To those who haven't already made the mistake,
Re-watch Casino Royale before you watch Quantum of Solace.
Trust me
Over the weekend of the UPA Club Championships (Oct 30-Nov 3) representatives of the Ultimate Players Association (UPA), including active college players representing various playing “constituencies”, met with Matt “Skip” Sewell and Cyle Van Auken of Cultimate, Inc. to discuss Cultimate’s proposed plans for college Ultimate for the 2009 college season and beyond. While the two organizations share several elements of a vision for what collegiate Ultimate will ‘look like’ in the future, we have differing views on how college Ultimate should be structured for the 2009 season. The UPA has serious concerns about the feasibility, fairness, and repercussions of Cultimate’s current plans for the 2009 college season, and do not believe that these plans have the long-term interests of a large majority of collegiate players (or the broader Ultimate community) in mind. Therefore, the UPA is advising its collegiate members to forego participation in select competition structures being created by Cultimate for the 2009 college season, including the following:
As currently proposed, Cultimate’s C1 events would conflict directly with the UPA’s 2009 College Championship Series – which will definitely proceed - and teams would realistically only be able to participate in one championship or the other. C1 teams, concerned about the proposed changes and the potential for conflicting championships requested that Cultimate and the UPA collaborate to find a solution that would serve the college season best both in the long and short run. At the players behest, and because many of Cultimate’s plans coincide with the UPA’s five year strategic plan, the UPA entered into good faith discussions with Cultimate. In January 2008 the UPA approved its 5-year Strategic Plan, which included several goals for the organization that are in line with Cultimate’s plan for the college division including: You can view a more detailed document describing the timing of these changes to the UPA Collegiate Series (as well as a history of UPA enhancements to college Ultimate and important player feedback data on desired changes) here.
With our Strategic Plan in mind, and the belief on the part of the UPA that many of the ideas espoused by Cultimate were firmly in line with these strategies and would be beneficial to the growth of the sport, the UPA came to the meetings with Cultimate with a proposed framework within which the UPA and Cultimate could work hand in hand with college players. The goal of this work would be to achieve the changes that the college players desire within a time frame that allows the changes to be properly planned and implemented, and that allows third parties such as Cultimate, to provide services that they are best equipped to provide while ensuring fairness for all of the players and teams affected by the changes.
As part of its proposal to Cultimate, the UPA noted that it is already in the process of convening a working group to restructure the college series, and proposed that Cultimate suspend its plans for the 2009 college season and actively sit on the group along with UPA representatives, college players, and other stakeholders to develop the plans for College Ultimate. The UPA believes that the final product that comes out of this work group could contain similar elements to those contained in Cultimate’s current proposal, but with modifications that address the outstanding issues with the current proposal, as well as an implementation time-line that allows for player feedback and sufficient advance notice. Cultimate, as event management professionals, could help ensure the college competition structure would be conducive to businesses that could provide valuable services to college players and the UPA. This work group (which Cultimate is currently invited to be a part of) will be fully formed during November, 2008 and will have developed preliminary plans by December 31, 2008.
Any changes to the college division that are both already widely desired by the college division and logistically feasible would be experimented with or implemented in the 2009 UPA College Series. These changes would likely be limited to expanding the observer role (i.e., increasing the types of active calls) and/or minor adjustments to the bid allocation system. Larger changes that require either more player feedback or a greater lead time to players before the changes are enacted will be implemented in the 2010 season. This likely includes regular season games with meaningful impact on the post-season, larger adjustments to the bid allocation system or the regional structure, and additional tiers/divisions of play. The UPA is confident that changes could be made on this timeline that are not only acceptable, but desired by players. At this point, it appears that despite the desire of college players to have a single championship in 2009 and the UPA’s efforts to include Cultimate in planning for 2010 and beyond, Cultimate will continue with their plans for the 2009 college season. The UPA, as the representative of the vast majority of College players, has significant concerns about Cultimate’s current plans for the 2009 season: Feasibility: Cultimate communicated that their current plans would require 8 full time and 5 part time staff. Cultimate would be expanding from 8 college events in 2008 to approximately 20 events in 2009, including three 80 team tournaments in a period of three weeks. The plan is predicated on hundreds of smaller teams that have not typically been willing to attend more expensive events being willing to pay fees of $25/player to attend these events. The UPA is significantly concerned about the feasibility of Cultimate running its proposed events and providing the level of quality that would be deserving of that player fee.
