New BCAPL Advanced Division

cardiac kid said:
Incidentally, did you note the change to the foul / scratch on the break rule? Cue ball in hand anywhere on the table. Not sure I agree. Gives the better player a huge advantage. Sure will speed up the game and the number of racks played during BCAPL events though.

Lyn
Click to expand...

It might save someone from getting beaned in the head by a cueball one of these years. I like the rule if someone pops the ball off the table or snaps the cueball straight into the side pocket off the break. If they break perfect, control the white ball to the center of the table, and it gets kicked in, that is going to be a tough rule to swallow then.

The change in that rule can in effect make it even more difficult for the top player to grind through the dozen matches or so it takes to win. Now there is one more slight thing that can go wrong, being kicked in off the break, that will give a weaker opponent the best chance to run out that set changing game.

IMO the most critical change needed for a tournament of that magnitude is a move to at least race to 7. There are weekly 8-ball tournaments that cost $20 to enter that are race to 5. That is simply too short a race for people playing in a major tournament like the BCAPL Open. There are guys in the open who can run 5-packs and who will often do a 2 and 3 pack for a match where you can really not even break dry once and win. With a race to 7 things become more concrete and you can often fade a bad break and the rolls will tend to even out abit more. You lose the coin toss, he breaks and runs out, you break dry he runs out, he breaks and runs out. Now down 3-0 in a race to 7 you are still very much alive, in a race to 5 alternate break you are pretty much screwed in this case.
 
DunnM1 said:
If they have a full time job (not playing pool) they are for the most part an amateur.
Click to expand...

Donnie Mills sells cars, I believe Reed Pierce is not a pool player anymore. Trying to distinguish pool players in catagories like you say is impossible because few players actually make a true living playing this game and there is no official determination of a "pro" such as say, the PGA where you have players who have earned tour cards through qualifying school. One day I would love to see just what you suggest but the sport has nothing even close to being able to accurately and fairly distinguish those catagories ATM.
 
Holly said:
Duane,


Regarding the nicknames, that is the choice of the player themselves. We request legal names and enter that information into our system, but we also have a “nickname or goes’ by” type of field. This is the first name field you are seeing on the online lists. If someone prefers to go by Rich or RJ versus Richard, that is their prerogative and this is a sport that we all love to be involved, not a governmental agency.

All the best,
Holly
Click to expand...

In Vega$ last May I played against Baby Kong Bailey Jr - oh and I played him twice in a tournament of over 1300 players within 6 matches into the tournament.
 
Duane - what is the website to your tourneys again - since you are pointing at the BCAPL, I would like to read the list of winners in your divisions from last season.
 
watchez said:
In Vega$ last May I played against Baby Kong Bailey Jr - oh and I played him twice in a tournament of over 1300 players within 6 matches into the tournament.
Click to expand...

Wachez,

In the Open division, 32 brackets for 64 players had to be used in order to accommodate over 1300 players. That was for preliminary round. Top four, 2 from winner's side and 2 from loser's side from 32 brackets advanced into one Final bracket for 128 players.

Yes, it was unfortunate that you had to play same person twice, but it does happen when crossing a board.

S.
 
unusual

watchez said:
In Vega$ last May I played against Baby Kong Bailey Jr - oh and I played him twice in a tournament of over 1300 players within 6 matches into the tournament.
Click to expand...
How did you do? Was it Bernardo's kid?:grin:
 
JoeyA said:
Personally Holly, the new Policy looks more fair than the old policy. I think it's a step in the right direction.

HOWEVER, I'm curious as to whether an Advanced Player will be allowed to play in the Senior's Division.

Just wondering.....
Click to expand...

Hi Joey,

About singles, Advanced players will play in the Advanced division. The old policy disallowed any player above Open to participate in the Seniors. This portion of the policy has not changed.

Hope all is well,
Holly
 
watchez said:
In Vega$ last May I played against Baby Kong Bailey Jr - oh and I played him twice in a tournament of over 1300 players within 6 matches into the tournament.
Click to expand...

HI Watchez,

Honestly not making light of your post...but the first thought in my head was, is he related to Donkey Kong Bailey? Just kidding. We require legal names for a variety of reasons, number one should someone cash either at the BCAPL Nationals or in a CSI produced / ran BCAPL state or regional events in which we are too responsible for cutting the checks, we have to make sure the name on the check matches the person's legal name and their photo legally issued ID. However, if a person expresses that he / she prefers to go by their nickname we will allow it unless it is vulgar or truly an inapropriate nickname.

