Why Seed Tournaments?
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
I don't see the better fighte get a free punch to start the fight in boxing.
Last edited:
The men's NCAA basketball tournament is seeded. It rewards teams for earning superior record over the other teams during the course of the year. It also provides the greatest opportunity to see the cream of the crop play each other on the biggest stage.
The NFL doesn't seed the playoffs. If they did, we would have seen an even more dominant AFC division than we already have in the last 15 years.
Should pool tournament be seeded? Without a formal and reliable seeding system, I would say not.
The NFL doesn't seed the playoffs. If they did, we would have seen an even more dominant AFC division than we already have in the last 15 years.
Should pool tournament be seeded? Without a formal and reliable seeding system, I would say not.
dom_poppa
Banned
They give weight or handicap different players...at least on the local levels.
Seeded is different then giving weight or handicap.
Handicapping and weight are the same thing. Seeding is who you are matched up against in the tournament. (i.e. a 16 seed against a number 1 seed)
I have never agreed with seeding tournaments, especially in double elimination format.
Have always felt the same way. Why should anyone get protected?
Speaking as a fan, I am very much in favor of seeding.
A typical tournament begins on a Thursday and ends on a Sunday and attendance is much higher on the weekend.
Seeding is a way of improving the chances that the game's biggest stars, all of whom were once unseeded players themselves, are in full display in the later rounds of tournaments, the rounds during which the fans are in greatest abundance.
Seeding allows a tournament to build to its best possible crescendo, which serves the game well.
A typical tournament begins on a Thursday and ends on a Sunday and attendance is much higher on the weekend.
Seeding is a way of improving the chances that the game's biggest stars, all of whom were once unseeded players themselves, are in full display in the later rounds of tournaments, the rounds during which the fans are in greatest abundance.
Seeding allows a tournament to build to its best possible crescendo, which serves the game well.
Precisely the reason I'm not in favor of seeding pro tournaments. No one should be given special treatment, such that it gives them an advantage over others that are supposed to be competing on equal footing.
If the big boys (and gals) are protected from drawing each other early, that gives them an unfair advantage.
Just out of curiousity, when you say "most", I would like to know what tournaments you are talking about?
My opinion is, seeding a tournament is a way for an individual/organization to have input on the the outcome of a tournament. It allows them to have the bigger names make it towards the end of the tournament. It also is a way to be able to use an upset as a headline in a writeup if one was too happen (64 RANKED PLAYER UPSETS #1).
It is not a gaurenteed outcome, but it is a higher percentage of one of the two things listed above happening than having a blind draw.
As far as gender is considered, I dont have a clue how a major tournament can seed mens pool because there is not an organized tour or anything that you can gather data from. Yes, you can use some of the other majors, but then half of those have us regulars in it and also only has %50 of the "pro's" playing in them so the data is not really correct.
For the Women, I have not looked at the WPBA lately, but the WPBA used to have enough tour stops to be able to seed championships and it is a tour card requirement to play in any WPBA event so it was a consistant playing field. So seeding was pretty easily done and was fair because of the consistant field.
There are two sides to the issue of seeding but no one has touched on the other side. A case could be made that seeding can protect the unknown "B" players too because with the top talent in the brackets more evenly distributed they don't get penalized with a likely 2 and out because they drew into an exceptional tough area of the bracket whereas some other guy might have gotten a much easier draw. So it gives most of the "B" players more of an even shot at progressing.
Seeding in pool is tougher than some of the other sports mentioned because there is no tour or qualifications to get into most events. How many of the entries into the US Open 9 ball (256 I think) are ranked players rather than un-ranked or unknown payers? How do you seed a field when everyone's (maybe most of the field) speed is not easily ranked against the others? Then there is the problem of ranking even the bigger known players. Because there is no money in pool many talented players are probably not ranked where they should be on money lists or WPA etc. rankings that are based on events conducted worldwide because they lack the funds to travel around the globe to play in all these events. So what predefined criteria would be used that doesn't include judgement that would inevitably results in arguments, complaints, and hurt egos?
I think pool has generally done fine without seeding. Let's face it, the cream rises to the top most weeks.
Seeding in pool is tougher than some of the other sports mentioned because there is no tour or qualifications to get into most events. How many of the entries into the US Open 9 ball (256 I think) are ranked players rather than un-ranked or unknown payers? How do you seed a field when everyone's (maybe most of the field) speed is not easily ranked against the others? Then there is the problem of ranking even the bigger known players. Because there is no money in pool many talented players are probably not ranked where they should be on money lists or WPA etc. rankings that are based on events conducted worldwide because they lack the funds to travel around the globe to play in all these events. So what predefined criteria would be used that doesn't include judgement that would inevitably results in arguments, complaints, and hurt egos?
