they don't care. They want to win the Region and be Top Gun. Nothing else will suffice.
The Maverick (aka Maverick played by Tom McCain Cruise) - Northeastern. They are just lurking there at number 5. They have gone through their ups and downs and injuries to Courtney Moores and Stephanie Barker certainly account for some of their struggles. Both are expected to be back for this weekend. Laura Cedro has stepped up her game in their absence and could be the difference maker in their run at one of the bids. They will need to forget about Goose (Centex and previous losses to Harvard) and simply engage... Engage... ENGAGE, MAVERICK!!!
The Mentor (aka Viper played by Tom Skerritt) - Dartmouth. Princess Layout had a strong run of four straight appearances at Nationals from 2004-2007 that was broken last year. They are hungry and they will be ready to school all the young ones.
The Stealthy Star (aka Merlin played by Tim Robbins) - Middlebury. The amazing thing about Top Gun is that the best actor in the film, Tim Robbins, is just kind of in the background. Little was known about this Merlin guy. Sure, Tom Cruise was Mr. Bankable after Top Gun, but Tim Robbins is considerably more respected for his acting skills and his choice of causes (liberalism vs. Scientology, you decide). The Lady Pranksters have a win over Dartmouth at Southerns but little else is really know about them.
The Tough-nosed Veteran (aka Jester played by Michael Ironside) - Tufts. The perennial contender coached by Sangwha Hong has been on a steady rise and looks ready to peak at Regionals. Their aggressive offense relies on the Marie Alexander-Kate McCaffrey connection. Maverick was able to get the best of Jester but only after violating the hard top and creating some controversy. Perhaps this predestines a controversial game that should be the best match of the second round.
The Wingman that You Love But You Know is Dead in the Water (aka Goose played by Anthony Edwards) - Brown. Yikes, this sounds harsh, but how bad is it really to be Goose? He gets to shag the considerably hotter-than-Kelly-McGillis Meg Ryan (before she became the Queen of Romantic Comedies), he sports a goofy porn-stache and gets away with it, he was known as the likable and relatively cool Nerd, and he came back from the dead to have a great run on ER when it was a show that people actually watched. Brown has been a strong team in the past, and they are still coming back from the dead. Look for them to have their ER run starting next year. [Side note: I almost forgot that I saw Anthony Edwards on one of my flights. He was with his family and seemed like a great dad. Being in LA, I've seen my fair share of celebrities, but I prefer seeing the lesser knowns who seem like real people.]
The Character Guy that Stands Out (aka Stinger played by James Tolkan) - Brandeis. Who's Stinger? He's that guy on the aircraft carrier that likes to chew out Maverick and Goose and sends them off to Top Gun. Tolkan is one of the great character actors of the 80s and was probably best known for being the principal in the Back to the Future series. Like Stinger, Brandeis isn't going to be the star of New England regionals, but they are looking at a realistic shot at making the second day. If they upset Vermont in the first round, they will have a tough matchup against Dartmouth in the 2nd round. They would likely draw the loser of Brown and Wesleyan, another winnable game. Then they would likely run into Boston College with the winner advancing to Sunday (Brandeis and Boston College are 1-1 vs. each other). I've heard that this Greg Connelly character is kind of a good coach. Team USA, Ironside, Brute Squad, UBC... seeing him on the other sideline must be like how I feel when I have to match wits with Steve Dugan.
Who Makes It to Sunday: Harvard, Dartmouth, Northeastern, Tufts, Middlebury, Brandeis (gotta pick one upset here)
Who Goes to Columbus: Dartmouth, Northeastern
Tough Luck Loser: Harvard
My Take: In the first round, look for Brandeis to upset Vermont in the first round in order to facilitate the eagerly anticipated Dory (Ziperstein) vs. Rohre (Titcomb) matchup happens. If this were the NBA, I guarantee that the RCs would put Bennett Salvatore and Joey Crawford in as observers and make sure that all those close in/out calls went Brandeis' way. Dory vs. Rohre. Make it happen.
Other than the Dory vs. Rohre individual matchup in the second round, look for Tufts vs. Northeastern and Middlebury vs. BC to be the key games. In the semis, I'm picking Harvard over Northeastern and Dartmouth over Middlebury.
In the backdoor, Northeastern crushes Brandeis, Tufts handles Boston College, Northeastern squeaks by Tufts again and faces Harvard after they've had a barnburner in finals. Both teams are exhausted and battle each other to double game point. Jason Adams and Kayla Burnim are ready for this moment and blast Wagner over the sound system. Northeastern is inspired and drops napalm on Harvard for the one point victory. The Valkyries declare that Harvard can be their wingman anytime, hop on their Harleys and ride off into the sunset.
Of course, the folks in New England would even agree that the region is not the best of the best. In fact, the two bid-winners are likely to end up with 5 seeds at Nationals. Who cares? This region has five contenders and could be the most wide open of all the regions. Last weekend featured very few surprises and few true upsets. In stark contrast, this weekend is very difficult to predict. Close your eyes and let Kenny Loggins rev up your engines. It's time to go to the dan-ja zooooone.
NEW ENGLAND (2 Bids)
Before I start with the analysis of each team, I wanted to mention that the New England region is the only one that will be employing the double elimination format. I grew up with this format, so there's definitely a soft spot there. It's not practical for big regions, and it is heavily dependent on accurate seeding. If RCs would add more consolation games, I think it would be an interesting option for regions like the Metro East, Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes, but again, the seeding issue is a big one.
