Q. Since you keep track of a lot of statistics, did you happen to calculate the >average age for DoG this fall?

A. I didn't specifically. We did of course get younger this year. In the final practice before Nationals, we have a Young vs Old game. Last year, the cutoff was 33. This year, it was down to 31.

Q. How old will you be in March?

A. I will be 34 on March 24. However, my birthday is the 25th of March, at which point I turn 35. AAAAAAAAHHHH!

Q. Why does Jim Parinella play ultimate and not, say, softball or flag football >or golf or join a basketball league?

A.He actually loves playing golf. He's looking forward to the day when he can play a lot more of it, and perhaps reach the level he should have been at years ago.

I've done all those other things as an adult, too. The reasons I started playing are not the same as the reasons I play now. I started (and kept with it for the first 6 years or so) because a) I'm fast and could always contribute enough that I thought I was "good", b) I liked going to tournaments, with the running and the partying, and c) nothing else really compelled me enough.

Now, I play because a) occasionally I get so involved in a game that I don't notice anything besides what I need to notice, and that's the greatest feeling in the world, b) I'm an important part of a successful team, c) it challenges me in so many ways, d) it's fun and it's where most of my social life originates, and e) nothing else compels me enough to take me away.

Q. I've seen a few of your statistics-based messages and probability >comparisons--does your team really consider these when devising an offense or >defense?

A. We don't sit down with a chart and calculator and run the numbers, no. But we do consider the averages in developing strategies. For example, take a look at the huck. Some players would see a long cut and think, "I can get it there", and he'll throw it away 8 out of 10 times, but those 2 completions are going to be awesome. Some teams are that way, even, they remember the spectacular successes without thinking about whether there is a downside. It's really just risk-management, and several things we say show that. "It's not a good throw if it requires a great catch." "There is a different between bad execution and a bad choice." Some people look only at whether a pass is caught or not, whereas on our team a player who completes a shaky pass can get shit while another who misses on a better choice won't.

Defensively, I think we take a longer view than just "did we stop them this point?". Again, it's more risk-management: take a chance on getting an easy block and score; put in better offensive players so that although you might get fewer blocks, you'll be able to score a higher %age of the time.

We'll look at stats afterwards, but we just don't get them quickly enough to do anything with them.

Q. What's your current profession?

A. I am an engineer. I work for a small company that does applied research in underwater acoustics, plus related jobs. We design, build, and test complex electromechanical systems for particular problems. We are building a sonar system that detects whales, we are making a communications buoy that will melt through 3 feet of ice in the Arctic and then pop out an antenna to transmit data, and (my own specialty) we study underwater noise in the Arctic to figure out the properties of the ice and the environment (which can be important for global warming models and analysis).

Q. I did an informal survey of the colleges and grad. schools many of the DoG >players went too. Are DoG players simply brainier than most other teams out >there? Is that a part of their six-year success?

A. That's a tough one to answer. We do have a lot of successful professionals, plus all those Ivy Leaguers and MIT grads and the like. If you want to call us smart, I'll say okay as long as you realize that it's only because we're not afraid to think for ourselves, and because we realize that we're not that smart. Play the percentages, don't make something so complicated that you need a cheat sheet on the field, give players just two options out there and expect that one will be the obvious choice.

Q. I seem to remember that you started playing ultimate in Boston in the late >80's. What was ultimate like then? In your experience, is that roughly when >the athletes started taking over the game?

A. I came to Boston in 1989. I refer to that time as "the innocent years." It's hard for me to assess fairly what the state of ultimate really was, since I was much different. It was different in many ways: less sophisticated strategies, more reliance on the way things were done previously, less reliance on break mark throws, and more teams in Boston that were at about the same level. There were several teams that could do reasonably well back then. Not sure why things aren't that way now. I think the 16th team in the Region in 1989 was closer in ability to the 4th team in 1989 than similarly ranked teams today are.

On the other hand, the same big issues exist today. Look at an old newsletter, and you'll see articles on observers, regional redrawing, unspirited play, women need more support, let's not sell out, etc. It's hilarious, really.

From my vantage point, the game hasn't really gotten more athletic in general. There are some teams now like Furious and Jam that are pretty athletic, but I bet there were athletic teams 10 years ago. I'm probably less athletic than I was 10 years ago, but am a much better player. Maybe we'll be seeing more of this in a fwe years as colleges develop more.

Q. Are surprised that ultimate is still basically played in obscurity? Do you care? What I'm trying to get at is, does it matter to you that most non-players either don't consider ultimate a legitimate sport or have never heard of it? Is ultimate, as it is played now, the perfect game that doesn't need to be improved (and if more people don't watch or care-- well, that's their loss)? Or are you on the Reformers side, which dreams of ESPN coverage, Olympic recognition, box scores in the Globe, and GQ profiles?

