Yes they said they will rethink it .. If they don't bring them back as open events they should relinquish their rights to the name because the certainly are not USA championships if there not open , plain and simple
1
CSI has me confused????
- Thread starter Jaden
- Start date
Yes they said they will rethink it .. If they don't bring them back as open events they should relinquish their rights to the name because the certainly are not USA championships if there not open , plain and simple
1
Csi has me confused
There are legitimate reasons for limiting the fields. We probably spent close to $20,000 bringing in the extra tables plus hanging the lights etc.
There are a lot of expenses that go with an open event. And we just cat foot the bill when the model just doesn't work. This isn't any kind of popularity contest- this field will be double tough. This is much more than an exhibition!
I just wish the critics would just imagine them being in our position- and really understand some if the other factors. This is not about flexing our muscles-this is us trying to create a better system that will have a better future.
Open events cannot support themselves under the current model.
Mark griffin
There are legitimate reasons for limiting the fields. We probably spent close to $20,000 bringing in the extra tables plus hanging the lights etc.
There are a lot of expenses that go with an open event. And we just cat foot the bill when the model just doesn't work. This isn't any kind of popularity contest- this field will be double tough. This is much more than an exhibition!
I just wish the critics would just imagine them being in our position- and really understand some if the other factors. This is not about flexing our muscles-this is us trying to create a better system that will have a better future.
Open events cannot support themselves under the current model.
Mark griffin
The "open" and the invitational concept can work together if done right...
What would be good, is an established group of 16 top level players. Let's call this group the "top tier", from which a "champion" could be determined. This is the invitational aspect, as only the top tier would participate in the championship.
But here's the catch. Each of the 16 players is subject to losing their spot on the top tier to ANYONE- by a utilizing a system of challenge matches that are open to the general public. This is the "open" aspect.
The challenge matches could be held in a number of different ways, and/or locations so I won't go into specifics on that. Suffice to say, the possibility of losing their spot on the top tier would prevent the top players from becoming lazy or complacent, due to the constant threat of being knocked off.
Likewise, the simple fact that a spot on the top tier is available to anyone with the huevos to take down a top player, would make it attractive to the masses, while keeping the integrity of an open competition intact.
What would be good, is an established group of 16 top level players. Let's call this group the "top tier", from which a "champion" could be determined. This is the invitational aspect, as only the top tier would participate in the championship.
But here's the catch. Each of the 16 players is subject to losing their spot on the top tier to ANYONE- by a utilizing a system of challenge matches that are open to the general public. This is the "open" aspect.
The challenge matches could be held in a number of different ways, and/or locations so I won't go into specifics on that. Suffice to say, the possibility of losing their spot on the top tier would prevent the top players from becoming lazy or complacent, due to the constant threat of being knocked off.
Likewise, the simple fact that a spot on the top tier is available to anyone with the huevos to take down a top player, would make it attractive to the masses, while keeping the integrity of an open competition intact.
CSI has me confused
Constructive criticism is always appreciated - perhaps you should listen to the CSI podcast, we discussed racking issues and possible solutions.
Again- maybe try to actually see all sides of a situation before complaining. What would you suggest we do?
BTW, both events will be alternating breaks - so both players have no real advantage.
Mark Griffin
Constructive criticism is always appreciated - perhaps you should listen to the CSI podcast, we discussed racking issues and possible solutions.
Again- maybe try to actually see all sides of a situation before complaining. What would you suggest we do?
BTW, both events will be alternating breaks - so both players have no real advantage.
Mark Griffin
Can't understand why people are *****ing about what will inevitably be awesome entertaining events.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Exactly.
You know what these 16 players will have in common?
They can all win any event.
For the life of me, I can't understand what's wrong with a tournament that will have nothing but great matches from start to finish.
Not that it makes a whole lot of difference, but people keep making this mistake.
2009. Mika won his first match, lost his second (to Chris Bartram), then won the event.
What he means is they own several specific names... "US Open 8 Ball" and "Us Open 1 Pocket" and such.
Not just the two words "US Open" which would be easily confused with golf etc.
I'm lazy to double check this but more than likely our trademark laws
are similar to yours and probably came from England.
"British Open Golf" is trademarked in GB somewhere.
a funny side note... the British announcers refer to the golf tournament held in the US as the "US Open," however, when they refer to the one played there they just say "The Open"
I guess it pays to be first (by several centuries)
I like that kind of pride
I'll wait to after the events happen to pass judgement. 
I will miss the larger field as I always thought it great that a player such as Adam Behnke for example, would enter and knock off some big dogs. Or last year when Carlo Biado made a big splash or getting to see a large group of the Taiwanese players do well. Now that won't be able to happen again at one of the two CSI events. Large Open tournaments help the strength of the player pool grow. Small invitational tournaments help keep the word 'pro player' alive as there have to be payouts to some group, even if it is reduced, to keep the sport alive.
I'll also miss seeing some of the players that I know personally as they won't get on the 16 player invite list. Hanging out in Vega$ is like no other and that is another loss.
Anyways, something is better than nothing and if the economics of it don't work for a large field for CSI and none of us are going to put up the money, then let's be happy for what it is.
Watchez is the teacher.
I will miss the larger field as I always thought it great that a player such as Adam Behnke for example, would enter and knock off some big dogs. Or last year when Carlo Biado made a big splash or getting to see a large group of the Taiwanese players do well. Now that won't be able to happen again at one of the two CSI events. Large Open tournaments help the strength of the player pool grow. Small invitational tournaments help keep the word 'pro player' alive as there have to be payouts to some group, even if it is reduced, to keep the sport alive.
I'll also miss seeing some of the players that I know personally as they won't get on the 16 player invite list. Hanging out in Vega$ is like no other and that is another loss.
Anyways, something is better than nothing and if the economics of it don't work for a large field for CSI and none of us are going to put up the money, then let's be happy for what it is.
Watchez is the teacher.