From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed Apr 10 14:08:15 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 g3AD8Ed06841 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:08:14 +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 g3AD54721155; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:05:04 +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 g3ACwSQR019452 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:58:29 +0100 (BST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g3ACwSEC019451 for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:58:28 +0100 (BST) Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g3ACwRQR019446 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:58:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.ravilious.net ([212.38.89.2]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3ACwQ719816 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:58:27 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:09:15 +0100 Message-Id: <200204101409.AA161744120@mail.ravilious.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Ben Ravilious" <ben@ravilious.net> Reply-To: <ben@ravilious.net> X-Sender: <ben@mail.ravilious.net> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Geo teams etc X-Mailer: <IMail v6.05> Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk >I do struggle to see why Ben is 'becoming more sceptical of the current geo >system' as the current system places virtually no restictions or offers no >real advantages apart from allowing 2 teams which doesn't apply to any of >the non-geo teams anyway. Ben? Yup - its out of date. Its a weak restriction as it stands and had it any teeth it would be a frustrating one. There are better ways of promoting local ultimate bases. (NOTE for the sound-bite politicians out there - I am not suggesting we scrap the ideal of geo teams - just that there are better ways of encouraging them than the present rules) > >>My suggestion is that we should encourage *loyalty* (by discouraging roster >additions >>for international clubs events, for example). I think this is more >palatable than >>annoying nanny-state regulations and would help local teams. >?????? Not sure exactly what you'd be hoping to gain from this. As far as I >can tell this has always been a way of talented junior players getting >experience that will greatly help their development, and thus the >development of the sport as a whole in the UK. Examples abound of how well >this has worked in the past: Dougie and Ollie from Bad Company (Cambridge) >playing with the Hombres abroad; Wigsy, Bowles and Sickboy playing with >Shotgun in Vancouver; bl**dy everyone playing with the Purple Scum ;-). It >happens the world over and to prevent UK teams alone doing it would only >hold development back in the long term as well as put us at a competitive >disadvantage versus the rest of the world in the individual competitions. At >the moment all it would mean is that someone way down the roster who is >probably far less committed to the sport and has far less potential would >get an opportunity to play at a level which is completely beyond them. I accept the need for some market forces (I'm not a communist) and I believe people have the right to do this but I would like make them think very carefully about what the ramifications of this are for their original teams. Hawaii, where there has been some player flux, is a bit of an anomaly because of the cost of getting there but the point still stands. I hope soon we get to the stage where there are so many strong UK teams fighting for clubs spots that this stuff becomes a things of the past. Perhaps I'm being naive? I certainly don't want to disadvantage UK performance by insisting on 'no tart' teams only. On the other hand if the tarts were more committed to improving their original teams then we would have more teams at international standard! For the purpose of growth the latter would be preferable - No? (And for the record, I tarted for Sharks at clubs 95 - however I did it with my Red's permission and *came back* to Red a stronger player) >This year's Tour should shed some light on the issue - will the honourably >geo Sharks be able to use that advantage over the more experienced but >dishonourable Druids? How well will less-than-geo Poco fare with their >strong roster but lack of weekly practice? What about the strongly geo >Leeds*3 without some of their main players? Looking forward to it! Ben No personal references intended - names have been change to protect the guilty! ;-p