I thought this schedule is quite close to the Open Tour actually. Despite it not having clear cut 'divisions'.
For example, this schedule actually gives some teams a greater chance to maneuver up the rankings. This weekend, 17th seed can charge to 13th seed whereas in the Open Tour, if you start in 17th (top of B Tour) the best you can hope for is to stutter into 14th seed for the next event. There are a couple of other teams that can do better than if they were at Open tour (due to the newly peer pooled nature of the B Tour) and some other teams are restricted slightly. It's just a trade-off based on feedback from last year. I would also argue against the notion that crossovers make a tournament more competitive or that crossovers make the tournament/outcome more important. I, personally, would prefer to end up in a position that was a result of losing/winning games that are as important as each other rather than on the basis of this crossover that (arguably) has more impact on my finishing position than the other six games I will be playing put together. I think that it should be viewed as a season long event, in which case, teams should be building to improve rather than having pot shots at teams above them until they win one. I would say that it places too much emphasis on one particular victory which can have many extra factors which could potentially change the outcome of the game, and if it's possible to avoid these sorts of games whilst still making sure every team has close games all weekend, I'm in favour of that. See you all on the weekend. The smart money says I will be whinging about the lack of a crossover on Monday... pugh p.s. I'm also aware that crossovers-or-not you still have to win the games in front of you and that sometimes you have to overcome all odds for a victory etc etc 2008/6/6 Justin Parkhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > (I know I know, this discussion is going on very long... ) > > Jamie - I hope you are right that this format works - Barry makes a good > point that this was discussed and tried last year too, and I appreciate > that > feedback. Also, I'm sure if I did have a sweetie back home she'd be > perfectly happy regardless of where my team finished... > > But I disagree with your statement that you are playing the 'wrong sport' > if > you want to compete at the highest level. This schedule simply would not > fly > for the Open Tour. It would be seen as unfair and, indeed, we have added an > additional seeding tournament to help the situation. Are the people who > lobbied for a tour 0 'playing the wrong sport' because they are too > competitive? And why is competitive spirit frowned upon? Shouldn't drive > and > desire be encouraged? > > Crossovers add a great element to tournaments - taking a shot at a top > team, > or having some bunch of young guns take shots at you... It gives teams > something to aspire to (lets go out there and knock 'So-And-So' out of the > top 8...). OK, in this case maybe we can't fit them in due to time or > shower > limitations, but I don't think we should be resigned to accept that mixed > need not have the same competitive feel as Open does > > For some reason are we meant to think that the mixed tour is not as > important? Or should not be as competitive? > > Maybe it isn't - indeed many people do put preference into open or women - > but not all. I'd think it benefits the community to make it more on par > with > how we run open. > > Maybe its not feasible at the moment, but I don't see why we should not > encourage it to be so. > > -Justin > > > __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
