Open Offer to Danny Harriman and John Schmidt from TAR

I see a few good ways to do this. First and foremost though, aside from whatever fine structure is implemented, no matter what format is chosen it has to be stipulated that all three sets must be played and completed. If a player chooses to forfeit at any time, he forfeits any and all monies earned from all of the sets, including any previous ones.

The first way to do this is to play each set with the winner getting $1600 and the loser getting $400. If it goes 3-0, the winner will have earned $4800, and the loser $1200. If it goes 2-1, the winner will have earned $3600, and the loser $2400. This way they both earn pretty good money, particularly if the sets are split.

The second method helps to create a little more separation between what the winner and loser end up earning. Each set is played with the winner getting $1350, and the loser getting $350. Whoever has won the majority of the sets when it is over gets a $900 bonus. So if it goes 3-0, then the winner will take $4950, and the loser $1050. If it goes 2-1, then the winner will take $3950, and the loser $2050. At a minimum the winner will be winning about double what the loser takes, and if it is a sweep, nearly five times more.

Another idea that can be used with either of the above options is to secure an advertiser to sponsor a bonus of say $1000 (or whatever advertising charge is appropriate considering the risk) if one of the players can sweep all three sets, similar to the way that advertisers sponsor a prize for a hole in one in golf, or for a maximum 147 break in a snooker. I would think that this would be pretty appealing to sponsors because the chances of a sweep are fairly low and they may just end up getting their advertising for free. Obviously you would want it prepaid and just refund it if it doesn't happen.

Or you could structure it where you negotiate an amount you keep for yourselves as an advertising fee if there is no sweep, and you refund the rest. Of course the "usual" advertising rate that would have been charged would lay somewhere between these two numbers, and because of the risk involved they are actually paying less than usual if there is no sweep (and you earn a few bucks), and they are paying more than usual if there is a sweep, and it all averages out. Any number of ways you could work this.

Or you could just have the advertiser sponsor the bonus money for the overall winner instead of the sweep, which would work especially well with the first method.

Another way yet to work this is to have the advertiser sponsor a bonus for both. Say $300 for the person that takes the sets by a 2-1 majority, and an additional $700 if they can take it in a 3-0 sweep. Obviously you use whatever numbers are appropriate based on what you usually charge for advertising, with your "usual" rate falling somewhere between the two but probably closer the "majority win" number. Whether they sponsor just for a sweep, or just for the overall win, or for an overall win and also for a sweep, they could be billed as your "bonus money" sponsor for the event.

Whatever it turns out to be it has to be able to be made clear in a single sentence. I am leaning towards each guy getting a $1000 guaranteed and playing for $1000 a set with $1000 bonus to the winner. If I do find sponsors I'll probably use the money to help outrun the $6000 plus expenses and production costs we will already be stuck.
 
Another idea that can be used with either of the above options is to secure an advertiser to sponsor a bonus of say $1000 (or whatever advertising charge is appropriate considering the risk) if one of the players can sweep all three sets, similar to the way that advertisers sponsor a prize for a hole in one in golf, or for a maximum 147 break in a snooker. I would think that this would be pretty appealing to sponsors because the chances of a sweep are fairly low and they may just end up getting their advertising for free. Obviously you would want it prepaid and just refund it if it doesn't happen.

Or you could structure it where you negotiate an amount you keep for yourselves as an advertising fee if there is no sweep, and you refund the rest. Of course the "usual" advertising rate that would have been charged would lay somewhere between these two numbers, and because of the risk involved they are actually paying less than usual if there is no sweep (and you earn a few bucks), and they are paying more than usual if there is a sweep, and it all averages out. Any number of ways you could work this.

Or you could just have the advertiser sponsor the bonus money for the overall winner instead of the sweep, which would work especially well with the first method.

Another way yet to work this is to have the advertiser sponsor a bonus for both. Say $300 for the person that takes the sets by a 2-1 majority, and an additional $700 if they can take it in a 3-0 sweep. Obviously you use whatever numbers are appropriate based on what you usually charge for advertising, with your "usual" rate falling somewhere between the two but probably closer the "majority win" number. Whether they sponsor just for a sweep, or just for the overall win, or for an overall win and also for a sweep, they could be billed as your "bonus money" sponsor for the event.

I'm sure Massengill would be interested in sponsering Danny since they the best in the business in that particular area !
 
Edit: Ok...we have $6K to work with so what if we guarantee each guy $1000 that leaves $4000 in the middle so each disciple would be worth $1000 and the over all winner gets $1000 bonus. ? I am liking the sound of this so someone poke some holes in it. Doing it this way means if if it goes 2-1 the loser actually makes $1000 more than originally stated but it makes getting all three games in a certainty.

I like this format a lot. PPV purchasers will be able to plan their viewing schedule with certainty, we will get to see them play all 3 games in a true all-around format, and there is still a potential $5k payday if one player were to throw a shutout. It's perfect, IMO.

