Open Tournament Seeding

lfigueroa

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The "Open vs Pro" thread got me wondering about a separate but related issue: Do you believe that an "open" tournament should be seeded?

IOW, the promoter/TD would place the top pro players that enter, at the far ends of the brackets (DE event) and match them up with the weaker (amateur) players who have entered the event. The idea is to prevent the top players from eliminating each other in the early rounds.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
The "Open vs Pro" thread got me wondering about a separate but related issue: Do you believe that an "open" tournament should be seeded?

IOW, the promoter/TD would place the top pro players that enter, at the far ends of the brackets (DE event) and match them up with the weaker (amateur) players who have entered the event. The idea is to prevent the top players from eliminating each other in the early rounds.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
I say yes for a true Major: World Champs., Country Champs., US Open, etc...
But for most events, no.
 
Black-Balled said:
I say yes for a true Major: World Champs., Country Champs., US Open, etc...
But for most events, no.
Click to expand...

I agree.

For the true majors, the promoter has to insure that the big names don't knock each other out too early. The ticket buyers want to see the big names.
For the local and regional tournaments, I'm in favor of a true blind draw and let the chips fall where they may.
 
I do not think there should be any seeding anymore. The reason why I believe this is due to events that I have witnessed in the past at so-called "pro tournaments."

Number one, I don't think the Europeans should get a free pass to come to the U.S. Open a day or two late just because they are competing in a European event that is logistically close in time to the U.S. Open dates. Why should they get seeded to advantage them, when all the other American schmucks have to pay for a full week of expenses and play in the tournament from the first bracket with no byes?

Secondly, the pros in the United States, with the exception of the ladies pro tour (WPBA), don't really have an organization that looks out for the interests of *all* professional players. There are a minute few who are calling the shots, and why should they get byes in tournaments that are advantageous to them and not the other professional players? What the heck is a professional player anymore? Just someone who signs up for the organization du jour?

There ain't no such thing as a professional American player for the men anymore. They can call themselves "professionals," but they're out there grinding in the regional events and amateur tours just like the social shooters, shortstops, and league players.

I've seen my partner's name not get a buy because one outspoken senior player voiced his opinion at the U.S. Open. He believed that all seniors should get buys in the U.S. Open. Even though my partner came in third place in 2003 and was supposed to get a buy in 2004 for his third place finish -- LIKE EVERY PREVIOUS U.S. OPEN SEEDING WAS HANDLED -- his name was removed for seeding to allow senior players who only competed in one senior event the year previously. What a joke: one senior tournament for an entire year and those seniors got byes in the U.S. Open.

It was a sham and a travesty for the 2003 third-place finisher to get bumped, lose his seeding and free bye, to allow the senior players their free bye. Players should not be able to dictate to the tournament organizers who gets seeded and who doesn't, and that is *exactly* what this senior player did.

Put all the names in a hat, and may the best player win. Pool is such a damn game of luck now anyway. What's wrong with the luck of the draw? Luck may be luck when it comes to the draw, but talent should always come out on top.

Seeding sucks, especially when a few pros go behind closed doors and get themselves that free buy with less expenses. They should not be given favoritism, and that is all seeding does in 2011. Maybe things will change if there is a *real* pro tour, but for now, there ain't.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.:grin-square:
 
Last edited:
Not against it but....

That is a pretty interesting topic. Though I'm not against it I think you would definately have your amateurs complaining over this. When you have people complaining over a $15 dollar difference...could you imagine all of them being eliminated in the first couple of rounds? I think it would hurt the over all turnout of a Pro-Am tour but definately would be a good idea for a final event of the year and the more major open events.
 
All players should be treated equally. They each incur the same expense. Why should the pros get a free ride? Let them go out there and battle it out like all players have to do. If Bustie has to play Efren first round, well, so be it. If Joe Schmuck has to play Efren first round, then that's the luck of the draw.

All players should be treated equally. To worry about the pros knocking themselves out early in the tournament resulting in low attendance or disappointment for the audience should *not* be a consideration for seeding.
 
I think blind random draw is the way to go since there is no organization. If big names have to play in the early rounds promoters can still market that matchup during there streams/television if needed, rather than watching some lopsided match.
 
Rich R. said:
I agree.

For the true majors, the promoter has to insure that the big names don't knock each other out too early. The ticket buyers want to see the big names.
For the local and regional tournaments, I'm in favor of a true blind draw and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...


OK, same question: why for one and not the other?

And I totally agree with you that from the promoter's point of view it makes total sense to try and get the big names at the end for the spectators, DVD sales, and PPV.

But, now let me ask you how it looks from the point of view of the amateur, who is being exhorted by the promoter to enter said event? Do you feel the same then?

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
OK, same question: why for one and not the other?

And I totally agree with you that from the promoter's point of view it makes total sense to try and get the big names at the end for the spectators, DVD sales, and PPV.

But, now let me ask you how it looks from the point of view of the amateur, who is being exhorted by the promoter to enter said event? Do you feel the same then?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

that is a collidge word there Lou. Dramatic, but not appropriate.
 
JAM said:
I do not think there should be any seeding anymore. The reason why I believe this is due to events that I have witnessed in the past at so-called "pro tournaments."

Number one, I don't think the Europeans should get a free pass to come to the U.S. Open a day or two late just because they are competing in a European event that is logistically close in time to the U.S. Open dates. Why should they get seeded to advantage them, when all the other American schmucks have to pay for a full week of expenses and play in the tournament from the first bracket with no byes?

Secondly, the pros in the United States, with the exception of the ladies pro tour (WPBA), don't really have an organization that looks out for the interests of *all* professional players. There are a minute few who are calling the shots, and why should they get byes in tournaments that are advantageous to them and not the other professional players? What the heck is a professional player anymore? Just someone who signs up for the organization du jour?

There ain't no such thing as a professional American player for the men anymore. They can call themselves "professionals," but they're out there grinding in the regional events and amateur tours just like the social shooters, shortstops, and league players.

I've seen my partner's name not get a buy because one outspoken senior player voiced his opinion at the U.S. Open. He believed that all seniors should get buys in the U.S. Open. Even though my partner came in third place in 2003 and was supposed to get a buy in 2004 for his third place finish -- LIKE EVERY PREVIOUS U.S. OPEN SEEDING WAS HANDLED -- his name was removed for seeding to allow senior players who only competed in one senior event the year previously. What a joke: one senior tournament for an entire year and those seniors got byes in the U.S. Open.

It was a sham and a travesty for the 2003 third-place finisher to get bumped, lose his seeding and free bye, to allow the senior players their free bye. Players should not be able to dictate to the tournament organizers who gets seeded and who doesn't, and that is *exactly* what this senior player did.

Put all the names in a hat, and may the best player win. Pool is such a damn game of luck now anyway. What's wrong with the luck of the draw? Luck may be luck when it comes to the draw, but talent should always come out on top.

Seeding sucks, especially when a few pros go behind closed doors and get themselves that free buy with less expenses. They should not be given favoritism, and that is all seeding does in 2011. Maybe things will change if there is a *real* pro tour, but for now, there ain't.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.:grin-square:
Click to expand...


Man, do I hate that: certain players getting preferred treatment -- like byes and rescheduled matches to accommodate their personal woes. And, I also agree with your sentiment about who decides who the pros are, or put another way: who will get preferred treatment.

With all the affiliations out there, is there really anyone n the pool industry who can make a truly unbiased call on this? Almost every promoter nowadays has his pet players and without a true governing body and impartial ranking system that is a significant problem.

Lou Figueroa
 
stbjr80 said:
That is a pretty interesting topic. Though I'm not against it I think you would definately have your amateurs complaining over this. When you have people complaining over a $15 dollar difference...could you imagine all of them being eliminated in the first couple of rounds? I think it would hurt the over all turnout of a Pro-Am tour but definately would be a good idea for a final event of the year and the more major open events.
Click to expand...


I think that if it is an event that is heavily relying on amateur support and turnout, I agree -- there's a problem there. If it's a long established event with a heavy pro turnout, maybe not so much.

Lou Figueroa
 
JAM said:
All players should be treated equally. They each incur the same expense. Why should the pros get a free ride? Let them go out there and battle it out like all players have to do. If Bustie has to play Efren first round, well, so be it. If Joe Schmuck has to play Efren first round, then that's the luck of the draw.

All players should be treated equally. To worry about the pros knocking themselves out early in the tournament resulting in low attendance or disappointment for the audience should *not* be a consideration for seeding.
Click to expand...


I think I agree: especially for open events, major or not.

Lou Figueroa
 
Perk said:
I think blind random draw is the way to go since there is no organization. If big names have to play in the early rounds promoters can still market that matchup during there streams/television if needed, rather than watching some lopsided match.
Click to expand...


I think this is a significant part of the issue: no organization which means the seeding being done based on unknown factors, or just at the whim of one or a few.

Lou Figueroa
 
Black-Balled said:
that is a collidge word there Lou. Dramatic, but not appropriate.
Click to expand...


I said *exhorted* (to urge by strong, often stirring argument, admonition, advice, or appeal), not *extorted* (to obtain from another by coercion or intimidation) if that's what you meant :-)

Lou Figueroa
 
Maryland Straight Pool Open

I know a few very good players who refuse to play in the Maryland Straight Pool Open precisely because they feel the seeding is unfair.
 
NOOOOOOOOOO! OPEN TOURNAMENT= RANDOM DRAW!! NO SEEDING, PERIOD! AINT NUTHIN TO TALK ABOUT!! TAKE ALL THE NAMES(NUMBERS), THROW' EM IN A HAT, AND LET EVERYONE ONE BY ONE TAKE A NUMBER. WHATEVER NUMBER YOU PICK, THATS THE SLOT YOU GO INTO ON THE TOURNAMENT CHART. ITS THAT SIMPLE. END OF STORY.

HEADS WANT SEEDINGS FOR ONE REASON: LESS DIFFICULT PATH TO CASH!!

ITS JUST FUNNY HOW WE JUST HAD THE FATBOY CHALLENGE AT DERBY CITY. 16 TOP NOTCH PLAYERS UNQUESTIONABLE SELECTED FOR THE TOURNEY!! THE ELITE OF OUR POOL WORLD!! I DIDNT HEAR ANYONE OF THEM GOING UP TO FATBOY OR GREG TALKING ABOUT SEEDINGS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THEY JUST GOT UP THERE AND PLAYED. WELL IF YOU CAN DO THAT FOR THE FBC, THEN YOU CAN DO THAT FOR ANY OTHER TOURNAMENT!! YES?


ALSO ON ANOTHER NOTE THE DRAW NEEDS TO BE DONE IN FRONT OF THE PLAYERS!! NOT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!!! BEEN TO TOO MANY TOURNAMENTS WHERE FIRST ROUNDS MATCHUPS HAVE BEEN VERY SUSPECT!!! HOW YOU GONNA COME WITH YOUR ROADDOG AND OUT OF 50+ PEOPLE WITH A 'RANDOM DRAW' YOU DRAW YOUR MAN IN THE FIRST ROUND?? COUGH *B^LL$H^T* COUGH. HOW YOU GONNA HAVE 3 WOMEN AND 40 GUYS FOR THE TOURNEY AND 2 OF THE 3 LADIES DRAW EACH OTHER IN THE FIRST ROUND? COUGH *B^LL$H^T* COUGH. HOW YOU GONNA PLAY THE SAME GUY/GIRL IN THE FIRST ROUND 4 OR 5 CONSECUTIVE TOURNAMENTS IN A ROW??? COUGH *B^LL$H^T* COUGH.


SOMEBODY TALK TO ME!!!!.....QQ IF YOU GETTING ODDS LIKE THAT, YOU SHOULD TAKE YOUR TALENTS TO THE NEAREST CASINO AND GET RICH!!! :-)

I DONT KNOW, MAYBE ITS ME SEEING GHOSTS!!! :eek:

THESE EVILS IN THE POOL WORLD MUST SSSTTTOOOPPP!!!

PEACE

WUTANG
 
Last edited:
Ron F said:
I know a few very good players who refuse to play in the Maryland Straight Pool Open precisely because they feel the seeding is unfair.
Click to expand...


Asking around, I'm not too surprised. I know about 1/2 dozen players here in the Midwest, abut my speed or better (usually better), who say they would not walk across the street to play in a seeded tournament.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top