Jon, I totally agree that the B Tour at Tour 1 should remain a very open format. The only change I would like to see is if it is at the same venue as the A tour then I would like to see the 4 crossover games get played after quarters.
Your suggestion of basically the old tour format would be very similar to by suggestion for the B & C tours. Having B&C tours would allow teams that chance significantly a bitter chance to place highly than you suggestion (ie all 16 teams in the B tour have a chance of getting 12th in the A tour where as only the top 8 would with your suggestion) this flexibility comes at the cost of some potentially more 'meaningless' games (note meaningless was not my phrase but one that was often used by certain top tier teams when the discussions last year about the changes to the A Tour format). I don't think there is much to choose between them and I'd be happy with either provided the crossover between A&B tours could be achieved. If we ever have A&B tour events in different locations the only workable solution is to have a fixed number of promotion and relegation spots. In this situation I think it is also important to look the final few games at the top of the B tour and implement some form of double Elimination (yup those of you on Uni-ultimate knew that was coming) so that a promotion worthy team doesn't get knocked out in the quarters or semis by the best team (as happened frequently in the first two tours last year). JP P.S. Anyone from the UKU want to address the issue of pitch time? Adam or Matt, How many pitches are being used for each of the A tour, B tour and Women's tour? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Paul Taylor > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:27 PM > To: britdisc@near.me.uk > Subject: RE: [BD] Seedings & a proposed change to the Tour Format > > > Some very good points there Jon. > > I've played Tour for 3 years and never finished higher than 14 or > lower than 22 (I think) so I've got a bit of experience in this > bracket. When the tour was split I thought it was a great idea, > playing last year aiming to win the B-Tour and promotion was always > pretty exciting, and we eventually managed to get to the final at tour > 4 only to be narrowly beaten in the rain by Paddy Murphy. > Nevertheless, the old tour format always gave us 5 or 6 really tight > games over the weekend and really pushed us as a team. Last year we > would usually only get 2 or 3 close games and the rest would be > 'meaningless' (a harsh word I think). For me the tour has always been > about playing close games and being at the top of your game, and this > wasn't the case last year. > > I'm really psyched about going to Bristol later today, but I am well > aware we will have several meaningless games, which will continue > throughout the season unless we get promoted (which will be difficult > with the teams above us and only 2 places). > > Jon, I don't think splitting into a C tour will work because when you > get past the top 25 it's extremely difficult to seed, especially for > Tour 1. I think the A-tour system works well and is popular, my > suggestion for the B-Tour is this: > > The B-Tour follows the same format as the old tour structure. Tour 1 > will remain as it is with pools and meaningless games (as it was > originally - I remember having a rude awakening in one of my first > tour games being hammered by Clapham!) and then at the remaining tours > we play in the group of 8 around us split into 2 pools of 4, which > becomes a top and bottom 4 on Sunday for crossovers with the pools > above or below you to quarters, semis, final. The top 4 then battle > it out for the 2 promotion spots just like the A-Tour, or > alternatively if the venue is the same a crossover with the bottom 4 > of the A-tour in quarters, semis, finals. > > This probably doesn't make complete sense, but in essence it's very > similar to how the tour was two years ago while still maintaining the > split that was so long required. A further split into a C-Tour will > have to depend on the outcomes of this years tour and may be a few > years away. > > Makes sense to me, but then again so do a lot of crazy things! > > Ernie > > PS. I didn't realise that we weren't getting as much pitch time on the > B-tour. I've always understood that the best pitches go to the A-Tour > (they clearly train harder and play harder than the rest of us), but > pitch time should be evenly distributed. I assume this was the > decision of the DoC due to lack of pitches, so am curious as to why a > venue was accepted that didn't have enough space to accomodate all the > teams and if this is likely to happen at the other tours where we > should expect around 50 teams or even 60 if womens tour is on. > >From: "Jon Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <britdisc@near.me.uk> > >Subject: RE: [BD] Seedings & a proposed change to the Tour Format > >Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:54:16 +0100 > > > >Jamie Cross wrote: > > > > > Seriously though, the way seedings etc are worked out have been > public for > > > > > ages, and this style of last minute critisism is ill-timed and > reasonably > > > pointless. If you have issues with the rules, raise them well in > advance > > > of Tour 1, so there is time for discussion, change and > implementation. > > > Seems sensible to me but I must admit a lack of the foresight > displayed by > > > > > some of the previous correspondents. > > > >You don't consider the day that the seedings are announced and the > format > >first released to be an appropriate time to have this discussion? If > the TD > >had gotten this information out earlier we could have discussed it > earlier. > > > > > >Tom White wrote: > > > It was real tough for smash and grab last year to get into the A > tour > > > after a really poor result at the previous nationals. Thats why > we worked > > > as hard as poss last nationals to get a good seeding for this > year's tour. > > > >But isn't this exactly part of my point. If the seedings for the tour > where > >based on the previous years overall tour standings then S&G wouldn't > have > >been seeded in the B tour in the first place. > > > >Jolyon Thompson wrote: > > > The recent increase in standard across the whole of the UK > ultimate scene > > > means that more and more teams find themselves at the bottom A and > top B > > > level and have little to choose between them. This is great news > for the > > > future of the sport and increased competition within the UK. > > > >So if the good competition now extends into the teams around 20th > overall > >(as opposed to what you to be a pretty big split between the top 8 > and the > >rest only a few years ago) why do we have this artificial split > around 16? > > > > > >The entire point of the split of the A & B tours was to facilitate > the use > >of smaller, higher quality venues. This came at the expense of what > was > >regarded by everyone as an excellent system for determining the top > 16 teams > >at each tour. > > > >However despite the split was still use the same old venues and are > left > >with only the disadvantage of an inflexible, unfair tour structure. > The > >other noticeable effect of the tour split is that the A tour teams > now get > >at least 50% more pitch time than the B tour teams but pay the same > amount > >for entry. I'm sure that seems like a great deal for those A tour > teams but > >it's a rubbish deal for the B tour and Women's tour teams that are > >subsidising their tournament. Don't we have it the wrong way wrong > round? If > >anyone should be subsidising any one else shouldn't it be the A tour > teams > >subsidising the B tour? That way the larger teams with their more > committed > >players support the growth of the game by making entry to these > events > >easier for the lower teams? > > > >Another justification for the A tour was that it wasn't worth their > time for > >the top teams to play teams as low as 16 let alone 48th. This is a > fair > >point. The majority of teams will learn the most from playing close > >competitive games against similarly skilled opponents. The occasion > butt > >kicking from a much better team or the handing out a butt kicking to > a > >significantly worse team can also teach you a lot to but you don't > need many > >of those type of games in a season. My problem is that the gap > between the > >top and bottom of the B tour is way bigger that the gap between the > top and > >bottom of the A tour. So if the top teams get a format that means > they don't > >have to 'waste their time' with 'meaningless' games why shouldn't the > teams > >in the B tour get the same consideration? > > > >It also seems to me that automatic relegation/promotion from the A > and B > >tour seems less than ideal. Why not simply play relegation and > promotion > >games to actually see who is better? > > > >I recognize that nothing can be done about Tour 1. If I had spent > less time > >organizing Student tournaments and writing a thesis I might have put > forward > >these ideas sooner. However with the above points in mind I'd like to > >suggest a change to the tour format for Tour 2: > > > >A tour - top 16: they play what ever format is considered appropriate > >culminating in quarters, semis, finals for 1st and more importantly > 9th > >place. > > > >B tour - 17-32: Four pools of four, crossover round between 2nd and > 3rd > >seeds in each pool followed by quarters, semis, finals > > > >C tour - 33-48: same format as the B tour. > > > >PLUS after the quarter final rounds in each tour you would play four > >crossover/promotion/relegation games between the bottom and top four > teams > >of each tour. A/B tour games would be 13v20, 14v19, 15v18, 16v17. > Similarly > >for B/C tour games. > > > >Such a format would be no harder to schedule that the previous ones. > It has > >the advantage that each of the A, B & C tours would consist of many > more > >meaningful games between closely matched teams. The crossover rounds > would > >mean that as many as four teams could get promoted/relegated between > tours > >and a team originally seeded in the B tour could potentially finish > as high > >as 13th in the A tour. (Thus teams wouldn't have to suffer the fate > of > >Sheffield Steal last year of never getting a true overall finishing > position > >in the tour due to their best possible finish of 17th at Tour 1). The > format > >for the A tour was changed half way through the season by a vote of > the > >captains if I remember correctly. Who would welcome such a tour > format? What > >would it take to get the format I've suggested above implemented for > Tour 2? > > > >Cheers > >JP > > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >BritDisc mailing list > >BritDisc@near.me.uk > >http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > >Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > BritDisc@near.me.uk > http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list BritDisc@near.me.uk http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
