US Open changes

If they want to seed the event so the elite players end up in the final 32, why not have a 32/64 player tournament with a $3000 entry?

I've always wanted to go to the open and play just because it would be a fun week for me. The spectator costs vs playing also makes it advantageous to play.

I guess if you play a top 32 player first round you know you won't get a beatdown by an unknown first round.
 
branpureza said:
"Predictable according to skill level"

So you think it's more fair for a very weak player to go further in the most prestigious tournament in the world than a champion by sheer luck of the draw?

I thought the idea was to see who the best players in the world are.

By your logic it would be perfectly fine if the top half of the bracket contained 128 champions and the lower half 128 C players wherein the final match was between Shane Van Boening and an APA 5?

That would make a mockery of the tournament and the sport of pool itself.

This is why other professional sports tournaments are seeded as well. Think about it...
Click to expand...
I agree with both of your posts

It doesn't favor the pros for a win since they all have to survive the final 8 but it does keep the lesser player from lucking into a strong finish via luck of the draw
 
D_Lewis said:
If they want to seed the event so the elite players end up in the final 32, why not have a 32/64 player tournament with a $3000 entry?

I've always wanted to go to the open and play just because it would be a fun week for me. The spectator costs vs playing also makes it advantageous to play.

I guess if you play a top 32 player first round you know you won't get a beatdown by an unknown first round.
Click to expand...
Interesting Perspective

I agree.. I would much rather "2 and out" with Archer and Morris as opponents, better memories and a fun story
 
D_Lewis said:
If they want to seed the event so the elite players end up in the final 32, why not have a 32/64 player tournament with a $3000 entry?

I've always wanted to go to the open and play just because it would be a fun week for me. The spectator costs vs playing also makes it advantageous to play.

I guess if you play a top 32 player first round you know you won't get a beatdown by an unknown first round.
Click to expand...

Spectator costs are $10.00 Dollars day and $10.00 night sessions x7 days =$140.00. Entry fee is $500.00
 
The pro's can get the easy draw just as quick as the amateurs.

I may agree with seeding the top 16 or 24 players evenly among brackets but then you could use random draw.

The problem with seeding is there is no one official ranking system.

Sounds to me like the ABP wants to make sure they have an unfair advantage to cash.
Random draw means every player no matter their skill level or political connections have exactly the same chance of winning.

Seeding without official rankings is to easy to be called into question about the fairness of the seeding.
 
The seeding will come from the WPA, BCA, ABP, as well as 4 promoter’s discretion seeds from Barry and Shannon.
Click to expand...

That is a gongshow. It should be WPA rankings, period.
 
One day the dead wood players will just stop playing in/stop funding these seeded tournaments they have no chance to cash in. Seeding is only done to have the top 16 still in on the last day. Keep this seeding $hit up and one day you'll only have 16 top pros in the whole tournament. Johnnyt
 
I agree with seeding when it is done in a professional tournament. This however, is not a professional tournament. Out of a full field of 256, how many actually have a chance to win, maybe 40?

The other 200 players are playing for the enjoyment of competing and adding $100,000 to the pot for the other 60 guys.

If you want seeding, as another poster said, have a very small tournament with higher entries. Many people who play in the open know they are dead money and just hope to get a good draw. I'm sure knowing they are most likely going two and out will prevent a bunch of those guys from entering.
 
markgw said:
I don't think anyone should play in a tournament, unless they think they can win it. ...
Click to expand...

I think that would eliminate the vast majority of all competitors in most sports. People enter for many reasons other than the expectation of finishing in first place.

Here are just a few reasons for entering a pool tournament even though you don't believe you are good enough to win:
  • You believe you are good enough to win at least as much money as you spent on the tournament.
  • Personal development -- you want the experience of playing top players in order to improve your game.
  • Personal development -- you want the experience of playing in front of large crowds to improve your game.
  • Fun (and you can afford it).
  • Ego -- you want to be able to say you played in a top event.
  • Ego -- you want to be able to talk about your matches with top players.
  • Someone else is paying your way.
Also, I think it's safe to say that sports history is loaded with first-time winners who had no expectation of winning the event.
 
