From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Fri Apr 26 00:11:50 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 g3PNBnd26416
	for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:11:49 +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 g3PN6K723233;
	Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:06:20 +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 g3PMuZQR013606
	for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:56:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g3PMuYxm013605
	for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:56:34 +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 g3PMuVQR013600
	for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:56:32 +0100 (BST)
Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3PMuVt00095
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:56:31 +0100 (BST)
Received: from phidelta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.248.177])
	by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 170sA8-000HcT-0B
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:56:29 +0000
Message-ID: <ALOdsBAoPIy8Ew4c@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:32:08 +0100
To: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
From: Wayne Retter <druid#6@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: Wayne Retter <wayne@fluiddruids.com>
Subject: Questions about Nationals, from the TD
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S <pjZRgFWDsQK5ViyP$l4rxVrb6a>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk


So, it seems early, but I want to have this all completely sorted BEFORE
I go to Hawaii, so:

The UK Ultimate Tour 2002 Rules say:

>1.     B. UK Ultimate National Finals
> 
>       1. The format for 2002 Nationals is based on a simple knockout
>       system. This gives an equal chance for any qualifying teams to
> win the tournament. 

and 

>       4. Nationals format will be based on (at least) a sixteen team
>       basic knockout format (i.e. no pools), seeded according to the
>       tour finishing positions. The tournament will try and be 
>       expanded to 32 teams should a venue big enough and demand allow
>       it but this cannot be guaranteed.

How set in stone are these rules?

The venue is likely able to provide 16 pitches.

Whilst this makes somewhat simple scheduling for a 32 teams, especially
in a knockout format, field availability gives scope for more teams to
play.

However, more than 32 teams doesn't make for a particularly sensible
knockout format.

I guess that somewhere between 16 and 32 teams would result in a 16 team
knockout, and a Division 2 for the rest? Or do top teams get byes in a
32-knockout format?


Wayne Retter
UKU Nationals TD
 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Retter