From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Wed Apr 10 23:33:24 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 g3AMXNd22039
	for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:33:23 +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 g3AMWZ711137;
	Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:32:35 +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 g3AMOxQR021880
	for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:25:00 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g3AMOxnA021879
	for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:24:59 +0100 (BST)
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 g3AMOwQR021874
	for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:24:58 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f136.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.136])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3AMOvt09613
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:24:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:24:51 -0700
Received: from 195.147.228.250 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:24:51 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [195.147.228.250]
From: "ed shardlow" <edshardlow@hotmail.com>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: splitting the tour
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:24:51 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F1363BPzAGcrUsAuwsd00007cb6@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2002 22:24:51.0556 (UTC) FILETIME=[88341240:01C1E0DE]
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Hello everyone,

The suggestion that I can see least arguments against is splitting tour 1 
regionally, presumably north/south. the benefits to this as I see them are:

1. The open format of tour 1 means it can be split 50:50 without worrying 
about how to decide on a seeding system;

2. Top 16 teams - hence "commited/organised" players would be playing in 
both, so someone would be able to run the thing;

3. Tour 1 is always the most heavily subscribed, so is in most need of 
splitting.


the only potential problem is getting an even split in terms of both number 
and quality of teams so that they can be effectively seeded for subsequent 
tours. which could possibly be solved by making Clapham 1 play up north.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx