From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Mar 26 11:28:16 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 g2QBSFR04142 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:28:15 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 g2QBMhn07120; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:22:44 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 g2QBIC0K012226 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:18:13 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2QBICxF012225 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:18:12 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 g2QBIB0K012220 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:18:12 GMT Received: from hotmail.com (f184.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.23.184]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2QBIBv24851 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:18:11 GMT Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:18:05 -0800 Received: from 213.120.90.59 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:18:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.120.90.59] From: "Christian Nistri" <wigsy22@hotmail.com> To: funky_like_a_train@hotmail.com, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: shaftin' and other difficulties Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:18:03 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F184EoHin7kQOgZSEos0001055f@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2002 11:18:05.0106 (UTC) FILETIME=[E64E0120:01C1D4B7] Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk If i understood correctly one of the benefits of the two-tier system would be that we can use smaller venues as we would only need to arrange facilities for 16(?) teams at a time - there wouldn't be much point in dividing the tour and then asking everyone to go along to the same venue anyway. Personally I think the idea is great. However i hope that Nationals remains the same, as one big knock-out competition, where we get as many players from around the country as possible. If this means holding it in the same central location every year so be it. Finally, and this probably isn't relevant for many outside the top 8, from what i have understood from the WFDF tournament cycle we have Europeans (Nations) in 2003 and Worlds (Nations) in 2004. This gives us a really good chance to focus on (geo)club ultimate in this country over the next 2 years and maybe try out new formats for the tournies during the year. Players needn't worry about playing a big summer tournament with the best club they can and so can hopefully help develop talent closer to home. wigsy >From: "Jon Good" <funky_like_a_train@hotmail.com> >To: wayne@fluiddruids.com, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk >Subject: Re: shaftin' and other difficulties >Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:22:17 +0000 > >>> (4) It means that people coming through don't get to see top >>> >>flight ultimate. Which is not good as it means people don;t come away >>> >>from tournaments having had the ability to watch top teams play and >>> >>learn from them, so the rate of learning slows. > >>Yeah, and my propositions above lessen the interaction between the 'top >>flight' teams and the others. I'm not so keen on that. > >As a simple solution: you could start each league event with a giant >crossover (top of div 1 plays bottom of div 2, 2nd in div 1 plays >penultimate in div 2, etc.) This may be tedious for the top teams but it's >only 1 game. Apart from giving less experience teams/players a chance to >play more experienced people, it also gives scope for a lower seeded team >to >play a whole event in the top division if they play hard against a better >team and win their cross over. If the 'better' teams are really better then >the upset winners of the cross over should get relagated at the end of the >same tournament, but have a wealth of experience they would otherwise have >been deprived. > >I'm not saying this is what should be, but it's one solution. > >Jon Good - BAF, Flatball, MBB > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com