Open Tournament Seeding

[DogsPlayingPool]

The ABP has explained that the seeding is to insure that two top players don't meet early in an event causing one of the player's ranking to fall drastically. Nice for the elite few ABP players who are seeded. What about the rankings of the players just below the seeded group that are struggling to get into the seeded group? The seeding of the few and the open draw for their opponents increases the chance that some of these second tier players will meet monster players and some will get an easy trip through the first few rounds. How is this fair for these players but not the higher ranked players?...


Hu

Hu, thanks for this post, but I wonder if you could explain this part further for me. The way I've been thinking of it, having the top 32 players spaced throughout the first round bracket balances the tournament so that there are less instances of one area being talent heavy while another part of the bracket is weak. Therefore, the mid-level guys, all trying to move up in the rankings, have a better chance that they will face the same relative difficulty progressing through the tournament as the other mid-level guys their speed.

But you have come to the opposite conclusion in this regard and I'm not sure I understand why. I'd appreciate if you could explain this to me. I'm trying to get my arms around this issue and always appreciate your input.

Thanks.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Seeding should, IMO, should NOT be a part of any random draw tournament.

As mentioned earlier, everyone pays the same entry fee, then everyone should have an equal chance at the BYES if there are any.

If there is such a 'seeded' tournament, let the promoter decide. HOF members get the top seeds. They have proven themselves time and time again. Or, maybe top money winners from the last 10 years? or maybe the Most Championships? (Can you imagine Earl and Efern being seeded the top 2 players for the next 5+ years?)

Why just seed the players from a players ORG? Oh wait, that is one of the ABP's demands, right?

 

[ShootingArts]

seeding one-fourth the field

Hu, thanks for this post, but I wonder if you could explain this part further for me. The way I've been thinking of it, having the top 32 players spaced throughout the first round bracket balances the tournament so that there are less instances of one area being talent heavy while another part of the bracket is weak. Therefore, the mid-level guys, all trying to move up in the rankings, have a better chance that they will face the same relative difficulty progressing through the tournament as the other mid-level guys their speed.

But you have come to the opposite conclusion in this regard and I'm not sure I understand why. I'd appreciate if you could explain this to me. I'm trying to get my arms around this issue and always appreciate your input.

Thanks.

Seeding one-fourth the field is the plan according to Shawn's post. Spacing the top players every fourth player and with the best of the best spaced as far apart as possible as Shawn also explained means that obviously every fourth unseeded player is going to play a seeded player. Some people will have a far easier path than others depending on where you draw into the field. The ABP has a carefully arranged seeding in mind to keep the best players as far apart as possible and the lower the ranking the closer together they are. If you start off near a very high ranking player in the tournament you will have to deal with them soon. If you start off near low ranking seeded players you are guaranteed not to see a top player until late.

If you are trying to win points to increase your own ranking and you get the same value for playing the 32nd or 64th highest ranked player or the highest ranked player which would you prefer to play?

Seeding is basically unfair but partial seedings or when there are many unranked players in the field it really becomes unfair. My main point was in a field of 128 for example, why is it unfair for the 32nd highest player to be exposed to the risk of playing the highest ranked player but fair for the 33rd ranked player to be exposed to that risk? Even inside the ABP they have one standard of fair for top players and another standard of fair for lower ranked players.

I have seen similar things proposed over and over in various forms of competition. Invariably they give an edge to the people that don't need one to begin with. If luck is to be the deciding factor in the brackets for some, it should be the deciding factor for all. When and if every player in an event is a member of an organization and all are ranked then fair or not they can make seeding a condition of play. Playing in an open event it is total BS to demand that members of an organization and only the members of the organization are seeded.

Hu

 

[JoeyA]

I am in favor of seeding..........

Yes, that's right. I am in favor of seeding the professional tournaments when there is no need for amateurs and short stops needed to fill the field so that the event can be successful.


If open tournaments want, solicit or accept the amateurs like myself as well as the short stops that essentialy fatten the purse to make the events worthwhile for the professional players, then I cannot support seeding of any kind.

People like myself are handicapped to begin with; I don't need another obstacle to overcome. In fact, any more obstacles than I am already burdeoned with and I may as well just home.

Besides, in these open tournaments, do you really see anyone who is not a top player making it to the winner's circle? How much more of an edge to the best players need?

You've been eating the filet (as it should be) and will continue to do so. Good grief......Throw the dog a bone.

