I don't know if every body got this mail yesterday, but I didn't and I have
just found it on the Britdisc archive. It puts the point across very nicely -
very similar to Milky's below, but slightly more accurate. ;-)
I thought I would resend it just in case.
*********************************************************************
I have to disagree with this point (Harvey's email saying that Leeds justified
themselves in the end). The argument that many people were
making over the weekend is that Leeds put themselves in a position that made
it, in theory, easier to move up to the semi-finals.
All respect to the other teams, Leeds placed themselves in a pool that read:
Druids, Leeds, TeamShark, Fusion
Had they simply moved everyone up, they _would_ have been in a pool that
looked like this:
Clapham, Chevy, Fusion, Leeds
Considering Clapham and Chevy made the final (and are the overall points
leaders), you can argue that this pool would have been much harder to crack
the top 2 spots.
Also, the crossover teams (9-12) were storming this weekend, with 3
crossovers happening (Smash&Grab, Whey, Head Rush all cracking the top 8).
Concievably Leeds would have had to play in a cross over if they did not
make the top 2 in their pool. We can only guess about the result, but a
semi final placement sure does earn you more points than a 9-12 slot.
At the end of the day does it matter? Perhaps. The tour goes on points
based on final placement at each tour event. I haven't been looking at the
numbers or points, but if its close on points between Leeds, Fusion,
TeamShark, Red, Druids, or anyone else gunning for Worlds, then there may be
reasonable justification for complaint.
Then there are smaller points, like the fact that BAF had to play a 8v9
crossover (which they narrowly lost), rather than a 7v10 - or TeamShark and
Fusion would have had to play different crossover teams.
All in all, the seeding can make a difference, and I think that is what
people were having problems with.
-Justin
BAF Open/OW!/One time Shark
>===== Original Message From James Hammersley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=====
>Dear All -
>
>Leeds - thanks for organising a great tour.
>
>The weekend situation sucks - Leeds proved that they were good enough to
>take the seeding that they 'awarded' themselves - but they did not deserve
>it after their previous Tour performance.
>
>If the seedings had been recast as to be fair and open, the following would
>have occurred:
>
>Top 8:
>Clapham
>Druids
>Chevvy
>TeamShark
>Fusion
>Red
>BAF
>Leeds
>
>Pools would have been 1,3,6,8 and 2,4,5,7:
>
>Pool A: Clapham, Chevvy, Red and Leeds
>Pool B: Druids, TeamShark, Fusion, BAF
>
>or alternatively, Leeds were not promoted (i.e. Position 4 being a void):
>
>Pool A: Clapham, Chevvy, Fusion and BAF
>Pool B: Druids, TeamShark and Red
>
>A tough situation and a mess - made ugly.
>
>I am sure that Leeds did not cheat - the idea should offend all Ultimate
>players.
>
>However, if the points for the Tour are going to affect the decision over
>the Worlds, a conclusion which is fair to everybody has to be found. The
>top 2 places for the event are decided - but the chasing pack is VERY close.
>
>Milk - TeamShark
-----------------------
The Totalise Email system, probably the most flexible email system in the
world. To register for an account goto http://www.totalise.net
