From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon May 22 22:49:37 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4MLmeK21946
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:48:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4MLmcp21935
	for <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:48:38 +0100 (BST)
Received: from t21mta00-app.talk21.com (mta00.talk21.com [62.172.192.40])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4MLmbV18871
	for <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:48:38 +0100 (BST)
Received: from host213-120-26-215.host.btclick.com ([213.120.26.215])
          by t21mta00-app.talk21.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP
          id <20000522214759.VPXW22347.t21mta00-app.talk21.com@host213-120-26-215.host.btclick.com>;
          Mon, 22 May 2000 22:47:59 +0100
Received: by host213-120-26-215.host.btclick.com with Microsoft Mail
	id <01BFC43F.A0200520@host213-120-26-215.host.btclick.com>; Mon, 22 May 2000 22:46:53 +0100
Message-ID: <01BFC43F.A0200520@host213-120-26-215.host.btclick.com>
From: Chris Hughes <cjhughes@talk21.com>
To: "'Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk'" <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>,
   "'Eagles, Colin L'" <colin.eagles@kpmg.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Tour 2 - is the Tour too large?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:34:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk id e4MLmcp21936
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

At this stage can I refer people to the article that was published in Ultimate this time last year. It was distributed at Edinburgh. It was intended to try and make people think about the options open to the tour. Hopefully people will think again about what is trying to be achieved with the tour. Remember that T1 this year had 33 teams. It is not unthinkable to realise that we could well have a 36 team tournament at some stage during the year.

Chris
DoC

Extract from Ultimatum article (May 1999);
However, when I took on the job last summer it was recognised that the tour needed some revamping to enable it to continue, the tour is effectively getting too large. The changes made this year was minor, but I put a serious constraint on prospective tournament organisers in insisting that each event was able to cope with 32 teams, and thereby have a minimum of 10 pitches. There aren't many venues that can cope with about 400 people, which is what I estimate to be the attendance at an average tour tournament, thereby limiting the number of locations for tour events. (If any one knows of a ten+ pitch venue this is your cue to speak up..) The largest event last year was tour II with 28 teams, with the rest attracting 24 teams each, both tour I & II (so far) have had a minimum of 30 teams, and that trend is expected to continue for the rest of the year. This expansion has pushed the tour to its feasible limit, in terms of venue size, schedule, and accommodation requirements for each event.

As if that wasn't a problem enough, the tour is swamping the season. This year the tour events are every 3 - 4 weeks. This limits the possibilities for teams, inc. the representative teams, to have practices on a regular basis, players to have a weekend for families, non-playing girlfriends, life? What about the so called 'small' tournaments? These are slowly getting squeezed out, or left in that barren period over the summer, when half the players have gone off for a number of weeks for that years major championship, holidays, or because the universities have broken up. Not only that but the tour is now seen by many as the premier event in the country, above Nationals. So what are the options; continuing to expand as tour is presently doing is not one that is realistically open to us.

The initial response is to simply cut down the tour size; the initial objective of the tour was to provide the elite (-ish) teams with suitable competition to improve their games, and play games that are comparable to the games encountered at Worlds, and hopefully counteract the poor British showing at these events. So trimming it down to 12 or 16 teams seems the logical response. Yet it is obvious that the performance of the lower ranked teams have improved with the competition against comparable teams in their groups. So this approached has benefited many, and excluding them from the set-up is not an option - the BUF has to work for all teams, not just the top few.

Another option is to establish a B-Tour; and after tour I, split the tour into two events running simultaneously with promotion and relegation of some sort between the two events. This allows the tour to expand, as finding two venues on the same or adjacent weekends with six pitches each is easier than finding a venue with twelve (finding the TD's is a different matter). However players like meeting their friends; what about clubs with two teams split between the two divisions; and what about couples playing on teams in different divisions. A lot of people play ultimate for the social side. However it may be possible, if a venue is big enough to host both the A- and B-tour at the same venue, but that is dependant on the size of the events. People then suggest that the 'small' tournaments could host the B-tour events, but this then puts restrictions on these events, that the organisers may not want.

More options include making the 'small' tournaments qualifying events, for those teams not already in the tour, whilst allowing the top teams to enter as well. This leads to problems in scheduling, teams fighting for entry, and again restrictions on the tournament organisers and formats. I believe that people want to be able to enter a tournament, play different teams, enjoy themselves without constantly pressurised by issues of qualification.

This may be alleviated by reducing the number of tour events to four or even three, thereby producing more time in the year for these satellite events, without encroaching on already existing tournaments, and providing enough events for teams to attend through out the year. Also by changing the shape and size of the tour, this would encourage Women's teams to commit to the tour, allowing for a Women's event building to Women's Nationals.


----------
From: 	Eagles, Colin L[SMTP:colin.eagles@kpmg.co.uk]
Sent: 	22 May 2000 20:21
To: 	'Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk'
Subject: 	Re: Tour 2 - is the Tour too large?

Is it the case that there are just not enough suitable venues for events the
size of the Tour events of the past couple of seasons?

As Chris noted, he had just four bids for Tour events this year. Whilst I
know of a number of venues in the Milton Keynes/ Northampton area which
could provide 6-8 pitches of real quality, any more is very unlikely.

I'm sure the number of bids is something of a reflection of the situation up
and down the country.

If we wish to maintain the quality of pitches, perhaps it is time to reduce
the size of these events.

At the same time, I'm sure there would be greater support for non-Tour
events. To that end, I hope that the coed events in the summer are a real
success.

There have been fewer non-Tour events over the last couple of years, as a
lot of players' disposable time and money has been taken up to attend the
Tour and make it the success it has become.

To a lesser extent, both with more open teams, and the last year or two of
regional student leagues, the Tour has clashed with exams etc. somewhat
restricting the student teams. Perhaps there could be more smaller, almost
regional events that took this into consideration.

Given that the issue of safe playing surfaces has to be a priority, is the
way to solve the problem?

I guess there are a number of other issues that would have to be addressed
if this were to happen, such as how to decide who goes to each tournament,
but I imagine that if we can make sure of high quality surfaces at all
events, then it will solve the issue of teams not wanting to play. I agree
with Hannah that the pitches caused concern for many more of the teams
besides Catch.


I would like to thank Nancy, Ian and everyone involved in the organisation
of Tour 2 for the quality and smooth running of every other aspect of the
event. See you all at Tour 3.

Slasher
Point Blank
		Email Disclaimer

The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else 
is unauthorised.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution 
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful.  When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in 
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.