Should there be 'seeded' draws?

[grindz]

After seeing four of the top 10 (arguably) players in the world be placed into combat in the second round of a 128 man field at T.S. this week, I just didn't get it. Why wouldn't a promoter want to have a 'seeded' draw?
The better players get a larger chance of making it further, making a living,
putting on a show for the fans, etc.

It seems the 'pros' deserve at least that much respect, and that much of a leg up in return for showing up, promoting the game, and being a positive influence in the game. If they have problems with sportsmanship, or other derogatory disciplinary things going on, then they wouldn't have the benefit of the seeding in the next, or next few.

There just seems to be so many reasons for it IMO.

Why not?

Can it be done in the next one?

td

 

[spktur]

Seeding would make for a better show for the spectator and will eventually have to happen. No one wants to watch Shane or Johnny batter and bruise some local guy who entered by way of a qualifier. The problem with seeding is that it means the select few will make all the money as the prize system is now. I would say if you seeded the tournaments that the same group of twenty or so players would dominate the final eight places consistently. This would make for a great show but without some structure for the lesser players to earn a living it will only take time till you won't have any new young great players coming up. It will take a good structured organization to put something like this together to work and there has never really been a good structured men's organization in pool.

 

[gunzby]

I think it would be a good idea for a different type of tournament. They could have a round robin first stage which would be the seeding stage of the tournament. Once that was over the seeding and tournament would begin.

 

[Celtic]

Much like Tennis this sport would need seeding in order to create the matchups the general public would want to see and hopefully help the cream rise to the top a little more in a sport that already very poorly shows who the best player truly is.

That said in an individual event it is a hard thing to do. Seeding should be objective and based on ranking points on a legitimate professional tour. So if a tour ever arises that has an ample number of events and rankings? Then yes seeding into the events is a smart idea. Until then, no.

I personally find it very interesting to see how people rise and fall on the world tennis stage, it is one of the actual interest points for me and part of the reason I keep an eye on the sport and watch it on occasion.

 

[rhncue]

I, myself, don't like seeding and have never entered any tournament where that policy is in place. It's tough enough randomly having to run up against pros and winning so as to get a chance of getting into the money but when the odds are stacked against you also as they are almost being guaranteed not to be bumped off it's just to much of a gamble. Why should players having so little chance to start with be much more handicapped so that spectators can enjoy themselves more. If the spectators wish for this scenario maybe it would be much more fair for the spectators having to pay the entrance fees for all of the players. Just my .02 cents worth.

Dick

 

[grindz]

Seeding would make for a better show for the spectator and will eventually have to happen. No one wants to watch Shane or Johnny batter and bruise some local guy who entered by way of a qualifier. The problem with seeding is that it means the select few will make all the money as the prize system is now. I would say if you seeded the tournaments that the same group of twenty or so players would dominate the final eight places consistently. This would make for a great show but without some structure for the lesser players to earn a living it will only take time till you won't have any new young great players coming up. It will take a good structured organization to put something like this together to work and there has never really been a good structured men's organization in pool.

I don't mind watching a top pro play an unknown or local player. I think many that may fit into those categories may Want to play the top pro, as opposed to slugging it out with another local. Also, local talent has the edge of playing in familiar territory and from home... Don't the pros deserve to have a compensating 'edge' and to maybe even have the better of it, and the lions share of the prize money if they get there??

If the top pros don't get to the $, then there is less incentive to 'bring up' the 'farm team' as they know they won't, or can't make a living that way.
JMO but I feel that the top tier should have the best chance as a reward for them and as the 'carrot' for the others to chase.

I hope it can and will happen for the betterment of the game.

td

 

[grindz]

Much like Tennis this sport would need seeding in order to create the matchups the general public would want to see and hopefully help the cream rise to the top a little more in a sport that already very poorly shows who the best player truly is.

That said in an individual event it is a hard thing to do. Seeding should be objective and based on ranking points on a legitimate professional tour. So if a tour ever arises that has an ample number of events and rankings? Then yes seeding into the events is a smart idea. Until then, no.

I personally find it very interesting to see how people rise and fall on the world tennis stage, it is one of the actual interest points for me and part of the reason I keep an eye on the sport and watch it on occasion.

I was thinking of tennis exactly. It seems like the system is already somewhat in place, and that's how Oscar D. and others got onto the Mosconi Cup teams. I just don't know why it's not used more.

I'm also with you on the watching part.... just like many other tours, when there is a grand prize based on reaching the top points for the year it can be fun to see a 'points race'... or something similar.

td

 

[DunnM1]

Only My Thoughts

I'm totally against seeding any pool tournament. But, I'm also against some tournament directors playing around with the draw to make the better players play each other to give someone else a chance. What I'm for is the luck of the draw.

