Actually, I'd prefer a straight 'Its a Knock-Out' tournament - where teams get randomly selected to play each other in a variety of zaney formats... e.g. Brighton vs Emu playing in sumo suits, or Mustard vs Flaming Galahs playing on 'slip-n-slides'...
Side notes: -This will be my last post on the subject... - The point about A and B tour limiting movement is valid, but we don't have a seeding tournament before hand in Mixed, thats all. - Sorry Benji for calling you Barry - Sorry everyone who hates long discussions on Brit Disc - To all organisers and committee members - thanks for the hard work that lets us play this sport we love. xxx ooo -Justin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pugh RC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Justin Parkhurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "brit disc" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [BD] MT1 schedule - no crossovers? > Surely its time for an ncaa style straight knock out. Put up or shut up. > Bring it from game one, best team wins all their games. Nationals four > times a year sounds good to me. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "pugh RC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Justin Parkhurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "brit disc" > <[email protected]> > Sent: 6/6/08 6:09 PM > Subject: Re: [BD] MT1 schedule - no crossovers? > > 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 > The contents of this message and any attachments to it are confidential > and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message in error > you should delete it from your system immediately and advise the sender. > dunnhumby may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this > email are those of the sender and not dunnhumby. > > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed > __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
