From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Tue May 23 12:23:10 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4NBL1e07400
	for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:21:01 +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 e4NBKwp07393
	for <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:20:58 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mh-a03.dmz.another.com (vs-a01.funmail.co.uk [212.62.7.9])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e4NBKvV04172
	for <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:20:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: (qmail 20058 invoked from network); 23 May 2000 11:20:54 -0000
Received: from www-a20.backend.funmail.co.uk (HELO www-a20) (172.16.100.20)
  by mh-a03.backend.another.com with SMTP; 23 May 2000 11:20:54 -0000
Message-ID: <27828002.959080849586.JavaMail.root@smtp.backend.another.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:20:49 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
From: bruce@pointblank.co.uk
To: Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Tour 2 - is the Tour too large?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="21040545.959080849440.JavaMail.root@www-a20"
X-Funmail-UID: 268015
X-Senders-IP: unknown
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

--21040545.959080849440.JavaMail.root@www-a20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=646
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Given that the original stated aim of the Tour was to give close games to a=
ll the teams involved, it appears to have failed this year. Whilst the top =
teams may be getting more close games than in other tournaments, the teams =
outside the top 8 get a lot of games where there is no doubt who is going t=
o win, the only way to get worked up for these games is to aim for a bagel,=
 or aim not to get bageled, which is not particularly pleasant for either s=
ide involved. The main problem here seems to be that there is a very notica=
ble gap between the top 14 or so and the rest, a gap of 10 or more points i=
n any given game.
Given that we are currently managing Tour events with 30+ teams (just) it s=
eems to me that organising the event into 2 distinct groups should be feasi=
ble, but rather than having promotion and relegation based on final positio=
n in each catagory, the last 2-4 in the 'A' Tour play one extra game at the=
 end against the top 4-2 in the 'B' Tour, with victory meaning promotion fo=
r the 'B' side. This should (could) mean avoiding the issue of teams bounci=
ng up and down between A and B because the gap is too large, and would impr=
ove the overall quality of games for the teams outside the top 8.

Just some thoughts

Bruce
Point Blank

PS. I agree with Balti...decision regarding points allocation please?


-----Original Message-----
>From : Chris Hughes <cjhughes@talk21.com>
To : =93'Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk'=93 <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; =93'E=
agles, Colin L'=93 <colin.eagles@kpmg.co.uk>
Date : 22 May 2000 22:34:39
Subject : RE: Tour 2 - is the Tour too large?
At this stage can I refer people to the article that was published in Ultim=
ate this time last year. It was distributed at Edinburgh. It was intended t=
o try and make people think about the options open to the tour. Hopefully p=
eople will think again about what is trying to be achieved with the tour. R=
emember that T1 this year had 33 teams. It is not unthinkable to realise th=
at 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 tou=
r needed some revamping to enable it to continue, the tour is effectively g=
etting too large. The changes made this year was minor, but I put a serious=
 constraint on prospective tournament organisers in insisting that each eve=
nt 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 wh=
at I estimate to be the attendance at an average tour tournament, thereby l=
imiting 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 w=
as 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 t=
o its feasible limit, in terms of venue size, schedule, and accommodation r=
equirements 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 f=
or teams, inc. the representative teams, to have practices on a regular bas=
is, players to have a weekend for families, non-playing girlfriends, life? =
What about the so called 'small' tournaments? These are slowly getting sque=
ezed out, or left in that barren period over the summer, when half the play=
ers 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 Nation=
als. So what are the options; continuing to expand as tour is presently doi=
ng is not one that is realistically open to us.
>
>The initial response is to simply cut down the tour size; the initial obje=
ctive of the tour was to provide the elite (-ish) teams with suitable compe=
tition to improve their games, and play games that are comparable to the ga=
mes encountered at Worlds, and hopefully counteract the poor British showin=
g 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 som=
e sort between the two events. This allows the tour to expand, as finding t=
wo 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 i=
n different divisions. A lot of people play ultimate for the social side. H=
owever 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 eve=
nts, but this then puts restrictions on these events, that the organisers m=
ay 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 ente=
r 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, en=
joy themselves without constantly pressurised by issues of qualification.
>
>This may be alleviated by reducing the number of tour events to four or ev=
en three, thereby producing more time in the year for these satellite event=
s, without encroaching on already existing tournaments, and providing enoug=
h events for teams to attend through out the year. Also by changing the sha=
pe and size of the tour, this would encourage Women's teams to commit to th=
e tour, allowing for a Women's event building to Women's Nationals.
>
>
>----------
>From: =09Eagles, Colin L[SMTP:colin.eagles@kpmg.co.uk]
>Sent: =0922 May 2000 20:21
>To: =09'Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk'
>Subject: =09Re: Tour 2 - is the Tour too large?
>
>Is it the case that there are just not enough suitable venues for events t=
he
>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 reduc=
e
>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
>=09=09Email Disclaimer
>
>The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privilege=
d.
>It is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone e=
lse=20
>is unauthorised.
>If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributi=
on=20
>or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibite=
d
>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=20
>the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
>
>
Your email address says a lot about you.
Express yourself @ another.com
http://another.com/jump.jsp?destDesc=3Danother.com/login.jsp?sig=3D393


--21040545.959080849440.JavaMail.root@www-a20--