Illegal team takes 3rd in Gold at BCA Nationals

[frankncali]

My event experience

I played platinum singles and platinum teams. Finished 49th in singles and 5th in teams..

I thank the BCA and all those involved for putting on an event that I am sue has more moving parts than most of us can imagine. That said I think some things could be better especially with Fargo Ratings.

No handicapping system is perfect but if your going to use it then use it 100%. That and hold people accountable. If I was rated 525 by mistake instead of the 666 I went in with i would know its wrong and i should say something. There were a few people there that knowing should have questioned things but did not. I hope they are held accountable.

Singles-
This is a very tough division for me as I play one day per week and feel I am a bit over rated. I dont understand why my league matches were not counted and I had a large change in rating a few months before the event. I am just in a weird position that I can not regularly play with the player levels that beat me.
First loss was to Chris Calabrese who represented his country of Australia in the World Cup of Pool. The one where we send guys like SvB. Nice guy but he was rated 20 points or so lower than me and now is rated 20 points higher. I then lost out one spot from the money to Brian Begay. Strong player that is now a 699. Our first 5 games consisted of him having 3 BnRs on his breaks and me breaking dry and him running out on his. He and Chris were both nice guys but I think it will be tough for me to cash (not win) in a tournament where I am going to run into these guys regularly.

Teams we finished 5th after a disappointing set against a team from Australia. We might have been a bit tight after being told they were all underrated. We knew Chris and his brother Vinnie Calabrese. Vinnie played on the pro snooker tournament and we had watched as he and his well underrated partner robbed a scotch doubles event. Vinnie was a 691 which surprised me and a friend that knows him and his team. He is now a 736

All of heir team went up and one player on there team Danny Stone really impressed me. Even with his ratings increase he is still under where he plays. good player.
The team was the nicest team we played and they all seemed like really good guys. i just think somewhere in there the ratings were off. not sure if the new ratings put them over the limit or if a 736 can play or not.

They had a ton of robustness so I am not sure how that works.

Our team came in at the limit exactly. 3250 .. I felt we had 4 over rated and one under rated by a little bit but not really sure how much. What surprises me is that our league matches are not entered and our robustness doesnt seem to match actual playing. One of our guys didnt move and still shows 0 robustness after playing two years with us in Vegas plus league.

The scotch doubles with Vinnie and Joey Tohme perplexed me a lot. Vinnie was a 691 and she played as a 400 with no robustness. She now is listed with a starter rating of 500 after it said 400. She is 527 and Vinnie is now 736. That is a huge difference. we watched the finals that last about 20 minutes where they won 4-0.

Joey had a great week and Vinnie went on to finish 5th in the US Open 8 Ball. Actually most of their platinum 8 ball team had good events at the Us Open 8ball. They ran into each other a few times.

Nothing is perfect but I left vegas feeling like I would not be back s I just do not play enough and or well enough to compete with correctly rated players and those that slip in. Now that I am back and decompressed I really would like a couple matches back and think I would play singles or teams again. However in teams I would want to play on a gold team.

i do not know if money is added to events or not but I was surprised when I saw out of the $500 entry for teams that $300 goes to the event. Entry for singles was $160 and I think it was $115 that goes to the event but i am not sure.

I would like to see Fargo ratings succeed and I wonder what has to be done to get more games turned in. Why wasn't league matches for a year turned in or rather were they taken out?

I know nothing about the two teams in the platinum finals but they must have been strong teams. I am going to see if I can watch the matches if they were streamed.

 

[BasementDweller]

It is a bit perplexing how year after year foreign teams sneak in and either win a team event or come really close to it. It definitely sounds like their team was way underrated. At this point, I would think all foreign teams would be placed under a fine microscope before being allowed to play.

