College Restructure Home

Introduction
Plan and Feedback Links
Task Force Priorities
Priority Analysis by Plan

Introduction

The two plans linked below were initially developed by the College Restructuring Task Force at its meeting in Boulder, CO on December 13-14, 2008. Please visit the College Restructure Home Page for more background information on the rationale behind the plans and the process for their development.

Two plans were developed and are being proposed, rather than one, because the task force felt that both addressed important issues in different ways. Rather than make the decision itself about which plan provided the best solutions for college Ultimate, the task force felt that both plans should be presented to the membership for feedback.

Follow the links below to explore details of each plan. There is a lot of information provided, including overviews, detailed reports on elements of each plan, and examples of how each plan might look if implemented, including maps, sample seasons, and answers to frequently asked questions.

Once you have explore the plans, visit the blog (linked below) to provide feedback and engage in discussion about what you like or don't like about each one. Please note that neither plan is set in stone and that it isn't necessary that either be adopted in full or in part. However, some great ideas have been developed and will likely be the basis for whatever solution is eventually adopted and implemented for the UPA College Division.

Plan and Feedback Links

Video Explanation Clips
Super-Regional Plan
Conference Plan
College Restructure Blog (open through mid-April)
Feedback Survey (coming in April)

Task Force Priorities

The task force prioritized a number of goals for the plans, based on feedback from the membership as a whole, feedback from college players, and their own diverse experiences. The following list is divided into 8 primary elements of a competitive structure. Within each element, a large number of goals were initially listed and discussed.

The bold, bullet-pointed goals were determined to be critical for incorporation into any plan. The numbered goals below those (if any) were determined to be high priority, but not critical, and are listed in their order of priority. Other goals, many of which were compelling, were dropped off the list in order to keep the planners focused on critical components in planning development.

Following this list, there is a link to a web page that shows how the two plans stack up against these goals and each other.

Regular Season

• To provide opportunities to play for teams at all levels
• To create meaningful games occurring throughout the spring season

1. To improve ability for teams to plan their season (advance notice and flexibility based on commitment level of team)
2. To encourage growth and participation
3. To improve ability to promote the sport
4. To improve planning for regular season events (events themselves).

Post-Season

• To crown a clear, unambiguous national champion through direct competition
• To qualify the top teams in championship event including allowing the top regional team in each division

1. To allow all teams to compete for a National Championship in a specific Division (series) so that any newly formed team can compete for the title in whatever division they choose.
2. To provide competitive focus for the season for all teams, via a metric comparable across years for each team.
3. To present a showcase event of the sport to the media.
4. To allow as many teams as logistically possible to compete for a National Championship in a specific Division (weekend event).

Tiered/Division Structure

• To allow teams to have increased playing opportunities against teams at their level in post-season play
• To allow teams from similarly-sized institutions to compete for a National Championship, with the ability to move up.

1. To allow teams to have increased playing opportunities against teams at their level in a regular season
2. To provide additional playing opportunities for teams eliminated from Championship series

Geographic Structure

• To provide playing opportunities which reduce/minimize travel time and expenses for teams
• To ensure geographic representation at the championship event

1. To provide a framework for organization of geographically-based regular season play

Eligibility

• To ensure that all games that have significant (any game that affects more than just seeding) impact on the final standing of a team are played with eligible players

1. To ensure that all games that have any direct impact on the final standing of a team are played with eligible players

Officiating

• To bring the benefits of observing, including potential enhancements, to more of the college post-season

1. To bring the benefits of observing, including potential enhancements, to more of the college regular season
2. To provide consistent standards of officiating through the series (i.e. teams should know in advance when and whether to expect to play with observers, what role observers will be expected to play, etc)

Individual Event Structure

• To increase quality of events for participants (including competition) at a good value ($$, time, travel)

1. To provide fundraising opportunities (e.g. for travel $) for teams that host tournaments.
2. To provide increased opportunities to promote the sport
3. To maintain the "community feel" of Ultimate events
4. To maximize the trade-off for teams/players between valuable lessons in organization/fund raising/management/leadership and burden in terms of time and money

Timing of Implementation

• To ensure that necessary changes happen quickly but in a well thought-out manner, with differentiation between elements that can be developed/implemented quickly and those that need more time

Priority Analysis by Plan

Follow the link about to see how the two plans stack up against the list of goals and priorities, and each other.