From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Apr 9 14:51:28 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 g39DpSd07142
for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:51:28 +0100 (BST)
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 g39Dj8t23283;
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:45:08 +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 g39Dg7QR008320
for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:42:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g39Dg7bm008319
for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:42:07 +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 g39Dg6QR008314
for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:42:06 +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 g39Dg6t23022
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:42:06 +0100 (BST)
Received: from birmingham.gov.uk (unverified) by mail1.birmingham.gov.uk
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with SMTP id <T5a2790d50c0a5ac1c909e@mail1.birmingham.gov.uk> for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>;
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:34:19 +0100
Received: by birmingham.gov.uk(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7 (934.1 12-30-1999)) id 80256B96.004A9C93 ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:34:57 +0100
X-Lotus-FromDomain: BCC
From: "Simon Statham" <Simon_Statham@birmingham.gov.uk>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Message-ID: <80256B96.004A9B9F.00@birmingham.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:38:48 +0100
Subject: Re: Mixed Teams In Major Tournaments
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Me, tell you? I wouldn't presume to tell you how to do your job!
I can't TELL you how to sort this out, I've offered some suggestions (one of
which proved slightly contraversial!) and I hope they could at least be of some
use to those who actually do make the decisions (if they read them).
Why not restrict the number of teams entering the Tour in the future? Decide
the teams who qualify through Nationals and a qualifying tournament, at the
beginning or end of a season. This at least would then reduce the level of
uncertainty for lower teams about whether or not they'll be able to enter events
later in the year or if they'll be excluded.
I like the Tour, I like the fact that you can get a good idea about where your
team lies on a National standing, so I think that if the main Tour is reduced
then what comes underneath it should be equivalent to it. i.e. a National
competition that anyone can enter, then at the end of the year you can say to
yourselves, yeah we went up a few places this year, or boo we must try harder to
rise in the rankings. Also, the potential to qualify for the main Tour will be
a big incentive to middler order teams who currently play their socks off on the
Tour and toil to 18th/19th/20th place etc. So, whilst it's satisfying to
improve your seeding for the next tournament the potential to get 'Promoted',
will be a real cherry.
It won't be easy to organise but if 44 open teams are entering tournaments then
there has to be scope for a 2nd tier. And I agree that having Clapham playing
our 2nd team for instance is doing no-one any good.
Si.
"Ben Ravilious" <ben@ravilious.net> on 09/04/2002 14:23:11
Please respond to ben@ravilious.net
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Simon Statham/Transportation/BCC)
Subject: Re: Mixed Teams In Major Tournaments
Si,
Regarding Geo teams - I love the idea of people playing where they live - it
works for my team! However I think tightening up geo-regulations would probably
open a whole new can of worms (do we have to get the maps and dividers out?)
I note that in the last couple of years most of the top eight teams have become
'more geo' quite naturally as they have realised the sense in having local
players who can be relied upon to attend regular training sessions. (I like to
think that Red showed what could be achieved when a bunch of local goobers
bothered to train regularly!)
I think strengthening the emphasis on loyalty would actually be the best way to
encourage locally-based teams (who would want to commit to regularly travelling
across the country to training for a whole season?)
Back to the Tour issue, Simon, you tell us! How should we resolve the problem of
lack of capacity for teams (divisionalised or not)? We haven't yet got a
particular solution in mind yet though I know there suitable people thinking
about this. I hope this weekend's board meeting produces something.
You seem to see it as if we're intentionally discarding some lower teams - thats
not fair. I would say that we've had a sudden unexpected increase in demand
which we hadn't planned for. I still take offense at the implication that
somehow we don't care about these lower teams though I'm not sure their presence
in the Tour (as it stands) is necessarily suitable for them or the competition.
Lets devise a broader range of competitions so that there is something for
everyone.
Examples (for sake of argument) :-
Top 16 division - rostering compulsory, attendance of all events compulsory,
uniforms compulsory
Lower x division - unrostered teams allowed, missing an event allowed, dropping
worst result allowed
As the number of teams increases we can expand the number of divisions keeping
the bottom one as a catch-all for those new teams who want to get a foot in the
door. I'm sure those responsible can devise a workable promotion/releagation
system.
Alternatively we could look at regionalisation at the lower level. I like the
idea of this because it reduces the amount of travelling to tournaments - it
would certainly encourage local teams.
What about leagues? Another idea. Travel to a Saturday fixture to play a few of
matches, socialise with the locals, go home and enjoy Sunday at home with
kids/friends/family, don't turn up to work on Monday morning feeling like a
zombie.
I don't mean these to be a particularly concrete suggestions (I'm not the DOC!)
just debate-fodder.
Ben
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Simon Statham" <Simon_Statham@birmingham.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:16:35 +0100
>A fair point, I would also like to see a much stronger emphasis on geo-teams.
>You should play where you live. We have come up against it quite a bit in the
>past, having good players come to our practices but then play for other teams
in
>tournaments. It's no bloody wonder we struggle to get better year by year,
when
>we have to start all our players from scratch. Should be better this year,
have
>managed to recruit some people who have actually played for a few years before!
