Hi Carl & BD, I can't answer your question (I'm not on the schedule writing committee). But is it not better that things are beginning to come in to line? Does the format of the division not affect the competition as a whole?
So I ask the question. Why use different formats? Shouldn't the implications of (not) having cross overs be the same for any team on the Tour weather they are A, B or C Tour? The fact that the top to the bottom of a division is closer shouldn't really make that much difference to the system as long as we know the system we are playing from the outset. There are assumptions that have to be made when writing schedules and because players shift between club teams or become injured, teams can change quite a lot between Tours. Although I have to say, the schedules are top notch and you guys writing them do a good job to release them ahead of the tournaments. Scraggy On 23 June 2011 18:57, Carl Mewse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Just wondering what the basis was for the decision to make B tour mirror A > tour in terms of peer pools and no cross-over? > > While I understand the benefits of peer pools in terms of maintaining the > most competitive level of play for the top teams in A tour, B tour has the > additional reward of promotion for teams finishing in 2nd and 3rd. I'm sure > most of the teams playing in B tour would have the ambition to be aiming > for > promotion rather than their aim being to compete around the middle section > of B tour. I also believe in B tour there is increased variation in > strength > of teams from tour to tour and less of a gap in strength between the top > four to eight and the rest when compared to A tour. By peer pooling and > having no cross over those of us in positions 9-16 can now only aim for 5th > place this weekend. It also means that those in positions 1-8 have no > danger > of relegation to C tour for tour 3. > > Personally I would have been in favour of a more open format such as that > in > C tour, and I imagine at least those in positions 10-16 would agree. I also > expect that say Vision (who we played twice last tour with one win to each > team) or JR for would not, ahead of the schedule, have expected to be able > to lose all their games and not be relegated. > > I realise this may come across as overdue criticism just because the > decision has affected my team, however I fully understand there are lots of > factors (and a hell of a lot of work) that go into scheduling decisions. > I'm > just trying to understand the rationale behind this one, and think others > would also be interested in this. > > Thanks > > > Carl Mewse > YOpen #1 > > > > On 23 June 2011 14:48, Dave Halls <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Afternoon BD/UU > > > > The schedule for Tour 2 has now been completed and is available for > > download > > from http://bit.ly/uku_tour2_2011. > > > > A copy has also been sent to team contacts. > > > > The weather forecast is actually pretty good for this weekend, but it > will > > still be pretty soft underfoot. > > > > Best of luck to you all, see you bright and early on Saturday! > > > > Dave, Pugh & Si > > > > > > .................................................... > > David Halls > > BSc Business Management, University of Surrey > > Chairman, Guildford Ultimate > > University of Surrey Students' Union, Vice-President (Welfare), 2011-12 > > __________________________________________________ > > 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 > __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
