From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Feb 26 16:26:54 2001 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id f1QGOhL17738 for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:24:43 GMT 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 f1QGOgh17727 for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:24:42 GMT Received: from judy.ic.ac.uk (judy.ic.ac.uk [155.198.5.28]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f1QGObY19174 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:24:41 GMT Received: from juliet.ic.ac.uk ([155.198.5.4]) by judy.ic.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14XQRh-00010O-00 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:24:21 +0000 Received: from icex6.cc.ic.ac.uk ([155.198.3.6]) by juliet.ic.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14XQRy-0000BV-00 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:24:38 +0000 Received: from peter (dialup-10-5.net.ic.ac.uk [155.198.8.149]) by icex6.cc.ic.ac.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id CGZR6LHM; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:24:20 -0000 Message-ID: <010301c0a00f$e2e0a2a0$9408c69b@peter> From: "Jonathan Palmer" <jonathan.palmer@ic.ac.uk> To: "BritDisc" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Tour Structure Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:16:26 -0000 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Ben asked for suggestions on the tour structure so here goes. If indeed the tour does need to be split (which would be a shame but I'm in no real position to comment on so I won't) then I think the biggest problem is the combing of the tour and qualification for Nationals. The simple solution is to separate them (see below) Split Tour Structures 1. As previously discussed a first tour 32+ and then a split tour with top 16 and bottom 16+ with promotion and relegation of say 4 teams. OR 2. A ranking system (don't know if it's been suggested before) The system I imagine would be something like the Tennis world rankings. a) Tour 1 would need to be a large 32+ tournament with points awarded as before (250 for win etc.) b) Then there would be a further 3 (or more) Grand slam tournaments, 16 teams with 250 points for a win etc. c) Alongside this would run a number (hopefully greater) of "B" tour events with say 120 points for a win (roughly 13th place in a slam event allowing teams to break into the top 16) these events would attract more local teams and hopefully student teams. d) The top 16 teams on points at get invited to the next Slam tournament e) After the season is over each teams best 4 results are used for the final tour rankings. There are some obvious wrinkles that would need to be worked out but I'll only think about it if people think it is worth pursuing. Nationals Structure Separate Nationals from the tour. Have 4 regional qualifiers for Nationals (8-16 teams) with 4 qualification spots. The biggest criticisms of a split tour are that split works badly as a qualification for nationals because of the slight randomness around 16th and the lower teams don't get to see the top teams play. By separating Nationals and the tour you fix the first and by having National qualifiers you allow weaker teams to watch the top teams in their region. Plus it encourages Geo teams especially in the weaker regions. How could it possibly go wrong?!?! Cheers for reading, Jon