Should pool tournaments adopt a seeding format for known pros? lets say there is a tournament that has 64 players. and 12 are known pros / shortstops / etc. should they be seeded so they don't play each other first?
Should pool tournaments adopt a seeding format for known pros?
- Thread starter jollyrodger
- Start date
Why should pros get preferential treatment ??
well it would adopt a format kind of like tennis. also no one tunes in to see avg. joe but they would to see gorst or SVB.
ooooohhh we could have day one could be round robin groups and then top 2 in each group move to the knock out tourney the next day. like Soccer.
The argument for seeding is obvious. Event producers want their events to build to a crescendo and having the best players playing each other in the earliest rounds is at odds with this. That's why the major tours (Matchroom, Predator), which depend on their fanfare to earn a profit, use seeding. Tennis does the same.
Seeding may look unfair to those unseeded, but seeding is equally available to all. Play well in competition and you'll end up being a seeded player. Seeding also rewards frequent participation, and that's good for the sport.
Seeding helps sell the sport.
For small regional or local events having minimal fanfare, seeding is really not as necessary.
Seeding may look unfair to those unseeded, but seeding is equally available to all. Play well in competition and you'll end up being a seeded player. Seeding also rewards frequent participation, and that's good for the sport.
Seeding helps sell the sport.
For small regional or local events having minimal fanfare, seeding is really not as necessary.
Last edited:
If the tournament is for an audience, there should be seeding as mentioned above. If there is no income from the audience, then it's up to the organizer to decide the best format. The players generally can't see and don't understand all the factors that go into running a tournament.
As for a seeding method, I'd suggest no more than a quarter of the field and go by Fargo ratings.
If you want to kill the dead money and have only 12 players in the tournament....yes!
Unfortunately, this^^^
The Dead Money pray for the elite to end up in the opposite side of the bracket.
Should they be seeded...?..., hell ya. Every other "sport" follows the seeding methodology. The Ultra-Dead money are dead anyway. Really only potentially hurts those players knocking on the door that require a tad of luck to come out on top 🖐
Really not true anymore. The sponsor's interests are compromised every single time that players split instead of playing out the final, a practice that has grown demonstrably in recent years. At least in American pool, the interests of the event sponsors are often of little concern to the players.
Seeding sucks at the state, regional level.
I have played in a few state tournaments, that let the seeded players move through the brackets more quickly. Usually, their favorites have played 2-3 matches, when the average Joe has maybe played 1. After the 1 match, your next match is at 2 am, while the seeded players went to sleep at 9 pm.
I stay away from those events...
There's really no evidence that dead money players are scared away by having a seeded format.
I agree with quarter of the field at most, but seeding by Fargo doesn't work for me. Far too many inactive players maintain a high Fargo. Ranking, which reflects recent performance and penalizes non-participation, is fairer.
Of course, rankings has its limitations, too, as we saw at the World Cup of Pool. The Philippines was unseeded and won the title. If seedings had been based on Fargo ratings, they'd have been a high seed.
True.
In my opinion you are probably the most knowledgeable railbird in all of pool alive today.
Given that, if a tournament that runs regularly once or twice per year and normally fills up at 64 players was now announced to be a seeded tournament, do you believe it would fill up as usual or have less players than normal?
There should be separate minis where the "student" crowd is guaranteed a star draw.
Like this thing:
Like this thing:
First of all, thanks for the compliment.
I'm noting that as long as the location is good and the prize money is good, what we've been seeing is record-breaking oversubscription in the case of entries. Matchroom events, which are seeded, seem to sell out in a single day even when the field is in the hundreds. Predator 10ball events, which are seeded similarly, are also usually oversubscribed. Pool players have always gotten excited by the prospect of playing against the most elite cueists. It's one of the differences between pool and most sports. Play in the US Open 9-ball and you may get to play Filler or Shane and you'll have a story for a lifetime. Contrastingly, you'll never get to play competitive tennis against Djokovic. On a financial basis, the argument for participation by a dead money player in pool doesn't add up whether an event is seeded or not.
For the lesser events, with lower entry fees, less prize money, smaller fields and fewer elite cueists, seeding may turn off some would-be entrants, as even marginal players have a decent chance to cash and their decision to participate is affected by their chance of doing so. For example, the case for seeding in a 600 Fargo or lower event is a weak one and I can see why seeding might scare players away. For local and regional events, seeding might scare away a few, as well.
That's my sense of things, but's just one man's opinion.
.
You make valid points. In Houston there is a tournament or two every night and there are some that are stated as "no Pros" and here we all know who they are, so if you didn't want to play in a seeded tournament you'd have options.
The two big tournament hoister's in Houston do Amature and Open events at the same time, makes it easy to test your skill level against the Pros and your peer group.