Anyway, the format is set for New England, and the contending teams will first be looking to ensure that they are playing on Sunday. With five legitimate contenders, the Tufts/New England matchup is going to be a key game with the loser looking at a tough road through the back door. Look for the top five seeds to get to Sunday and either Brandeis or Boston College rounding out the group.
The Model Pilot (aka Iceman played by Val Kilmer) - Harvard. They are the top seed led by Lucy Barnes of Brute Squad. Coached by Jeff Listfield, Blake Spitz and Jessica Blanton, the Quasars (Quasar? the Quasar?) are strong on fundamentals and embody everything you would expect from anything with the Harvard label. Sure, they seem like they do everything by-the-book, and you'd like to see them as more of the 'Top Secret' version of Val Kilmer, but they don't care. They want to win the Region and be Top Gun. Nothing else will suffice.
The Maverick (aka Maverick played by Tom McCain Cruise) - Northeastern. They are just lurking there at number 5. They have gone through their ups and downs and injuries to Courtney Moores and Stephanie Barker certainly account for some of their struggles. Both are expected to be back for this weekend. Laura Cedro has stepped up her game in their absence and could be the difference maker in their run at one of the bids. They will need to forget about Goose (Centex and previous losses to Harvard) and simply engage... Engage... ENGAGE, MAVERICK!!!
The Mentor (aka Viper played by Tom Skerritt) - Dartmouth. Princess Layout had a strong run of four straight appearances at Nationals from 2004-2007 that was broken last year. They are hungry and they will be ready to school all the young ones.
The Stealthy Star (aka Merlin played by Tim Robbins) - Middlebury. The amazing thing about Top Gun is that the best actor in the film, Tim Robbins, is just kind of in the background. Little was known about this Merlin guy. Sure, Tom Cruise was Mr. Bankable after Top Gun, but Tim Robbins is considerably more respected for his acting skills and his choice of causes (liberalism vs. Scientology, you decide). The Lady Pranksters have a win over Dartmouth at Southerns but little else is really know about them.
The Tough-nosed Veteran (aka Jester played by Michael Ironside) - Tufts. The perennial contender coached by Sangwha Hong has been on a steady rise and looks ready to peak at Regionals. Their aggressive offense relies on the Marie Alexander-Kate McCaffrey connection. Maverick was able to get the best of Jester but only after violating the hard top and creating some controversy. Perhaps this predestines a controversial game that should be the best match of the second round.
The Wingman that You Love But You Know is Dead in the Water (aka Goose played by Anthony Edwards) - Brown. Yikes, this sounds harsh, but how bad is it really to be Goose? He gets to shag the considerably hotter-than-Kelly-McGillis Meg Ryan (before she became the Queen of Romantic Comedies), he sports a goofy porn-stache and gets away with it, he was known as the likable and relatively cool Nerd, and he came back from the dead to have a great run on ER when it was a show that people actually watched. Brown has been a strong team in the past, and they are still coming back from the dead. Look for them to have their ER run starting next year. [Side note: I almost forgot that I saw Anthony Edwards on one of my flights. He was with his family and seemed like a great dad. Being in LA, I've seen my fair share of celebrities, but I prefer seeing the lesser knowns who seem like real people.]
The Character Guy that Stands Out (aka Stinger played by James Tolkan) - Brandeis. Who's Stinger? He's that guy on the aircraft carrier that likes to chew out Maverick and Goose and sends them off to Top Gun. Tolkan is one of the great character actors of the 80s and was probably best known for being the principal in the Back to the Future series. Like Stinger, Brandeis isn't going to be the star of New England regionals, but they are looking at a realistic shot at making the second day. If they upset Vermont in the first round, they will have a tough matchup against Dartmouth in the 2nd round. They would likely draw the loser of Brown and Wesleyan, another winnable game. Then they would likely run into Boston College with the winner advancing to Sunday (Brandeis and Boston College are 1-1 vs. each other). I've heard that this Greg Connelly character is kind of a good coach. Team USA, Ironside, Brute Squad, UBC... seeing him on the other sideline must be like how I feel when I have to match wits with Steve Dugan.
Who Makes It to Sunday: Harvard, Dartmouth, Northeastern, Tufts, Middlebury, Brandeis (gotta pick one upset here)
Who Goes to Columbus: Dartmouth, Northeastern
Tough Luck Loser: Harvard
My Take: In the first round, look for Brandeis to upset Vermont in the first round in order to facilitate the eagerly anticipated Dory (Ziperstein) vs. Rohre (Titcomb) matchup happens. If this were the NBA, I guarantee that the RCs would put Bennett Salvatore and Joey Crawford in as observers and make sure that all those close in/out calls went Brandeis' way. Dory vs. Rohre. Make it happen.
Other than the Dory vs. Rohre individual matchup in the second round, look for Tufts vs. Northeastern and Middlebury vs. BC to be the key games. In the semis, I'm picking Harvard over Northeastern and Dartmouth over Middlebury.
In the backdoor, Northeastern crushes Brandeis, Tufts handles Boston College, Northeastern squeaks by Tufts again and faces Harvard after they've had a barnburner in finals. Both teams are exhausted and battle each other to double game point. Jason Adams and Kayla Burnim are ready for this moment and blast Wagner over the sound system. Northeastern is inspired and drops napalm on Harvard for the one point victory. The Valkyries declare that Harvard can be their wingman anytime, hop on their Harleys and ride off into the sunset.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)