John Schmidt BANNED from Viking Tour
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
JS should not have been banned for no show unless consequences explaned during plyr mtg,etc. Calcutta/side/rail betting has always been, and will probably always be, a buyer BWARE endeaver. Fewer issues of moral turpitude if calcutta/player auctions eliminated. Downside is fewer $ to be skimmed.
Tbeaux said:Hey Lamar,
First regarding your football question. The advertisers and network would own that team after they sued.The fans would never attend a game again.
The players and/or owner would be banned for life and no "Hall of Fame".
Given this statement above by you I'd like to hear your thoughts. What would you think if a player you put your money on walked? Who's responsibility would you think it is to make it right, the player or the tour?
Do you think you take your chances and "oh well" this time I picked a lame horse?
I think Mike J. has been put into a difficult situation. It is bad for him, bad for the tour (and their willingness to continue having a tour), bad the backer, bad regarding the willingness of the pool room and maybe other rooms to have events, bad for John S.'s reputation, bad for the fans.
Terry
Hey Terry,
Ok you ask for It. "Feb. '05"
John S. was the first round blind bid winner at a cost of $1,000. (BTW, The same person bought him in the Southern Classic 1-pocket event for $400).
2nd blind bid went my way at a cost of $900, I picked who I thought was one of the best 9-ball players in the world.
My next 3 Picks were Charlie Bryant, Stevie Moore, & BJ Ussery.
Come Sunday (final event day), all my players were still on the winners side.
Guess what, C.B. vs S.M. & B.J. vs $900 player.
$900 player dumped to B.J. and then dumped to S.M.
I recieved $75 on my $900 investment in EARL STRICKLAND. What I learned here was not to pick E.S. in an auction!
I would like to thank the following:
For holding the best events I've attented.
The Pool Room I , Mike Janis
Last edited:
JAM said:Terry, the most immediate Viking event, Paul Song won without a loss, Cliff Joyner for second, and Monica Webb for third.
I'm confused now, not knowing which Viking tournament you might be referring to.
JAM
Hey Jam,
I believe most of the posts in this thread relate to the "THE SOUTHERN CLASSIC" which was held 10/17-23/05.
Lamar
Last edited:
ribdoner said:
Actually, the downside of not having player auctions or calcutta's is less players at events, less spectators at events and ultimately less events.
On the V-Tour if you don't want to be involved then you need to remove yourself from the auction list. It's that simple. No ands, if's or butt's.
Mj
Mike Janis,
We don't really have player auctions out here, so I am somewhat unfamiliar with them, but don't you feel they create gigantic conflict of interet problems that probably often change the outcome of tournamnets? Not trying to put you on the hotseat at all, but am just curious what you'd say to a young fan who found out his favorite player dumped a match for a cut of the auction money (for example).
We don't really have player auctions out here, so I am somewhat unfamiliar with them, but don't you feel they create gigantic conflict of interet problems that probably often change the outcome of tournamnets? Not trying to put you on the hotseat at all, but am just curious what you'd say to a young fan who found out his favorite player dumped a match for a cut of the auction money (for example).
enzo said:
Actually, they are a huge draw and the problems are very minimal. In all 12 years of the tour it has only been an issue on 5 occasions.
I won't name names but we have banned only 5 players for various reasons.
1. 2 players for Dumping
1 of them is on a lifetime ban and the other payed his fine and currently plays on the tour. It wasn't an all out dump for profit but more of an I'll show you type of thing.
2. 3 players for the same reason as JS. Out of these 3 players all but 1 has paid the set fine and to this day continue to play on the V-Tour.
If anyone remembers, the tour in it's beginning only had $13,000 added in total for each year and only 6 sponsors. Because we listened to the players, spectators, room owners and sponsors we now add about $93,000 per tour year to our events and have 36 sponsors.
I don't plan on making any changes except to continue looking for more sponsors and getting more monies added to the events.
Mj
Last edited:
Maybe you could take a poll at the next Viking tournament, those in favor of having a calcutta and those who are not?
Stating that the tour is now bigger and better than before is not a very valid arguement for holding a calcutta, there is a reason why they are illegal.
Stating that the tour is now bigger and better than before is not a very valid arguement for holding a calcutta, there is a reason why they are illegal.
David,Blackjack said:
I really appreciate the thoughtful and well-stated response.
I guess my naive hope is that, in spite of the past workings of the pool world, we can all help move past that and into the realm of "professional" conduct. Before I get hammered, let me say that I realize that "professional" is a term that has been stretched beyond recognition by athletes (all the references Timberly states above) and business people (Enron, Worldcom, etc.), among others.
