From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu Jun 29 15:19:44 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5TEJ4b15485 for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:19:04 +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 e5TEJ3e15476 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:19:03 +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 e5TEJ2Y19577 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:19:02 +0100 (BST) Received: (qmail 23182 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2000 14:19:01 -0000 Received: from www-a20.backend.another.com (HELO www-a20) (172.16.100.20) by mh-a03.backend.another.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2000 14:19:01 -0000 Message-ID: <21499564.962288334969.JavaMail.root@smtp.backend.another.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:18:54 +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="27324201.962288334953.JavaMail.root@www-a20" X-Funmail-UID: 268015 X-Senders-IP: unknown Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk --27324201.962288334953.JavaMail.root@www-a20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=646 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kev wrote, >I don't understand your reasoning. You would normally have to lose two gam= es on the Saturday to be out of the top 12, unless you keep on getting 3 wa= y ties. You're in a pool that is 9,11,14,16 or 10,12,13,15. That should be = three close games. If you're seeded 14 and you beat the 16th placed team, y= ou have two shots at making the top 12 - beat team 9 or team 11. > Actually for Tour 3 you are right, but we had Fusion (finished 5th) and BAF= (had just dropped out of the top 8). This was because Ro Sham Bo were seed= ed according to their tour 1 place and pushed better teams down (they finis= hed well below us) At tour 1 we were seeded outside the top 16 because we w= ere a new team, and at tour 2 the pool was 12,13, and 2 much lower teams, n= ot how you suggested. We were 13, Fusion were 12 after also being seeded lo= w at tour 1. As I said, we're not bothered, it all works out in the end.=20 >There has to be a dividing line at Nationals, or you >are back into the 'a= nyone can win' situation where so >much is based on the luck of the seeding= s, and more >games are needed. > >For the last couple of years, the dividing line has >been at 8. This has b= een very harsh on Headrush who >finished 9th. The difference between the te= ams based >6-11 are extremely close now, far closer than they >ever were.= =20 > The real point I was making was that given the tour differentiates between = the 5-12 and 12-20 in terms of Sunday playoff games, it would be extremly h= arsh to do that at Nationals, but with NO chance to cross over to the top 1= 2.=20 We beat Strange Blue this tour, and they finished top 12 in tours 1 and 2, = unfortunately, we lost to BAF and Fusion. I know you cannot avoid having po= ols of death, but we've had it twice now, combine that with a 19th seed(I t= hink) in tour 1 and if we split National top 12 bottom 8, we'd be really an= noyed, as we thought we knew what we were aiming for this season, and it wo= uld have been taken away from us mid season by an arbitary decision. Everyo= ne is going on about =93Standardising the rules throughout the tour=93. Don= 't change Nationals mid year then. Fine, do it next year, then everyone knows from day one what they have to d= o. >If the line is now set at 12, you and Fever know >exactly what you must ac= hieve to make Division 1 at >Nationals. There's probably only one place to = play >for, but that was the purpose of making the tour >qualification for N= ationals - making it competitive. > This is where I disagree most. There isn't a place to play for. That's my p= oint. There are about 4 teams to fill the 11th and 12th spots. And it comes= down to pools. If you want a suggestion for Nationals, then split the other way, top 4, bo= ttom 12. I really don't see anyone (Sorry DSM) beating one of the top four = at nationals, so why bother letting anyone try. They can all play each othe= r twice, and have semis and final based on that. Everyone else can play for the rest of the places in whatever manner works = (I'm not up on tourney scheduling) That way the 5th placed team is the one = who =93misses out=93, but to be fair, they are the ones who have the least = chance of achieving a step up. That's all folks. Bruce Point Blank Be whoever you want to be with another.com Just click here: http://another.com/jump.jsp?destDesc=3Danother.com/login.j= sp?sig=3D390 --27324201.962288334953.JavaMail.root@www-a20--