From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu Jun 29 13:10:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5TC8mP09982 for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:08:48 +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 e5TC8le09966 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:08:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from mh-a03.dmz.another.com (vs-a01.funmail.co.uk [212.62.7.9]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e5TC8fY25892 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:08:41 +0100 (BST) Received: (qmail 5223 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2000 12:08:40 -0000 Received: from www-a21.backend.another.com (HELO localhost) (172.16.100.21) by mh-a03.backend.another.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2000 12:08:40 -0000 Message-ID: <4748137.962280513223.JavaMail.root@smtp.backend.another.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:08:33 +0100 (GMT+01:00) From: bruce@pointblank.co.uk To: Britdisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Nationals Suggestion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="19404340.962280513209.JavaMail.root@localhost" X-Funmail-UID: 268015 X-Senders-IP: unknown Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk --19404340.962280513209.JavaMail.root@localhost Content-Type: text/plain; charset=646 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think you might find that Nightfever and ourselves would object a little = to THAT little comment. Seeing as PB were put out of the top 12 in Tours 1 = and 2 by Fusion, who finished 5th at Tour 3, and by BAF who had just droppe= d out of the top 8 at Tour 3 (and we were ironman), we feel that if we fina= lly get a good pool draw, we can break into the top 12, and I'm sure Nightf= ever feel the same way.=20 I made the point a while ago that there are 14 top 12 teams, a mathmatical = impossibility I know, but the point is that the top 12 is not a dividing li= ne between abilities, but in the draw, scheduling, and where the playoff li= nes are drawn. If we lose one game on the Saturday, 13 is the best we can d= o. That is the way it's worked out so far, and don't get me wrong I'm not b= itter about it or anything. We lump it.=20 Where we WOULD get bitter though is if suddenly you change the Nationals fo= rmat to top 12 and bottom 8. We'd only have a couple of decent matches all = weekend, and stand no chance of improving a position we've had little chanc= e to improve already. Bruce Point Blank -----Original Message----- >From : James Hewitson <james.hewitson@Zurich.co.uk> To : Britdisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Date : 29 June 2000 09:24:21 Subject : Nationals Suggestion BD, > >Just a suggestion about Nationals : > >It is clear that at the moment there are 4 dominant teams (UTI, DB, CAF & >C22 - DSM are clearly fast closing the gap though) and that the 8 teams >below these are currently a step ahead of those ranked 13 and below (Point >Blank, Nightfever, Skunks etc - none of whom have consistently finished in >the Top 12 of any of the 3 tours - N.B. Nightfever DID finish 12th at >Towcester in the absence of C22 but that's by-the-by). > >Is it possible to have 12 teams qualify for Division 1 (2x6, 3x4 or 4x3) a= t >Nationals and then the next 8 (2x4) qualify for Division 2 ? > >It should be easily possible to seed the event so that all 4 of the =93Top= =93 >teams can reach the semi's, avoid a pool of death with 3 of the 4 in it an= d >still retain the integrity of the tournament. > >Balti >BAF 34 > > > > Your email address says a lot about you. Express yourself @ another.com http://another.com/jump.jsp?destDesc=3Danother.com/login.jsp?sig=3D393 --19404340.962280513209.JavaMail.root@localhost--