Should Pro Tournaments Be Seeded?

[mrsmith1976]

You cant have it both ways

It amazes me that "pros" feel like they are being mistreated for taking the same chance working guys like us take.
It's not like they don't have an advantage already of experience, talent, skill whatever, but heaven forbid they have to play someone else that is just as good or better than them.

We pay the same entry fees, hotel, and travel costs and represent about 80% of the field, most of the time we are DEAD MONEY with just hopes to recover our expenses. Now with seeding, we have even less of a chance to make it deep in a tournament.

Why do so many players feel like everyone owes them something?

 

[Majic]

I could care less if pro tourney's are seeded. Most tourney's are not pro only anyway so if somebody pays the entry fee then a random draw is fair for everyone that is paying.

 

[sjm]

I see a lot of validity in the points made by those who disagree with me on seeding, and the questions that underly the disagreement are, in my opinion:

1) Are pro pool events always going to require "dead money" to be sufficiently lucrative for the true stars of the game?

2) Is it a given that pro pool will never have a truly objective set of rankings that can be used for things like seeding and participation in events having limited field size?

In my case, I say no to both questions and base my preferred tournament framework around those ideas.

..... but there is another important question, and that is:

3) should we build a model for pro pool that is visionary and consistent with our dreams for the sport or should we build the model to account for disheartening realities of the sport that many of us believe to be inescapable?

To this question, I say we should, but the matter ios hardly cut and dried.

In truth, these three questions are not easily answered, but I think that this thread shows that many of us see these matters differently, and that is what AZB is all about ---- knowledgable people bringing well considered and educated opinions to the debate.

Excellent thread.

 

[lfigueroa]

I see a lot of validity in the points made by those who disagree with me on seeding, and the questions that underly the disagreement are, in my opinion:

1) Are pro pool events always going to require "dead money" to be sufficiently lucrative for the true stars of the game?

2) Is it a given that pro pool will never have a truly objective set of rankings that can be used for things like seeding and participation in events having limited field size?

In my case, I say no to both questions and base my preferred tournament framework around those ideas.

..... but there is another important question, and that is:

3) should we build a model for pro pool that is visionary and consistent with our dreams for the sport or should we build the model to account for disheartening realities of the sport that many of us believe to be inescapable?

To this question, I say we should, but the matter ios hardly cut and dried.

In truth, these three questions are not easily answered, but I think that this thread shows that many of us see these matters differently, and that is what AZB is all about ---- knowledgable people bringing well considered and educated opinions to the debate.

Excellent thread.

Well said, Stu.

Here's part of the conundrum: pool players would rather play than watch. IOW, to be honest, I don't feel the need for a pro organization or tour, and if those guys want that they should go out and get it but not at the expense of the vast majority of pool players that support pool. In fact, other than the "a rising tide raises all boats" I have never heard a compelling argument for why pro pool players should get more money and have more tournaments. Even if it meant more pool on TV (which might or might not happen with the advent of a pro tour) pool tournaments on TV are boring and as I've already said -- most of us would rather be playing than watching anyway.

What I do care about are more tournaments that I, the amateur, can get into and compete in at a reasonable cost, with the opportunity of a modicum of success based upon how I play and *the luck of the draw.* And for this I applaud guys like Greg Sullivan and Mark Griffin. Honestly, the last thing I want are tournaments with seeded pros so that the deck is stacked against me to favor them. If I enter a tournament and draw an Efren or a Shane the first round that's great! But it should happen as a result of a fair roll or the dice and not because the event promoter has decided that Efren's and Shane's entry fees are somehow more valuable than my entry fee.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JAM]

Here's part of the conundrum: pool players would rather play than watch. IOW, to be honest, I don't feel the need for a pro organization or tour, and if those guys want that they should go out and get it but not at the expense of the vast majority of pool players that support pool. In fact, other than the "a rising tide raises all boats" I have never heard a compelling argument for why pro pool players should get more money and have more tournaments. Even if it meant more pool on TV (which might or might not happen with the advent of a pro tour) pool tournaments on TV are boring and as I've already said -- most of us would rather be playing than watching anyway.

What I do care about are more tournaments that I, the amateur, can get into and compete in at a reasonable cost, with the opportunity of a modicum of success based upon how I play and *the luck of the draw.* And for this I applaud guys like Greg Sullivan and Mark Griffin. Honestly, the last thing I want are tournaments with seeded pros so that the deck is stacked against me to favor them. If I enter a tournament and draw an Efren or a Shane the first round that's great! But it should happen as a result of a fair roll or the dice and not because the event promoter has decided that Efren's and Shane's entry fees are somehow more valuable than my entry fee.

Lou Figueroa

Tap, tap, tap, Lou!

Here's the skinny. You can't get blood out of a turnip. Before pool's platform can resemble anything like tennis or golf, it has to be an established professional organization with a tour and paying sponsors. To do things backwards, as some are suggesting on this thread, is putting the cart before the horse.

