Should Pro Tournaments Be Seeded?

[cardiac kid]

Major events need to be seeded for the beneift of fans, sponsors, and promoters, many of whom can only attend (or purchase the PPV for) the final rounds that are played on a weekend. A tournament should build to a crescendo and seeding increases the likelihood that it will produce a truly memorable final four on the last day of a main event.

As many correctly point out, the problem with seeding is the absence of a truly objective ranking system, but if a ranking system to which all bought in existed, I think seeding serves major tournaments well, and I don't especially care if it scares away some of the dead money.

Contrastingly, tournaments having minimal fanfare and viewership need not be seeded.

You touched on a new problem. PPV! How many potential spectators just stay home and buy the stream? Yes, they are paying for their viewing. How do the pool related vendors in attendance profit? How does the host venue profit? There are no food, beverage or accommodation sales to PPV customers. You need physical customers to benefit everyone else. Do PPV customers care if the streamed matches are Sunday night or Thursday morning?

I'm somewhat offended by your "dead money" comment. The vast majority of ANY open pool tournament, "professional" or not, is subscribed to by players just like me. Perhaps "shortstops". Perhaps just locals who want to say they played the best. Without us dead money guys there are NO major events. Who is looking out for me?

Lyn

 

[joelpope]

There are numerous arguments both pro and con seeding. A couple of the points I have not seen mentioned are as follows:

- regardless of seeding, talented young up and coming players like Mike Dechaine, John Morra and Brandon Shuff will make it to the finals based on their quality of play

- after 2 rounds 25% of the field is gone and after 3 rounds 50% of the field is gone which makes any seeding advantage pretty short lived

- if you are going to get to the semis and finals you have to beat pretty much everyone anyway

- if one of the reasons you play tournaments is to get more tournament experience, keeping the top 16 or so players out of the one loss side makes your chances of not going two and out much better

 

[naji]

There has been a lot of talk lately about seeding the top players in tournaments, i know the ABP is pushing more promoters to use seeding. i see this only helps the Top Players by giving them some "easier" matches in the early rounds before running into another monster and by then be in the money. How does this help lower tier professional players? i myself am a firm believer on Luck of the Draw. please think of this from both perspectives and give your input.

You seed players when there is no second chance, the looser bracket, how many times SVB come back from looser side to win it all!!. All sports they are comparing it to, Tennis, Golf, is one way ticket, you loose you out, that is why they do not want to loose Rafa or Roger from 1st round.

Plus i will watch a stream if top players are plying regardless of it being final , semi, or 1st round

 

[Okie]

Seeding gives advantage to a competitor. No competitor should be given advantage over another just because he played well yesterday, last month, last year, or ten years ago. Today's tournament is to see who can fight through the muck and come out on top...today.

I would love to see the top players play...in any round! I would also love to see young Mr. Shuffett woop on the old guard...that would be exciting to watch! And then the old guard would get pissed and practice harder so they come back and woop Landon. Then Landon fights back...etc etc etc

I love competition!!

Ken

 

[SchoolinU]

Good debate. Both sides have a rational argument here.
Ideally, the results of a tournament would reflect the performance of the players. The only way to truly do that is to know the results before it starts, and arrange the field appropriately. Obviously, we can't see into the future, but "seeding" approximates, or estimates, the final results.
Flaws will work themselves out as the tournament progresses. But you don't want to send any of your best players home empty handed, especially after they've traveled to play.
It's not flawless, of course, but without seeding the 4th best player could be eliminated in round 2, right? (Round 1: 1st beats 2nd and 3rd beats 4th, Round 2: 3rd beats 4th) 4th goes home empty handed.

I understand that unknown players have an uphill climb in this format, chalk it up to paying your dues. There's not room in this sport for everyone to become Ten Thousand'aires.

I agree with the previous post that seeding system should be transparent.

I think that seeding or no seeding, the finals will still have the best players in it, this just affects the payout of the intermediate finishers.

 

[sjm]

This is bogus. If an old warrior, or young and up-and-coming player, or even an unknown makes a run deep into the tournament and makes it to the finals, I guarantee you that everyone will be excited about his play and rooting for him. Everyone loves a Cinderella story. Everyone loves to root for the underdog. And if the guy out of left field is in the finals he's playing unconscious dead stroke knows no fear pool. What's not to like?

Lou Figueroa
just say no
to seeding

Apparently, tennis feels differently. If they felt that who reached the late stages didn't matter as far as viewership were concerned, why would they seed the players? The answer is that they wouldn't. They have done well in maximizing the likelihood of showcasing their best on the weekends, when most people aren't working.

