Didn't Chris Hughes suggest something very much like this at the AGM about two years ago? Didn't he get shot down for some reason?
Divisions seem an ideal answer to dealing with growth. There was a huge fuss the day someone suggested dividing indoors up into regions - would anyone question that now? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Retter" <druid#[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 25 March 2002 21:44 Subject: Re: shaftin' and other difficulties > > Um, I'm about to agree with Paul Meaney! > > > In all honesty that is a fantastic idea. I mean - the top 8 teams play > > each other regularly and get good competition over the weekend. The two tier > > idea has been proposed once or twice > > In case anyone missed it, the two-tier structure has just been trialled > in the 'London' Winter League. There's some room for future > improvement, but I'd say it was generally a success. > > > (1) you are doubling the amount of tournaments which means we need more > > people getting involved, finding a venue for 16 teams and doing it. Risky. > > But IMHO it's doable, as currently there are limited venues which can host an > > event the size of the tour > > I think it's VERY doable. > > > (2) how do you handle crossovers? > > (without thinking about it in too much detail) a la Winter League, but > bigger? > e.g. hold a 16 team 'Div1' event and a 12-16 'Div2' event - and from one > event to the next you relegate/promote 2 or 3 (or more?) teams*. And > within each event you can still run the 5-12 crossover. > > * you need to think about this carefully, so that all the games are > still relevant to something more than just promotion/relegation - e.g. > seeding in the next event. > > > (3) how do you handle nationals? > > I think you break Nationals into smaller divisions, e.g. of 8 (maybe > even 6 ?), seeded by performance over the year - i.e. Tour results. > > Which rather ruins it's separate identity... but still gives options for > a couple of upsets on the big day. > > Depending on format. > > > (4) It means that people coming through don't get to see top flight > > ultimate. Which is not good as it means people don;t come away from > > tournaments having had the ability to watch top teams play and learn from > > them, so the rate of learning slows. > > Yeah, and my propositions above lessen the interaction between the 'top > flight' teams and the others. I'm not so keen on that. > > So, we need to find ways to encourage 'top flight' teams/players to come > to non-Tour events ? or have more top-to-bottom interaction somewhere > along the line ? > > Wayne > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Wayne Retter > mobile: 07970-903420 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > office: 01737-273655 >
