Summer league - 2 teams?

30 posts / 0 new
Last post

So, I know it's a little early to be thinking about the summer league... I'm just really looking forward to it, I guess.

Anyway, I was hoping to get some feedback/advice from anyone who has played on two VUL summer teams at the same time. I already have a team I love to play with, but I'd like to also be playing in a higher division to improve my skills for the next year's college season.

So how did you find playing two teams? Did conflicts come up with tournaments? Is this a good idea for me? And for those in the service industry, well, 2 nights off a week is a lot; how did that work out?

Thanks in advance.

Two teams? There are fists full of people that play on 2 or 3 league teams and on a touring team, some that play 3 league teams, the odd person that plays on 3 league teams and subs for a 4th. I think that there are at least a few people that play all 4 league nights.

I've played with 3 different teams for the past 3 summers. It gets to be quite draining by the end of the season with little time to enjoy other summer activities or relax. But I expect that playing with 2 teams is quite manageable. My advice is to schedule a day or two between the two nights (M/W, T/Th) to allow for some recovery time.

I don't think that there's any question that your skills will increase with the frequency of play, especially if you are planning on playing in a higher division.

As for tournament conflicts, depends which teams you play with - - not that many league teams sign up for tournaments together.

Can't help you on the service industry questions.

B-B By B-B

I also played with two teams in the summer. I would take the advice of scheduling a day in

between the games if possible, I didn't and my legs paid the price...

Hell, I played on four teams (Divs 1, 4, 1, and 3, respectively) a couple of years ago - it just got me ready for playing on two Div 1 teams with two nights of practice/training the following year. With goaltimate on non-tournament weekends.

Now, I'm a machine.


mO By mO

mm, i played on all four nights, plus subbed here and's not that bad. it's a lot of fun. if you're looking for a new team, post on the VUL boards and definatly people will ask you to come out and check out their teams/play with them. sub/play on a couple of teams first, seeing which ones you like best. then, you can probably make your decision on which team you'd want to stay with. maybe it's the chemistry of the team, maybe it's the level they play at. either way, it's your choice. don't rush into making a commitment to any team yet, make sure you mesh with them first.

as for tournaments, see which teams are going to which tournaments. i played on a pretty competitive team last summer, and they went to flowerbowl, name it, they were probably there. but they didn't play at the smaller tournaments, and i was lucky because one of my other teams did instead. so i got to play everywhere. definatly ask your teams which tournaments they're interested in going to, or are already attending. if both or all your teams are going to the same tournament, flip a coin, or see which team might be needing more players. or, you can always just play with all of them when you're, it's really up to you, again.

hope that helps, and best of luck.


Two teams are better than one!

Although, I would say that if you really want to improve your game, hook up with a team(s) that practices. Game time, while marginally better than doing nothing, does SFA compared to practice time for building skillz.



Forgive me if this has been discussed before and i missed it, but why are people allowed to play on four teams during summer league when other players can't find a space on one? I am told that several dozen guys miss out on VUL every summer (even experienced players) because they are new to town and don't have the personal connections to get invited onto a team. The excuse given is that there aren't enough female players to have more teams, but it seems like if the VUL limited everyone to two or three teams (at least until everyone who signs up on Matchmaker finds a team) then everyone would get to play.

When i moved here in May i signed up for matchmaker and used every semi-personal connection i could find on VUL to find a team, but could only find the occasional game when a team was short because most teams were busting at the seams with male players. It was annoying that other guys were playing four nights a week while i was missing a whole summer of ultimate -- not exactly the welcome i was hoping for from ultimate's capitol city.

I'm really curious to hear if this problem/solution has ever been discussed.

mO By mO


I'm sure this problem has been discussed but still we still haven't found solutions for.

I guess being a girl would make it easier to join teams...that's how I ended up on all my teams actually, it's because they were looking for players.

I know that a lot of teams are 'bursting at the seams' with male players. The best I can suggest is to find yourself a team that's rebuilding and is in need for players, and then you can stay on that team for years and years. Many of the male players I know actually have been playing on their teams for years, and that's why they've managed to find and play with 2 or more teams. For new players, it's hard to get started on a new team, especially with teams who have an excess of players.

As for you missing a whole summer of ultimate and feeling unwelcomed, don't fret. There's always next summer. And if you can't find yourself a team, email me and I'll help you find one, I know of a few teams who (believe it or not) are always in need of guys or atleast subs.


It has been discussed before. Some idiot suggested minimum roster sizes. The suggestion wasn't,

how shall we say it... 'embraced' by others. Some other idiot should introduce a motion at the AGM

to enshrine minimum rosters in the league's operating rules. Nine men, seven women would be the

ideal size for a team.

The Idiot (apologies to Fyodor D.)

I think it would impact SOTG incredibly if minimum rosters were 'legislated' - and I fear that we would end up in a situation where teams would _have_ to take players they didn't want to. Face it, there are players out there that either through 'tude or skill level aren't suitable for every team.

