APA responds to my complaints about 2011 Masters
As promised here is the reply I received yesterday from Bill Tufts, Director of Tournament Productions for APA. I was quite impressed that he took the time to address each of my complaints and seemed quite genuine, although not all were satisfactory answers.
Thank you for emailing us and sharing your concerns regarding the playing conditions at the 2011 APA Masters Championships. Though we are sorry to hear you feel your experience was less than satisfactory, your input, along with others who have sent us recommendations, helps a great deal in making appropriate changes that will improve the quality of the event in the future. We are not always able to make the suggested changes we receive from our players, but it is my hope that through this email you will gain a better understanding of why we made certain decisions in regards to the Masters location and setup. The reasoning behind these decisions are always evaluated with the other aspects of the 2011 APA National Team Championships in mind, and we continuously strive to make our tournaments better for everyone.
As you are probably aware, this tournament requires over a year’s worth of planning, and each individual event must be coordinated around the other events taking place. For this reason, due to amount of details that go into it, there is always room for improvement. Unfortunately, sometimes these problematic areas are not fully realized until the event is taking place, at which point, changes cannot be made without disruption of play. Sometimes, these difficult areas are unavoidable, from the outset, in an effort to produce the event as a whole. Please allow me to take the time to address your specific concerns, and pardon me for the list-style responses, as they make it easier for me to form responses.
• Spacing in Preregistered/MiniMania room –
We will be looking to increase the spacing for the Masters to decrease the cramped nature of the area. Likewise, we will also look to limit who enters the arena (possibly through name badges for players only), and designate specific chairs for each table/team to avoid confusion. This should help mitigate the crowded nature of the space.
• Spectator Seating (Preregistered/MiniMania) –
Unfortunately, there is no space to add this seating without eliminating large portions of the very events we are trying to add spectator seating for. In order to fit this seating into the room, playing tables would have to be taken away. This would significantly reduce the amount of tables for MiniMania and Preregistered events, and would force us to reduce the amount of teams in the Preregistered events. This would also force us to cut many of the MiniMania events. This year, we were able to increase the Masters Championship from 192 teams to 256 teams, subsequently increasing the top payout from $7,800 to $10,000, but required all of these tables to do so. Going backwards at this point would create more dissatisfied players than satisfied ones, and does not seem a viable option.
• Location (Prereg. v. Main room)-
The location of the Masters is based on the Preregistered structure of the event. The Masters, although a very popular format, and one that does have divisions across the country, is still not a National format like 8-Ball Open, 9-ball Open and Ladies 8-Ball. This means that although some areas qualify Masters teams to participate in the Masters Championships through League play; other areas allocate their slots in a number of different ways (and do not have to have League requirements to compete in the Championship). In this way, Masters is more akin to 8-Ball Doubles, 9-ball Doubles & the Wheelchair Challenge; thus, they all play in the same tournament room, under the same conditions.
The issue that arises when looking to place Masters in the Main tournament room, where there is ample spectator seating and newer tables, is how do we as an organization explain to those other formats (8-Ball Doubles, 9-ball Double & Wheelchair) that this is necessary for Masters play, but since we cannot possibly fit them all into the Main tournament room, their events must remain where they are currently? It is a tricky question to answer, but if necessity required, could be worked around. The key point here is that we believe each of the Preregistered formats are equal; therefore, we have our reservations about creating a perception that Masters play is more important than other play. That said, it is not a given that Masters (under its current team count and structure) would even fit in the Main room with the other play, though that is a popularly held belief. Currently, Masters requires 13 rounds of play (each around 4hrs.), with a maximum of 64 tables being used in the first three rounds, and a total of four days of play. We do not have 64 tables available in the Main room until the first Saturday night (9-Ball) and into early Saturday afternoon (at which time play is suspended to make room for all 94 tables to be used for 8-Ball Open). This is not enough time to fit in the Masters event. Likewise, we continue to use all 94 tables for nearly every round of 8-Ball Open until the afternoon on the last Thursday of the event and extending then throughout Friday. Keep in mind, there may be alternative means of fitting in the Masters, but they will require much more thought and planning, and may, in the end, may not be viable options for the players/teams involved (i.e. – lengthening of the event (days), late-night rounds (midnight to 4am), restructuring of the format (less teams, shorter race, etc.).
• Tables (Valley v. Diamond)–
It is true that many players prefer to play on the Diamond brand tables, but from our experience, there were many players who had concerns regarding those tables as well and were just as vocal in their displeasure. Please keep in mind that the vast majority of APA League play is played on Valley tables, and there are players who feel more comfortable on these tables. Likewise, we understand many players would like to have Diamond tables at the event because they are accustomed to them. The reality is that this is a matter of preference, and one where we would hear dissatisfaction in either direction we choose. The same can be said of the balls (though matching sets, to address your concern, should be provided and we will work to correct this in the future), cloth and rails (the occasional dead-rail will happen given the shear amount of tables at the event, but we do attempt to limit this as much as possible and will continue to work on it in the future).
The fact is, every player is different and has different wants. We do our best to make sure that the playing conditions are as similar as possible from table to table. That said, if a problem is encountered on a particular table, we do have techs on-hand 24/7 to correct the issue if there is sufficient reason to do so.
• Pay-for-Play (Prereg. v. Main) –
All Preregistered championships, because the requirements to enter are significantly reduced as a whole in comparison to the National formats, are required to pay-for-play at $1 per game. This helps offset the cost of the tables. You are correct that the Main room tables are open for play, but again, Masters is no different than the rest of the Preregistered events, and should be compared to those events, not 8-Ball Open, 9-Ball Open, or Ladies (in which every team is required to play weekly to advance to NTC).
• Music –
We agree that the music during the Masters portion of the event was out of character with the majority of our players, and this will be corrected next year. We are truly sorry for this inconvenience.
• Lowers Skilled Players v. Masters Players (preferential treatment) –
As an organization, we do not draw a distinction between lower-end and higher-end players when it comes to the benefits associated with APA play. Whether a new player or seasoned player, we strive to provide an atmosphere where everyone, regardless of ability, feels welcome to participate. Though the conditions differ based on the distinction between a National format and a Preregistered format, we will not, under any circumstance, base playing conditions on a player’s ability. Suggesting that Masters deserve more simply because they are better on the table goes against our core belief, and a point in which we will most likely have to agree to disagree.
Again, I would like to thank you for voicing your concerns. I hope, through this email, you have a better understanding of why the decisions were made regarding the Masters event, and that the reasoning behind them was sound. Likewise, it is my hope that you know we have heard you, we take your comments/concerns very seriously, and that we will work to improve in these areas where we are able. I realize this will not, most likely, satisfy the disappointment you now feel after the event. However, I would like to believe you will take consolation in the fact that you have helped improve our event for future players by making us aware of these issues and allowing us to make them better. Please let me know if I may be of further assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Bill Tufts
Director of Tournament Productions
American Poolplayers Association
