From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu Mar 21 15:11:35 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 g2LFBYR23631 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:11:35 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 g2LFA4n03195; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:10:04 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 g2LF740K001482 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:07:04 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2LF749P001481 for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:07:04 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 g2LF740K001476 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:07:04 GMT Received: from mancer.protocol.co.uk (mancer.protocol.co.uk [212.59.97.14]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g2LF73v06572 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:07:03 GMT Received: (qmail 6975 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2002 15:02:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO systems-dc.protocol.co.uk) (212.59.96.14) by mancer.protocol.co.uk with SMTP; 21 Mar 2002 15:02:42 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: No. of teams from each region. Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:05:44 -0000 Message-ID: <3A75FB00F048F449BA978E1A1525E649243A83@systems-dc> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Shafted Thread-Index: AcHQ3snFY6+sUnHyQ3CWvQTL7nRpZQAAUwEg From: "Tom Styles" <tstyles@protocol-systems.co.uk> To: "Bess S" <bess0@hotmail.com> Cc: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk id g2LF740K001477 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk >Admittedly I may feel differently if I lived in the >Midlands... Not entirely, We chose to qualify in the Midlands (Nottingham) as it was more convenient, fully expecting to find a quite tough regional competition. On hearing the news that BAF were going to Weston, and Space Monkeys and MHB were going to Sheffield we thought we might even qualify. Unfortunately we underestimated our ability to lob the disc at the floor. And while I try not to take anything away from the other Nottingham qualifiers. I think they will agree that it might have been tougher to qualify from some of the other regions. Form changes from year to year and it's totally unfair to say that one region is crap at ultimate so we'll only have 2 teams from there. Also deciding how many qualify from each region based on the quality of the teams playing there, is wide open to abuse. Teams change from tournament to tournament too e.g. BAF seeded 4 at Warwick based on performance at previous tournaments where a full squad wasn't able to attend. Bears 1 seeded 5 in Birmingham, when it was mainly beginners. If Jon's algorithm feels like tracking the composition of every team in every competition, and working out from that each players impact on the team and therefore who has the strongest team, then we don't even need nationals next year we can just read the result off the sheet. ;-) If there was to be a different number of teams qualify from each region the only fair way to do it would be based on the size of the qualifying competition. e.g. Region with 32 team qualifying competition gets more spots than region with 16 team qualifying competition. Lastly I think if I was organising the tournament and with 2 days to go I had a cheque in my hand from a seventh placed team and only a promise from a sixth placed team despite giving everyone involved at least a weeks notice I would have taken Sublime's cheque. Tournaments are damn hard to organise, we should be grateful we have so many tournaments to go to. And help UKU and our TD's to make good decisions not have a pop when things don't go quite the way they should. Ideally teams who can't make it to nationals should not attend qualifiers. That way most of these problems would go away. Congrats to Sharks. See you all Schmoutdoors. Tom Block Stack and Two Smoking Hammers tom@block-stack.co.uk www.block-stack.co.uk Its interesting that there's so many teams wanting to play in indoor nationals that we need to have FIVE qualifying competitions, I wonder if the same will happen outdoors :-) -----Original Message----- From: Bess S [mailto:bess0@hotmail.com] Sent: 21 March 2002 13:36 To: prw102@york.ac.uk Cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Shafted How do you propose assessing recent performance - it is unfair to use tournaments south of the border as frequently the better Scottish players are unable to attend. The only way it can be done is to use tournaments which all the teams in question will be at but this is never going to happen. Recent performance assessment can only ever apply to non student teams as the influx of new talent occurs every year and in some cases each semester. It seems to me that the present situation seems to be the most logical especially as there is free entry to any of the regional qualifiers. Admittedly I may feel differently if I lived in the Midlands... Bess Postivie Mojo (kind of) _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com