From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Jul 24 16:29:54 2001 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f6OFOrk18384 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:24:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6OFOmI18358 for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:24:48 +0100 (BST) Received: from hotmail.com (f64.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.23.64]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6OFOlq00913 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:24:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:24:41 -0700 Received: from 163.1.103.122 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:24:40 GMT X-Originating-IP: [163.1.103.122] From: "Justin Parkhurst" <justin_parkhurst@hotmail.com> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: T4 Seedings Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:24:40 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F64lmmlQ080Gxw8Zw5V000056e5@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2001 15:24:41.0175 (UTC) FILETIME=[C23E3670:01C11454] Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk I have to disagree with this point. The argument that many people were making over the weekend is that Leeds put themselves in a position that made it, in theory, easier to move up to the semi-finals. All respect to the other teams, Leeds placed themselves in a pool that read: Druids, Leeds, TeamShark, Fusion Had they simply moved everyone up, they _would_ have been in a pool that looked like this: Clapham, Chevy, Fusion, Leeds Considering Clapham and Chevy made the final (and are the overall points leaders), you can argue that this pool would have been much harder to crack the top 2 spots. Also, the crossover teams (9-12) were storming this weekend, with 3 crossovers happening (Smash&Grab, Whey, Head Rush all cracking the top 8). Concievably Leeds would have had to play in a cross over if they did not make the top 2 in their pool. We can only guess about the result, but a semi final placement sure does earn you more points than a 9-12 slot. At the end of the day does it matter? Perhaps. The tour goes on points based on final placement at each tour event. I haven't been looking at the numbers or points, but if its close on points between Leeds, Fusion, TeamShark, Red, Druids, or anyone else gunning for Worlds, then there may be reasonable justification for complaint. Then there are smaller points, like the fact that BAF had to play a 8v9 crossover (which they narrowly lost), rather than a 7v10 - or TeamShark and Fusion would have had to play different crossover teams. All in all, the seeding can make a difference, and I think that is what people were having problems with. -Justin BAF Open/OW!/One time Shark >From: "Harvey" <harvey@backspin.co.uk> >To: "Britdisc" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> >Subject: RE: T4 Seedings >Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:56:56 +0100 > >I think the results show that leeds entirely justified their seeding. > >I apologise on behalf of our club for withdrawing so late. but will not >apologise on behalf of the indivduals who caused it to happen. you know who >you are. > >RV >Clapham > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk [mailto:owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk]On >Behalf Of Guy.Kennett@meuk.mee.com >Sent: 24 July 2001 12:58 >To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk >Subject: T4 Seedings > > > >Did anyone else have a problem with Leeds re-seeding themselves from 9th to >4th after Clapham pulled out of T4 at such short notice? > >Is there an "official" BUF rule for re-seeding after teams pull out between >tours? > >Guy >BAF OPEN > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp