From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Thu Oct 24 16:37:25 1996
Received: from thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk by clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP
	id QAA05847; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:27:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk
	id QAA13587; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:16:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: from newsgate.dircon.co.uk by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk with SMTP
	id QAA13476; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:13:44 +0100 (BST)
Received: from dmotive.UUCP (dmotive@localhost) by newsgate.dircon.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id QAA00329 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:09:52 +0100
Date: 24 Oct 96 16:03:16 +0000
From: Jonathan Schofield <jonathan.schofield@designmotive.co.uk>
Subject: Oh dear...
To: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <961024.160316@designmotive.co.uk>
X-Mailer: InterCall 1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Rob Cole wrote:

"[...] the South East situation, with Strange Touch (I think that was the=
ir=20
name) coming much higher than their seeding shows why the qualifiers=20
should stay the way they are."

Huh?

The top three teams at South East regionals to qualify were Shotgun,=20
UTI, and Violently Happy. There was never any doubt in my mind that=20
UTI and VH would qualify and indeed they did. How does the placing of=20
a team that came lower than them affect their right to qualify=20
automatically. Don't see your logic!

OK, they defied their seeding to such an extent that they could have=20
affected the third place (although they didn't). Surely the finalists=20
from last year could be exempt from qualifiers, and if you still=20
won't accept that, surely the national champions can be exempt.=20
Especially when they beat their probable opponents for this year's=20
final by 15 points to 3!

Jonathan=20
Shotgun