Why Seed Tournaments?

[Scaramouche]

Seeding gives the top players easy early rounds, and gives the lesser lights almost no chance of progressing - or earning any money to cover their costs of particpating, or a chance of climbing the ratings.

A random draw would make early rounds more attractive to the audience because they might have a chance of seeing the top players clash on any day. Snooker tried this last season in one tournament.

Until last year snooker only changed the rankings once a year. It had a bizarre effect. There were pairs of players that rarely met over a number of years despite regularly competing in the same tournaments.

 

[The Renfro]

Seeding is done based on the rankings which can be viewed here: http://www.azbilliards.com/2000pointslist.php

The American pros vote on what events are to be events where ranking points can be earned. Certain criteria must be met by these events, such as having a minimum of $25,000 in added money (prize money over and above the entry fees). The pros travel to these events in order to acquire and maintain their rankings so that they are the ones invited to the international events.

Personally, in most instances, I agree with seeding these events. A random draw can find Mika Imonnen facing a bunch of 'B' players in his area of the chart while Johnny Archer might have to face Ralf Souquet and Rodney Morris in his first two matches. So seeding is a way to keep all of the top names on a more equal basis as regards earning their ranking points and that has a lot to do with how much income they can produce. And it allows the BCA to send the players overseas that are indeed the best performers and not just the ones who got lucky draws into easy brackets.

Jerry!!
I don't think you are allowed to use common sense in this discussion. Last time the topic came up we had a bunch of shortstops saying they paid the same as the seeded pros and should be given exactly the same chance the champions have. They wanted the random draw so they had a shot at a weak bracket so they could advance and make it into the money. Without that chance they said they wouldn't play... I did mention these were short stops?

 

[carter1984]

legitimate cases have been made both for an against seeding in tournaments. The lack of any real of statistics, and an established tour, are the biggest and best arguments against seeding in my opinion. Also, as much as folks like to compare pool and golf, I see a similarity here as well in that any number of players can rise up at a given tournament to win, to me, meaning that pro pool tournaments should go with a blind draw and not reward or penalize any players by seeding based on such loose arguments.

Relying on the American pros to vote on which events qualify as points events is a stop gap measure, not a long term solution to moving professional billiards forward, but I see its necessity as it relates to qualifying for international events.

Also, it should be stressed that a promoter has the right to try and put on the best event they can (as they are trying to make money) and if they feel the need to make sure the top drawing players (in terms of viewers) are guaranteed to make it through to the later rounds, then that is their prerogative as long as their is no real "governing body" of pro billiards to set sanctioning and tournament guidelines.

That being said, I recently discovered that a new format would be used in the upcoming Seminole Pro Tour event at Capone's in Florida that did not use a traditional method of seeding.

I am quite excited to see how their "modified" round robin event comes off. On the surface, it looks very exciting, giving all players a chance to compete and "make the cut" into the money rounds. It also promises some stellar match-ups through out the tournament, rather than hoping to have one in the late rounds and watching (or not watching as is the case in most tournaments) a bunch of players get smoked in the first few rounds.

It guarantees all the players who entered do not go "2 and out" as happens in so many pro events.

I don't know how it will turn out, but for all those interested in pro pool, I would suggest paying attention to how it goes as it might turn into a preferred format for future tournaments.

Here is a link to the format for the upcloming event -

http://www.seminoleprotour.com/rules

 

[Wolven]

In chess everyone has a rating and in all open tournaments the top players get easy pairings at first.
Some tournaments have accelerated parings.
So, if tournament has 100 entries, 1 plays 51 and in accelerated pairings 1 plays 26 if memory serves me correctly.

At any rate, seeding players makes sense.
Weak players shouldn't be allowed to progress by playing each other while top players take each other out.
Top guys are professionals that are trying to make a living and have earned the right to be there.
The lower end should be happy to just be there and occasionally provide an upset.

 

[Johnnyt]

We're taking about pool here, not other sports that players make big money. W/O the unseeded/ fillers/ dead money there wouldn't be half the money in tournaments that there is now. You want the thrill of playing a pro go to just about any action poolroom and you'll get your thrill/beating for $50-$100. No other expenses need to be shelled out. Johnnyt

 

[Wolven]

We're taking about pool here, not other sports that players make big money. W/O the unseeded/ fillers/ dead money there wouldn't be half the money in tournaments that there is now. You want the thrill of playing a pro go to just about any action poolroom and you'll get your thrill/beating for $50-$100. No other expenses need to be shelled out. Johnnyt

Trust me chess players don’t make much in open events.
The top players do get appearance fees sometimes.
It is a privilege to play top players not a right.
If there was a national/international rating system then you could have some of the prize money go to different rating categories.
Of course there could be some abuse of the system where people would dump rating in smaller events.

 

[Bigtruck]

Covering Pool tournament professionally and relying on excitement factor finishes for people watching, I would have to support seeding of major tournaments.

As eluded to in this thread, having a clear structured way of selecting the seeds is essential.

The last time I attended the Texas Open they seeded the top 8 picks from the players auction. I thought that was a good idea. It encouraged the "money people" to buy more than one horse.

Nothing worse than having a blow out finals if one or more legs are super soft.

Ray

 

[Fatboy]

Personally, in most instances, I agree with seeding these events. A random draw can find Mika Imonnen facing a bunch of 'B' players in his area of the chart while Johnny Archer might have to face Ralf Souquet and Rodney Morris in his first two matches. So seeding is a way to keep all of the top names on a more equal basis as regards earning their ranking points and that has a lot to do with how much income they can produce. And it allows the BCA to send the players overseas that are indeed the best performers and not just the ones who got lucky draws into easy brackets.

its absolutely necessary to seed,if you want all the big name guys at your tournament(not you Jerry I mean in general).

If they know they can go 2 and out because of a bad draw they wont risk their $$$ to come to play. I'm talking about top players here.


If its seeded they know they will win their first 2-3 matches(unless they totally dog it) and at least get their travel $$$ back they will most likely show up to play. Again top players.

and since top players are the backbone of tournaments not seeding is a very poor way to run a event.


I'm not a top player but I'll bet even $$$ that I know as much if not more about this topic than anyone who plays my speed-and thats way below anyone concerned about seeding. I just know the biz behind the players and what needed to make the players happy. someday i'll learn to play, LOL