Good interview by Darren on the state of pool

[ENGLISH!]

This is just like every pro player I know
They make pool thier career knowing what pool is then the cry about the money in the game
Yet I have yet to see anyone grab the bull by the horns and start beating the streets promoting the game
You want to change pool from the ground up start hiting the halls and the bars for some free meet n greets instead of asking league players to give you a dollar

1

As big as Golf is, & it is BIG because of what the founding Pros did way back when, Amateurs still join the Governing Bodies like the USGA, etc. as a means of supporting the Game that they Love.

I don't think asking for $1.00 a year is asking or begging for too much to try to keep the highest level of competition alive on a large scale & hopefully to advance it.

If you're complaining about giving a single dollar, what does that say about your Love for the Game?

Just some food for thought.

Best Wishes to YOU & ALL.

 

[DaveM]

I'd buy that for a dollar...Really I'd pay a bit more, not sure how much, would have to give it some thought. I think it's a question of promoting and organizing pool from a "top down" approach, or a "bottom up" approach. Both have merit. Top down may seem or even be easier. You have to begin with an end in mind. Once you figure out the destination, and make it desirable, you can get people on the same path. Allocation of contributions is another matter.

 

[Bella Don't Cry]

This is just like every pro player I know
They make pool thier career knowing what pool is then the cry about the money in the game
Yet I have yet to see anyone grab the bull by the horns and start beating the streets promoting the game
You want to change pool from the ground up start hiting the halls and the bars for some free meet n greets instead of asking league players to give you a dollar

1

I agree ^^^ :thumbup:

 

[ENGLISH!]

Just have to raise league fees by $5/player to cover it.

That's why I included with no raising of fees for 3 years. Let those making money off the game support it, at least at first & then share the load.

 

[Teacherman]

The sport needs purged..

League fees should be a minimum of $20/player/night.

Nothing big will ever happen with a broke customer base.

 

[Dockter]

The sport needs purged..

League fees should be a minimum of $20/player/night.

Nothing big will ever happen with a broke customer base.

How much does everyone pay in their area??

We only pay 5 dollars a night for league + quarters to plug the tables.

 

[DaveM]

$8 per player in APA, it is $40 for the 5 matches. Bar league is free, plus free food, usually a couple of pies. Each bar pays around $160 to LO and supplies the quarters. Local tournaments at halls usually $20- $25 to enter.

 

[bdorman]

Everyone's making the assumption that "centralization" (put all the decision-making authority in one body) would improve pool.

I don't think so. In fact, I think there's a better-than-even chance it could make things worse. As things are now, we've got dozens of organizations (Matchroom, individual promoters, leagues, etc.) each pursuing its own idea of how to have a successful outcome. Some will thrive and some will fail -- survival of the fittest.

But if you put all your eggs in one basket...and the people running that basket make some bad decisions...we're screwed. (Spare us the "but they'll be smart people who only make good decisions..."; that is the height of naivety).

I know it's a minority opinion, but given the competition pool has for the "leisure dollar", I think it's doing pretty darn good.

 

[BJTyler747]

Everyone's making the assumption that "centralization" (put all the decision-making authority in one body) would improve pool.

I don't think so. In fact, I think there's a better-than-even chance it could make things worse. As things are now, we've got dozens of organizations (Matchroom, individual promoters, leagues, etc.) each pursuing its own idea of how to have a successful outcome. Some will thrive and some will fail -- survival of the fittest.

But if you put all your eggs in one basket...and the people running that basket make some bad decisions...we're screwed. (Spare us the "but they'll be smart people who only make good decisions..."; that is the height of naivety).

I know it's a minority opinion, but given the competition pool has for the "leisure dollar", I think it's doing pretty darn good.

Please leave Don Mackey out of this...

 

[BRussell]

Everyone's making the assumption that "centralization" (put all the decision-making authority in one body) would improve pool.

I don't think so. In fact, I think there's a better-than-even chance it could make things worse. As things are now, we've got dozens of organizations (Matchroom, individual promoters, leagues, etc.) each pursuing its own idea of how to have a successful outcome. Some will thrive and some will fail -- survival of the fittest.

But if you put all your eggs in one basket...and the people running that basket make some bad decisions...we're screwed. (Spare us the "but they'll be smart people who only make good decisions..."; that is the height of naivety).

I know it's a minority opinion, but given the competition pool has for the "leisure dollar", I think it's doing pretty darn good.

I see your point, but there are also costs associated with the absence of any organization. Some organization in pro events could prevent practical problems like scheduling events for the same time, and also do things like plan a series of events to make up a tour that goes to different parts of the country at different times throughout the year. Perhaps it could be more of a "consortium" of different organizations and regional tours that get together and plan things a little bit, rather than a single organization like WPA.

 

[Bella Don't Cry]

Everyone's making the assumption that "centralization" (put all the decision-making authority in one body) would improve pool.

I don't think so. In fact, I think there's a better-than-even chance it could make things worse. As things are now, we've got dozens of organizations (Matchroom, individual promoters, leagues, etc.) each pursuing its own idea of how to have a successful outcome. Some will thrive and some will fail -- survival of the fittest.

But if you put all your eggs in one basket...and the people running that basket make some bad decisions...we're screwed. (Spare us the "but they'll be smart people who only make good decisions..."; that is the height of naivety).

I know it's a minority opinion, but given the competition pool has for the "leisure dollar", I think it's doing pretty darn good.

I get your point. Only that, all the above mentioned promoters, leagues etc could still do their day to day independent business and continue to thrive even with a "centralised" governing body.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Everyone's making the assumption that "centralization" (put all the decision-making authority in one body) would improve pool.

I don't think so. In fact, I think there's a better-than-even chance it could make things worse. As things are now, we've got dozens of organizations (Matchroom, individual promoters, leagues, etc.) each pursuing its own idea of how to have a successful outcome. Some will thrive and some will fail -- survival of the fittest.

But if you put all your eggs in one basket...and the people running that basket make some bad decisions...we're screwed. (Spare us the "but they'll be smart people who only make good decisions..."; that is the height of naivety).

I know it's a minority opinion, but given the competition pool has for the "leisure dollar", I think it's doing pretty darn good.

No Offense, but...

You sound like a league operator. :wink"

I agree with you on the BIG BIG picture.

There should not be a 'World' entity that controls the game ALL over the World.

There should be USA, European, Asian, Canadian, etc. entities, with perhaps World Title Tournaments.

The British Open in Golf is considered the World Title. The 'Title' bestowed upon the winner is 'Championship Golfer of the Year'.

BUT... some one has to be caretaker of the game here in the USA & it should not be the BCA nor the WPA nor the APA, NAPA, etc.

The Pro Players need to take their destiny into their own hands.

Somehow I just don't see that happening & it's really sad for them & The Game.

Best To YOU & ALL.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I am a big fan of Darren's, but the problem is that in my view the vast majority of league players neither know nor care about pros or pro events. The last two years I went to the Canadian Championships to watch the pros play. The room is full of not only league players, but the elite core of league players who are serious enough about the game to want to play in the Canadian amateur event. How many of those players bothered to watch the pros playing (FOR FREE) right there in the same room? Very, very few.

The same thing happens in the U.S. - the Super Billiards Expo has many hundreds of TAP players, and free admission to the pro event to watch some of the best in the world, and the stands are half empty most of the time.

As a further example, one of the local pool rooms just had Florian Kohler there to do a FREE trick shot exhibition, sponsored by the APA/CPA. Yes, there were pool geeks there, but there was also a league playing 8 ball and I don't think one player came over to watch.

The sad reality, and one that is hard for the die-hard fans like many of us to grasp, is that for many people (even very accomplished league players), they don't care about the pro scene, and only care about playing themselves or watching their friends play.

Gideon

I believe this was also the case during CSI Invitational last year. I have wondered though if part of the problem is the league players are probably more interested in their own tournament, watching their friends or team mates and seeing how their tournament plays out.

Most of them have never heard of any of the pros or the title the pros are contesting. Having someone to root for is a significant piece of the puzzle. Most hockey fans that I know of aren't likely to watch a game without one of their favorite teams playing unless it is during the playoffs.

The idea of having leagues pay money to professional tournaments only makes sense if the amateur league is affiliated with a pro league and the amateurs have a chance to progress to professional tournaments somehow. Otherwise it sounds like charity.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

That is so accurate.

I drive a car and I don't know who won F1 last year.

I shoot pistols, but I don't know who the world champion is.

I play foosball and I don't remember who won that, either.

Know why? Because I don't care. At all. It doesn't affect my life in the slightest.

 

[bdorman]

I see your point, but there are also costs associated with the absence of any organization. Some organization in pro events could prevent practical problems like scheduling events for the same time, and also do things like plan a series of events to make up a tour that goes to different parts of the country at different times throughout the year. Perhaps it could be more of a "consortium" of different organizations and regional tours that get together and plan things a little bit, rather than a single organization like WPA.

There's nothing to keep current organizations/tours/etc from "getting together and plan things a little bit", except that their interests conflict. I'm confident that they do their best to avoid scheduling conflicts because that's just good business. But sometimes scheduling conflicts are unavoidable. If two of them fall on the same dates, so what? ...let 'em fight it out for attracting the best players, fans, etc. In the long-run we actually win by making them compete with each other.

I get your point. Only that, all the above mentioned promoters, leagues etc could still do their day to day independent business and continue to thrive even with a "centralised" governing body.

What would this centralized governing body do?

1) Establish one handicap system? Poof - there goes leagues' day-to-day decision-making. The different handicap systems have different goals BECAUSE they are trying to appeal to different customers. If you try to squeeze everyone into one system you'll end up squeezing a LOT of people out.

2) Decide which events are held at which venues on which dates? Poof -- there goes the promoters' day-to-day decision-making. A promoter is supposed to invest $50,000 in organizing an event, but has no say about the dates?

The first maxim in business is Responsibility = Authority. If you're responsible for an outcome, you have to have the authority to make the decisions (and its mirror-image: if you have the authority to make the decisions, you are responsible for the outcome).

Matchroom is centralized; it has the decision-making authority for its events and is solely responsible for the outcomes. It's not going to cede that authority to any other governing body. Pool leagues are independent of each other and they compete vigorously for customers -- no way they're going to cede any authority to people who haven't put "skin in the game" (i.e. responsible for the outcome), nor should they.

Centralization usually causes more problems that it provides solutions. But it is very good at one thing: deflecting responsibility for its bad decisions (usually expressed as "it failed because we don't have enough authority. Give us more power.")

 

[Bella Don't Cry]

There's nothing to keep current organizations/tours/etc from "getting together and plan things a little bit", except that their interests conflict. I'm confident that they do their best to avoid scheduling conflicts because that's just good business. But sometimes scheduling conflicts are unavoidable. If two of them fall on the same dates, so what? ...let 'em fight it out for attracting the best players, fans, etc. In the long-run we actually win by making them compete with each other.



What would this centralized governing body do?

1) Establish one handicap system? Poof - there goes leagues' day-to-day decision-making. The different handicap systems have different goals BECAUSE they are trying to appeal to different customers. If you try to squeeze everyone into one system you'll end up squeezing a LOT of people out.

2) Decide which events are held at which venues on which dates? Poof -- there goes the promoters' day-to-day decision-making. A promoter is supposed to invest $50,000 in organizing an event, but has no say about the dates?

The first maxim in business is Responsibility = Authority. If you're responsible for an outcome, you have to have the authority to make the decisions (and its mirror-image: if you have the authority to make the decisions, you are responsible for the outcome).

Matchroom is centralized; it has the decision-making authority for its events and is solely responsible for the outcomes. It's not going to cede that authority to any other governing body. Pool leagues are independent of each other and they compete vigorously for customers -- no way they're going to cede any authority to people who haven't put "skin in the game" (i.e. responsible for the outcome), nor should they.

Centralization usually causes more problems that it provides solutions. But it is very good at one thing: deflecting responsibility for its bad decisions (usually expressed as "it failed because we don't have enough authority. Give us more power.")

A centralised organisation does not need to come up with handicap systems, formats or calendars. Well organised business people can do this if they really wanted too.

But who do the players go to when they don't get paid?
Who is accountable when an event is cancelled days before schedule and players have already paid for flights?
Somebody needs to be accountable - taken to court if necessary - but without accountability its just the wild wild west. Which is pools reality today.