Reflection On BCA Nationals

[poolscholar]

I complained initially....then miraculously..I played well but, there were only 132 players in Platinum division. My awesome play...got me $200 for 17th. What a joke.

I guess I was rated properly but for a National tournament, in the highest division....after entry and membership fee. I NET $15. good thing there were whores or the whole trip would have been a bust.

Same boat, 17th in platinum. Not sure why the best amateurs, who've probably been to vegas before, would come for such a small prize pool. If you're a low end platinum player then it really sucks. At least in prior years there was a huge open division which you had a shot at 10k.

Perhaps they can look at doing some sort of split bracket so everyone is in the same big prize pool. Or add more money to the top division (highly doubt they will do that)

 

[Put_upor_shutup]

Same boat, 17th in platinum. Not sure why the best amateurs, who've probably been to vegas before, would come for such a small prize pool. If you're a low end platinum player then it really sucks. At least in prior years there was a huge open division which you had a shot at 10k.

Perhaps they can look at doing some sort of split bracket so everyone is in the same big prize pool. Or add more money to the top division (highly doubt they will do that)

Or they can just take out less money from that division.They can take a little out and still get their cut.Lots of guys tke a week off of work to play this event.95 percent of league players are your normal 9 to 5 guys.I dont wanna say to much cause I dont wanna be the red flag but we all know and have ideas of how it can be improved.My team playsevery year and im sure they will continue to because they just wanna see where they stand.I just feel if they can make that long journey up the rainbow then that pot of gold shouldnt be half full on the other end.And yes I know it cost lots of time and money to work and set up this event but it more than pays itself off.just my opinion.

 

[cardiac kid]

Yes, if the moved player actually plays above the speed of the lower bracket.

In the past a player who had a couple lackluster years could petition to be bumped down.

But the purpose of this policy was not to throw that unfortunate player a nice bone to make up for the bad years; rather, the fear is maybe the player never really belonged in the upper division, and the tournament results are just some evidence of that.

Now we have a lot more knowledge of the actual speed of the player. If the player really plays at the lower level, the player will get in the lower level. But if the player really plays at the speed of the higher level, the player belongs at the higher level.

It does not make sense to have a whole division of, say players rated 500-600 and then add the occasional 640 player because you feel bad about their poor fortune in a couple events.

Mike,

I'll take your comments as being directed towards me. I've supported both the BCA pool league and the BCAPL for twenty five years. In all those years, ONCE did I finish high enough to cover the expenses I incurred to attend the event. ONCE! My understanding of what you said is "just keep dishing out your money to attend Nationals regardless of whether or not you cash or how you finish. You're just too good. Got to protect the integrity of the tournament. Yah shure!

How many other players are in my situation? You make it sound so simple. I want to drop so I can steal a gold event. When I was eligible for the lower level events I never won and until 2012, I never finished higher than 42nd in the Open. And that was BEFORE BCAPL took over. Did finish 7/8 in the Super Seniors two years ago. Obviously playing other players my age. Oh, I didn't mention I failed to cash in either of the other two years participation in the Super Seniors.

With all the rah rah for the accuracy of the Fargo system, you still haven't addressed the problem I posed regarding how someone like myself gets to drop divisions without "sandbagging". Do you really think players will continue to spend large sums of money just to say they played nationals? I see dark clouds over the BCAPL's future. You see sunshine. I sincerely hope your vision is correct.

Lyn

 

[Poolplaya9]

The RIO sucks !!! insane prices and the food sucks .

In my opinion this is the main reason that attendance numbers are dropping. The RIO is way too expensive for the average pool player. For example you can't even eat there for less than 50 bucks a day, and to get your food cost down to even 50 bucks a day you have to have all three meals at the Burger King on site. But who can even eat Burger King for three meals a day for their entire stay? So realistically the daily food cost is going to go way up from there. Everything else in the RIO is similarly expensive including the room rates when you consider the average pool players budget. The RIO is just way, way, way overpriced for the typical pool player. And the quality isn't there to justify the price either. But even if it was, if pool players can't afford it then they can't afford it regardless of what a "value" it may be.

The best division to play in is the division that has got the most players !
why ? this division got the most payout ..... the highest payout should be in the highest division wich is the ADVANCED , after that the GOLD and so on . This way you motivate players to become better players and try to get in the highest division possible where there is the most cash to win .

A part of me really likes this idea and wants to agree that this is the way to go. Have the highest payouts for the most skilled divisions. I think this would draw a few more of the better players. But on the flip side, I think it could lose some players too, and probably more than it would gain. I can just see people who would be in a lower division thinking to themselves, "well all the people in my division will be paying in $30,000 in entry fees and our prize fund is only going to have $20,000 in it, and the people in the platinum division are paying in $20,000 in entry fees and their prize fund will have $30,000 in it. Screw that, I won't be playing until they make the prize funds fair according to how many players are in a division. Plus if I have to beat out 350 players to win my division, I should be winning a ton more money than somebody that only had to beat out 150 players to win their division."

Maybe a best compromise that puts a little more money in the higher divisions but not too much could be to have something like five divisions with 20% of the field in each, but divide the prize money up 25%, 22.5%, 20%, 17.5%, and 15% with the 25% going to the highest skilled division and the 15% going to the lowest. But would that still be too much taken out of the lower divisions for their liking, causing many of them to stop attending? And would that even be enough extra in the higher divisions to actually draw more of the better players who are not currently attending as well as motivate people to want to move up to a higher division? I doubt there is a way to know for sure without trying it which could prove catastrophic and may not even be worth the risk. If no matter what you do you are going to lose some participation somewhere you are probably better off losing it from the higher skilled players than the "everybody else" since there are a whole lot more of "everybody else" than the highest skilled players whether we like that fact or not.

 

[saint1]

nationals

I believe that the number one priority from a management viewpoint should be total player participation at this event rather then things like fargo rate. It is dropping rapidly over the past several years. In 2009 Portugal players slipped in and stole the money and Taiwan Typhoon did the same about 3-4 years ago. I thought that Fargo Rate was to guard against this from happening but looks like it did not. Some AZ'rs stated that unknowns with starter ratings, incorrect ratings, players put into incorrect divisions etc. would end up winning many divisions. Looks like they were pretty much correct. Meanwhile looks like about 450 less players just in singles events alone. Not counting teams. Pool player in my opinion are very budget minded for the most part. I think the vast majority view the nationals as a trip away from home, like to have a good time, and use to think they might win some games with a much larger player pool(numbers) in lets say the open etc. Even the little things added up, like the free keg or beer night(were did that go?) and even the food vendor that was inside the tournament room (good food and reasonable prices) Gone. K cups a rip off, but could be had in the little store by elevators for $1 each 2 years ago. Last year that went away and you had to buy from Starbucks for a small fortune. Now this year we hear they took away the K-Cup machines? I was glad that the event left the Riviera as it was pretty nasty but lots of folks are on a budget and the cost has gone up greatly and whats next, a body scanner before entering the tournament room. The open paid what 11K for 1st just a couple years ago, now 6K for Gold? There is countless problems and mistakes being many over the last several years and the communication is terrible. The overall thinking of leadership seems to be its my way or the highway and we are never wrong. In a post by Mark last week the paragraph started with "your comments are always welcome" and a few sentences later we hear "if we don't start getting some support from the players this event might go away" Well doesn't sound like players comments were welcome to me? And the event might go away afterall, by CSI's own hand. One more thing, That player that got shafted (forfeited) should have had his entry refunded, get to play free for next year, Been apologized to and comped some free dinner tickets etc. Someone or a business does something good and 10 people hear about, Something bad happens and 30 people hear about it.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Maybe a best compromise that puts a little more money in the higher divisions but not too much could be to have something like five divisions with 20% of the field in each, but divide the prize money up 25%, 22.5%, 20%, 17.5%, and 15% with the 25% going to the highest skilled division and the 15% going to the lowest.

