From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu Oct 8 21:45:58 1998
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) id VAA27707
for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:31:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: from aisle (aisle.tesco.net [194.73.73.167])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA27682
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:31:45 +0100 (BST)
Received: from default [62.172.22.98]
by aisle with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1)
id 0zRMif-0004FX-00; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:31:29 +0100
Message-ID: <008c01bdf2f9$ee387da0$6216ac3e@default>
From: "Delbert" <Delbert@tesco.net>
To: "HUGHES, Chris" <CHughes@chelt.ac.uk>,
"'Britdisc'" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Big Funky vs World
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:25:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Spot on Chris,
>From what I can gather with my electronically challenged mind (Guy, I assume
that was a reference to me and Lee) the issue seems to be about teams around
the cut off point losing out and being unable to extend their horizons.
Having played on a weaker team in the old tournament format I never learnt
anything by getting bageled by Hombres/Stan/Druids. Does anybody really
believe that a valid exchange of Ultimate ideas is magically going to occur
as the 'top' team cruises to an easy victory and then heads off to their
tents for whatever post match relaxation took their fancy?
I've learnt a lot more by playing with good players rather than against
them.
The Tour format has worked wonders for the standard of Ultimate in this
country (it is about time we reflected that in international
competitions-something that Red Lights remarked to me at Eastbourne) but
nonetheless something must be done about the 7/8/9/10 place 'fringe' teams.
With this in mind I would like to add support to Chris's idea of using your
last tour placing to determine your next seeding with the overral points
system determining seedings for the Nationals. Combined with this years
current format of allowing one or two more open tournaments that should give
all teams a more even shot. It would also highlight teams who are
consistently good rather than a one off good result.
As for beginners being unable to see excellent Ultimate being played at
finals and semis that is a real shame but one which, unless someone is
prepared to organise massive tournaments able to cater for the whole BUF
community, we are forced to live with.
Del -UTI
-----Original Message-----
From: HUGHES, Chris <CHughes@chelt.ac.uk>
To: 'Britdisc' <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: 08 October 1998 15:01
Subject: Big Funky vs World
>I think an argument here is getting distorted, but it raises a number of
>points.
>
>BAFlies performed very poorly at the start of the tour last year, the sent
a
>weak team to the critical 1st tournament, Merrick was injured, and so they
>finished tour 1 in a low position. Then during the season they picked up
>their perfomance - Mezza came back from injury, they practised hard and
>improved (Sorry - that's not supposed to sound like it is a one man team).
>When it finally came round to nationals they were seeded tenth just outside
>the top eight slot. The nationals rather like NFL / NBA leagues, take the
>performance over a year and then let these qualifying teams slug it out to
>finally get a winner. Unless we start again and have Nationals as a
>completely open tournament some one just outside the cut is going to get
>pissed.
>
>The argument here should be more about the tour. This was set up so that
>teams played teams of approx the same level, but in the tournament format
>you would always play some one better than you (unless you won outright).
>And the tour WORKS like that. BAF this year, 1st Touch last year, came up
>through the ranks as they improved. The argument is that teams are too
>hampered / promoted by their initial results. BAF had a bad 1st tour, and
>since the seeding is a complicated version of an average result you need a
>number of good results to remove the effect of a bad result, which is then
>too late in the season. Vhappy and their initial results worked for them as
>they started to struggle later in the tour and were consistently seeded
>higher than their previous starting position, BAF always started lower than
>their previous finishing position.
>
>So why not start each tournament with seedings based on previous finishing
>positions. Yes this would promote more movement of teams, and would make it
>easier to remove the effects of a poor tournament, but it also punishes the
>teams who have a poor tournament much quicker. Example Team finishes 1st in
>T1, 9th in T2, then has poor turnout and plays badly and finishes in 9th
>position in T3 by loosing a lot of their games. By basing the starting
>position on average results they would start T4 approx 4th , could go on to
>win T4 and T5 and the tour. Using the previous finishing position system
the
>best they could do in T4 is finish 5th, irrelevant of how good they are and
>then go and win T5 but not the tour, loosing to a team that is consistently
>2nd.
>
>Both systems have their ups and downs, the present system makes teams slow
>to move, and teams need good results at the beginning, the new system,
which
>is not in place yet, is quicker to react to a new result - to the benefit
or
>detriment of the team.
>
>My personal preference is to have the new system used for seedings in the
>tour, allowing more movement of teams within groups, and the present to
seed
>teams for national, thereby rewarding a consistent team with a slot in
>nationals
>
>
>Discuss.
>
>Chris
>