From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Sun Feb 27 22:45:54 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA01311 for britdisc-outgoing; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:44:21 GMT Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01306 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:44:20 GMT Received: from dervish.mail.pipex.net (dervish.mail.pipex.net [158.43.192.70]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA18673 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:44:17 GMT Received: (qmail 18774 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2000 22:44:13 -0000 Received: from userae85.uk.uudial.com (HELO oemcomputer) (62.188.131.227) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2000 22:44:13 -0000 Message-ID: <000001bf8174$91b968e0$e383bc3e@oemcomputer> From: "Si and/or Jack" <JackAndSi.Hill@ukgateway.net> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: What is the Tour? Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:31:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01BF8169.FD5C5860" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BF8169.FD5C5860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jaimie asked "what is the tour?". Chris H has replied with quick summary. But (probably wanting to keep = the email short) focused on the "rules" and the bit about teams of level = ability playing each other most often. There actually were several major motivating factors behind the tour = from my point of view - the one mentioned above is one of the main ones = (an advantage for all levels of team, not just the top ones, in my = opinion). I'd like to mention two others here and add some comments as I think its = important that we think about them. 1. The tourney schedules were set up so that top teams would frequently = get to play games to 21 over 2 hrs. Games of this length had not been = common in UK tourneys for some time (if ever? Toby? Sammy?) before we = used the tour to make it happen. This aim has definitely been = successfully met - at least top players are used to playing long games. = Whether this helped anyone to do better at Worlds or not its rather = difficult to say. From Catch's point of view it definitely made a = difference in Vancouver (97). However - at the last Worlds (99), games were shorter - first to 15 (I = can't remember the time cap - but it was about 90 mins). I know I've = mentioned this before, but the BUF (or whatever we are called these = days) should seek clarification from WFDF about its intentions re game = lengths. I would say that the GB teams need to know NOW. Furthermore, = we need to know in order to plan our domestic tourneys. If ultimate is = a game played to 15, then thats what it should be, and we should adjust = (as quickly as possible) to this within the major UK tourneys. =20 I'm in favour of this shortening of games - but it should be in the = rules of ultimate.=20 Any WFDF committee people still reading? Charlie? Thomas? Toby? I = don't really know if you guys are still on that thing - but if you are - = whats the score? We all need to know the rules of ultimate - how long = are games? If we found out in time we might be able to do something about this for = 2000. *Conclusion. We need to think about the game lengths at the Tour.* 2. The aim of the tour was to bring stability to the ultimate calendar = and improve the quality of tourney-venues - at least for the top = tournaments. We hoped to be able to stage large events - 32 teams - and = still guarantee hot showers, sensible food, continuous updating of = results in central area, improved publicity, easier access for = non-ultimate types, better medical, physio, first-aid provision, and = many other things... On this front, we have largely failed. We do stage large tourneys (my = hat comes off to the hard working organisers) but we haven't really = improved the standard of venue along the grounds listed above. We can't = even bring much better stability to the calendar. Worse still, the tour = has definitely had a negative impact on other tournaments because they = have struggled to get a full entry - several have been cancelled over = the last couple of years. I am sure (I hope) that all the people who work really hard to get the = tour and other tournaments running understand that I am NOT in any way = critisising them. But I do think we need to look again at what we are = doing. I believe strongly in the tour (I would do) - but I do think we = should take stock this season and look at how we can improve things for = 2001. I don't want to start on details now, but I would love to see and = hear people start to talk about how to solve some of these things. I = already have strong ideas about what we need to do - but I bet there are = lots of others. *Conclusion. We need to understand if the exact, current format of the = tour is healthy overall. NB - I want to keep the tour - I just think it = needs an overhaul.* One final point (and the main reason for my mail): The majority of ultimate players want "good things" to happen to = ultimate: some more players, higher standards, more opportunities for = casual players, better organisation, some TV?, ... Many people also put in lots of work to forward this cause on several = fronts. =20 I strongly believe that the best means of moving our sport forwards is = to ensure that we get the competition structure right. =20 After all, the reason we all play, is to play (I also like arguing, but = would suggest that this is in fact part of the game and is part of = "playing" :) End of monologue. Sorry it was so long. Si (I have a team - but I don't know its name.) ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BF8169.FD5C5860 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jaimie asked "what is the = tour?".</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Chris H has replied with quick = summary. But=20 (probably wanting to keep the email short) focused on the "rules" and = the bit=20 about teams of level ability playing each other most often.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There actually were several major = motivating=20 factors behind the tour from my point of view - the one mentioned above = is one=20 of the main ones (an advantage for all levels of team, not just the top = ones, in=20 my opinion).</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'd like to mention two others here and = add some=20 comments as I think its important that we think about them.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1. The tourney schedules were set up so = that top=20 teams would frequently get to play games to 21 over 2 hrs. Games = of this=20 length had not been common in UK tourneys for some time (if=20 ever? Toby? Sammy?) before we used the tour to make it=20 happen. This aim has definitely been successfully met - at least = top=20 players are used to playing long games. Whether this helped anyone = to do=20 better at Worlds or not its rather difficult to say. From Catch's = point of=20 view it definitely made a difference in Vancouver (97).</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>However - at the last Worlds (99), = games were=20 shorter - first to 15 (I can't remember the time cap - but it was about = 90=20 mins). I know I've mentioned this before, but the BUF (or whatever = we are=20 called these days) should seek clarification from WFDF about its = intentions re=20 game lengths. I would say that the GB teams need to know = NOW. =20 Furthermore, we need to know in order to plan our domestic = tourneys. =20 If ultimate is a game played to 15, then thats what it should be, and we = should=20 adjust (as quickly as possible) to this within the major UK = tourneys. =20 </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm in favour of this shortening of = games - but it=20 should be in the rules of ultimate. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Any WFDF committee people still = reading? =20 Charlie? Thomas? Toby? I don't really know if you guys are still = on that=20 thing - but if you are - whats the score? We all need to know the = rules of=20 ultimate - how long are games?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If we found out in time we might be = able to do=20 something about this for 2000.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>*Conclusion. We need to think = about the game=20 lengths at the Tour.*</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2. The aim of the tour was to bring = stability to=20 the ultimate calendar and improve the quality of tourney-venues - at = least for=20 the top tournaments. We hoped to be able to stage large events - = 32 teams=20 - and still guarantee hot showers, sensible food, continuous updating of = results=20 in central area, improved publicity, easier access for non-ultimate = types,=20 better medical, physio, first-aid provision, and many other=20 things...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>On this front, we have largely = failed. We do=20 stage large tourneys (my hat comes off to the hard working organisers) = but we=20 haven't really improved the standard of venue along the grounds listed=20 above. We can't even bring much better stability to the = calendar. =20 Worse still, the tour has definitely had a negative impact on other = tournaments=20 because they have struggled to get a full entry - several have been = cancelled=20 over the last couple of years.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am sure (I hope) that all the people = who work=20 really hard to get the tour and other tournaments running understand = that I am=20 NOT in any way critisising them. But I do think we need to look = again at=20 what we are doing. I believe strongly in the tour (I would do) - = but I do=20 think we should take stock this season and look at how we can improve = things for=20 2001. I don't want to start on details now, but I would love to = see and=20 hear people start to talk about how to solve some of these things. = I=20 already have strong ideas about what we need to do - but I bet there are = lots of=20 others.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>*Conclusion. We need to = understand if the=20 exact, current format of the tour is healthy overall. NB - I want = to keep=20 the tour - I just think it needs an overhaul.*</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>One final point (and the main reason = for my=20 mail):</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The majority of ultimate players want = "good things"=20 to happen to ultimate: some more players, higher standards, more = opportunities=20 for casual players, better organisation, some TV?, ...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Many people also put in lots of work to = forward=20 this cause on several fronts. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I strongly believe that the best means = of moving=20 our sport forwards is to ensure that we get the competition structure=20 right. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>After all, the reason we all play, is = to play (I=20 also like arguing, but would suggest that this is in fact part of the = game and=20 is part of "playing" :)</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>End of monologue. Sorry it was so = long.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Si</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(I have a team - but I don't know its=20 name.)</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BF8169.FD5C5860--