From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue May 23 12:23:10 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4NBL1e07400 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:21:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4NBKwp07393 for <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:20:58 +0100 (BST) Received: from mh-a03.dmz.another.com (vs-a01.funmail.co.uk [212.62.7.9]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e4NBKvV04172 for <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:20:57 +0100 (BST) Received: (qmail 20058 invoked from network); 23 May 2000 11:20:54 -0000 Received: from www-a20.backend.funmail.co.uk (HELO www-a20) (172.16.100.20) by mh-a03.backend.another.com with SMTP; 23 May 2000 11:20:54 -0000 Message-ID: <27828002.959080849586.JavaMail.root@smtp.backend.another.com> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:20:49 +0100 (GMT+01:00) From: bruce@pointblank.co.uk To: Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: Tour 2 - is the Tour too large? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="21040545.959080849440.JavaMail.root@www-a20" X-Funmail-UID: 268015 X-Senders-IP: unknown Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk --21040545.959080849440.JavaMail.root@www-a20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=646 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Given that the original stated aim of the Tour was to give close games to a= ll the teams involved, it appears to have failed this year. Whilst the top = teams may be getting more close games than in other tournaments, the teams = outside the top 8 get a lot of games where there is no doubt who is going t= o win, the only way to get worked up for these games is to aim for a bagel,= or aim not to get bageled, which is not particularly pleasant for either s= ide involved. The main problem here seems to be that there is a very notica= ble gap between the top 14 or so and the rest, a gap of 10 or more points i= n any given game. Given that we are currently managing Tour events with 30+ teams (just) it s= eems to me that organising the event into 2 distinct groups should be feasi= ble, but rather than having promotion and relegation based on final positio= n in each catagory, the last 2-4 in the 'A' Tour play one extra game at the= end against the top 4-2 in the 'B' Tour, with victory meaning promotion fo= r the 'B' side. This should (could) mean avoiding the issue of teams bounci= ng up and down between A and B because the gap is too large, and would impr= ove the overall quality of games for the teams outside the top 8. Just some thoughts Bruce Point Blank PS. I agree with Balti...decision regarding points allocation please? -----Original Message----- >From : Chris Hughes <cjhughes@talk21.com> To : =93'Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk'=93 <Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; =93'E= agles, Colin L'=93 <colin.eagles@kpmg.co.uk> Date : 22 May 2000 22:34:39 Subject : RE: Tour 2 - is the Tour too large? At this stage can I refer people to the article that was published in Ultim= ate this time last year. It was distributed at Edinburgh. It was intended t= o try and make people think about the options open to the tour. Hopefully p= eople will think again about what is trying to be achieved with the tour. R= emember that T1 this year had 33 teams. It is not unthinkable to realise th= at we could well have a 36 team tournament at some stage during the year. > >Chris >DoC > >Extract from Ultimatum article (May 1999); >However, when I took on the job last summer it was recognised that the tou= r needed some revamping to enable it to continue, the tour is effectively g= etting too large. The changes made this year was minor, but I put a serious= constraint on prospective tournament organisers in insisting that each eve= nt was able to cope with 32 teams, and thereby have a minimum of 10 pitches= . There aren't many venues that can cope with about 400 people, which is wh= at I estimate to be the attendance at an average tour tournament, thereby l= imiting the number of locations for tour events. (If any one knows of a ten= + pitch venue this is your cue to speak up..) The largest event last year w= as tour II with 28 teams, with the rest attracting 24 teams each, both tour= I & II (so far) have had a minimum of 30 teams, and that trend is expected= to continue for the rest of the year. This expansion has pushed the tour t= o its feasible limit, in terms of venue size, schedule, and accommodation r= equirements for! > each event. > >As if that wasn't a problem enough, the tour is swamping the season. This = year the tour events are every 3 - 4 weeks. This limits the possibilities f= or teams, inc. the representative teams, to have practices on a regular bas= is, players to have a weekend for families, non-playing girlfriends, life? = What about the so called 'small' tournaments? These are slowly getting sque= ezed out, or left in that barren period over the summer, when half the play= ers have gone off for a number of weeks for that years major championship, = holidays, or because the universities have broken up. Not only that but the= tour is now seen by many as the premier event in the country, above Nation= als. So what are the options; continuing to expand as tour is presently doi= ng is not one that