Skyd Magazine lists three main criteria to be considered when voting for the Callahan that I'd like you to keep in mind while reading:
- A. Overall offensive and defensive abilities
- B. Dedication to ultimate and leadership ability
- C. Sportsmanship
Source: SkydMagazine.com
1. Voting for the Callahan should take place after Nationals.
I think it is a crime that all the votes have to be placed before the biggest tournament of the entire year. This is when the truly great players separate themselves from the ones who disappear on a stage like this. This tournament also has the highest level of exposure, meaning fans will actually get to see the players for whom they are voting. Voters will also get to judge players based on their performance against the toughest competition of the year, instead of judging them based on a sweet scoober they threw against a team that finished 10th at D-I Regionals.
I understand it will never happen though. USA Ultimate uses the platform and exposure of Nationals to highlight their star players and do a whole ceremony and everything. If voting and awarding of the Callahan happened a month later, no one would get to actually see it, it wouldn't be on ESPN's coverage, etc. But if they truly want to award it to the best player, this is how it needs to be done.
A quick comparison to college football: do you think Manti Te'o would have won the Heisman after his abysmal, invisible performance against Alabama in the 2013 National Championship game? Probably not.
2. Too much importance is placed on the Callahan nominees' videos.
This is nothing new. It's been this way since ultimate videos have existed. This catch alone essentially won the Callahan for Joe Kershner in 2008. Nick Lance won in 2012 because of his video. No doubt about it. Yes, he's a great player. Yes, he's now a star on one of the best club teams in the world (Johnny Bravo), and yes, the video was awesome. It featured some of the craziest throws I've ever seen, displayed all parts of Lance's game, and was edited extremely well. It was amazing. There was no way he wasn't going to win.
But, I'll be the first to admit that I voted for him to win the Callahan that year, even though I had never heard of him before that video came out and I had never seen him play a full game before. That is just wrong. How can you really say whether someone is the best based solely on a highlight reel? I can show you a hundred athletes who aren't near the top of their sport who happen to make pretty cool plays pretty frequently. But it is over the course of a whole game where you find out how good they really are.
Furthermore, many of the plays featured in Callahan videos are made during club seasons or previous college seasons, thus going against Skyd's recommendation that only a player's performance in the spring of that year should be considered. Nick Lance's video did not do this (see Jay Clark's comment below), which makes the video even more impressive. But most of the videos do, possibly because they want to show that the player can compete on the highest level, or they just need to fill up more time. Freechild even used video from his freshman year.
But to again parallel this award to college football, that would be like giving the Heisman to Jadaveon Clowney based on his one hit on that Michigan running back. No one would even know Clowney's name if it weren't for that hit. He may be freakishly athletic, but he's not an especially great defensive end, and he should not have even been considered for the Heisman.
3. The Callahan should be awarded based on a player's achievements, not their talents.
This ties in with the last point I made, but it's worth exploring on its own as well. Georgia Tech finished 12th at Nationals in 2012. Respectable, but not dominant. A truly great player, and one who encompasses everything the Callahan award stands for, is able to bring his team at least to the quarters or semis. Sure, it's great to be the best player on a pretty good team, but if you're the best player on one of the best teams, that's on an entirely different level.
This is where Skyd's second criterion, concerning "leadership abilities," comes into play. Lance might have been a great player, but he was not the greatest leader, at least not in his ability to get his team to perform its best.
4. Alex Thorne should have won the Callahan in 2012.
I feel like I've been ragging on Nick Lance too much. In reality, I think he's a tremendous player, and I really admire his abilities. I just think he was not the best player in college that year, and his Callahan win represents a lot of what's wrong with the voting process. But now, let's focus on why Alex Thorne deserved to win.
First of all, his team won the championship, and he was easily the best player on that team. After watching the championship game against Wisconsin, it was very clear that he was playing on an entirely different level from everyone else. He stepped up and played the best game of his life when it mattered the most.
