From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue May 23 10:10:39 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4N98Y825641 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:08:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4N986p25370 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:08:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail5.svr.pol.co.uk (mail5.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.20]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4N982U28680 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:08:02 +0100 (BST) Received: from modem-38.seaborgium.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.73.38] helo=abel.digitalasylum.co.uk) by mail5.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 12uAfR-0006M0-00 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:08:01 +0100 Received: from MORPHEUS (morpheus.int.digitalasylum.co.uk [10.1.1.10]) by abel.digitalasylum.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA08962 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 10:08:48 +0100 From: "Ranulf Doswell" <ralf@digitalasylum.co.uk> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Tour 2 - is the Tour too large? Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:11:54 +0100 Message-ID: <EOEFKOFGHPHHBKNLGLDBEEJOCDAA.ralf@digitalasylum.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk I can't remember if/when this topic was discussed before - I have a vague recollection of a Swedish chap mentioning that it worked over there a couple of years ago (i.e. before the current tour system was introduced) - but, how about moving to a more ladder-based tour system, moving the emphasis from each tour's results to each game. As a very rough guess, you could have, say, pools of 4 or 6, each team of similiar ability. Within each pool, teams would be considered higher or lower by their point score. A team could then 'challenge' any other team within its pool, or the pool above and maybe sometimes the pool above that. I say 'challenge', because the most workable way of ensuring that games happen would be to have a tournament, where the TD decides who's going to challenge who, based on who's playing at that tournament and when each team last met. The teams points would be kept as an aggregate of each game played that year. Obviously, it should be in a teams interest to play as much as they can, so that if a team keeps not entering tournies, other teams will start overtaking their point score. This would also enable teams geographically close to each other to play outside the organised tournaments, opening the tournaments for more games played between non-geographically close teams. It would also allow for more smaller regional tournaments. A scoring system on each game played, such as: Winning Drawing Losing two pools above you 5 3 0 in the pool above you 4 2 0 in your pool 3 1 0 in the pool below you 1 0 -1 two pools below you 0 -1 -2 would give teams an oppurtunity to rise quickly up the board from a low position, if they had a strong team, whilst encouraging better teams to keep winning and turning up. On the other hand, there would be no winners as such, from individual tournaments, but maybe this will make the spirit prize more alluring to some... Just my two pence, (and you can tell I can't be bothered to actually do any work this morning!) Ralf -- Ranulf Doswell, Digital Asylum Limited Phone: 024 7663 2767 (intl +4424 7663 2767) Fax: 024 7663 4370 (intl +4424 7663 4370) Mobile: 07968 199 662 (intl +4479 6819 9662)