is realistically open to us. > >The initial response is to simply cut down the tour size; the initial obje= ctive of the tour was to provide the elite (-ish) teams with suitable compe= tition to improve their games, and play games that are comparable to the ga= mes encountered at Worlds, and hopefully counteract the poor British showin= g at these events. So trimming it down to 12 or 16 teams seems the logical = response. Yet it is obvious that the performance of the lower ranked teams = have improved with the competition against comparable teams in their groups= . So this approached has benefited many, and excluding them from the set-up= is not an option - the BUF has to work for all teams, not just the top few= . > >Another option is to establish a B-Tour; and after tour I, split the tour = into two events running simultaneously with promotion and relegation of som= e sort between the two events. This allows the tour to expand, as finding t= wo venues on the same or adjacent weekends with six pitches each is easier = than finding a venue with twelve (finding the TD's is a different matter). = However players like meeting their friends; what about clubs with two teams= split between the two divisions; and what about couples playing on teams i= n different divisions. A lot of people play ultimate for the social side. H= owever it may be possible, if a venue is big enough to host both the A- and= B-tour at the same venue, but that is dependant on the size of the events.= People then suggest that the 'small' tournaments could host the B-tour eve= nts, but this then puts restrictions on these events, that the organisers m= ay not want. > >More options include making the 'small' tournaments qualifying events, for= those teams not already in the tour, whilst allowing the top teams to ente= r as well. This leads to problems in scheduling, teams fighting for entry, = and again restrictions on the tournament organisers and formats. I believe = that people want to be able to enter a tournament, play different teams, en= joy themselves without constantly pressurised by issues of qualification. > >This may be alleviated by reducing the number of tour events to four or ev= en three, thereby producing more time in the year for these satellite event= s, without encroaching on already existing tournaments, and providing enoug= h events for teams to attend through out the year. Also by changing the sha= pe and size of the tour, this would encourage Women's teams to commit to th= e tour, allowing for a Women's event building to Women's Nationals. > > >---------- >From: =09Eagles, Colin L[SMTP:colin.eagles@kpmg.co.uk] >Sent: =0922 May 2000 20:21 >To: =09'Britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk' >Subject: =09Re: Tour 2 - is the Tour too large? > >Is it the case that there are just not enough suitable venues for events t= he >size of the Tour events of the past couple of seasons? > >As Chris noted, he had just four bids for Tour events this year. Whilst I >know of a number of venues in the Milton Keynes/ Northampton area which >could provide 6-8 pitches of real quality, any more is very unlikely. > >I'm sure the number of bids is something of a reflection of the situation = up >and down the country. > >If we wish to maintain the quality of pitches, perhaps it is time to reduc= e >the size of these events. > >At the same time, I'm sure there would be greater support for non-Tour >events. To that end, I hope that the coed events in the summer are a real >success. > >There have been fewer non-Tour events over the last couple of years, as a >lot of players' disposable time and money has been taken up to attend the >Tour and make it the success it has become. > >To a lesser extent, both with more open teams, and the last year or two of >regional student leagues, the Tour has clashed with exams etc. somewhat >restricting the student teams. Perhaps there could be more smaller, almost >regional events that took this into consideration. > >Given that the issue of safe playing surfaces has to be a priority, is the >way to solve the problem? > >I guess there are a number of other issues that would have to be addressed >if this were to happen, such as how to decide who goes to each tournament, >but I imagine that if we can make sure of high quality surfaces at all >events, then it will solve the issue of teams not wanting to play. I agree >with Hannah that the pitches caused concern for many more of the teams >besides Catch. > > >I would like to thank Nancy, Ian and everyone involved in the organisation >of Tour 2 for the quality and smooth running of every other aspect of the >event. See you all at Tour 3. > >Slasher >Point Blank >=09=09Email Disclaimer > >The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privilege= d. >It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone e= lse=20 >is unauthorised. >If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributi= on=20 >or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibite= d >and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice >contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed = in=20 >the governing KPMG client engagement letter. > > Your email address says a lot about you. Express yourself @ another.com http://another.com/jump.jsp?destDesc=3Danother.com/login.jsp?sig=3D393 --21040545.959080849440.JavaMail.root@www-a20--