CSI has me confused????

I like tournaments being open but I also like the invitationals because every match is something spectacular, the best of the best. I am open minded and would like to see what this year has for pool in general. I do hope to see the promoters working together and possibly seeing growth in the pro side of the game. If it means 16 players making a good living then so be it, pro pool most likely does not have the ability to support 32 guys and certainly not 64 pros.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
Fast Lenny said:
I like tournaments being open but I also like the invitationals because every match is something spectacular, the best of the best. I am open minded and would like to see what this year has for pool in general. I do hope to see the promoters working together and possibly seeing growth in the pro side of the game. If it means 16 players making a good living then so be it, pro pool most likely does not have the ability to support 32 guys and certainly not 64 pros.
Click to expand...

This could be the future of pool. Although I hope it strays from invitationals and goes to qualifiers instead. That way, an unknown might have a chance at making the event/tour.

The promoter could simply have anyone that qualifies sign a code of conduct. If a player breaks contract, then depending on the severity, the following punishments could be issued

1. Fine
2. Not allowed to play in the next event.
3. Not allowed to play in any event until the fine has been paid.

The money from fines would go towards the prize pool of the next event.
 
You guys are something else!!!

You complain when guys can't make a living and keep the lights on and must live in their cars!

Then

someone realizes the sport can't support everyone and gets the BRIGHT idea to limit the field to the 16 players it can support! and you complain! The 20,000 added trickles to the 16 players and they can cover EXPENSES and a little pocket change if they have a good day!

But

You want a OPEN event because god forbid your favorite player did not make the chosen list of 16 players. Either way the player starves excluded from the list or included in a OPEN format. There is no way of getting around it!!!

Kd
 
voiceofreason said:
How can they possibly "own" the name US open? You must have osme funny laws over there..
Click to expand...

It's not so strange really. Can anyone produce a golf tournament in your country and call it the "British Open"? Don't you have copyright protection laws in the UK? That's all it is.

Frankly, I'd rather have the US Opens sitting on file in CSI than have some other random producer take them over and screw them up for good. While I have no ear to the ground on what MG might have in his future plans, my sense is there is a good chance they will be back perhaps better than ever, maybe thanks to the success of this fresh direction he is taking.


Kid Dynomite said:
You guys are something else!!!

You complain when guys can't make a living and keep the lights on and must live in their cars!

Then

someone realizes the sport can't support everyone and gets the BRIGHT idea to limit the field to the 16 players it can support! and you complain! The 20,000 added trickles to the 16 players and they can cover EXPENSES and a little pocket change if they have a good day!

But

You want a OPEN event because god forbid your favorite player did not make the chosen list of 16 players. Either way the player starves excluded from the list or included in a OPEN format. There is no way of getting around it!!!

Kd
Click to expand...

I sympathize with this sentiment, I have never heard this kind of griping about the Mosconi Cup or the other small field invitational events by Matchroom, nor other similar events in the past like the Tournament of Champions.

I also find the criticism at CSI for going in a different direction and trying something new that just might be workable interesting considering many were staunch supporters of Bonus Ball for the very same reason.
 
Last edited:
Invitationals limit competition, will inhibit the growth of the sport and new talent. By limiting those who can play you starve the 17th player to the thousanth. It also leaves the door wide open for favoritism which can exclude those with the best talent.

Its his show, I am sure it will be easier to run. How does it generate money? The entry fees? Not to many people willing to pay to watch. You dont fill rooms at the host site or casinos with gamblers. So how do you entice a venue to host it?

Pool needs more wide open Derby style events. Should be some where Joes get a little weight from pros. I would spend alot for a real shot at placing. I already go as a bracker filler.
 
This almost sounds like the beginning of a real tour, albeit a small one but you have to start somewhere. You could open it up with this format by doing something similar to the PTC's in snooker. Have a couple of preliminary to qualify to play the invited pros.
 
Yeah Im guilty. I don't like an invitational when they don't invite the guys I want to see play and I love it when they do. As the paying customer I have that prerogative. I really don't worry about how any pool players make a living. They don't worry about my career choice. I don't worry about theirs.

Of course I empathize with them as I have a lot of torn up IOU's from some of these champions, and hope they can somehow make a living. I hope Mark Griffins events will be successful but I also hope that they will not take the place of the OPEN events.
 
Kid Dynomite said:
You guys are something else!!!

You complain when guys can't make a living and keep the lights on and must live in their cars!

Then

someone realizes the sport can't support everyone and gets the BRIGHT idea to limit the field to the 16 players it can support! and you complain! The 20,000 added trickles to the 16 players and they can cover EXPENSES and a little pocket change if they have a good day!

But

You want a OPEN event because god forbid your favorite player did not make the chosen list of 16 players. Either way the player starves excluded from the list or included in a OPEN format. There is no way of getting around it!!!

Kd
Click to expand...

No ones complaining about anybody making a living ,, fact is there are to many pro's to begin with , if they can't make it then they should get a Job
In golf you have to earn your tour card , and only get paid if you make the cut it's a paid for performance job no different than pool in that aspect

Many great players will be left out and certainly winning one of theses events won't carry the same weight as a open championship would .
It's truly a power trip move IMHO


1
 
Power Trip

You couldn't be more right. Like a kid who's daddy owns a swimming pool standing at the fence not letting you swim!
 
Fast Lenny said:
I like tournaments being open but I also like the invitationals because every match is something spectacular, the best of the best. I am open minded and would like to see what this year has for pool in general. I do hope to see the promoters working together and possibly seeing growth in the pro side of the game. If it means 16 players making a good living then so be it, pro pool most likely does not have the ability to support 32 guys and certainly not 64 pros.
Click to expand...