>
>But anyway, I don't know how this got turned around to a debate on Tour vs
Mixed
>Tour. I wanted to hear about solutions to potentially relegating some teams
>from the Tour because some venues can host more teams than others. I was
>frustrated by the attitude that lower teams can be just excluded because they
>don't matter (although looking at the teams in T1 I think our 2nd team should
be
>ok, but the point still stands).
>
>What proposals to this problem, or simply 2 division proposals for whatever
>reason, have been considered before? Do my suggestions earlier offer anything
>towards making it happen or have they been thought of before and discounted for
>what ever valid reason.
>
>We (frisbee players) appreciate the hard work you put in to the game, and that
>changes have happened and are in the process of happening. But I think you'll
>agree that things aren't there yet!
>
>I'd just like to know that them in charge are listening!
>
>Si
>(Slipdisc)
>
>
>
>
>"Ben Ravilious" <ben@ravilious.net> on 09/04/2002 13:08:49
>
>Please respond to ben@ravilious.net
>
>To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
>cc: (bcc: Simon Statham/Transportation/BCC)
>
>
>Subject: Re: Mixed Teams In Major Tournaments
>
>
>
>
>
>I think its fair to same that at times there *have* been instances of teams
>'cobbled together' but better to have a cobbled together team attending
>international clubs tournaments than no team at all. Hopefully more teams
>fighting for places in the future will mean this becomes a thing of the past.
>Lets recruit even more players so that every UK slot is taken.
>
>My take on this is that in fact the problem we have in the UK is with player
>loyalty (to their teams) and the existance of a stockmarket mentality when it
>comes to getting players for one's own team.
>
>All of this is completely within the rules as they stand so it is a matter for
>UK Ultimate to tighten them up if its appropriate. We shall be looking at this
>soon (If nothing else, this will prevent the usual rumours, grumbles and
>poachings which we get each time an international clubs event is on the horizon
>- something I can do without thanks!)
>
>Back to the original point about running different divisions at the same time,
>this is not something I want to see happen as it reduces choice for teams and
>players. One of the main points of my 'manifesto' (if you can call a paragraph
a
>manifesto!) was that we should encourage choice of events for teams, indeed
this
>is enshrined in the constitution of UK Ultimate (written by er.... me!)
>
>If teams are using the mixed division to get to international events 'by any
>means' then the answer lies with improving and enforcing player loyalty to
their
>mixed team rather than removing the choice between divisions.
>
>If one division suffers because of another then at least you can say players
>were offered the choice. In such a situation UK Ultimate needs to be positively
>encouraging the ailing division rather than forcing people into it.
>
>Playing in international tournaments is fantastic fun and I'm glad I've been
>lucky enough to have done this on a number of occasions myself. However, as
>individual players we must recognise that doing this should be on the basis of
>long-term commitment to a team. If we have this attitude then we will end up
>with more committed teams and therefore more *individual* players getting the
>chance to attend. Heck if you're not going to Hawaii go to
>Brugge/Rotterdam/Rimini/wherever instead - you will still have a good time and
>you don't need UK Ultimate to approve your roster for this!!!
>
>Are UK players ready to accept the idea of tighter and more longer-term
>definitions of what constitutes a team?
>
>Something else for you to discuss......
>
>Ben
>
>
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: james.hewitson@uk.zurich.com
>Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:26:38 +0100
>
>>
>>Si,
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>GB Mixed Teams in Recent Tournaments:
>>WUCC 99 = Blue Arse Flies, Mild Mannered Janitors (the "original" mixed
>>team, Gael Force
>>WFDF 00 = GB ("Largely" made up of Chevron and Blue Arse Flies players)
>>EUCC 01 = Blue Arse Flies, Strange Blue
>>WUCC 02 = Blue Arse Flies, Chevron
>>... think I'm spotting a trend here
>>
>>All these teams have proved their commitment to Mixed ultimate and it's
>>development over the last few seasons and the squad BAF take to Hawaii
>>will be the strongest BAF Mixed squad yet assembled for a major
>>tournament... Hardly "cobbled" together at the last minute??? The Open Tour
>>provides a perfect training ground for Mixed teams in the build-up to major
>>tournaments and gives us the opportunity to play against quality opposition
>>week in, week out whether at an Open or Mixed event. To marginalise the
>>Mixed Tour by making it a "sideshow" to the Open Tour would only serve to
>>weaken the Mixed teams we send to major tournaments rather than improve
>>them.
>>
>>BAF are committed to providing the opportunity to compete in all
>>(non-junior) variations of the sport (Open, Mixed and Womens) as proved by
>>sending two teams to the vast majority of both the Open & Mixed Tours last
>>season, a large number of indoor tournaments and all of the major womens
>>tournaments. To force players to have to make a decision between Open v
>>Mixed v Womens is only taking the sport backwards...
>>
>>Balti
>>BAF 34
>>
>>
>>
>>___________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>The information contained in this message is confidential and may be
>>legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not
>>read, copy or otherwise use it and do not disclose it to anyone else.
>>Please notify the sender of the delivery error and then delete the
>>message from your system.
>>
>>Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only.
>>
>>Thank you for your assistance.
>>
>>___________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>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
>**********************************************************************
>
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************