Re: Research Project

"crayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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.

I'm not for getting rid of zone D. But your logic is quite flawed.
(I'm almost trying not to mock you.) Sports are not evolutionary
in the way you seem to believe. Just because something is "effective",
doesn't mean it should remain legal. NFL d-backs used to be able to
manhandle receivers anywhere on the field, now they can only chuck
them within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. The NBA made zoning
illegal for precisely the reason Robin gave. They wanted more scoring
and a faster pace. Of course, now that the NBA became solely an
isolation game, they've brought the zone back. But all these moves are
ultimately to make the sport more entertaining, while not changing it
so abruptly so as to put off current fans.

Argue for keeping the zone because 1) getting rid of it wouldn't make
the game more entertaining or 2) any entertainment gained would not
be worth the damage to the integrity of the sport. Not just because
"it works."