I thought of another idea that might be even better. Whatever money that CSI is adding to the events, add a far larger amount to the top division, and none to the lower divisions, and advertise the fact that the top division/s gets the added money. Like if CSI were adding say $20,000 total to an event, and there were five divisions, the added money could look like this:

Platinum $13,000 added
Gold $7,000 added
Silver nothing added
Bronze nothing added
Aluminum nothing added

That way all the entries fees for a division still get paid back into that division so people have nothing to complain about since it is still 100% of the money back for their division and they aren't having to subsidize another division. But with the added money in the highest division/s, there is incentive for people to want to move up and maybe it could increase the turnout among better players as well. The lower divisions still might feel slighted though, hard to say. What are others feelings about doing it this way with the added money, particularly if you would likely be in one of those lower divisions?

 

[nine_ball6970]

I thought of another idea that might be even better. Whatever money that CSI is adding to the events, add a far larger amount to the top division, and none to the lower divisions, and advertise the fact that the top division/s gets the added money. Like if CSI were adding say $20,000 total to an event, and there were five divisions, the added money could look like this:

Platinum $13,000 added
Gold $7,000 added
Silver nothing added
Bronze nothing added
Aluminum nothing added

That way all the entries fees for a division still get paid back into that division so people have nothing to complain about since it is still 100% of the money back for their division and they aren't having to subsidize another division. But with the added money in the highest division/s, there is incentive for people to want to move up and maybe it could increase the turnout among better players as well. The lower divisions still might feel slighted though, hard to say. What are others feelings about doing it this way with the added money, particularly if you would likely be in one of those lower divisions?

If Fargo is accurate, why not just get rid of the divisions and have a 100k prize pool using handicaps? It would be similar to poker. So many players would enter if they knew first prize was 20k. Institute a rule where you have to have 200 games to play so everyone is established. That sounds much better than divisions where everybody plays even when it is possible to have a 100 point gap in skill.

 

[Patrick53212]

Leagues and National Events

I have read a lot on here and from friends and acquaintances in my area about the BCA Nationals event. In fact, one thread on FB must have been reported as it was removed and it wasn't removed by the person that started the thread. Interestingly enough, someone associated with an organization tied to the BCA/CSI group commented gruffly on the thread right before the thread was yanked by FB. The trip to Vegas is expensive, as I make that trip for trade shows regularly. At least I get reimbursed for my expenses for those business trips to Vegas. I have never made the trips to play pool at the National events but based on what I have been reading, I won't. Perhaps more should be done with respect to the State and Regional BCA events so that there is a qualifying process to who can even play in the National Event. That would allow for a better vetting process of who can play in the Nationals and cut down on the travel expense for teams and players that are spending a lot of money and time away from work with no chance of even cashing. More players need to get out and play in the regional events anyway and promoters could start offering more "No Master" or similar events with added money...perhaps BCA or the other leagues could start Amateur Tours instead of doing the National Events.

 

[Perk]

For me its simple. I am only traveling that distance and inquiring those types of expenses for a larger player pool. Since the fields are always so small in the advanced/Platinum that does not interest me to go. I can stay local and play team events with 16 teams.

I would rather have the allure of the old "Open" which had larger numbers and larger $$$ even through it was expected to be a landmine of good players that have never been registered.

 

[JC]

\ It is hard to watch someone play terrible and still win because they were such a huge favorite in the first place and it wasn't a fair spot.

If you want to see a sharp drop off in attendance, use games on the wire spots.

To do this effectively leagues must be put on notice NOW that they need to submit every game from every player into the Fargo system.

Sounds like a lot of manual data entry. It's going to take some slick software to interface Fargo with local leagues to make this happen without revolt.

I have only been to nationals once back in 10 and the experience was pleasant and affordable. Lots to do and lots to see just a walk or hop on the deuce away. Just reading the concerns about the current venue makes me shake my head. Who would agree to such an arrangement subjecting their loyal national following to being fleeced? And attendance is down? No Kidding. So they finally get away from tokens to green fees only to throw the players to the sharks of vegas greed. I will never attend a shit show like this.

Now contrast the Bar box championships in Reno at the Grand Sierra and talk about a nice environment. Affordable and relaxed. Of course that had to end, it was too cool. We actually bought a bottle of whisky upstairs at the shop and took it down to the 9 foot tables and played and drank for hours after the events on them were over. No Nazis in sight. Now the event is moved to Vegas right after the Nationals? WTF are they thinking?