 

[JohnnyOzone]

Is there NOONE who is not a victim? Sheesh
We have stories of teams that are underrated, they fly under the radar, and the teams they beat are victims.
Then we have players/teams that are underrated, they are discovered and moved to the proper division, and THEY are victims

No matter what the tournament administrators do, they will be blamed for it by some victim

 

[BasementDweller]

There's a difference between playing the victim card and honestly critiquing things. I'm not a victim here since I didn't even play but yet I think there are legitimate questions that can be asked. There's no reason this tournament or any other can't be just a little bit better next year.

 

[FastManners]

There's a difference between playing the victim card and honestly critiquing things. I'm not a victim here since I didn't even play but yet I think there are legitimate questions that can be asked. There's no reason this tournament or any other can't be just a little bit better next year.

I agree. I think all people ask for is fairness and to be treated equally. A cynic might look at the players who were on the team that came third and summize that an almighty coincidence occurred......

I don't think anyone intentionally cheated, in the case of the players, but I do think that the BCA needs to take a long hard look at the rules on their website and themselves for future tournaments.

 

[skip100]

I agree. I think all people ask for is fairness and to be treated equally. A cynic might look at the players who were on the team that came third and summize that an almighty coincidence occurred......

Especially when the TD says "I happen to know all 5 of the players - and have known them for up to 30 years."

 

[fastone371]

The solution is easy. If there is a registration mistake and a players Fargo rating does not match his actual Fargo rating at time of sign up the team is automatically DQed. That way it falls upon the players to make sure there are no mistakes at sign up time.

 

[jasonlaus]

The solution is easy. If there is a registration mistake and a players Fargo rating does not match his actual Fargo rating at time of sign up the team is automatically DQed. That way it falls upon the players to make sure there are no mistakes at sign up time.

Exactly! These teams know EXACTLY what their ratings are.
Jason

 

[FastManners]

Exactly! These teams know EXACTLY what their ratings are.
Jason

Some teams I am sure.
We actually had all of our guys rated and verified. Two had starter ratings although one was an odd number and been playing at the BCA for 13 years (so weird to have a starter rating) and both play close to their rating. Then 10 days before the tournament and two weeks after being verified on the BCA site they got bumped up massively and our team bumped from Gold to Platinum. We came 49th last year in gold with a better starting 5 than we would have had this year. Unsurprisingly we went two and out and all but two of our players have since dropped down, most by quite a bit.
Next year I am going to vote with my feet and my wallet and play the ACS instead.

Anyway, I am venting as I am grumpy! Ha ha.

 

[oneshotwiss]

Some teams I am sure.
We actually had all of our guys rated and verified. Two had starter ratings although one was an odd number and been playing at the BCA for 13 years (so weird to have a starter rating) and both play close to their rating. Then 10 days before the tournament and two weeks after being verified on the BCA site they got bumped up massively and our team bumped from Gold to Platinum. We came 49th last year in gold with a better starting 5 than we would have had this year. Unsurprisingly we went two and out and all but two of our players have since dropped down, most by quite a bit.
Next year I am going to vote with my feet and my wallet and play the ACS instead.

Anyway, I am venting as I am grumpy! Ha ha.

It was explained to us that your Fargo rates are locked in when you register your team and must be under 3000 total for the Gold Division. Then you have a 50 point buffer between registration and tournament time in case of Fargo increases. At tournament time you spot other teams a game for every 10 additional points you are over the 3050 mark. They said nothing about a team being bumped up to Platinum between registration and tournament time. That is exactly how it was explained by the people at the payout desk so if that isn't correct, then CSI needs to educate their employees on exactly how their system works. Sounds to me like people are getting different answers and different explanations depending on with whom they are speaking

 

[FastManners]

It was explained to us that your Fargo rates are locked in when you register your team and must be under 3000 total for the Gold Division. Then you have a 50 point buffer between registration and tournament time in case of Fargo increases. At tournament time you spot other teams a game for every 10 additional points you are over the 3050 mark. They said nothing about a team being bumped up to Platinum between registration and tournament time. That is exactly how it was explained by the people at the payout desk so if that isn't correct, then CSI needs to educate their employees on exactly how their system works. Sounds to me like people are getting different answers and different explanations depending on with whom they are speaking

That is exactly what we understood the case to be and is what is on the website rules, however both the tournament director and office manager refused to honour that rule and said the rule on the website was not to be interpreted that way.
We registered well before the deadline then on 6/12 the website stated verified next to our team name and Fargo ratings that we registered with. Then about 10 days before the start of the tournament we get an email stating that two players have been bumped up and we have to either replace at least one player to get us under 3000 again as we were ovwr the limit based on new info. Apparently they had googled two of our players (including one player who had played bca nationals 13 years and who was 519) and bumped them both up. The other was 525 starter rating, which was not far off from what is ranking could be (we had a 518 who couldn't travel for health reasons who plays stronger). We would not have booked our flights and hotels if we knew all we could play in was a 21 team tournament, let alone a tournament we knew we were going to get toasted in (which we did). If we wanted to play in a 21 team tournament we would just organize an in house tournament and save thousands of dollars on travel.
My biggest gripes are with the horrendous timing, the fact that they did not honor the rules on their own website (try arguing "down to interpretation in court") and the fact that they let a team do exactly what they would not let us do (we would have been about 3020) with our strongest line up after they adjusted us) i.e. Entering gold when they were over.
I am annoyed as the current management has destroyed (in my eyes) what was a great tournament for me and the highlight of my vacation time every year. I have been going 11 years and never won more than a few hundred dollars, but enjoyed the competition and even embraced being moved into platinum even though I never did anything at all in the open, but this latest debacle of an event has killed it for me.

 

[Bca8ball]

After reading the entire thread and putting heavy consideration on Griffins post, there is still one question that comes to mind.

When a team signs up for this event, they must be qualified within BCA.
Their names show up as allowable participates within the system if they are in fact qualified.
During the sign-up/registration the team captain (or whoever is completing the document) has to list each player's Fargo rating:

Question: Did they actually list a player as a 140 rating on their entry form or not?
* There is simply no possible way a 640 level player doesn't know 140 isn't an error: period!!!
Seems like that question could be easily answered!

* If the system corrects the error and it results in them being over the 3000; they aren't gold, they are platinum at registration but the error allowed them to play in gold. If true (a lot of assuming here) the team should have been moved to the platinum division as a few others were.

For the record, my team went 2 and 2.
We took advantage of a better team's bad rolls to win one we probably shouldn't have and lost to a team we should have beaten because we couldn't get out of our own way; the opportunities were clearly there but we didn't execute when it mattered.

We were ultimately eliminated by a team clicking on all cylinders.
They clearly showed us from the first round with 4 break and runs and the second round with 3 rack and runs that we weren't at their speed...

Great tournament, looking forward to next year!

 

[poolscholar]

I think the only way these events will grow or survive is to add light handicapping to divisions. And probably need to combine divisions so there are bigger payouts. Who wants to sign up if they know they are going to be in the bottom half of the division in terms of skill? Then they will just need a formula to detect sandbagging.

Fargorate is great, but before it was used, there were a lot more people with illusions that they can win, now it is quite clear when you have basically zero chance of winning a tournament (ie platinum, a 625 playing vs guys that are 700+) .

 

[goettlicher]

Fair enough. I'm sorry if I did not word my reply correctly. Consistency by BCA and CSI is crucial, I'd agree. Either way, great finish. My team went 2 and out and we had a combined FARGO of 2999. LOL For some reason we just did not click this year. Best of luck with your game & future
.

BCAPL!

randyg

 

[PocketSpeed11]

With no disrespect intended, your original post did not make this clear at all. When everyone "misreads" your post such that they think the team was "well over" the 3000 limit because of a 500 point Fargo error as meaning they were close to 3000 as registered and then around 3500 at match time then you have to accept that maybe you didn't write it as clearly as you intended.

