This is a difficult issue, and one that the competitions committee
struggle with. There are no right answers - only two extreme viewpoints.
One says that teams should have only and exactly the seeding they earn -
this is 'fair', but results in some crappy tournaments, not just for the
team that are bumped down, but also for the teams they play against.
There is perhaps an issue, as you say, with the top 8 crossover being
harder, but this is nothing compared to the harshness of somebody's top
16 crossover being a complete walkover, through no fault of their own.
The more we punish a team by giving a lower seeding, the more seriously
(an)other team(s) get(s) punished also.
The alternative view is that we seed everybody exactly where we feel
they should be. This creates tournaments in which the games are balanced
and fun (which is what we all play the game for, right?) but basically
gives no reward for making the effort to turn up. Most people's sense of
fairness is offended by allowing teams to just waltz in, and
furthermore, if we allow it to become standard practice that you always
get the seeding you deserve rather than the seeding you earn, then the
difficulties facing the committees who decide seedings are just about
insurmountable. Every team will need to be seeded at our discretion.
Better, perhaps, a method which is objective but unfair than one which
tries to be fair but is subjective. We all feel worse when someone
decides we're seeded low than when an objective rule, written to punish
no particular team, seeds us low.
The general consensus on the competitions committee is that we should
allow a small punishment of only 2-4 places for teams that miss an event
(though there are some people who would go with each of the extreme
viewpoints above). In practice, we try not to insert more than one team
into a bracket, meaning that if you win your last game you'll hold
bracket next time. It's harsh if you're knocked down, but at least you
played the team above you - it's not just arbitrary that they stayed up
and you didn't.
If you've got a better suggestion, I'd be delighted to hear it.
Regarding open tour, we specifically stated that you wouldn't be seeded
in the top 32 without either attending tour 0 or getting in touch with a
damned good reason why not. Due to a clash of T0 with Irish Mixed
Nationals, we're allowing the Irish to be seeded near the top of the
B-tour for T1, which is not all that different to the above situation
with the mixed tour. No other exceptions are planned, but even in the
open tour we have to have a little flexibility.
Benji
David Povey wrote:
BD,
whilst i appreciate that at Mixed Tour 1 it did say in the captains pack that finishing positions at the tournament didn't guarantee the same position at Mixed Tour 2 i think it's harsh on those that did send a team to seed a team that didn't play at that event in the top 16 at Mixed Tour 2. This is in no way a dig at Leeds Loco but more highlighting the unfairness of the situation.
For teams that compete in the middle rankings there is a huge difference between starting at 16th and 17th place for the weekend. Having worked hard and played well to get into the top 16 at Mixed Tour 1 it seems harsh to be bumped back to 17th and instead of playing against teams in the 9 - 16 bracket playing against teams in the 17 - 24 bracket. We all play to improve and be challenged against the best and the reward of breaking into the top 16 is just this. To be pushed down a bracket for a team that didn't play at Mixed Tour 1 seems very unfair. Also to consider is the team that was seeded 9th but is now 10th, their potential crossover up to the top 8 is now against seed 7 rather than seed 8, a seemingly harder game than they earnt from Mixed Tour 1.
This is also something that would never happen in the Open Tour. Can you imagine a team not playing Tour 0 or Tour 1 and then being seeded 9th for the next event and pushing someone down into the B Tour? Surely a fairer positioning would have been to come in at 17th? Why reward a team that didn't attend Mixed Tour 1 with a position that teams played for and earnt over a whole weekend? If they are good enough to be in the top 16 then surely this will show over the course of Mixed Tour 2, something that the teams at Mixed Tour 1 have already shown
The Mixed division deserves the same level of respect that other divisions have, currently the highest accolade the sport in this country has is the GB World Games Squad - a mixed team. Surely to improve the division it should be treated with the same rules as Open and Womens would be?
As standard my views and not those of my team
Dave Povey
__________________________________________________
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