HOWEVER...... there are still people in the world who rise above that and conduct themselves without stepping on others, destroying their own integrity and are still successful. Ask Lee Trevino whether his life as a golf hustler was better or worse than as a "professional" golfer. AND, he didn't have to give up his colorful personality and become a robot. It is possible to have both worlds and I want to see that goal realized for all the talented men and women who are good enough to play at the "professional" level of the game we all love.
I've never met John and am not bashing him. And, we could argue whether a Viking tournament is a "professional" event or not (I think it is), or whether John had any obligation to the player auction buyer (in my opinion, he didn't). But, I hope that we can soon get to an environment where the players feel an obligation to the fans that come to watch them play, because of the thrill of performing for fans AND because they (the pros) are being fairly compensated for their talents and fulfillment of that obligation.
I'll put down my crack pipe and go back to my "bubble" world now.
Last edited:
lamar25 said:
Hi Lamar,
That's a rough one Lamar. Kinda like going in for scheduled surgury and having the doctor decide he's not getting paid enough so he doesn't sew you up.
Of course this incident is different...it's more like the doctor decided to leave the patient on the table, other patients in the waiting room and go golfing. Don't ya just love professionalism.
Terry
O
onepocketchump
Guest
MikeJanis said:
In fairness I have to say at that the Viking Events I have been to Mike has always made it clear at the beginning that any player who didn't want to be in the auction could opt out.
John
mapman72
New member
Final Thoughts About This Thread
After reading almost this entire thread, I have come to several conclusions that I believe are true:
1. John Schmidt is generally thought of as a good guy, a great pool player, and someone who is good for the game of pool.
2. Mike Janis is a reputable tournament director who works very hard to promote the game and provide a great environment for pool players to compete and earn money.
3. John Schmidt was not aware that he could withdrawl his name from the Players Auction. Though that is not a legitimate excuse, it is something to be considered.
4. Mike Janis is trying to uphold the integrity of the Viking Tour and there are times that he needs to make decisions that will be difficult for one particular player but will benefit and sustain the tour overall.
5. Mike Janis warned John Schmidt that it would not be prudent to skip out on the match to play golf.
6. John Schmidt contends that it is his right to not participate in a match if he decides that it is not in his best interest.
After looking at these points and thinking about this particular situation, I think John and Mike should talk in person or on the telephone and come to a reasonable compromise. While I'm sure that Mike and others were very upset when this event occurred, some time has passed and it really is easy to see both sides of the story. I would encourage Mike and John to work this out because, as I've stated before, there are too many goofballs in this sport, and it would be a shame to have a rift between two decent, dedicated pool enthusiasts.
For John:
I think it is your decision to participate or not participate in any match where you have put up your own money to enter the tournament. I think your idea to not be involved in player's auctions in the future will solve the problem mentioned in this thread. Like you said before, it's not even a good deal for a player of your caliber since you go for such a high price anyway.
For Mike:
I completely understand your feelings and the need to establish and enforce rules on your tour. In this case, I suggest that you consider the fact that John was not aware that he could opt out of the player's auction before the event. I know you feel a certain responsibility to John's buyer, but I think an explanation of the things that came out of this thread may help to alleviate his contempt. While you did warn John about not skipping his match, I'm sure John felt like he had a right to skip his match if it was in his best interest. I believe John Schmidt when he says that he was unaware that he could opt out of the players auction and I think that needs to be considered.
I think this is something that the both of you can come to some resolution on because the alternative is the Viking Tour losing a great player and someone that will draw crowds and John Schmidt losing one of the few available money earning opportunities in this country.
So, although it's not my place, I will recommend one course of action...
Mike, my understanding is that you believe that John should pay the buyer the $400. From knowing a lot of professional players, I have come to undertand that $400 is not merely $400, but entry fee and two nights motel for their next tournament. So I can understand that most pros would not want to give up $400 for what they believe is nothing in return.
My Recommendation
I am assuming that the buyer of John Schmidt probably isn't as skilled as him but could possibly be as passionate about the game. The next Viking Tour, allow John to participate and exclude himself from the players auction. John, who I'm sure wants to clear his name from this episode with AZers and the buyer, agrees to dedicate four hours over the course of the weekend to the buyer for lessons or "free play". If the buyer is not interested in the lessons or the "free play", perhaps John could autograph some memorabilia and find some sponsor (assuming he has one) to donate a cue or a case.