A. As with everything, I'm on both sides. Which do you want me to argue?

I am not surprised that ultimate is still in obscurity. It bothers me (although not as much as it used to) that few in the world know the game, although I do think we're getting more and more exposed to the public. It's not unusual now to see ultimate mentioned without the writer feeling it necessary to explain what the game is.

I dream of those things, but realize that we are nowhere near ready enough for that. Recently on rsd, someone claimed squash as "another obscure sport", so I did some research and was told by the governing body that "We have about 7,000 members of the USSRA. There are about 500,000 people in the US who play squash." Same with these other sports like rhythmic gymnastics that players say "if they're in the Olympics, why aren't we?" The IOC won't even put us on their mailing list yet, although we're getting closer to get to the point where they will at least acknowledge we exist.

I think we can certainly achieve a much higher recognition level, though, and some minor national TV coverage in the next few years is definitely achievable. We've done a good job with Jockey as the title sponsor of the national championships and hope to continue that relationship. And that could lead to others taking notice of us. The whole thing could snowball quickly, really. I just hope I can cash in if it does happen.

The game needs to get a lot more fan-friendly. Arguments, frisbee time, 2 1/2 minutes between points, barely matching shirts, and the like have to go (for big productions). C'mon, imagine the NBA players making their own calls.

I think our best chance is to change those aspects while keeping the responsibility to play honestly with the players. Testosterone with honor. If we go all the way to full refs, we're just another two-bit sport with washed up Div 3 college athletes extending their careers. If we can publicize the sportsmanship, then we might just make it.

Q. How often do you practice in the months leading up to Nationals? Anything >you do in the winter?

A. When exactly we start depends on what training we do for Worlds. Once we get going, we do a 45-60 minute track workout on Tuesdays (400s, 200s, 100s, plyometrics, start with longer ones and less intense, move to shorter and more intense sprints as we move along in the season), 2 hour practice on Thursdays under the lights (mostly just to get people out throwing and playing during the week, as it's tough to go a whole week in between touches), then practice or tournament on both Saturday and Sunday. Practices typically run from 9-12:30 or so, with some warmup to start, a couple individual drills, some situational drills (in "10 pull", the D pulls 10 straight times, each side has at most one chance to score), then scrimmaging. Sprints are thrown in between activities.

I'm a little slug like in the winter, although I have started lifting a little bit. In the past, I've used early tournaments to get in shape. I'll go to Fools and run my ass off for 3 days, making 200 cuts. A couple of tournaments like that go a long way. But I'm trying to maintain a twice a week lifting regimen for the winter, with aerobic activity thrown in wherever I can.

Q. Considering how young they are, will Furious George be the new Dog in the next few years?

A. Well, they certainly could be, as could the Condors. Or maybe we'll be the new DoG, who knows? The team that won Worlds this summer only had 5 guys who played for both the 1998 and 1999 fall DoG National champions. All the top teams have a lot of good players who can carry a team in a game. It's a matter of teamwork and knowing that you can win. You have to be able to be in The Game and not think about whether you're going to choke or if the other team has someone hurt or if the wind is going to pick up.

And there's luck, too. Out of bounds pulls have played a pivotal role in our last two finals wins. We can't count on that, but we have to be able to take advantage of it. Really, we've been very fortunate, and you can't predict who is going to get the breaks.

Q. You might see it differently since you were playing but did this year's Nationals (or of those in recent years) lack the intensity that's often associated with the NY/Boston rivalry of old?

A. Well, one big difference is the lack of animosity. We hated NY, and they hated us. It still turns my stomach sometimes thinking about them. I might have a mild dislike for some teams' attitudes now, but the bitterness is gone. I guess one reason is the distance. We would play NY 10 times a year. We've played the Condors 3 times in the last two years, Furious 6 times (at 4 tournaments, since we played them twice at Tuneup and Worlds 98). You have to play a team more often to get the real intense rivalry. Perhaps the West Coast teams have that going.

The games themselves were definitely intense. The level of competition was the highest I've seen, with maybe 8 teams that had potential to win any game.

Q. Did DoG make any attempt to recruit Brian Harriford before he moved to Houston or was that just idle talk on the sidelines?

A. I might have sent him an email once, but that's it. We don't see him enough to do that. Besides, if we recruited him, we wouldn't have the enjoyment of playing against him.

He's a great player, very nice guy, but he's still a little inexperienced. He needs to play on a team where he's not expected to play every point and make every third cut. It might help some skills to do all that, but overall he'd benefit by being around a veteran team that he could learn with.