Open Tournament Seeding

All the major APA events have an unusual variation of seeding. Worst ranked player by record goes up top and the second worst next and so forth until at the bottom is the best player by apa record. All the better players are at the bottom clustered togethered and it pretty much guarantees the top half of the brackets will have a player that is ranked no higher than middle of the field in the hotseat match.
 
Rich R. said:
Let me be clear here. There is no good reason for seeding players but it is a fact of life in major tournaments for the reason I stated in my original post.

True pool fans would appreciate a totally blind draw, which is the most fair way to go. However, the promoter of a large event is going to make his money from the marginal or novice pool fan that is just coming to see their favorite player, in the late rounds, against another known player. If this fan walks in and sees two players, unknown to him and the rest of the crowd, he will leave and not come back for the next tournament. The promoter has to protect himself. After all, he is the one taking all of the financial risk.

From the view of the amateur player, it sucks, but they know what they are getting into and they know the chance of them winning is extremely low. They do it for the experience and, in the end, they will have a better story to tell if they get a few games against SVB than if they lose hill-hill to another unknown.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in the later rounds, the crowds almost always dissipate. For the finals of a major tournament that is a multi-day event with one discipline, you would be hard pressed to find even a small crowd capable of filling only the "tv" chairs.
 
JoeyA said:
Unfortunately, in the later rounds, the crowds almost always dissipate. For the finals of a major tournament that is a multi-day event with one discipline, you would be hard pressed to find even a small crowd capable of filling only the "tv" chairs.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you have never been to the finals of either the Players Championship, during the SBE at Valley Forge, or the U.S. Open. Both are usually standing room only.
 
I think that seeding an "open" event would discourage amateur players from entering and reduce prize pools and serve to reduce the successfulness and frequency of these events. In a word, no.
 
I came across this thread after reading a more recent thread on the subject and doing a little research of the archives. I have some thoughts as well as a couple of questions.

When discussing seeding in pro pool are most referring to the top ranked player playing the lowest ranked in the first round, and so on down the line throughout the entries? I'm not sure that is even possible since quite a few players, like in the US Open, don't even have a ranking of any kind.

I can see a reason for seeding in some form for certain events, but with the prerequisite that there would have to be a viable tour AND a generally acceptable/impartial/fair way of determining the seedings. Tennis and golf (in those match play events that are seeded) have this; criteria for seeding that everyone agrees on.

How about a partially seeded tournament (again, given the caveats I mentioned)? Say one out of every four players are seeded (32 in a 128 player field or 64 in a 256 player field like the Open).

Let's say first the byes are put into the chart in the required places. Then top 32 players according to rank would be drawn and spaced out down the chart before the draw. Some of these players would get byes and others not, depending on the luck of the draw. These players are not pitted against the 32 lowest ranked players but simply spaced out in the starting chart. Then the remainder of the players are drawn, some of who would get byes and some that would draw world champions.

One could make an argument that this is a fairer way to line up a tournament than a blind draw because it balances the chart. For all the mid-level pros, like the up and comers that are not in the top tier yet, it gives them more of an assurance that they will face the same difficulty as the other mid-level players than if the draw comes out talent heavy in certain parts of the bracket. I can see where from the pros viewpoint this would be "fairer". These guys don't want to incur the expense of traveling to an event just to find they were "drawn" into a dead money position by virtue of luck.

Same deal for the low level amateurs.

Say one just enters because he wants to enjoy the experience, is not concerned about cashing because he knows he has no chance, but would consider it a dream to play a set each with JA and Efren and go two and out. Well, this guy has a fairer opportunity of drawing a "star" if the stars are balanced throughout the chart. With the luck of the draw this player could easily go two and out to a couple of unknown shortstops.

Then there is the amateur who is serious about competing and while he doesn't expect to win the event is in it to test his game and go as far as he can. This guy has a fairer opportunity to go as far as the other guys like him in the event, and there is less chance that by luck of the draw will face JA and Efren and go two and out before he really had a chance to test his game against the field while another serious amateur drew into a weak part of the bracket and got to play three of the first type of amateur I mentioned before he faced any real competition.

I've not decided really how I feel about seeding but I do see some merit in balancing the chart with seeding part of the field (not into future rounds with byes and not against the corresponding players at the other end of the rankings), simply as a means of balancing the event.

I'm just throwing the idea out here and wonder what you guys think of something along these lines.
 
Rich R. said:
I agree.

For the true majors, the promoter has to insure that the big names don't knock each other out too early. The ticket buyers want to see the big names.
For the local and regional tournaments, I'm in favor of a true blind draw and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...

yeah, but i think he also has to insure the big name will COME first.
 
Last edited:
DogsPlayingPool said:
I came across this thread after reading a more recent thread on the subject and doing a little research of the archives. I have some thoughts as well as a couple of questions.

When discussing seeding in pro pool are most referring to the top ranked player playing the lowest ranked in the first round, and so on down the line throughout the entries? I'm not sure that is even possible since quite a few players, like in the US Open, don't even have a ranking of any kind.

