From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue May 23 19:59:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4NIw8d26514 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 19:58:08 +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 e4NIw5p26496 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 19:58:05 +0100 (BST) Received: from hose.pipex.net (hose.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.58]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4NIvpU19678 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 19:58:05 +0100 (BST) Received: from oemcomputer (userag78.uk.uudial.com [62.188.132.164]) by hose.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id CD40945CD for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 19:57:49 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004701bfc4e9$71754c80$2092bc3e@oemcomputer> From: "Si and/or Jack" <JackAndSi.Hill@ukgateway.net> To: "'Britdisc'" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> References: <01BFC4DF.B0FD3AC0@KEVIN> Subject: Re: Of course Catch can still gain a good place. Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:01:43 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk I promised I wouldn't reply to any emails this week but Kev has made a couple of points that merit response! > I'm sure that Catch had done their maths before deciding not to play on those fields this weekend. [Si] Actually we didn't do our maths - and if you do them (which I did on Sunday night) - you will realise that we have very little room for maneouvre. We stand by the decision anyway - points don't come into it. > 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. [Si] The Tour+Nationals used to have a get-out-jail-free card that enabled common sense to override mechanical seeding. Unless that has been deliberatley removed, surely that possibility remains. > 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. [Si] I am against switching to top-16 format. Tour 1 was open-format (correctly); Tour 2 did not go to plan (unfortunately); it would be nice if we could get down to business on the Saturday of T3. Clearly its gutting for the team that came 8th in Towcester (Hammerage) - but there is (and always has been) the possibility that a really strong team from outside the country will enter a Tour event and knock the currently 8th-placed team down to 9th. (Again this is much along the lines of the "get out of jail free card" that I mentioned earlier.) If suitable time and venue can be found I'm quite sure that Catch 22 will be more than happy to put its seeding on the line against any of the displaced teams (no time-wasters please). At least we'd get to play then :) Si not talking for the team