From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu Mar 21 14:45:22 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 g2LEjLR18749 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:45:21 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 g2LETsv01913; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:29:54 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 g2LEPN0K001315 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:25:23 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2LEPNPu001314 for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:25:23 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 g2LEPM0K001309 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:25:22 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 g2LEPKv01355 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:25:22 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 16o3VI-0003Zf-03 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:25:20 +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 16o3VH-0002xn-00 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:25:19 +0000 From: "Jonathan Palmer" <jonathan.palmer@new.oxford.ac.uk> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Shafted Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:22:45 -0000 Message-ID: <001501c1d0e3$dec6ab00$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 In-Reply-To: <F247bN2tEwLqJrfP6nm000098c6@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Bess/Britdisc, Well the crude method I used in my previous post is one way. I intended it as an example of how such an allocation of slots could have been made. I think I agree that two slots isn't enough for any region. I probably should have included results from last years nationals. Plus in the same way that I applied Shrubs results at nationals last year to gauge the strength of the SW, information such as Mud Culture = Far flung (semi at leeds) would have made a difference to the calculation. Plus had Fusion been entered at Scottish Qualifiers my calculation would have allocated more slots to Scotland due to their performance at Leeds and the last nationals. The method I used also considers all tournies equally, result from a tournie held in Scotland and attended only by Scottish teams would have changed the allocation dramatically and I think that is reasonable. I agree that it is great that teams should be able to get the experience of playing at Nationals as Mojo did, but that in my opinion that doesn't justify the allocating of slots. Why is the Mojo's case in Scotland any different from Sublime's or Uriel's in the South west. Scottish qualifiers were allocated 4 slots despite their potentially strongest team, Fission not being entered, Mojo qualified and got their experience of nationals. But the SW was allocated only 5 slots despite containing three or four "strong" teams. Uriel and Sublime finished 6th and 7th and didn't qualify, yet interestingly both Uriel and Sublime finished above Mojo at students. I that sense Uriel and Sublime were "shafted" by the allocation of slots. There are more complicated and more transparent methods than the one I previously used for calculating the relative strengths of the various regions ( I'd be happy to explain them if any one wanted to listen ;-) ) I think we should try to use some system/algorithm. Obviously the one thing it mustn't do is penalize teams/regions for not attending tournaments. Some methods can be adapted to do that or we could set a minimum number of slots given to each region and allocate the others by strength. Otherwise we could use a system such as was used at Ego Wang were each region is asked to how many slots they think they should get and why (after all we have all the roster info from UK Ultimate, the system worked pretty well for seeding Ego Wang). Of course all this would be more accurate if there were more tournies and everyone played more. Thanks for reading, remember it's only indoors! It's not like it actually matters right? ;-) Statto (Teamshark) -----Original Message----- From: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk [mailto:owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Bess S Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:36 PM To: prw102@york.ac.uk Cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Shafted How do you propose assessing recent performance - it is unfair to use tournaments south of the border as frequently the better Scottish players are unable to attend. The only way it can be done is to use tournaments which all the teams in question will be at but this is never going to happen. Recent performance assessment can only ever apply to non student teams as the influx of new talent occurs every year and in some cases each semester. It seems to me that the present situation seems to be the most logical especially as there is free entry to any of the regional qualifiers. Admittedly I may feel differently if I lived in the Midlands... Bess Postivie Mojo (kind of) _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com