I think this is a reasonable compromise to this situation and I am curious if John and Mike would be open to it. Remember, there is a mutual benefit to the both of you continuing your association. Think on these things.
After reading almost this entire thread, I have come to several conclusions that I believe are true:
1. John Schmidt is generally thought of as a good guy, a great pool player, and someone who is good for the game of pool.
2. Mike Janis is a reputable tournament director who works very hard to promote the game and provide a great environment for pool players to compete and earn money.
3. John Schmidt was not aware that he could withdrawl his name from the Players Auction. Though that is not a legitimate excuse, it is something to be considered.
4. Mike Janis is trying to uphold the integrity of the Viking Tour and there are times that he needs to make decisions that will be difficult for one particular player but will benefit and sustain the tour overall.
5. Mike Janis warned John Schmidt that it would not be prudent to skip out on the match to play golf.
6. John Schmidt contends that it is his right to not participate in a match if he decides that it is not in his best interest.
After looking at these points and thinking about this particular situation, I think John and Mike should talk in person or on the telephone and come to a reasonable compromise. While I'm sure that Mike and others were very upset when this event occurred, some time has passed and it really is easy to see both sides of the story. I would encourage Mike and John to work this out because, as I've stated before, there are too many goofballs in this sport, and it would be a shame to have a rift between two decent, dedicated pool enthusiasts.
For John:
I think it is your decision to participate or not participate in any match where you have put up your own money to enter the tournament. I think your idea to not be involved in player's auctions in the future will solve the problem mentioned in this thread. Like you said before, it's not even a good deal for a player of your caliber since you go for such a high price anyway.
For Mike:
I completely understand your feelings and the need to establish and enforce rules on your tour. In this case, I suggest that you consider the fact that John was not aware that he could opt out of the player's auction before the event. I know you feel a certain responsibility to John's buyer, but I think an explanation of the things that came out of this thread may help to alleviate his contempt. While you did warn John about not skipping his match, I'm sure John felt like he had a right to skip his match if it was in his best interest. I believe John Schmidt when he says that he was unaware that he could opt out of the players auction and I think that needs to be considered.
I think this is something that the both of you can come to some resolution on because the alternative is the Viking Tour losing a great player and someone that will draw crowds and John Schmidt losing one of the few available money earning opportunities in this country.
So, although it's not my place, I will recommend one course of action...
Mike, my understanding is that you believe that John should pay the buyer the $400. From knowing a lot of professional players, I have come to undertand that $400 is not merely $400, but entry fee and two nights motel for their next tournament. So I can understand that most pros would not want to give up $400 for what they believe is nothing in return.
My Recommendation
I am assuming that the buyer of John Schmidt probably isn't as skilled as him but could possibly be as passionate about the game. The next Viking Tour, allow John to participate and exclude himself from the players auction. John, who I'm sure wants to clear his name from this episode with AZers and the buyer, agrees to dedicate four hours over the course of the weekend to the buyer for lessons or "free play". If the buyer is not interested in the lessons or the "free play", perhaps John could autograph some memorabilia and find some sponsor (assuming he has one) to donate a cue or a case.
I think this is a reasonable compromise to this situation and I am curious if John and Mike would be open to it. Remember, there is a mutual benefit to the both of you continuing your association. Think on these things.
Great suggestions, mapman. Maybe something like that could satisfy the parties involved.
And if you've got time to spare NEXT week, there's this little disagreement over in Iraq ...
And if you've got time to spare NEXT week, there's this little disagreement over in Iraq ...
dont wont to upset the ship, but was this john first vicking tourny??? I have been to many and have heard mike always anounce if you didnot wont to be in players auction, please tell him!!!! so what the big deal john??/ give the man money back and end all, be a sport. OLD MAN STICK
Actionhound
Banned
heres an idea... why doesnt everyone leave this alone and let the parties involved work this out... nothing that is said on here is going to make any difference anyway and all your doing is Bashing a pool player that MAYBE 10% of you have met personally... its none of your buisness or mine (thats why i stayed out of the conversation) so just let it go. this thread has gone on WAY to long and too many poeple have put in there input without
A. Knowing all the information (all 3 sides)
B. Knowing the outside details (why John didnt play)
C. Knowing the parties involded.
So just let it go... its none of anyones buisness...
Sorry if i upset anyone by this but i hate GOSIP which is exactly what this is.
A. Knowing all the information (all 3 sides)
B. Knowing the outside details (why John didnt play)
C. Knowing the parties involded.
So just let it go... its none of anyones buisness...
Sorry if i upset anyone by this but i hate GOSIP which is exactly what this is.