US Open changes

uwate

uwate

daydreaming about pool
Silver Member
I just read the US Open changes Barry announced yesterday:

http://www.azbilliards.com/2000storya.php?storynum=9904

In a nutshell they announced they were discontinuing paying the entry of all past champions, the prize fund payouts were announced and the most interesting part to me was the announcement that the US Open was now going to be a seeded tournament.

This is great for the pros but obviously makes it hard for the shortstops. With 256 field this would seem to eliminate alot of the previous situations where there were sweet spots in the bracket that a shortstop could play well and advance to top 64/32 etc. On the flip side, for those top pros looking to make the trip to norfolk from far overseas, at least they know that they wont have to get stuck in a SVB/Orcullo/Souquet sandwich first two rounds.

I hope the tournament prospers and its full of players from overseas.
 
This might seem like a tough pill to swallow, but in reality, I think it's a step in the right direction.

If you think about it, many past champions didn't use the free entry and come play. Also, the money is not being taken out of the prize fund, but redistributed (no left wing/Obama jokes, please). That, along with seeding, more or less gives past champions the same result as the free entry.

Think about it- if you are a past champion that gets seeded, you have a potential of netting the same amount of money as if you got a free entry and didn't get seeded. While it might not work out down to the penny, in my mind, it shouldn't be a deal breaker for any past champs thinking about playing.


Eric
 
Last edited:
Sadly, this may take the Open off my list of "must go to tournaments". I don't like seeding and it's a big issue with me, personally.
 
My cursory review of other "US Open" events (like bowling, tennis...) indicate that they are seeded. From that, I suppose this one should be too...assuming the practice of seeding is proper in the first place. I don't have an opinion on the topic.
 
I would like to see the lists of who each org. thinks shound be seeded. WPA, BCA, and "cough" ABP. Johnnyt
 
They've always seeded the open. Usually, it was done behind closed doors by the TD, Barry, et al. Sometimes the semi-finalists from the prevoius year were given a bye the next year, except one time when a senior player requested that the senior players get a bye, even though there was only one senior event the entire year that qualified them.

If they're going to give European players a bye, I think they should change the name of the tournament to the International Open or something like that.

The third-place winnings was dropped from 10- to $8,000, so I guess all the payouts were lowered.

FWIW, some of the previous U.S. Open champions didn't come to play in years thereafter, i.e., Efren, Jimmy Reid, Reed Pierce, David Howard, et cetera. So this won't hurt anybody too much, I don't think.

It needed to be done. The only way the tournament can break even or hope to turn a profit is to cut expenses. I think it's a good move. :cool:
 
Total purse went from 178k to 200k so I don't think the expense reduction comment is valid

Clearly, there is a change in the distribution but there will be more money given to players than prior years


Seeding makes sense and I would much rather it be transparent than a "behind the scenes" deal
 
Pushout said:
Sadly, this may take the Open off my list of "must go to tournaments". I don't like seeding and it's a big issue with me, personally.
Click to expand...

Can someone explain to me what is bad/wrong with seeding?
Maybe I'm missing something

When I ran track, the heats were seeded.
My understanding of the reasoning behind this was seeding insured the fastest runners made it to the final.
Then in the final we found out who was fastest...
 
MoonshineMattK said:
Can someone explain to me what is bad/wrong with seeding?
Maybe I'm missing something

When I ran track, the heats were seeded.
My understanding of the reasoning behind this was seeding insured the fastest runners made it to the final.
Then in the final we found out who was fastest...
Click to expand...
Easy... Slow runners don't like it, fast runners do

That's why the pros want it and the shortstops don't.
 
joelpope said:
Easy... Slow runners don't like it, fast runners do

That's why the pros want it and the shortstops don't.
Click to expand...


I can understand why weak players don't like it.

I'm asking what is wrong with seeding?

Why a spectator would want lesser players to advance farther that they should is what I'm not understanding.
 
