Hey Watchez. Were you referring to Saginaw Night Shift ,who knocked my team (Ship It) out of the tourney? We did a little research regarding this team and wondered how they were in the Open with their existing roster. Our first loss was to the Cue Club "team". lol
BCA Open team from TAIWAN disqualified?
- Thread starter Shaka
- Start date
Hey Watchez. Were you referring to Saginaw Night Shift ,who knocked my team (Ship It) out of the tourney? We did a little research regarding this team and wondered how they were in the Open with their existing roster. Our first loss was to the Cue Club "team". lol
Payouts
I was one of the people that suggested higher money in the upper divisions earlier in this thread. Although I didn't mean adding money. I've seen some success recently, though on a smaller scale, in a local organization. They simply take all the money for each division in one pool and the upper divisions get paid more. Often times there are almost double or more people in the lower divisions but the higher ones get more money. I also think it's silly to have so many people in one division (Open) with so little in the rest. I think the idea of a lower division that you have to earn your way into by poorly placing in the Open is a viable solution. Simply put I think that the Masters player should get the 11,000$ check and the Open player should get the 3,000$ regardless of how many people they had to fight through. All of this without adding any more money.
I was one of the people that suggested higher money in the upper divisions earlier in this thread. Although I didn't mean adding money. I've seen some success recently, though on a smaller scale, in a local organization. They simply take all the money for each division in one pool and the upper divisions get paid more. Often times there are almost double or more people in the lower divisions but the higher ones get more money. I also think it's silly to have so many people in one division (Open) with so little in the rest. I think the idea of a lower division that you have to earn your way into by poorly placing in the Open is a viable solution. Simply put I think that the Masters player should get the 11,000$ check and the Open player should get the 3,000$ regardless of how many people they had to fight through. All of this without adding any more money.
Send me a check too, if those disqualified were never in the bracket in the first place I woulda won the tournament with my new draw.
I would disagree with you on this to an extent.
I believe the higher division should receive a higher percentage of the added money, but the higher divisions should not have anything to do with how payouts are paid out in different divisions.
My reasoning is, all players pay the same amount to be part of the BCAPL, But not everyone is allowed to play in all divisions. The reason for higher divisions should receive more added money is because the BCAPL is protecting the players from higher skilled players. If the BCAPL did not seperate into multiple divisions, my assumption is that about 2% of the Open players may finish in the money instead of roughly 40% that do now.
But then, would more Masters and Advanced players show up? Mr Griffin said he tried that already and it didn't work out. I would say to give it another try once the Advanced list and Masters list is verified and up to date.
Again, just my opinion, and I will agree with others, the BCAPL/CSI team can give the 5 and out to any to any other league system.
The notifications and checks have all been sent by email and/or US mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 BCAPL National Championships Player Disqualifications
The following is an outline of the background and final disposition regarding the disqualification of two players from the 8-Ball Men’s Open Singles division of the 2012 BCAPL National Championships: Wayne Huang and Sean Cheng.
Both players attended the championships from their native country, Taiwan. The primary reason for the disqualifications was a miscommunication between the League Operator for the two players and the CueSports International (CSI) office. Much of the miscommunication was due to the language barrier.
In the 2011 championships, players from Taiwan were required to play in the Advanced Singles division. However, through a series of miscommunications between the League Operator and CSI, a few new players from Taiwan were allowed to enter the Open Singles division of the 2012 championships.
The Tournament Qualification Committee determined that Wayne Huang and Sean Cheng did not belong in the Open Singles division, and disqualification of their finishing positions was required.
CSI felt some responsibility in the miscommunications with the League Operator in Taiwan, and recognized that the disqualified players had incurred significant expenses in traveling from Taiwan. That, plus the realization that the two disqualified players spoke no English and may not have been personally culpable in being placed in the wrong division, caused the Tournament Qualification Committee to reimburse $5,500 of the disqualified players’ expenses.
The 1st and 2nd place prize money was $11,000 and $7,000. 30% was reimbursed to the players to cover expenses. That leaves $12,500 to be distributed on a pro rata basis to the other players on the finals board who were defeated by the disqualified players. Checks for the amounts below were distributed in addition to prize money already won.
