Mosconi Cup Selections..

[Serge]

Just trying to have a very rational approach on the Mosconi Cup selections of the past 3 years and adding a few personal opinions concerning its system:

- I used the AZBilliards earning stats for the rankings, the actual site considers the last 3 years only, I can make this exercise for the past 20 years if someone has the earning rankings

- I picked up the top 40 men and removed all the non Pool players and non US or Europe players

- I won't make any comment on the individual selected or non selected players

- The Ranking years 2012 and 2011 include the Mosconi Cup earnings so some of the selected players would appear lower on those lists before the Mosconi Cup was played

- The Mosconi Cup used to be a promotional & invitational event which is definitely no more, it has become pure competition and its prestige is just growing up every year

- As it has obviously become one of the most important Pool Events of the year as well (the other 2 are probably the US Open 9 Ball and the 9 Ball World Championship) it should be fair to qualify the best year achievers of both continents, which is -based on the rankings- not the case

- A few years ago there were qualifying lists in both America and Europe to select the players. Some of the best europeans playing mostly in US were disadvantaged by this system. This system had at least the advantage to follow the progression of the selections and was someway transparent.

- Team Pool competition and individual pool competion are very different. It has happened many times that an individual who performed terrific during a year appeared completely overwhelmed by the Mosconi Cup occasion. Playing for a country/continent and for teammates makes this event way more difficult to handle

- Considering those 3 factors (Mosconi Cup occasion, individual year to date performance, Team ability) there is probably no ideal pickup system today. I cannot imagine a single pool player from Europe or USA not wanting to attend this event particularly if his year to date performance has been awesome. Somebody in an earlier post suggested trials, as you do in other competitive sports, this may be a good suggestion but having all the players together for a certain amount of time with a team manager having to put together a selection may be extremely difficult as there are no earnings for those players during the trials, so the non selected players would just suffer an income loss added to the non selection disappointment.

-Something has to be done though to make the selections the most transparent possible, the actual system is not satisfying neither for players nor for fans

 

[voiceofreason]

How are these players earnings made up though? And what tournaments are missing?

Is it not the case that these earnings include non sanctioned events and even (now) TAR matches?

 

[JAM]

Hey, in case you missed the memo, I will share the details with you.

This year, the 20th anniversary of the Cup, the promoter decided to *not* -- I repeat *NOT* -- use a selection criteria based on rankings.

For the 20th anniversary of the Cup, it has been decided by the promoter to put on a show for the public to celebrate this Mosconi Cup.

You can post up all the rankings you want, and it doesn't mean squat as it pertains to the 20th anniversary of the Cup. It was decided long, long ago that this year, the selection criteria would be different -- again, the promoter's choice. They call these "wildcards" in the industry.

As far as transparency, who are you, me, or anyone to dictate to the promoter how he selects the players? It's his event. If he wants to put Honey Boo Boo in the pit, that's his choice. :grin-square:

 

[voiceofreason]

If he wants to put Honey Boo Boo in the pit, that's his choice. :grin-square:

Oh baby, please let that be true

 

[oldplayer]

just rankings, that is all he wants, rankings...that is a quote

 

[voiceofreason]

Bugger...

It seems that, after a little research it is not the Honey Boo Boo I used to know from the "Hole in the Wall" nightclub in Gibraltar in the mid 80's...

 

[JAM]

How are these players earnings made up though? And what tournaments are missing?

Is it not the case that these earnings include non sanctioned events and even (now) TAR matches?

The earnings are bogus, sad to say.

There is no way that they are inclusive of all pool earnings for the player. There are too many small events that go by the wayside, oftentimes unnoticed.

To add insult to injury, these earnings do not reveal how much the player had to spend to get the earnings. For example, a player who comes in third place in the U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship, winning $10,000, might have expended $2,000 for the week-long tournament, as well as the possibility of any savers. Yes, savers happen in all pool tournaments where there's big bucks. After taxes, that third-place finisher, might make 2- to $3,000 profit.

I guess the list is similar to a measuring stick about which players are more active on the pro tournament trail, globally speaking, but it is by no means accurate as far as all earnings. It's impossible for anyone to come with a list like that, I think. :smile:

 

[voiceofreason]

just rankings, that is all he wants, rankings...that is a quote

Ratings I think you meant sir

 

[Ken_4fun]

For what its worth

I hear what you are saying and what JAM is talking about too.

We are just tossing ideas. I too, get tired of the same folks over and over, and I understand that the selections seem to be popularity contest verses trying to field the strongest team. For years when I watched pool on TV, (for you younger folks pool used to be on TV, and it did not include trick shots, "speed pool", etc) I noticed the same folks in the finals all the time. I thought, are there only a few good players? I later found out that the tournaments were seeded. Now when someone tells me how many championships someone won it doesnt mean much. Hell, if they get a couple byes, they SHOULD get to the finals....

