Size of venues being able to watch top quality games, having time to catch up with your mates on other teams
would be less of an issue if we played LESS GAMES The tour was designed to prepare UK teams for international competition. At international competition teams play 2 games MAX per day. These games are official length (100 mins). Teams have time to eat lunch and warm up. Current Tour schedules do not allow any of this. WHY? Because we all expect to get a final result from each tour event, so we have to play pools and then quarters etc... = Too many games SOLUTION and there will be many solutions to this. Just one off the top of my head. Tour 1 = open. Creates seeding for T2. Tour 2/3 teams play total of 3/4 games per weekend. relegation and promotion after T3 Tour 4/5 teams play in new leagues again 3/4 games per weekend. relegation could be centered around, 18s or 16s Discuss Stig -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 August 2002 11:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [BD] Tour size But to what advantage does splitting the tour really hold? It certainly seems that there isn't a lack of suitable venues to hold large tournaments with all this years venues being (IMO) pretty good and Southampton missing out. Why do we need to fix something that ain't broke? It would be nice to hear from teams lower down the rankings about this, but what I have heard is that the current system works well and teams are fighting for their position right down to the final game. I think to say that if players arent willing to travel to see top players play then they really dont want to see them is going a little bit too far. Some of the most fanatical football fans don't travel more than 200 miles to see their idols play, do we really expect the ordinary Ultimate player to travel across the country to see the top 16 ply their trade. We also have to be a little bit more realisic when it comes to attracting public spectators. Looking at amateur sports, only football attracts spectators in any great number. Go down to your local cricket/hockey/rugby club and the vast majortiy of the people (if any) watching the game will be ex-players and friends/girlfriends of the people involved - exactly the same as the people that watch Ultimate games and those games go on for 2 hours not a whole weekend. Attracting the public to come and watch Ultimate is a good thing, especially if it attracts other people to play but I think the success will be more to do with the effort put in by the organisers of the tournament than the number of other people watching the action. Just my thoughts on things Ali S G > from: Sean Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:15:36 > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > subject: Re: [BD] Tour size > > There have been many comments over the past couple of weeks > regarding structure of the tour. One suggestion is to split the tour > up into sections. I believe this is good for several reasons and also > do-able. > > For example, tour 1 is an open tournament with all teams involved > and points awarded as usual. The next tour events could be split > into separate tournaments of say 16 teams. The point system could > then change with less points being awarded to teams finishing 15 and > 16 to teams that finished 1(17) and 2(18) in the second division since > 17 and 18 had to win all their games instead of lose them all! > > This also means that teams in the 17 to 20 bracket have more to play > for than they do currently. They are playing to win a tournament as > well > as looking to enter the top 16 with consistent performance. Teams in > the lower half of the top 16 will also be looking to improve themselves > to prevent themselves going down! > > One of the common arguments I hear from lower teams against this is > "...but I want to watch the top teams play!" If the tournaments were > on different weekends then you could, you have to choose to go and > watch them. You will have no games yourselves and so none of your > games will clash with any of the games you want to watch (including the > final). You could even get really drunk saturday night safe in the > knowledge > that you don't have a game the next morning :) > > If people aren't willing to go and watch the games if they are not > playing, then do they really want to watch the games and if they aren't > willing to do so, then why should the general public be interested in > seeing > a game? Also, how much better would it appear to the public if there > was > a tournament with a few pitches with many spectators, as oppose to a > tournament with loads of pitches, but no one watching any of the games? > > Smaller tournaments would also mean better pitches and facilities, which > > would also look better. If you want the game to grow, then it needs to > be promoted to the public as well as getting people playing in schools > and colleges. > > Just some views!! > > Sean > > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