I can see a reason for seeding in some form for certain events, but with the prerequisite that there would have to be a viable tour AND a generally acceptable/impartial/fair way of determining the seedings. Tennis and golf (in those match play events that are seeded) have this; criteria for seeding that everyone agrees on.

How about a partially seeded tournament (again, given the caveats I mentioned)? Say one out of every four players are seeded (32 in a 128 player field or 64 in a 256 player field like the Open).

Let's say first the byes are put into the chart in the required places. Then top 32 players according to rank would be drawn and spaced out down the chart before the draw. Some of these players would get byes and others not, depending on the luck of the draw. These players are not pitted against the 32 lowest ranked players but simply spaced out in the starting chart. Then the remainder of the players are drawn, some of who would get byes and some that would draw world champions.

One could make an argument that this is a fairer way to line up a tournament than a blind draw because it balances the chart. For all the mid-level pros, like the up and comers that are not in the top tier yet, it gives them more of an assurance that they will face the same difficulty as the other mid-level players than if the draw comes out talent heavy in certain parts of the bracket. I can see where from the pros viewpoint this would be "fairer". These guys don't want to incur the expense of traveling to an event just to find they were "drawn" into a dead money position by virtue of luck.

Same deal for the low level amateurs.

Say one just enters because he wants to enjoy the experience, is not concerned about cashing because he knows he has no chance, but would consider it a dream to play a set each with JA and Efren and go two and out. Well, this guy has a fairer opportunity of drawing a "star" if the stars are balanced throughout the chart. With the luck of the draw this player could easily go two and out to a couple of unknown shortstops.

Then there is the amateur who is serious about competing and while he doesn't expect to win the event is in it to test his game and go as far as he can. This guy has a fairer opportunity to go as far as the other guys like him in the event, and there is less chance that by luck of the draw will face JA and Efren and go two and out before he really had a chance to test his game against the field while another serious amateur drew into a weak part of the bracket and got to play three of the first type of amateur I mentioned before he faced any real competition.

I've not decided really how I feel about seeding but I do see some merit in balancing the chart with seeding part of the field (not into future rounds with byes and not against the corresponding players at the other end of the rankings), simply as a means of balancing the event.

I'm just throwing the idea out here and wonder what you guys think of something along these lines.
Click to expand...


The ranking issue is a bit of a red herring. Ask any knowledgeable player how two guys would match up for the dough and you'll get a pretty good idea of the "rankings."

Just one other thought: seeding, in my mind, is tantamount to saying one player's money is better than another guy's. We both send in the same monies, spend similar amounts to travel, stay and eat -- but as a "pro," or better player, you are guaranteed a "soft" draw. That, IMO, is BS. Pay your money and take your chances.

The amateurs are the dogs in a tournament anyway, don't make them take the worst of it on the entry fee money too.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
The ranking issue is a bit of a red herring. Ask any knowledgeable player how two guys would match up for the dough and you'll get a pretty good idea of the "rankings."

Just one other thought: seeding, in my mind, is tantamount to saying one player's money is better than another guy's. We both send in the same monies, spend similar amounts to travel, stay and eat -- but as a "pro," or better player, you are guaranteed a "soft" draw. That, IMO, is BS. Pay your money and take your chances.

The amateurs are the dogs in a tournament anyway, don't make them take the worst of it on the entry fee money too.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more!
 
lfigueroa said:
The ranking issue is a bit of a red herring. Ask any knowledgeable player how two guys would match up for the dough and you'll get a pretty good idea of the "rankings."

Just one other thought: seeding, in my mind, is tantamount to saying one player's money is better than another guy's. We both send in the same monies, spend similar amounts to travel, stay and eat -- but as a "pro," or better player, you are guaranteed a "soft" draw. That, IMO, is BS. Pay your money and take your chances.

The amateurs are the dogs in a tournament anyway, don't make them take the worst of it on the entry fee money too.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...


Thanks for your response to my post, I always appreciate your POV. Let me ask you this. What if there was a viable pro tour, similar to the PGA tour. Obviously not for the kind of money golfers play for but a legitimate tour with full fields of touring professionals where there are x number of fully exempt players, and x number of conditionally exempt players to fill fields at events where some exempt players don't enter. Maybe even a few qualifying spots for guys trying to make it on.

If there were such a domestic tour where all pros would have essentially a reasonable opportunity to make it to all or most of the events, and a legitimate ranking system could be established based on performance on tour, do you think there might be a place for at least the partial seeding I described in this scenario? I'm obviously not talking about an open event. You've played professionally, what do you think?

Thanks.
 
lfigueroa said:
The "Open vs Pro" thread got me wondering about a separate but related issue: Do you believe that an "open" tournament should be seeded?

IOW, the promoter/TD would place the top pro players that enter, at the far ends of the brackets (DE event) and match them up with the weaker (amateur) players who have entered the event. The idea is to prevent the top players from eliminating each other in the early rounds.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
Never will play in a seeded open. I pay the same as them and deserve just as much chance to pull a bye or another amateur. I don't care what golf or tennis do. I won't be playing in those tourney's
 
Everyone sees seeding different. It give the people who are eating on their winnings a better chance of making it to the money.
As far as I am concerned , I want to draw SVB right out the gate.
If I win I have beat somebody lol
 
lfigueroa said:
The ranking issue is a bit of a red herring. Ask any knowledgeable player how two guys would match up for the dough and you'll get a pretty good idea of the "rankings."

