US Open changes
- Thread starter uwate
- Start date
![P1220027[1].jpg](/data/attachments/164/164384-8fc542b7f0a9bcb21e8d2f7e08d9f1b6.jpg?hash=j8VCt_CpvL)
I happen to agree with Klink on the seeding issue.
With "professional" being the keyword here. I agree with you. In a way, though this is one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world, the title of which is every pool player's dream to achieve, there is no such thing as a professional tournament that would allow, say, me to compete in it by allowing me to pay the entry fee as the only qualification.
Then again, isn't that what professional pool is? No other "sport," if I can call pool a sport, has tournaments where railbirds like me can qualify by just paying the entry fee. It's a double-edged sword.
With "professional" being the keyword here. I agree with you. In a way, though this is one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world, the title of which is every pool player's dream to achieve, there is no such thing as a professional tournament that would allow, say, me to compete in it by allowing me to pay the entry fee as the only qualification.
Then again, isn't that what professional pool is? No other "sport," if I can call pool a sport, has tournaments where railbirds like me can qualify by just paying the entry fee. It's a double-edged sword.
The fact that you can enter simply by paying the entry fee is what makes this a true "Open" tournament. "Open" means anyone is free to enter and you don't have to be a member of some special organization (UPA, ABP, WPA) to enter. You pay your money and take your best shot. I think this makes the U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship special.
Let me know when you find a true "Open" tournament, of this size, in any other sport.
Last edited:
I see what you mean about the definition of "open." I often wondered about this event being open to our international brethren of players when it is titled "U.S. Open," but it is what it is.
The now-defunct BCA Open wasn't really an open. It was an invitational, yet it was called "open." :grin:
I like this tournament and would never want anything to happen to it. I love this venue, Virginia, down by the beach. The air is crisp and clean as it blows through my long locks of hair. I love that!
I am not sure about what the definition of "open" means as it pertains to this tournament.
What I do know is pool as a "sport" is unlike any other here in the United States. Where else can a railbird compete right alongside the so-called pros? What makes one a pro, anyway? Do you have to belong to the newly formed ABP? Do you have to be a member of the European pool group? Do you have to be someone who only shoots pool for a living and not have employment elsewhere?
I submit there is no such thing is a "professional pool player" anymore. We are all colored with the same broad brush. I could hit a thousand balls a day and turn pro by the end of the year. I may not win anything, but I could be labeled a "pro" the way pool is structured in the United States.
Though I believe the ABP has good intentions, it is too similar to the UPA's leadership at its origin, which makes me have doubts about its transparency and fairness to all.
Just look to golf... The US Open is open... All you have to do is play in regionals events to get into the final field
If you could show up with a check, the golf tournament would have thousands of players which is why they use the qualifiers
One reason why it's so hard to make a living at playing pool is because the prize fund payouts are so lopsided in favor of the top spots.
Shown below is the payout distribution for this year's U.S. Open. For a traveling player to break even on expenses, they probably need to make a minimum of $1500. So the players finishing 33-96th are breaking even or perhaps taking a modest loss. Players finishing as high as 9th-32nd place might make a profit of $1000 or less after expenses. Not bad but certainly not enough to live on.
I hope Barry will consider raising the payouts from the bottom up rather than from the top down. The 49th-64th places, for example, could pay out $1500 so that more players can come closer to breaking even on expenses. Other payouts from the bottom up could also be progressively increased even if it means paying out less on the very top spots.
Another suggestion might be to increase the payouts for the players in the upper middle of the payout distribution, say from 7th-24th places.
IMO, the goal should be to help other players besides the very top players make a living at the game.
Shown below is the payout distribution for this year's U.S. Open. For a traveling player to break even on expenses, they probably need to make a minimum of $1500. So the players finishing 33-96th are breaking even or perhaps taking a modest loss. Players finishing as high as 9th-32nd place might make a profit of $1000 or less after expenses. Not bad but certainly not enough to live on.
I hope Barry will consider raising the payouts from the bottom up rather than from the top down. The 49th-64th places, for example, could pay out $1500 so that more players can come closer to breaking even on expenses. Other payouts from the bottom up could also be progressively increased even if it means paying out less on the very top spots.
Another suggestion might be to increase the payouts for the players in the upper middle of the payout distribution, say from 7th-24th places.
