From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Apr 8 19:35:28 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 g38IZRd12170 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:35:27 +0100 (BST) 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 g38IYf717842; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:34:41 +0100 (BST) 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 g38IUuQR028412 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:30:56 +0100 (BST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g38IUuuE028411 for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:30:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g38IUtQR028406 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:30:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe50.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.14.22]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g38IUt717480 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:30:55 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 11:30:49 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [213.130.129.6] From: "Kevin Lowe" <Kev_Lowe@hotmail.com> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> References: <80256B95.004C1143.00@birmingham.gov.uk> Subject: Re: The Tour/Relegation Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:29:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: <OE50yabYTHrdusluCBc00002161@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2002 18:30:49.0045 (UTC) FILETIME=[81637050:01C1DF2B] Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Time to enter the debate. I think I have been one of the most vocal opponents against splitting the Tour for the last four years at AGMs, and it has been raised many times. When the Tour was created, it was envisaged that it would grow at such a rate that a split would be inevitable. Having said that, prior to this year, we never actually had a 32 team tour tournament that had to turn a team away. There were a couple like Southampton that used to only accommodate 28 teams and the issue was whether we had enough venues like Exeter, Swindon, etc. that could handle 32 teams. The biggest issue I saw with splitting the tour was that the majority of TDs were playing for teams in the top 16, and there would be no guarantee that the second division would happen. The tour was designed to benefit all teams, but many felt it was elitist and focused too much on the top teams. Splitting the tour too early would (In my opinion) have been to the detriment of the lower teams and yet again, we would appear to be favouring the top teams. This year though, we have finally seen the growth we have been hoping for. With nearly 48 teams wishing to compete in the tour, we really don't want to be in the position of turning teams away to limit entry to just 32 teams. Fortunately, Bristol can accommodate this number, and Exeter can certainly mange 40. Given that so many student teams felt they couldn't enter Tour 2 because it was forced so close to student exam time (Tour 2 needed to be after Brugges and Rotterdam), I doubt that there will be a relegation issue just yet. I believe we have finally got to the time when we should consider splitting the tour (next year), but I would push for a smaller 'first division' made up of just 16 teams, and having a larger second division, possibly with less restrictions in terms of rostering / qualification for Nationals, and more of an emphasis on fun. There will still be many issues to resolve like relegation / promotion, tournaments running on the same weekend causing problems with lifts, increased costs, players in lower division seeing less 'top quality' ultimate, etc. but there are far more venues that can handle 16 / 24 / 32 teams compared to 40+. Personally I love organising larger tournaments so that entry costs can be reduced through economies of scale, but that's just me. I hope this helps to explain why the Tour hasn't been split before. It has certainly been talked about at length for a number of years, but only now do I believe that the conditions are right (Christ, I've become a politician). I reserve the right to completely contradict myself if we only get 24 teams entering Tour 2. Kevin.