Golf has just one in-season format in which players compete head to head and that's the World Match Play Championship events. And, yes, those events are always seeded. Nobody wants Tiger Woods to play Rory Mcilroy in the Round of 64 when few are watching. They want them center stage when the weekend comes, which is, of course, when the professional golf product is most visible.

If pool sees less need than golf or tennis to showcase its most accomplished players on the weekend when the stakes are highest, and when its product is most visible, it is just another example of how pool doesn't get it.

 

[Montana Mike]

If the trend moves towards seeding I would like to see a ranking system system more similar to golf where it looks at data more over a long term. At least that way it would be more transparent and look less like favoritism. Also, I wouldn't like to see seeding in Open tournaments. If a good pro tour starts up then I wouldn't mind seeing seeding in pro only events.

 

[randallt6]

i'd like to see it, this sport needs some change and this may help. doesn't hurt to try, we've been doing it the other for how long now? Lets try something different!

 

[AtLarge]

... If pool sees less need than golf or tennis to showcase its most accomplished players on the weekend when the stakes are highest, and when its product is most visible, it is just another example of how pool doesn't get it.

Stu -- one factor that weakens your argument a bit is the fact that the golf and tennis events you mentioned (as well as the seeded playoffs in pro football, baseball, basketball, etc.) are all single-elimination events. Seeding is more necessary for single-elimination events than for double-elimination events. [This isn't to say that I don't also favor it for DE events if certain conditions prevailed.]

 

[cardiac kid]

Ideally, the results of a tournament would reflect the performance of the players. The only way to truly do that is to know the results before it starts, and arrange the field appropriately. Obviously, we can't see into the future, but "seeding" approximates, or estimates, the final results. Flaws will work themselves out as the tournament progresses. But you don't want to send any of your best players home empty handed, especially after they've traveled to play....It's not flawless, of course, but without seeding the 4th best player could be eliminated in round 2, right? (Round 1: 1st beats 2nd and 3rd beats 4th, Round 2: 3rd beats 4th) 4th goes home empty handed.

Well thought out first post. Welcome to AZ.

Obviously don't know who you are. You don't know me. Have played for years on the Joss 9 Ball Tour. Never won an event. Finished second once. An average weekend only Joss event still costs me over $250. If I finish 7/8, I lose money! The Turning Stone events cost me a minimum of $600. Need to finish in the top twelve to break event.

What you are suggesting is one of the "road Pro's" be guaranteed some income just because. Screw them!!! They must take a chance just as I do. Most of those guys have either a sponsor or a backer to pay the bills. I, and by far the greatest percentage of pool players, have neither. You can run a tournament without the very best players. You can not run a tournament without me and players of my caliber. JMHO.

Lyn

 

[bdorman]

If I played in tournaments (I don't) I think I'd want the field seeded. That way it is more likely that I get to play a top player like Efren Reyes or SVB instead of Joe Schmoe.

Who cares if I beat Joe Schmoe 7-2? But if I get one good safety against a top player: priceless! Just me.

 

[cardiac kid]

If I played in tournaments (I don't) I think I'd want the field seeded. That way it is more likely that I get to play a top player like Efren Reyes or SVB instead of Joe Schmoe.

Who cares if I beat Joe Schmoe 7-2? But if I get one good safety against a top player: priceless! Just me.

:speechless: :thud: :scratchhead:.

Lyn

 

[imissedthe9]

Well thought out first post. Welcome to AZ.

Obviously don't know who you are. You don't know me. Have played for years on the Joss 9 Ball Tour. Never won an event. Finished second once. An average weekend only Joss event still costs me over $250. If I finish 7/8, I lose money! The Turning Stone events cost me a minimum of $600. Need to finish in the top twelve to break event.

What you are suggesting is one of the "road Pro's" be guaranteed some income just because. Screw them!!! They must take a chance just as I do. Most of those guys have either a sponsor or a backer to pay the bills. I, and by far the greatest percentage of pool players, have neither. You can run a tournament without the very best players. You can not run a tournament without me and players of my caliber. JMHO.

Lyn

Good point why should the top players who get staked or have sponsors that cover most if not all the expenses be seeded into a tournament? Think of all the short stops or lower tier pro poolplayers who go to these events forking out money from their own pockets. The top players who are wanting to be seeded have become top players thru winning non seeded tournaments. Tournaments are big confidence boosters and maybe you need a good draw and some upsets early on to get far in a tournament. I know that I'd rather have a good draw and have a chance to get in stroke and play Johnny archer in the 4th or 5th round on the winners side rather then 1st or 2nd round.