IMO, the goal should be to help other players besides the very top players make a living at the game.
Here is the full breakdown:
1st $30,000.00
2nd $15,000.00
3rd $8,000.00
4th $6,000.00
5th-6th $4,500.00 each
7th-8th $3,500.00 each
9th-12th $2,500.00 each
13th-16th $2,250.00 each
17th-24th $2,000.00 each
25th-32nd $1,750.00 each
33rd-48th $1,500.00 each
49th-64th $1,250.00 each
65th-96th $1,000.00 each
1st $30,000.00
2nd $15,000.00
3rd $8,000.00
4th $6,000.00
5th-6th $4,500.00 each
7th-8th $3,500.00 each
9th-12th $2,500.00 each
13th-16th $2,250.00 each
17th-24th $2,000.00 each
25th-32nd $1,750.00 each
33rd-48th $1,500.00 each
49th-64th $1,250.00 each
65th-96th $1,000.00 each
Last edited:
I'll be the first to admit, I know squat about pro events. But wouldn't you consider seeding players a bit unfair? Everyone should have a shot equally. I really don't think the best players have much to worry about when it comes to guys with almost no chance and show up, just out of curiosity on how well they do. The fast horse is gonna be at the front regardless. If a top pro should happen to lose to an unknown, then it just wasn't his year.
I really agree with this post especially the part about helping out others aside the top players...
This goal is very admirable, but the method will not get your desired results. You'll never make an appreciable change if the bulk of the prize pool is still based on the entrants.
If you make too big of an adjustment to the potential winnings then you'll see a reduction in the number of entries. When your goal is to make money as a player then you will seek out tournaments that maximize the potential revenue to expense ratio. In other words, if you drop the prize money at the top then the average top player must play more tournaments per win to make the same amount of money. As we all know, one of the biggest expenses is travel related so keeping that low is in the best interest of the player. In the case of being able to support oneself playing pool there is a negligible difference between breaking even and losing money because the end result is that both are not good enough to continue the pursuit as an occupation. Therefore setting up tournaments in which more people simply break even, but fewer earn requisite payouts would not achieve any considerable result.
If the contest is still principally funded by the player entrants then it will very closely resemble gambling. A fundamental principle of gambling is that you must be paid off big when you do get paid off or you'll simply be defeated by the culmination of smaller losses. That's where pool is right now. Unless the system can bring in some form of external income you will always have an unsustainable system, which at best would generate a few profitable entrants at the expense of a lot of unprofitable ones.
speaking of the money its nice that everyone is learning the guy in 33rd has to pay bills too.
but the seeding ......
seeding is normal in any real profesional sporting event-the difference here is that pool has no qualifiers,no recognized ranking system and of course no trustworthy management(hi charlie!)
there are a number of ways they could make ranking systems to set seeding -the first 64 or 128 could be based solely on major event wins with the majors being determined the week after the open is finished,
with any "ties or equality going to a coin flip"meaning points leader from the eurotour vs points leader from the asian tour get equal seeding whereas points leader from the joss tour vs the asian tour the asian takes precidence being that the asian tour is a profesional tour and the joss is a smaller local tour
players who are trying to make the seeding would be best served playing more events(i know thats tough enough)but the point is thats how pools big tourney comeback has to begin
following that type of structuring theres still plenty of room for a"soft draw"at the us open but its highly unlikely and maybe the event goes back to being a more sought after title rather than finding out efren would rather be fishing at home or playing in an event in asia or any other player from overseas who "we"consider a top player
but the seeding ......
seeding is normal in any real profesional sporting event-the difference here is that pool has no qualifiers,no recognized ranking system and of course no trustworthy management(hi charlie!)
there are a number of ways they could make ranking systems to set seeding -the first 64 or 128 could be based solely on major event wins with the majors being determined the week after the open is finished,
with any "ties or equality going to a coin flip"meaning points leader from the eurotour vs points leader from the asian tour get equal seeding whereas points leader from the joss tour vs the asian tour the asian takes precidence being that the asian tour is a profesional tour and the joss is a smaller local tour
players who are trying to make the seeding would be best served playing more events(i know thats tough enough)but the point is thats how pools big tourney comeback has to begin
following that type of structuring theres still plenty of room for a"soft draw"at the us open but its highly unlikely and maybe the event goes back to being a more sought after title rather than finding out efren would rather be fishing at home or playing in an event in asia or any other player from overseas who "we"consider a top player
What an awesome post, I couldn't agree more!
Still waiting to hear from the ABP if they are going to "sanction" the Open.
Come on ABP, go ahead - you know you want to. More precisely, you know you need to. What are ABP rankings without inclusion of the US Open?
No mention of an escrow of the added money, wonder how that will factor in.
Come on ABP, go ahead - you know you want to. More precisely, you know you need to. What are ABP rankings without inclusion of the US Open?
No mention of an escrow of the added money, wonder how that will factor in.
Last edited:
Playing better players will certainly improve your game. So in that regard, it would be a good reason to enter a world beater tournament. I get the fun factor also
If the Behrman's can do it this year, what was stopping them from adopting the changes in previous years?
This seems more like a con job. Like the Behrmans saying the prize money will be on display and then not following through with the advertisement.
The latest announcement is just talk. How can anyone verify if Barry will follow through when the time comes? Lots of salespeople promise the world but when the time comes to provide the proof they are full of excuses.
The Behrman tournament lacks true innovation all their latest ideas came from the ABP. If the Behrman's were serious about staying in business they should act like it, stop spreading rumors and just do their job.
This seems more like a con job. Like the Behrmans saying the prize money will be on display and then not following through with the advertisement.
The latest announcement is just talk. How can anyone verify if Barry will follow through when the time comes? Lots of salespeople promise the world but when the time comes to provide the proof they are full of excuses.
The Behrman tournament lacks true innovation all their latest ideas came from the ABP. If the Behrman's were serious about staying in business they should act like it, stop spreading rumors and just do their job.
My only issue with seeding is the fact that the seeding is going to determined from several different sources (including the ABP, which automatically raises flags).
This raises too many questions of favoritism, to me. If there is/was an established player ranking system, like all the other major sports use, I would have no issue with seeding. It is simple, you look at the list, the current top however-many players get the seeds. In this scenario, you have these decisions made from at least 4 sources, and Barry himself. So basically those making the decisions can find a way to justify seeding whoever they please.
Now before Jay comes on here to defend the Berhmans, I respect jay's judgement in this area as much as anyone. If I had to pick one person to make such a judgement, I think jay would likely be that person. Still, I dont like how such a scenario "could" be manipulated. Not to suggest that jay (or the Berhmans) would do such a thing, its just that it "could" happen, or leave open the suspicion of favoritism. I don't think pool needs the "strife"....
This raises too many questions of favoritism, to me. If there is/was an established player ranking system, like all the other major sports use, I would have no issue with seeding. It is simple, you look at the list, the current top however-many players get the seeds. In this scenario, you have these decisions made from at least 4 sources, and Barry himself. So basically those making the decisions can find a way to justify seeding whoever they please.
Now before Jay comes on here to defend the Berhmans, I respect jay's judgement in this area as much as anyone. If I had to pick one person to make such a judgement, I think jay would likely be that person. Still, I dont like how such a scenario "could" be manipulated. Not to suggest that jay (or the Berhmans) would do such a thing, its just that it "could" happen, or leave open the suspicion of favoritism. I don't think pool needs the "strife"....
I get your point, but the seeding is not new. As Jay pointed out, they have seeded 32 players at least the last two years using various references for the seedings. Really the only thing new I see here is that they have more formally announced some general idea of how the seedings will be determined, and that they may go to 64. But it doesn't sound like any radical changes as far as I can tell.
everyones lucky they are telling the changes in advance last 3 yrs ive seen them do it the day of the draw
The problem is that pool is not like other sports.
In pool, you send in your money and you're in -- that's the qualifier right there. Put another way, it means that pool and its meager prize funds are built on the backs of the amateur players. About the only thing going for these guys is the possibility of a fair draw before they inevitably hit one of the professional meat grinders. With seeding, that small but critical element of fairness is gone. The pros are almost guaranteed a "soft draw" while the amateurs are almost guaranteed a hard one. Seeding basically means the the pro's money (entry fee) is somehow better, or of more value, than the amateur's and worthy of special, preferred treatment.
And all of that is fine and well. Except, some guys are not going to play in a seeded tournament and I would be surprised if he fills out the field this year once word gets out that seeding is in effect.
Lou Figueroa