Just for the record, it wasn't for the GB/Top 8 players that the Tour was
decreased from 4 to 3 this year. The reasons I seem to remember were:
1. The players who play both Mixed and Open/Women's Tour. If they attended
all 4 Tours and Nationals for each division, that was 10 weekends of
everyone's summer given up completely to 'required' ultimate tournaments. A
lot of people thought that was too much. If you disagree with this point,
then look at the numbers. Open Tour 1 had 48 teams but this decreased
consistently throughout the season and there was only 31 teams at Tour 4.
Same with Mixed Tour and Women's Tour. Both Mixed and Open Nationals were
undersubscribed too. Mixed Nationals didn't even have 16 teams and Open
Nationals (despite being the seeding tournament for the Tour) couldn't fill
32 spots. The UKUA made a reasonble decision based on these facts and
shortened both seasons.
2. To give non-UKUA events higher profile and take some of the burden away
from the UKUA volunteers. If people feel like they aren't getting enough
tournaments through the year, there are still plenty of tournaments to play
in or room in the calendar to host your own. The UKUA shouldn't be
responsible for nearly every tournament in the summer calendar. Not even
every 'competitive' one IMHO.
Now I've addressed that point, I'll step back away from the rest of the
discussion.
Aura
womens(at)ukultimate.com
Ben Heywood writes:
Earlier today, a couple of people mentioned a Tour qualifier, though
referring to it as Tour 0 seems to have led to some confusion.
My idea, which a couple of people seem to have picked up on already, is as
follows. (Let the record show, by the way, that I suggested this a year
ago, not just as a response to the Tour 1B problems...)
The top teams wanted only three tours for reasons of exhaustion. Most
people I know from lower teams were quite happy with four. We can use this
to our advantage by running the first tournament (Tour 0, Tour Qualifier,
something like that) without the top 8 teams from the previous year.
Everybody from 9th downwards plays in a tournament which then has 8 A-tour
spots available. This will give us a much better chance of having the best
16 teams at tour one, without forcing the GB players to play too often.
Advantages:
- Teams like Fire 2 could miss nationals for squad reasons without then
making a mockery of the B tour the next year.
- Newly formed teams with real talent could get straight into the A tour
for tour one.
- The above means that there's a fair chance for teams who should be
ranked around 15th to 18th to actually get promoted at the actual B tour
one. With the current system, the likelihood of some really good misseeded
teams taking the promotion spots makes that tough. Last year, Discuits
didn't get promoted until tour 2, but ended up ninth.
- The teams who want more tour experience will get it, and those who want
just three a year will get that (if they're good enough).
Difficulties:
- It's a bugger to schedule in such a way that the right 8 teams qualify
(octuple elimination anyone?). Nevertheless, it would be a great deal
fairer than the current system where a good new team must spend a minimum
of 1/3 of the season in the wrong tour.
Can someone convince me this is a bad idea?
Benji
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