But just assume that one would use a system as this, (ie highest rankings) it might encourage those players who may not play in a tournament normally go ahead and play to "earn" higher to get higher rankings.

I think it would prestigious to get to represent your country in the Mosconi Cup. But if there isnt a defined path to "earn" your spot on the team and you are picked becasue you are somebodys friend or you have an association with them, it really loses the prestige in my opinion.

Good discussion.

Ken

 

[Pre-Flag Master]

Hey, in case you missed the memo, I will share the details with you.

This year, the 20th anniversary of the Cup, the promoter decided to *not* -- I repeat *NOT* -- use a selection criteria based on rankings.

For the 20th anniversary of the Cup, it has been decided by the promoter to put on a show for the public to celebrate this Mosconi Cup...

In my opinion, they never did use the rankings for anything more than a starting point. Let's face it, it's their show and they can put in who ever they want. They want a good show, so they pick the players that they think will give a good show. And I personally have no problem with that. By good show I mean what is entertaining, which means good pool AND good personality. We will never see "Earl the Burl" on the MC again. After Dechaine and Putnam did so poorly we may never see them again no matter how high in the rankings they are (shame too because I like Putnam). After Hatches MVP year, I'm sure they look for every opportunity they can to invite him.

Now don't get me wrong, I think they have used the rankings somewhat, but it's just a starting point. Wasn't Archer ranked pretty low last year? He got invited because he plays great pool under pressure, is a team leader, and has general charisma. He's great for the show.

Now that they are not "saying" it's rankings based, it should be less controversial. So that was a good move on their part, to change the stated criteria to match their actual criteria is better.

Fatz

 

[JAM]

In my opinion, they never did use the rankings for anything more than a starting point. Let's face it, it's their show and they can put in who ever they want. They want a good show, so they pick the players that they think will give a good show. And I personally have no problem with that. By good show I mean what is entertaining, which means good pool AND good personality. We will never see "Earl the Burl" on the MC again. After Dechaine and Putnam did so poorly we may never see them again no matter how high in the rankings they are (shame too because I like Putnam). After Hatches MVP year, I'm sure they look for every opportunity they can to invite him.

Now don't get me wrong, I think they have used the rankings somewhat, but it's just a starting point. Wasn't Archer ranked pretty low last year? He got invited because he plays great pool under pressure, is a team leader, and has general charisma. He's great for the show.

Now that they are not "saying" it's rankings based, it should be less controversial. So that was a good move on their part, to change the stated criteria to match their actual criteria is better.

Fatz

Earl is in.

 

[oldplayer]

Ratings I think you meant sir

thank you, yes, ratings, that was before my coffee!

 

[Serge]

There is no point discussing the 2013 selection, as JAM pointed out Matchroom announced early enough that this will be a wildcards pick up year because of the 20th anniversary.

The AZBilliards earning rankings - though certainly neither perfect nor complete - are the only usable reference for overall comparison.

Snoooker World Rankings will be based on earnings from 2014 and not on points any more, the head of world snooker governing body is - guess who -Barry Hearn. There has been a lot going on in snooker these past years and some of controversy too. But at the end of the day Snooker figures look much better today as they did 5 to 10 years ago.

In fact these actual earning figures match pretty well with the selected players, don't they? year 2013: 7 from the top 13 are in - 2012: 9 from the top 16 - 2011: 10 from the top 14

It is as in any sport - and I consider pool as one of the ultimate sport kinds -: there are as many opinions as there are fans and everyone thinks to hold the truth. From a fan perspective though it may be frustrating to see some players picked up and others not, as the Mosconi cup is - I repeat myself - a real competition and not an exhibition any more.

 

[voiceofreason]

There is no point discussing the 2013 selection, as JAM pointed out Matchroom announced early enough that this will be a wildcards pick up year because of the 20th anniversary.

The AZBilliards earning rankings - though certainly neither perfect nor complete - are the only usable reference for overall comparison.

Snoooker World Rankings will be based on earnings from 2014 and not on points any more, the head of world snooker governing body is - guess who -Barry Hearn. There has been a lot going on in snooker these past years and some of controversy too. But at the end of the day Snooker figures look much better today as they did 5 to 10 years ago.

In fact these actual earning figures match pretty well with the selected players, don't they? year 2013: 7 from the top 13 are in - 2012: 9 from the top 16 - 2011: 10 from the top 14

It is as in any sport - and I consider pool as one of the ultimate sport kinds -: there are as many opinions as there are fans and everyone thinks to hold the truth. From a fan perspective though it may be frustrating to see some players picked up and others not, as the Mosconi cup is - I repeat myself - a real competition and not an exhibition any more.

Only issue I have with the rankings is what determines an event gets on the list.

The AZB list is a good indicator (quite accurate even) but including TAR matches seems too far.

 

[jpparmentier]

There is no point discussing the 2013 selection, as JAM pointed out Matchroom announced early enough that this will be a wildcards pick up year because of the 20th anniversary.

The AZBilliards earning rankings - though certainly neither perfect nor complete - are the only usable reference for overall comparison.

Snoooker World Rankings will be based on earnings from 2014 and not on points any more, the head of world snooker governing body is - guess who -Barry Hearn. There has been a lot going on in snooker these past years and some of controversy too. But at the end of the day Snooker figures look much better today as they did 5 to 10 years ago.

In fact these actual earning figures match pretty well with the selected players, don't they? year 2013: 7 from the top 13 are in - 2012: 9 from the top 16 - 2011: 10 from the top 14

It is as in any sport - and I consider pool as one of the ultimate sport kinds -: there are as many opinions as there are fans and everyone thinks to hold the truth. From a fan perspective though it may be frustrating to see some players picked up and others not, as the Mosconi cup is - I repeat myself - a real competition and not an exhibition any more.

Thank you for working on this. It was very interesting and informative ;-)

1. We are in the process of working on previous years and putting them back online. There are several issues such as missing tournaments and database references. In the future, we really think we could get the money leaderboard down to at least 1980.

2. Matchroom had a tough time getting respect and help in the mid-90s just because they were "from abroad" and at the same time the PBT was on ESPN many times. Now that Matchroom has proven to be the most reliable promoter in the last 20 years, people want to tell them what to do, how to do it. Basically apart from the World 9-Ball, all of their events have always been invitational. When you put this much effort and money into creating the shows they make, you might as well be in control of who you want in it. End of story

 

[SakuJack]

I later found out that the tournaments were seeded. Now when someone tells me how many championships someone won it doesnt mean much. Hell, if they get a couple byes, they SHOULD get to the finals....

By this logic Stephen Hendry's seven world titles "don't mean much" as it's a seeded event.

If you lose seeding then you potentially make it even more unfair, and end up with situations where one side of the draw is stacked with the best players while the other side contains only a couple of good players and a bunch of also rans. Then you end up with a situation where your champion beat only one or two top players to win the title.

 

[CreeDo]

In my opinion, they never did use the rankings for anything more than a starting point. Let's face it, it's their show and they can put in who ever they want. They want a good show, so they pick the players that they think will give a good show. And I personally have no problem with that. By good show I mean what is entertaining, which means good pool AND good personality. We will never see "Earl the Burl" on the MC again. After Dechaine and Putnam did so poorly we may never see them again no matter how high in the rankings they are (shame too because I like Putnam). After Hatches MVP year, I'm sure they look for every opportunity they can to invite him.

Now don't get me wrong, I think they have used the rankings somewhat, but it's just a starting point. Wasn't Archer ranked pretty low last year? He got invited because he plays great pool under pressure, is a team leader, and has general charisma. He's great for the show.

Now that they are not "saying" it's rankings based, it should be less controversial. So that was a good move on their part, to change the stated criteria to match their actual criteria is better.

Fatz

Their selection process has actually been transparent from the start, there was never any shady
stuff like 'they claim it's this but really it's that'.
They have been up front with how they make their picks both in the past and this year.

They had a ranking system based on BCA points for each event, and the top finishers in that
ranking system then got guaranteed slots. In 2012 it was the top 2, and the remaining 3 are matchroom's pick.

In 2011, it was the top 3, with 2 wildcards.

They've posted it right on their site and people could work out ahead of time which non-wildcard players would be on the team, before it was announced.

Believe me, if it was "whoever they want" in the past, you won't see non-telegenic dudes like Shawn Putnam.

This is the first year where it really was "whoever they want" and I'm wondering if that's maybe just for the
anniversary, and then they go back to a point system where at least 2 of the players are guaranteed
slots on merit alone.

PS: crazy to think Earl won't be seen again. They love Earl.
As long as Earl can play at a reasonable level he's almost automatic. We'll see him this year.

 

[Pre-Flag Master]

...When you put this much effort and money into creating the shows they make, you might as well be in control of who you want in it. End of story

Exactly !!

 

[Pre-Flag Master]

Earl is in.

Earl is in? Well then, I guess I stand corrected.

 

[JAM]

Earl is in? Well then, I guess I stand corrected.

I guess I should not state that with 100 percent assuredness. Let's just say that I heard he was in, but, of course, things can change, so who knows? I'm sure we will all be finding out soon. :smile: