Master Teams

[Firecracker]

Mark,

One of your "MASTERS TEAMS" won the Open Team event this year.

Not sure how or when this could be fixed............but someone said it earlier, in pool it appears you become penalized for playing better, at least at the league level. Also, many better players want to hide at the lower levels instead of playing the better players.

I do not believe there is ONE answer to this problem, it is way to complicated for that. In many cases Open players who do well in Vegas deserve to be Masters, and then there are some who just had a good tourney and will never ever want to compete at that level or be able to.

It appears that when you created the "ADVANCED" level, some Masters players moved all the way down to Open players. Not a problem for them, but a HUGE problem for the 1,000 + open players that were steam rolled by these guys. So, that NEW structure truly didn't work.

My question is WHAT does the BCA want?!?! Do you want to build ALL divisions, just Masters, the Open Team event? Once you have a handle on that, there may be a solution.

One suggestion is to have a CRYSTAL CLEAR scale that bridges ALL league systems. And some way to match up league rankings from each league system, so players know where they are, and that may eliminate the majority of level hoping. But then you will always have sand-baggers to contend with.

There are players who want to become Masters and work towards that goal, but every year more and more Masters become Open players, which makes it difficult to push through the Open level. It seems as though players are moving in the wrong direction. Perhaps there should be NO downward movement at all?!?! I know this isn't popular, but once at a level, you can only move up, NOT down.
Mike

I am going to piggyback this response, because as female masters player who has moved down and back up, I feel that this is a big reason why the masters division will never grow and existing masters players have become frustrated with the event. Sorry for the long read, but I wanted to be thorough in my explanations.

I think several changes would help the Advanced and Master's divisions grow - for both singles & teams.

• 
  Eliminate the known ability clause for moving players up in divisions

• Allow players to move up one level at a time as it is earned (top 10% to advanced, 5% to masters, 5% to grand masters - maybe players earning over $1K, whatever a good determination would be)

• Don't allow players to move back down without some exceptional circumstance (this is the big one)

In 2005, I was moved from Open to Grand Master based on "Known Ability", when my highest finish at the BCA in the last 5 years had been 33-48. I petitioned to move back down on this history and was allowed to move to Masters only. I had a decent year in 2006, but was pissed to see several players that should've been Masters players (also playing pro events), playing in the Open. The next year I went 2 & out, the following year I was sick during nationals & failed to make it in the money, by the third year of seeing numerous players in the Open, whom I considered well known players, I was done, I went 2 & out on purpose, knowing that I could request to move down. In 2009, I made the request to move down - with likely little to no research (I am assuming, because I was winning events on the OB Cues tour), I was granted a move back to the Open. In 2010, I made it to the finals with general ease. The only reason I requested the move down was because I wanted to earn the right to play Masters, like these other well known players I was seeing through the years. I tell you this because "known ability" is subjective and it is unfair to some of the better players to move one person up and not someone else. By allowing everyone to earn it, you eliminate this subjectiveness that may negatively impact the opinions some of the better players that are moved up while watching those around them get a chance to earn it. If I didn't love the event so much, that could've been a huge factor for me not ever returning when I was first moved.

If everybody earns the status, they can't complain about being in the "wrong" division. It was earned fair & square just like every other player in their division. This is why I don't think you should have anyone jump a division on their way to the top. Let someone who wins the Open move to the Advanced, this will disprove that they were just having a good year if they make it to the Masters and lessons the chance that they feel that they need to be moved down.

Don't allow anyone to move back down once they have earned their status. This one is big, every year I know quite a few girls that have requested position changes and are granted. I have actually taken time to look through and verify that some have not met the qualification of finishing three years out of the money and have still been moved down. Heck, there are even girls that have won or been in the finals at nationals that are in the Open now. I am assumming that the men's follows a similar trend, though I am not familiar with the men's in detail. Just because someone doesn't execute at the advanced or master level at every Nationals event doesn't mean that they don't have the knowledge behind the game. If someone has earned it, unless they have a compelling reason that they cannot perform as before (think lost an eye or arm), they still have the knowledge to operate at that level.