:) TTYS,
Holly
 
Celtic said:
IMO the most critical change needed for a tournament of that magnitude is a move to at least race to 7. There are weekly 8-ball tournaments that cost $20 to enter that are race to 5. That is simply too short a race for people playing in a major tournament like the BCAPL Open. There are guys in the open who can run 5-packs and who will often do a 2 and 3 pack for a match where you can really not even break dry once and win. With a race to 7 things become more concrete and you can often fade a bad break and the rolls will tend to even out abit more. You lose the coin toss, he breaks and runs out, you break dry he runs out, he breaks and runs out. Now down 3-0 in a race to 7 you are still very much alive, in a race to 5 alternate break you are pretty much screwed in this case.
Click to expand...

QFT, I would enjoy the open much more if it was a race to 7. I think it would be great for the tournament. Even though longer races favor the stronger player, in Alternate break format, it's anyone's game.
 
DRW said:
How did you do? Was it Bernardo's kid?:grin:
Click to expand...

I beat him the first time - lost to him the second. Being a weak player I let the fact that I had to play the same player twice be a distraction to me. And I don't think it was Bernardo's kid unless he had an affair with a white woman in Wisconsin some 20-30 years ago.

To Sunny - I would suggest using 16 brackets of 128 players so there is less of a chance for this to happen so early in the tournament. Then you can have 4 from the winners side and 4 from the losers side of each bracket go to the final board. To me, to be honest, it is just a matter of convenience to the group that was running the tournament for the BCAPL. All the computer programs are wonderful and a huge technological advance to the Vegas BCAPL tournament experience - surely they can be used to run a better bracket board system as well. If they can't, I know you can rely on good old human know how.

To Holly - no light in your post taken by me, it wasn't my name that you were comparing to Donkey Kong. He was a nice guy and in fact when he had two girls clapping for him and I had no one there for me, I actually got one of the girls to clap when I won a game. I can see now that you have posted your rule on nicknames that they will be all over the board next year. Can't wait.
 
watchez said:
To Sunny - I would suggest using 16 brackets of 128 players so there is less of a chance for this to happen so early in the tournament. Then you can have 4 from the winners side and 4 from the losers side of each bracket go to the final board. To me, to be honest, it is just a matter of convenience to the group that was running the tournament for the BCAPL. All the computer programs are wonderful and a huge technological advance to the Vegas BCAPL tournament experience - surely they can be used to run a better bracket board system as well. If they can't, I know you can rely on good old human know how.
Click to expand...

Whachez,

You do bring up good points and it's well appreciated at times:p You know I'm saying that with affection:)

We may gamble with using larger bracket (s) in the future, but even with the larger bracket you could still cross playing same player depending on how far you get... But yes, there will be less chance of that.

Thanks for your suggestion.

S.
 
I love you too Shunny.

When the Bad Boyz contract runs out, let me know and I'll put in my bid to reap all that money and work for it too.
 
BCA Advanced Division

I think that this division is detrimental to the better players that plan to make the trip, though I can see the value for the players that are not quite to the Master level yet. Just looking at the Ladies divisions, since that is what I am concerned with, only 62 women played in the 2010 Women's Masters, that was before any players were moved down into the Advanced division. So, in 2011, we will probably be lucky to have 40 players in that division, and maybe 2 players will be added per year to this division from now on, so there is no real opportunity to grow. (Note: I know top 4 women are moved into the division, but you have to take into account that 2 women are moved up each year to the Grand Master division. Also, you have to take into account that several players will also ask to move down because they have not finished in the money for the past 2 years at Nationals, so by the end, that division may be negative in players each year.)

Unfortunately, when the better players are in a losing proposition, it creates the sandbagging that is seen rampantly in the APA. I think if the BCA plans to move forward with this plan, the Grand Masters division will need to be eliminated and maybe pro players should only be allowed in the professional events at BCA. If you don't combine the divisions, than neither event will ever really grow. Just like the Open division, if you mingle the elite with the not so elite, the not so elite will stop showing up. (So, basically, back to 3 divisions with different names ;))

Another issue I see is the "known ability" clause playing into these divisions. They need to let all new players earn their way up the ladder. That way everyone has a chance to at least earn the big money before they get their butts handed to them in the upper divisions. :) Known ability is subjective and requires detailed review. I know that I can look at the current BCA Advanced/Master/Grand Master list for the women and see flaws with the ratings listed. It would be easier to eliminate this difficult task of judging players and fairer to the players that are singled out by the known ability clause.

In relation to that, my personal opinion is once someone earns the right to play in the upper divisions, they should not be allowed to move back down. This keeps someone from having an unintentional bad year one year to intentional bad year the second year just to move back down to the lower division into the larger prize funds. This would help build all the upper divisions.

Just my 2 cents on the division topic.
 
Holly

Take note, to Firecracker's comment. I like it. Let people move up by playing but, once they are there they can not come down. So if you were moved to say Master you can never come down. That is the only way to be fare.
 
We are fine tuning and will have the details out very soon. 99% complete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top