Thanks TAR for coming with this great offer. If the guys don't accept this one, we can safely assume that they are just never gonna play again.

Aaron
 
JCIN said:
Whatever it turns out to be it has to be able to be made clear in a single sentence. I am leaning towards each guy getting a $1000 guaranteed and playing for $1000 a set with $1000 bonus to the winner. If I do find sponsors I'll probably use the money to help outrun the $6000 plus expenses and production costs we will already be stuck.

I can certainly understand your desire to start recouping your investment if a sponsor is secured. I was just throwing out a variety ideas in an attempt to help.

As far as the single sentence, not sure what you meant but if you were suggesting my formats were complicated, both of the main options I suggested (paragraphs 2 and 3 in my post) were real short and simple. Option 1: Each set is played with the winner getting $1600 and the loser getting $400. Option 2: Each set is played with the winner getting $1350 and the loser getting $350, with a $900 bonus to the winner.

With option 1, depending on if it goes 3-0 or 2-1, they will win $4800/$1200 or $3600/$2400.

With option 2, depending on if it goes 3-0 or 2-1, they will win $4950/$1050 or $3950/$2050.

With your option, depending on if it goes 3-0 or 2-1, they will win $5000/$1000 or $4000/$2000. Even though this is absolutely identical to my option 2, it sounds much better with the nice rounded numbers, and my guess is that is would also sound better to most people with the loser getting nothing in each set he loses.

Because it sounds better, I prefer your option the best as well, but if it will take just a little bit more money going to the loser in order to get them to play, my option 1 may be the next best choice. Of course even then you could do $1200 guaranteed and then $900 a set and $900 to the winner and it is the same and probably sounds better that way too. Obviously it is all up to you and the players, I just hope you are able to get this one to come off! Good luck!
 
They need to play all 3 games. With that said, figure out a way us pay pal less dudes can watch or do it during Vegas in May so I can come sweat that shit lol.
 
Page 5..

... just scanned 5 pages ... and sorry if I missed it ... but with all the great ideas and JCIN actual offer.. has either PLAYER actually commented?
 
I think the players should know if they will be required to be hooked up to a microphone while they are playing a match.

This would probably be an added incentive to the live-stream audience and increase viewership but the players should know of this in advance before accepting the offer to play.

If this has been covered already, shit me off a cliff or call me a biatch.
 
Let me know as soon as possible and I will pay the PPV on this one immediately.

I have been pestering (asking, begging, supply your own verb here) TAR for a match like this for quite some time.

TAR and the boys, thanks. This is the kind of match that we really should be showing.

Earl is joke.

This is the real match that everyone wants to see.

Ken

I disagree, you vs Earl for big bucks is what I'd like to see. Since he is a joke you should have no problem winning.
 
... just scanned 5 pages ... and sorry if I missed it ... but with all the great ideas and JCIN actual offer.. has either PLAYER actually commented?

I started the thread about 16 hours ago. I think a day or two might be in order for them to respond here or contact me.

I have spoke with both of them numerous times and started this thread simply to talk to both at the same time and either get this thing to happen or move on to something else.
 
I think the players should know if they will be required to be hooked up to a microphone while they are playing a match.

This would probably be an added incentive to the live-stream audience and increase viewership but the players should know of this in advance before accepting the offer to play.

If this has been covered already, shit me off a cliff or call me a biatch.

Mic'ing the players is a minor concern to me basically because I know players hate wearing mic's and I am more focused on getting the match to happen than muddying the waters.

It's a giant pain in the ass for all concerned and if someone were to mutter something under their breath the other guys cell phone would be blowing up 30 seconds later. I have had my share of side shows and don't want anymore. For TAR this is about a rubber match between two guys who after 20 games of 1 pocket, 2 sets of one pocket and 2 sets of ten ball are dead even.

Both Danny and John seem to have tried to move forward from some things in the past between them and I don't see pushing them to wear a mic in order to catch them saying something in the heat of the moment promoting that spirit of advancement. I hate "gotcha" journalism and programming so in a longwinded answer...no I wont ask them to wear a mic.
 
Last edited:
They need to play all 3 games. With that said, figure out a way us pay pal less dudes can watch or do it during Vegas in May so I can come sweat that shit lol.

I'll pay for yours - you can get me back later - now quit crying.
 
JoeyA said:
I think the players should know if they will be required to be hooked up to a microphone while they are playing a match.

This would probably be an added incentive to the live-stream audience and increase viewership but the players should know of this in advance before accepting the offer to play.

If this has been covered already, shit me off a cliff or call me a biatch.

I agree. I could be wrong but I bet having the players mic'd up would increase the viewership a good 10% in most matches, and much more than that in some.
 
I think the Philippines Big Time Billiards has it right. They have races to 9 with the winner getting $5,000 and the loser I think gets $2500, ring card girl walks around the table and all that. I find it amazing its on TV there, $5,000 is nothing here and would never make the air. I like what TAR is trying to do now, having this to be a UFC style champion in different divisions.

