Sorry Jen
I just don't go along with this'privileged few' theory. Any American who can give a useful account of himself can get into major events. The Euro Tour excludes nobody by country.
They can play in the World 8 Ball, 9 Ball and 10 Ball. I'm not sure about the 14.1. They can play in the Matchroom World Cup of Pool and the World Masters.
Granted they might have to play qualifiers but if you are good enough......
Dennis Orcullo travelled to Ras Al Khaima to qualify for the World 8 Ball and went on to win the event. C J Wiley was invited to play in the World 8 Ball but declined for business commitments. I am sure that if Keith wanted to have a crack then his status would possibly earn him a wikdcard invitation (if his presence would add to the spectator appeal for the tournament).
So the shop is not as closed as you portray..
Doug, I am speaking about rules changed willy-nilly to accommodate BCA industry members' sponsored players, rules that are changed by the industry members themselves. The "privileged few" sponsored players get their expenses paid for by these industry members, and if they had a hand in changing the rule to get their sponsored player a pass to compete in the WPA-sanctioned event, it doesn't seem fair, but that's just a recent BCA hiccup.
Mike Zuglan got so sick of pool politics and favoritism of a "privileged few" that he left professional pool and created a pool entity where he could still enjoy pool to the fullest, and he makes damn sure that all players are treated equal. If Efren Reyes is late for his match on the Joss Tour, Efren Reyes will be forfeited, not given leeway like some other tournament organizers do for the "privileged few."
Both entities, the WPA and the BCA, do things behind closed curtains, and there is no transparency. Changes in sanctioning fee amounts, as one example, for the WPA was changed to a higher amount. Nobody knew about this rule change until after the fact. Why doesn't the WPA connect with the public via press releases? What do they have to hide? What's going on behind the closed curtain that prevents them from being transparent? They owe it to the pool public to inform them of the latest happenings. At the very least, they should inform the dues-paying BCA, and then it's up to the BCA to inform the public what's happening.
I'm getting the feeling from this thread, sad to say, that there is one school of thought that the WPA looks down at the plebeian pool public and doesn't think it's important to keep us informed. I am forming this opinion because of a recurring theme of flippant posts in this thread defending the WPA, as if connecting with the public is beneath them. It may be good for them to obtain the services of a public affairs person who knows how to speak to the public, instead of defenders of the WPA mocking and ridiculing anybody who asks questions why.
Some posters on this thread who don't even hang out on this forum, like you and me, Doug, are taking words written in this thread and twisting them around to mean something that they don't. It's pretty damn serious to somebody like me who sacrificed my business, lived out of a suitcase, dropped six figures and 10 years of my life in trying to make a go of this so-called "professional tournmament trail" in America.
I did, in fact, contact the BCA about several matters in that 10 years as it pertained to what I deemed as an unlevel playing field and discriminatory practices. The response on competing in the BCA Open that I got was, "We don't have anything to do with who gets to play in our BCA Open" -- Oh, really? -- "We sub that out to a vendor. You'll have to contact them," which I did.
The vendor, however, made decisions about who they wanted to compete in the BCA Open. It was supposed to be based at that time on the UPA ranking points. The vendor even went so far as to say there was a waiting list. Meanwhile, UPA-ranked players, ranked higher than the "privileged few" the vendor let play, were not allowed to play in the BCA Open and thus lost out on getting precious ranking points. I won't even get into the fact that the BCA Open wasn't even an "open" but was an invitational, with HALF -- yes, that's right -- HALF of its player field given to foreign non-American players. This was the BCA's once-a-year contribution to North American professional pool in these United States for its North American professional pool constituency.
The BCA has created this atmosphere in America by ignoring professional pool and concentrating on their industry members' interests. That is fine. I get it. No problem. They should let go of being the authoritative body for professional pool in North America, if this is their true mission.
It's time for a change. The BCA organization seems to be suffering financial hardships, like everybody is these days, so getting rid of professional pool can relieve them and allow them to improve in other areas that their industry members would like.
I have to go downtown today to the Senate. They're hearing from members of one group about appropriations to further their cause. The Senators represent their constituencies. All interests are represented, not just one or two. As a collective group, they work together, hearing the pros and cons. Then they vote. It's not a perfect system, but it's fair. This is the way the BCA should operate, not behind closed curtains with decisions being made by one interest only to favor a "privileged few."