I think pool has generally done fine without seeding. Let's face it, the cream rises to the top most weeks.
Last edited:
That's one way to look at it.
Another perspective would be, would a mid level player rather be in a bracket with only one top level player or several? Without seeding, you have 50/50 chance of being in a top heavy bracket. Seeding distributes the top level player evenly, so while your chances may not be any better, your chances are more consistent.
It's not an unfair advantage but, instead, an earned advantage. Seeding is equally available to all players based on merit.
No doubt, you will argue that Federer, who cannot meet any of the highly ranked players this coming week at Wimbledon, has an unfair advantage. The truth, however, is that having the top players meet later in the event is what the fans want. Any player not seeded at Wimbledon has simply failed to earn a seed, and so it is in pool.
It depends on the nature of the tournament. If you consider it a kind of gambling for a pot, then seeding will probably drive away the level of player that is really funding the prize fund.
On the other hand, if you want to have a real pro tour with sponsors and an audience, then seeding is obviously the way to go. The same is true for championships. Of course there has to be an organization behind the tournament that keeps rankings.
On the other hand, if you want to have a real pro tour with sponsors and an audience, then seeding is obviously the way to go. The same is true for championships. Of course there has to be an organization behind the tournament that keeps rankings.
yes they do
in each conference the 2 division winners with the best record get first round byes. with the best record earning home field advantage throughout..
the worst team to make the playoffs the bottom wild card has to face the best record of the remaining division winners..
but anyway back to pool
And I would gladly go along with that thinking IF there was an actual pro tour, with one governing body, tracking results and keeping standings and rankings. THEN seeding would make sense.
Without it, it becomes far easily mis-used, and favoritism can and will make such seeding unfair to the rest of the players. Who decides who is to be seeded and who isn't?
Jerry Forsyth
Well-known member
Seeding is done based on the rankings which can be viewed here: http://www.azbilliards.com/2000pointslist.php
The American pros vote on what events are to be events where ranking points can be earned. Certain criteria must be met by these events, such as having a minimum of $25,000 in added money (prize money over and above the entry fees). The pros travel to these events in order to acquire and maintain their rankings so that they are the ones invited to the international events.
Personally, in most instances, I agree with seeding these events. A random draw can find Mika Imonnen facing a bunch of 'B' players in his area of the chart while Johnny Archer might have to face Ralf Souquet and Rodney Morris in his first two matches. So seeding is a way to keep all of the top names on a more equal basis as regards earning their ranking points and that has a lot to do with how much income they can produce. And it allows the BCA to send the players overseas that are indeed the best performers and not just the ones who got lucky draws into easy brackets.
The American pros vote on what events are to be events where ranking points can be earned. Certain criteria must be met by these events, such as having a minimum of $25,000 in added money (prize money over and above the entry fees). The pros travel to these events in order to acquire and maintain their rankings so that they are the ones invited to the international events.
Personally, in most instances, I agree with seeding these events. A random draw can find Mika Imonnen facing a bunch of 'B' players in his area of the chart while Johnny Archer might have to face Ralf Souquet and Rodney Morris in his first two matches. So seeding is a way to keep all of the top names on a more equal basis as regards earning their ranking points and that has a lot to do with how much income they can produce. And it allows the BCA to send the players overseas that are indeed the best performers and not just the ones who got lucky draws into easy brackets.
yes they do
in each conference the 2 division winners with the best record get first round byes. with the best record earning home field advantage throughout..
the worst team to make the playoffs the bottom wild card has to face the best record of the remaining division winners..
but anyway back to pool
I stand corrected. They are seeded by division, but not by league. That is what I meant but stated incorrectly.
Also, I see the issue being if you have a top heavy draw where in the first round you have Federer vs. Djokovic, Nadal vs. Roddick etc. That means the bottom half of the draw will be considerably easier giving lower ranked players what I would consider an unfair, unearned advantage.
Tournaments are not charities, we shouldn't be helping weaker players advance by giving them soft draws.
My own experience with this, though not quite the same, was playing in a tournament where In my half of the draw was filled with AAA and Semi Pro players. The bottom half was literally all B and C players. I had two tough close matches but ended up going two and out. Now, this was an open even where handicaps weren't taken into consideration, so it didn't bother me much other than the fact I played subpar. However it does illustrate how a group can get an unfair advantage due to a lucky draw.