There was a statistic analysis that showed that there is no difference for the end result, so why do people feel so strong about it?
On one side, I like winner breaks (and the looser rack), sort of prize and punishment for the winner and looser, works great for amateurs, didn't work well for pros when they would argue about the racking and it took forever to rack and get the game moving... now that was a pain to watch... then came referee racking and then the Sardo rack etc etc but that's another story.
Here is another perspective, you travel across the world to play in a tournament, winner breaks format, loose the lag, your opponent break and runs 9 racks, you pack your cues and go home... fun...
Or go with alternate break and at least you get on the table and maybe on the score board, even if we follow the statistic that show that since it doesn't matter, you were about to lose anyway at least you got to play.
All the WNT events early stages are boring as hell, all the seeded players are playing dead money and win 9-0 or 9-1, give the dead money a reason to come back next time.
The ability to comeback from an 8-1 or something like that, that we saw in Arizona, means that the players have figured out the break.
You want to keep it interesting and keep the winner breaks, bring the 3 points rule in. we will see less cut breaks and more good old pool.
