| Subject: Re: The Mother of All Proposals |
Author:
Tim
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 16:25:50 05/19/03 Mon
In reply to:
Ali
's message, "Re: The Mother of All Proposals" on 16:08:15 05/19/03 Mon
Point taken, and I can see that the new style IVDC would be a special case, since it is the only competition with marking by team rather than by couple, so I'll concede the point about needing to be all year round.
Nonetheless, one has to ask the question - what does the 'odds and sods' result actually mean? If this team finishes, say, 15th, then those couples have contributed to a 15th place placing for a collection of couples with nothing in common. So what?
There is a problem with a 5 couple team entering a one-couple team who stand no chance, but I don't think amalgamation to an odds and sods team is the best way to solve the problem. I think it would be better for that team captain, another with a 3-couple B team, to get together and say, 'we'll lend you our couple, who will then dance in your B team'. That should then require standing committee approval, but should be organised by the member societies themselves. Furthermore, in such a case there should be an explicit rule that no university may enter more than 16 couples in the team match, and that couples may only be 'leant' to over universities when they could not form part of a team for that university. There need to be explicit rules for the standing committee to judge by, procedurally. The standing committee should be instructed that this practise is only to be allowed in exceptional circumstances when a team captain has demonstrated:
1) That they have taken all reasonable measures to try and fill the team from within their own university;
2) That without amalgamation their couples will stand no chance in the match (ie there is only one or two left over, not three, and that in the case of a two-couple team, they are not stupendously good);
This should all be in the constitution, not the standing committee guidelines. Otherwise, the rule should be left as it is.
>Fine, I agree on your point about 'not selected, tough
>luck', and have removed the clause allowing this.
>
>Also the odds team as proposed is only *organised* by
>the hosts, i.e. they advertise it and ensure it all
>gets together; it is the SC who make any decisions on
>composition/ suitablility etc. so the exec are not
>involved in that capacity.
>
>Once-couple teams are automatically out of standard,
>regardless of their standard! They cannot possibly get
>anywhere.
>
>Apart from the biggest teams who can fill ABCD and
>more, *every* other team could potentially field
>1-couple teams, yet some are too large/good for full
>amalgamation to be possible. We're then forcing the
>worst couple from a team to dance on their own - what
>does that acheive? The same argument holds for
>2-couple teams, albeit less strongly. Full-team
>amalgamation cannot solve this - indeed, if two
>3-couple teams amalgamate, then we still get a
>2-couple team left over!
>
>I'm not against two-team full amalgamation in
>principle - but history would suggest that it isn't
>going to happen. Eddie Moxey of Essex proposed this,
>and even he didn't use the clause the next IVDC - and
>his was a 2-couple team.
>
>I understand your point on team cohesion, but I fail
>to see how a couple can be cohesive on their own (no
>filthy comments please :->) when they are guaranteed
>to be knocked out and will score nothing for their
>uni.
>
>It seems silly to make a load of couples dance on
>their own with no hope and gaining nothing for their
>uni when we can put them together, give them some
>hope, some friends and for their results to count for
>something.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 