Based on its expertise and experience in development of the existing eligibility system, the UPA believes that Cultimate is not equipped to handle the enormous challenge of verifying college eligibility. The UPA has developed its eligibility system, records and infrastructure over 25 years. Without clear eligibility rules, a robust process to verify eligibility, and an established system for handling eligibility disputes, the UPA is concerned with Cultimate’s ability to ensure that the competition is truly collegiate.
Fairness: Cultimate has announced the selection of 25 teams to compete in its C1 division. There is no clear qualifying structure for these 25 teams and several historically successful teams including Arizona and Dartmouth have been left out. Furthermore, there is no comparable women’s C1 division that would receive the type of VIP treatment that the open C1 division receives in their plan. It is our understanding that Cultimate has promised different amounts of money to each team that commits to playing in C1. Beyond the ethical issues of paying college athletes “appearance fees” in their events, Cultimate has acknowledged that these fees are currently being funded by the player fees from players on non-C1 teams participating at Cultimate events. While the goal of defraying costs for the highest level teams for marketing purposes is not unreasonable, doing so using the dollars of developing programs is neither fair nor good for the sport in the short or long run as it will only slow the growth of these developing teams.
Long Term Impact on Sport Infrastructure: The sport of Ultimate, while rapidly growing, is still small. Pooling resources through a single central governing body Ultimate remains a more efficient approach to grow the sport (it will require the same tools and services to operate youth and club Ultimate). Currently, player dues from all divisions go toward the development of the sport in many areas including coaching, observing, rules, youth and college team development and marketing. As most divisions have the same or similar requirements, continuing to have one governing body provides significant economies of scale when it comes to the infrastructure needed to market and support the sport. The UPA’s fledgling observer and coaching programs would both be significantly hampered if the full college division were split from the remainder of the UPA. Resources invested in growing youth Ultimate create not only a growing fan base for college players, but also directly impact college Ultimate only a few years later by adding to the pool of skilled athletes. In addition, as the UPA is player-governed by an elected Board, decisions about how to spend the organization’s pooled resources is up to players. For example, if players choose to spend association resources to offer financial incentives for participation or to spend additional money on television, they can submit proposals or vote for candidates that represent that position. The UPA is concerned that under Cultimate’s governance, players would at best have a limited role in deciding how their money was spent. Splitting the resources of the community and having a significant portion of those resources controlled or influenced by a for-profit business will have a negative impact on the growth and development of the sport.
Based on the fact that there is insufficient time to confirm (and indeed, doubt about) the feasibility, fairness, and long-term impact of Cultimate’s proposed alternative series, the UPA is committed to running the 2009 UPA College Championship Series within the basic structure that existed in 2008. While College representatives have communicated that their chief concern was that there were not two parallel championship structures, the UPA is sufficiently concerned that Cultimate’s structure is neither feasible nor beneficial to the sport. Therefore, the UPA must continue to host its College Championship Series, even if that means that there are two competing structures, in order to provide all teams with the opportunity to compete in a competitive structure that is sustainable, fair, and most beneficial to the sport as a whole.
Despite the UPA’s efforts to convince Cultimate to hold off on its plans to implement a separate competing championship and work with the UPA to develop a collaborative plan for 2010, Cultimate has decided not to wait.
While the UPA is concerned about the position in which this places the players, it does appear that determination as to whether there will be two competing championships in 2009 will be up to the college players. The UPA encourages college teams to:
During the meetings with the UPA, Cultimate has communicated that should a critical number of teams reject their current proposed structure, C1 would not succeed in 2009. However, Cultimate WOULD still continue to run the events that it ran in 2008. The UPA accepts responsibility for the fact that we have not done a sufficient job of communicating our plans for the college division as spelled out in the Strategic Plan (please see web links earlier in this message). However, we have clearly heard the feedback of hundreds of College players and captains over the past several weeks and are committed to move forward in an expeditious and transparent manner. The UPA’s continued growth and success over the past 25 years has resulted from the fact that we have largely remained ACCOUNTABLE to the players (because the players are the UPA), and we commit that we will not fail the trust that has been the backbone of our operation since the inception of the College division. The UPA is committed to providing a competitive college structure that serves all college teams who hope to compete in intercollegiate Ultimate in a way that is fair, sustainable, and transparent. The UPA also believes that within its current structure and long term vision for the sport, well-run, for-profit businesses such as Cultimate, VC Ultimate, Ultivillage, Five Ultimate and others that provide valuable services to the players can and will thrive.
