More Callahan Thoughts

I'm realizing now, after letting some hours pass and letting others' comments sink in, that I complained a lot about the current system of Callahan voting without offering up any concrete solutions, other than delaying voting until Nationals is finished. I also realized that I hate when people are negative without suggesting ways to improve something, and I don't want to be a hypocrite. So, here are my thoughts on how to make the Callahan Award a more accurate representation of the best player in the game.

While it's great that Skyd has continued to allow the Callahan to be decided entirely college players, I don't think this is the best way to manage the rapidly growing attention the sport has been receiving. Despite the increased media attention on players and tournaments, we are still at a point where the vast majority of college players never get to see the elite players in person, yet they vote on them anyway.

The fact that the biggest individual award in the entire sport is decided solely by anyone who plays is insane. Giving a casual B-team player who has heard of a few of these guys the same voting power as someone who actually played against these players is ridiculous. The fact that the votes are not weighted more heavily for those who write about and report on the sport on a weekly basis is wrong. Reporters often spend entire weekends watching these players in person for several full games. Surely they have a better idea of how good the nominees actually are than those who have never seen them play.

While tournament recaps, player write-ups, and game videos are great, not everyone reads or watches them, and they still do not provide the same experience of seeing games played in person. I propose that the vote be split 50/50: the collective votes of all USAU college division members combine for 50 percent of the Callahan vote. The other 50 percent goes to the collective votes of all players on teams at the College Championships, plus the votes from writers and reporters for major ultimate news sources.

By doing so, the most informed voters get more say in the matter, but the rest of the ultimate-playing populace still gets a large say in the matter. I think this will allow a better consensus on the winners, and it will ensure that the Callahan Award winner is the player who truly deserves it the most.

On the Callahan Award

With the college ultimate season finally revving up after a very long winter, I've been thinking a lot about the game and how it has changed over the years. I've also been thinking about the Callahan Award, which will be voted on in the coming months.

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

Okay, first of all, sportmanship is a joke. Based on Nick Lance's and Dylan Freechild's wins, nobody is really taking that into consideration when voting as much as USA Ultimate would like. Furthermore, Skyd insists that "All candidates should be judged by their performance only during the 2014 spring college season." Again, that won't happen, but it's something to keep in mind. Here are some thoughts I have about the award:

                                                                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.