$7,700 was distributed to the players defeated by Wayne Huang as follows:
3rd Ken Lee $3,575
4th Luke Thomas $2,720
13th-16th Ron Allen $ 790
33rd-48th Michael Allen $ 360
49th-64th Danny Lee $ 270
$4,800 was distributed to the players defeated by Sean Cheng as follows:
3rd Ken Lee $1,460
4th Luke Thomas $1,110
5th-6th Blaine Barcus $ 820
7th-8th Glen Collins $ 610
9th-12th Roman Bayda $ 440
17th-24th Brad Hughes $ 265
49th-64th Robert Frost $ 115
The records will not show a 1st or 2nd place finisher for 2012. Advancing the other players in a double elimination format breaks down very quickly: 5th-6th cannot be advanced to 3rd-4th, 9th-12th cannot be advanced to 7th-8th, 17th-24th cannot be advanced to 13th-16th, etc.
CSI regrets that disqualifications were required, but recognizes that the integrity of the Open division must be protected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respectfully,
Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI - BCAPL - USAPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 BCAPL National Championships Player Disqualifications
The following is an outline of the background and final disposition regarding the disqualification of two players from the 8-Ball Men’s Open Singles division of the 2012 BCAPL National Championships: Wayne Huang and Sean Cheng.
Both players attended the championships from their native country, Taiwan. The primary reason for the disqualifications was a miscommunication between the League Operator for the two players and the CueSports International (CSI) office. Much of the miscommunication was due to the language barrier.
In the 2011 championships, players from Taiwan were required to play in the Advanced Singles division. However, through a series of miscommunications between the League Operator and CSI, a few new players from Taiwan were allowed to enter the Open Singles division of the 2012 championships.
The Tournament Qualification Committee determined that Wayne Huang and Sean Cheng did not belong in the Open Singles division, and disqualification of their finishing positions was required.
CSI felt some responsibility in the miscommunications with the League Operator in Taiwan, and recognized that the disqualified players had incurred significant expenses in traveling from Taiwan. That, plus the realization that the two disqualified players spoke no English and may not have been personally culpable in being placed in the wrong division, caused the Tournament Qualification Committee to reimburse $5,500 of the disqualified players’ expenses.
The 1st and 2nd place prize money was $11,000 and $7,000. 30% was reimbursed to the players to cover expenses. That leaves $12,500 to be distributed on a pro rata basis to the other players on the finals board who were defeated by the disqualified players. Checks for the amounts below were distributed in addition to prize money already won.
$7,700 was distributed to the players defeated by Wayne Huang as follows:
3rd Ken Lee $3,575
4th Luke Thomas $2,720
13th-16th Ron Allen $ 790
33rd-48th Michael Allen $ 360
49th-64th Danny Lee $ 270
$4,800 was distributed to the players defeated by Sean Cheng as follows:
3rd Ken Lee $1,460
4th Luke Thomas $1,110
5th-6th Blaine Barcus $ 820
7th-8th Glen Collins $ 610
9th-12th Roman Bayda $ 440
17th-24th Brad Hughes $ 265
49th-64th Robert Frost $ 115
The records will not show a 1st or 2nd place finisher for 2012. Advancing the other players in a double elimination format breaks down very quickly: 5th-6th cannot be advanced to 3rd-4th, 9th-12th cannot be advanced to 7th-8th, 17th-24th cannot be advanced to 13th-16th, etc.
CSI regrets that disqualifications were required, but recognizes that the integrity of the Open division must be protected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respectfully,
Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI - BCAPL - USAPL
Last edited:
Right but just adding money to the Masters isn't an incentive when the Open is still more or a very significant amount. Think on the terms of making money. If I can win 3k playing 50 of the toughest players in the nation or 11k with a large portion of them not the toughest players in the nation which field looks more attractive? At the master level the money is much more meaningful to the players. People who devote the time it takes to achieve that skill should get the large payouts.
At what point does pool become about becoming the best instead of being fair to the people who aren't going to win. So if you take the money from the open division and put it in the Advanced and Masters who is going to complain. 1) People who belong in open and feel their money shouldn't be going to someone else. 2) People who don't belong in open who you are taking money out of their pockets. The majority of the people in 1) camp the ruling doesn't effect them.(as at this point they aren't going to win anything anyways) The camp 2) should feel pissed off and I think it's ok to let them be pissed off.
Mr. G said he was paying 3/8 of the field I think. So pool the money up. Cut it up 45% - 30% - 25% M/A/O (pay out each 3/8 respectively) and watch the people scurry away from the open. It seems harsh when you have such a disparity in size of fields, but the majority of these people aren't going to win any money in the current state anyways.
Keep in mind, it is the BCAPL league members, the people that play in your leagues, who enter your tournaments, who plug your tables, who stay in and gamble in the hotel/casinos that give you the convention space that make the BCAPL exist and prosper. They are the ones paying to make the BCAPL nationals exist, they pay the prize fund, when they ask that you explain a decision and give an explanation on how the tournament that "they" paid to make happen I am not sure they are out of line. Your whole "if someone feels the need to know" attitude might be misplaced, I think the people who paid to make the event happen and who not only support but actually ARE the BCAPL have a RIGHT to know about decisions made in the tournament they made happen.
