From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Jun 26 16:49:16 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5QFluY24959 for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:47:56 +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 e5QFlsw24953 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:47:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from server-2.tower-1.london-2.starlabs.net (mail.london-2.starlabs.net [212.125.75.4]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e5QFlsR12981 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:47:54 +0100 (BST) X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 18908 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 15:17:45 -0000 Received: from baby.kbw.co.uk (193.133.242.50) by server-2.tower-1.london-2.starlabs.net with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 15:17:45 -0000 Received: by baby.kbw.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <MSQ29A6M>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:20:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1DBF2E3701DFD211A65300902728A91B0104B1E7@baby.kbw.co.uk> From: Roger Thomson <roger.thomson@oyster.co.uk> To: "'britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk'" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: RE: TOUR 4 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:20:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Before anyone else says it: Satisfying though it was to beat Catch 22's sorry little arses yesterday, Doughboy's victory apparently means that it is now likely that Catch will not finish in the top 8 of the Tour, and thus wouldn't be able to make the top 8 at Nationals if they are based on the Tour results as everyone seems to expect. I guess before we play Tour 4 everyone should therefore know EXACTLY what is going to be done about them with respect to Nationals so that they can calculate which games are the most important at Tour 4. There have been rumours that Catch will be placed in the lower division at Nationals and play for positions 9 to 16 -> but is that something that we think is sensible or fair given that the blame for Towcester lies somewhere between the BUF for not checking and the rest of us for not running enough events? The Ultim-8 rules do not state explicitly on what basis Nationals should be seeded. Paragraph 1 B states: BUF National Finals In order to calculate which teams qualify for National Finals every result from each of the four tournaments is counted. Teams will not be allowed to discard their worst result. The top 16 teams from the tour ranking list qualify for National Finals. Nationals has two separate divisions of eight teams, plus an extra event for teams that do not qualify. So while it says that the Tour is the basis for picking the teams it does not state that the Tour will be used for seeding it. This wasn't an issue last year because there we no dodgy pitch tournaments and you could discard your worst result anyway - so it gave a good reflection of actual seedings. This year it would be a travesty of common sense for us to continue as we (potentially) are and exclude a team who are undoubtedly the fourth best team in the country. Should we rethink the basis on which seeding is done for Nationals? Should we change the 2 pools of 8 nature of Nationals? Whatever we decide it should be done before Tour 4 so that the teams placed 7->11 know which games they have to win to get into the Top 8 at Nationals. There would be nothing worse that finishing 6th at Tour 4, being placed 8th in the Tour, but then being pushed into the 9->16 bracket for Nationals because Catch have been reseeded just before Nationals - something which could happen to about 3 teams. So Chris, in your capacity as DoC, what's the story? Cheers all you frisbee flingers, PieBoy, DOUGHBOY's largest loaf