 

[watchez]

I thought of another idea that might be even better. Whatever money that CSI is adding to the events, add a far larger amount to the top division, and none to the lower divisions, and advertise the fact that the top division/s gets the added money. Like if CSI were adding say $20,000 total to an event, and there were five divisions, the added money could look like this:

Platinum $13,000 added
Gold $7,000 added
Silver nothing added
Bronze nothing added
Aluminum nothing added

That way all the entries fees for a division still get paid back into that division so people have nothing to complain about since it is still 100% of the money back for their division and they aren't having to subsidize another division. But with the added money in the highest division/s, there is incentive for people to want to move up and maybe it could increase the turnout among better players as well. The lower divisions still might feel slighted though, hard to say. What are others feelings about doing it this way with the added money, particularly if you would likely be in one of those lower divisions?

You need to take a better look at the #s.

 

[nine_ball6970]

If you want to see a sharp drop off in attendance, use games on the wire spots.

Why is this an issue in BCA yet nowhere else? Players of all levels give and receive spots in every league and every pool hall in the country while gambling. Most tournaments people play in on a regular basis use some kind of game spot.

The strongest players aren't showing up anyway so why is no spot so important? Put everyone in one tournament and a top prize of 20k and everybody is going to show up. $100 entry and trust me strong players will not care about giving up spot to weaker players. Players will scramble to get into a tournament with that kind of payout possible.

 

[jojopiff]

Why is this an issue in BCA yet nowhere else? Players of all levels give and receive spots in every league and every pool hall in the country while gambling. Most tournaments people play in on a regular basis use some kind of game spot.

The strongest players aren't showing up anyway so why is no spot so important? Put everyone in one tournament and a top prize of 20k and everybody is going to show up. $100 entry and trust me strong players will not care about giving up spot to weaker players. Players will scramble to get into a tournament with that kind of payout possible.

I believe you are correct with this. I think this would increase attendance and be better for the most people.

I, personally, do not favor this as I've always thought the BCA was different in that it's not handicapped. May the best man win. I absolutely know I'm in the minority though and it's whats better for the most people, not me.

 

[poolscholar]

I would be ok with one or two big divisions with light handicapping with some sort of minimum games won. IE no crazy spots like 8-2. Maybe a minimum of 3 games to win a match. And make it winner breaks so the good players can run some racks.

9-3 race against a weak player with winner break and higher rated player breaks first might work. Also, adjust ratings everyday or more frequently to reduce sandbaggers. Use a higher starting rating for unknown players.

 

[Poolplaya9]

If Fargo is accurate, why not just get rid of the divisions and have a 100k prize pool using handicaps?

Because not everybody wants an even playing field, and in fact many and probably most don't. But for those that do, it already exists with CSI. It is called the USAPL pool league and national championships and it is played on the exact same dates and in the exact same place as the BCAPL national championships. So if a handicapped tournament with a relatively even playing field is your thing, CSI already has it and the USAPL is for you.

When it comes to tournaments, there are basically four categories of people the way I see it:
1. Those that have very little or even no chance and know it but their satisfaction almost solely comes from just wanting to play better competition, or just wanting to test themselves, or just wanting to see where they stand, or just wanting to play for the fun and camaraderie, etc.
2. Those that want any or all of the same things as above, but also want to know that they have at least a chance to cash, even if it won't happen often, and even if they have to get lucky or play way above their head to do it. Some will have a relatively small chance to do well, and some will have an really good chance to do well, but what this group all has in common is that part of their satisfaction comes from feeling like they have some kind of chance, and the other part of it comes from the things above.
3. Those that want an even playing field, and want their chances to do well to be exactly the same as everybody else's chance to do well. This can only be accomplished through handicapping, and handicapped tournaments are their preference.
4. Those that need to know that their chance to do well is either way above average, extremely likely, or even guaranteed. For this group it is usually only about the money, or only about winning. They don't get any real satisfaction from anything else and nothing else matters.

The way I see it the BCAPL national championships is targeting and is best for groups 1 and 2. The USAPL is targeting and is best for those in group 3. There is nothing that targets group 4 because those are unreasonable and unrealistic expectations.

 

[Poolplaya9]

You need to take a better look at the #s.

