From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed Sep 12 15:31:30 2001 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8CEO4p26701 for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:24:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8CEO1826691 for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:24:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.london-2.starlabs.net (mail.london-2.starlabs.net [212.125.75.4]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f8CENu207634 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:23:59 +0100 (BST) X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 6906 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2001 14:20:41 -0000 Received: from mail.oyster.co.uk (HELO aurora.oyster.co.uk) (193.132.201.148) by server-29.tower-1.london-2.starlabs.net with SMTP; 12 Sep 2001 14:20:41 -0000 Received: by AURORA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <SSMF91WP>; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:21:44 +0100 Message-ID: <7165D5A55FC4D41184DB00D0B7B9E62D036D59FF@AURORA> From: Roger Thomson <Roger.Thomson@oyster.com> To: "'crispy@fatso.co.uk'" <crispy@fatso.co.uk>, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: Final Tour Rankings and Nationals Seedings Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:21:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk >So if Clapham 2 dropped out then why did Clapham 1 get seeded 1st for tour 4? And should we penalise LeedsLeedsLeeds more points for getting more of the seedings wrong? ;-) Seriously now, I assume common sense dictated that aspect of the seeding. Clapham 2 finished above Clapham 1 at Southampton for 2 reasons: we'd paid some attention to the teams Aram had picked (and err, the rather stacked Clapham 2 which he himself was playing on), we'd murmured to him but hadn't pushed our point; and secondly Clapham 1 was weakened on the day by injuries to two or three of the better players. In retrospect the Tour rules probably need some kind of amendment to cope with that kind of freak occurrence (along the lines of 'if geo teams have two teams the first team always takes the seeding of the higher placed team in the previous event'), but common sense was an adequate substitute in this case. You're right though that Tour rules appear to have been broken. Noone said anything as at the time it seemed the eminently sensible thing to do. In any case, we were completely passive subjects of the seeding and I hope it's not us who gets caned with more penalty points! lol rt -----Original Message----- From: crispy@fatso.co.uk [mailto:crispy@fatso.co.uk] Sent: 12 September 2001 13:52 To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: Final Tour Rankings and Nationals Seedings I think what Jamie meant was that the results for tour 3 were Clapham 2 Druids Chevy Clapham 1 So if Clapham 2 dropped out then why did Clapham 1 get seeded 1st for tour 4? Crispy OW!, Teamshark -----Original Message----- >From : Jakob Donkersloot <jakob.donkersloot@co-activ.com> To : britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Date : 12 September 2001 13:20:36 Subject : RE: Final Tour Rankings and Nationals Seedings how the hell did you work that out ? > >(going by Chris' list) >Clapham 1 after 3 events : 710 points >Clapham 2 : 702 >Chevvy : 644 >Fusion 1 : 596 >Druids : 592 >Team Shark : 585 >LLL : 575 >Red : 530 >S & G : 460 > >take away Clapham 2 and what do you get? > >Hedge. >(YBK,NR,etc...) > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jaimie Cross [mailto:adrenochrome_donor@hotmail.com] >Sent: 12 September 2001 04:54 >To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; u8c@yahoogroups.com; buf@listbot.co.uk >Subject: Re: Final Tour Rankings and Nationals Seedings > > >If it was indeed Clapham 2 who withdrew from Tour 4, then it wasn't just LLL > >who were wrongly seeded!! Clapham 1 should have been seeded 3rd, Chevy 2nd, >and Druids 1st. > >Jaimie >LLL > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > Get a fun email address at http://another.com COOL: Personalise a t-shirt with your name/email/slogan from 9.99 pounds. CLICK HERE http://another-shop.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Internet communications are not secure and therefore Oyster Partners Ltd does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Oyster Partners Ltd.