Roster rules would be a short term fix, anyway - the real problem is field space. Either the VUL needs more fields (tough to find), or players need to start playing in Burnaby/Richmond/N. Shore and growing leagues there.



Yes, more fields would help. But short-term measures could be implemented to help bide some time. And limiting players to 2 (or maybe 3) teams seems like a reasonable one to me. Find another sport for those other nights which helps balance what Ultimate does to your body. You'll be less prone to injury, and possibly develop skills/strength/balance that will even help your ultimate game.

The problem is, how do you limit someone to just 2 teams? Do you have the captains doing roster checks before every game?

The limit would be lifted before summer league began, so if there were still spots available, people could play on more teams. But it would be nice if the VUL imposed a limit of two teams until everyone on the waitlist found a team -- they could set the limit until two weeks before the first games, so anyone who signs up before that date would have an opportunity to be placed on a team. After the deadline, it would be back to normal. The way it is now, someone could sign up on Matchmaker six months before summer league and not be picked for or placed on a team simply because they don't know anyone.

mO, thanks for the kind offer, but i've met people since i've been here and have had more opportunity to play. I am talking about finding a solution to this problem so future ulty immigrants to Vancouver will feel welcome.

I think limiting the amount of teams someone can play on is far more autocratic and dictatorial

that placing a lower limit on the amount of players on a team.

Every proposed solution is going to have pros and cons. I think minimum roster sizes is the least

intrusive way.

No offence to those with differing opinions but I've given this a ton of thought and minimum roster

sizes deals with a few ongoing league problems.

It deals (to some extent) with the player surplus. It means there's more likely to be seven players

(theoretically) ready to go at game time and it ensures teams have a deep enough bench come

August when half a team is injured and the other is on vacation.

The limit would not be in effect during the actual season -- only for a period before the season starts to ensure everyone has a chance to get on at least one team (would it be dictatorial for a captain to limit peoples' playing time during a tourney to make sure everyone on the team got to play at least a few points?). After a preset date, everyone could play on as many teams as they want.

However, i also like the minimum roster idea and perhaps a combination of the two would be most effective.


My 2 cents. As a captain who is rebuilding his team and had to pick up 4 guys this summer I have had many problems finding male players. When you want to build a core group of people for a team you have to be careful who you pick. The players ability has to be within the range of the existing players and the attitude has to match as well. I don't want people who will "slum" with my team for a season until they can find an "A" level team to play with I want someone who will work with the team to improve it as a whole.

That being said it can be difficult for a new to town "A" level player to find a team as most Div 1 teams have solid rosters. As well there is always "ability creep" when people are posting themselves because guy's are so common that if your not listed a "B" player you may not even get onto a "C" level team.

I've always found that the best way to find a team is to go out and play. Go to pickup, play hat tourneys and winter hat league. If you have some core ability and good attitude it should not be that hard to find a team. If all else fails start dating an ulti player, couples will find a team before single guys.

mO By mO

--> "If all else fails start dating an ulti player, couples will find a team before single guys." <---

is this really true? isn't it possible that perhaps the female will find a team whilst the guy is left out because of a "too full" roster? and what if the skill level between the guy and girl are completely different? isn't it possible that perhaps the guy or girl will find a higher div team while the other can't?

just M2C on, I'm just really curious as to whether this really works or not.

Rob, as for more field issues, Burnaby is already starting a league so definatly if you're located in Burnaby go out there and play! Pickup is tonite at 6-8pm. Richmond is also in the process of starting a league, I think it'll be up and running by the summer time...LOL, don't worry, it's on my to-do list. Right after "grow taller" and "mature more". Jkjk, but hopefully by summer time we'll have set fields. Richmond is in the process of building turf fields so hopefully we'll get first dibs.

"The problem is, how do you limit someone to just 2 teams?"

One way would be to switch to a 2 night system whereby two nights were combined into a mini-league. For example, say Monday and Tusdays were combined, Wed/Thurs combined. Each week, the M/T teams could be scheduled for either Monday or Tuesdays, the W/T teams for either Wed or Thursday. I think this sort of thing is done in other sports.

Downsides of course are we'd have to abandon the favoured night system and some may argue that it won't fix the gender imbalance.

In any case, I am not advocating the enforced limitation of play time, nor the enforced roster size. Just trying to demonstate how another option might become available by altering the league structure a little..

Personally, I think it would be easier to take some of the field time from the current "friend team league" and assign it to a more informal hat/draft league. Friends who wanted to play together could do so. People that wanted to just play could do so.


Well, personally, I prefer the current system, where if I'm only playing on one team, I know what

nite it's going to be for reasons of childcare, work, sock rotation (kidding about that one) and such.

We're unlikely to see the current situation change (where there's more interested players than

teams, fields, and nights). The only variable that we can address is the amount of people on a

team, since we aren't likely to get many more fields or any more nights to accomodate those

surplus players.

Every year that I've played (since the late 90s) the same situation comes up. People say they're

going to be there for every game, they're committed to the team, etc. Then stuff comes up, or

they're flakey, or they get injured, and it seems like fully a third of the teams are scrambling to

field a line at 6:30pm by mid-July. And before you think I'm casting stones at glass houses, I've

been in all three of those categories at some point and I've been a captain so I've felt the pane

and been the pane.

If the big concern is having to play with people who aren't a good 'fit' it seems to me that a hat or

draft league would be likely to make the problem worse rather than better.

I have a real problem understanding the continued resistance the idea of minimum rosters

generates. I think I'm the biggest "don't tell me how to run my life" individualistic person going

and I don't feel like it's a big infringement on my Charter rights. ;-)

"If all else fails start dating an ulti player, couples will find a team before single guys."

A dumb idea on so many levels, not the least of which it's unlikely to work unless the team in

question is hoping a mid-season break-up occurs to fuel the gossip mill.

"And before you think I'm casting stones at glass houses, I've been in all three of those categories at some point and I've been a captain so I've felt the pane and been the pane."

Heh... I can't decide if this is a typo, misspelling or clever pun. But it made me laugh so I'm going for the latter.

Thanx for not panning the pane pun!

Ugh. That's paneful.

"We're unlikely to see the current situation change..." : agree

"The only variable that we can address is ...": strongly disagree.

Look at ulti leagues in other cities. There are plenty of options we could try. But then again, maybe the board has examined other leagues and eliminated the viable options for some other reasons (field permitting issues/legal implications/...etc). I really don't know.

In this respect, some sort of published VUL mission statement and regularly updated summary of issues and efforts to resolve these would be useful. Not the entire minutes of the AGM, but something more clear and to the point. Who knows, it might stimulate a few more people to get involved.

""The only variable that we can address is ...": strongly disagree.

Look at ulti leagues in other cities. There are plenty of options we could try. "

What are those options?

Hi, I'm going to have to agree with Deltaman. I know it sounds lame but dating an ulty player definitely hooks you up with other teams, especially if you're looking to play in the higher divs. As for me, I happened to be dating my boyfriend at the same time I started playing ulty. I got to play on a higher div team just because they needed girls and I happened to be the "girlfriend."

From what I noticed so far, the higher divs work on an invitational roster, (unless you join a new team). I think it would be nice to see more higher div teams looking for players on this forum. Hey, is there a team out there comprised of singles?

"What are those options?"... :)

Maybe not quite so simple. It appears there are a few of things we could maybe "tack-on" to the VUL as it stands now (more pick-up, make use of Friday evenings, week-ends, and the entire end of August). These have been discussed and (some) tried already.

Others (open/womens, a draft/hat/rec league, learner's leagues, a beach option) would require a move away from the monolithic/"one-big-league" model to free up resources and players for a series of somewhat smaller "niche leagues". The theory being the greater granularity offers more options for players.

In addition, one simple thing that is in use in Seattle and Boston is shorter time frame leagues with staggered start times. So, if you miss one train, you don't have to wait as long for the next one.

These aren't new ideas. I have heard the niche league ideas discussed amongst VUL board types. I'm not sure what the resistance is. It could be that the level of discontent is not sufficient to justify a change. I really don't know.

I encourage anyone interested in this to check out the BUDA site or DiscNW or any other league for that matter (no links: google them).

mO By mO

JiveWitMe: I would want to agree about the whole couples dating thing and finding teams thing....but I disagree. I think if you're dating an ultimate player and get into ulti cuz of him/her, that's awesome. but it shouldn't be a way "in" or/and "onto" better teams...especially if your skill level isnt up there (i'm not dissin u or anything, just generalizing) or you and your team aren't cohesing (i'm not sure if this is a word, but it just sounds good).

but then again, i play in higher divs then my i KNOW that this theory doesnt work, cuz my bf isn't playing on the same teams as me....go figure.

just m2c...and sum change.

Sill don't understand why there are not Open and Women's leagues. Given the number of players out their, (especially men) numbers can't be the problem. Is it field space? Couldn't a couple of fields be taken from another nite for this purpose? How about using Fridays? Having moved here from Edmonton, where their are approximately 500 players in the co-ed summer league, we were able to run a men's league and a women's league. Edmonton's open team actually ran the men's league as a fund raiser for the open team. A women's team was also put togather and the newer women loved it. It gave them a chance to learn and actually participate rather then playing co-ed and rarely seeing the disc. Of course both the mens and womens leagues only consisted of 4 teams each, but it did give people and opportunity to play and learn. Given the 4000+ people that play here I'm sure this could be setup.

mO By mO

ultyguy...that's actually a really good point. i'm not quite sure why we don't have men/women leagues either...perhaps it is field space. you could always go to the AGM on wednesday and ask the running candidates...but i dunno, i actually love playing co-ed, even more so than i think co-ed teaches women to be more aggressive towards the disc, so that they DO get play time as opposed to getting looked off all the time by the men.