From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Apr 9 16:07:44 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 g39F7hd19771
for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:07:43 +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 g39F0Vt01328;
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:00:31 +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 g39EvIQR008750
for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:57:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g39EvIt9008749
for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:57:18 +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 g39EvHQR008744
for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:57:17 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mailer3.bham.ac.uk (mailer3.bham.ac.uk [147.188.128.54])
by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g39EvHt00927
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:57:17 +0100 (BST)
Received: from bham.ac.uk ([147.188.128.127])
by mailer3.bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2)
id 16ux3c-0007Xd-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:57:16 +0100
Received: from bham-eee-fs4.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.147.167])
by bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #3)
id 16ux3b-00005R-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:57:15 +0100
Received: by bham-eee-fs4.bham.ac.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
id <2S8AASF1>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:57:15 +0100
Message-ID: <1396177A57E2D511A1EB0008C7866E185247E9@bham-eee-fs4.bham.ac.uk>
From: "KD001(P.M.KETT)" <P.M.KETT@bham-eee-fs4.bham.ac.uk>
To: "'Simon Statham '" <Simon_Statham@birmingham.gov.uk>,
"'britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk '" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Mixed Teams In Major Tournaments
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:57:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
The Ultimate Tour
A proposal / suggestion / idea... whatever you want to call it (cr@p if you
like), for discussion. Suggestions, criticisms, etc welcomed and apologies
if I don't make any sense but I wrote it in a bit of a hurry.
Basically...
Guessing at 40+ teams entering the tour regularly split it into two
divisions, with 20 teams in Division 1 and 20-32 in Division 2.
Promotion/Relegation between the two divisions at each event - a substantial
number to avoid having the same team go up and then straight back down (such
as Zurich Premiership in rugby union... though that could change this year)
and to keep the importance of the games at the top of Div2 / bottom of Div1.
I would suggest 4 teams are promoted/relegated after each event.
There should still be four tours, each split into the two divisions, with
events to be held on the same weekends at different venues, unless a TD has
a venue big enough for both divisions and wants to organise both!
The current points system could continue but be adapted for the two division
format such that every team gets an overall final ranking from 1 to 40+ so
every team has a sense of how well they are doing relative to clapham or
whoever
Qualification for Nationals based on this final ranking (as well as the next
years initial divisions). Nationals could also then have a second division
as well.
New teams start at the bottom and work way up - avoiding the creation of
telephone teams designed to go straight to the top! Emphasis should also be
put on geo teams, giving them benefits as has been done in the past... or
even (*controversial bit*) make Division 1 only open to geo teams - though
maybe have this as something to work towards over a couple of seasons!
As for how you initially split it, it seems logical to use the final tour
positions from the previous year. I wouldn't suggest splitting until next
year as a lot would need to be discussed and arranged before it were to
happen.
Main problems... (1) need more venues and TDs -the smaller venues are easier
to find, but TDs are always difficult to find because it takes a lot of time
and effort. (2) Lower teams aren't going to get that chance to see the top
teams... Wayne's (I think?) point is true to some extent that those fighting
it out for promotion will see top teams at later events and those at the
lower end of division2 will be able to see those at the top of their
division.
Overall, I think 2 divisions is going to be the only way forward, along with
an emphasis on geo teams. Ben's suggestion of a regional split would be
great but I think that there is likely to be difficulty balancing the
regions at the moment (just look at the debates over indoors), but as a
long-term goal it has great potential. And also, I feel the mixed tour
should definitely be kept separate... we need to continue to raise it's
profile after Nancy et all's good work and encourage more teams to view it
as a competitive event, not just as a distant relative of the tour.
Anyway I think that'll do for now and cheers for reading this far and hope
it makes senses, see you all at tour 1.
Paul
Red, Jesters
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Statham
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Sent: 09/04/02 14:38
Subject: Re: Mixed Teams In Major Tournaments
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
**********************************************************************