Just one other thought: seeding, in my mind, is tantamount to saying one player's money is better than another guy's. We both send in the same monies, spend similar amounts to travel, stay and eat -- but as a "pro," or better player, you are guaranteed a "soft" draw. That, IMO, is BS. Pay your money and take your chances.

The amateurs are the dogs in a tournament anyway, don't make them take the worst of it on the entry fee money too.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

these are good arguments, i love to see that. you even have me leaning more now.... but i still think that due to the very nature of tournaments (especially pool tournaments), that the established "best players" (and you do need to have a good way to determine this) do deserve their money to be a bit better than anothers. if the races were to 20 or something, maybe id be more inclined to change positions, but there is so much luck in a race to 7 or 11.

i think we need to do all we can to fascilitate the best player winning these events, as pool does seem to be one of the most unfavorable sports when it comes to the luck factor.
 
Speaking as a fan, I am very much in favor of seeding.

A typical tournament begins on a Thursday and ends on a Sunday and attendance is much higher on the weekend.

Seeding is a way of improving the chances that the game's biggest stars, all of whom were once unseeded players themselves, are in full display in the later rounds of tournaments, the rounds during which the fans are in greatest attendance.

Seeding allows a tournament to build to its best possible crescendo, which serves the game well.

In my view, any tournament in which fans pay admission should have seeding.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
Thanks for your response to my post, I always appreciate your POV. Let me ask you this. What if there was a viable pro tour, similar to the PGA tour. Obviously not for the kind of money golfers play for but a legitimate tour with full fields of touring professionals where there are x number of fully exempt players, and x number of conditionally exempt players to fill fields at events where some exempt players don't enter. Maybe even a few qualifying spots for guys trying to make it on.

If there were such a domestic tour where all pros would have essentially a reasonable opportunity to make it to all or most of the events, and a legitimate ranking system could be established based on performance on tour, do you think there might be a place for at least the partial seeding I described in this scenario? I'm obviously not talking about an open event. You've played professionally, what do you think?

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, absolutely. Given your scenario -- let them knock themselves out. As long as everyone knows what they're getting themselves into -- that was my point with Shawn -- it's good news for everyone to know what the deal is.

But, pool and a pool tour like you describe, is no where near that, that I'm aware of. We are not anywhere near the PGA or almost any other established sport.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
enzo said:
these are good arguments, i love to see that. you even have me leaning more now.... but i still think that due to the very nature of tournaments (especially pool tournaments), that the established "best players" (and you do need to have a good way to determine this) do deserve their money to be a bit better than anothers. if the races were to 20 or something, maybe id be more inclined to change positions, but there is so much luck in a race to 7 or 11.

i think we need to do all we can to fascilitate the best player winning these events, as pool does seem to be one of the most unfavorable sports when it comes to the luck factor.
Click to expand...


enzo, have you been to big tournaments?

I ask, because if you have you will have seen that almost all of these events have their collection of pros and then a big contingent of amateurs. Those are the guys that need and deserve a fair shake. I mean -- put yourself in that position: you're a good amateur and go and throw your money in to support and be a good sport, and then learn that your first match is guaranteed to be a killer. I know that playing a champion can be a thrill, but really, how about if the roll of the dice comes out that you will meet him in the third or fourth round instead of a guaranteed 1st round match up because of seeding?

Lou Figueroa
 
sjm said:
Speaking as a fan, I am very much in favor of seeding.

A typical tournament begins on a Thursday and ends on a Sunday and attendance is much higher on the weekend.

Seeding is a way of improving the chances that the game's biggest stars, all of whom were once unseeded players themselves, are in full display in the later rounds of tournaments, the rounds during which the fans are in greatest attendance.

Seeding allows a tournament to build to its best possible crescendo, which serves the game well.

In my view, any tournament in which fans pay admission should have seeding.
Click to expand...


Stu, I totally see that from a fan's perspective. Now, come out of the bleachers and talk to me from the tournament floor. Now you are a player.

Is your point of view the same?

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
Stu, I totally see that from a fan's perspective. Now, come out of the bleachers and talk to me from the tournament floor. Now you are a player.

Is your point of view the same?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Good point. Lou. But let's say what SJM stated is true, that seeding has indeed served the event well, that because of the high profile players towards the end the event has grown and done real well; maybe even has a delayed broadcast ESPN deal.

From a player's perspective I can see two different possible points of view. One is I wasn't treated fairly, there shouldn't be seeding. But the other is even though I'm in a more difficult deal here, since the tournament started seeding 5 years ago the attendance has been way up, more vendors are paying more for booths etc. so the prize fund has grown and now I can make more for finishing 48th than I would have for finishing 24th before they started seeding.

Again, I'm not sure about this issue, I'm just throwing stuff out there for discussion. There are people here, like yourself, that know an awful lot more about it than me and I like to hear what you have to say.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top