W.P.B.A.news....

tigerseye

tigerseye

Kenny Wilson
Silver Member
I noticed that the headlines read...Ouschan dominates tourney...
I have a slight problem with the wording here...Maybe i read the bracket wrong but i saw 1 young lady that she didn't dominate....It's AZ's very own Sarah Rousey...
How could she be so dominate without going undefeated?
 
tigerseye said:
I noticed that the headlines read...Ouschan dominates tourney...
I have a slight problem with the wording here...Maybe i read the bracket wrong but i saw 1 young lady that she didn't dominate....It's AZ's very own Sarah Rousey...
How could she be so dominate without going undefeated?
Click to expand...

Tiger,
Jasmine had a good final day; but there were at least 2 other players with only one loss. The short race final day; and the hokey single elimination final 16 are just a pathetic way to find a "champion."

Short race nine ball is not a competition; it is an exhibition (which of course I still like; but let's not attach too much importance to the winning and losing....it's a crapshoot).
 
While I agree with both of you that the current format may not be the best, I'm encouraged by the fact that Allison and Karen are no longer dominating every tournament. It's so nice to be able to watch different players in the TV matches! I can't say for sure if that's due to the format changes, or if the players are just stepping it up another notch. Either way, it's a great change of pace.

Congrats to Sarah for a great showing at this event!
 
lady9ball said:
While I agree with both of you that the current format may not be the best, I'm encouraged by the fact that Allison and Karen are no longer dominating every tournament. It's so nice to be able to watch different players in the TV matches! I can't say for sure if that's due to the format changes, or if the players are just stepping it up another notch. Either way, it's a great change of pace.

Congrats to Sarah for a great showing at this event!
Click to expand...

L9B,
I definitely think that the talent pool is much deeper than 5 or 10 years ago; but the wacky double/single elimination idea is eminently unfair (as is the "short race on Sundays" idea) to spectators who wish to see this as a competition.

If they raced to 2, there would definitely be a diversity of winners (we can only hope they fail to implement this particular suggestion).
 
Williebetmore said:
L9B,
I definitely think that the talent pool is much deeper than 5 or 10 years ago; but the wacky double/single elimination idea is eminently unfair (as is the "short race on Sundays" idea) to spectators who wish to see this as a competition.

If they raced to 2, there would definitely be a diversity of winners (we can only hope they fail to implement this particular suggestion).
Click to expand...

Haven't the Sunday matches been race to 7 for several years? I think they were originally shortened for TV purposes. Again, I agree... a longer race favors the better player, but I'm pretty sure it's been this way for awhile.

I also am not sure about the fairness of the SE portion of the tournament (which is a fairly recent change, IIRC). I would guess that the top players like it less than those who very often have to battle back from the one loss side. But maybe I'm stating the obvious...
 
I'm also glad to see new players on TV! I might actually watch the WPBA on TV now that there is some new blood out there. It definitely gets old watching the same people over and over.

As for the short races, I agree that race to 7 is laughable for the TV matches. The longer races do favor the better players, but if I'm not mistaken, both Allison and Karen got knocked out in the longer race. I definitely understand why its done, but I don't think its fair. They should keep it a race to 9 and let the TV networks edit it to make it fit in their time frame.
 
Williebetmore said:
the hokey single elimination final 16 are just a pathetic way to find a "champion."
Click to expand...


:grin-square: :grin-square: Agreed :grin-square: :grin-square:
 
If I am reading the brackets correctly Allison Fisher also only had one loss, but unfortunately for her it was in the round immediately before the final 16 so she gets no second chance.

From the results it is obvious this revised format is mixing up the final 16 a lot more than in the past. Overall I think this is good, as least for spectators who want to see something other than the same Fisher vs. Corr finals over and over again. However in watching the televised rounds of US Open from Norman this weekend it did seem that the quality of play in the final 16 was suffering a bit because of some less experience players making the final rounds.

I believe the WPBA is a player-run organization. Does anyone know if each individual player gets a vote in changing the rules/tournament structure, or just gets to vote for the board members who in turn make these decisions?
 
Last edited:
AuntyDan said:
If I am reading the brackets correctly Allison Fisher also only had one loss, but unfortunately for her it was in the round immediately before the final 16 so she gets no second chance.

From the results it is obvious this revised format is mixing up the final 16 a lot more than in the past. Overall I think this is good, as least for spectators who want to see something other than the same Fisher vs. Corr finals over and over again. However in watching the televised rounds of US Open from Norman this weekend it did seem that the quality of play in the final 16 was suffering a bit because of some less experience players making the final rounds.

I believe the WPBA is a player-run organization. Does anyone know if each individual player gets a vote in changing the rules/tournament structure, or just gets to vote for the board members who in turn make these decisions?
Click to expand...

You are not reading the brackets correctly. Both Allison and Karen made it to the final 8 and then lost. You probably meant to say Allison's one loss came right before the televised round.
 
wayne said:
You are not reading the brackets correctly. Both Allison and Karen made it to the final 8 and then lost. You probably meant to say Allison's one loss came right before the televised round.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right, I did read it wrong. However I think they may be televising the quarter-final rounds as well, they did for the US Open.

A single-elimination format is always harsh, but as it is the same for all the players it is reasonably fair I suppose.
 
Line Kjorsvik and Jeanette Lee was the only player's undefeated till the last day, but Line lost to Jeanette, and Jeanette to Jasmin.

With single-elimination you might end up with many players only losing one match, and not make it to the final.

I think it is a fair system, but I would also like the race to be increased to 9. Or make it as in Challenge of Champions, with 2 sets race to 5, and if a draw play one deciding rack. The best player normally win both sets, and there will be no need for a deciding rack.
 
tigerseye said:
It is a strange format....
I wonder what the ladies think of it?
Click to expand...


They voted for it; perhaps not all of them, but enough to get the current format.


PJ
 
AuntyDan said:
From the results it is obvious this revised format is mixing up the final 16 a lot more than in the past. Overall I think this is good, as least for spectators who want to see something other than the same Fisher vs. Corr finals over and over again.
Click to expand...

What revised format are you talking about? The brackets with the single elimination for the final 16?

The brackets with the single elimination isn't the only reason for all the mixing up. A lot has to do with the new ranking system since the WPBA seeds the top players. With Karen ranked #2 and Allison ranked #6, they ended up in the same bracket which pretty much guarantees they wouldn't be playing each other in the finals. As it turns out, one didn't knock the other out as both of them got knocked out in the round before they would have played each other.

I'm glad to see new faces at the end, but it isn't ALL because of how the brackets are laid out. The quality of play is getting stronger and the top players are beginning to get beat earlier in the tournament.
 
Johnnyt said:
Have double elm. and race to 11...**ck TV...no one watches it anyhow. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

Much as I agree with longer races in final rounds the evidence says otherwise regarding the TV coverage.

My understanding is the WPBA have to pay ESPN a lot to produce and televise each event. (IIRC about $50k per event.) They recoup this cost by selling the advertizing spots as well as selling in-event sponsorship. Whilst I have no idea how much the net is it is resonable to assume it is profitable or they would not still be doing it.
 
tigerseye said:
I noticed that the headlines read...Ouschan dominates tourney...
I have a slight problem with the wording here...Maybe i read the bracket wrong but i saw 1 young lady that she didn't dominate....It's AZ's very own Sarah Rousey...
How could she be so dominate without going undefeated?
Click to expand...

A WPBA event these days is really two tournaments in one. first, a qualifiction tournament to reach the single elimination last 16, and then, the real tournament.

In the real tournament, Jasmin beat Kelly Fisher, the #1 seed, 9-4 and then #3 seed Xiaoting Pan 9-7 to earn her TV spot, and then proceeded to win 7-1 over Vivian and 7-1 over Jeanette in the TV rounds. In the single elimination portion of the event, in which Jasmin played four strong opponents, she won her matches by a total of 32-13.

That is, indeed, domination. I'll bet you'd have to back a long time to find the last player to win a WPBA tournament and lose as few as 13 racks in her last four matches.
 
Last edited:
AuntyDan said:
Much as I agree with longer races in final rounds the evidence says otherwise regarding the TV coverage.

My understanding is the WPBA have to pay ESPN a lot to produce and televise each event. (IIRC about $50k per event.) They recoup this cost by selling the advertizing spots as well as selling in-event sponsorship. Whilst I have no idea how much the net is it is resonable to assume it is profitable or they would not still be doing it.
Click to expand...

When someone has to pay ESPN to put a show on they very rarely make a profit. They hope to get sponsors, but we all know how that goes in pool. Johnnyt
 
sjm said:
A WPBA event these days is really two tournaments in one. first, a qualifiction tournament to reach the single elimination last 16, and then, the real tournament.

In the real tournament, Jasmin beat #1 seed 9-4 and #3 seed Xiaoting Pan 9-7 to earn her TV spot, and then proceeded to win 7-1 over Vivian and 7-1 over Jeanette in the TV rounds. In the single elimination protion of the event, in which Jasmin played four strong opponents, she won her matches by a total of 32-13.

That is, indeed, domination. I'll bet you'd have to back a long time to find the last player to win a WPBA tournament and lose as few as 13 racks in her last four matches.
Click to expand...

I agree sjm, if she played like that every tournament she'd be just about unbeatable. Johnnyt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top