 

[the420trooper]

Yes, that's right. I am in favor of seeding the professional tournaments when there is no need for amateurs and short stops needed to fill the field so that the event can be successful.


If open tournaments want, solicit or accept the amateurs like myself as well as the short stops that essentialy fatten the purse to make the events worthwhile for the professional players, then I cannot support seeding of any kind.

People like myself are handicapped to begin with; I don't need another obstacle to overcome. In fact, any more obstacles than I am already burdeoned with and I may as well just home.

Besides, in these open tournaments, do you really see anyone who is not a top player making it to the winner's circle? How much more of an edge to the best players need?

You've been eating the filet (as it should be) and will continue to do so. Good grief......Throw the dog a bone.

That's what I would have said, if I were as articulate as you.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Seeding one-fourth the field is the plan according to Shawn's post. Spacing the top players every fourth player and with the best of the best spaced as far apart as possible as Shawn also explained means that obviously every fourth unseeded player is going to play a seeded player. Some people will have a far easier path than others depending on where you draw into the field. The ABP has a carefully arranged seeding in mind to keep the best players as far apart as possible and the lower the ranking the closer together they are. If you start off near a very high ranking player in the tournament you will have to deal with them soon. If you start off near low ranking seeded players you are guaranteed not to see a top player until late.

If you are trying to win points to increase your own ranking and you get the same value for playing the 32nd or 64th highest ranked player or the highest ranked player which would you prefer to play?

Seeding is basically unfair but partial seedings or when there are many unranked players in the field it really becomes unfair. My main point was in a field of 128 for example, why is it unfair for the 32nd highest player to be exposed to the risk of playing the highest ranked player but fair for the 33rd ranked player to be exposed to that risk? Even inside the ABP they have one standard of fair for top players and another standard of fair for lower ranked players.

I have seen similar things proposed over and over in various forms of competition. Invariably they give an edge to the people that don't need one to begin with. If luck is to be the deciding factor in the brackets for some, it should be the deciding factor for all. When and if every player in an event is a member of an organization and all are ranked then fair or not they can make seeding a condition of play. Playing in an open event it is total BS to demand that members of an organization and only the members of the organization are seeded.

Hu

Thanks, Hu. What you are saying is that even with 32 seeds it is still luck of the draw for the "B" list pros and the amateurs so the only ones getting an advantage are the top pros. Do you think it would be at all fairer to "ams" and the second tier guys if the top 32 were separately blind drawn into the chart (1 every 4 spots) from top to bottom rather than placed in the specific spots as outlined by Shawn? Do you think that may make it any more equitable for the mid-level pros by balancing out the bracket?

BTW, you probably also noticed that Shawn's proposal for seeding also gave the byes to the top seeds. Do I need to ask you how you fell about that aspect of it?

 

[lfigueroa]

i'm convinced haha, how often do people actually change their minds in these discussions? nice points you brought up. i still personally like the seeding if we really had our shiz together (like tennis), but we never will so its a moot point. cheers!

woo hoo!

BTW, what happened to Salmita? Always enjoyed that pic

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

The ABP has explained that the seeding is to insure that two top players don't meet early in an event causing one of the player's ranking to fall drastically. Nice for the elite few ABP players who are seeded. What about the rankings of the players just below the seeded group that are struggling to get into the seeded group? The seeding of the few and the open draw for their opponents increases the chance that some of these second tier players will meet monster players and some will get an easy trip through the first few rounds. How is this fair for these players but not the higher ranked players?

Seems elite players put together the ABP and they have severe tunnel vision. They are taking care of themselves at the expense of lower ranked pro's, promoters, and the sport itself. This isn't surprising however, I have seen the same thing with a dozen or more associations over the years regardless of the form of competition.

Without sugar coating it, the ABP wants to run the sport. They want seeding to suit them, tournament structure to suit them, and payouts to suit them. However anyone who wants to run a successful venture has to consider the needs of everyone involved. That means all players, all promoters, and all fans. Sponsors or could be sponsors too.

Hu

Great points, Hu.

The pros should be doing everything in their power to make tournament participation more attractive to the amateurs, not discouraging them with seeding and rule changes.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

My biggest concern with how the ABP folks are presenting the seeding issue is the repeated use of the phrase "paying your dues", by having newer/younger players required to play the big boys early in tournaments. You can't use the rationale "well, that's what I had to do coming up" if you want to operate a professional organization that is fairly run and administered.

I completely understand the concept of "paying your dues." Unfortunately, it an abstract concept, not easily defined. And when you are dictating policy for events, you need clearly defined rules, regulations and the reasons for them.

