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.