 

[grindz]

I, myself, don't like seeding and have never entered any tournament where that policy is in place. It's tough enough randomly having to run up against pros and winning so as to get a chance of getting into the money but when the odds are stacked against you also as they are almost being guaranteed not to be bumped off it's just to much of a gamble. Why should players having so little chance to start with be much more handicapped so that spectators can enjoy themselves more. If the spectators wish for this scenario maybe it would be much more fair for the spectators having to pay the entrance fees for all of the players. Just my .02 cents worth.

Dick

I agree that for the actual players competing it may be tougher. I was more thinking about the top pros, the game in general, and for the fans. But also, there could be a 'bounty' placed on the top players... maybe free entry for the next tourney, or something of value for the guys that knock off a top tier pro. Lots of solutions for that up to and including reduced entry for a true non-pro local player.

There's also less incentive for anyone to actually chase the pro career if it is NOT favored or seeded. If the top guys can't make a living then who really wants to be one?? JMO

td

 

[Celtic]

Why should players having so little chance to start with be much more handicapped so that spectators can enjoy themselves more. If the spectators wish for this scenario maybe it would be much more fair for the spectators having to pay the entrance fees for all of the players. Just my .02 cents worth.

It would only work on a tour, not some random one off event. AKA the US Open as it currently exists cannot do seeding, it would be bogus crap if they did.

On a tour though where you play in multiple events through the year and there is a ranking system based on the outcome in those events? Then it makes sense and is more fair. On a truly proper tour the players would need to qualify for the tour like the qualification for the PGA and when you earn your tour card there are no entry fees, so that problem is moot. So is the problem of the hard done by amature because they are probably not earning their card for the tour in the first place. At the point where you are good enough to earn your tour card even though you might be ranked and seeded low you are still a threat to beat anyone, just like Federer is a strong favorite in early matches but he is not assured victory. And the new players on the tour? They climb the charts, win some matches, move up the ranking list and start to get a little better looking draws.

At the end of the day though the epic battles in the finals of tournaments, Efren vs Strickland, Immonen vs SVB, Varner vs Sigel, those are the matches that go down in history and those are the matches this sport needs in the finals of the events once people start watching to keep the interest and spur new viewers into becomming fans of the sport.

 

[danquixote]

I can see both sides of this....but I think I favor the non seeded format. I think I'm like a lot of spectators. I enjoy the artistry and the talent that comprises a pro match, but I'm a NASCAR type of spectator.....I wanna see the crashes.....watching a local unknown unseat a top pro is a favorite aspect of tourney viewing....IMHO

 

[Celtic]

watching a local unknown unseat a top pro is a favorite aspect of tourney viewing....IMHO

So, I am confused. How does this support the non-seeded format? In a seeded format the chance of the top pro vs the local unknown is vastly more likely to occur.

 

[danquixote]

Perhaps I misunderstand what occurs with seeding.....so let me rephrase....whichever format affords the lesser ability player the opportunity to test his mettle against the pros most frequently.....I favor.

 

[cardiac kid]

Guys,

I'm dead set against seeding. For some of the reasons already articulated on this thread. If the Turning Stone did institute seeding, which Tour would those seeded players come from? Doesn't seem to be one right now. Promoters option? Well thats fair!

From the spectators view, is it fun to watch Archer destroy one weaker opponent after the other just so three days later we can watch him play Efren in the finals? How does that help spectator attendence? By allowing Archer to play SVB on the first day, more spectators may be drawn to the event for the whole event. Not just the final day.

Several years ago, one of the locals beat Johnny first round. The local then went next two and out. Johnny still won the TS event for the second (or third) consecutive time. Just took him more rounds. The cream always rises to the top!

Lyn

 

[pocketspeed]

After seeing four of the top 10 (arguably) players in the world be placed into combat in the second round of a 128 man field at T.S. this week, I just didn't get it. Why wouldn't a promoter want to have a 'seeded' draw?
The better players get a larger chance of making it further, making a living,
putting on a show for the fans, etc.

It seems the 'pros' deserve at least that much respect, and that much of a leg up in return for showing up, promoting the game, and being a positive influence in the game. If they have problems with sportsmanship, or other derogatory disciplinary things going on, then they wouldn't have the benefit of the seeding in the next, or next few.

There just seems to be so many reasons for it IMO.

Why not?

Can it be done in the next one?

td

so ur saying u want the tourny seeded so the top players dont complete against each other in the early rounds?

brian

 

[JustPlay]

Guys,

I'm dead set against seeding. For some of the reasons already articulated on this thread. If the Turning Stone did institute seeding, which Tour would those seeded players come from? Doesn't seem to be one right now. Promoters option? Well thats fair!"...................................
.................................."

