From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Fri Sep 22 00:04:55 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e8LN1YW25046 for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:01:34 +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 e8LN1WS25038 for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:01:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e8LN1VY26324 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:01:31 +0100 (BST) Received: from phidelta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.248.177]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13cFKx-00012P-0A; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:01:19 +0000 Message-ID: <JKePsJAqEpy5EwdT@phidelta.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:52:26 +0100 To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Cc: Fluid Druids <fluiddruids@egroups.com> From: Wayne Retter <druid#6@phidelta.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: 2000 BUF AGM items: changing Tour and Nationals References: <001d01c020f7$a06ec9c0$70a592c3@ben> In-Reply-To: <001d01c020f7$a06ec9c0$70a592c3@ben> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S <pjZRgFWDsQK5ViyP$l4rxVrb6a> Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk By the complete silence on the matter, I wonder whether anybody read Ben's posting: British Ultimate Federation <mailto:buf@ultimateweb.co.uk>; Subject: 2000 BUF AGM >Motion: Modification of the Tour > >Motion: Change of Nationals Format > >PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE BUF TOUR AND NATIONALS STRUCTURE > >Full details of the proposed changes can be found at >http://www.ultimateweb.co.uk/buf/tour2001.htm >Please read them! Below is a brief summary........... Here's Chris Hughes' proposals for changing the Tour and Nationals for 2001. Circulate to your teammates; Read; Inwardly digest; Collate and take *well thought out* questions/comments to the BUF AGM; Be prepared to vote on this, or any alternatives. If you have a *well thought out* alternative, let everybody (especially Ben, the BUF Secretary), know NOW!!! Note: teams not attending Nationals can vote by proxy, if they let Ben know NOW!!! [I'll try to bring a quantity of hardcopy versions to distribute at Nationals captain's meeting this w/e, but I reckon it's probably worth your while to print it out for your own perusal in the meantime.] Wayne Proposal for the tour future This year has shown the flaws that the tour structure generates in trying to organise the events. The number of teams entering the tour is increasing every year, which makes the pressure to find venues that can cope with enough pitches even more difficult. Swindon needs vast advance warning to book, Towcester shows what can happen when organisers are forced to be the ground breakers in holding sporting events at venues not equipped for the job, and Leeds, for all their fantastic effort in organising on short notice, the venue suffered a number of pitches that were not up to the job. On top of this we have problems where for nationals we are struggling to find a venue that is big enough for the job. This is going to be complicated even further by the introduction in the next five years of FIFA's unified football season - the northern Hemisphere professionals are transferring to a summer season, although it is unsure that the amateurs will follow suit. This will mean even more direct competition for the limited number of venues already available. Whilst the tour is in a position to continue - the atmosphere after the problems this year is such that change will be encouraged. The plan that I am proposing is designed to do two things; 1. Maintain the standard of tournaments and competition at the highest level, without the exclusion or removal of those teams that have not made it to the top, or those players who compete for the sake of enjoyment. 2. Increase the quality of the venues by removing the need to source events that can provide for thirty-two teams or more The basic concept is to split the tour into an A-Tour and B-Tour, with a points scale that progresses down across the split. After a single event for T1, in which all teams can move freely, all subsequent events would be split, with promotion and relegation between events. The specific structure is of course flexible, although at this stage a top 12 / rest, split is the most sensible and feasible. Whilst most people would suggest a top 16 split, I feel that this is more stable because of a number of reasons. At this stage in British Ultimate there is a consistency of just over 12 higher standard teams, which by placing the split in the middle of will develop a level of competition as teams fight to maintain their position in the top division, and a top 12 format will provide teams with repeated competition against teams of a similar standard with a schedule of 2 pools for teams 1-8 and another for 9-12, followed by the traditional Sunday KO's for 1-4 and 5-12. The B-Tour events can be open to promote a more enjoyable experience for the teams enjoying for entertainment. Similarly when considering the viability of events, the focus needs to be on the B-Tour events. These are the events that will be less financially