From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Fri Mar 22 21:25:11 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 g2MLPAR16939 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:25:10 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 g2MLJSn22352; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:19:28 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 g2MLFh0K013771 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:15:43 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2MLFh97013770 for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:15:43 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 g2MLFg0K013765 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:15:42 GMT Received: from qm-a01.dmz.another.com (vs-a01.funmail.co.uk [212.62.7.9]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g2MLFgv24128 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:15:42 GMT Received: (qmail 5111 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2002 21:15:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www-a21) (172.16.100.21) by qm-a01 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 21:15:41 -0000 Message-ID: <4744134.1016831741794.JavaMail.root@172.16.100.50> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:15:41 +0000 (GMT) From: rachelparkinson@another.com To: roger thomson <roger.thomson@oyster.com>, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: No. of teams from each region. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_185_7881032.1016831741738" X-Funmail-UID: 2980962 X-Senders-IP: unknown Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk ------=_Part_185_7881032.1016831741738 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't know about elsewhere in the country but in leics the weather has been= manky,and the new breed of student beginners seem to prefer spending their= weekends going home for roast dinners with their families than rolling aro= und in the mud enjoying ultimate- outdoors is too hard apparently!- how do = we convince these people that outdoors is the real sport and indoors is sim= ply a warm-up for the proper season!? Up til this point sadly we ca'nt put = non-attendance down to exams, tho that may be a viable explanation for the = lack of entries in the tour- esp after all the stick student teams get for = only entering some of the dates and messing up the seedings- would people r= ather have the same teams at every tour or see the places filled? -----Original Message----- >From : Roger Thomson <Roger.Thomson@oyster.com> To : britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Date : 21 March 2002 17:29:20 Subject : RE: No. of teams from each region. >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 summe= r >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 stretchi= ng >and too much commitment?=20 > >Can anyone make a stab at the impact of each of these factors vis-=FD-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 ar= e >not rostered for an outdoor one, then either guess why not (student indoor >team) or email 'em to find out why.=20 > >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 i= n >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 b= e >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.=20 > >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. ;-)=20 > >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.=20 > >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.=20 > >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=20 >tournaments south of the border as frequently the better Scottish >players=20 >are unable to attend. The only way it can be done is to use tournaments=20 >which all the teams in question will be at but this is never going to=20 >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=20 >semester. It seems to me that the present situation seems to be the >most=20 >logical especially as there is free entry to any of the regional >qualifiers.=20 >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. > Frisbee Fanatic, Ultimate Babe =20 -- Personalised email by http://another.com ------=_Part_185_7881032.1016831741738--