Several years ago, one of the locals beat Johnny first round. The local then went next two and out. Johnny still won the TS event for the second (or third) consecutive time. Just took him more rounds. The cream always rises to the top!

Lyn

This is exactly why seeding is NOT needed! :wink:

Can anyone give the name a tournament filled with top pool players from around the country where a "local luck box" with no talent won the event???

 

[Celtic]

Guys,

I'm dead set against seeding. For some of the reasons already articulated on this thread. If the Turning Stone did institute seeding, which Tour would those seeded players come from? Doesn't seem to be one right now. Promoters option? Well thats fair!

This was covered, of course you are not going to seed non-tour tournaments. This is a hypothetical discussion over seeding in events on a legitimate tour based on the rankings of that tour itself.

From the spectators view, is it fun to watch Archer destroy one weaker opponent after the other just so three days later we can watch him play Efren in the finals? How does that help spectator attendence? By allowing Archer to play SVB on the first day, more spectators may be drawn to the event for the whole event. Not just the final day.

It seems to work for tennis. Seeds often get through to the end, but upsets can and do take place and the final 16 in virtually any tournament are not the top 16 seeds.

Several years ago, one of the locals beat Johnny first round. The local then went next two and out. Johnny still won the TS event for the second (or third) consecutive time. Just took him more rounds. The cream always rises to the top!

And Mika just lost in 3 total rounds out of the Turning Stone Classic due to a early loss to Hohmann and a b-side loss to Crevier. Which I am ok with in a tournament like TSC, but if a tour ever existed then the players like Hohmann and Immonen should not be playing in the second round of the A-side.

 

[grindz]

so ur saying u want the tourny seeded so the top players dont complete against each other in the early rounds?

brian

In a word, yes.

I just think that it is a shame to have top pros, most of whom can't barely make a living at the game with the structure as it is, knock each other out in the first couple of rounds. IMO it should be like the tennis structure so that the best players, if they win the early rounds, meet up with progressively stronger competition as they go along. That way 'seeded' players won't play each other until the 4th round or later in a field of 128 or so. It's not like local talent is a total walkover. We all know there are super strong players from off the tour all over the country.

I guess my main bias is that the pros SHOULD be in the money with this kind of format if they're playing well. It feeds them and their families, it gives a reason for them to play in the supporting events, to maintain high standards of conduct, allows for earned entry from qualifiers, and overall gives a better reason for the best to be out competing and promoting the sport. If that happens, maybe some beer or cola, etc. sponsors will sign on and take us back to a higher level of recognition in sports.

Any other views are great.... I just saw Mika playing Thorsten, and Johnny playing Shane in the second round and thought to myself... what a waste. From a promoters view I would think it's best to have the "best" represented well throughout the entire tourney. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

td

 

[cardiac kid]

I guess my main bias is that the pros SHOULD be in the money

Grindz,

I understand your point of view. However, what is my incentive to play in the event? If only the "pro's" are in the money, why should I attend the event and throw away my entry fee ($200), at least two nights in a hotel and travelling expences? There has to be some kind of incentive for ME to play. Honestly, without me (and other players like me) there would be no tournament! You'd have ten or fifteen top pro's standing around with nothing to do. Mike Zuglan has been running his tour for over ten years. This format works for him. The great Oneida Nation who underwrite the costs of putting the event on and adding money to the event seem to agree!

Lyn

 

[cardiac kid]

And Mika just lost in 3 total rounds out of the Turning Stone Classic due to a early loss to Hohmann and a b-side loss to Crevier. Which I am ok with in a tournament like TSC, but if a tour ever existed then the players like Hohmann and Immonen should not be playing in the second round of the A-side.

Lets just dream one moment. We play in a Nationwide Tour. I have the finances to play every event. You are a much better player but, without sponsorship, can only play in half the events. At the end of the year, I wind up in the top sixteen on the points list. You finish seventeenth. We go to the Turning Stone. I get seeded because I'm in the top sixteen. You, the better player, do not. What have you achieved? Proved I had more money!

Seven or eight years ago, during the time just before the UPA began, this situation did happen. I played in seventeen Joss Tour events and wound up in the top sixteen in points. As the only "Pro" Tour at the time, Joss players were invited to play in Vegas at the BCA Invitaional in May. I declined. There were more deserving players out there. It could happen again.

Incidentally, I played Francis Crevier in Vegas this past year. I was very fortunate to win the short race to seven nine ball. He is a very good player. From Quebec City if I remember correctly. Not suprised he beat Mika. Watch out for him. He's young and getting better.

Lyn