Okay, so you've just betrayed your fellow human freedom-fighters, and the evil artificial intelligence programs that rule the world are about to reward your disloyalty by plugging you back into the blissful ignorance of the Matrix. Before you go in, the machines are also offering to reward you by uploading five abilities of your choice into your mind. Which do you pick?
Basically, the question here is: if there was no cost in time, effort, and money spent attaining a learn-able talent, which ones would you choose? While you think that over, here are my picks:
1. Math
A major building block for other knowledge, with a complete understanding of mathematics, I can fairly easily move on to conquer the worlds of physics, chemistry, economics, etc.
2. The entirety of English literature
With the complete data base of books written in English encoded into my neurons, not only am I incredibly well prepared for any cocktail party or surprise English quiz, but I've also knocked off a good year or so of my life that would otherwise have been spent reading the books. And if I really want to read something new? Well, I can always go for modern literature, or rely on:
3. Fluency in Spanish, French, and Mandarin Chinese.
In addition to being able to communicate in most of the world, knowing two Romance languages and Chinese would make learning other languages much more readily accessible.
4. Tennis
Being talented at tennis requires a combination of qualities that translate well to most other sports: muscle-memory, speed, stamina, hand-eye coordination, and a good mental game. With tennis mastered, I could branch out to dominate other sports as well.
5. The canon of medical texts committed to memory
Having an enormous body of medical literature at my fingertips would make me the ultimate diagnosing machine. I could go through hundreds of patients a day, reading the case history and sending them to get the appropriate treatment. Each year I could helps tens of thousands of people get the appropriate care and save tons of time and money.
Runners-up:
Ice skating, the ability to play musical instruments, ability to read expressions, poker odds memorized, archive of all high level chess games
Showing posts with label opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinions. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Speak for yourself
As promised a couple posts back, I'm going to pick the appellation that best fits our generation from all of the names that have been suggested so far. Here goes:
First, I'm going to dispatch a few in large chunks.
Too narrow/specific:
• The My Space Generation
• The Grand Theft Auto Generation
• The Nintendo Generation
• The MTV Generation
• The MyPod Generation
Focused on time period rather than character
• The thirteenth generation
• Regan Babies
• The Millenials
• Echo Boomers
• The Second Baby Boom
The rest I'll deal with individually.
Generation Y: Nah, I don't want to be defined simply as the ones that came after Generation X.
The Boomerang Generation: This refers to our apparent tendency to return home after college. While it may be something we have in common (and probably a sign of a poor economy), I don't think that it says much about our character.
The Next Generation: Star Trek is more a Generation X thing. This name has little else to offer.
The DARE Generation: Certainly a common theme of our childhoods, and probably had a lot to do with our cynicism. Not terribly applicable now, even less so in the future.
GenerationNext: Too unspecific.
The Google Generation: I think google does embody a lot of what I see in our generation, though it was formed by Generation Xers. Still, while google certainly has staying power, its novelty will eventually wear off and it will become less appealing.
The Einstein Generation: This certainly piques my ego. Refers to our ability to multi-task. A little too narrow a scope, though, and we should resist the pandering for posterity's sake.
The Me Generation: Comments on our tendency to keep to ourselves, communicate online, etc. A little insulting, easily misinterpreted.
Second Place
The iGeneration (or internet Generation): Hard to cross this one off. We certainly have been shaped in large part by the ability to communicate instantaneouly, and to access information at will. Still, while the internet does have a big effect on our lives, I am going to refrain from pinning our identity to a technological innovation.
The Winner
So, my pick of the suggested names for our generation:
The Cynical Generation
We were born into an era of polemics. The older generations are sharply divided on many issues, and every where we turn we are confronted with their angry rhetoric. We see their unwillingness to compromise and win-at-all-cost outlook, and are understandably turned off. There is no unchallenged authority in our lives.
We are skeptical of just about everything. As far as entertainment goes, we gravitate towards the satirical and irreverant--just look at the success of South Park, or The Daily Show, or the resurgence of Monty Python. The first style of music completely our own was the super-cynical Emo, which, of course, immediately created millions of super-cynical Emo-haters. Even in the world of sports, we root against anyone who enjoys too much success, no matter how good their backstory (see the New England Patriots, the San Antonio Spurs, etc.). As far as movies go, we have a predilection to the conspiratoraial (The Matrix, Fight Club) and the one-man-against-the-system (Enemy of the State, Shooter, anything Denzel Washington, may, many others), which hints at our displeasure with the status quo.