As an aside, I don't think 15 points over 3000 is "well over" the limit. I think people's reaction to your post might have been different if you made it clear that the team was only just over the limit, not way over. If the rules were not complied with, that is one thing, but I think the magnitude of the issue is important.

To be fair to the OP, I thought it was clearly stated as intended.

 

[Jdubp]

BCA Nationals payout list

Just curious where is the post (if ever was one) with the list of payouts?

 

[5aheadforpinks]

I think the only way these events will grow or survive is to add light handicapping to divisions. And probably need to combine divisions so there are bigger payouts. Who wants to sign up if they know they are going to be in the bottom half of the division in terms of skill? Then they will just need a formula to detect sandbagging.

Fargorate is great, but before it was used, there were a lot more people with illusions that they can win, now it is quite clear when you have basically zero chance of winning a tournament (ie platinum, a 625 playing vs guys that are 700+) .

Yes, this is exactly what kept me from playing singles this year. I'm rated a ~664, I played the platinum division last year not knowing where the cut off was. I finished in the money, but was very outclassed by a bunch of people. So I knew this year that I had no chance of winning the platinum, and I would have to compete at a higher level for less money pay out? Doesn't make sense.

Combine the division and issue handicaps. Its the only way I'll play singles again.

 

[cardiac kid]

Yes, this is exactly what kept me from playing singles this year. I'm rated a ~664, I played the platinum division last year not knowing where the cut off was. I finished in the money, but was very outclassed by a bunch of people. So I knew this year that I had no chance of winning the platinum, and I would have to compete at a higher level for less money pay out? Doesn't make sense.

Combine the division and issue handicaps. Its the only way I'll play singles again.

5,

For the past year, I tried to get other posters on this forum to understand why being in the lower half of a division is a death notice. To get to the next division up, you might have to devote years of additional practice with no guarantee of success. To go down, you will probably have to sandbag for a couple of years. Fargo to me is just numbers. The numbers can be manipulated just like APA and TAP.

If a player goes up by Fargo number, there is no mechanism to help if they go years without cashing let alone winning. How many years will YOU play if YOU have no chance of winning? Why would you play now? A vacation? Competition?

Handicaps? Really? If Fargo is inaccurate now, what will handicapping do other than reward the lower number player? Or penalize the higher number player? Sometimes playing even is the best force for improvement.

JMHO,

Lyn

 

[5aheadforpinks]

Handicaps? Really? If Fargo is inaccurate now, what will handicapping do other than reward the lower number player? Or penalize the higher number player? Sometimes playing even is the best force for improvement.

I agree with you except, according to Mike at Fargo Rate, these numbers are not inaccurate once you are established.

I've heard talk about not allowing anyone to play that isn't established, but this would take several years to establish all the players.

A better idea is to make non-established ratings volatile. Meaning, they move by large numbers after every match is recorded and are adjusted on the fly during the tournament.

Right now, the divisions are too broad, the highest rated players in each division are twice as strong as the lowest rated in that same division.

So, make everyone play together, but handicap it like Fargo suggests with these caveats.

 

[oneballeddie]

Huh?

I agree with you except, according to Mike at Fargo Rate, these numbers are not inaccurate once you are established.

I've heard talk about not allowing anyone to play that isn't established, but this would take several years to establish all the players.

A better idea is to make non-established ratings volatile. Meaning, they move by large numbers after every match is recorded and are adjusted on the fly during the tournament.

Right now, the divisions are too broad, the highest rated players in each division are twice as strong as the lowest rated in that same division.

So, make everyone play together, but handicap it like Fargo suggests with these caveats.

Don't see how you can change ratings during the tournament. The brackets are drawn and fixed. Maybe you could handicap the matches and change handicaps during the tournament but that sounds chaotic and vulnerable to extreme sandbagging.