US Open changes

DogsPlayingPool said:
I might be missing something here so correct me if I'm wrong. But if 32 players are seeded how does that affect your chances (as an unseeded player) of drawing one of these guys in the first round? Assume a full field and no byes so there are 128 first round matches. Regardless of where the top 32 guys are on the chart, since my name is in a blind draw I have 32 chances out of 128, or 25%, of catching one of these guys in the first round when the draw begins. Is this not correct? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to start an argument, but I do want to point out that this is not correct. Without seeding, some of the top 32 would almost certainly be playing each other, about 8 of them in 4 matches would be likely. In that case the other 224 guys would have 24 chances out of 124, or a 19.35% chance of catching one of those guys in the first round instead of 25%.
 
As a weaker player who is considering playing some day in the U.S. Open, I am against seeding. Also, as someone who appreciates a level playing field in all things in life, I am against seeding.

However, as a fan and someone who sincerely hopes that prize money and sponsorship will improve for pool in the future, I can see the merits of seeding.

I agree with those that say fair seeding is difficult given the current state of "pro" pool, but I think Jay Helfert addressed that pretty well when he said the top 16 or 20 are pretty easy to determine and it gets a little tougher after that. Even if there is a little favoritism behind the scenes, we're probably only talking about 8 slots here out of the 256 field, and even those would have to be borderline calls or they would certainly get called out by some of the players and fans.

Given that seeding has already been done in a more quiet fashion, I don't think it's the end of the world to be seeding 32 players out of (hopefully) a 256 player field. I think it's actually better to go ahead and announce it and make it public knowledge.
 
Eric. said:
I just wanted to cut out this from Jay's post. In my mind, this is really the bottom line.

With a 256 player field (there has been full fields the last couple of years), and the caliber of players that show up, there is still no easy road to the finish. If you are gonna make it deep in the tourney, you are gonna have to face a few big hitters no matter what. By Thursday, there are no matches where someone didn't have to beat some good players to still be in.


Eric >winning on Sat. nite is a whole nutha thing
Click to expand...



not sure but I don't think the field of 256 has ever been full at the open??

but I think there should be seeding but maybe only 32 players

then it's a matter of how these 32 may be chosen to be seeded

the weaker player will always complain of seeding but competition is always good for one's game overall. play the best and see your game improve

jmo
 
billy said:
not sure but I don't think the field of 256 has ever been full at the open??

but I think there should be seeding but maybe only 32 players

then it's a matter of how these 32 may be chosen to be seeded

the weaker player will always complain of seeding but competition is always good for one's game overall. play the best and see your game improve

jmo
Click to expand...

Billy, IIRC, the Open has had a full field in at least one or two years since I have been attending. I think there was actually a waiting list in one year. However, you are mostly correct. The full field doesn't happen too often.
 
2011 -251
2010 -256
2009 -236
2008 -237

Prior to 2010 it had been more than a decade for a full field........
 
2012

2011 -251
2010 -256
2009 -236
2008 -237

Prior to 2010 it had been more than a decade for a full field........


2012 - ??

We will watch and see what happens.

As several people have pointed out seeding has happened in the past. If they are going to seed it should be transparent with a published list of the rankings and seeds.
 
I agree that I would love the seeding to be transparent.... That may or may not be on the plate this year be we can all be hopeful!!!!
 
whitewolf said:
Not true.

When Mike won his 1st US Open, he got thrown into the losers bracket early and had to win 13 matches in a row to finally win. This was a US Open record btw. Bartram came very very close to ousting him - that was a very good match.
Click to expand...

I believe Mika did that to win his 2nd us open which was 2009.
 
I posted this in another thread -- seeded pool tournaments is nothing more, to be blunt, then a joke.

I don't think any pool event these days should be seeded. There is no tour. There is no proper way to seed the event. There is no history to base the seeding. Who is to say who should/should not be the higher seed? Based on what criteria? Someone's opinion/public opinion. We have seen online here - TAR matches - the public has the opinion of who is the favorite and the favorite gets trounced. Until you have a minimum of 8 sanctioned events a year, it is ludicrious to even fathom that an event should be seeded. Seeding it is the far extreme of fairness based on the pool world today. What is the US Open going to do if Wu decides to come and play this year? Not seed him but give Charlie Williams a bye?
 
Opps--Jay Helfert is human

jay helfert said:
...By the way, if it were up to me, I would probably do away with paying 65th thru 96th places and instead take that $32,000 and spread it out down the list...
Click to expand...

Actually the US Open paid back the $500 entry for 65th thru 96th. But I agree with the gist of the post. With 251 entrants they should have only paid back thru 64th with 49th - 64th getting $750 for the effort.
 
What I think Lou and some others are missing is that if the tournament is perfectly seeded the loser's bracket will be devoid of world beaters until late in the tournament when the seeded players begin to collide in the winner's brackets. This gives Lou and others a chance to play lesser players in the beginning rounds of the loser's bracket and a chance to cash without having to play a top seeded player in the early rounds of the loser's bracket. Seeding doesn't increase the number of top players in the tournament it just spreads them out.
 
Wags said:
Actually the US Open paid back the $500 entry for 65th thru 96th. But I agree with the gist of the post. With 251 entrants they should have only paid back thru 64th with 49th - 64th getting $750 for the effort.
Click to expand...

For 2012 (unlike 2011), 65th through 96th will be $1,000 each. That's probably what Jay was talking about.
 
watchez said:
I posted this in another thread -- seeded pool tournaments is nothing more, to be blunt, then a joke.

I don't think any pool event these days should be seeded. There is no tour. There is no proper way to seed the event. There is no history to base the seeding. Who is to say who should/should not be the higher seed? Based on what criteria? Someone's opinion/public opinion. We have seen online here - TAR matches - the public has the opinion of who is the favorite and the favorite gets trounced. Until you have a minimum of 8 sanctioned events a year, it is ludicrious to even fathom that an event should be seeded. Seeding it is the far extreme of fairness based on the pool world today. What is the US Open going to do if Wu decides to come and play this year? Not seed him but give Charlie Williams a bye?
Click to expand...

Amen to all of that!!!

Even if it is based on 12 sanctioned events its ludicrous..... Most pros can't afford to play in every tourney because, lets say, most Americans can't afford a trip to play in Asia, and the few that do can justify it because their sponsor is paying their way. But then there are guys that don't have a prayer to even win an event that will travel to every event, be thousands of dollars in debt, just to ensure that they finish in the top 10 or 20 in the final standings. Howard Vickery comes to mind..... He always finished in the top 10 or 12 in the PBT and Camel Tour days, AND HE WASN'T EVEN THE BEST PLAYER IN COLUMBUS HIS ENTIRE CAREER!!! For much of his career he was #4 in Columbus... Is that fair to a guy like Chris Bartram who only chooses to play in the DCC and US Open because after expenses travelling to most tourneys is a bad business decision? Or to a guy like Stevie Moore.... Lets say Stevie is top 8 or 10 playing in North American events but say due to expenses can't afford the trips to Asia or Europe. Lets say he ends up 40th in the final standings.... Is it fair to him when a player he can give the 7ball to that plays in every event finishes in the top 20??? Not in my world.
 
What's worse, IMHO, is that they are speaking about including the WPA and Euro ranking in the U.S -- I repeat U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship. I know for a fact that many Americans do not compete in Euro tournaments. How fair is this?

Somebody is now looking out for the European interests on a global level, to help them at an American tournament, and forgetting American interests.

Hey, WPA, what have you done for Americans lately? The European news is dominating the front pages of AzBilliards. Wouldn't it be nice if those responsible for the American media could exert an effort to provide American pool news?

Something is rotten in Denmark. :angry:
 
JAM - if there was something news worthy in pool in the US, then the media would talk about it. But there isn't, so they don't.

This ABP group again - I like Johnny Archer, I like Shawn Putnam - I don't know Charlie Williams but don't like what I hear -- they are putting the cart in front of the horse. They have good intentions but the model of the pool world today doesn't justify any seedings in any tournament. To demand this at tournaments is pure silliness. If you think otherwise, I would question what your real motives are. And for any tournament promoter to give in to this is worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top