Re: Research Project

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (judd) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robin Bauer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (judd) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robin Bauer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>  
> > > Is soccer boring?  Golf?  What makes boring.... boring?  If it's the
> > > basketball/football crowd you're trying to attract, then maybe zone is
> > > boring, I don't know.  But zone D is just an organized form of
> > > poaching, more or less.  How would you regulate poaching and when
> > > would it be considered a zone?  That would seem difficult to separate,
> > > because you don't want all poaching do be illegal (do you?), yet too
> > > much of it may fit into a definition of zone.
> > 
> > Poaching is great and not banned in any sport that I know of. 
> > Poaching was still legal in the NBA when zones were not legal.  By
> > boring I mean that zone slows the game down and takes away some of the
> > sports athleticism.  I think there are far fewer great plays made on O
> > and D when people are playing zone.  I think we could take the lead on
> > this one and prevent ways of slowing down the game, unlike the major
> > sports do.  Basketball and soccer can both get very, very boring near
> > the end of the game due to coaches being able to slow down the game,
> > as can football if the team has the ball and they have the lead. 
> > Let's try to prevent this "slowing down" in Ultimate (flatball) and I
> > think we can start with the zone.  
> > 
> 
> First of all, the slowing down of the sports you mention have nothing
> to do with zone defense, and everything to do with a game-clock.
> 
> The assumption of zone being boring also assumes the offense will get
> conservative, which may or may not happen.  I would think watching an
> offense break a cup and run it down the field is pretty exciting;  so
> is watching the zone get a D and then fast breaking the other way. 
> There's a lot of athleticism and intellect involved after a
> turnover...at least with the good teams.
> 
> Another assumption is that sports rely mostly on athleticism.  While
> this is true, and surely attracts the youth, a lot of adults enjoy
> watching someone outwit their opponent.  While watching Shaq dunk a
> basketball may be great, it may be of interest to many fans and
> enthusiasts alike to see what strategies employed work to best the
> other team.  Taking away zone is taking away a useful strategy...not
> because it's unfair or wrong, but because it's simply...boring for
> some spectators?  That is not fair to the sport.

this is an easy point to dismiss.  Adults may enjoy watching someone
outwit their opponent but that is not why they sat down inthe first
place to watch the game.  If athleticism was not one of the major
attraction of fans to a sport and strategy was the main attraction
then leagues such as the WNBA would be far more popular.  Women often
have far better skills and strategy than men, however, due to nature
they are not as strong and thus they can not show off the same
athletic moves as an Kobe or Iverson can.  Since the men's leagues are
more popular I would have to say that it is primarily due to their
athleticism - wouldn't you agree?

  
> 
> It would be simple to make some
> > rules that will prevent zoning and still allow for poaching.
> 
> Let's hear the rules, then.