Not sure what specifically you are referring to but my numbers were completely made up just to illustrate an idea. I thought that was obvious and would go without saying. I would guess that the added money is much lower in any one event (and do not even know if there is even always added money, but if there isn't I'm throwing it out there as a good idea to do for top division/s only), and I do not even know for sure if the prize funds always equal to at least the amount of the entry fees (minus the green fees), but again, I was simply trying to convey an idea of an alternative approach that might be a good idea (or might not be).

 

[nine_ball6970]

Because not everybody wants an even playing field, and in fact many and probably most don't. But for those that do, it already exists with CSI. It is called the USAPL pool league and national championships and it is played on the exact same dates and in the exact same place as the BCAPL national championships. So if a handicapped tournament with a relatively even playing field is your thing, CSI already has it and the USAPL is for you.

When it comes to tournaments, there are basically four categories of people the way I see it:
1. Those that have very little or even no chance and know it but their satisfaction almost solely comes from just wanting to play better competition, or just wanting to test themselves, or just wanting to see where they stand, or just wanting to play for the fun and camaraderie, etc.
2. Those that want any or all of the same things as above, but also want to know that they have at least a chance to cash, even if it won't happen often, and even if they have to get lucky or play way above their head to do it. Some will have a relatively small chance to do well, and some will have an really good chance to do well, but what this group all has in common is that part of their satisfaction comes from feeling like they have some kind of chance, and the other part of it comes from the things above.
3. Those that want an even playing field, and want their chances to do well to be exactly the same as everybody else's chance to do well. This can only be accomplished through handicapping, and handicapped tournaments are their preference.
4. Those that need to know that their chance to do well is either way above average, extremely likely, or even guaranteed. For this group it is usually only about the money, or only about winning. They don't get any real satisfaction from anything else and nothing else matters.

The way I see it the BCAPL national championships is targeting and is best for groups 1 and 2. The USAPL is targeting and is best for those in group 3. There is nothing that targets group 4 because those are unreasonable and unrealistic expectations.

So BCAPL is targeting players who have no chance of winning or wanting to know they have some chance. You really think less players would show up if they had a better chance at being competitive against better players using a handicap?

It is odd that group 4 is the smallest but it seems like they have the most say. The group is typically very strong players who enter tournaments they are robbing. They get mad if a tournament is handicapped because they no longer have the giant edge.

There is a huge skill gap in the world of pool. You can only have people donate so many times before they quit playing tournaments/attend Nationals.

I feel like the camaraderie is more applicable to the team events than it is in Singles play.

If what you say is true, I think the numbers will continue to decline in BCAPL and increase in USAPL.

 

[Poolplaya9]

So BCAPL is targeting players who have no chance of winning or wanting to know they have some chance. You really think less players would show up if they had a better chance at being competitive against better players using a handicap?

It really doesn't matter what either of us think because they already have a league for people that prefer both ways. Sounds like you would prefer USAPL since that is the handicapped league. Nothing wrong with that. That is why they have it--because there are a fair amount of people who prefer handicapped matches like yourself. But many people don't prefer that and want to play even, hence the need for having the BCAPL too.

All you are essentially saying is "why can't be BCAPL be exactly like the USAPL?" But what would be the point in having two identical leagues? You are trying convert the BCAPL into the USAPL because you like the USAPL better, instead of just going and joining USAPL that meets your needs and already exists. Makes no sense to me. It would be like going and buying Honda Accord and then taking it to a custom auto shop and telling them that you want it converted into a Toyota Corolla as closely as possible because you like the Toyota Corolla much better. Makes no sense when you could have just bought a Toyota Corolla to begin with.

To answer your original question, yes, I think less players would show up to the BCAPL nationals if it were handicapped. For the most part people play the BCAPL nationals precisely and specifically *because* it is not handicapped. If they wanted to play with a handicap they would be playing in the USAPL instead. I mean sure, most BCAPL nationals players probably don't want to get totally blown out by having to play people with Fargo Ratings 200 points higher than theirs, which is why they have several divisions, but they don't want it to be handicapped either. They want to play heads up with other players that preferably aren't in a totally different universe skill wise but where plenty of them in their division might still be better than they are. If they wanted handicapped matches they wouldn't be at the RIO playing in the BCAPL nationals, they would be at the RIO playing in USAPL nationals.

