From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Mar 8 11:04:45 1999 Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA13959 for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:04:19 GMT Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13928 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:04:15 GMT Received: from rook.ecs.soton.ac.uk (rook.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.71.4]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02996 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:04:14 GMT Received: from stork.ecs.soton.ac.uk (stork [152.78.71.1]) by rook.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09972; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:04:12 GMT Received: from klf.ecs.soton.ac.uk (IDENT:wp296@klf [152.78.71.184]) by stork.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA10817; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:04:12 GMT Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:04:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Will Parker <wp296@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Reply-To: Will Parker <wp296@ecs.soton.ac.uk> To: Si Weeks <GGA95SEW@sheffield.ac.uk> cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Seeding In-Reply-To: <39664367508@pebley.shef.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990308102136.3986A-100000@klf.ecs.soton.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Dear Britdisc and Si Weeks, Sorry for those who don't care, especially non-students, but I have just read Si Weeks' message to Britdisc and I was very upset by the tone he took. With hindsight, I would rather not have said what I said about the seeding at the students but I think the whole thing was taken out of context. It is true as he said, that if we were expecting to qualify, why did we lose three games? But what I said about the seeding was more referring to how strangely the whole tournament went, through no fault of the organisers: it was another of those weird three way ties which we lost out on. We were never using the seedings as an excuse and I think the whole thing just sums up exactly how bad I am at making speeches (as anyone who knows me will tell you). Next time maybe I will just ignore the call of SPEECH from the rest of my team who were out there to embarass me!!!! We NEVER went to Leeds saying "we are the best team at the tournament". NEVER. We believed we had a chance of winning, like any of the other teams in the top half. Surely a lot of the team's targets is to win aswell as to have fun. That was why I said "we didn't come to win this trophy (ie the plate)". In response to your final comment: > That's about it. I look forward to seeing Skunks at the outdoors, > Please let me know Skunks, if you would you like a bye straight > to the final just to make sure you don't lose to one of the 'lesser' > northern teams again. frankly, I am offended and I find this ridiculous and extremely rude. We will definately be at the student outdoors and we will be glad if we can even manage to stay until Sunday after last year's disaster of broken down cars and injury. If we have a chance of winning, we will try, but we won't be going around saying "we are the best" as you obviously think we do. Also, I would like to point out that we never said or even implied that the northern teams were "LESSER". In fact I KNOW that they are far far stronger. Just look at the results!! Why did you make this comment????? Your email was unneseccary. If you had to send it, why did you not ask Skunks why we said these things rather than launching into a personal attack and implying we said things that we didn't? Look forward to seeing everyone we saw at Leeds again and if the outdoors is even half as good as Leeds was then it will be excellent. Thanks for listening. I really hope I didn't offend any one else. Will Skunks -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Chewy wrote: > At the end of the tournament i forgot to say thanks to Si Weeks who > actually wrote the schedule for the weekend ( sorry Si ). But Thanks. No problem at all. However it appears not everyone shared your opinion. This year we opted for two pools of eight. Dave Farmyard, Chewy and I made this decision based on the fact that a student teams strengths change a lot over the course of a year (e.g. Mohawks last year's outdoor champions failed to even qualify for the indoors this year). Therefore we opted for the largest pools possible in order to neglect the effect of the seeding. > This matched Skunks (winners of the South-east qualifier) up with Far > Flung (no.6 in the Northern qualifier - they only got in 'cos Flying > Sorcerers dropped out) first game Saturday morning. Skunks lost this > game and then also lost to Bears (the eventual winners) and Jedi > later in the group stages. > > On collecting the plate in the presentation, Skunks commented that > "This isn't the trophy we came to win, the only thing that has beaten > us all weekend is the seeding." > > Whilst I feel that they were a little unfortunate to be the team that > missed out and end up in the bottom eight as a result of a two way > tie for fourth place, I do not think they can blame this on the > seeding. > > They had every opportunity to qualify. If they were the best team in > the tournament why did they lose three games? > > Maybe putting this email out was unnecessary. It's taken me all week, > to decide whether I should do it. But having heard another team that > were not at Nationals being given exactly the same explanation by > Skunks for their poor performance, I decided it was time to set the > record straight. > > That's about it. I look forward to seeing Skunks at the outdoors, > Please let me know Skunks, if you would you like a bye straight > to the final just to make sure you don't lose to one of the 'lesser' > northern teams again. > > Later, > > Si Weeks. >