Exactly when has one "paid their dues", sufficient to meet the expectations of the ABP? How does one ensure that they have done so? Is there a board of review, conducted by the ABP, to decide who has "paid their dues", and therefore is now eligible to benefit from the advantage of being seeded?

Some of that sounds facetious, and perhaps it is, to an extent. But we are talking about a business plan, laid out by a professional organization. Businesses cannot be run successfully based on abstract concepts, and the ABP wishes to be considered a professional pool players organization. They wish to be able to influence how tournaments are run. If they wish to be successful at that goal, they need to become far more professional in their approach.

Personally, I believe that truly fair and equitable seeding can only happen with a real ranking system. Who is currently the best, who is in second, etc, etc, etc? That is necessary in order to determine who gets seeded, and where they get seeded in any given tournament.

Even some of the best players in the world in their sports have to deal with that. Venus Williams hadn't played well (or even played much at all, due to injury) so she was seeded 23 at Wimbledon this year, even as a past champion. In 2006, Andre Agassi and Serena Williams had to compete in The US Open as un-seeded entrants, due to poor previous performance. I know, I know, you can't compare tennis to pool, yada yada. When discussing "seeding" a tournament, we must use real-world examples for comparison purposes.

I don't know that I'm against the concept of seeding, I just would like to see how it is to be implemented and administered. And who decides the seeding order. Transparency is paramount here, as pool has a shady enough reputation as is. If the ABP truly wants to be considered "professional", the "shady" elements have to be eliminated. I'm not sure they are ready to go that far yet. We shall see.

Good thoughts. You especially hit a nerve with the issue of transparency. I will briefly get on my soap box on this topic again:

Tournament draws should be totally transparent. They should not be done in advance and out of the sight of the players, nor should they come out of some black box where no one but the promoter and the programmer he paid really knows what's inside.

OK, I'm off the soap box.

Lou Figueroa
I feel better now

 

[lfigueroa]

Thanks, Hu. What you are saying is that even with 32 seeds it is still luck of the draw for the "B" list pros and the amateurs so the only ones getting an advantage are the top pros. Do you think it would be at all fairer to "ams" and the second tier guys if the top 32 were separately blind drawn into the chart (1 every 4 spots) from top to bottom rather than placed in the specific spots as outlined by Shawn? Do you think that may make it any more equitable for the mid-level pros by balancing out the bracket?

BTW, you probably also noticed that Shawn's proposal for seeding also gave the byes to the top seeds. Do I need to ask you how you fell about that aspect of it?

lol, all they need for the Trifecta on this one is to announce that Charlie Williams will be doing the seeding.

Lou Figueroa

 

[ShootingArts]

Fairer

Thanks, Hu. What you are saying is that even with 32 seeds it is still luck of the draw for the "B" list pros and the amateurs so the only ones getting an advantage are the top pros. Do you think it would be at all fairer to "ams" and the second tier guys if the top 32 were separately blind drawn into the chart (1 every 4 spots) from top to bottom rather than placed in the specific spots as outlined by Shawn? Do you think that may make it any more equitable for the mid-level pros by balancing out the bracket?

BTW, you probably also noticed that Shawn's proposal for seeding also gave the byes to the top seeds. Do I need to ask you how you fell about that aspect of it?

A blind draw of the seeded players would certainly be fairer than the carefully arranged pattern that favors the strongest players, bearing in mind that "fairer" is relative and doesn't translate into fair.

Giving the top seeds any first round by covers them a little at big events. Some of the best in the world aren't listed as ABP members and may make some big events. Some of the Asian monsters showing up and wrecking their carefully arranged seeding would tickle my funny bone but I'm easily amused. Speaking of membership, membership is one of the interesting things concerning the ABP. At a glance there are less than a hundred members with a large portion of them being overseas members. Just how many players can the ABP deliver to an event even if it caters to them?

Seeding seems to be the main thing causing a loss of support for the ABP other than the tone of some posts. However I also object to the basic idea that they intend to tell the people investing the time, work, and cash how to run events. Seems wiser to most politely ask if the promoters would consider the ABP's views. I invested my time, money, and hard work into my businesses for years, nobody else told me how to run them although I was open to suggestions. When people made demands my front door was open and I suggested they not let it catch them in the butt on the way out.

Hu

 

[Tom In Cincy]

If being seeded in the first round by not playing any player on the ABP list is the SEEDING that is guaranteed, then I don't see the harm.

