Re: Research Project

> are you suggesting to just stand by, do nothing, and hope the sport
> becomes more popular by some twist of fate?  I think we're just
> talking about being proactive, my ideas may be wrong, but I think
> changes are needed to advance this sport and maybe a sport exec might
> go hey - that's a great sport.  Not because there's no zone, but
> because some type of change was made making the sport more
> entertaining, more public friendly.

 as far as the evolution of sports goes, eliminating zone d would not
be "proactive" (i'm trying real hard not to mock you) because, well,
hell, zone d works. that's the only reason it exists, right? why don't
american football players pass laterally more? because it doesn't work
that often. when it does work, it's really cool and FUN TO WATCH, but
it has a low success rate. eliminating zone d to please non-players is
a flawed method to ensure the success of the sport because it is
considered a successful strategy, and artificially eliminating it
would be evolutionarily unwise.

changing a sport to please someone other than the players (we will
lump them under the monkier "espn execs") is just lame. plus, it's a
flawed strategy, as i demonstrated above: if anything strategy-wise in
ultimate was meant to be changed, it will change, because as teams try
new strategies and they succeed or fail, those teams will continue the
use of those strategies or discontinue the use of those strategies
(example: junk d). if you start fiddling with strategy, your sport's
gonna suffer.

if you want ultimate to grow so badly, recruit. you might not get to
see the "twist of fate" that puts ultimate on the big screen in the
bar, but it's more surefire than illegalizing zone d or poaching.