Maybe have an under card match perhaps if two AZ guys wanted to match up in a short race for some cash on the stream before the big show. I know Justin in the past you have spoke about being opposed to exhibition matches and am glad you have changed your feelings on this. I do think exhibition match is a poor word for it, it really is a challenge match just like Efren and Frost were when they played here, Scott walked away with I believe $4,000 while Efren got $1,000 as the loser.

These players will be trying to win and it will be a great match, no different then a money match. I would suggest having an all around format, 2 out of 3, each player picks a game and the third game would be drawn from a hat, each player could write down 2 games to be put in the hat. That would be a good way to determine a TAR All Around Champion and add a little bit of a surprise because we might not know what the 3rd game is. Just more ideas, enjoying reading other peoples ideas on this and thanks for being open minded to all of our input.
 
I started the thread about 16 hours ago. I think a day or two might be in order for them to respond here or contact me.

I have spoke with both of them numerous times and started this thread simply to talk to both at the same time and either get this thing to happen or move on to something else.

Justin:

I certainly hope that both players will notice this thread in the next day or so, and are compelled to respond -- either to you directly, or to the thread.

But just going by what's previously been displayed in other threads calling for this matchup (e.g. Bobby Chamberlain's ["wrldpro"] thread), Danny's probably not going to budge from his stipulation to have banks in there as part of the all-around, which John's already stated he will not do.

But I hope that I'm wrong! I'll keep my fingers crossed something works out...
-Sean
 
I agree. I could be wrong but I bet having the players mic'd up would increase the viewership a good 10% in most matches, and much more than that in some.

That would surprise me greatly but I could be wrong. Going on five years of doing these and one of the few things I havent heard is "I didnt buy the match because they weren't mic'ed"

Bottom line is players hate to wear them and whenever possible and practical we default to the players wishes. I used to think it would be cool to have players mic'ed but then I started spending a lot of time around microphones and quickly understood why its no much fun having everything you say go out on an open channel.

People want the mic's because they want to hear the funny or outrageous shit players say under the heat. I understand it but I also understand its hard enough to compete in front of an audience critiquing every move you make without having to worry about letting something slip in the heat of the moment. Its a no win situation for the players.
 
In post #35, I suggested more sets and shorter sets, rather than 3 long sets. I think I may have been remembering a suggestion by Joe Tucker a few months ago for an alternative to the race-to-100 matches in 10-ball or best-2-out-of-3 races to 25. I think something along the lines of what Joe suggested would also be interesting in an all-around format.

Here is what Joe posted: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3341253&postcount=1

To use his idea but in all-around match, how about something like this:

First to win 7 sets gets $5,000; loser gets $1,000.

Sets are cycled through the 3 disciplines:

  • 14.1 to X points
  • One pocket to Y games
  • 10-ball to Z games
  • repeat

X, Y, and Z would be chosen (in advance) to make it fit into 3 days, even if it goes the full 13 sets.

With this format, we'd get to see them play multiple disciplines on each day, with, as Joe said, "added pressure, excitement and action."
 
Justin:

I certainly hope that both players will notice this thread in the next day or so, and are compelled to respond -- either to you directly, or to the thread.

But just going by what's previously been displayed in other thread calling for this matchup (e.g. Bobby Chamberlain's ["wrldpro"] thread), Danny's probably not going to budge from his stipulation to have banks in there as part of the all-around, which John's already stated he will not do.

But I hope that I'm wrong! I'll keep my fingers crossed something works out...
-Sean

Thats why I started this thread. I just want a final answer. Either way I wish both guys the best. The money is legit and the offer is real so one way or another we'll either have the match or I'll go make another one.

As for banks thats obviously not even on the table and Danny certainly knows that but as I understand it that had to do with a backer wanting that included as a condition for staking the match. With this offer there are no backers just the same game they have played twice before with the winner getting the same money they won before and the loser making more.
 
In post #35, I suggested more sets and shorter sets, rather than 3 long sets. I think I may have been remembering a suggestion by Joe Tucker a few months ago for an alternative to the race-to-100 matches in 10-ball or best-2-out-of-3 races to 25. I think something along the lines of what Joe suggested would also be interesting in an all-around format.

Here is what Joe posted: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3341253&postcount=1

To use his idea but in all-around match, how about something like this:

First to win 7 sets gets $5,000; loser gets $1,000.

Sets are cycled through the 3 disciplines:

  • 14.1 to X points
  • One pocket to Y games
  • 10-ball to Z games
  • repeat

X, Y, and Z would be chosen (in advance) to make it fit into 3 days, even if it goes the full 13 sets.

With this format, we'd get to see them play multiple disciplines on each day, with, as Joe said, "added pressure, excitement and action."

I thought of that but I think switching games in the same day would not promote the best possible quality of play. Switching from 14.1/1P/10B in the same day is quite a bit different than playing a long set of each game per day.

Remember the last time these two played a race to 400 14.1 there were FOUR 100 ball runs in the set. You wil never see something like that if you split it up.
 
Back
Top