 

[nine_ball6970]

It really doesn't matter what either of us think because they already have a league for people that prefer both ways. Sounds like you would prefer USAPL since that is the handicapped league. Nothing wrong with that. That is why they have it--because there are a fair amount of people who prefer handicapped matches like yourself. But many people don't prefer that and want to play even, hence the need for having the BCAPL too.

All you are essentially saying is "why can't be BCAPL be exactly like the USAPL?" But what would be the point in having two identical leagues? You are trying convert the BCAPL into the USAPL because you like the USAPL better, instead of just going and joining USAPL that meets your needs and already exists. Makes no sense to me. It would be like going and buying Honda Accord and then taking it to a custom auto shop and telling them that you want it converted into a Toyota Corolla as closely as possible because you like the Toyota Corolla much better. Makes no sense when you could have just bought a Toyota Corolla to begin with.

To answer your original question, yes, I think less players would show up to the BCAPL nationals if it were handicapped. For the most part people play the BCAPL nationals precisely and specifically *because* it is not handicapped. If they wanted to play with a handicap they would be playing in the USAPL instead. I mean sure, most BCAPL nationals players probably don't want to get totally blown out by having to play people with Fargo Ratings 200 points higher than theirs, which is why they have several divisions, but they don't want it to be handicapped either. They want to play heads up with other players that preferably aren't in a totally different universe skill wise but where plenty of them in their division might still be better than they are. If they wanted handicapped matches they wouldn't be at the RIO playing in the BCAPL nationals, they would be at the RIO playing in USAPL nationals.

I guess you are right but we will see. I am done playing BCA leagues as are many other players in my area. It just seems strange that Nationals, Regional, and State are the only times we play BCA and it is not handicapped. In my area, some sort of weight is given in every single league. So why does everyone want the big events to not be handicapped but like it that way on a week to week basis?

I prefer NAPA as far as leagues. I find it the most challenging handicapped league. I derive satisfaction from having to play well to win each of my matches. If I played even races against most of the players they would be blood baths.

 

[Poolplaya9]

It just seems strange that Nationals, Regional, and State are the only times we play BCA and it is not handicapped. In my area, some sort of weight is given in every single league. So why does everyone want the big events to not be handicapped but like it that way on a week to week basis?

I am not sure if you are aware of this but BCAPL gives their league operators a LOT of latitude in how to operate their leagues. Many of the BCAPL leagues are handicapped, and many of them are not. Both the BCAPL leagues in my general area are not handicapped, but there used to be another one in the area a while back that was handicapped. I have no idea if there are more of the handicapped or non-handicapped BCAPL leagues on a national basis.

From what I have noticed, and I could be totally wrong, but it seems the in house BCAPL leagues are more likely to be handicapped, and the traveling BCAPL leagues are more likely to not be handicapped. Not sure why that is, or even if that holds true nation wide. All of the handicapped BCAPL leagues that I have seen also used a point system and spotted points for the handicap instead of spotting games. I also have no idea if all handicapped BCAPL leagues use this form or handicapping or if there are some that spot games.

As for why the nationals aren't handicapped, I am only speculating here but I am guessing a big part of the reason was because the BCAPL, who is the second largest league in the nation, from way back when wanted to distinguish itself from the APA who is the largest league in the nation. You need to have your own niche and the APA had the handicapped stuff pretty well covered already. BCAPL needed to be different and went after a different segment of the market. Again, pure speculation on my part. They obviously subsequently entered the handicapped league market some time back with the USAPL long after the BCAPL had been well established.

I also believe a big part of it is exactly what I said before, that the majority of the BCAPL players actually prefer that the nationals not be handicapped. There is a big market for heads up play, and BCAPL is filling that market need.

Another part of it is that out of all the leagues the BCAPL tends to have the better players in it and the better players generally want to play heads up without handicaps.

I don't know if most of the BCAPL members who play in a handicapped version of the BCAPL league locally would prefer that the nationals not to be handicapped as you suggest. If this indeed true, my guess is that they really want to test themselves and also see how they really stack up in the pool world once they get out of their local area and heads up play is the best way to do that.