From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Mar 19 12:09:33 2002 Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2JC9WR08940 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:09:32 GMT Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@agave [137.205.192.52]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2JBxPv07085; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:59:25 GMT Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g2JBuR0K008919 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:56:27 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2JBuR9Z008918 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:56:27 GMT Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g2JBuQ0K008913 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:56:26 GMT Received: from web21404.mail.yahoo.com (web21404.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.232.74]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g2JBuPv06746 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:56:25 GMT Message-ID: <20020319115606.81717.qmail@web21404.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [134.36.198.135] by web21404.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:56:06 GMT Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:56:06 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?cormac=20cosgrove?= <cormaccosgrove@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: Shafted To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <002c01c1ced0$c34234e0$5bb0883e@loopy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk firstly congratulations to all those who went down to bradford at the wekend for the indoor nationals, i enjoyed taking part again and seeing one of the most nail biting finals in a while. anyway, i thought it might be an idea to address a few points form lewis glover. i do agree with the guy from uriel that it seemed to be an odd way to sort out choosing which team replace those which dropped out, and its obvious that sublime had in no way anything to do with it and i think their final placing showed how much they deserved that place, but due to poor organisation on the part of the tournament director(s) who set up the competition, it does seem that uriel got shafted. however, in response to lewis glovers point about WSW being the stronger region, fair enough, but at the same time it would seem to be a bit harsh to alter the numbers of qualifiers from the different regions, as, being open qualifiers, the team entering are very prone to change year in year out and so it is difficult to tell which region will produce the top teams. ok, the midlands tend to produce top teams all the time, but for example, last year, fusion fom scotland were tipped to win it and eventually came fourth, after losing narrowly in their semi. this year, the top scottish team came 15th (not 16th as was announced at the end of the tournament) after playing poorly all weekend. im not making excuses, but my point is i think it would be unfair to penalise a district due to a poor performance by its 'top' team, as people have bad days and good days, and the standard of team can vary extensively between years. in addition, if a particular region had two or three barren years then where would you draw the line in terms of reducing their qualification spots? it seems a little unfair if a region ended up with 1 qualification spot, or even 2. it also seems pretty much against the spirit of the game. so basically, i think that it is quite a good set up at the moment, and that the reduction of qualification spots for the so called ' weaker' regions is not the way forward as things tend to change from year to year, and the method at the minute seems quite flexible wnough to deal with the changes. cormac STD Ultimate --- Lewis Glover <Loopy1019@btopenworld.com> wrote: > I spoke to andrew and explain what happened in the > lead up to Sublime > getting the final place to nationals. We didn't know > if they'd applied and > believed everything was okay when we got offered the > slot few days before > the tournie. So naturally we just accepted none the > wiser. I sympathise with > Uriel and believe that we should consider the > following: > > I think thier are two lessons to be learnt/think > about here: > > 1. Things need to be organised further in advance, > so a decent system can be > implentmented so replacement teams can be allocated > fairly and without > panic. > > 2. The regions were very unbalanced. The top 10 at > WSM probably would have > all finished 16+ at nationals. (The 6 teams that did > go all finished in the > top 16, and 4 of them in the top 6). I think the top > team from scotland came > 16th and the top team from midlands about 12th? Is > there anyway of > addressing this? It needs thought anyway, I haven't > got a solution but maybe > others do. > > Cheers > > Loopy > (Sublime) > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com