sjm said:
This subject of "who's a pro?" has always been a confusing one, Celtic, and your posts on the subject are always excellent. How would you administer the system to determine who is and who is not a pro?
The best way is to start from scratch, to start everyone at the same level and have performance move people up in rank and not have any gaps where people are ommited from competing outright.
Of course that would not work, you cannot put Archer at the same level as a open player and spend the next 10 years letting the system naturally rank each player where they should be, it would be a nuts 10 years.
So I would probably go through a ton of performance produced ranking systems and tournament results and rank the pro's based on rankings in things like the UPA, Joss tour, World rankings, US Open finishes, Sands finishes, ect... it would be a ton of paper-work. I would go back about 10 years and any tournament in the world with 10k or more in first place prize money would be subject to ranking the winner and runner up as pro's.
I would then go back through the BCA AND VNEA lists of placements. ATM I think in the amatuer level they do pretty well, the top certain number of people in the open event are ranked as masters for the next 3 years and whether they stay there at the masters depends on their performance there. I would make it 5 years, not 3, and any finish in the top 1/2 (money) in that time period resets the 5 years. If you dont play in the event it is not considered a year, you cannot miss 5 years and then come back to the open. For the open, I would bump the top 1/16th of the open field from the last year to the masters the next. If you win the masters event or come runner up you are ranked pro for 3 years by BCA standards and automatically in the pro event, if you come out of the money 3 consecutive years you are demoted back to master level.
With the new grand master level it changes abit. This is how I would like it
******************************************************
Open event. Top 1/16 go to the Masters for 5 years minimum (depending on performance they could stay there or even raise higher). The winner and runner up go to the grand masters for the 3 year minimum.
Masters event. Top 1/16 go to the grand Masters for 3 years minimum (depending on performance they could stay there or even raise higher). The winner goes to the pro event/rank for 1 year. If you miss the money at this rank in 3 consecutive events you are demoted to open.
Grand Masters event. Event winner go to the pro event for the next 3 years, event runner up go to the pro event for the next 2 years, 3rd place go to the pro event for the next year. Those who miss the money at this rank in 3 consecutive years are demoted to masters.
Pro event. Any time you make the money you are assured of being in the event for the next 3 years. Tournament winners are assured of a spot for the next 10 years, runners up the next 5 years. If you go 3 consecutive years missing the money (without the winner or runner up extended periods) you are demoted to grand master level.
*********************************************************
You see, in this format there are no windows where someone is "too good but not good enough". Bernie wins the masters event (there were no grand masters at the time) he would have automatically had a spot in the pro event the next 3 years, and if he got drilled and did not make the money in those 3 years he would be dropped back to the masters again. Being a pro ranked player means you play in the top event, it does not mean that you hope for a invite or are simply screwed. It is a ladder system, like it should be.
As I said the only hard part is the beginning, when you need to place people in the proper place. Once the system is up and running it runs itself and does its own ranking. If Efren missed the money in 3 years in a row he himself would find himself at the grand masters level. In the end the BCA rank would be totally dependent on the performance in the BCA events.
