| Subject: Re: The Mother of All Proposals |
Author:
Tim
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:59:08 05/19/03 Mon
In reply to:
Paul
's message, "Re: The Mother of All Proposals" on 13:25:56 05/19/03 Mon
I agree with what Paul says. I think the 'odds and sods' idea is very dangerous and needs a lot more thought. As it stands it would not be good for IVDA at all.
In previous years some competitions have allowed universities to enter as many D teams as they wished (Nottingham for example). The result? Huges numbers of Oxford D teams. Oxford typically has a beginners team of 40 couples on top of its main team, plus this year a squad of about 12 couples in reserve. Were this proposal included, I have absolutely no doubt that Oxford would enter all 52 couples into the 'odds and sods' team, denegrating the achievement of those couples that have made the Oxford team and vastly inflating the team match (this means the proposal could increase the number of teams by about 10%).
On a more fundamental level, I think the 'odds and sods' idea goes against the principles of the team match that we have tried to reflect in the new proposal. These are that it is about team success not individual. It is about testing a cohesive collective rather than mere individual success. The 'odds and sods' team would not be a cohesive collective, it would merely represent another chance for individuals to dance during the day. That is unnecessary, and goes against what we want to achieve. As Caroline has said, there is nothing wrong with an amalgamation along cohesive lines: an alliance of small Northern Universities, or a link up between London's latin only team and Surrey's ballroom only team (as a fictitious example). I think this website should be used as a forum for those universities to look for amalgamation partners.
But I don't think the constitution should be formally amended as you suggest. It is fine in theory, all that needs tweaking is the implementation.
>>Here is the first draft of the full consititutional
>>amendment covering the proposed team match format.
>
>And here are some nit-picky comments:
>
>>I've put a few comments in where
>>appropriate, describing the reasoning behind a clause
>>etc.
>
>Unfortunately, these comments didn't make it through -
>in this board, anything in angle brackets is
>considered to be an html tag...
>
>
>>I will include this, suitably amended, in the big
>>proposal document on the web, which I will bring up to
>>date so you can all print it out ready for the meeting
>>(hint, hint).
>
>Could you remind us of the URL - it's buried in the
>archives somewhere...
>
>>2.8.1.5
>>[...]
>>If all four of their teams
>>are full then spare beginner couples or individuals
>>may also be nominated.
>
>I'm slightly worried about the inflationary effect of
>this clause. In my view, the "odds and sods" should
>only include couples from universities that can't fill
>a complete team.
>
>>2.8.2.1 The Team Events are preceded by a Team
>>Walk-On.
>
>"shall be"
>
>
>>2.8.5.3 After qualifying the divisions are treated as
>>separate events and proceed through to finals as
>>normal.
>
>"shall be treated..."
>
>>2.8.6.1 Each couple within a team is given the same
>>number to wear.
>
>"shall be"
>
>>2.8.6.2 Throughout the match, each team's marks are
>>treated together in the same way as couples are in
>>open 4-dance events; all members of a team are
>>recalled together, and placings are found in finals
>>for the whole team. Couples within a team are not
>>considered individually.
>
>"shall be"
>
>I prefer the following wording:
>
>2.8.6.2 Throughout the team match, each team shall be
>treated as if they were a single couple entering a
>four-dance event, and scrutineered accordingly: all
>couples are recalled together, and placings found in
>finals for the whole team. Couples within a team are
>not considered individually.
>
>>2.10.6 The BDC Skating System is used to evaluate
>>marks within each division event.
>
>"shall be"
>
>><whether we want it or not, we've no choice!>
>
>Officially, we're not affiliated with BDC, so can use
>whatever system we like ;-) However, I agree that the
>scrutineer will only be familiar with the skating
>system, so that's the only viable scoring system...
>
>Paul
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
