From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Jul 13 19:44:21 1998
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) id TAA29589
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 19:31:17 +0100 (BST)
Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA29582
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 19:31:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (solarfox.demon.co.uk) [194.222.54.251] 
	by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2)
	id 0yvnNH-0005wl-00; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 18:31:01 +0000
Message-ID: <rKYrxFAxAlq1Mw5S@solarfox.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 19:21:37 +0100
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
From: Karl Guard <karl@solarfox.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Handicapping.
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 beta 6  <9mEP5LxPiZMLZDgplzJnzOvFEc>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk


Having read the handicapping debate with some interest over the last
week or so I find it hard to see why any sort of system would be
introduced.

The major problem as I see it is that seeding systems are fallible since
team line ups and standards change from year to year and tournie to
tournie (even over the course of a weekend when certain key players can
only make it for one of the two days.) This year's student outdoors, for
example, saw Phat edS seeded 13th because of their performance at the
student indoors where we played with two or three injured players. With
a fit team at the outdoors however, we finished 6th. 
A handicapping system based on the seeding would have given the Phat'edS
a huge (and unfair) advantage. A cynic might suggest that a team would
use this to their advantage in the run up to a major tournie.

Secondly, I personally don't see the achievement in overturning a team
who are obviously more competent, just because you have a synthetic
advantage over them from the start. As has already been pointed out a
large number of teams that make up the 30 or so at each tour event know
they will not compete with the "big boys" but go to play the best
ultimate that they can and have a damn good time with it. To suggest
that teams (like us Phat 'edS) would prefer a system where they are
given a chance of beating, because they themselves are not as
competitive, a team obviously far superior is bordering on being
patronising.

The current convention on the tournament system works. Day 1 gives a
team the opportunity to play teams of all levels and does allow for a
shock result. Day 2 sees teams playing others of a similar level for the
appropriate places; why does this need changing? 

Sorry it turned into an essay...

love Karl

Phat'edS  

Karl Guard