 

[jschelin99]

IMHO, the only valid point I've heard in favor of seeding is the comparison to televised golf and tennis. Yes, the people watching on tv (or ppv or live steaming) tend to watch the last few matches more than the entire tournament. If the final competitors are big names, the number of viewers will be way up, which leads to larger commercial revenue, thereby increasing the revenue of the organization at large, thereby propelling the sport in general. Yes, it's a valid point. But...

When was the last time Professional Pool was a viable entity, garnering massive sponsorships, and televised on broadcast tv (not cable, not the internet) every weekend? Oh, that's right, never. So until the time that Pro Pool tournaments are televised every weekend on CBS, I think the "we gotta do what golf and tennis does" argument is a bit moot.

Secondly, the argument that seeding allows beginners a chance to play the best player in the first round is silly to me. "Who cares if I beat Joe Schmoe 7-2?" What, you don't *want* to win a single match? What if you beat Joe Schmoe in the first round, and then play SVB in the second round? Wouldn't that be okay? You just want to donate your money to the tournament and lose to the best player? How about this, walk up to SVB, hand him whatever the dollar amount of the entry of the tournament is and say, "You can have this money if you just play me one game." I bet he'll say okay.

 

[nb92]

single elimination

I believe the only sports that seed have single elimination tournaments. If double elimination pool should NOT seed, If single elimination go ahead and seed.

 

[lfigueroa]

Apparently, tennis feels differently. If they felt that who reached the late stages didn't matter as far as viewership were concerned, why would they seed the players? The answer is that they wouldn't. They have done well in maximizing the likelihood of showcasing their best on the weekends, when most people aren't working.

Golf has just one in-season format in which players compete head to head and that's the World Match Play Championship events. And, yes, those events are always seeded. Nobody wants Tiger Woods to play Rory Mcilroy in the Round of 64 when few are watching. They want them center stage when the weekend comes, which is, of course, when the professional golf product is most visible.

If pool sees less need than golf or tennis to showcase its most accomplished players on the weekend when the stakes are highest, and when its product is most visible, it is just another example of how pool doesn't get it.

Tennis and golf feel differently because they actually have a cadre of ranked *professioals* that make up the their tournament fields. They do not build their Flushing Meadows and Olympic Club events on the backs of shortstops, strong amateurs, and wannabees -- the guys that make up the majority of the pool playing field at Chesapeake. IOW, I can't send in my entry fee and play against Tiger or Federer. Shane, Johnny, Efren -- no problem.

We are light years from those sports and need to take care of the players who are actually footing the bill more than the pros.

Lou Figueroa

 

[jhanso18]

NO. Not as of right now. There is no such thing as a "PRO" tournament. Most fill up with amatures, "short stops" if you will, and then sprinkle in the 15-25 or so "Pros". Why give a distinct advantage to the minority.


for what it's worth I like seeding if you could get a good consistant field of "Pros."


best,

Justin

 

[lfigueroa]

Stu -- one factor that weakens your argument a bit is the fact that the golf and tennis events you mentioned (as well as the seeded playoffs in pro football, baseball, basketball, etc.) are all single-elimination events. Seeding is more necessary for single-elimination events than for double-elimination events. [This isn't to say that I don't also favor it for DE events if certain conditions prevailed.]

That too.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Mark Griffin]

Seeding:


I am not opposed to seeding.
But certian things MUST be in place.

An established, recognized ranking system.
Must not be double elimination, only single elimination should be considered.

The concept of seeding is bassed upon trying to 'get' the best players in the final matches. That usually is a good thing but the better players cannot 'get' an advantage.

This could happen if there was a 'PRO' tour that had lots of qualtiy players.- which pool just does not currently have.

Seeding to 'help' a particular group of players is not acceptable.

Mark Griffin

 

[cardiac kid]

Seeding:


I am not opposed to seeding.
But certian things MUST be in place.

An established, recognized ranking system.
Must not be double elimination, only single elimination should be considered.

The concept of seeding is bassed upon trying to 'get' the best players in the final matches. That usually is a good thing but the better players cannot 'get' an advantage.

This could happen if there was a 'PRO' tour that had lots of qualtiy players.- which pool just does not currently have.

Seeding to 'help' a particular group of players is not acceptable.

Mark Griffin

Bravo Mark! Short, sweet and to the point. Your words carry more weight on AZ than anyone other than Mr's Howerton and Forsyth. Thank you for the post.

Lyn