This is a very well considered post.
 
one stroke said:
Many great players will be left out and certainly winning one of theses events won't carry the same weight as a open championship would .
It's truly a power trip move IMHO


1
Click to expand...

Think about what you just wrote.

So an open tournament full of dead money players carries more weight than a tournament full of only champions??

All you need to do is look back at last year's US Open 9 Ball. Shane really only played 2 guys (Shaw and Corteza) that were capable of actually winning the event. The rest of his opponents didn't have a shot.

Now compare that to the people he beat at Derby to win the 10 Ball challenge. Orcullo, Morra, Bustamante, and Feijen.
 
When I go with my guy feeling... I feel Mark is showing his power lately. However with Justin in his corner it's hard not to just think I'm wrong.
Marks got one hell of a corner man..... No offense Freddy lol
 
BeiberLvr said:
Think about what you just wrote.

So an open tournament full of dead money players carries more weight than a tournament full of only champions??

All you need to do is look back at last year's US Open 9 Ball. Shane really only played 2 guys (Shaw and Corteza) that were capable of actually winning the event. The rest of his opponents didn't have a shot.

Now compare that to the people he beat at Derby to win the 10 Ball challenge. Orcullo, Morra, Bustamante, and Feijen.
Click to expand...

Mika wining the US open after losing the first round may be one of the biggest feats in recent memory ,, don't be confused there are many players that are capable of knocking off a big name player in open events that don't have the big name

1
 
There is no great debate between what is better, Opens or Invitationals. They all have their goods and bads. BeiberLvr makes a good point about Shanes win at the Invitational Derby 10 ball.
But then again I remember when Tang Hoa went to the finals with Buddy Hall in the 1998 US OPEN, the little known in the west Takeshi Okamura met Earl in the 2000 US OPEN finals, and when John Schmidt, who is known more for his 14.1 game won the 2006 US 9 ball OPEN. I don't think we would see those situations if it was an invitational.

And Joey Gray meeting SVB in the one pocket finals as well at the 2012 Derby.

The examples are countless. We would never see some of the great matches if everything was INVITATIONAL. Opens provide unexpected drama and suspense.
I think Mark and his team know what they are doing. Lets see. But we as fans should support the TRUE open as well.
 
yobagua said:
There is no great debate between what is better, Opens or Invitationals. They all have their goods and bads. BeiberLvr makes a good point about Shanes win at the Invitational Derby 10 ball.
But then again I remember when Tang Hoa went to the finals with Buddy Hall in the 1998 US OPEN, the little known in the west Takeshi Okamura met Earl in the 2000 US OPEN finals, and when John Schmidt, who is known more for his 14.1 game won the 2006 US 9 ball OPEN. I don't think we would see those situations if it was an invitational.

And Joey Gray meeting SVB in the one pocket finals as well at the 2012 Derby.

The examples are countless. We would never see some of the great matches if everything was INVITATIONAL. Opens provide unexpected drama and suspense.
I think Mark and his team know what they are doing. Lets see. But we as fans should support the TRUE open as well.
Click to expand...

And hence the beauty of open play ,, When we compare who's the best player it's often the open that's used as the standard along with world titles


1
 
Sure you might not have a Cinderella story. However, every match is guaranteed to be great.
 
BeiberLvr said:
Sure you might not have a Cinderella story. However, every match is guaranteed to be great.
Click to expand...

Odd that this surprises people. Look at the typical 4-5 day tournament. Which days get the most fan interest? The ones at the end, when only the strongest players are left. With a 16 player field event of world beaters, you get that from day one.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I like the PGA model where the "eligibility" for tour events is based on being defined as a top player via monies earned, and, to give sponsors some jelly they are allowed sponsor exemptions if they want to invite someone to "their" event.

The invitational as it is being described here for pool is a "I'm the king of the hill and I'll decide who gets to play for money" and is somewhat distasteful to me on that basis.

Also, when the field is based on who the promoter wants to see play versus being based on real credentials open to all then I can't see how a winner could be held up as a world or US champion, they would be "such and such Invitational Winner" at best and more realistically it is an exhibition match with a selected field, nothing more.

Good bye national opens, hello made for streaming exhibitions.
 
joelpope said:
Personally, I like the PGA model where the "eligibility" for tour events is based on being defined as a top player via monies earned, and, to give sponsors some jelly they are allowed sponsor exemptions if they want to invite someone to "their" event.

The invitational as it is being described here for pool is a "I'm the king of the hill and I'll decide who gets to play for money" and is somewhat distasteful to me on that basis.

Also, when the field is based on who the promoter wants to see play versus being based on real credentials open to all then I can't see how a winner could be held up as a world or US champion, they would be "such and such Invitational Winner" at best and more realistically it is an exhibition match with a selected field, nothing more.

Good bye national opens, hello made for streaming exhibitions.
Click to expand...

Are you saying CSI won't be taking performance into account when determining the invitations? I'd be shocked if that was the case.

Secondly, the winner wouldn't be considered a World or US champion. So what? Not every event CSI (or anyone for that matter) puts on has to be a US Open or World Championship. CSI put on the Swanee recently, won by Dennis Orcullo. Who's complaining he wasn't declared the World Champion?

CSI stated they would be re-thinking the US Opens and they've decided to put them on hold for the time being. I'm happy they have at least chosen not to leave pro pool altogether but rather have come up with a couple of new events with a new format to try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top