It was a rather windy game, but he seemed completely unfazed by the weather. His throws were perfect, even when throwing an outside-in flick around a cup two-thirds the length of the field, like he did to his brother, Max, multiple times. His hucks were spot-on, and more than that, they seemed effortless. He was totally in control of that game and remained calm throughout the whole thing. It was like he wasn't even trying.
Alex Thorne is an incredibly pure thrower with so much natural throwing ability. Thorne has more command over the disc than anyone I've seen in the college game. He also was a huge part of Pitt's signature comeback win against Carleton. To be the best player on the best team, play your best game when it counts, and not win the Callahan is messed up.
5. Tyler Degirolamo should have won the Callahan in 2013.
I had the pleasure of watching Nationals in person last year, and I couldn't help but draw comparisons to the previous year when it came to the Freechild/Degirolamo fight for the Callahan. Freechild had the better video and the flashier moves (give-and-gos, high release flicks, stuff that shouldn't work but does, etc.), but Degirolamo was clearly the better player. He proved it throughout the weekend and it was especially evident during the semifinal game between Pitt and Oregon.
From 2012 to 2013, Degirolamo became a whole different kind of player. He used to be the best deep threat and probably the most athletic player in the game, who had the ability to occasionally huck it for a score as well. By 2013, he was a complete player. He remained the most unguardable deep cutter, and teams adjusted their entire defense around him. So, he decided to become a handler half the time. There were many points where he touched the disc every other throw. He was the most important player for Pitt that year on offense, and he is the reason they skated through Nationals without much of a challenge. Oh, and by the way, he was one of the best defenders in the game as well.
Freechild is very good, but he never took over games at Nationals the way Degirolamo did. Teams didn't have to change everything about their defense when Freechild stepped on the field.
6. Jimmy Mickle should win the Callahan in 2014.
Now, by saying this in February, I'm already contradicting several of my points stated above. But if Jimmy Mickle doesn't win the Callahan, I'll be shocked. Essentially, unless somebody comes out of the woodwork to wow people, the voting this year is between Mickle, Freechild, and Will Driscoll. I don't think people want to see Freechild win again, and Mickle is way better than Driscoll. More than that, Mickle is way better than most college and club players in the country.
Watching Mickle play for Johnny Bravo in the Club Championships proved that he is one of the best players in the world at any level. He single-handedly dominated against Chain, and he played well against Doublewide while Thorne and Degirolamo were non-factors. (Degirolamo didn't even touch the disc that game until the last few points, while being a part of about four turnovers prior to that.)
Mickle's play at last year's College Championships proved that he can carry his team when they need it most, as he did during Colorado's comeback against Oregon in pool play. Freechild is close, but other than him, Mickle is by far the best player in the college game, and if he plays anywhere close to his ability, there is no way he should not win the Callahan.
7. There should be a Callahan equivalent for D-III ultimate.
Full disclosure: I'm currently in my fifth year playing for a D-III program.
Come on, USAU! There are more players in D-III ultimate than in D-I, and there is clearly support for a similar award, considering Callahan and NexGen nomination videos from D-III players have emerged in each of the last few years (Tommy Li, Spencer Sheridan, Greg Wakeman), even though those players didn't have a chance of winning. And these are great players in their own right who deserve recognition.
People know the names of the big players in D-III now that coverage has increased and the D-III Championships have become more established. Everyone knew who Rhys Lindmark was when he was tearing it up in 2012. People saw Ultiworld going nuts about Nick Mathison last year. Jordan Rhyne could definitely have started on any D-I roster in the country. Marques Brownlee, Charlie Enders, Scott Graber, Tim Kreutzfeldt, Nihal Bhakta, Jonas Cole, Tim Fergus, Zach Purdy, and others have made a name for themselves in recent years.
I believe D-III coverage still needs to expand more before we can get truly unbiased votes that aren't based on hype or hearsay, but I think it's time to start thinking about it.
