US Open changes

[DogsPlayingPool]

The problem is that pool is not like other sports.

In pool, you send in your money and you're in -- that's the qualifier right there. Put another way, it means that pool and its meager prize funds are built on the backs of the amateur players. About the only thing going for these guys is the possibility of a fair draw before they inevitably hit one of the professional meat grinders. With seeding, that small but critical element of fairness is gone. The pros are almost guaranteed a "soft draw" while the amateurs are almost guaranteed a hard one. Seeding basically means the the pro's money (entry fee) is somehow better, or of more value, than the amateur's and worthy of special, preferred treatment.

And all of that is fine and well. Except, some guys are not going to play in a seeded tournament and I would be surprised if he fills out the field this year once word gets out that seeding is in effect.

Lou Figueroa

Lou, you might be right and I'm not disagreeing but for the sake of discussion how many amateurs have a chance of getting very far anyway? So as far as filling the field I think it is likely that the fact they are paying deeper will be the bigger news. Also, there is a school of thought that seeding doesn't necessarily make it unfair as much as it "balances" the draw. I guess the argument is that for a guy like me (dead money) it might be said that seeding gives me a more fair shot at getting the same relative draw as everyone else my speed, rather than me getting lucky and the friend I rode in with getting unlucky draw-wise.

Again, not arguing, just discussing. I guess I see some merit to both sides.

 

[Mark Griffin]

Us open changes

My thoughts-

If seeded, you can only recognize WPA and BCA. The ABP has no standards for their 'rankings'.

If BB 'sanctions' or 'recognzes' the ABP then there are reasons to be concerned. There is no reason to use or recognize the ABP until they post their criteria for their points. In 2 years, this has not been done.

If BB feels he has to seed, perhaps he should seed from the results of previous year. There are a lot of ssues in seeding - primarily so few events and intentional players.

Just a thought.

Mark Griffin

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

My thoughts-

If seeded, you can only recognize WPA and BCA. The ABP has no standards for their 'rankings'.

If BB 'sanctions' or 'recognzes' the ABP then there are reasons to be concerned. There is no reason to use or recognize the ABP until they post their criteria for their points. In 2 years, this has not been done.

If BB feels he has to seed, perhaps he should seed from the results of previous year. There are a lot of ssues in seeding - primarily so few events and intentional players.

Just a thought.

Mark Griffin

Good point, Mark. I note that besides the fact the ABP hasn't disclosed it's criteria, they don't even have posted rankings as of yet - their website lists that area as "under construction". In addition, the thread they started here a while back stated that in order to be included in ABP rankings an event would have to have ABP sanctioning. The only single event that I'm aware of that the ABP has mentioned sanctioning is the recently completed SBE. So their population of events with which to rank players is at present very limited to say the least.

So your question is a valid one - what kind of input should the ABP have when they don't have any rankings, and haven't disclosed any established quantifiable criteria for how those rankings would be determined. I mean it needs to be something a little more valid than JA and CW having a seat at the table saying " we want these guys kept away from those guys".

 

[mudball]

If BB feels he has to seed, perhaps he should seed from the results of previous year.

BINGO. This isn't rocket science. You have to start somewhere. This could also create a domino effect of seeding in the future for other TDs to follow, and from that a standard can be established. Anything less than seeding off of last years results is unacceptable in my opinion.

For those that say seeding will cause them to "scratch" this tournament off your list to attend/play in, what does that even mean? Have you said that out loud to yourself? Do you understand how that sounds? This is what that logic sounds like to me...

- "I don't want to watch the seeded US Open because there will even higher quality matches as the tournament progresses, with the potential of some interesting and dramatic upsets."

- "I don't want to play in the seeded US Open because I will have a greater chance of drawing a champion which would mean a) I sit in my chair and learn, gaining huge experience to carry over to wherever else I play in the future, b) I have a chance to play strong and upset a champion, coming one step closer to becoming a champion myself, c) have great stories to tell for the rest of my life."

I just don't get it.

Do I expect the entries to be hurt by seeding? Maybe, maybe not. But what seeding brings to the table the most I think is some sort of organization for the sport. The seeding model is used by just about every sport out there, and for good reason. Once pool can obtain a certain level of organization and professionalism then the doors of bigger sponsors are opened. This topic has been beat to death I know. But there has to be some sort of organization in place to help spectators (both old and new) understand that pool IS a sport.

I agree with seeding when it is done in a professional tournament. This however, is not a professional tournament

If this isn't a professional tournament then I don't know what is.

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou, you might be right and I'm not disagreeing but for the sake of discussion how many amateurs have a chance of getting very far anyway? So as far as filling the field I think it is likely that the fact they are paying deeper will be the bigger news. Also, there is a school of thought that seeding doesn't necessarily make it unfair as much as it "balances" the draw. I guess the argument is that for a guy like me (dead money) it might be said that seeding gives me a more fair shot at getting the same relative draw as everyone else my speed, rather than me getting lucky and the friend I rode in with getting unlucky draw-wise.

Again, not arguing, just discussing. I guess I see some merit to both sides.

