Off the top of my head...
Would it help if a foreign team showing up for just one event picked
up no Tour points, and everyone that finishes below them moves up a
place in the finishing positions (and gets the appropriate number of
points)? Including the B tour winner.
Foreign teams are still allowed to take home any trophies they might
win. But I'm sure they wouldn't be coming over to see how high they
can finish in the end of year Tour rankings, so why award them any
points? (Unless they want to commit to all the Tours... e.g. Murphy).
Seems to me that the introduction of a strong European team at a tour
event might help shake up the seeding in the top 12, and could
alleviate the problem of always facing the same teams. Playing
against the same opposition at every event only teaches you how to
beat (or lose to) the same teams over and over. Whereas playing
against a relatively unknown quantity will keep you more on your toes
- learning to figure out what the opposition is doing, who their key
players are, etc, and figuring it out quick. More representative of
the situation at EUCC, WUCC, etc.
Perhaps if the Tour was promoted more heavily to some of the top Euro
teams we could get them over more regularly. If there was always one
Euro team at every Tour (a different one each time), wouldn't a lot
of the issues become moot?
Someone will always be on that cusp of up/down between A and B tour.
Having an extra top-twelve team simply changes who it happens to.
Not saying I'm right or wrong. Just trying to add food for thought.
Paul
On 3 Apr 2007, at 14:29, Chris Rowlands wrote:
As someone who plays regularly on the boundary between Tour A and B
(we were up and down like a yoyo last year) my feeling is that it's
not so much of a problem that teams from other countries play in
Tour, it's that they get preferrential treatment and only turn up
for one event. Paddy / Seamus Murphy are a classic example of the
right way to approach the problem; Paddy earn their place at the
top end of A tour fair and square, same as everyone else: they go
through seeding and they turn up to all the tours and nobody can
really complain that they were cheated out of their promotion
space / unfairly demoted because of it.
In contrast, because of the way the points are worked out at tour,
relegation / demotion really is a big deal; A tour teams not only
get more points, but have the opportunity to play against top-level
teams and really improve their game, not to mention attracting
stronger players with more experience. Having an extra team show up
for one tour, affect the seedings / schedule and then not turn up
to the remaining tour events is often a kick in the teeth for both
the team that lost out on that 16th place position and the ones who
lose out on valuable tour points because they faced a foreign uber-
team early on in the tournament.
I appreciate that there are UK teams that sometimes can't make all
the tour events; we're an amateur sport and sometimes you just
can't get the numbers, but to have no intention of going through
the seeding process or turning up to the other tour events is a
whole different matter. If teams just want to play one event, I'm
sure there are better alternatives.
Magic
Strange Blue #20
As usual this is not necessarily the view of my team, but it damn
well should be.
___________________________________________________________
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis
of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail
Championship.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
__________________________________________________
BritDisc mailing list
[email protected]
http://fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
