Seeding Pro Tournaments

C

Cameron Smith

is kind of hungry...
Silver Member
Someone mentioned in another thread that tournaments shouldn't be seeded, that luck should determine the draw. I can understand this stance for local bar tournaments but not for proffesional ones.

I'll provide my arguements in favor of seeding later because Im too tired to put together anything intelligent. Until then I'm interested to see what everyone thinks about this.
 
Cameron Smith said:
Someone mentioned in another thread that tournaments shouldn't be seeded, that luck should determine the draw. I can understand this stance for local bar tournaments but not for proffesional ones.
Click to expand...
Seeding in pro tournaments would result in far fewer amateur contestants, and consequently smaller prize funds. Many lesser players play in a pro event hoping to draw a name player to see how they do. If the pros were seeded and exempt from the first few rounds, the likelihood that the average player would stay in long enough to face a pro would be very small.

I assume seeding is common in 3C billiards tournaments to insure that the top talent from around the world will attend without the threat of an early loss to a good shortstop. The top 3C players' egos have to be considered as well...

A "school of fish" is necessary in most tournaments to provide the majority of the prize fund for the sharks.;)

Doc
 
gulfportdoc said:
Seeding in pro tournaments would result in far fewer amateur contestants, and consequently smaller prize funds. Many lesser players play in a pro event hoping to draw a name player to see how they do. If the pros were seeded and exempt from the first few rounds, the likelihood that the average player would stay in long enough to face a pro would be very small.

I assume seeding is common in 3C billiards tournaments to insure that the top talent from around the world will attend without the threat of an early loss to a good shortstop. The top 3C players' egos have to be considered as well...

A "school of fish" is necessary in most tournaments to provide the majority of the prize fund for the sharks.;)

Doc
Click to expand...

I believe we are thinking of two different types of seeding. The seeding I had in mind is more in line with the way tennis tournaments are set up. The number 1 player plays the lowest ranked player and the number 2 player plays the second lowest ranked player. Furthermore the top players are spaced out enough so that they won't play eachother until later in the tournament. The top two ranked players wouldn't play until the finals. It is in this way it ensures that the better players rise to the top and they don't pick eachother off until there are only a two left.

In this type of seeding no name players are guarenteed to play top 20 or top 30 ranked players. I just hate when I look at the brackets and a no name player has made it all the way to finals without having to challenge a top ranked player.

With tournament seeding it becomes even more exciting when someone comes out of left field to make it into the finals or even win. In Tennis' Australian Open, Marcos Baghdatis beat quite a few of the worlds best to make it to the finals against Roger Federer. There was a huge excitement around this guy and at one point I was convinced that he was going to beat Federer. Marcos Baghdatis in my opinion made the 2006 Australian Open one of the most memorable in recent history.
 
I can understand seeding for a TV tournament because the sponsors want to get the most out of their money. They will get more viewers if more of the big names make it to the TV spots.

Other tournaments should not be seeded. It's not fair to the average player who pays the same money as the pro to enter the tournament. Why should pros not have to face each other and the average player be guaranteed to face a top player in the first few rounds? Often times the seeding includes giving the top players first round byes.
 
metal5d said:
I can understand seeding for a TV tournament because the sponsors want to get the most out of their money. They will get more viewers if more of the big names make it to the TV spots.

Other tournaments should not be seeded. It's not fair to the average player who pays the same money as the pro to enter the tournament. Why should pros not have to face each other and the average player be guaranteed to face a top player in the first few rounds? Often times the seeding includes giving the top players first round byes.
Click to expand...

Top players have payed their dues and shown that they can win against anybody. Everyone else has prove themselves as well. If you can't win against the top pros then you should be there to gain experiance. If you are there to gain experiance then seeding is favorable because you are ensured a match against a pro player.
 
Last edited:
Cameron Smith said:
I just hate when I look at the brackets and a no name player has made it all the way to finals without having to challenge a top ranked player.
Click to expand...

Hi Cameron,

I think the above statement must be a serious exaggeration, because it's pretty much mathematically impossible that this could happen in anything close to a professional-level tournament.

More likely is that a "no-name" player gets to maybe the third round on the winner's side before having to face a top player. The possibility of this happening is actually key to the success of a tournament, for reasons others have mentioned. The shortstops play these tournaments because of the possibility of a soft early draw. With a little luck, they can get into the money round, get some wins under their belt, and get to face some top players. Believe me when I tell you, you lose a high percentage of shortstops and players just below that when you start seeding.

So...I kind of disagree with a previous poster who said that seeding actually increases tournament participation. Maybe for the very low-ranked players this might be true - they know they're throwing away their money anyway, so they might as well lose to Strickland and Reyes. But there are very few of these players competing in professional tournaments. Often, the bulk of a tournament is made up of A and Open level players who aren't a threat to win, but can cash with the right draw and a couple of rolls.

I also implore you to sometimes take a look at the so-called no-names. There's a whole lot of them out there that might surprise you.

- Steve
 
Cameron Smith said:
Someone mentioned in another thread that tournaments shouldn't be seeded, that luck should determine the draw. I can understand this stance for local bar tournaments but not for proffesional ones.

I'll provide my arguements in favor of seeding later because Im too tired to put together anything intelligent. Until then I'm interested to see what everyone thinks about this.
Click to expand...


I don't know all the intricacies of seeding, and I was referring to regional Pro-Am tournaments in the other post, although I think my opinion would apply to all tournaments except, perhaps, for the invitationals. Speaking as a fan, I would like to see different combinations of personalities matching up in the later stages, and that might occur more frequently without seeding. It might not though, since champions almost always find their way to the finals.

Oh, and by the way, Willie--I'm right and you're wrong. Sorry. ;)

EDIT: just to add to Steve's post above (which I totally agree with), why make it harder for the 2/3 of the players at regional pro-am tournaments that hope to get into the money and easier for the 1/3 who do get the money most of the time anyway? These tours are supported by the B/C players IMO.
 
Last edited:
Steve Lipsky said:
Hi Cameron,

I think the above statement must be a serious exaggeration, because it's pretty much mathematically impossible that this could happen in anything close to a professional-level tournament.

More likely is that a "no-name" player gets to maybe the third round on the winner's side before having to face a top player. The possibility of this happening is actually key to the success of a tournament, for reasons others have mentioned. The shortstops play these tournaments because of the possibility of a soft early draw. With a little luck, they can get into the money round, get some wins under their belt, and get to face some top players. Believe me when I tell you, you lose a high percentage of shortstops and players just below that when you start seeding.

So...I kind of disagree with a previous poster who said that seeding actually increases tournament participation. Maybe for the very low-ranked players this might be true - they know they're throwing away their money anyway, so they might as well lose to Strickland and Reyes. But there are very few of these players competing in professional tournaments. Often, the bulk of a tournament is made up of A and Open level players who aren't a threat to win, but can cash with the right draw and a couple of rolls.

I also implore you to sometimes take a look at the so-called no-names. There's a whole lot of them out there that might surprise you.

- Steve
Click to expand...

Yes the statement you are referring to is a bit of an exageration. However it was a fairly close to accurate description of last years Canadian Championship. A friend of mine who attended relayed the rumblings over the lopsided draw.

Perhaps the reason why I like seeding is also from a marketing standpoint. You want the top players to stick around because if they are there then the fans will be too.

I can not argue with you about your points because I have never been much of a tournament player. As such I don't know what it is like to make a living off of pool, not through tournaments anyway. But I certainly see where you are coming from.

Finally I do look at the no-name players because these are the guys that can make history. Personally I hope to be one of those guys some day who will at least surprise people.
 
Cameron Smith said:
Top players have payed their dues and shown that they can win against anybody. Everyone else has prove themselves as well. If you can't win against the top pros then you should be there to gain experiance. If you are there to gain experiance then seeding is favorable because you are ensured a match against a pro player.
Click to expand...

One other thing to consider is whether or not it is a double elimination tournament. If it is single elimination I can see the argument for seeding. If it is double elimination the two best players will still face off against each other without seeding.

Saying a player is owed something because they have paid their dues is just ridiculous. Most average players are there because they hope that they will get a few lucky breaks and make it into the money and maybe further. Even the weakest player in a tournament has some ambition to play and win. There is no reason someone elses money or chances should be better than another player who enters the same tournament.
 
The WPBA seeds their tournaments and it seems to work quite well.

I like it when a so called no name player complains about the seeding and how it is not fair because it favors the celebs. Which of course it does. And then one day the no name works her/his way to celeb status (by hard work and winning) and then all of a sudden seeding is okay.

Seeding is a way to ensure that the celebs get to the final rounds. That is what the fans want to see and that is what brings in the money from TV. Which then is passed on to all the players.

As far as seeding a local tournament and no TV is involved then to me it is just a way to rig the tournament and should not be done.

Jake
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
jjinfla said:
Seeding is a way to ensure that the celebs get to the final rounds. That is what the fans want to see and that is what brings in the money from TV. Which then is passed on to all the players.

Jake
Click to expand...

Hi Jake. I agree with everything you wrote, except for this part. Don't be so sure that is what the fans want to see... right now, the WPBA is severely mangling their tournament charts in the hopes that it brings new faces to the TV rounds. They're basically inventing a whole new (and much less fair to the higher-level players) tournament format for the sole purpose of trying to promote up-and-coming players.

I feel it's almost at the point where one more TV match between Allison and Karen and they will replace the semifinals with a rock/paper/scissors round. :D

- Steve
 
beetle said:
I don't know all the intricacies of seeding, and I was referring to regional Pro-Am tournaments in the other post, although I think my opinion would apply to all tournaments except, perhaps, for the invitationals. .
Click to expand...

Beetle,
Cameron specifically was talking about professional tournaments, where identifying the best player should be the goal. If that is the goal, then seeding is absolutely essential and proper.

If you don't like the results (ie. domination by the best players), then mangle your system like the WPBA is doing - but DON'T pretend that is anything except a blatant attack on your best players. Also, be clear that your goal is now entertainment rather than providing as true a competitive test of ability as possible. It is the road to becoming a circus, NOT a sport.

It is truly a slippery slope (the SAME slope that lead to men's 9-ball instead of straight pool). Unfortunately the end result cheapen's the sport in the view of many - the rock/paper/scissors analogy was spot on. For the last 50 players in the short-race 9-ball DCC they could just as well play rock/paper/scissors - anyone in the room could win. Maybe they are all of totally equal ability, but I doubt it.

P.S. - For small, and local tournaments, where maximum participation is the goal, I certainly agree with you that seeding is unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Williebetmore said:
Beetle,
Cameron specifically was talking about professional tournaments, where identifying the best player should be the goal. If that is the goal, then seeding is absolutely essential and proper.

If you don't like the results (ie. domination by the best players), then mangle your system like the WPBA is doing - but DON'T pretend that is anything except a blatant attack on your best players. Also, be clear that your goal is now entertainment rather than providing as true a competitive test of ability as possible. It is the road to becoming a circus, NOT a sport.

It is truly a slippery slope (the SAME slope that lead to men's 9-ball instead of straight pool). Unfortunately the end result cheapen's the sport in the view of many - the rock/paper/scissors analogy was spot on. For the last 50 players in the short-race 9-ball DCC they could just as well play rock/paper/scissors - anyone in the room could win. Maybe they are all of totally equal ability, but I doubt it.

P.S. - For small, and local tournaments, where maximum participation is the goal, I certainly agree with you that seeding is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Isn't seeding a contemporary phenomenon in pool? I don't know when seeding started, but the change in popularity from straight pool to 9-ball resulted not from corruption of a seeding system, but rather due to a few high profile, highly anticipated matches that turned into 3 hour safety battles--not acceptable for TV. That's what killed straight pool in the mainstream.

Regarding the DCC matches you're talking about where any of the top 50 could win, I think the short races and perhaps the 9-ball break issues (not lack of seeding) are the primary factors for not resolving true differences in skill levels. Tournaments should prove who is better that day or week, against that group of players, and IMO seeding confounds that. So, make the equipment tough and the races longer.
 
A lot of excellent points made in this thread by some of the most astute posters on the board.

Seeding is always controverisal, but here's my slant on the seeding of WPBA events, based on well over forty different WPBA events attended.

The Player's Perspective
Most player's could take it or leave it, but most realize that a seed is, ulitmately, available to all through sustained excellence over time. I remember well when Allison Fisher and Karen Corr and Ga Young Kim and Kelly Fisher and Monica Webb were unseeded, but now they are the Top 5 in the rankings. Seeding based on past performance, whether preferred or not, is fair, just as it is fair in tennis. The cream rises to the top.

The Sponsor's Perspective
Your hotel is sponsoring a WPBA event that will be televised. You realize two things: 1) Although a WPBA event is a four day affair, the crowds are much bigger on Saturday and Sunday, so you know it's best if the event builds to a crescendo, with the superstars of the game meeting in the late rounds, 2) your event will be televised, bringing publicity to your hotel, so it's best if the stars of the game appear in the TV rounds. That's why you like seeding if you're a sponsor.

