WPBA TV Format

Johnnyt

Johnnyt

Burn all jump cues
Silver Member
I like the new format they have for the semi finals and final round. Two races to four and if sets are split they play one sudden death game. When I say I like it, I like it for tv on the WPBA Tour. I think if they can get a few more venues this year that the tour has a good chance of coming back. As an old has been player I don't like the format, but I understand why its needed. I would like to see a comeback of the women's tour. Johnnyt
 
Yes, this is similar to the Women's Challenge of Champions a Mohegan Sun format, with just two differences.

1. A longer shot clock of 45 seconds is in use by the WPBA.

2. A lag determines who breaks in set two, while at the Challenge of Champions, the loser of set one breaks in set two.

I think it's a great format that ensures that the outcome is alawys in doubt. Even if you are down 4-0 and 3-1, you need to win just four straight racks to win the match.

Another thing that the Women's Challenge of Champions and the WPBA Masters have in common ---- Ga Young Kim won both over the last few months.
 
Last edited:
I disagree completely. Tournaments should crown winners with no question in mind. The WPBA continues to hold events where you are not getting a definitive winner in my opinion.

The tournament should be true double elimination until the very end no questions asked.
 
PoolJunkie216 said:
I disagree completely. Tournaments should crown winners with no question in mind. The WPBA continues to hold events where you are not getting a definitive winner in my opinion.

The tournament should be true double elimination until the very end no questions asked.
Click to expand...

Superbowl is decided in one game and no one cares.

Casual fans like drama and uncertainty.
 
Johnnyt said:
I like the new format they have for the semi finals and final round. Two races to four and if sets are split they play one sudden death game.
Click to expand...

Personally, I am not a fan of this format. A player could win the first set 4-0, lose the second set 4-3, lose the sudden death game and be out of the tournament even though they won overall 7 games to 5.

Is this the way you want to start crowning winners??? To reward a person for actually LOSING more games in a match???

I don't get it.

Maniac
 
Maniac said:
Personally, I am not a fan of this format. A player could win the first set 4-0, lose the second set 4-3, lose the sudden death game and be out of the tournament even though they won overall 7 games to 5.

Is this the way you want to start crowning winners??? To reward a person for actually LOSING more games in a match???

I don't get it.

Maniac
Click to expand...

Your points are valid, but the fans want drama, and that matters most.

The Allison Fhser vs Ga Young Kim had two sets that both went double hill and a tiebreaker rack. That's three racks in which fans would be on edge with excitement, which is more excitement than any race can deliver.
 
One game?

vapoolplayer said:
Superbowl is decided in one game and no one cares.

Casual fans like drama and uncertainty.
Click to expand...

Not much drama in four 4-0 sets.

The Super Bowl lasts for hours. One game in pool can be two minutes.

The format may be exciting, but it was clear to me that the players prefer longer sets. I think the 4-0 scores in the last four sets speaks volumes. The losing players didn't have many opportunities to get in stroke. Great players, bad format.

One solution to the dilemma of pleasing fans vs. pleasing players might be to play actual double elimination and longer sets, but show edited sets on ESPN and the entire tournament (or at least later rounds), un-edited on ESPN3.
 
This obsession with catering to the fans but forgetting that the players matter is ridiculous. Most players would not prefer such a format as it clearly has severe flaws. Who wants to play in an event where you can win overall games but still come out as a loser? What a stupid concept.
 
The Mosconi Cup has short sets and you know how many people watch it...millions...including players. Put enough money in the purses and the players will play. Get pool on tv=sponsors=larger purses. Johnnyt
 
PoolJunkie216 said:
This obsession with catering to the fans but forgetting that the players matter is ridiculous. Most players would not prefer such a format as it clearly has severe flaws. Who wants to play in an event where you can win overall games but still come out as a loser? What a stupid concept.
Click to expand...

You must have gone nuts during the Derby City events. In one event Bustamante drew two byes in the late rounds, and in another Shawn Putnam drew a bye into the final. Not the best possible arrangement for the players, but the fans love it and the players get paid, and players and fans alike can't wait for the 2014 Derby.

Yes, there is an undeniable luck factor when it comes to the Derby, but nobody cares because the excitement level is high and everybody is having fun.

FYI, it was not the fans but the WPBA itself that changed the format. The WPBA is a player run organization.
 
vapoolplayer said:
Superbowl is decided in one game and no one cares.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, their title game is decided just like all rest, (4) 15-minute quarters. They don't suddenly change the format nor shorten it up for the convenience of a TV audience.
 
sjm said:
You must have gone nuts during the Derby City events. In one event Bustamante drew two byes in the late rounds, and in another Shawn Putnam drew a bye into the final. Not the best possible arrangement for the players, but the fans love it and the players get paid, and players and fans alike can't wait for the 2014 Derby.

Yes, there is an undeniable luck factor when it comes to the Derby, but nobody cares because the excitement level is high and everybody is having fun.

FYI, it was not the fans but the WPBA itself that changed the format. The WPBA is a player run organization.
Click to expand...

Please, the WPBA has been a joke for years as it is mainly players following the lead of a select few. Focus on the subject at hand which is the WPBA. Their format for years has been a sham in terms of determining a winner.
 
I watched off an on most of the day, Monica do her thing, only to get crushed by Ga Yung.

I liked the format. But, I thought the races should have been at least to 6, to maybe let someone who is getting throttled back to the table and into the game.
 
mosconiac said:
Interestingly, their title game is decided just like all rest, (4) 15-minute quarters. They don't suddenly change the format nor shorten it up for the convenience of a TV audience.
Click to expand...

They cater their ENTIRE season to the audience, because ALL games are televised. Pool does it for a few matches. If all WPBA matches were televised, they would play the same format as the final few matches.

If the NFL thought playing 20 x 2 min sections would make more money, they would be doing it.
 
PoolJunkie216 said:
This obsession with catering to the fans but forgetting that the players matter is ridiculous. Most players would not prefer such a format as it clearly has severe flaws. Who wants to play in an event where you can win overall games but still come out as a loser? What a stupid concept.
Click to expand...

The fans are the ONLY reason any game/sport is on tv. They are the ones that will be catered to.

All games/sports have their ups and downs and aren't perfect. Weren't the seahawks in the playoffs a couple years ago with a losing record? It happens.

In a double elimination tournament, a player who comes in second can win more games against the winning player in two sets and still lose. Hell, they can win more games against the ENTIRE field and still lose.

Example: Player X plays 5 matches before winner's bracket finals. He wins 9-3 on all matches. So he his 45-15. Player Y plays 5 matches and wins 9-8 each match. He is 45-40.

Player X and Y play in winner's bracket finals. Player Y wins 9-8. Now Player X is 53-24 and Player Y is 54-48.

Player X has to play loser's bracket finals and wins 9-0. Now he is 62-24.

The tourney is double elimination and player X wins first set 9-2. He is now 71-24 and player Y is 56-57.

Last set and player Y wins 9-8.

Player X finishes in 2nd place with a record of 79-33 and player Y WINS the entire tournament with a record of 65-65.

In their 3 sets they went 9-8 player Y, 9-2 player X, and 9-8 player Y. for a total score of Player X 25 games to player Y 20 games.

(I did this haphazardly, so my math may be slightly off, but you get the idea)

So, it can happen pretty easily in a regular tournament as well.
 
Last edited:
vapoolplayer said:
The fans are the ONLY reason any game/sport is on tv. They are the ones that will be catered to.

All games/sports have their ups and downs and aren't perfect. Weren't the seahawks in the playoffs a couple years ago with a losing record? It happens.

In a double elimination tournament, a player who comes in second can win more games against the winning player in two sets and still lose. Hell, they can win more games against the ENTIRE field and still lose.

Example: Player X plays 5 matches before winner's bracket finals. He wins 9-3 on all matches. So he his 45-15. Player Y plays 5 matches and wins 9-8 each match. He is 45-40.

Player X and Y play in winner's bracket finals. Player Y wins 9-8. Now Player X is 53-24 and Player Y is 54-48.

Player X has to play loser's bracket finals and wins 9-0. Now he is 62-24.

The tourney is double elimination and player X wins first set 9-2. He is now 71-24 and player Y is 56-57.

Last set and player Y wins 9-8.

Player X finishes in 2nd place with a record of 79-33 and player Y WINS the entire tournament with a record of 65-65.

In their 3 sets they went 9-8 player Y, 9-2 player X, and 9-8 player Y. for a total score of Player X 25 games to player Y 20 games.

(I did this haphazardly, so my math may be slightly off, but you get the idea)

So, it can happen pretty easily in a regular tournament as well.
Click to expand...

You're comparing apples to oranges. You are using an accrued amount of many matches, whereas in my post, I was only talking about the FINALS match. If they want to use the format they used in this weekends WPBA format throughout the tournament then fine, just don't use it in the FINALS match. That should be a race to 11 minimum.

I don't want to see a champion crowned by winning 5 of 12 games in the final match. Football/basketball games are not decided by who wins the most quarters. Only the final score counts, as it should be, imo.

Maniac
 
Maniac said:
You're comparing apples to oranges. You are using an accrued amount of many matches, whereas in my post, I was only talking about the FINALS match. If they want to use the format they used in this weekends WPBA format throughout the tournament then fine, just don't use it in the FINALS match. That should be a race to 11 minimum.

I don't want to see a champion crowned by winning 5 of 12 games in the final match. Football/basketball games are not decided by who wins the most quarters. Only the final score counts, as it should be, imo.

Maniac
Click to expand...

So you don't agree with any tournament that is a true double elimination? I can just do the math on a double elimination finals where player X wins 9-0 and player Y wins 9-8. Player X still has 17-9 record but loses. There is no effective difference in the WPBA's format.

Also, I was not quoting your post. Please pay attention to the post I quoted before you tell me I'm comparing apples to oranges. I was replying to a post where someone claimed it was stupid to enter an event where you could win more games in the finals and still lose.

Also, to your logic, it still happens in other sports/games. The World Series is a best of 7 games. A team can out score another team in total but win the World Series. The WPBA is using a race to 4 as a "game" and the score of each individual rack is added up just like innings in a baseball game.

If you start thinking of a game as more of an "inning" or a small piece of a game, and the ENTIRE match as a full game, it makes much more sense.
 
Last edited:
vapoolplayer said:
So you don't agree with any tournmament that is a true double elimination?

Also, I was not quoting your post. Please pay attention to the post I quoted before you tell me I'm comparing apples to oranges. I was replying to a post where someone claimed it was stupid to enter an event where you could win more games in the finals and still win.
Click to expand...

It's not that I disagree, It's just that I don't think they are necessary. All players know what they're getting into before a tournament starts. By paying their entry fee, they are basically agreeing to abide by the rules. You win the hotseat match, you're only playing one more set and they all know that beforehand.

You (meaning the tournament director) are only trying to determine a winner, who is the best player on this day. A single race to 11 (13 preferably) will determine that.

And I already knew that you were not refering to my post. It's just that what I had previously said was similar to the comparison in the post you quoted.

And....FWIW.......I think winning more games in the finals IS the way to win, nothing stupid about having THAT as an expectation (see your last sentence in the above quote).

I'm done with this thread. Tempers are going to flare in this one, I have a feeling.

Maniac (not wanting an argument, just stating my beliefs)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top