As you may know, I jump into a lot of tournaments I really have no business jumping into. And in my personal experience the question has little to do with going deep (ferggit about actually winning the damn thing or even cashing). It is the playing -- hopefully on a level playing field -- against whatever opponent *the luck of the draw* provides. Not askin' for any favors, but I don't want any other player, or any group of players to get any either.

Every round won in a tournament is a an accomplishment, a victory in and of itself to be savored. I pay the same money to enter, practice, drive or fly, get a hotel room, and feed myself at a tournament as the pros. Perhaps more because my sponsor is not a big company, it is my wife

A seeded tournament is good for the pros. It is not good for the amateurs who turn out for those events, shows up and and is immediately handed a "Go Straight to Jail" card.

Lou Figueroa

 

[bfdlad]

I am mixed on seeding personally only looking at it asa player not a spectator. To if you are in the tourney youare eventually going to have to play some high level player so what does it matter unless you already know that you are not capable of winning and just want to get into the money.

I don't think that the seeding is going to do much damage to the sign ups. I know for a fact that there are a certain percentage of players who know they can't win the US Open. They enter the event with the hopes of getting to match up with Archer, Appleton, Mika etc. Just to say they did it and who knows Mika may be sick and you get some rolls and if you are a decent player you may be able to say that you knocked Mika out of the Open. These people may even sign up more because there is a larger change to draw a World Champion. Because the these people they may endup going 2 and out against another strong player who just wanted to enter the US Open like Big Tony.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

A seeded tournament is good for the pros. It is not good for the amateurs who turn out for those events, shows up and and is immediately handed a "Go Straight to Jail" card.

Lou Figueroa

I know you have a lot of experience in this and that's just one reason I respect your opinion. I guess I'm struggling with what is "fair" for the average amateur. Yes, a completely blind draw is "fair" in that it is simply dumb luck as to who gets it easy and who gets it tough. But I just wonder if the top x number of players are spaced out down the chart if that helps make the results of the draw more equitable for the average amateur. I mean with a blind draw you could still draw the winner from last year in round one and the runner-up in the 2nd while I might get to cruise through playing guys not quite my speed. Yeah it was fair in that it was a blind draw, but did that draw result in equity for both you and I? That I'm not so sure about.

EDIT: The above was not intended to suggest we play the same speed.:grin:

 

[mudball]

A seeded tournament is good for the pros. It is not good for the amateurs who turn out for those events, shows up and and is immediately handed a "Go Straight to Jail" card.

Lou Figueroa

"Go straight to jail" card sounds pretty extreme to me. If you aren't willing (and I'm not pointing this to you directly, Lou) to go up against last years champion in an event, what are you doing there? I'm not saying you even have to have the intent to win the entire thing (which is a whole other story, I would love to believe everyone has that kind of drive), but if you don't want to draw that kind of caliber player then really, what are you doing at the U-S O-P-E-N??

I don't think being seeded is doing anyone any favors. Seeding is something that has to be earned, and a ton of work obviously has went into reaching that level.

It feels like some people are trying to find a way for a "dead money" player to be able to shine at the US Open. The only way that should be able to happen, whether its pool or any other sport, is to work your way to the top. Would you have it any other way? If not, competing in sport probably isn't for you.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I don't think being seeded is doing anyone any favors. Seeding is something that has to be earned, and a ton of work obviously has went into reaching that level...

I agree with this. That's why the process has to be quantifiable and transparent. It is particularly important the criteria is known well in advance of the event. And that becomes one of the problems with seeding in pool. Most other sports have governing bodies or recognized tours that have well established criteria for ranking players. Pool does not have this.

 

[mudball]

I agree with this. That's why the process has to be quantifiable and transparent. It is particularly important the criteria is known well in advance of the event. And that becomes one of the problems with seeding in pool. Most other sports have governing bodies or recognized tours that have well established criteria for ranking players. Pool does not have this.

Agreed. And that is why I support someone taking the initiative and making something happen, rather than complaining from the back seat

 

[itsfroze]

If the Behrman's can do it this year, what was stopping them from adopting the changes in previous years?

This seems more like a con job. Like the Behrmans saying the prize money will be on display and then not following through with the advertisement.

The latest announcement is just talk. How can anyone verify if Barry will follow through when the time comes? Lots of salespeople promise the world but when the time comes to provide the proof they are full of excuses.

The Behrman tournament lacks true innovation all their latest ideas came from the ABP. If the Behrman's were serious about staying in business they should act like it, stop spreading rumors and just do their job.

Who are you Charlie Williams cause that's who you sound like LOL

 

[itsfroze]

As you may know, I jump into a lot of tournaments I really have no business jumping into. And in my personal experience the question has little to do with going deep (ferggit about actually winning the damn thing or even cashing). It is the playing -- hopefully on a level playing field -- against whatever opponent *the luck of the draw* provides. Not askin' for any favors, but I don't want any other player, or any group of players to get any either.

Every round won in a tournament is a an accomplishment, a victory in and of itself to be savored. I pay the same money to enter, practice, drive or fly, get a hotel room, and feed myself at a tournament as the pros. Perhaps more because my sponsor is not a big company, it is my wife

A seeded tournament is good for the pros. It is not good for the amateurs who turn out for those events, shows up and and is immediately handed a "Go Straight to Jail" card.

