Enthusiasm: a finite resource?

Over the last few years I've treated enthusiasm as a finite resource; it's something to be managed. Overuse it, and like overfishing or something, stocks could become dangerously depleted.

When I talk about enthusiasm here I mean volunteer enthusiasm; something like buy-in except not necessarily specific to just to one team, but rather to an ultimate community or to the sport in general. While team buy-in is required to show up to practice, improve your skills and fitness, volunteer enthusiasm is required for the likes of frisbee admin, running teams or governing bodies, recruiting, coaching, fundraising, PR and so on.

Some of it can be rewarding. For the sake of life happiness, it's good to do things for other people. If you enjoy ultimate and are grateful for having been introduced to it, introducing it to others seems like a good way to pay it forward. That, or organise something, or just find somewhere else to do your share of frisbee admin work.

Anyway, what I'm wondering here is this, am I correct to treat this enthusiasm as a limited resource? Is it a good approach to try to do some stuff, but to stay away from my tolerance limit for frisbee admin? Or is that the wrong way to think about it?

It's not that I see it all as a chore, but I think that often, to work on the stuff you consider really worthwhile or enjoyable, you have to deal with some stuff that you don't care for quite so much.

Perhaps its just been too long since I played a decent tournament. Those have a way of renewing all stocks of ultimate related enthusiasm. Bring on Tom's Tourney.

P.S. to all those people that do way more of this stuff than I do, a great big 'Thank you' from me! I appreciate your contributions.

When spirit scores are tied, who gets the prize?

When spirit scores are tied, and there's only one trophy, who should get it?

I've seen a few different ways of deciding.

1. The higher place team gets the prize.
2. Use rock-paper-scissors to decide.
3. If only one of the tied teams has attended the presentation, give them the trophy.
4. The organisers just announce the winner based on their own opinions
5. Let the team that was mistakenly already given the trophy keep it (don't ask).

In general, I think it's okay to leave the spirit award as a tie. If there is a token prize that can't be easily split between two teams, methods 2 or 3 are fine for deciding who to give it to. 

In the case where it's a decent trophy for an important tournament, I can see the merit of having a well-known convention to decide it. Method 1 does fit the bill. Everyone knows what to expect, even if it is a little arbitrary. 

Presumably, the theory behind method 1 is that it's more difficult to be spirited and good at the sport than to be a spirited loser. I would think there'd be more of an argument to be made for it being more difficult to keep good spirit in close games over blow-outs, rather than just finishing position. But working that out could be too much trouble between a final and a presentation. 

And of course some teams give high scores willy-nilly while other teams only give low scores. Calculating which of the tied teams played those teams that were stingy with spirit scores could be the most accurate method. 

I hear recently this call was made based on the team with the better single game spirit score. Or possibly it was the opposite; the team with the more consistent spirit scores. I think there are arguments for either but neither are great arguments.

 

There are so many variables at work, all at the mercy of the subjective judgements of teams filling out a spirit score sheet that it would be difficult, based on some factor or other, to say for sure that one team is slightly more spirited. Its probably best to just stick with the most straight-forward 'higher placed team gets the trophy' convention. 

Any thoughts?

Be the worst guy in the band

“ Always be the worst guy in every band you’re in. ”

-a legendary jazz guitarist's advice for becoming a good musician. 

The idea holds for other things.

If you want to become good at ultimate; play with a team where you're the worst player. (if they'll have you, you'll improve real fast).

Maybe that conflicts with the idea of loyalty to the one club with whom you started playing. (that is, trying to play with a better team). I've heard some people lament the way the ultimate scene works in Dublin, with many players playing for multiple teams, saying it's a bad thing, and they'd prefer to see everyone fiercely loyal to just one team.

If players can play with a team where they're the worst player, and then later take what they've learned and bring it to even worse players; well the level throughout the scene goes up. It's a very good thing.