| Author |
Message |
-JR-
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 09, 2009 - 09:36 AM
|
|
TUC General Manager
Player profile
Joined: Mar 22, 2006
Posts: 235
Status: Offline
|
|
Again, Laurel, there are arguments for both. Perhaps I was not clear enough when saying so that the arguing is coming from actual players. So while you and a considerable group of others may feel one way, there are others who feel differently.
We have already communciated to Lotus leadership that we have the capacity for expansion of the league, so turning down players should not happen again.
It's going to be a great league and it's wonderful to hear that the interest level is high! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
LaurelB
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 07, 2009 - 02:29 PM
|
|
|
|
That makes perfect sense. If there are not enough leaders, then a hat format would not be such a success. Perhaps it is too late to make a change for this year... but at the very least, can TUC view this year and last as experimental years?
Last year Lotus had to turn down women from their hat teams because there was so much interest. I'm guessing that this is going to happen again this year. And if there ends up being enough, or more than enough, leaders who are willing to captain/coach teams, then I think a hat league format could be quite successful next year. And if I remember correctly, most hat teams last year had two leaders, so there is the potential to almost double the league's hat team capacity. As long as there is a lot of interest in the Lotus hat teams, both from potential captains and players, then a hat format might be best for women's indoor.
Every league is different, and maybe the hat format didn't work as well with mens or mixed, but I think a lot of ladies in the toronto ultimate scene want it and would help lead it. Maybe before announcing winter league offerings next year TUC (or even Lotus) could send out an email to make sure that there is enough interest from people to lead teams. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ashunter
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 07, 2009 - 09:01 AM
|
|
|
|
There are always going to be some teams that want to play as a team. It's a bit of a balancing act for TUC, and it's really hard to predict what people want from year to year.
We've done both team leagues and hat leagues for mens leagues. We've often found that we get more response for leagues that have a mixture of team and hat team than we do for just hat teams, but that may also have to do with when those leagues are offered.
For years our only offerings in the indoor season were hat teams. And we always had lots of requests for leagues that allowed team registration. As more facilities became available (beyond the Hangar), we started offering team leagues, and those have become very, very popular and usually sell out before the hat leagues do.
I do appreciate the extra value that several of the Lotus players are adding to this league by being willing to take on the considerable time (and money) commitment of buying teams and organizing them into evenly based hat teams. Looking at how well balanced the games were last year, I'd say the captains did a particularly good job of making sure the teams were even. I got a lot of feedback from women who also really appreciated the learning opportunity the teams gave them.
One thing that hat teams often struggle with is leadership and cohesiveness. The way things were done last year solved that problem very well, but that's not just because of how we formatted the leagues, it wouldn't have happened without a lot of effort from some very dedicated players. I'm a bit concerned that if we made the whole league a hat league, we might not have enough people who would want to captain hat teams. This is especially true if we are able to secure more field space this year and expand the number of teams in the league. |
_________________
If you get to thinking you are a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around. -Will Rogers
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
LaurelB
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2009 - 11:44 AM
|
|
|
|
The money aspect is only one annoying factor. Lotus leadership dealt with that and decided to buy their own teams and have individuals sign up with them and not tuc.
But what I still don't understand is why the league isn't hat in the first place? Like I said, the vast majority of women in that league want a hat league. If the majority of TUC's membership (who actually play in this league) want a hat league, then I think that members' needs should be met. It's not that much work for TUC because several Lotus players have volunteered to take on the organization. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
-JR-
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 06, 2009 - 10:42 AM
|
|
TUC General Manager
Player profile
Joined: Mar 22, 2006
Posts: 235
Status: Offline
|
|
There have been arguments for both 'hat' format and the ability to enter as a team. Therefore we will allow either which is what we did last year and we believe that last year was a very successful league.
There are also differing philosophies as to how many players should be on a roster and the general rule of thumb for indoor is 12 or 13 to ensure a balance of adequate playing time with adequate roster size. Your price point should not be broken down by 14.
A lot of thought goes into our pricing - as a sound business we don't want to lose money but we also want to increase member value as much as possible. TUC accumulates lower revenue with team registrations than hat registrations. This league is not about revenue generation, value-wise it is one of our lowest based prices (to encourage participation). We require a near full capacity in this league just to break-even and that is before transaction fees and overhead costs. Varsity Centre fees have also increased again this year, and the total season is 2 weeks longer.
In addition, there is the issue of equity amongst ALL leagues. By reducing women's league individual fees, we would have to reduce individual fees in other leagues. Which would mean either losing money or changing roster sizes. As such, fees will not be changing.
As posted, Lotus is intending on purchasing some team registrations to minimize costs and formulate hat teams. Roster size will be at the discretion of Lotus. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
rchan
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 05, 2009 - 05:16 PM
|
|
|
|
| Join a Lotus hat team! They will be registering teams to offset the individual cost and teams are led by lotus members. Email them at lotusultimate@gmail.com |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
GregS
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 04, 2009 - 01:56 PM
|
|
TUC Webmaster
Player profile
Joined: Apr 01, 2004
Posts: 1155
Status: Offline
|
|
| Since I'm not genetically enabled to play in this league, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I just wanted to point out that the league would take in MORE money from a hat setup ($2380 from 14 individual fees of $170 vs $2000 from a single team registration), but the difference is because of increased administrative activities and hence costs associated with dealing with the 14x as many registrations. Any decision on whether it should be hat or team sign-up is made based on what best serves the membership (I don't know whether it's too late to change this if the membership in general agrees with you). |
_________________
Did you get that thing I sent you?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
LaurelB
|
|
|
Post subject: Women's Indoor
Posted: Nov 04, 2009 - 01:38 PM
|
|
|
|
Just out of curiousity, why isn't Women's Indoor a hat league? After last year, the VAST majority of womens players wanted, and still want, a hat league. So why hasn't TUC organized one? I know that people have offered to organize teams, so it's not like there's any extra work for TUC.
What I also find annoying is the fact that a team sign-up is $2000, whereas individual signups are $170. Last year there were ~14 people on each hat team, so TUC is making money on NOT running a hat league and forcing people to sign up as individuals so that the Lotus ladies can run a semi-hat league. So maybe that's why TUC won't make it hat? To make money?
I do not think it is too late to make it a hat league. Please change it! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