I agree with almost everything, but I don't think sportsmanship is being completely ignored by voters. Maybe last year people thought that Dylan Freechild was so good that it was okay for him to be lacking is sportsmanship, but I haven't heard anything bad about Claire Chastain, Nick Lance, Paula Seville, George Stubbs, or Leila Tunnell. In fact, I think a lot of people will credit poor spirit as the sole reason Eli Friedman won the award out over Brodie Smith four years ago.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point about Friedman over Brodie, and the fact that most of the Callahan winners in recent years actually have been very spirited. Thanks for reminding me!
DeleteI guess I was focusing on Freechild and Lance a little too much. I remember Lance getting called out for being too showy and spiking the disc too much. Just read the comments on his Callahan video (https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=S7tkegQmLII) and I think you'll see what I mean.
A quick clarification on Lance's behalf:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, many of the plays featured in his video were made while playing for Chain Lightning or during previous seasons, thus going against Skyd's recommendation that only a player's performance in the spring of that year should be considered"
All of the footage in Nick's Callahan video was from the 2012 spring season (except for one CCC cilp from the fall season). Not only that, I made a conscious effort not to reuse many clips I had used in GT's two other highlight videos we put out that season. A lot of people are quick to give credit to the video, but I had a surplus of unbelievable plays to choose from, all from one season.
I spent a lot of time on that video because I knew Nick was the best player in college ultimate. It wasn't about manipulating the masses into agreeing with me - it was just a chance to acquaint the public with a player that they likely had not had the opportunity to see play.
Jay
I appreciate the comment and the info about where the plays came from. I guess I mistakenly assumed the plays in the video during which he wore his Chain jersey were from Chain games. I apologize and will edit that point out.
DeleteI also didn't mean to imply that you were trying to manipulate anyone's opinion. The video obviously would not have made such an impact if it didn't feature such incredible plays and if Lance was not such a great player, regardless of the editing. My main thought was that because he had such a great video, it gave him an distinct advantage against those who had less professional videos or lack of complete access to videos of their games.
I mainly used him as an example of how a video can have a drastic influence on voters' opinions, whereas I believe we need to find better, more complete ways to evaluate players. I think voters should strive to educate themselves more, and I feel that Thorne's Nationals performance put him ahead of Lance, in my opinion.
That being said, I also think Lance has been a much better club player than Thorne thus far, so maybe my opinion of their respective 2012 seasons was similarly misinformed.
Danny
Jay, you still should have won an Oscar for that. Is and remains the best individual highlight video of all time. #jayclark4oscar
DeleteThe reason why videos play such a large role is that a vast majority of the community don't have any direct exposure to these players. Although footage is becoming more widely available, not every major tournament is covered, not every game in the major tournaments are covered, and I'm guessing most college players don't purchase the footage (this is an assumption and I may be wrong).
ReplyDeleteYou're placing an unreasonable amount of emphasis linking leadership abilities to team performance. GT's team in 2012 was most certainly not elite. However, who are you to judge what the performance cap of that team was? Did you watch them play at Nationals and have a chance to see the team as a whole? If not, you don't have the credentials to say that Lance wasn't a great leader because of how well his team did. This is not an individual game; this is a team game that requires more than just one player for team success. On a separate note, you also discredit his sportsmanship. How do you know how sportsmanlike he is?
You're promoting Mickle for Callahan, citing his play for Johnny Bravo as proof for his dominance. Weren't you saying before how players should be judged by their performance in the 2014 spring college season? This contradicts your stance on the footage used in Freechild's video. Not only that, you're also bringing up his play last year at Nationals. Colorado lost against UNC-W in pre-quarters 15-11. Even though they came back against Oregon they still lost. Where is the line between individual play on team play? You seem to have forgotten about the criteria you talked about earlier.
Callahan voting should consider individual performances in club and previous seasons so that voters have a larger pool of play to consider. It should also be based on talent, not achievements (which is why the first criteria listed is overall offensive and defensive abilities).
I understand why videos play such a large role in the voting process. I simply believe we need to find a better way to choose the Callahan winner, where the voting is based on a larger sample of a player's performance (i.e. a full season's worth of play).
DeleteYou're probably correct that a team's performance should not have any bearing on an individual's merits. And, furthermore, Alex Thorne had A LOT more help with Pitt and Kaczmarek than Lance did with GT, which is a fair point.
I personally don't think Lance is an unsportsmanlike player at all. I just remember there being considerable debate about whether he should win the Callahan when his video featured several aggressive spikes, "dangerous" bids, etc. I think he just expresses his intensity in a way that doesn't align with old-school, SOTG thinking, but I personally don't care much for that line of thinking.
I acknowledged my the contradictions I was making with the part on Mickle. My whole point with the Mickle paragraph is that, considering how great a player he is (based on all I've seen of him, club included), if he plays anywhere near his best, he should win. The second part of that sentence is the key.
Yes, if he has a horrible spring, he shouldn't win based on how well he played with Bravo. But the last sentence in that section ("Mickle is by far the best player in the college game, and if he plays anywhere close to his ability, there is no way he should not win the Callahan.") is the point I was trying to make.
Colorado's performance at last year's Nationals is part of the reason I didn't even include him in the discussion for the 2013 Callahan. I don't think he deserved to win, partially because of how his team performed, especially considering the level of talent on that team. I don't think I contradicted myself there.
I disagree with both the points you make in your final paragraph. I think Callahan voting for a specific season (spring 2014) should only take into account performance in that specific season. Club and previous years' performance should not have anything to do with Callahan voting, because you're (ideally) not just voting for the best player in the game, but the player who had the best spring that year. And I think achievements play just as large a role in voting as talent does. What is talent worth if you aren't successful with it? What is talent worth if you don't make the most of your abilities? Nothing. Ironside consistently performs below their talent level at Nationals, but we don't hand them the trophy just because their team is so talented.
All due respect to the 2012 GT team, but without Lance, they wouldn't have even been at Nationals, let alone finished 12th. He was that team. They had some other good players, but Jay Clark wasn't quite at his peak yet.
DeleteI'm not sure he took a point off at all in the game to go and was doing a pretty good job of marking up on Ley and Catron from Florida.
You make the argument that the best player on the best team is on a whole different level than the best player on a pretty good team. Do you not think George Stubbs should have won the callahan in 2011? Maybe you think Ben Feldman should have won the callahan because he was on a team that made it to finals, rather than a Harvard team that was clearly inferior. This doesn't really make sense to me because Stubbs is probably a top 5 player in the world meanwhile Feldman isn't even close to that. There just isn't a real argument for Thorne being better than Lance. Lance is without question a better defender, and cutter, and they have similar throwing abilities. Lance's impact on the club level proves his superiority.
ReplyDeleteI never said the Callahan winner should always come from the National Champion team, and I don't believe that either. See above, where I said "A truly great player, and one who encompasses everything the Callahan award stands for, is able to bring his team at least to the quarters or semis."
DeleteHarvard made it to the quarterfinals at Nationals in 2011, going 3-3 and finishing tied for 5th. Georgia Tech did not make the quarterfinals in 2012, going 1-6 and finishing tied for 12th, although they did break seed in pool play.
I agree that Stubbs should have won the Callahan. I also agree that Lance has been a much better club player. My argument was based on each player's performance during that one season. I think Thorne had a much better season, and I think that should have been taken into account more than it was.
Yeah, I agree with most of what you are saying and I'm not trying to attack you. I just think that quarterfinals is an arbitrary line to draw for what is a good enough team for a Callahan worthy player. I think getting to nationals with Georgia Tech was arguably as big of an achievement as winning nationals with Pittsburgh, given the skill of surrounding players. Like you said, you didn't see Nick play his senior year so it seems unfair to say that Thorne had a much better season than someone you didn't see. But anyway, enjoyed your thoughts, just personally think Nick deserved the Callahan. Thanks.
DeleteYeah, in all honesty, I threw this whole thing together in a little over an hour in a very stream-of-consciousness style, so I made some claims that I've had trouble backing up and probably wouldn't have made with more consideration. I also didn't expect more than a handful of people to read this, so I didn't spend too much time on it. Glad we could have a civil discussion though!
Delete