Lou Figueroa

You don't want any favors and you don't want anybody else to get any favors. Well then you should have no problem then because anyone who is seeded has earned that privilege it's not a favor so I guess everyone should be happy then.

 

[elvicash]

Seeding is good for the seeded and non seeded players. If you are not seeded you are guaranteed a limited number of seeded players in your bracket. I have seen tourney boards where a single bracket is loaded up and if you are in there with them then you are very much in for a tough event. If you are in a seeded bracket then there is limited number of top players per bracket. I think this is advantageous the weaker players and of course preferred by the seeded players as well.

I think that calcutta costs should be taken into account in bigger local tourneys. Seed the top 4 players in a tourney based on their cost in the calcutta. If you have a 64 player field then give each of them the middle spot in the 4 brackets of 16 players and also guarantee that those 4 top players do not get a bye if the field is not full. This would ensure they do not draw one of the other top play 3 players out of the gate and for a few rounds but you also guarantee those players have to play every round and I think you would find the buyers would spend more on the top players as well. Some do not like seeding I do not think it is a bad idea.

 

[Bob Jewett]

As someone who has played (briefly) in a US Open 9-B, I'm fine with seeding. The problem, of course, is getting a fair list to seed. The finishes from the previous year would be OK except for a few pretty good players who finished 33rd or worse: Chris Melling, Ralf Souquet, Raj Hundal, Donnie Mills, Mika Immonen, Mike Dechaine, Karl Boyes, Corey Deuel, etc. In fact if you look at the entire money list there is not much chance for the non-pros with or without seeding. http://www.azbilliards.com/thepros/2000showtourney2011.php?eventnum=494

 

[AtLarge]

Just look to golf... The US Open is open... All you have to do is play in regionals events to get into the final field

If you could show up with a check, the golf tournament would have thousands of players which is why they use the qualifiers

Joel -- for the U.S. Open in golf, you have to be a really good player to even be allowed to enter a local qualifier. Your handicap index must be 1.4 or below. So it's not fully "open" to anyone willing to pay the entry fee.

And if you perform horribly in the local qualifier, the USGA may reject your application to play in a qualifier in the future!

 

[AtLarge]

... Unless the system can bring in some form of external income you will always have an unsustainable system, which at best would generate a few profitable entrants at the expense of a lot of unprofitable ones.

Agree. If the 2012 US Open fills the field, the total amount of prize money will be $200,000. How much do you suppose those 256 players will have spent on entry fees, travel, hotels, food, etc.? Maybe twice as much as the prize money?

In aggregate, and from purely a financial standpoint, it's an enormous losing proposition for the field of 256. Sure, a few top pros do well, but not too many. The real financial winners at the US Open are the hotels, restaurants, some vendors, the paid help, and (some years, at least) the promoters.

Of course, those who go strictly for the entertainment (spectators and some players) are also winners, but not financially.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Joel -- for the U.S. Open in golf, you have to be a really good player to even be allowed to enter a local qualifier. Your handicap index must be 1.4 or below. So it's not fully "open" to anyone willing to pay the entry fee.

And if you perform horribly in the local qualifier, the USGA may reject your application to play in a qualifier in the future!

No question Barry's events is way more open than the USGA's. The USGA event only has a few spots that are even available through "open" qualifying for those few that qualify to qualify. Almost the entire field actually qualifies through other means, like being the top so many on the money list, world rankings, winning certain previous events etc. The field is really very exclusive company.

 

[justnum]

The Behrman's must submit their rule changes and policies concerning the pool event to the players in advance of the event.

Players shouldn't be subjected to last minute rule changes or compliance to omitted policies (like what happens if less than 256 players show up, or if prize funds go missing). Its great the Behrman's are confident in their event but it shows poor planning for contingency problems.

I can't believe the players have carried Barry for so long hoping he would get it together on his own. It is obvious Barry needs the BCA and the ABP to learn how to survive in the changing world. But let's see what the Behrman's do.

Will they continue their game of talk? Or set an example for other tournaments? Clearly the BCA and the ABP are telling Barry how to do his job.

 

[justnum]

Who are you Charlie Williams cause that's who you sound like LOL

I've met Charlie Williams. He is more soft spoken while being angry faced.

I would have been less shocked if you said Stevie Moore. That guy talks like he gets into (fist) fights a lot.

 

[rivercitysledge]

The Behrman's must submit their rule changes and policies concerning the pool event to the players in advance of the event.

Players shouldn't be subjected to last minute rule changes or compliance to omitted policies (like what happens if less than 256 players show up, or if prize funds go missing). Its great the Behrman's are confident in their event but it shows poor planning for contingency problems.

I can't believe the players have carried Barry for so long hoping he would get it together on his own. It is obvious Barry needs the BCA and the ABP to learn how to survive in the changing world. But let's see what the Behrman's do.

Will they continue their game of talk? Or set an example for other tournaments? Clearly the BCA and the ABP are telling Barry how to do his job.

this is not the case a few years back during announcements he says no foreigners from same country will play first 2 rounds...stack that deck