From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Fri Feb 23 11:23:12 2001
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id f1NBLIB27997
	for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:21:18 GMT
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 f1NBLGh27982
	for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:21:16 GMT
Received: from maple.sucs.soton.ac.uk (maple.sucs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.128.16])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1NBLAF00033
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:21:15 GMT
Received: from poplar.sucs.soton.ac.uk (poplar.sucs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.128.30])
	by maple.sucs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29912;
	Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:21:09 GMT
Received: from B25A-07.sucs.soton.ac.uk (b25a-07.sucs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.24.116])
        by poplar.sucs.soton.ac.uk (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id f1NBL9l12321;
        Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:21:09 GMT
From: andy cox <ajc298@soton.ac.uk>
Reply-To: ajc298@soton.ac.uk
To: "David J.C. MacKay" <mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: Re: A suggestion for partly solving the cost-of-travel issue
In-Reply-To: <E14W5PX-0007hP-00@wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <SIMEON.10102231108.A@B25A-07.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:21:08 +0000 (GMT)
X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43)
X-Authentication: none
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

> SPLIT THE YEAR INTO TWO OUTDOOR SEASONS
> =======================================
> Just in case it wasn't clear, the Geo-tours would be organised
> in (say) four regions (SE,SW,Midlands,Scotland, or whatever).

Would that incorporate a system of the best 4 (say) from 
each area qualify for the national tour?

Allowing "lesser" teams to poach the experienced players 
would obviously be great during the first half of the 
season. For instance there's been talk of a team in Reading 
starting but people have been reluctant to leave their 
established teams for a start-up, understandably, although 
the new team is closer to home (no criticism meant to be 
levelled at any Reading player, was just an example)

However, if you're allowing teams to seperate and rejoin 
between each half of the season would there be a case of 
top four get to re-enter without qualifying? And what would 
happen to the teams which benefited from those big teams' 
players being free and then lost them for the second half 
of the season?

Would the second half be the point for Chris' A and B 
tours? E.g. Top 4 get to play in tour A and next four get 
Tour B. This could leave Tour B at risk of inconsistent 
attendance, but is it a risk worth taking?

Sounds like a very promising idea, for my money if the 
above (and a few other points without doubt) are sorted 
could well be a great idea.

Angie
Skunks

----------------------
andy cox
ajc298@soton.ac.uk