From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Tue Mar 19 18:10:28 2002
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2JIAQR12265
	for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:10:26 GMT
Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@agave [137.205.192.52])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2JI94n05406;
	Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:09:04 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 g2JI5m0K010678
	for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:05:48 GMT
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2JI5mfC010677
	for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:05:48 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 g2JI5l0K010672
	for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:05:48 GMT
Received: from oxmail.ox.ac.uk (oxmail3.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.180])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2JI5lv15563
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:05:47 GMT
Received: from heraldgate2.oucs.ox.ac.uk
	([163.1.2.50] helo=frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk ident=exim)
	by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1)
	id 16nMY5-00019C-03
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:33:21 +0000
Received: from dhcp-1-55.new.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.145.55] helo=jsp)
	by frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1)
	id 16nMY5-0006um-00
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:33:21 +0000
From: "Jonathan Palmer" <jonathan.palmer@new.oxford.ac.uk>
To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Shafted
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:30:35 -0000
Message-ID: <00c201c1cf63$65928e60$379101a3@new.ox.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To: <F13o0cfshO2NSEwiGvT00012d78@hotmail.com>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Britdisc,

I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting that the number of slots should
be allocated permanently on a per region basis. Clearly with the allowed
choice of qualifiers that doesn't make much sense, but last year someone
(chris Huges?) looked at the relative strengths of the team entered into
the various qualifiers and allocated the slots accordingly. I don't
understand why the same wasn't done this year. I've looked back at the
various results from the indoor season and compiled the following list
by region of teams entered at qualifiers who had make quarters or better
earlier in the season (not including Great Barr Crawl which was played
after qualifiers, apologies to any results I might have missed out)



SW

BAF - This season: 1 win, 2 Semis, 2 Quarters, last Nationals: 2nd
SNOAP - This Season: 1 win
TeamShark - This Season: 1 semi  Last Nationals: half the team 3rd at
nationals as Shrub
Mythago - This Season: 1 Semi
Sublime - This Season: 1 quarter
Discult - This Season: 1 quarter
Mr Men  - This Season: 1 quarter


London

YoMama - This Season: 1 runners-up, 2 semis  Last Nationals: 5th
Angels - This Season: 1 quarters  Last Season: 8th
Hammerage - This Season: 1 runner-up  Last Nationals: 6th
Fever -  This Season: 1 quarter


Midlands

MHB - This Season: 2 wins, 1 runner-up  Last Nationals: 1st
Space Monkeys: 1 win, 1 runner-up, 1 semi, 1 quarter
OddJob - This Season: 1 quarter
Yorkshire All stars:  This Season: 1 runner-up


North

Bears - This Season: 1 semi, 1 quarter
Whiplash - This Season: 1 quarter
Skunks - This Season: 1 semi, 1 quarter
Haze - This Season: 1 quarter


Scotland

None -



It is clear that SW and Midlands were the strongest regions accounting
for all winners and all but two of the final spots, while no Scottish
entered at qualifiers had played a tournie.

Had I been asked to allocate the slots I would have done so like this:

1st round - Slots for "Top Teams":

SW - 3 (BAF, SNOAP, Sharks)
L - 2 (YoMama, Hammerage)
M - 3 (MHB, Space monkeys, All Stars)
N - 1 (Bears/Skunks)
S - 0


2nd round - Slots for "Depth":
SW - 2 (4 other teams made quarters or better)
L - 1 ( 2 other teams made quarters)
M - 1 ( 1 team made quarters)
N - 1 ( 3 other teams made quarters or better but no team made a final)
S - 0

3rd round - allocate remaining 10 slots:
SW - 2
L - 2
M - 2
N - 2
S - 2


Totals:

SW - 7
L - 5
M - 6
N - 4
S - 2


I think is was wrong to say that the regions were mostly equal, and
while I agree that it is unlikely that you would win nationals from
outside the top four in your region, I don't think that before nationals
many would have thought it likely that a 3rd placed team would actually
win and certainly not that a 7th placed team could come 6th at
nationals! (congrats sublime) Perhaps next year we could make a similar
"strength" analysis of the various qualifiers and allocate the slots
that way.

Sorry for the long post, thanks for reading,

Boston
(TeamShark)






-----Original Message-----
From: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk [mailto:owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk]
On Behalf Of David Eastman
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:47 PM
To: cormaccosgrove@yahoo.co.uk; britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Shafted

Just to add to the confusion, teams are not, to my knowledge, restricted
to 
qualifying in the region they 'belong' to. While I doubt many English
teams 
will try their luck in Scotland next year, region cherry picking is
still an 
issue. So fiddling about with qualification spots isn't a great idea at
the 
moment.

David Eastman, Hammerage


PS. Well done to Lewis and co. on their storming performance.


>From: cormac cosgrove <cormaccosgrove@yahoo.co.uk>
>To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Shafted
>Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:56:06 +0000 (GMT)
>
>>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
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com