stable. Since the A-Tour event will always fill its quota as teams shuffle up the rankings to fill any gaps, the B-Tour event will be less certain of teams entering, and is also more likely to hosted by teams who are new to holding events, and will be assisted by the comfort of a more secure tournament attendance. On a similar front, the reduction of the A-Tour to 12 teams will mean that the venue only requires 6 pitches, while the increased cost of spreading the cost of facilities over fewer teams is more supportable since these teams are the teams that regularly attend with larger squads, allowing them to spread the cost. The issue of promotion and relegation will always cause concern. With only 12 teams I the A-Tour, there is no desire to move too many teams each event. At this stage I believe that 2 teams to be promoted, and similarly 2 teams to be relegated is a suitable compromise. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages; 1. To move one team ensures that the final of the B-Tour, and the 11th / 12th game in the A-Tour has meaning. It also ensure that teams are less likely to spend all tour bypassing each other as they are promoted and relegated simultaneously. However, this also means that it stifles the improvement of teams by limiting their movement into the top division. 2. To promote / relegate 2 teams allows teams to move up easier into the top division. However it also means that they are more likely to be relegated the event after, as they will have to finish at least 10th to maintain their position. Although it does mean a team can quickly return to the top levels. However it shifts the critical games to the semi- finals on Sunday for both events, leaving the only reward in the B-Tour being to win the event, whilst the 11th / 12th game becomes a pointless event. 3. To move 3 teams at this stage seems excessive, while it gives impetus to the 3rd / 4th playoff and the 9th / 10th games this implies that there are teams at present in 17th place that are able to compete in the 5-12 group. It also makes it much more likely that the same 6 teams will be in constant promotion or relegation through out the season. There are of course problems with this system, although I believe they are fewer than people believe, they are countered by the improvements it will hopefully bring.,and that it will improve the quality of venues. Advantages Tournament will not require the vast venues presently required with huge capacity for teams. These are few and far between, and difficult to book Teams will attend other events where these weaker teams may get to play the top teams, as well as see them. People have to accept that what is being done here is to promote for the premier BUF series the quality of play and not the social aspect of the sport. As for above there is always the possibility that venue will be big enough to host both events simultaneously. This occurs at present in the Tour. It will also occur at any point the split is imposed. Hopefully this system will encourage teams to improve and ensure they fight their way up and stay there. This can happen in any promotion system, and probably happens in the tour in its present form. However by choosing the right number of teams to promote this should become less likely. It will promote the relaxed atmosphere in tournament that those teams playing for enjoyment want. Not all teams want the stifling constrictions that are involved in the tour. Disadvantages More tournament directors required, with more suitable venues. However these venues will be smaller, and should be easier to find. Weaker teams will not get to see the stronger teams in action.. Couples who play on different teams will need to organise different transport, and will not get to see each other The split will disadvantage those teams just below the cut off level and force them to play an increased number of games below their standard. Teams of a similar standard may never play each other as they bypass each other in the promotion and relegation. Nationals In an attempt to keep the identity of nationals as a separate event to the tour, there is room to change the format of Nationals. Although I have football analogies in ultimate, if the tour can be related to the leagues, then Nationals can be considered to be the cups. The tour is about a team performing consistently over a period of time, while nationals is about producing the performance on the day when it matters. Hence this proposal includes converting nationals to a 16 team KO format. Using seedings generated from the tour the format would be a straight 16 team KO. Whilst this only produces 2 game per day, this would more closely recreate the conditions found in the major foreign events, where every game may affect the finishing position of the team by large number of positions. It also allows for flexibility in tour attendance by teams in allowing all teams from 16 upwards to qualify and win national championships. This would remove the problems caused by any teams non-attendance to the tour, for whatever reason, as demonstrated by Catch 22 this year. Chris ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Retter mobile: 07970-903420 w.retter@bigfoot.com office: 01737-273655