MoonshineMattK said:
I can understand why weak players don't like it.

I'm asking what is wrong with seeding?

Why a spectator would want lesser players to advance farther that they should is what I'm not understanding.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with it in my book

It is the standard in a lot of sports
 
JAM said:
They've always seeded the open. Usually, it was done behind closed doors by the TD, Barry, et al. Sometimes the semi-finalists from the prevoius year were given a bye the next year, except one time when a senior player requested that the senior players get a bye, even though there was only one senior event the entire year that qualified them.

If they're going to give European players a bye, I think they should change the name of the tournament to the International Open or something like that.

The third-place winnings was dropped from 10- to $8,000, so I guess all the payouts were lowered.

FWIW, some of the previous U.S. Open champions didn't come to play in years thereafter, i.e., Efren, Jimmy Reid, Reed Pierce, David Howard, et cetera. So this won't hurt anybody too much, I don't think.

It needed to be done. The only way the tournament can break even or hope to turn a profit is to cut expenses. I think it's a good move. :cool:[/QUOTE

Actually Barry's press release on the home page says that the prize fund was raised from $178,000 to $200,000 this year and that 65--96 place is going to be $1000 instead of $500

If it's always been seeded then how did Mike Dechaine play Shane Van Boening in the first round two years ago?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think it will probably be much harder to fill the field with the less talented players who ultimately pay the bills.
 
Pushout said:
Sadly, this may take the Open off my list of "must go to tournaments". I don't like seeding and it's a big issue with me, personally.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone should play in a tournament, unless they think they can win it. If seeding makes a difference to you, I guess you didn't think you had a chance to win the tournament in the first place. You will eventually have to play great players, seeded or not. I don't think many players sign up for the us open unless there goal is to win the us open.......So if seeding is an issue for you, maybe smaller tournaments with lesser players is your calling.....just sayin....
 
JAM said:
The only way the tournament can break even or hope to turn a profit is to cut expenses. I think it's a good move. :cool:
Click to expand...

I agree about not paying the entry fee for all past tournament winners and only paying for the defending champion is a good move. I'm not sure I like moving from the convention center, but I may change my mind after seeing the setup at the re-furbished Holiday Inn. I'll miss the convention center after going to every US Open since it's been held there and the Hampton Inn nearby that I stayed at every year!

James
 
Don't like the seeding idea. So I will cross this off my list, in playing it again.
 
I think it's absolutely fair. Anyone can earn the right to be seeded if they put enough time and effort into becoming a great player and it also makes for a better tournament. It would be more unfair for a B player to cruise through a whole bracket of similar players while a pro goes 2 and out because his draw was filled with champions. Seeding weeds these weaker players out and makes the results more predictable according to skill level. Most people who claim seeding to be unfair are undeserving of it in the first place.
 
Fair

branpureza said:
I think it's absolutely fair. Anyone can earn the right to be seeded if they put enough time and effort into becoming a great player and it also makes for a better tournament. It would be more unfair for a B player to cruise through a whole bracket of similar players while a pro goes 2 and out because his draw was filled with champions. Seeding weeds these weaker players out and makes the results more predictable according to skill level. Most people who claim seeding to be unfair are undeserving of it in the first place.
Click to expand...

How can making the results more predictable be fair? Sounds more like rigging the outcome in the seeded players favor.
 
Klink said:
How can making the results more predictable be fair? Sounds more like rigging the outcome in the seeded players favor.
Click to expand...

"Predictable according to skill level"

So you think it's more fair for a very weak player to go further in the most prestigious tournament in the world than a champion by sheer luck of the draw?

I thought the idea was to see who the best players in the world are.

By your logic it would be perfectly fine if the top half of the bracket contained 128 champions and the lower half 128 C players wherein the final match was between Shane Van Boening and an APA 5?

That would make a mockery of the tournament and the sport of pool itself.

This is why other professional sports tournaments are seeded as well. Think about it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top