A lot of people are unhappy with how the Behrman's run a tournament. It is a surprise they have been in business so long.
US Open changes
- Thread starter uwate
- Start date
A lot of people are unhappy with how the Behrman's run a tournament. It is a surprise they have been in business so long.
First of all, I should have mentioned that I like the Open, just that I don't care for seeding in general. And yes, if only 32 players are seeded I suppose a non seeded competitor is not guarenteed a first round trip to the b side, but they are still not getting a fair deal. I mean it sucks if 2 champs have to play each other early in a tournament,but its a double elimination tournament, so the player that loses 1rst round isnt out, and its not likely they would have another top player beaten in the same bracket in the 1rst round, so they have to go through the loser side big deal. Even if only 32 top players are seeded that means 32 other players are getting a bad draw by design. I think many people do not recognize the difference in ability of the top 32 and bottom 32. Should those players that "fill the field" so to speak be put into a draw like this even though they are paying the same entry fee? I dont think so, but that is just my opinion.
This is a good point -- seeding is less important in a double-elimination event than in a single-elimination event. But the vagaries of a random draw in a double-elimination event can still produce paths through the event for different players that are enormously different in degree of difficulty, and seeding helps equalize the paths.
Clueless!!
Major Cluelessness!!
That is how I feel about the Behrman management. It is like when are they going to manage their own business. They've been letting the ABP and BCA manage it for almost two years too many now.
You're right, it's not a problem, because I won't support a seeded tournament
Why should I haul my ass half way across the country and pay the associated expenses when my odds of going 0-2 in the event have gone up significantly? Playing in big events is not a life or death decision for me. I do it for fun. And when I go to an "open" event I don't expect to be put at a disadvantage because of the draw. If that's going to happen, I'd rather then just find another event where that won't happen and spend my monies at that event.
Lou Figueroa
Very, very well put.
Yup... Justnumnuts
Really? Star TreK?!
Try putting the pictures books down and get some with words ;-)
Lou Figueroa
lol,
kids
Last edited:
So Jay, now that you've stopped by, can you please tell us the formula by which those who are going to be seeded is determined?
The press release listed 4 different sources, by my recollection. Who becomes number 1, and why? Etc, etc, etc...
If you're gonna do it, there ought to be some criteria. i would hope that the US Open, being an "open" tournament, folks might know how to this is determined.
The press release listed 4 different sources, by my recollection. Who becomes number 1, and why? Etc, etc, etc...
If you're gonna do it, there ought to be some criteria. i would hope that the US Open, being an "open" tournament, folks might know how to this is determined.
A total dog? No. A sub top 50 player? yes. Do you think that the fans wanted to watch Shawn Putnam play Darren Appleton in the finals of the US-Open last year instead of a Appleton vs SVB or a Appleton vs Alex finals? Do you think the PVP was as high with Putnam there instead of a higher ranked player? People on this very forum were giving up huge odds to bet on Appleton in that finals and they had basically written off Putnam before that match even started. The thing was the epitome of an anti-climax and that is NOT good for pool.
The ONLY reason Putnam can get there is because of the conditions the game is played on. If the pockets were as tight as the TAR table he has almost no chance getting through the players he did, if the table is also a 10-footer with those tight pockets he honestly has no prayer. BUT you put him on a table where the pockets are big enough in a short enough race and he has a chance, his odds go way up, he can start breaking well, get a little lucky, and upset a player or two who are far better then he is.
Sports need dominant top players that get to the finals alot and become household names, they need the "heroes" of the sport. As I said, sports live and die with their top players. The guys like Tiger or Phil, like Agassi or Federer, like O'Sullivan or Hendry. It is not the short stops that get interest. It is not Putnam getting to the finals because the conditions are easy enough and the races short enough that he can have a "Cinderella" moment that is going to take this sport to the next level. This sport needs to toughen up the conditions so that the top players start to become regular names at the end stages of events, time and time again. We need to start to see 3 or 4 players prove to be the best and get there over and over, and then we need to see those battles at the end on TOUGH equippment and see which of those guys really IS the best player on this planet.
We need to see the Agassi vs Sampras or Federer vs Nadal battles. We need to see the Hendry vs O'Sullivan rivalry. It is that stuff that drives ALL sports and pool simply does not have that.
Clueless to no end...
The BCA decided to step in as an escrow party only.... They have nada to do with anything else in regards to managing anything....
The ABP got their escrow and Barry turned around and took 10k off the top of the pot and fed it to the bottom which would likely be the non-ABP players....... Pretty sure that's a push and not an ABP win.....
Seeding has been done every year at the open based on several things like the players rankings on the money list, their prior year finish, Prior champions, Hall of fame membership etc...... Barry admitting he will seed is nothing new and I will hazard a guess that some of the decisions will be all his and he will thumb his nose the ABP as far as what he wants goes....
I don't see Barry cowing to the rules the ABP wants so what we have is the Open in all it's glory coming to us in about 6months...
There will plenty of pros and amateurs alike showing up and the final few days of the tourney will be packed with spectators as always....
It will be a great tournament and many of us will be there having a blast while you will remain here sitting insignificantly behind your keyboard upchucking useless words that somehow manage to form sentences..
My name is Chris... I live in Knoxville TN..... Most have figured out my last name must be Renfro.... so from my perspective anyone hiding out under just a screen name without putting out who they really are is either a just bunch of useless hot air or a troll lurking to spout out crap and not have to answer for it........
Go back under your bridge.... or start digging in the archives again... Go find the one about the truth about the WPA events to start with.... Even with sponsors with oil money promoters don't always manage to pull off getting people paid on time........
Barry loves the game and he tries.... You espouse to love the game but have you contributed ANYTHING to it aside from an endless tirade of idiocies or massive amounts of reposts from years ago?
It's not really a formula, but the use of existing ranking lists beginning with the BCA rankings. The WPA rankings and the Euro Tour rankings are also given consideration. I no longer think past champions will be seeded, unless they qualify for a seed.
I remember working on the seeds last year and the first 16 or 20 players are pretty obvious. After that it becomes more a question of someone being ranked 23rd or 24th, or 28th or 29th. Barry has a good formula in place to give proper positioning to the best players via the rankings. The other 224 (in a full field of 256) are then blind drawn into the brackets. So with or without seeding, the luck of the draw still comes into play, BIG TIME!
You might not play a seeded player until the third round, and possibly not even then if the seeded player in your portion of the bracket has lost already. This makes the argument fostered on this thread about seeded players getting some huge advantage somewhat moot imo. There is no easy path to the deep money rounds in the U.S. Open for anybody, seeded or not.
By the way, if it were up to me, I would probably do away with paying 65th thru 96th places and instead take that $32,000 and spread it out down the list, maybe from 7th-8th place downward. It would add about $250 per spot near the bottom to $500 or more in the higher positions. IMO paying 64 spots in the U.S. Open is more than enough. But this is Barry's call and I respect it. He feels that paying so deep makes the Open more attractive to lesser players, and he's correct in that regard. I know that if I were an up and coming player, winning $1,000 would surely soften the blow (and the expenses) of competing in the Open. A player can actually compete in the Open on a fairly small budget if they are careful. $500 for your entry fee, share driving and room expenses, plus eat on the cheap and you could get by on not much more than $1,000. So a $1,000 win would look pretty big in that spot. I know in the past when I've backed players that winning $1,000 as opposed to getting back zero makes a big difference in my pocketbook. :smile:
Last edited:
Point well taken.
However, it would seem that in the Putnam example perhaps the better answer lies in the equipment and ensuring it is sufficiently demanding -- rather than seeding -- so that only the best players survive till the end.
I'd also agree with your point about Agassi vs Sampras. Great rivalries, especially individual ones (vice teams), are what every sport needs to show them to best advantage. But I'm not sure we have the personalities in pool, nor the major floorboards, for that to happen.
Lou Figueroa
Not true.
When Mike won his 1st US Open, he got thrown into the losers bracket early and had to win 13 matches in a row to finally win. This was a US Open record btw. Bartram came very very close to ousting him - that was a very good match.
I just wanted to cut out this from Jay's post. In my mind, this is really the bottom line.
With a 256 player field (there has been full fields the last couple of years), and the caliber of players that show up, there is still no easy road to the finish. If you are gonna make it deep in the tourney, you are gonna have to face a few big hitters no matter what. By Thursday, there are no matches where someone didn't have to beat some good players to still be in.
Eric >winning on Sat. nite is a whole nutha thing
FWIW I find it interesting that people will complain about seeding favoring the better players but will also complain if a tournament has short races because it favors, or at least changes the odds, more toward the weaker player.
Do we just want weaker players to do better?
Do we just want to root for the underdog?
Do we just want to chance to knock off a few people and cash?
Never mind, I think I may have answered my own question.
Brian in Va - prefers seeding since I only make it to the last 3 days of the tournament.
Do we just want weaker players to do better?
Do we just want to root for the underdog?
Do we just want to chance to knock off a few people and cash?
Never mind, I think I may have answered my own question.
Brian in Va - prefers seeding since I only make it to the last 3 days of the tournament.