From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Fri Sep 22 00:04:55 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e8LN1YW25046
	for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:01:34 +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 e8LN1WS25038
	for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:01:32 +0100 (BST)
Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e8LN1VY26324
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:01:31 +0100 (BST)
Received: from phidelta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.248.177])
	by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 13cFKx-00012P-0A; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:01:19 +0000
Message-ID: <JKePsJAqEpy5EwdT@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:52:26 +0100
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Cc: Fluid Druids <fluiddruids@egroups.com>
From: Wayne Retter <druid#6@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: 2000 BUF AGM items: changing Tour and Nationals
References: <001d01c020f7$a06ec9c0$70a592c3@ben>
In-Reply-To: <001d01c020f7$a06ec9c0$70a592c3@ben>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S <pjZRgFWDsQK5ViyP$l4rxVrb6a>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

By the complete silence on the matter, I wonder whether anybody read
Ben's posting:

British Ultimate Federation <mailto:buf@ultimateweb.co.uk>;
 Subject: 2000 BUF AGM
>Motion: Modification of the Tour
>
>Motion: Change of Nationals Format
>
>PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE BUF TOUR AND NATIONALS STRUCTURE
>
>Full details of the proposed changes can be found at
>http://www.ultimateweb.co.uk/buf/tour2001.htm
>Please read them! Below is a brief summary...........

Here's Chris Hughes' proposals for changing the Tour and Nationals for
2001.

Circulate to your teammates;
Read;
Inwardly digest;
Collate and take *well thought out* questions/comments to the BUF AGM;
Be prepared to vote on this, or any alternatives.

If you have a *well thought out* alternative, let everybody (especially
Ben, the BUF Secretary), know NOW!!!

Note: teams not attending Nationals can vote by proxy, if they let Ben
know NOW!!!

[I'll try to bring a quantity of hardcopy versions to distribute at
Nationals captain's meeting this w/e, but I reckon it's probably worth
your while to print it out for your own perusal in the meantime.]

Wayne



Proposal for the tour future

This year has shown the flaws that the tour structure generates in
trying to organise the events. The number of teams entering the tour is
increasing every year, which makes the pressure to find venues that can
cope with enough pitches even more difficult. Swindon needs vast advance
warning to book, Towcester shows what can happen when organisers are
forced to be the ground breakers in holding sporting events at venues
not equipped for the job, and Leeds, for all their fantastic effort in
organising on short notice, the venue suffered a number of pitches that
were not up to the job. On top of this we have problems where for
nationals we are struggling to find a venue that is big enough for the
job.

This is going to be complicated even further by the introduction in the
next five years of FIFA's unified football season - the northern
Hemisphere professionals are transferring to a summer season, although
it is unsure that the amateurs will follow suit. This will mean even
more direct competition for the limited number of venues already
available.

Whilst the tour is in a position to continue - the atmosphere after the
problems this year is such that change will be encouraged. The plan that
I am proposing is designed to do two things;
1. Maintain the standard of tournaments and competition at the highest
level, without the exclusion or removal of those teams that have not
made it to the top, or those players who compete for the sake of
enjoyment.
2. Increase the quality of the venues by removing the need to source
events that can provide for thirty-two teams or more

The basic concept is to split the tour into an A-Tour and B-Tour, with a
points scale that progresses down across the split.

After a single event for T1, in which all teams can move freely, all
subsequent events would be split, with promotion and relegation between
events. The specific structure is of course flexible, although at this
stage a top 12 / rest, split is the most sensible and feasible. Whilst
most people would suggest a top 16 split, I feel that this is more
stable because of a number of reasons. At this stage in British Ultimate
there is a consistency of just over 12 higher standard teams, which by
placing the split in the middle of will develop a level of competition
as teams fight to maintain their position in the top division, and a top
12 format will provide teams with repeated competition against teams of
a similar standard with a schedule of 2 pools for teams 1-8 and another
for 9-12, followed by the traditional Sunday KO's for 1-4 and 5-12. The
B-Tour events can be open to promote a more enjoyable experience for the
teams enjoying for entertainment.

Similarly when considering the viability of events, the focus needs to
be on the B-Tour events. These are the events that will be less
financially stable. Since the A-Tour event will always fill its quota as
teams shuffle up the rankings to fill any gaps, the B-Tour event will be
less certain of teams entering, and is also more likely to hosted by
teams who are new to holding events, and will be assisted by the comfort
of a more secure tournament attendance. On a similar front, the
reduction of the A-Tour to 12 teams will mean that the venue only
requires 6 pitches, while the increased cost of spreading the cost of
facilities over fewer teams is more supportable since these teams are
the teams that regularly attend with larger squads, allowing them to
spread the cost.

The issue of promotion and relegation will always cause concern. With
only 12 teams I the A-Tour, there is no desire to move too many teams
each event. At this stage I believe that 2 teams to be promoted, and
similarly 2 teams to be relegated is a suitable compromise. Each option
has its advantages and disadvantages;
1. To move one team ensures that the final of the B-Tour, and the 11th /
12th game in the A-Tour has meaning. It also ensure that teams are less
likely to spend all tour bypassing each other as they are promoted and
relegated simultaneously. However, this also means that it stifles the
improvement of teams by limiting their movement into the top division.
2. To promote / relegate 2 teams allows teams to move up easier into the
top division. However it also means that they are more likely to be
relegated the event after, as they will have to finish at least 10th to
maintain their position. Although it does mean a team can quickly return
to the top levels. However it shifts the critical games to the semi-
finals on Sunday for both events, leaving the only reward in the B-Tour
being to win the event, whilst the 11th / 12th game becomes a pointless
event.
3. To move 3 teams at this stage seems excessive, while it gives impetus
to the 3rd / 4th playoff and the 9th / 10th games this implies that
there are teams at present in 17th place that are able to compete in the
5-12 group. It also makes it much more likely that the same 6 teams will
be in constant promotion or relegation through out the season.

There are of course problems with this system, although I believe they
are fewer than people believe, they are countered by the improvements it
will hopefully bring.,and that it will improve the quality of venues.

Advantages

Tournament will not require the vast venues presently required with huge
capacity for teams. These are few and far between, and difficult to book 

Teams will attend other events where these weaker teams may get to play
the top teams, as well as see them. 

People have to accept that what is being done here is to promote for the
premier BUF series the quality of play and not the social aspect of the
sport. As for above there is always the possibility that venue will be
big enough to host both events simultaneously.

This occurs at present in the Tour. It will also occur at any point the
split is imposed. Hopefully this system will encourage teams to improve
and ensure they fight their way up and stay there.

This can happen in any promotion system, and probably happens in the
tour in its present form. However by choosing the right number of teams
to promote this should become less likely.

It will promote the relaxed atmosphere in tournament that those teams
playing for enjoyment want. Not all teams want the stifling
constrictions that are involved in the tour.



Disadvantages

More tournament directors required, with more suitable venues. However
these venues will be smaller, and should be easier to find.

Weaker teams will not get to see the stronger teams in action..

Couples who play on different teams will need to organise different
transport, and will not get to see each other

The split will disadvantage those teams just below the cut off level and
force them to play an increased number of games below their standard.

Teams of a similar standard may never play each other as they bypass
each other in the promotion and relegation.




Nationals

In an attempt to keep the identity of nationals as a separate event to
the tour, there is room to change the format of Nationals.

Although I have football analogies in ultimate, if the tour can be
related to the leagues, then Nationals can be considered to be the cups.
The tour is about a team performing consistently over a period of time,
while nationals is about producing the performance on the day when it
matters. 

Hence this proposal includes converting nationals to a 16 team KO
format. Using seedings generated from the tour the format would be a
straight 16 team KO. Whilst this only produces 2 game per day, this
would more closely recreate the conditions found in the major foreign
events, where every game may affect the finishing position of the team
by large number of positions.

It also allows for flexibility in tour attendance by teams in allowing
all teams from 16 upwards to qualify and win national championships.
This would remove the problems caused by any teams non-attendance to the
tour, for whatever reason, as demonstrated by Catch 22 this year.

Chris


----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Retter
mobile: 07970-903420
w.retter@bigfoot.com
office: 01737-273655