From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue May 23 17:59:23 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4NGwJR00962
for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:58:19 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4NGwHp00954
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:58:17 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mailhost ([213.130.129.51])
by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e4NGwFU10023
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:58:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: from KEVIN (200.200.200.124)
by mailhost with MERCUR-SMTP/POP3/IMAP4-Server (v3.10.09 AS-0098310)
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 18:02:39 +0100
Received: by KEVIN with Microsoft Mail
id <01BFC4DF.B0FD3AC0@KEVIN>; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:52:41 +0100
Message-ID: <01BFC4DF.B0FD3AC0@KEVIN>
From: Kevin Lowe <Kev@videosystem.co.uk>
To: "'Britdisc'" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Of course Catch can still gain a good place.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:52:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk id e4NGwHp00955
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
I'm sure that Catch had done their maths before deciding not to play on those fields this weekend. It was also a factor in teams like UTI and Chevron not trying to re-locate the entire pool to another site - the fear that we could lose our points for Tour 2 combined with rather poor (for Chevron and UTI anyway) results from Tour 1.
One implication of Catch getting no points though is the seeding for Nationals, since this year, you don't get to drop your worst result. If this year's Nationals was qualification for World Clubs, then I'd expect teams to be asking for a different format for Nationals so to avoid a 'pool of death' when one of last year's top three clubs could not make the semis.
Maybe we should be looking at the German system where Nationals consists of the top 8 teams where everyone plays everyone else (so initial seedings are irrelevant). That would require a three day tournament, but it does reduce the luck element. As it is, World clubs have been moved back a year due to the World Games, but there could be some tactical finishing in Tour 4 if it looks like the pools at Nationals are biased in some way.
I'm surprised that people are talking about the German and Dutch division based systems though. They tend to work well in countries where players do not move between teams, and teams consistently turn up with the same squads. In Germany, no player in the first division (top 8 teams) would think about switching to another top 8 team unless they had just moved to that town and been training with them (the concept of telephone teams does not really exist there).
I'm a big fan of keeping the Tour tournaments as large as possible. Restricting the number of teams to 16 or splitting into A & B tours would be seen as even more elitist, a criticism levelled at the Tour all too often. If you want extra facilities like marquees, Paramedics, Sports Physios, decent food, good party, etc. they cost money, and the cost to each team reduces by the number of teams (OK, not completely true, but generally this is true).
When you have venues like Swindon and Exeter, why would you want to limit the number of teams there? How many people share lifts with people who suddenly may not qualify for that division? This argument about how fast the sport is growing has been around since the Tour first started (4 years ago) and yet I can only recall one tournament where any team was actually turned away. We have complex waiting lists, black listing for teams that pay late, etc. that have rarely come in to play. Until we have every tour tournament over-subscribed, this should not be an issue.
What hasn't been raised yet is the effect on Hammerage with Catch slotting back in in 3rd spot. Sure it shoves Chevron, DSM, Red, etc. down a place and possibly switching their starting pool, but Hammerage would be forced out of the top 8 so cannot get a shot at the bigger clubs and an outside chance of a semi final spot. Perhaps we should look at switching back to the top 16 format for Tour 3 rather than the top 8 format which was planned. Comments from Hammerage should be aired soon to influence Chris.
Enough rambling. With the problems facing the venue for Tour 4 (grounds have been sold and ready to be bulldozed), people should really think about what they could do to help Ultimate out by finding a suitable replacement. If nothing turns up, then back plan C comes into play and we're off to sunny Exeter again. Perhaps we should rename the Tour "The South West Tour, with token Northern tournament in Towcester, barely north of Watford".
Kevin.
--
| Kev@cheerful.com Tel: 07974 417626
| Don't you sometimes miss the days when signature files
| could only be three lines long and everything else got trunca