If pool had events that *only* pros were competing in, fine, seed those suckers, but pool today has events in the U.S. that are open to players of all caliber. Without the salamanders and shortstops, the pool tournament would lose money. They need to tailor these pool events today to players of all caliber, not Charlie Williams and his Dragon pros or the emotionless robotic players from afar.

Pool needs amateurs, even in the pro events. Without them, pool would be dead. Seeding the pros is like giving them a head start in a foot race. Why would anybody in their right mind want to pay money to compete in a race when the best runners in the race get a head start? It makes no sense.

I think the seeding should not happen at this time. If pool matures as a sport, then, yes, seeding would be acceptable. At this time, though, it would be better if they were seeded in a pro-only event, not the ones we go to today, like DCC, SBE, Joss/Turning Stone, U.S. Open 9-Ball and 10-Ball, et cetera.

 

[cardiac kid]

Without the salamanders and shortstops, the pool tournament would lose money. They need to tailor these pool events today to players of all caliber, not Charlie Williams and his Dragon pros or the emotionless robotic players from afar.

Oh no Jen, I'm absolutely devastated! First Stu called me "dead money". Now I'm a "salamander". Bad enough Larry Hubbart told me I was a "shortstop". Oh the shame. Oh the guilt. Now what do I do :shocked:?

Really wish I could remember all the Mel Brooks dialog from "History of the World Part II". Would have finished my rant so well :sorry:.

Lyn

 

[JAM]

Oh no Jen, I'm absolutely devastated! First Stu called me "dead money". Now I'm a "salamander". Bad enough Larry Hubbart told me I was a "shortstop". Oh the shame. Oh the guilt. Now what do I do :shocked:?

Really wish I could remember all the Mel Brooks dialog from "History of the World Part II". Would have finished my rant so well :sorry:.

Lyn

Hey, Lyn, I'd rather be a salamander who gets out there and actually plays, giving it their all, than a non-playing railbird like me! :embarrassed2:

I don't think you're a salamander. Rather, I consider you a weekend warrior! :thumbup2:

Besides, what's in a name, anyway? I'm considered McCready's "old lady" and a groupie on AzBilliards Discussion Forum.

 

[hlymnstr14]

its tough. you want to promote pool as a professional sport, however, the amatuers support it financially. seeding is good for pro's trying to make a living. it's terrible for good amatuers just hoping to make that first round cash and see their name on the payout list. it's great to watch pro's and i admire them for trying to make a living but amatuers pay the sponsor's bills. ultimately seeding will dwindle these tournaments down to nothing. and then they will get the perfect storm, top 8 players all playing each other in the first round. unfortunately, those will be the only 8 people in the tournament.

 

[cardiac kid]

Besides, what's in a name, anyway? I'm considered McCready's "old lady" and a groupie on AzBilliards Discussion Forum.

Jen,

Tell me who called you Keith's "Old Lady" . My good friends Vito, Guido and Luka will make them an offer I know they can't refuse!!!!

Lyn

 

[lfigueroa]

Tap, tap, tap, Lou!

Here's the skinny. You can't get blood out of a turnip. Before pool's platform can resemble anything like tennis or golf, it has to be an established professional organization with a tour and paying sponsors. To do things backwards, as some are suggesting on this thread, is putting the cart before the horse.

If pool had events that *only* pros were competing in, fine, seed those suckers, but pool today has events in the U.S. that are open to players of all caliber. Without the salamanders and shortstops, the pool tournament would lose money. They need to tailor these pool events today to players of all caliber, not Charlie Williams and his Dragon pros or the emotionless robotic players from afar.

Pool needs amateurs, even in the pro events. Without them, pool would be dead. Seeding the pros is like giving them a head start in a foot race. Why would anybody in their right mind want to pay money to compete in a race when the best runners in the race get a head start? It makes no sense.

I think the seeding should not happen at this time. If pool matures as a sport, then, yes, seeding would be acceptable. At this time, though, it would be better if they were seeded in a pro-only event, not the ones we go to today, like DCC, SBE, Joss/Turning Stone, U.S. Open 9-Ball and 10-Ball, et cetera.

Right -- when the pros get to an all pro situation then they can and should seed away. (Can you imagine the caterwauling from the unseeded pros But not now.

Pool tournaments nowadays are built on the backs of amateurs who send in their dough and suck of the expenses, knowing they will inevitably go up against pros anyway. Those pros should be grateful the amateurs are willing to contribute in the first place and take their chances in the early rounds just like the rest of the field.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Oh no Jen, I'm absolutely devastated! First Stu called me "dead money". Now I'm a "salamander". Bad enough Larry Hubbart told me I was a "shortstop". Oh the shame. Oh the guilt. Now what do I do :shocked:?

Really wish I could remember all the Mel Brooks dialog from "History of the World Part II". Would have finished my rant so well :sorry:.

Lyn

lol. Dead money? A salamander? That's nothing. You haven't really been dis'd until you've been called "a lobster" by Keith McCready

Lou Figueroa

 

[cardiac kid]

lol. Dead money? A salamander? That's nothing. You haven't really been dis'd until you've been called "a lobster" by Keith McCready

Lou Figueroa

Lou,

You win on that one. Keither never called me that.