This evidence having been considered, I think that The Cynical Generation speaks to our character pretty well, or at least better than anything else that has been suggested to date.
First, I'm going to dispatch a few in large chunks.
Too narrow/specific:
• The My Space Generation
• The Grand Theft Auto Generation
• The Nintendo Generation
• The MTV Generation
• The MyPod Generation
Focused on time period rather than character
• The thirteenth generation
• Regan Babies
• The Millenials
• Echo Boomers
• The Second Baby Boom
The rest I'll deal with individually.
Generation Y: Nah, I don't want to be defined simply as the ones that came after Generation X.
The Boomerang Generation: This refers to our apparent tendency to return home after college. While it may be something we have in common (and probably a sign of a poor economy), I don't think that it says much about our character.
The Next Generation: Star Trek is more a Generation X thing. This name has little else to offer.
The DARE Generation: Certainly a common theme of our childhoods, and probably had a lot to do with our cynicism. Not terribly applicable now, even less so in the future.
GenerationNext: Too unspecific.
The Google Generation: I think google does embody a lot of what I see in our generation, though it was formed by Generation Xers. Still, while google certainly has staying power, its novelty will eventually wear off and it will become less appealing.
The Einstein Generation: This certainly piques my ego. Refers to our ability to multi-task. A little too narrow a scope, though, and we should resist the pandering for posterity's sake.
The Me Generation: Comments on our tendency to keep to ourselves, communicate online, etc. A little insulting, easily misinterpreted.
Second Place
The iGeneration (or internet Generation): Hard to cross this one off. We certainly have been shaped in large part by the ability to communicate instantaneouly, and to access information at will. Still, while the internet does have a big effect on our lives, I am going to refrain from pinning our identity to a technological innovation.
The Winner
So, my pick of the suggested names for our generation:
The Cynical Generation
We were born into an era of polemics. The older generations are sharply divided on many issues, and every where we turn we are confronted with their angry rhetoric. We see their unwillingness to compromise and win-at-all-cost outlook, and are understandably turned off. There is no unchallenged authority in our lives.
We are skeptical of just about everything. As far as entertainment goes, we gravitate towards the satirical and irreverant--just look at the success of South Park, or The Daily Show, or the resurgence of Monty Python. The first style of music completely our own was the super-cynical Emo, which, of course, immediately created millions of super-cynical Emo-haters. Even in the world of sports, we root against anyone who enjoys too much success, no matter how good their backstory (see the New England Patriots, the San Antonio Spurs, etc.). As far as movies go, we have a predilection to the conspiratoraial (The Matrix, Fight Club) and the one-man-against-the-system (Enemy of the State, Shooter, anything Denzel Washington, may, many others), which hints at our displeasure with the status quo.
This evidence having been considered, I think that The Cynical Generation speaks to our character pretty well, or at least better than anything else that has been suggested to date.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Democracy is the worst form of government...
...except for all the other ones that have been tried.
-Winston Churchill
Introduction: But seriously: maybe we should spend a little time evaluating how democracy is working in this country. From the moment we enter school, the wonder of democracy and its heroes are trumpeted. We sing songs and make colorful collages glorifying its virtues. Considering that we are raised in this evironment of pseudo-indoctrination, it is no wonder that most of us view democracy as the culmination of humanity's march to social perfection. Perhaps this never-assailed assumption could bear some more impartial reconsideration.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to talk you into giving monarchy another try. I just think that, judging by the less-than-objective way we learned about our system of government, we might benefit from a little reevaluation of democracy (or, more specifically, our brand of representative democracy).
Evaluation
In order to investigate just how well democracy appears to be working, I'm going to select a few issues and discuss how democracy has tackled them. These examples will be very broad with many simplifications, but bear with me.
War
Let's look at how America goes to war. The most recent American military egnagements were:
1. Iraq, part I
2. The Yugoslavian conflict
3. Afghanistan
4. Iraq, part II
For the first two wars, the stated motivation was intervention to bring to a halt immoral action. For the second two, the stated reason was a response to a direct threat to ourselves. In one case, the threat was based upon the evidence of an attack on the US; in the last case, the threat was a predicted, future one.
So, in two cases, democracy went to war in order to intercede on others behalf. Without looking at the specific examples, we can conclude that the American democracy is willing to commit itself to helping others.
In the two final examples, we engaged in war on our own behalf. The first was in reponse to 9/11, and waged against the country that harbored those responsible for the attack. Lastly, Iraq part II, was based upon several premises which have now been proven untrue. Simplified: Americans are willing to engage in war to protect ourselves, even if from a perceived future threat.
Summary: In terms of war, American democracy is sympathetic enough to intercede on others' behalf. It is also quick to act in its own defense, in some cases before the evidence and justification are properly considered. So our grade: overall, pretty good. We could certainly be doing a lot worse, though perhaps a more rational consideration of the facts is in order at times.
Economy and personal welfare
In general, the American public walks a line between a libertarian philosophy of economic darwinism, and a socialist belief of redistributing wealth in order to ensure that everyone is priviledge to basic amenities. Over the years, we vascilate between these two philosophies, but usually strike a balance between the two.
This is a very broad subject, but I would like to suggest that we examine a subset of our economy in order to understand how it works as a whole. The example: health care. Health care is a prime example of America's middle-ground stance on economics. Health care in this country is privatized, but basic care is also extended to some of the population that cannot afford it.
Basically, health care is one area in which it is clear that the system is not working. Americans pay more for health care than any other people in the world, yet America has a higher percent of people without insurance than just about every other developed nation (15.7%, or 45.8 million people!!!). Further: the majority Americans, when explained the details of a state-run healthcare system, would prefer that method over our current situation. Clearly, something is wrong if most people would prefer the system work a specific way and yet the problem persists.
Summary: As seen in the example of our health care system, our system is failing, in some cases, to correctly meet the desires of the people. As this is the stated goal of democracy, the system is not serving its purpose.
Environment and Climate Change
There are no two ways about it: the facts of climate change are terrifying, and our reaction has been poor at best. The world faces an impending catastrophe, and the reaction within the country has not been promising.
To help make my point, here's a similar scenario, with the difference that this one happens over a period of days instead of decades:
Terrorism experts conduct numerous investigations and concur, with 95% agreement, that al Qaeda has a terrible new weapon. It will destroy many of the world's major cities, unleash disease that will infect millions, drive billions from their homes, destroy food and water supplies, and cause tens of trillions of dollars of economic damage. It will threaten the survival of the human race, and certainly send us into chaos. The experts warn that the only way to confront this threat is to dramatically cut back on the fossil fuels we consume.
Wouldn't it seem ridiculous if, following this warning, half the country began nit-picking at the experts' evidence and credentials, while the other half, wary of their political image, advocated adopting only a tenth of the experts' recommended strategy?
Clearly, our system is not working in this case. We have been unsuccesful in understanding and reacting appropriately to this threat. We are far too complacent and unwilling to respond.
This exposes a major flaw of our democracy: we are poor at considering the big picture and acting in our own best interest in the long term.
Two ideas on how to improve our system
I believe that much of our problems are rooted in education and accountability. Here are two methods that might improve our system and decision-making process. One is educational, the second involves incentives.
1. My (un-egalitarian, heretically anti-constitutional, half-serious) Educational Solution
Before any person is allowed to vote, they must answer 10 factual questions that would test their understanding of relevant and important issues. They would be required to score a 50% or better before being allowed to vote.
In this scenario, those with a poor understanding of the issues are removed from the process. The country as a whole is forced to better educate itself on the issues.
2. The Incentive Scheme Solution
Another major problem with our present solution is that voter turnout is very, very low. Most of the country feels disenfranchised. Perhaps if we implemented some basic incentive scheme, such as a $10 tax refund with proof of vote, it would encourage people to re-engage themselves in the process.
-Winston Churchill
Introduction: But seriously: maybe we should spend a little time evaluating how democracy is working in this country. From the moment we enter school, the wonder of democracy and its heroes are trumpeted. We sing songs and make colorful collages glorifying its virtues. Considering that we are raised in this evironment of pseudo-indoctrination, it is no wonder that most of us view democracy as the culmination of humanity's march to social perfection. Perhaps this never-assailed assumption could bear some more impartial reconsideration.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to talk you into giving monarchy another try. I just think that, judging by the less-than-objective way we learned about our system of government, we might benefit from a little reevaluation of democracy (or, more specifically, our brand of representative democracy).
Evaluation
In order to investigate just how well democracy appears to be working, I'm going to select a few issues and discuss how democracy has tackled them. These examples will be very broad with many simplifications, but bear with me.
War
Let's look at how America goes to war. The most recent American military egnagements were:
1. Iraq, part I
2. The Yugoslavian conflict
3. Afghanistan
4. Iraq, part II
For the first two wars, the stated motivation was intervention to bring to a halt immoral action. For the second two, the stated reason was a response to a direct threat to ourselves. In one case, the threat was based upon the evidence of an attack on the US; in the last case, the threat was a predicted, future one.
So, in two cases, democracy went to war in order to intercede on others behalf. Without looking at the specific examples, we can conclude that the American democracy is willing to commit itself to helping others.
In the two final examples, we engaged in war on our own behalf. The first was in reponse to 9/11, and waged against the country that harbored those responsible for the attack. Lastly, Iraq part II, was based upon several premises which have now been proven untrue. Simplified: Americans are willing to engage in war to protect ourselves, even if from a perceived future threat.
Summary: In terms of war, American democracy is sympathetic enough to intercede on others' behalf. It is also quick to act in its own defense, in some cases before the evidence and justification are properly considered. So our grade: overall, pretty good. We could certainly be doing a lot worse, though perhaps a more rational consideration of the facts is in order at times.
Economy and personal welfare
In general, the American public walks a line between a libertarian philosophy of economic darwinism, and a socialist belief of redistributing wealth in order to ensure that everyone is priviledge to basic amenities. Over the years, we vascilate between these two philosophies, but usually strike a balance between the two.
This is a very broad subject, but I would like to suggest that we examine a subset of our economy in order to understand how it works as a whole. The example: health care. Health care is a prime example of America's middle-ground stance on economics. Health care in this country is privatized, but basic care is also extended to some of the population that cannot afford it.
Basically, health care is one area in which it is clear that the system is not working. Americans pay more for health care than any other people in the world, yet America has a higher percent of people without insurance than just about every other developed nation (15.7%, or 45.8 million people!!!). Further: the majority Americans, when explained the details of a state-run healthcare system, would prefer that method over our current situation. Clearly, something is wrong if most people would prefer the system work a specific way and yet the problem persists.
Summary: As seen in the example of our health care system, our system is failing, in some cases, to correctly meet the desires of the people. As this is the stated goal of democracy, the system is not serving its purpose.
Environment and Climate Change
There are no two ways about it: the facts of climate change are terrifying, and our reaction has been poor at best. The world faces an impending catastrophe, and the reaction within the country has not been promising.
To help make my point, here's a similar scenario, with the difference that this one happens over a period of days instead of decades:
Terrorism experts conduct numerous investigations and concur, with 95% agreement, that al Qaeda has a terrible new weapon. It will destroy many of the world's major cities, unleash disease that will infect millions, drive billions from their homes, destroy food and water supplies, and cause tens of trillions of dollars of economic damage. It will threaten the survival of the human race, and certainly send us into chaos. The experts warn that the only way to confront this threat is to dramatically cut back on the fossil fuels we consume.
Wouldn't it seem ridiculous if, following this warning, half the country began nit-picking at the experts' evidence and credentials, while the other half, wary of their political image, advocated adopting only a tenth of the experts' recommended strategy?
Clearly, our system is not working in this case. We have been unsuccesful in understanding and reacting appropriately to this threat. We are far too complacent and unwilling to respond.
This exposes a major flaw of our democracy: we are poor at considering the big picture and acting in our own best interest in the long term.
Two ideas on how to improve our system
I believe that much of our problems are rooted in education and accountability. Here are two methods that might improve our system and decision-making process. One is educational, the second involves incentives.
1. My (un-egalitarian, heretically anti-constitutional, half-serious) Educational Solution
Before any person is allowed to vote, they must answer 10 factual questions that would test their understanding of relevant and important issues. They would be required to score a 50% or better before being allowed to vote.
In this scenario, those with a poor understanding of the issues are removed from the process. The country as a whole is forced to better educate itself on the issues.
2. The Incentive Scheme Solution
Another major problem with our present solution is that voter turnout is very, very low. Most of the country feels disenfranchised. Perhaps if we implemented some basic incentive scheme, such as a $10 tax refund with proof of vote, it would encourage people to re-engage themselves in the process.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Why Dilbert creator Scott Adams might enjoy this blog
There is one major reason Scott Adams, creator of the syndicated comic strip "Dilbert", would probably like this blog: it now mentions him by name. Just a few weeks ago, this might have been an irrelevant point: there is no way Adams would ever have come acros the blog, and if he had, he certainly would not have continued to read it long enough to spot this post (unless, of course, he's a closet ultimate frisbee/fantasy sports junkee). However, all this has changed in the last week.
What's Changed
What has changed, as Adams recently chortled on his blog, is that Google has released a feature called Google Alerts. This program can be set to scan for specified words, and upon finding a new example, it will alert the customer. In Adams' case, every time a blog mentions "Scott Adams", and "Dilbert", a alert is sent to his Blackberry (I join you in thinking that's pretty neat, Scott).
So finally the perfect union of narcissists has been realized. Its constituents:
-Adams, who wants the selfish pleasure of seeing his name in print,
and,
-The blogger, even more desperate to be read.
So I hope you got a kick out of this little meeting, Scott. I know I did. If you're really interested, you can read on a little and find out how to name a fantasy team or test yourself to see if you're a liberal or a conservative. However, I have to be honest with you: your name will not appear again, so you would probably be better off clicking your Blackberry over to the next blogger craving famous eyes. It's sad to see you go, but I know it would be selfish to hoard you to myself while there are other narcissists out there. Take care Scott, and know that it was good for me, too.
What's Changed
What has changed, as Adams recently chortled on his blog, is that Google has released a feature called Google Alerts. This program can be set to scan for specified words, and upon finding a new example, it will alert the customer. In Adams' case, every time a blog mentions "Scott Adams", and "Dilbert", a alert is sent to his Blackberry (I join you in thinking that's pretty neat, Scott).
So finally the perfect union of narcissists has been realized. Its constituents:
-Adams, who wants the selfish pleasure of seeing his name in print,
and,
-The blogger, even more desperate to be read.
So I hope you got a kick out of this little meeting, Scott. I know I did. If you're really interested, you can read on a little and find out how to name a fantasy team or test yourself to see if you're a liberal or a conservative. However, I have to be honest with you: your name will not appear again, so you would probably be better off clicking your Blackberry over to the next blogger craving famous eyes. It's sad to see you go, but I know it would be selfish to hoard you to myself while there are other narcissists out there. Take care Scott, and know that it was good for me, too.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Ultimate 2.0
Where we left off:
In my last post, I described what I perceive to be the biggest problem with ultimate frisbee: the lack of an incentive in the rules to reward taking chances and punish playing it safe. As promised, here is my solution:
The New Rules
1. Two new lines are drawn from one sideline to the other, seperating the field into thirds.
2. Upon gaining possesion of the disc, a team has 45 seconds to move the disc to the next line. Note: 45 seconds is an arbitrary time, to be modified as deemed neccesary.
3. If the team manages to cross the line, the count is reset. The count CANNOT be reset by moving the disc backwards across a line.
Other potential rule additions:
1. Different point values are awarded for scores thrown from different thirds of the field. For example: a score from the near third would be 3 points, from the middle third would be 4 points, and from the far third would be 5 points.
2. The stall count would be removed in place of a silent count frm an official. So the audience would understand what was happening, the official would raise a hand after he reached "7" to signal a warning, then tick off the remaining three seconds with sweeps of his other hand (like a basketball ref marks off seconds in the backcourt).
Argument for the Shot Clock
The shot clock (or "possesion clock"?) attempts to amerliorate this problem. The division of the field into thirds is aimed to provide an incentive for teams to move quickly instead of cautiously. The division of the field into three zones is also important to flow. This way, if the shot clock is about to expire while you're stuck in your own endzone, you don't need a full-field huck to reset the clock, just a medium pass. The time limit should be set up to give a team a reasonable time to work it up, so long as they keep moving steadily forwards.
Defending the idea
Here are some objections to the idea, and my responses:
Objection #1: It will lead to Huck n' Hope offense, where teams just throw deep when the stall count gets high.
Response: This is absolutely true: a team that squanders its possesion without making any gains would be forced to take a chance down field, just as a baseball player down 2 strikes has to swing at bad pitches, or a football team that has gone no where must throw the ball down field or punt. This is an integral idea in succesful spectator sports: rewarding those who take chances, punishing those who are too cautious.
The ultimate community is disdainful of teams that bomb it deep and never make any attempt to work it up the field. While that strategy is certainly a bad one in the current rule structure, I firmly believe that this the fact that long passes are sneered at is one of the biggest signs that something is wrong with ultimate. The rules must strike a balance between taking chances and playing it safe, and right now they err too far towards the latter.
Objection 2: Teams will play zone defense in response.
Response: This is also true! Good zone offense is very fun to watch. It's only boring for the same reason that man-to-man offense can be boring: when a team grinds out gains half a yard at a time. With the shot clock you have to get on a fast break or lose the disc.
Objection 3: Bad weather will be even worse with a shot clock
Response: This is the best argument I've seen. With a stiff wind, it would be harder to reset the shot clock. My intial response: so be it. Sometimes the conditions are bad in other sports, and you just have to make the most of it. In football, for example, rainy games probably mean lower scoring and more punts. So it goes.
However, if it did prove to be too much of a problem, perhaps the referees should be able to add a certain number of seconds per possesion before the game.
Objection 4: The added lines would make the field too complicated.
Response: Can you think of a sport with a simpler field than frisbee? There are 6 lines on an ultimate field, including the out-of-bounds lines. I can think of no other sport with less, and I challenge anyone else to come up with one. Two more lines would not be a big deal.
Relevant Comparison: Lacrosse
A good parrallel is lacrosse. Lacrosse, long a popular high school and college sport, decided to make the transition into a professional, spectator sport. The rulemakers recognized that long, uneventful possesions drove away fans, and Major League lacrosse incorporated a shot clock and two-point line. This is a great example of how a sport rich in tradition can succesfully be modified to make it more spectator-friendly.
In my last post, I described what I perceive to be the biggest problem with ultimate frisbee: the lack of an incentive in the rules to reward taking chances and punish playing it safe. As promised, here is my solution:
The New Rules
1. Two new lines are drawn from one sideline to the other, seperating the field into thirds.
2. Upon gaining possesion of the disc, a team has 45 seconds to move the disc to the next line. Note: 45 seconds is an arbitrary time, to be modified as deemed neccesary.
3. If the team manages to cross the line, the count is reset. The count CANNOT be reset by moving the disc backwards across a line.
Other potential rule additions:
1. Different point values are awarded for scores thrown from different thirds of the field. For example: a score from the near third would be 3 points, from the middle third would be 4 points, and from the far third would be 5 points.
2. The stall count would be removed in place of a silent count frm an official. So the audience would understand what was happening, the official would raise a hand after he reached "7" to signal a warning, then tick off the remaining three seconds with sweeps of his other hand (like a basketball ref marks off seconds in the backcourt).
Argument for the Shot Clock
The shot clock (or "possesion clock"?) attempts to amerliorate this problem. The division of the field into thirds is aimed to provide an incentive for teams to move quickly instead of cautiously. The division of the field into three zones is also important to flow. This way, if the shot clock is about to expire while you're stuck in your own endzone, you don't need a full-field huck to reset the clock, just a medium pass. The time limit should be set up to give a team a reasonable time to work it up, so long as they keep moving steadily forwards.
Defending the idea
Here are some objections to the idea, and my responses:
Objection #1: It will lead to Huck n' Hope offense, where teams just throw deep when the stall count gets high.
Response: This is absolutely true: a team that squanders its possesion without making any gains would be forced to take a chance down field, just as a baseball player down 2 strikes has to swing at bad pitches, or a football team that has gone no where must throw the ball down field or punt. This is an integral idea in succesful spectator sports: rewarding those who take chances, punishing those who are too cautious.
The ultimate community is disdainful of teams that bomb it deep and never make any attempt to work it up the field. While that strategy is certainly a bad one in the current rule structure, I firmly believe that this the fact that long passes are sneered at is one of the biggest signs that something is wrong with ultimate. The rules must strike a balance between taking chances and playing it safe, and right now they err too far towards the latter.
Objection 2: Teams will play zone defense in response.
Response: This is also true! Good zone offense is very fun to watch. It's only boring for the same reason that man-to-man offense can be boring: when a team grinds out gains half a yard at a time. With the shot clock you have to get on a fast break or lose the disc.
Objection 3: Bad weather will be even worse with a shot clock
Response: This is the best argument I've seen. With a stiff wind, it would be harder to reset the shot clock. My intial response: so be it. Sometimes the conditions are bad in other sports, and you just have to make the most of it. In football, for example, rainy games probably mean lower scoring and more punts. So it goes.
However, if it did prove to be too much of a problem, perhaps the referees should be able to add a certain number of seconds per possesion before the game.
Objection 4: The added lines would make the field too complicated.
Response: Can you think of a sport with a simpler field than frisbee? There are 6 lines on an ultimate field, including the out-of-bounds lines. I can think of no other sport with less, and I challenge anyone else to come up with one. Two more lines would not be a big deal.
Relevant Comparison: Lacrosse
A good parrallel is lacrosse. Lacrosse, long a popular high school and college sport, decided to make the transition into a professional, spectator sport. The rulemakers recognized that long, uneventful possesions drove away fans, and Major League lacrosse incorporated a shot clock and two-point line. This is a great example of how a sport rich in tradition can succesfully be modified to make it more spectator-friendly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)