From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Mar 19 12:51:56 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 g2JCprR16150 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:51:53 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 g2JCeXv11091; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:40:33 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 g2JCaP0K009175 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:36:25 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2JCaPLW009174 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:36:25 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 g2JCaO0K009169 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:36:24 GMT Received: from ovemailhub2.arup.com (ovemailhub2.arup.com [193.116.20.21]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g2JCaMv10756 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:36:22 GMT Received: from 193.116.20.221 by ovemailhub2.arup.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:29:19 -0000 Received: from mailhub1.uk.arup.com (127.0.0.1) by mailhub1.arup.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00057063@mailhub1.arup.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:24:06 +0000 Received: from 69.69.11.29 by mailhub1.uk.arup.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:24:05 -0000 Received: from a_cnts20.arup.com (hub1) by Exchange-gateway-out (4.1/SMI-SVR4) id AA09369; Tue, 19 Mar 02 12:28:49 GMT Received: by a_cnts20.uk.arup.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <G8RNGJSY>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:27:11 -0000 Message-Id: <BD00B1D505E9434CA3A856B5FA169E3EABD0B4@midnts04> From: Andrew Godber <Andrew.Godber@arup.com> To: "'cormac cosgrove'" <cormaccosgrove@yahoo.co.uk>, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: Shafted (Usual pointless comments from a bystander) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:23:42 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPartTM-000-fd1b892b-1e7b-4955-b815-b47144a4fc13" Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------=_NextPartTM-000-fd1b892b-1e7b-4955-b815-b47144a4fc13 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1CF41.635907CC" ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1CF41.635907CC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ...and another thing: I believe that teams could choose which 'regions' they entered, and so unless you start telling people which 'regions' they have to enter, then the standards are always going to be subject to change. From the very start it was made clear that these were not entirely regional competitions, but they were five qualifying events that happened to be held in four different regions. I am not suggesting that Uriel should have gone to Dundee to qualify, but it complicates any claims that certain 'regions' should have more or less slots in Nationals. Roll on the day when we can book the NEC for a week, and have everyone playing Nationals at the same time, so that we don't have any fuss about qualifying slots. Andy Slipdisc -----Original Message----- From: cormac cosgrove [mailto:cormaccosgrove@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 19 March 2002 11:56 To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Shafted 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 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1CF41.635907CC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2650.12"> <TITLE>RE: Shafted (Usual pointless comments from a bystander)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>...and another thing:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I believe that teams could choose which 'regions' = they entered, and so unless you start telling people which 'regions' = they have to enter, then the standards are always going to be subject = to change. From the very start it was made clear that these were not = entirely regional competitions, but they were five qualifying events = that happened to be held in four different regions. I am not suggesting = that Uriel should have gone to Dundee to qualify, but it complicates = any claims that certain 'regions' should have more or less slots in = Nationals.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Roll on the day when we can book the NEC for a week, = and have everyone playing Nationals at the same time, so that we don't = have any fuss about qualifying slots.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Andy</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Slipdisc</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: cormac cosgrove [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:cormaccosgrove@yahoo.co.uk">mailto:cormaccosgrove@yahoo.c= o.uk</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: 19 March 2002 11:56</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: Shafted </FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>firstly congratulations to all those who went down = to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>bradford at the wekend for the indoor nationals, = i</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>enjoyed taking part again and seeing one of the = most</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>nail biting finals in a while.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>anyway, i thought it might be an idea to address a = few</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>points form lewis glover. i do agree with the guy = from</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>uriel that it seemed to be an odd way to sort = out</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>choosing which team replace those which dropped = out,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>and its obvious that sublime had in no way anything = to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>do with it and i think their final placing showed = how</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>much they deserved that place, but due to = poor</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>organisation on the part of the tournament = director(s)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>who set up the competition, it does seem that = uriel</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>got shafted.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>however, in response to lewis glovers point about = WSW</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>being the stronger region, fair enough, but at = the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>same time it would seem to be a bit harsh to alter = the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>numbers of qualifiers from the different regions, = as,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>being open qualifiers, the team entering are = very</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>prone to change year in year out and so it is</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>difficult to tell which region will produce the = top</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>teams. ok, the midlands tend to produce top teams = all</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the time, but for example, last year, fusion = fom</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>scotland were tipped to win it and eventually = came</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fourth, after losing narrowly in their semi. = this</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>year, the top scottish team came 15th (not 16th as = was</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>announced at the end of the tournament) after = playing</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>poorly all weekend. im not making excuses, but = my</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>point is i think it would be unfair to penalise = a</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>district due to a poor performance by its 'top' = team,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>as people have bad days and good days, and the</FONT>= <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>standard of team can vary extensively between years. = </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>in addition, if a particular region had two or = three</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>barren years then where would you draw the line = in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>terms of reducing their qualification spots? it = seems</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>a little unfair if a region ended up with 1</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>qualification spot, or even 2. it also seems = pretty</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>much against the spirit of the game.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>so basically, i think that it is quite a good set = up</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>at the moment, and that the reduction of = qualification</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>spots for the so called ' weaker' regions is not = the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>way forward as things tend to change from year = to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>year, and the method at the minute seems = quite</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>flexible wnough to deal with the changes.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>cormac</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>STD Ultimate</FONT> </P> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2> --- Lewis Glover = <Loopy1019@btopenworld.com> wrote: ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I spoke to andrew and explain what happened in = the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> lead up to Sublime</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> getting the final place to nationals. We didn't = know</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> if they'd applied and</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> believed everything was okay when we got = offered the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> slot few days before</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the tournie. So naturally we just accepted none = the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> wiser. I sympathise with</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Uriel and believe that we should consider = the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> following:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I think thier are two lessons to be = learnt/think</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> about here:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 1. Things need to be organised further in = advance,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> so a decent system can be</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> implentmented so replacement teams can be = allocated</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> fairly and without</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> panic.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 2. The regions were very unbalanced. The top 10 = at</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> WSM probably would have</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> all finished 16+ at nationals. (The 6 teams = that did</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> go all finished in the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> top 16, and 4 of them in the top 6). I think = the top</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> team from scotland came</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 16th and the top team from midlands about 12th? = Is</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> there anyway of</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> addressing this? It needs thought anyway, I = haven't</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> got a solution but maybe</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> others do.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Loopy</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (Sublime)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT = SIZE=3D2>__________________________________________________</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Do You Yahoo!?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Everything you'll ever need on one web page</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A HREF=3D"http://uk.my.yahoo.com" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://uk.my.yahoo.com</A></FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1CF41.635907CC-- ------=_NextPartTM-000-fd1b892b-1e7b-4955-b815-b47144a4fc13--