From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Thu Mar 21 17:37:42 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 g2LHbgR18340
	for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:37:42 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 g2LHWhn04955;
	Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:32:43 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 g2LHTT0K002218
	for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:29:29 GMT
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2LHTTfP002217
	for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:29:29 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 g2LHTS0K002212
	for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:29:28 GMT
Received: from mail1.messagelabs.com (mail1.messagelabs.com [212.125.75.4])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g2LHTRv23740
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:29:28 GMT
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 23415 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2002 17:29:22 -0000
Received: from mail.oyster.co.uk (HELO aurora.oyster.co.uk) (193.132.201.148)
  by server-6.tower-1.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2002 17:29:22 -0000
Received: by AURORA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <GZQT7ZS7>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:29:21 -0000
Message-ID: <7165D5A55FC4D41184DB00D0B7B9E62D0480D20B@AURORA>
From: Roger Thomson <Roger.Thomson@oyster.com>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: RE: No. of teams from each region.
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:29:20 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk id g2LHTS0K002213
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

>Its interesting that there's so many teams wanting to play in indoor
>nationals that we need to have FIVE qualifying competitions, I wonder if
>the same will happen outdoors :-)

There are only 34 teams registered for Tour 1 according to the latest mail
Matt sent round. Does anyone know why? Are we losing or alienating some
potential outdoor players for some reason we could affect?

Is it simply because the teams needed for outdoors are so much bigger that
there are just as many or more players participating outdoors? Or because
the students are doing exams and then the student teams dissolve for summer
and most of them wait for indoors to come around again? Or because some
warped souls really like playing indoors much more than outdoors and don't
make the effort in the summer. Or because the Tour is seen as too stretching
and too much commitment? 

Can anyone make a stab at the impact of each of these factors vis-à-vis the
number of players who took part in the Indoor Cup and it's qualifiers this
season? (Which was how many - does UKU know?) Some kind of analysis would
seem a very worthy task for our new admin person ;-) Easy to look at the
database and see how many players  were rostered for an indoor team but are
not rostered for an outdoor one, then either guess why not (student indoor
team) or email 'em to find out why. 

I've no idea how proactive UKU is (or old BUF was) about looking at the
player base in terms of marketing strategy and understanding the players in
order to grow the sport - what would help would be if more of the strategy
documents and minutes of meetings were put on the website. As paid-up
members of UKU these are definitely things we could reasonably expect to be
published I would have thought, and that in turn might well stimulate more
people to participate and contribute. ...Ben?

Now come and get some outdoors action - the Frogs are waiting! ;-)
Silver Bear
cu#1



-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Styles [mailto:tstyles@protocol-systems.co.uk]
Sent: 21 March 2002 15:06
To: Bess S
Cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: No. of teams from each region.


>Admittedly I may feel differently if I lived in the
>Midlands...

Not entirely,
We chose to qualify in the Midlands (Nottingham) as it was more
convenient, fully expecting to find a quite tough regional competition.
On hearing the news that BAF were going to Weston, and Space Monkeys and
MHB were going to Sheffield we thought we might even qualify.
Unfortunately we underestimated our ability to lob the disc at the
floor. And while I try not to take anything away from the other
Nottingham qualifiers. I think they will agree that it might have been
tougher to qualify from some of the other regions.

Form changes from year to year and it's totally unfair to say that one
region is crap at ultimate so we'll only have 2 teams from there. Also
deciding how many qualify from each region based on the quality of the
teams playing there, is wide open to abuse. 

Teams change from tournament to tournament too e.g. BAF seeded 4 at
Warwick based on performance at previous tournaments where a full squad
wasn't able to attend. Bears 1 seeded 5 in Birmingham, when it was
mainly beginners. If Jon's algorithm feels like tracking the composition
of every team in every competition, and working out from that each
players impact on the team and therefore who has the strongest team,
then we don't even need nationals next year we can just read the result
off the sheet. ;-) 

If there was to be a different number of teams qualify from each region
the only fair way to do it would be based on the size of the qualifying
competition. e.g. Region with 32 team qualifying competition gets more
spots than region with 16 team qualifying competition. 

Lastly I think if I was organising the tournament and with 2 days to go
I had a cheque in my hand from a seventh placed team and only a promise
from a sixth placed team despite giving everyone involved at least a
weeks notice I would have taken Sublime's cheque. Tournaments are damn
hard to organise, we should be grateful we have so many tournaments to
go to. And help UKU and our TD's to make good decisions not have a pop
when things don't go quite the way they should. Ideally teams who can't
make it to nationals should not attend qualifiers. That way most of
these problems would go away. 

Congrats to Sharks.
See you all Schmoutdoors.

Tom

Block Stack and Two Smoking Hammers
tom@block-stack.co.uk
www.block-stack.co.uk

Its interesting that there's so many teams wanting to play in indoor
nationals that we need to have FIVE qualifying competitions, I wonder if
the same will happen outdoors :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bess S [mailto:bess0@hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 March 2002 13:36
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


 -----------------------------------------------------------
Internet communications are not secure and therefore Oyster Partners Ltd
does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any
views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of Oyster Partners Ltd.