Last edited:
branpureza said:
... By your logic it would be perfectly fine if the top half of the bracket contained 128 champions and the lower half 128 C players wherein the final match was between Shane Van Boening and an APA 5? ...
Click to expand...

Well, the APA 5 would finish 3rd in that situation, right (lose the hot seat match and then lose the losers' bracket finals)?

I like both of your posts on seeding (#18 and #20).
 
Klink said:
... The problem with seeding is there is no one official ranking system. ...
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a problem. It will be interesting to see how that is handled, and I'm sure it will make for some good conversation on AZB.
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
I think that would eliminate the vast majority of all competitors in most sports. People enter for many reasons other than the expectation of finishing in first place.

Here are just a few reasons for entering a pool tournament even though you don't believe you are good enough to win:
  • You believe you are good enough to win at least as much money as you spent on the tournament.
  • Personal development -- you want the experience of playing top players in order to improve your game.
  • Personal development -- you want the experience of playing in front of large crowds to improve your game.
  • Fun (and you can afford it).
  • Ego -- you want to be able to say you played in a top event.
  • Ego -- you want to be able to talk about your matches with top players.
  • Someone else is paying your way.
Also, I think it's safe to say that sports history is loaded with first-time winners who had no expectation of winning the event.
Click to expand...


I like this post. How else (and where else) can you find out how you match up against good players and yes, even compete against champions. The U.S. Open remains one of the great proving grounds in professional pool. Seeding is a common component of making the draw in almost all professional sports, plus it doesn't guarantee a seeded player a first round bye or even a favorable draw. There are MANY very good players who will not be seeded, mostly due to the fact they play in so few events. We have seeded 32 players in the last two Opens using all the various ranking lists. And there have always been several top shelf first round match-ups.

It's an economic fact of life that by not paying the $500 entry fee for all past champions, Barry and Shannon are better able to make this event a continued success. With a $200,000 purse that pays $1,000 as deep as 96th place, the chance of cashing becomes very attractive for even "shortstop" level players. I would guarantee that some names that show up in the money column will not be familiar to the great majority of pool fans. Who would have expected a noted "instructor" (and unseeded) like Stan Shuffett to make the top twelve last year? I love the fact that there are always surprises at the Open. How about "Car Lot" Donnie's great run a couple of years ago?

The U.S. Open remains the premier professional tournament held in the U.S. every year. If you want to watch great pool in a great setting (and meet the players up close and personal), this is the one to go to.
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
I think that would eliminate the vast majority of all competitors in most sports. People enter for many reasons other than the expectation of finishing in first place.

Here are just a few reasons for entering a pool tournament even though you don't believe you are good enough to win:
  • You believe you are good enough to win at least as much money as you spent on the tournament.
  • Personal development -- you want the experience of playing top players in order to improve your game.
  • Personal development -- you want the experience of playing in front of large crowds to improve your game.
  • Fun (and you can afford it).
  • Ego -- you want to be able to say you played in a top event.
  • Ego -- you want to be able to talk about your matches with top players.
  • Someone else is paying your way.
Also, I think it's safe to say that sports history is loaded with first-time winners who had no expectation of winning the event.
Click to expand...

This is a good post and probably how most that don't have much of a chance to cash think. I see things a bit different. Take $500 of the $2000 it will cost to play, travel, and stay at the US Open and go to your closest poolroom with a top pro that works/plays there. Most of the large rooms have two or three pros playing there at night. Any of them will play you $20 a rack even or cheap $50 sets even. I say even because that's how you will match up with them at the Open. You don't put Manny "Packman" in with someone that won the Golden Gloves last week. Johnnyt
 
I have a few bones of contention on the subject of seeding and since I am not anywhere on the positive poster list I guess as usual I won't pull punches.....

First off the guys that said playing in the open is now off the bucket list likely would have never showed to start with... If you have been before and played you would know that the US Open has always been seeded... Based on that fact your boycott is meaningless......

Now from a spectators point of view since apparently many of you are making assumptions.... The first 2 days attendance at the Open are dismal.... People want to come watch their favorites battle it out with known players.... Not seeding may lead you to think well no seeding might change that but it's a long tourney and many people come for the final few days because they KNOW they will get to see premiere matchups.....