The Fan's Perspective
Odds are you have a full-time job and can only make it to watch the tournament at the weekend. You want to see the very best, and seeding increases the likelihoood you will see all the stars of the WPBA when you attend. You don't get to watch pro pool very often, but on that special occasion on which you do, you want to see the very best in the late rounds. Allison vs Karen is the match-up you want in the finals when you're a fan attending an event.

Just one man's opinion.
 
beetle said:
Isn't seeding a contemporary phenomenon in pool? I don't know when seeding started, but the change in popularity from straight pool to 9-ball resulted not from corruption of a seeding system, but rather due to a few high profile, highly anticipated matches that turned into 3 hour safety battles--not acceptable for TV. That's what killed straight pool in the mainstream.

Regarding the DCC matches you're talking about where any of the top 50 could win, I think the short races and perhaps the 9-ball break issues (not lack of seeding) are the primary factors for not resolving true differences in skill levels. Tournaments should prove who is better that day or week, against that group of players, and IMO seeding confounds that. So, make the equipment tough and the races longer.
Click to expand...

Beetle,
I didn't mean to say that seeding killed straight pool; it was dead for a variety of reasons (detailed in a good BD article recently); I only meant that striving for entertainment value (as avoiding seeding does) is just one more way to cheapen a sport. When it loses its ability to differentiate players based on their skill, and when it puts a higher and higher premium on luck (whether the luck of the break or the luck of a "good draw"); a sport has become an exhibition, not a competition. I'm not saying that is bad for everybody, but it is what it is.

You are very accurate in your assessment of the DCC "luck factor". Lack of seeding is only one area in which short race 9 ball rewards the luck factor - I wasn't trying to blame it all on lack of seeding. I just would like to know who the best pool players are - we currently have no way to tell (except on the "old WPBA" circuit).
 
beetle said:
Isn't seeding a contemporary phenomenon in pool? I don't know when seeding started, but the change in popularity from straight pool to 9-ball resulted not from corruption of a seeding system, but rather due to a few high profile, highly anticipated matches that turned into 3 hour safety battles--not acceptable for TV. That's what killed straight pool in the mainstream.
Click to expand...

14.1 tournaments for a long time were double round robin. Also there were so few players that seeding was not as necessary. I think that the World Championships would have a field of 12 guys.
 
The tri-state tour in the NYC area has a few Open 9-ball tournaments every year. Believe it or not, even though there are no handicaps, the tournament usually draws about 50 players or so - 30 of which have absolutely no chance to cash. To be objective, the lower-ranked players pay a smaller entry fee, and they are also enticed to play by earning "double points" for the event (their year-end points count for player-of-the-year status in their respective classes).

Anyway, if the tournament director announced that the next Open tournament would be seeded, the following would happen: Nobody under A speed would even think of showing up. The A players would assume this, and wouldn't show up - because the dead money is out of the tournament. And then, obviously, half the Open and Pro players wouldn't show because their odds on the money would be obliterated.

Now you could argue and say that the skill disparities in a regional tournament are greater than those in a WPBA event, but we all know that's not completely true. It just "works" for the WPBA because the players have very little power in that organization. They have pulled some of the craziest stuff imaginable on their players (remember those double-byes for the top 16?), but the players have little choice. It's an exclusive, points-driven club.

Take that away, and things might be different. I stopped playing in the US Open because it was too damned hard to cash in that thing. It was a $1,500 week no matter how you did it. Over the five years I played it, I had a winning record, but it wasn't enough. The way it was structured, you basically had to win three matches on the winner side to cash, which because of the seeding was very difficult. You had to beat two seeded players in a row to do it. So after cashing one time in five years of play, I decided that even though I loved the tournament, it was financially the wrong move.

As someone else mentioned, why make it even easier for the top 1/3rd to cash?

- Steve
 
I tried to have a Seeding process put into effect for the 9ball tournament at the pool hall i goto.

I wanted to add points for every match win you get and have the points added up, and then starting the next tournament the top 16 players would be seeded 1-16, and have it continue for 6months and then start over.

Now i can see it being unfair for joe q. public just getting started in pool and having to always having to play a seeded player, and probably getting beat too.

I also hafta agree that, why should the Top players get special treatment so they can win thier first several matches fairly easily, while everyone else has to beat each other to death just to try to cash and get thier money back.

dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top