By doing these three things, you grow all the divisions over time without lessening the pool of players that is already there. You also give everyone equal opportunity to do there best and earn there way to the higher divisions.

For the men's master's division this year, I think the change of many players to Advanced really hurt the Master's mens even more than expected. You reduced the number of master level players and made the field extremely tough to even recoup costs. Until the Master's is built up again, I don't think that you will see high numbers in the Masters team event. Players want a chance to at least recoup expenses and that makes it hard to do with small fields. However, if you keep allowing players to move back down when they ask, you will never build the field and the division will continue to suffer.

For the women's master level players, I really felt like we were screwed over this year for teams - no men's team would really want a female player because it would force them to play at least the Advanced division and most of the women players I know in TX asked and were moved from Advanced to Open just to accommodate teams - leaving no hardly no Advanced players in the state to form a team with. I skipped out on Teams this year because of it. It would be nice to have a division for the women where you can have more than one master level player. It is difficult in the DFW area to have enough Advanced players to match up a Master player to form Advanced team, as the players in the Open still want to play in the Open and shun us. If we could have more than one master (limit to one grand master), I think you would see more participation from the women's masters.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble, those are some ideas I have been floating around with for several years. I love the BCA event and would love to see it grow even more.

Thanks,
Tara W.

 

[tksix]

Tara,

GREAT POST!!! I would like to add a few thoughts.............

If 25% of the Open teams had a Master player on their Roster that would 154 players, which is 38 additional Masters teams + the 4 you had = 42 Masters teams not bad.

Here is the answer:


OPEN TEAM: Open players ONLY
ADVANCED TEAM: Advanced players, and Open players
MASTERS TEAM: Master players + ONE Grand Master per 4 person team BUUUUUUTTTTTTTTT.........NO core needed, let the Masters level pull from any where in the country. (I think this was in place this year not sure) Also, allow Open and Advanced players on their teams.

So players can PLAY UP instead of this playing down...

Put percentages in place for upward movement of your team status, just like singles. And as Tara said NO, NEVER any downward movement EVER!!!!

Also use other league systems status of a player. to reflect their BCA status. EXAMPLE: John Doe never played at the National BCA event, but came in first in the APA purple tier, and placed second in the ACS Open...........uhhhhmmmmm Advanced/Master player.
As Tara said, a certain dollar earnings should also equate to status as well.

This would change the complexion of the event, and after a few years players will be playing where they belong.

Mike

 

[Fatboy]

Mark - for St Louis this year, it came down to basically economics. Like others said, to field a team and have expenses of $1000 a person with a chance to win $7K - $8K total doesn't compute. Plus, with players having to play in Grand Master divisions for the singles against basically pros, makes it harder for a Master team player to make money on the other end as well.

Are there results for the Open 9 Ball posted somewhere?

I don't know alot about leagues, but I do biz. I was there and saw all the online stuff. Well done. I think the problem is the economy, things are broken everywhere, rooms are dropping, bars etc. Facebook is replacing pool IMO, it's not what your doing Mark it what's happening around all of us. Pool isn't happening, Facebook is where it's at. I don't do Facebook but it's everywhere.

 

[Duane Tuula]

The obvious economic factors have been pointed out several times. When you have "been there & done that" the choice is easier to make. To many open players the experience may be new and more enticing.

Rating players based on a once-a-year tourney is difficult as we can all attest. There are valid reasons for many to "move up" and "move down" over the course of time. That should not be discarded. Known ability is a required element but needs knowledge that extends out of the CSI offices.

For the BCAPL divisions a decision was made to create the Advanced divsion. My experience is that every time you create a new division you create problems with ratings for those players just below and above that line. A good faith effort was made to retrofit the players based on previous finishes. However, the choices were incorrect.

For round numbers say in the past 90% open vs 10% master players. Why do I want to make the 10% smaller and expect more entries? If you include players in the GM division you actually have 4 major divisons. Try to maintain a fair split like 60/20/15/5. That's just an example but you really can't pull from your smaller groups and expect them to grow.

As has been pointed out, you should only allow players to "play up" and not "play down". Allowing 1 player from a higher division to play on a lower division team only removes players from the already smaller pool.

