Board of Directors | Current Board Members | Bylaws | Strategic Planning | Past Board Meeting Minutes | Submit a Proposal to the Board | UPA Conduct Policy | UPA Public Statements

Posted 11/10/2008

UPA STATEMENT REGARDING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ULTIMATE ASSOCIATION

The UPA was extremely interested to see the public announcement by Cultimate to initiate the National Collegiate Ultimate Association. It is of significant interest to the UPA that all of the fundamental concepts on which the NCUA has been developed are basically identical to those included in the UPA's strategic planning initiatives announced in the Spring of 2008 (http://www.upa.org/upa/strategicplanning/2008-2012). To this end, we ask members of the Ultimate community to consider the following when making a decision regarding their support of a separate sport governing organization.

The UPA is saddened that this has occurred in a community which had previously worked together for the betterment of the sport. However, the unwillingness of Cultimate to delay their plans until 2010 in order to work with the UPA to review plans which might be different than their own, and which could be fully vetted within the college community, require the UPA to issue the following statements:

1. Sharing of resources/reinventing the wheel

The UPA must state unequivocally that it cannot and will not share a number of its proprietary infrastructure resources with competing organizations for privacy and legal reasons. This currently includes our membership database, roster creation and eligibility management systems and related IT infrastructure. As such, the NCUA/Cultimate will be required to develop its own systems for determining college eligibility and providing other services that support college Ultimate.

The UPA already has devoted a tremendous amount of resources to developing many of the systems and programs that the NCUA would need to successfully run the college division (such as our eligibility rules and rostering system, as well as our observer training program), and therefore we believe that we are in a much better position to serve the college players than an organization that has not developed such programs. There is a reason the UPA's eligibility and roster submission rules are so long and detailed, especially in comparison to the NCUA's posted rules - it's a result of many years of experience dealing with these often complex issues. Implementation is about the details, an area in which the UPA has vast experience.

Additionally, having two separate governing bodies each trying to put together their own redundant systems is not only a tremendous waste of resources for the Ultimate community, but it also will likely result in confusion when players move between one system and the other (for example a youth player that learns to play under one set of rules and officiating parameters, and then moves to playing under the college system, only to come back to the original system when beginning to play club).

2. Dividing resources will hurt the growth of the sport

The UPA, as a non-profit body, uses the revenue obtained from membership dues to fund programs that help to grow the sport. These include a heavy investment in the youth division (we run the youth division at a net loss of revenue), coaching and observer training clinics, free team starter kits, PE conferences and League outreach conferences, rules development, event sanctioning (including providing insurance for tournaments and leagues), marketing and media (e.g. - CBS College Sports and Ultivillage), etc. The UPA also serves as the official representative of US Ultimate in the international community, including the World Flying Disc Federation, and related selection processes and support for the World Games and WFDF sponsored world championships. By removing a large portion of the membership revenue from the UPA (i.e. - college members), the NCUA will dramatically reduce the UPA's ability to continue to invest in the growth of the sport. If the UPA is forced to scale back on our investment in youth Ultimate, coach/official training, international competition and other aspects of growing the sport, this will eventually trickle back up to the college players themselves.

Outside organizations seeking to align with sports look to the number of participants and associated audience as a key benchmark for participation. Two separate organizations will serve to further splinter the effectiveness of marketing Ultimate; sponsors and media will see a sport which is already small and yet is being further splintered into factions. The UPA already has strong business relationships with many of the organizations that NCUA will need to work with in order to implement its plans, and is therefore better positioned to work with those partners to promote and develop the sport.

3. Representative governing body and organizational status

The NCUA is currently overseen by an appointed governing body, mostly from one city, that includes at least two representatives of a for-profit event management company (Cultimate), which presents the NCUA with potential conflict of interest issues when it makes organizational decisions for its members. The UPA is overseen by a member-elected governing body representing all areas of the country. We believe that an elected governing body will be more responsive and more representative of the players than an appointed one, especially one that will have to deal with potential conflicts of interest issues. Further, the UPA's organizational status as a non-profit governing body has long been established, while the NCUA's organizational status is currently tentative at best, leaving some important questions unanswered about its long-term stability and ability to serve its membership into the future.  

4. Split championship, gambling with 2009 season

The NCUA is putting college players in a difficult position right now, forcing them to choose between the UPA and the NCUA (since NCUA events conflict directly in their timing with UPA series events). This might result in a split championship in 2009, something we've heard from the players is highly undesirable. It also puts the players in a very difficult position, and asks them to take a gamble with their 2009 season by switching to an organization that has no proven ability to come through with many of the promises they are making. We believe that by putting the players in this position (rather than working with the UPA to affect many of the same changes for 2010), Cultimate and the NCUA are not acting in the best interests of the players.

Therefore, it is our recommendation that college players continue to participate in the UPA series in 2009, and work with the UPA in developing a regular season and tiered competition program that has been fully vetted by the players for implementation in 2010 by getting involved with the UPA's process for change (http://www.upa.org/files/UPA%20College%20Ultimate%20Plans.pdf).

The set of dates for the 2009 UPA College Series have been announced  (http://www.upa.org/college/2009_calendar.shtml). Please contact your sectional or regional coordinator (http://www.upa.org/upa/contacts/contacts.shtml) to express your interest in attending and/or hosting these events. Specific details will be filled in for events over the next two months, with the UPA College Championship event site and date announced in the next several weeks.

Thanks,

Mike Payne, UPA President
Peri Kurshan, UPA Vice President
Sandie Hammerly, UPA Executive Director
Will Deaver, UPA Championship Director