Even with seedings last year I think at least 2 seeded players were knocked into the losers bracket in the first round.... The year Mika come all the way from the losers bracket he was seeded because he had won the prior year...... Chris Bartram was unseeded and knocked him into the losers bracket...

Most of the guys that show up can flat out play.... Sure some show up because they just want to be a part of it and know they can't win but they get out there and try and try and when they fail they have earned my respect and some get to go home with great stories.....

You wanna go home and tell your friends you went 2 and out against 2 players they never heard of or you wanna tell em how you were even with SVB at 4-4 before he ran off and hid from you or how you took someone they have heard of down or to the hill.....

The only guys I usually hear complain about draws and seeding are the short stops that have been around the game long enough to know that a soft bracket can put extra money in their pocket..... I have no idea how many local tournaments I have won but I would hazard a guess that the draw helped me in about half of them.... The lure of an easy draw is always a motivating factor for the lesser player to throw his chips in.....

More years ago then I can count I went to the Music City and finished in the top 8... I was a fearless shotmaker but that me would need tons of weight from me in my current version but because of my draw I only had to get thru 1 known player.... I played 2 years ago and went 3-2 getting beaten by Max Eberle and Rob Saez...... The pressure of playing those professionals was worth the price of entry...... It shook me to my core in anxiety and confidence......

And that's what it takes if you want to be a seeded player... You have to beat your competition and you have to beat the voices inside your head that tell you you can't.....

If seeding scares you then by all means sit at home on the porch.... If you want to see what you are truly made of and determine if you are as good as you want to think you are jump in with both feet....

If you want soft brackets play locally.... There are tons of small ponds out there where you can be the "Big" fish....... The stories you will get to tell will be way less interesting but you can at least feel like you were always a winner..........
 
Last edited:
joelpope said:
Total purse went from 178k to 200k so I don't think the expense reduction comment is valid

Clearly, there is a change in the distribution but there will be more money given to players than prior years


Seeding makes sense and I would much rather it be transparent than a "behind the scenes" deal
Click to expand...

I should have chosen my words carefully, I guess. I stated the payouts were lowered, which they were. Since Keith came in third in 2003, I knew it was $10,000. The week-long event is expensive, so it covered expenses. I should have said the distribution was spread out more, though the total purse went up. Is that better? :smile:

I agree about transparency 100 percent. No back-door deals should be done about handing out byes. It ain't fair.

Actually, one pro at the Open one year said they should just throw all the names in a hat and let it fly. I kind of agree with this. Why should the fastest runner in the race get a head start?

Then again, I emphathize with a pro player who plays pool on a regular basis, say Dennis Hatch, drawing Efren Reyes or Johnny Archer first round. That kind of sucks too.
 
markgw said:
I don't think anyone should play in a tournament, unless they think they can win it. If seeding makes a difference to you, I guess you didn't think you had a chance to win the tournament in the first place. You will eventually have to play great players, seeded or not. I don't think many players sign up for the us open unless there goal is to win the us open.......So if seeding is an issue for you, maybe smaller tournaments with lesser players is your calling.....just sayin....
Click to expand...

I agree with this logic too! :smile:
 
SCCues said:
I agree about not paying the entry fee for all past tournament winners and only paying for the defending champion is a good move. I'm not sure I like moving from the convention center, but I may change my mind after seeing the setup at the re-furbished Holiday Inn. I'll miss the convention center after going to every US Open since it's been held there and the Hampton Inn nearby that I stayed at every year!

James
Click to expand...

I went to a tournament that the Holiday Inn there in Chesapeake Beach, and it was held in the same room where they have the BCA HOF award dinner. The tournament was very spacious, and n nfact, I like the setup better there. I'm sure Holiday Inn, or whatever hotel it is now, will be digging it! :D

Here is a photo from PoolPics by Hoppe taken at the Holiday Inn with Bustie. You can kind of see the background. See the individual chairs instead of hard bench seats? Actually, it is nice. :smile:
 

Attachments

  • P1220039[1].jpg
    P1220039[1].jpg
    52.3 KB · Views: 379
Here's a better view of the room with King James in the foreground. The lighting is great! :cool:
 

Attachments

  • P1230036[1].jpg
    P1230036[1].jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 380
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top