 

[SCCues]

They are playing in the APA nationals 4's division. :shocked2:

I hadn't thought of that, but you may be right. I've seen 4 level APA players that played REAL good, especially at tournament time!

James

 

[Papa Red]

First of all I would like commend the CSI team and Bad Boys Productions for a good job this year, not an easy job to handle!

I have a question in reference to the masters question?

What is the criteria for moving someone up (open player, open senior, or open super senior)?

I think with the new advanced division it make a closer skill level of play.

Here is the problem from the past!
Everyone knows that if an open player has a good showing and finishes in the top he was moved to masters division. I know of a few players back in the early 2000 that were moved up but will not play because they feel they have no chance of competing with true masters, therefore they will not play. Placing in the money even the $200 range keeps interest in returning. Look at the masters list, it is growing but fewer players are playing.

I feel everyone deserves a chance to win a BCA Championship in their prospective divisions!

Lets say an open player that has been to the Nationals for the past 10 years and has managed to place around the lower 100, he places in the top 8 one year and is moved up (no chance for an open title). Now we all know a for this player to finish in the top 8 a few variable need to be considered, (1. he played well, 2. a good draw-no quality players in his bracket, 3. times which he played allowed him to rest and eat, and 4. the play of his opponents not playing well.). Because he had one good tournament should he be penalized. My suggestion would be that if you finish in the top 8 two years in a row, then you are a consistent player with better than average skills, move to advanced division and so on.

One more thing is most people felt that the tournament is being ran too long (10-13 days) which gets to expense with todays economy. I've talked to some of the masters that played in the 9-ball challenge and were waiting on teams to start and they said they will only play singles next year because the stay is to long. This could be part of the problem with no masters teams.

I know some will not agree with what I've said but hopefully we all can find a fix to keep interest and play the game we love.

Just another observation, I've noticed the lack of young players as in the past.

 

[Bumper]

Mark,

I have waited and thought about this question for a couple of weeks now. As a women that has been in the masters division for the last 15 years in VNEA, I have to say there are many reasons that the division is getting smaller and smaller. But I would say that the main reason is that your own leagues are working against you.

What is happening in most leagues is they have local tournaments (city, state, annual or semi-annual good paying team tournaments). In these tournaments they usually have conditions where there can be only 1 or 2 master players per teams. This way they get more teams and they know that master players will get on other teams so they feel everyone wins.

Now here is the issue with this, because there are more tournaments like this than there is the international tournament, people continue to split up so they can play all the tournaments. Then when internationals comes around they do not want to split the teams they have played with all year up and put together a masters team or the league they are in will not allow it because not all the master players played in the same league all year.

So if you really want to try to do something to change the masters division you should start by changing how your league operators handle all the other tournaments that are run throughout the year.

- Shannon

 

[Celtic]

I missed this when it was first posted. The shrinking of the masters has little to do with the economy and alot more to do with the top end of this sport and the disconnect between top amature play and the professional level.

When a person is playing the open there are levels of the game not yet achieved and goals to strive for. At the masters level you hit a ceiling of amature play and there is no clear connection between that and professional pool. People playing amature golf are playing in a system which is fairly well linked to the pros, the amature game actually leads to the professional tour, your players card, and a nice way to make a decent living.

For pool, making masters status puts you at a place that does not lead to professional pool, you do not move forward from there. The pro game is not restricted like in golf, it is not a right of passage that must be earned, and this hurts the top end of amature pool as well as the pro game.

For that top end of amature pool to truly be popular and well represented it needs to have a link to the pro game, it needs a professional tour and a system much like the WPBA qualifiers into a truly proper mens tour. If winning the masters got you a tour card of a true mens professional tour, and this card included entry into events on that tour, you would see alot more amatures striving to compete at that top amature level.

But in truth? You need a proper pro tour with real non-pool sponsers so that players on that tour do not pay entry fees, there pro players card gets them into the events. Then that top end amature level becomes the last step to getting that pro status and has alot more appeal because the masters is a closed door that players will want to open. ATM the masters is just a small tournament that pays little money and gets a player nothing they don't already have.