JP Wrote, Regards: announcement of Seedings
You don't consider the day that the seedings are announced and when the format is
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.
True, although bearing in mind that the seeding of teams (especially newly announced geo teams for example) can be a very tricky business at the start of the tour season for any TD, and someone will always be criticised for what order the teams are ranked at the start of the season.
The problem which the TD faces with getting the seedings published as early as possible is that teams were still sending in cheques and confirming their attendance at tour1 etc until last week/two weeks ago thus making it harder to finalise a draft set of seedings and a schedule for the tour...
A possible solution to overcome these conflicts could be to have an absolute cut off point well in advance of the tour allowing for criticism for the seedings... say up to a month before hand (example).
Admittedly the TD`s of tour 1 tried to encourage earlier confimation of teams wishing to attend the tour by implementing a system whereby the earlier you send in your cheques the less you pay. Although where it may have encouraged some teams to get confirmed spots on the tour early, there were still other teams which didnt apply until a week ago... Thoughts?
JP Wrote:
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
ther 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?
Admittedly i think that this problem is one that will always kick up a fuss and personally I think that everyone should play the same length games as each other regardless of the their respective division to set a precedent in our sport. Football for example (excuse the analogy), imagine if Premier League sides played for 90 minutes (A Tour for instance) and the Championship Division (B Tour) had to play a game with a reduced time period... are they not playing the same sport? why should they adhere to different conditions?
Ok i can understand the complications of pitch availability and the fact that there is an increase of teams that the TD`s have to cope with, but why cant a set time frame for ultimate games in this country be agreed upon?
JP Wrote:
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?
Agreed, perhaps introducing crossovers between say either the top 2 of Tour B and bottom 2 of Tour A instead of playing 15v16 (A Tour Match) and the 1v2 (B Tour Match). Admittedly the latter of those matches will determine who wins the B Tour, but wouldnt the teams like the chance to prove that they belong in the A Tour for the next tour rather than being relegated straight off?
These views are my own, etc.......
Dav BAF #31
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
__________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list BritDisc@near.me.uk http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
