Some Things Need to Change

[Drake]

Looking at the WPC got me thinking about different formats. I really liked the round robin beginning and Alternate breaks but the Single Elimination 64 bracket sucks. We all have sat and watched some Medium level Pro beat Archer or Reyes with winner break format because Archer didn't make it out of his chair. So, What kind of format would reasonable to expect the best to rise to the top consistently?? Round Robin Tournaments are better but would take to long and with the money pool players make.....To many opportunites for players dumping. Any ideas?

The ring games are just the opposite. Fun for the audience with true gambling for the players. Anybody in that ring game can win if they get hot at the right time. That might be good for TV which in turn might produce money for the real tournaments. Maybe not. They are fun to watch.

 

[ajrack]

Types of tourneys

For the last 30 years the tourney formats were usually> Snooker or English pool ... single elimination "knock outs" / "comps"...
Three cushion ... round robin brackets ...
American pool ... double elimination ...
The best ? .... your choice ...

If you want to find out who is "simply the best"...
Round Robin > every player plays every player and the tourney will last a month! to do this in less than a month, you probably need to have qualifiers over some period of time and then have the playoffs using the qualifying players...
If you want to see some good play, watch some of your favorite players and a see a little action > double elimination
If you just want to watch some good lively action > ring games
"We all have sat and watched some Medium level Pro beat Archer or Reyes with winner break format because Archer didn't make it out of his chair."
>That medium level player could be the next "Archer"! ... they have to start somewhere AND to be a PRO, you must keep proving it! ... the top players just keep it coming...
Remember, We all want to watch the players we know.

 

[sjm]

We all have sat and watched some Medium level Pro beat Archer or Reyes with winner break format because Archer didn't make it out of his chair.

The case history says Archer does better, not worse, with winner breaks.
Coinsider the BCA Open, which switched to alternate break in 2002. With winner breaks, in 2000, Archer came third, and in 2001 he came first. With alternate break, he has failed to reach the TV rounds in three straight BCA Opens.

I think you're on to something, though. The format in the WPC knockout stage could be better.

Here's another possibility for the WPC:

In each of the sixteen groups, only the top two advances to the knockout stages of the WPC.

The thirty two who advance are seeded based on round robin performance into a double elimination event, and the final is true double elimination (loser's bracket winner must win twice).

Length of the event WPC is unaffected. Total matches played is the same. Now, the best players are slightly more vulerable to failing to get through round robin play, but it takes two losses to eliminate them once they advance.

 

[Joe T]

How about another Round Robin with 64 players, seeding according to records, put them in 8 groups of 8 again (56 matches rather than the 32 matches in the 64 single elimination) if they're playing on 8 tables that's 7 rounds in stead of 4. I think another judgement day would add more excitement
Then possibly do it again with 32 players with groups of 4 (3 rounds) or 8 (7RDs) and start the single elimination with 16 players and longer races. All the while keeping a overall match record to use for seeding in the final 16.

 

[Bob Jewett]

How about another Round Robin with 64 players, seeding according to records, put them in 8 groups of 8 again (56 matches rather than the 32 matches in the 64 single elimination) if they're playing on 8 tables that's 7 rounds in stead of 4. I think another judgement day would add more excitement
Then possibly do it again with 32 players with groups of 4 (3 rounds) or 8 (7RDs) and start the single elimination with 16 players and longer races. All the while keeping a overall match record to use for seeding in the final 16.

With 8 groups of 8 in round robins, there are 224 matches to finish those groups. Then you have to take some number from each group on to the next level.

Two-level round-robin has been standard for the US carom championships, and it is good to get a lot of play for all the players, and it is good for the fans who get to see a lot of play, but it is a lot more effort and time, and usually you end up with a lot of "who cares?" matches.

 

[Joe T]

224, 56 I was close Bob. Kinda felt I was having tunnel vision. I was thinking if I were in a group of 8 (in the WPC, wishful thinking). That I would have to play 7 matches and didn't stop to think about everyone else in the group sharing the same table.
Thanks for the correction, just don't make a habit it out if it okay, escpecially with those balls! JK
Joe T