That doesn't mean that other players can get byes and not play until the second round.

Any other advantage is not acceptable IMO.

 

[JAM]

I haven't been to the U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship in a while, but last times I did go, if you got a bye in the tournament, you only needed to win one round to get in the money. Nice deal if you're seeded!

 

[JoeyA]

Silver Kings • Young Dons • & Others looking for their day in the sun.

I haven't been to the U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship in a while, but last times I did go, if you got a bye in the tournament, you only needed to win one round to get in the money. Nice deal if you're seeded!

No wonder that so many people play in that tournament. If the boycotting players don't seriously negotiate with Barry, there will still be a U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship, except that maybe this will be the year of the Silver Kings.

If all of the names on that list don't show up, there could be an influx of players that haven't seen a pool room in years.

Who knows this might be the year for JoeyA to cash in this tournament? (not dreaming of the title, U.S. OPEN 9 BALL CHAMPIONSHIP 2011 but I'm sure others are, young and old.)

Hopefully, the players will read all of the thoughts and collective wisdom of the people who post in this forum and take some Pepto-Bismol and utilize the portions which can make their organization a fruitful entity for all concerned.

I like Doug Gordon's idea about utilizing conference video for regular meetings. The ABP should get their act together and do this right away so that all members are on the same page and everyone knows what is going on.

If the players played their cards right, there are people on this forum that know all about video conferencing and know how to keep the costs low.

Anyway, to address one other point, promoters and tournament directors should hold PUBLIC tournament drawings, not back room drawings and they should advertise that. It would make more players want to participate in a tournament that is fair to ALL OF THE PLAYERS. One can make all of the excuses that they want but the truth is that a drawing of 64 players can be done VERY QUICKLY, without interruption, provided it is set up that way. At Buffalo Billiards we draw PUBLICLY, 64 players every Tuesday night and the drawing goes just about as fast as numbered cards can be dealt and names written. It's not rocket science unless you want your jockey to have a cushy ride.

 

[JAM]

No wonder that so many people play in that tournament. If the boycotting players don't seriously negotiate with Barry, there will still be a U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship, except that maybe this will be the year of the Silver Kings...if the players played their cards right, there are people on this forum that know all about video conferencing and know how to keep the costs low....

I can provide a verbatim transcript of the proceedings, if needed, for a nominal sum, an extremely discounted rate.

I definitely agree with the transparency of the seeding. In 2004, something happened that was not fair. People apologized about it after the fact, but it was a done deal.

This year, one player wanted the senior players to be seeded. These senior players had only competed in *one* -- count it, ONE -- senior event the year previously, and each of these senior players got a seed, and some of them even got a bye. I will never forget it. I know, I know, I'm supposed to let it go, but when an injustice happens like this to you personally, you never forget it.

 

[JoeyA]

I can provide a verbatim transcript of the proceedings, if needed, for a nominal sum, an extremely discounted rate.

I definitely agree with the transparency of the seeding. In 2004, something happened that was not fair. People apologized about it after the fact, but it was a done deal.

This year, one player wanted the senior players to be seeded. These senior players had only competed in *one* -- count it, ONE -- senior event the year previously, and each of these senior players got a seed, and some of them even got a bye. I will never forget it. I know, I know, I'm supposed to let it go, but when an injustice happens like this to you personally, you never forget it.

It is ALWAYS about whose ox is getting gored.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I haven't been to the U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship in a while, but last times I did go, if you got a bye in the tournament, you only needed to win one round to get in the money. Nice deal if you're seeded!

I don't think that's true though, Jam. At least not for last year. The field was full last year so there were no byes. But even so, according to the results posted on AZB they paid down to 65 places. There were still 192 payers left in the 3rd round. I think players needed to make it to at least the 6th round of the losers side to cash.

Regardless though, the debate over seeding still goes on.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

If this hasn't been said before, then I will say it now:

No ABP and

Earl Strickland .... US Open 9 Balll champion for the 6th time.

 

[justadub]

If this hasn't been said before, then I will say it now:

No ABP and

Earl Strickland .... US Open 9 Balll champion for the 6th time.

I think he would have to be the prohibitive favorite.... Likely a finals of him and Mike Dechaine.

But ya never know. Funny things can happen.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

If this hasn't been said before, then I will say it now:

No ABP and

Earl Strickland .... US Open 9 Balll champion for the 6th time.

Actually Tom, it was said before - by Shawn Putnam right here - post #68