Thanks for your time and for your dedication to our sport. Mike Payne, UPA Board of Directors, President
Peri Kurshan, UPA Board of Directors, Vice President
Sandie Hammerly, UPA Executive Director
Will Deaver, UPA Championship Director
| The National Collegiate Ultimate Association (NCUA), a college only governing body for Ultimate | |
| Multiple tiered championship series that include an exclusive top open division called Conference 1 (C1) which includes 25 college open teams selected by Cultimate, as well as other divisions for men and women’s players |
With our Strategic Plan in mind, and the belief on the part of the UPA that many of the ideas espoused by Cultimate were firmly in line with these strategies and would be beneficial to the growth of the sport, the UPA came to the meetings with Cultimate with a proposed framework within which the UPA and Cultimate could work hand in hand with college players. The goal of this work would be to achieve the changes that the college players desire within a time frame that allows the changes to be properly planned and implemented, and that allows third parties such as Cultimate, to provide services that they are best equipped to provide while ensuring fairness for all of the players and teams affected by the changes.
As part of its proposal to Cultimate, the UPA noted that it is already in the process of convening a working group to restructure the college series, and proposed that Cultimate suspend its plans for the 2009 college season and actively sit on the group along with UPA representatives, college players, and other stakeholders to develop the plans for College Ultimate. The UPA believes that the final product that comes out of this work group could contain similar elements to those contained in Cultimate’s current proposal, but with modifications that address the outstanding issues with the current proposal, as well as an implementation time-line that allows for player feedback and sufficient advance notice. Cultimate, as event management professionals, could help ensure the college competition structure would be conducive to businesses that could provide valuable services to college players and the UPA. This work group (which Cultimate is currently invited to be a part of) will be fully formed during November, 2008 and will have developed preliminary plans by December 31, 2008.
Any changes to the college division that are both already widely desired by the college division and logistically feasible would be experimented with or implemented in the 2009 UPA College Series. These changes would likely be limited to expanding the observer role (i.e., increasing the types of active calls) and/or minor adjustments to the bid allocation system. Larger changes that require either more player feedback or a greater lead time to players before the changes are enacted will be implemented in the 2010 season. This likely includes regular season games with meaningful impact on the post-season, larger adjustments to the bid allocation system or the regional structure, and additional tiers/divisions of play. The UPA is confident that changes could be made on this timeline that are not only acceptable, but desired by players. At this point, it appears that despite the desire of college players to have a single championship in 2009 and the UPA’s efforts to include Cultimate in planning for 2010 and beyond, Cultimate will continue with their plans for the 2009 college season. The UPA, as the representative of the vast majority of College players, has significant concerns about Cultimate’s current plans for the 2009 season: Feasibility: Cultimate communicated that their current plans would require 8 full time and 5 part time staff. Cultimate would be expanding from 8 college events in 2008 to approximately 20 events in 2009, including three 80 team tournaments in a period of three weeks. The plan is predicated on hundreds of smaller teams that have not typically been willing to attend more expensive events being willing to pay fees of $25/player to attend these events. The UPA is significantly concerned about the feasibility of Cultimate running its proposed events and providing the level of quality that would be deserving of that player fee.
Based on its expertise and experience in development of the existing eligibility system, the UPA believes that Cultimate is not equipped to handle the enormous challenge of verifying college eligibility. The UPA has developed its eligibility system, records and infrastructure over 25 years. Without clear eligibility rules, a robust process to verify eligibility, and an established system for handling eligibility disputes, the UPA is concerned with Cultimate’s ability to ensure that the competition is truly collegiate.
Fairness: Cultimate has announced the selection of 25 teams to compete in its C1 division. There is no clear qualifying structure for these 25 teams and several historically successful teams including Arizona and Dartmouth have been left out. Furthermore, there is no comparable women’s C1 division that would receive the type of VIP treatment that the open C1 division receives in their plan. It is our understanding that Cultimate has promised different amounts of money to each team that commits to playing in C1. Beyond the ethical issues of paying college athletes “appearance fees” in their events, Cultimate has acknowledged that these fees are currently being funded by the player fees from players on non-C1 teams participating at Cultimate events. While the goal of defraying costs for the highest level teams for marketing purposes is not unreasonable, doing so using the dollars of developing programs is neither fair nor good for the sport in the short or long run as it will only slow the growth of these developing teams.
Long Term Impact on Sport Infrastructure: The sport of Ultimate, while rapidly growing, is still small. Pooling resources through a single central governing body Ultimate remains a more efficient approach to grow the sport (it will require the same tools and services to operate youth and club Ultimate). Currently, player dues from all divisions go toward the development of the sport in many areas including coaching, observing, rules, youth and college team development and marketing. As most divisions have the same or similar requirements, continuing to have one governing body provides significant economies of scale when it comes to the infrastructure needed to market and support the sport. The UPA’s fledgling observer and coaching programs would both be significantly hampered if the full college division were split from the remainder of the UPA. Resources invested in growing youth Ultimate create not only a growing fan base for college players, but also directly impact college Ultimate only a few years later by adding to the pool of skilled athletes. In addition, as the UPA is player-governed by an elected Board, decisions about how to spend the organization’s pooled resources is up to players. For example, if players choose to spend association resources to offer financial incentives for participation or to spend additional money on television, they can submit proposals or vote for candidates that represent that position. The UPA is concerned that under Cultimate’s governance, players would at best have a limited role in deciding how their money was spent. Splitting the resources of the community and having a significant portion of those resources controlled or influenced by a for-profit business will have a negative impact on the growth and development of the sport.
Based on the fact that there is insufficient time to confirm (and indeed, doubt about) the feasibility, fairness, and long-term impact of Cultimate’s proposed alternative series, the UPA is committed to running the 2009 UPA College Championship Series within the basic structure that existed in 2008. While College representatives have communicated that their chief concern was that there were not two parallel championship structures, the UPA is sufficiently concerned that Cultimate’s structure is neither feasible nor beneficial to the sport. Therefore, the UPA must continue to host its College Championship Series, even if that means that there are two competing structures, in order to provide all teams with the opportunity to compete in a competitive structure that is sustainable, fair, and most beneficial to the sport as a whole.
Despite the UPA’s efforts to convince Cultimate to hold off on its plans to implement a separate competing championship and work with the UPA to develop a collaborative plan for 2010, Cultimate has decided not to wait.
While the UPA is concerned about the position in which this places the players, it does appear that determination as to whether there will be two competing championships in 2009 will be up to the college players. The UPA encourages college teams to:
| Reject the current C1 plan for 2009 | |
| Participate in the 2009 UPA College Championship Series | |
| Work with the UPA by engaging in the process to develop a new model for the college division as committed to by the UPA as part of the strategic plan, and | |
| Encourage Cultimate to do the same |
During the meetings with the UPA, Cultimate has communicated that should a critical number of teams reject their current proposed structure, C1 would not succeed in 2009. However, Cultimate WOULD still continue to run the events that it ran in 2008. The UPA accepts responsibility for the fact that we have not done a sufficient job of communicating our plans for the college division as spelled out in the Strategic Plan (please see web links earlier in this message). However, we have clearly heard the feedback of hundreds of College players and captains over the past several weeks and are committed to move forward in an expeditious and transparent manner. The UPA’s continued growth and success over the past 25 years has resulted from the fact that we have largely remained ACCOUNTABLE to the players (because the players are the UPA), and we commit that we will not fail the trust that has been the backbone of our operation since the inception of the College division. The UPA is committed to providing a competitive college structure that serves all college teams who hope to compete in intercollegiate Ultimate in a way that is fair, sustainable, and transparent. The UPA also believes that within its current structure and long term vision for the sport, well-run, for-profit businesses such as Cultimate, VC Ultimate, Ultivillage, Five Ultimate and others that provide valuable services to the players can and will thrive.
Thanks for your time and for your dedication to our sport. Mike Payne, UPA Board of Directors, President
Peri Kurshan, UPA Board of Directors, Vice President
Sandie Hammerly, UPA Executive Director
Will Deaver, UPA Championship Director