There is well over $100,000 in entry fees into the BCAPL singles paid by the players in that event and those players plugged tens of thousands of dollars into the tables on top of that entry to play in the event. They actually deserve an explanation, they paid for the event and without them there is no BCAPL.
{edit} I see you finally made the statement. I don't quite agree with the solution but at least you did not totally stiff the players. Still think the BCAPL dropped the ball in the extreme letting the entire tournament play out the way you did, very poorly done and I would suggest being more "pro"-active rather then "retro"-active next time on things like this.
Last edited:
Aw C'mom!!! Spill it already.......joking.
If I had to guess, I would say every player that played and lost to one of the top 2 Taiwan players is getting a refund check of $125, same as their entry?
Also, the Taiwan players checks may be $11,000 and $7,000 for 1st and 2nd, minus the amount of the refunded checks to the other players?
Am I close?
I think that would be fair, given the silence on the matter I somehow doubt that is the solution. Perhaps given the silence they could take that idea and run with it because IMO that is a good one.
Celtic,
I am well aware of who pays the bills. But you act like you speak for everyone. There are some things that I will explain and others that I won't.
I have always responded in a courteous and fairly prompt manner. I do not dodge.
But your little crappy lines; like at least you didn't totally stiff the players. That is typical high school talk and shows a lot of disrespect. I know from previous discussions and posts - that you are very set in your thoughts (10' tables), but I think you need to tone it down. Also remember that I run a business with a lot of people depending on me. I do not take that lightly.
Once you get in the driver's seat, lets see how you take care of buisiness.
I have given my decision and hopefully ti will be accepted as being very fair. You can go blame us all you want. Until you can grasp the concept of trying to judge speed of many players using different standards - there probalby is not much more for us to talk about on this topic.
And I did not 'finally' make our statement. I made it when I said I would make it. Believe it or not, there are a lot of issues with putting office back together and having a 4 day holiday weekend in the middle. The issue was resolved in 6 working days from the end of the event. Two of those days the office was still in trucks.
I will also tell you that IF these players bothered you so much, why didn't you mention it to the tournament staff? In fact, noone mentioned it to the TD until the hotseat match was over. We do the best we can but I will not argue with you. You have your opinions and I have the facts.
I think you need to chill. . . . .
Mark Griffin
I am well aware of who pays the bills. But you act like you speak for everyone. There are some things that I will explain and others that I won't.
I have always responded in a courteous and fairly prompt manner. I do not dodge.
But your little crappy lines; like at least you didn't totally stiff the players. That is typical high school talk and shows a lot of disrespect. I know from previous discussions and posts - that you are very set in your thoughts (10' tables), but I think you need to tone it down. Also remember that I run a business with a lot of people depending on me. I do not take that lightly.
Once you get in the driver's seat, lets see how you take care of buisiness.
I have given my decision and hopefully ti will be accepted as being very fair. You can go blame us all you want. Until you can grasp the concept of trying to judge speed of many players using different standards - there probalby is not much more for us to talk about on this topic.
And I did not 'finally' make our statement. I made it when I said I would make it. Believe it or not, there are a lot of issues with putting office back together and having a 4 day holiday weekend in the middle. The issue was resolved in 6 working days from the end of the event. Two of those days the office was still in trucks.
I will also tell you that IF these players bothered you so much, why didn't you mention it to the tournament staff? In fact, noone mentioned it to the TD until the hotseat match was over. We do the best we can but I will not argue with you. You have your opinions and I have the facts.
I think you need to chill. . . . .
Mark Griffin
Ok, I see you point and I don't want to talk about this subject any longer in this thread because that's not the intent of this thread.
I'm not tryin.g to get the last word or anything and if you would like to continue this subject, feel free to PM me.
I would just like to say though, if all the open players did not participate in nationals we advanced and above players would probably be playing in a weekly bar shoot with $50 added rather than a national event with thousands added because not enough above average players participate to pay the bills of having an event like nationals.
