From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed May 1 12:49:27 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 g41BnQI18658 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:49:26 +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 g41BeE726181; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:40:14 +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 g41BaWQR016859 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:36:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g41BaWNB016858 for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:36:32 +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 g41BaVQR016853 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:36:31 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.atm.ox.ac.uk (mail.atm.ox.ac.uk [163.1.242.1]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g41BaUt06043 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:36:31 +0100 (BST) Received: from tashtego.atm.ox.ac.uk (tashtego.atm.ox.ac.uk [163.1.242.206]) by mail.atm.ox.ac.uk (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id g41BaU401953 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:36:30 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (booth@localhost) by tashtego.atm.ox.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.8.2) with ESMTP id g41BaU901617 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:36:30 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: tashtego.atm.ox.ac.uk: booth owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:36:29 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Booth <booth@atm.ox.ac.uk> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Crossovers. Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205011220330.31383-100000@tashtego.atm.ox.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk The schedule for the weekend didn't include a crossover after the first pool. There is always a pressure between time in the schedule on one hand and the need to make sure overly strong or weak pools don't dominate the final standings. I personal think there should be a cross over in the Tours, but I would be interested to get a feel from Britdisc. Basically, I think that the scheduals should always consider a cross over after the first pool when scheduals are drawn up. This means that overly weak or strong pools don't end up placing their teams too high or too low in the second day. This is partically important on the first event in a new season as positions rarely go to seeding. Hokey from our pool, the scores on the doors as it were... 2 seed > 1. Ea... Grazed & Confused - WINNERS 8 seed > 3. Cyrille 13 seed > 11. Yorkie Bar Kids 11 seed > 12. Zoo 18 seed > 18. Martha and the Mootones Felt that we had a partically tough pool (though would certainly accept that the standard of the overall event was very high (with respect to the previous year)). having worked very hard in our games with ybk and zoo we were dumped into the bottom 4. Having a crossover ensures that there are teams in the next 8 who shouldn't be in the bottom 8 and vis versa. I'm not saying that we would have necessarily won that cross over but that is what it is there for. I would have felt stronger about putting this case if we had rumbled red in the bottom 4 as well, but it wasn't to be. End of the day - t'was a small thing set against a fantastic tournament. I really enjoyed it. What do people think about, time pressures/dangers of 'one game wonders' vs equaty between pools? cheers ben martha and the mootones