I was watching the Seminole event last night, ten ball, winner breaks and you could only use the jump cue TWO TIIMES per match with winner rack, seemed like a nice compromise with old school and new, unlimited jumping with your shooting cue.
U.S. Open Update
- Thread starter jay helfert
- Start date
Jay
It might be old, but i am right.
Has Barry done a great deal for pool. Yes. No one is questioning that.
Does that fact mean anything when it comes to his word? NO.
I know he is your friend. You cannot escape defending him.
It's nice that you come on here and point out exactly what he has done for pool over the years, but that doesn't make his word any more honorable.
That is something that is beyond your control.
Seriously, if you want to do Barry a favor, just tell him to zip it.
It would save everyone the headache.
That way, everyone basically knows what's up, and they don't have any false promises floating around in their head along with the expectations that those false promises create.
Just next year, tell him make a simple announcement, these are the new rules, and the changes, thank you everyone for supporting us blah blah blah, and be done with it.
Keep it simple.
It only gets complicated because Barry makes it complicated.
I think they tried that with Steinbrenner/Yankees....didn't seem to work very well.
John,
I like your style! You have good points, you get them across in a intelligent, well thought out manner, and when dealing with a sensitive topic, you ask the tough questions, but in a respectful manner.
Makes for good reading, and if I was a NFL coach that had just hired Randy Moss, and a couple of weeks later fired him, and had to stand up in front of a roomful of reporters and answer questions, I would want them all to be of your type
Thank you. I realize these are sensitive issues, and I am not trying to attack Barry, but I feel like these issues should be examined.
In fact, one could take the name "Barry" out of the equation and examine the problem that way....
If a promoter is being forced to add a certain amount of money in order to make an event attractive enough for players to attend, but cannot recover that money during the event, then this is a problem.
Kudos to Barry (or any promoter) who has to go into his own pocket to make the payouts as promised. However, this is not a successful or viable business plan. A promoter should be able to make enough money to cover all required expenses and some extra for profit. Why else would anyone want to go through all that work and headache year after year?
In order to be successful, as a group, we need to examine the cause of these issues and work to fix the problem. Perhaps ticket prices need to be raised? Perhaps entry fees should be higher to create the required larger prize pools, rather than promoters feeling "forced" to add too much money. Perhaps the field should be limited to 128 players to shorten the duration/expenses of the event. Adding more players does not help the bottom line when $0 of their entry fee is kept. What I mean is, for example, poker tournaments charge the juice on top of the entry fee, so an event that has a $500 entry fee actually costs $550 to play in, and the house makes an extra $50 for every player signed up.
There has to be a model to make events profitable, or no one is going to want to produce them.
Basically, if the promoter of the longest running, most prestigious US Event cannot cover costs, how is anyone else ever going to be able to? If the money is not there, then the problem is bigger than Barry. Like I said, much respect to him for going into his own pocket if that's what he is doing, but he should not have to do that.
I do know that $50K added is a lot to cover (plus all the entry fees he pays for previous champions), and if he can't cover it, maybe "we" should all stop demanding so much added money. No one should be expected to be in business at a permanent operating loss year after year. Is that really the case here?
Suppose a man is dating a woman, who is perfect in most ways. Only problem is, she cheats on him once a year. He loves her, but won't marry her because of this. She loves him, and she knows he won't marry her because of this. After 4 years, she admits she has a problem and promises him she won't do it anymore. He believes her, and they get married.
3 years into their marriage, she sleeps with his best friend.
Is this OK because he should have expected it? Is it right or wrong?
No, Jay, it started at 2:11 AM east-coast time; I wrote the time down on a score sheet I was keeping. I also wrote down the time that the previous Accu-Stats match (between Mike Sigel and Roman Hybler) ended, and that was at 1:48 AM. So the Morris/Souquet match certainly did not start "just after 1." Anyway, I'm glad to hear of the plans for next year.
Thx John, now I have nothing more to say about Jay´s post :smile:
Only because something is wrong for 35 years, I don´t have to expect it for the next 35 years, too - or
Eric"h" ------- bring the added money down a little
I think he should sleep with her best friend, and they all should play pool afterwards. :grin:
Am I right or wrong?