Celtic...Mark already answered you, but I'll give my $.02 too. It's Mark's event. He adds tens of thousands of dollars of added money (this is in addition to the player entry fees). He provides a venue for the players to play in. Without him there would be no BCAPL national championship. You might still have the league, but there would be no national championship event. Keep in mind that this event draws more than 6000 players...all under one roof at one time. The event is run exceptionally smoothly, and gets better every year. There will always be people who try to "cheat the system". Some will be caught...some won't. Mark is free to disclose any information that he chooses, and understandably keeps some information private. It is, after all, a privately owned business...not a charity that has to disclose all their details. BTW, it was nice to meet you in Vegas, and I'd love to sit down and discuss some things with you another time.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Mark, you're just not going to make everyone happy. You're just not, fact of life. Having read the decision, IMHO it was probably the fairest solution to all parties concerned. It would be damn near impossible to prove intent, so given that, your "reimbursement" to the DQ'd player was warranted.
Also, having read other AZers concerns over the Open division, is it feasible for BCAPL to conduct a review of the last few years of the Nationals to see if there is, in fact, a few players dogging it in the Open division so they don't get promoted? CTS would let you go back to 2009, so that would be 4 years to look at. Do you save all the brackets to go back further than that?
Also, having read other AZers concerns over the Open division, is it feasible for BCAPL to conduct a review of the last few years of the Nationals to see if there is, in fact, a few players dogging it in the Open division so they don't get promoted? CTS would let you go back to 2009, so that would be 4 years to look at. Do you save all the brackets to go back further than that?
Good call
I personally think that although things may have been handled better during the tournament, that it has been handled well after the fact. Mark and the BCAPL have a ridiculously tough job to try and keep everyone happy and make sure that it is a fair tournament. We as pool players are a notoriously emotional lot (i for example quit out of a tournament in the middle of a match at the weekend as i was being a baby and didn't like the fact that it was too hot to play in!), so they are fighting a losing battle to start with, but in my opinion they do an amazing job to put on an event that we are willing to travel across the states to attend and I think we owe them a little bit of faith because of that.
Thank you for the explanation Mark, your forthrightedness is appreciated.
I personally think that although things may have been handled better during the tournament, that it has been handled well after the fact. Mark and the BCAPL have a ridiculously tough job to try and keep everyone happy and make sure that it is a fair tournament. We as pool players are a notoriously emotional lot (i for example quit out of a tournament in the middle of a match at the weekend as i was being a baby and didn't like the fact that it was too hot to play in!), so they are fighting a losing battle to start with, but in my opinion they do an amazing job to put on an event that we are willing to travel across the states to attend and I think we owe them a little bit of faith because of that.
Thank you for the explanation Mark, your forthrightedness is appreciated.
As the BCA league operator here in St Louis, I have to tell you that this resolution causes me some concern.
Does this now mean that you reserve the right to disqualify any player or players at any given time during the tournament and to not pay them, or to only pay them a percentage of, their winnings based upon their perceived appropriate playing ability relative to whatever event they're in?
This is not me trying to pick a fight or bash the BCA or Mark Griffin in anyway, but it is very much a legitimate question now with myself and our league players, and if you prefer I will gladly redirect it in an e-mail to Bill Stock or yourself.
I only ask it here, because it appears to now be question many people have.
Actually I can grasp that speed very quickly as can many other players and we seemingly knew of the Taiwanese players being monsters before the people running the event did.
The main issue is that you seem to refuse to accept the fact that the BCAPL needs to improve dramatically in this area and that this was NOT a one time occurance but an ongoing story at every BCAPL nationals. I am simply trying to get some sense that the BCAPL grasps that this issue is not a one-off and it is not going to just go away. It is an area that the BCAPL needs to be alot more proactive in dealing with and year after year of kicking people out of the event after the fact because they are too good is not the correct solution.
The fact the players were in the event did not bother me, it was the most interesting part of the whole event. The way the BCAPL dealt with the issue after the fact is what bothered me, and here I am mentioning that to you now.
That said, in the edit I DID actually commend the BCAPL on giving them at least some of the money to cover the expenses. You did not like the wording or semantics, so be it but the fact that I was actually admitting to it being a better solution then nothing is certainly not unclear.
Last edited:
Look I have commended the BCAPL on numerous occasions on this very forum, I am a fan of the league, but on this situation they messed up and I am for better or for worse one to call a duck a duck.
The money that is "added" is from sponsors who sponsor the event because of participation, vendors fees, league fees, ect... they all ultimately come from the players. mark makes money with the BCAPL, I am not in the least under the impression that he is a jet owning billionaire from the league system, but he is also not going broke throwing his own life savings into the BCAPL each year. The added money is coming from the BCAPL business.
As for the venue, Mark has stated on a podcast that the venue for the BCAPL is supplied by the Riviera, they give him the space for free. He has to use some of the BCAPL capital to pay for setup, lights, ect... but that is coming from the BCAPL and the BCAPL funds it through the various forms of revenue generation.
I am willing to admit to two sides to this but as much as people might see my side as one sided lets not go to completely the other side of the fence and act like Mark G is going broke just to make sure we all get to play a pool tournament in Vegas each year. The BCAPL is not a charity, it is a business and it makes money.
BCAPL Taiwan Team
Jwilliams,
I believe every league has the ability (maybe even the responsibility) of trying to keep people in the proper divisions, even if that means in the middle of an event,
Obviously, someone has to win every event. That does not mean they should not be in that event. Only when the facts dictate moving someone will we take what we perceive to be drastic steps.
As in this case, all the money will always be paid out. That needs to be very clear. This time we reimbursed some of the expenses because they had spent a considerable amount, and we felt that we were partially responsible for the situation. The majority of the responsibility is with the league operator and players.
The language barrier caused this situation to be very unique.
We did not set a policy of covering part of a teams expenses or of paying them 30%. That is just what we felt was appropriate IN THIS SITUATION.
I hope I answered your question - and it was not taken to be bashing or giving anyone a hard time. Any more questions on this should be directed to our office at 702-719-7665.
Mark Griffin
Jwilliams,
I believe every league has the ability (maybe even the responsibility) of trying to keep people in the proper divisions, even if that means in the middle of an event,
Obviously, someone has to win every event. That does not mean they should not be in that event. Only when the facts dictate moving someone will we take what we perceive to be drastic steps.
As in this case, all the money will always be paid out. That needs to be very clear. This time we reimbursed some of the expenses because they had spent a considerable amount, and we felt that we were partially responsible for the situation. The majority of the responsibility is with the league operator and players.
The language barrier caused this situation to be very unique.
We did not set a policy of covering part of a teams expenses or of paying them 30%. That is just what we felt was appropriate IN THIS SITUATION.
I hope I answered your question - and it was not taken to be bashing or giving anyone a hard time. Any more questions on this should be directed to our office at 702-719-7665.
Mark Griffin
BCAPL Taiwan
Celtic,
I am not going to get into a debate on this subject - but you have made a couple of statements in this post that are flat out wrong.
Your assumptions - which are not based in fact - are just misleading others.
Until you have facts, I suggest you stop posting your opinions as facts.
And you can ( probably will) question which items are false. Not going there.
Just remember that it costs a lot just to get 8 trucks full of tables to las Vegas and back and hanging lights, and building lights, and 60 person staff.
What the hell do you even know about the costs associated with this event? Get in the real world.
Enjoy it, it is my last response along the lines of Celtic statements.
Mark Griffin
(BTW - I know you have supported the BCAPL and like to call a duck as you see it. But this duck ain't what you think it is!)
Celtic,
I am not going to get into a debate on this subject - but you have made a couple of statements in this post that are flat out wrong.
Your assumptions - which are not based in fact - are just misleading others.
Until you have facts, I suggest you stop posting your opinions as facts.
And you can ( probably will) question which items are false. Not going there.
Just remember that it costs a lot just to get 8 trucks full of tables to las Vegas and back and hanging lights, and building lights, and 60 person staff.
What the hell do you even know about the costs associated with this event? Get in the real world.
Enjoy it, it is my last response along the lines of Celtic statements.
Mark Griffin
(BTW - I know you have supported the BCAPL and like to call a duck as you see it. But this duck ain't what you think it is!)
I am commenting on nothing more then the "facts" that are pretty basic. Players from Taiwan, they played in the open, they played the whole event, they were DQ'd after the event, are the "facts" completely wrong yet because I did not go much past this.
The whole "I know all the inner details and facts you don't know" arguement is kind of moot because you are not going to say what those "facts" are.
Yep, expected that already, was not going to bother asking.
I could probably do some research on it and figure out what the ballpark costs should be, but since I was not actually attempting to claim what the specific costs were I don't see any point.
All I stated was that the economics between the costs and the revenue of the BCAPL make sense or you would not be doing it.
It costs alot to build a skyscraper, but companies that build skyscrapers for hundreds of millions of dollars still do it and they still make a profit regardless of that cost, or they would not be doing it.
I am sure the BCAPL is not in the money losing business, I have too much respect for your business sense to think you lose your shirt on this each year.
I agree to move on as well.
As a closing note I will say that I am happy the BCAPL is sending the money to cover the expenses to the Taiwan players and find that to be a decision to be reasonably balanced all things considered. This solution to the issue was not even close to the worst that could have been decided and I am actually fairly OK with it all things considered.