Truthfully, I'm very happy I've gotten to the stage in my life where almost nothing bothers me. Operative word "almost". Still have a too thin skin. Most of the comments on this thread and Mr Forsyth's interview thread hit the nail on the head. Without the two of us and a lot of other players our caliber, there are no major pool events.

Perhaps we should be seeded and the "pro's" have to "play in"! Too far fetched :grin:?

Lyn

 

[justadub]

I said no, but only because there is no actual official pro tour. If there was ever a professional tour on which only card holding pro players who have earned the right to play in each event could play in then at that time I "do" feel that the events should be seeded.

But right now, with each person paying an equal amount to play in one off events that are not part of a tour and where noone has any actual real rankings that mean squat there is no way things should be seeded.

This is the correct answer. Any comparisons to golf and tennis aren't accurate, as those sports have active, thriving pro tours. And as such, you are ranking and rewarding pro's competing against other pro's.

In pool today, the majority of the entrants are not pro's, and the bulk of the entry fees for these tournaments are being provided by these people. To penalize them, on top of using their money for prizes that the pro's are very likely to win, is ludicrous. Without these people, YOU HAVE NO TOURNAMENT.

If you get a real pro pool tour going, then sure, seeding is appropriate for pro events.

EDIT..... After posting my reply to Celtic, I read the rest of the thread and see that Lyn, JAM and Lou all said the same thing....so instead of my thoughts, I should have just said "I agree!"

 

[vasilios]

Seed past champions of your tournament only up to four spots for a 64 field.everybody else suffers the draw.if your tourny grows to a 128 field you can allow four more spots to recognized champions from other selected events.
if you allow qualifiers for your event the winner of a qualifier gets seeded.


bill

 

[cardiac kid]

This is the correct answer. Any comparisons to golf and tennis aren't accurate, as those sports have active, thriving pro tours. And as such, you are ranking and rewarding pro's competing against other pro's.

In pool today, the majority of the entrants are not pro's, and the bulk of the entry fees for these tournaments are being provided by these people. To penalize them, on top of using their money for prizes that the pro's are very likely to win, is ludicrous. Without these people, YOU HAVE NO TOURNAMENT.

If you get a real pro pool tour going, then sure, seeding is appropriate for pro events.

EDIT..... After posting my reply to Celtic, I read the rest of the thread and see that Lyn, JAM and Lou all said the same thing....so instead of my thoughts, I should have just said "I agree!"

Don't stop posting your full thoughts whether you agree or disagree. YOU might have suggestions not brought up elsewhere. "I agree" is not enough! JMHO.

Lyn

 

[justadub]

Don't stop posting your full thoughts whether you agree or disagree. YOU might have suggestions not brought up elsewhere. "I agree" is not enough! JMHO.

Lyn

Thank you, Lyn. I'm sure by now most folks realize that I'm not too shy about sharing my thoughts here

I simply thought that my post looked very much the same as everything you folks had already said, and don't want to come off seeming as tho I just wanted to see my name saying the same thing. It just looked funny, to me.

Had i read the full thread before posting, I likely would have phrased my post differently. There...that's the right answer!

(Nice to be in agreement with you folks. Good company to be in.)

 

[Scott Lee]

Lyn...You ARE a national champion, so just retire on your well-earned laurels! "It's good to be the king!" :grin: (hope ya know I'm j/k!)

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Oh no Jen, I'm absolutely devastated! First Stu called me "dead money". Now I'm a "salamander". Bad enough Larry Hubbart told me I was a "shortstop". Oh the shame. Oh the guilt. Now what do I do :shocked:?

Really wish I could remember all the Mel Brooks dialog from "History of the World Part II". Would have finished my rant so well :sorry:.

Lyn

 

[david(tx)]

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

Don't forget that the prize pool should be funded corporately, not by the individual.As a you know , anyone with deep pockets could fund a Pro tour and dictate the ratings system and whether it was seeded or not

 

[cardiac kid]

Lyn...You ARE a national champion, so just retire on your well-earned laurels! "It's good to be the king!" :grin: (hope ya know I'm j/k!)

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Hi Scott,

I've been described by so many names over the years, it's hard to remember who called me what. Think Jenny may have hit the nail on the head. Kind of like being a "weekend warrior"! Sounds just about right.

Lyn

 

[JustPlay]

And if the only date you could attend that particular event was on the first day. With all the best players seeded, all you would get to see is Shane versus me and Efren versus someone like me. If you had driven two, three, four or five hours just to watch, I'd be pretty pissed.

One of the drawing points of the Turning Stone Classics is, a very high probability you would get to see Shane play Efren. On the first day! Seeding does nothing but support the players who have the necessary money to travel around the country to earn points. The top seeded players are not always the best players. As another poster put it, the best player is going to win anyway.

Again, JMHO.

Lyn

I'll second that.:smile: