From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Apr 9 09:37:42 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 g398bfd28121
for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:37:41 +0100 (BST)
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 g398WV725572;
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:32:31 +0100 (BST)
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 g398SZQR006700
for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:28:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g398SZqZ006699
for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:28:35 +0100 (BST)
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 g398SZQR006694
for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:28:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mail1.birmingham.gov.uk (bccmail.birmingham.gov.uk [80.86.36.103])
by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g398SYt12459
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:28:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from birmingham.gov.uk (unverified) by mail1.birmingham.gov.uk
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with SMTP id <T5a2671a4e10a5ac1c909e@mail1.birmingham.gov.uk> for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>;
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:20:38 +0100
Received: by birmingham.gov.uk(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7 (934.1 12-30-1999)) id 80256B96.002DDE91 ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:21:00 +0100
X-Lotus-FromDomain: BCC
From: "Simon Statham" <Simon_Statham@birmingham.gov.uk>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Message-ID: <80256B96.002DDC25.00@birmingham.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:24:45 +0100
Subject: Re: The Tour/Relegation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Ok, I have a few suggestions. I think at least one of them will be unpopular!
1. Run the Tour and the Mixed Tour at the same time, at the same venue if
necessary. Many players simply use the Mixed Tour as a sideline to their
ambitions in the open Tour and playing in Worlds etc. Yet there are several
players who are completely the opposite, their main aim is to play in a
successful Mixed team. Why don't we make people have to choose, at least then
the teams who represent Britain at Worlds are established Mixed teams rather
than ones cobbled together in the season before. This would reduce the number
of teams entering the Tour and negate the need for a second division, it could
also lead to stronger Mixed teams in the future in the same way that the Tour
has made stronger open teams. If this did happen then there would be far more
free weekends for un-official tournaments, which open teams could play as Mixed
if they wanted, and allow there to be a Tour 5 again.
2. Have a 1st and 2nd division. Then have the 1st tournament of the season as
a qualifier for the top division. The top 16 from the year before go straight
into Div 1, then have a tournament at the start of the year that determines the
rest of Div 1 for that season. OR, I guess that qualifying tournament could be
at the end of a season (same weekend as Nationals?), which would determine Div 1
for the next year. Once the 2 divisions are established you will then obviously
need co-ordinators for each, taken from teams in those divisions. Then, these
co-ordniators are in charge of the tournaments for that division, not
necessarily as permanent TDs but just ensure that things get done.
3. In conjuction with 2., have a database of Frisbee 'friendly' tournament
venues, which can be approached centrally by UK Ultimate rather than by
individuals who want to run a tournament (as these are often from the top teams,
so would not always be able to be a TD). Invite bids from teams to manage each
tournament at the centrally found venue, I see no reason why the venue and the
team HAS to come from the same place, obviously this would be easier but people
have cars! The perks for the management team is that they get to keep the
profits from the tournament. This way Div 1 and Div 2 can manage themselves.
4. The ideal would be to have the two Divisions running on the same weekends,
as this would free up other weekends for 'fun' tournaments or another Tour
event.
5. Now Wayne suggested that I need to think about how many teams in each
division. Hmmmm, I think maybe 20-24 in Div 1, leaving 4-8 places to be fought
for in the qualifying tournament. I think this would leave enough teams to have
a decent sized Div 2.
There, some suggestions. But there must be hundreds of other out there...
Si
(Slipdisc)
Wayne Retter <druid#6@phidelta.demon.co.uk> on 08/04/2002 20:30:58
Please respond to Wayne Retter <wayne@fluiddruids.com>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Simon Statham/Transportation/BCC)
Subject: Re: The Tour/Relegation
>it just seems that the
>attitude is very much that the top teams can play in whatever tournaments they
>like but if there's not enough space then the lower teams have to miss out.
so long as the top teams pay their money before the deadline, then yes,
this is exactly how the Tour works.
This is how the Tour was designed to work.
The Tour is designed to improve British Ultimate, focussing at the top,
and the players that are most likely to play for the GB Open teams.
> I
>wonder what would have happened if there were only 32 places at Tour 1 and
>Clapham forgot to get their cheque in in time, for whatever reason?
They'd not be allowed to play. They (and other top teams) came close to
this in the last couple of years.
>There must've been other venues considered for the Tour events, some even put
>forward from lower teams, so the potential was there to have this second
>division.
I'm not so sure that many of the Tour events received more than one bid.
I know that Southampton bid for a Tour event, but didn't get it, so are
holding a non Tour event instead. Maybe it's just the publicity machine
that's not working?
I'm not sure that we were aware that we'd get as many teams wanting to
play this year - in past years 32 has generally been a struggle to
manage at any one given event.
> I just don't think enough is done for those of us who don't play at
>the same level you do.
Your theories are sound, but lacking in persuasive substance to the top
teams (they're happy, right, so why should they help!?).
If you can come up with a well thought-out proposal, we'll try to help
you implement it.
Some points to give serious consideration:
~ How many leagues, of what size(s)?
Can you definitely schedule dates/venues/organisers?
~ Are they separate, or do they interlock somehow?
How do you justify separate leagues?
~ If they interlock - how does promotion/relegation work?
a) annually, b)tournament by tournament or c) other?
>Also, 2 smaller divisions would give a chance for smaller venues to be
>considered. Those which are more likely to be run by the lower teams.
True, and true again.
So, if you're fairly certain to be relegated from a Tour event, why not
set up a "not the Tour" event for the same w/e as a Tour event (2 or 3
sound ideal!) to cater for all those 'spare' teams ?
It could be point of evidence toward promoting a split Tour in future.
Wayne
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Retter
mobile: 07970-903420
w.retter@bigfoot.com
office: 01737-273655
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************