From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Wed Oct  7 16:09:02 1998
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) id PAA17681
	for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:48:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from pathway.btX400.co.uk (pathway.btX400.co.uk [193.113.148.3])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA17606;
	Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:48:09 +0100 (BST)
X400-Originator: COLIN.WAGSTAFF@TRADEINDEMNITY.btX400.co.uk 
X400-Recipients: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk , britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk 
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=BT-INTERNET/ADMD=BT/C=GB/;0000430003140413000002L332]
X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 (22)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:08:00 +0100
From: WAGSTAFF 
      COLIN 
      <COLIN.WAGSTAFF@TRADEINDEMNITY.btX400.co.uk>
To: ", DDA.RFC-822:mfix6can(a)stud.man.ac.uk, P:BT-INTERNET, A:BTGB" 
    <mfix6can@stud.man.ac.uk>,
        ", DDA.RFC-822:britdisc-owner(a)csv.warwick.ac.uk, P:BT-INTERNET" 
    <britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Cc: ", DDA.RFC-822:britdisc(a)csv.warwick.ac.uk, P:BT-INTERNET, A:BT" 
    <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: RE:Re: Tour 99
Message-ID: <G60021BA6977000001020067A24C042E*@MHS>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.981007115725.17808B-100000@purds>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Playing lower ranked teams such as the 9-12 bracket is not a 'chore' for the top 
ranked teams and we appreciate that they do 'need' to play the likes of us, 22, 
and Chevvy.  In fact the slight variety a larger top division would bring would 
be for the benefit of everyone.  

Yes, when we play BAF one would expect us to win very convincingly, but as has 
been proved those 'walkover' games often turn out a lot closer then expected.  
No need to go into the reasons why but there is a chance that an upset could 
occurr.  Similarly, on the flip side there is no point us playing a university 
2nd team full of freshers.

Splitting the Tour seems in theory a good idea, either in the season of 99 or 
2000, but there still lies the problem of organisers and venues.  One would 
expect that if 2 or more divisions were to exist then the events would have to 
take place on the same w/e otherwise you would get people perhaps unable to goto 
one tournament in which they were due to play, going to the other event the 
following w/e and either being unable to play or 'tarting' where they COULD 
influence the results. Obviously this will require stricter rules on rosters
and generally regulating the sport further. Is this what people want? Most of us 
just want to play, what if you turn up at a tournament and be told you can't as 
your tournament was last w/e. Can we/Ultimate deal with this possibility?

So, do we have the ability to run 2 or more tournaments on the same w/e on 4/5 
w/e's through the season?

Like we need more tournaments, we need more writers for Ultimatum, we need more 
people to take responsibility for a little bit of our sport. Yes, the player 
base and standard are improving but without more peolple getting involved on the 
admin side we may start to struggle.

I'm not the one who should really be saying this as i do as little as possible 
with regards to organising things. But i do acknowledge the problem. Perhaps 
others with more time etc would like to come forward and offer their assistance, 
even if all you do is write 200 words for Ultimatum, it's one less thing those 
who do the majority of the work have got to do.

Colin, UTI.