From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Mar 19 18:10:28 2002 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 g2JIAQR12265 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:10:26 GMT Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@agave [137.205.192.52]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2JI94n05406; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:09:04 GMT Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g2JI5m0K010678 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:05:48 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2JI5mfC010677 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:05:48 GMT Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g2JI5l0K010672 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:05:48 GMT Received: from oxmail.ox.ac.uk (oxmail3.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.180]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2JI5lv15563 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:05:47 GMT Received: from heraldgate2.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.50] helo=frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16nMY5-00019C-03 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:33:21 +0000 Received: from dhcp-1-55.new.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.145.55] helo=jsp) by frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1) id 16nMY5-0006um-00 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:33:21 +0000 From: "Jonathan Palmer" <jonathan.palmer@new.oxford.ac.uk> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Shafted Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:30:35 -0000 Message-ID: <00c201c1cf63$65928e60$379101a3@new.ox.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <F13o0cfshO2NSEwiGvT00012d78@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Britdisc, I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting that the number of slots should be allocated permanently on a per region basis. Clearly with the allowed choice of qualifiers that doesn't make much sense, but last year someone (chris Huges?) looked at the relative strengths of the team entered into the various qualifiers and allocated the slots accordingly. I don't understand why the same wasn't done this year. I've looked back at the various results from the indoor season and compiled the following list by region of teams entered at qualifiers who had make quarters or better earlier in the season (not including Great Barr Crawl which was played after qualifiers, apologies to any results I might have missed out) SW BAF - This season: 1 win, 2 Semis, 2 Quarters, last Nationals: 2nd SNOAP - This Season: 1 win TeamShark - This Season: 1 semi Last Nationals: half the team 3rd at nationals as Shrub Mythago - This Season: 1 Semi Sublime - This Season: 1 quarter Discult - This Season: 1 quarter Mr Men - This Season: 1 quarter London YoMama - This Season: 1 runners-up, 2 semis Last Nationals: 5th Angels - This Season: 1 quarters Last Season: 8th Hammerage - This Season: 1 runner-up Last Nationals: 6th Fever - This Season: 1 quarter Midlands MHB - This Season: 2 wins, 1 runner-up Last Nationals: 1st Space Monkeys: 1 win, 1 runner-up, 1 semi, 1 quarter OddJob - This Season: 1 quarter Yorkshire All stars: This Season: 1 runner-up North Bears - This Season: 1 semi, 1 quarter Whiplash - This Season: 1 quarter Skunks - This Season: 1 semi, 1 quarter Haze - This Season: 1 quarter Scotland None - It is clear that SW and Midlands were the strongest regions accounting for all winners and all but two of the final spots, while no Scottish entered at qualifiers had played a tournie. Had I been asked to allocate the slots I would have done so like this: 1st round - Slots for "Top Teams": SW - 3 (BAF, SNOAP, Sharks) L - 2 (YoMama, Hammerage) M - 3 (MHB, Space monkeys, All Stars) N - 1 (Bears/Skunks) S - 0 2nd round - Slots for "Depth": SW - 2 (4 other teams made quarters or better) L - 1 ( 2 other teams made quarters) M - 1 ( 1 team made quarters) N - 1 ( 3 other teams made quarters or better but no team made a final) S - 0 3rd round - allocate remaining 10 slots: SW - 2 L - 2 M - 2 N - 2 S - 2 Totals: SW - 7 L - 5 M - 6 N - 4 S - 2 I think is was wrong to say that the regions were mostly equal, and while I agree that it is unlikely that you would win nationals from outside the top four in your region, I don't think that before nationals many would have thought it likely that a 3rd placed team would actually win and certainly not that a 7th placed team could come 6th at nationals! (congrats sublime) Perhaps next year we could make a similar "strength" analysis of the various qualifiers and allocate the slots that way. Sorry for the long post, thanks for reading, Boston (TeamShark) -----Original Message----- From: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk [mailto:owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David Eastman Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:47 PM To: cormaccosgrove@yahoo.co.uk; britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Shafted Just to add to the confusion, teams are not, to my knowledge, restricted to qualifying in the region they 'belong' to. While I doubt many English teams will try their luck in Scotland next year, region cherry picking is still an issue. So fiddling about with qualification spots isn't a great idea at the moment. David Eastman, Hammerage PS. Well done to Lewis and co. on their storming performance. >From: cormac cosgrove <cormaccosgrove@yahoo.co.uk> >To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk >Subject: Re: Shafted >Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:56:06 +0000 (GMT) > >>in addition, if a particular region had two or three >barren years then where would you draw the line in >terms of reducing their qualification spots? it seems >a little unfair if a region ended up with 1 >qualification spot, or even 2. it also seems pretty >much against the spirit of the game. > >so basically, i think that it is quite a good set up >at the moment, and that the reduction of qualification >spots for the so called ' weaker' regions is not the >way forward as things tend to change from year to >year, and the method at the minute seems quite >flexible wnough to deal with the changes. > >cormac >STD Ultimate > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com