Would seeding players help pro pool?
- Thread starter jburkm002
- Start date
Kind of hard to seed players since there is no pro tour.
You could go by the money list, but so many people make money
that isn't known to everyone.
For myself, I like seeing the big guns shoot each other early, that way
it gives a no name local player a chance to get a better finish.
I love the luck of the draw....:thumbup:
You could go by the money list, but so many people make money
that isn't known to everyone.
For myself, I like seeing the big guns shoot each other early, that way
it gives a no name local player a chance to get a better finish.
I love the luck of the draw....:thumbup:
True but you also have players that play in many tournaments and reply on sponsors to play in those tournaments. Then you have someone that says hey I think I will play Turning Stone this year and gets on the tv table. One is paying their dues to the game and the other needs to pay their dues.Not saying that's what happened. It's more about having two no names playing one another and viewer numbers. Opposed to two top players that could help better promote the future of the sport. Maybe some people just love watching pool no matter who is playing. Some like seeing matches between 2 well known players.
He's paying his dues by donateing dead money to the pot ,, I would almost bet if the turney was seeded you might get more dead money players
1
THE US OPEN SHOULD BE SEEDED, just like the US OPEN in tennis.
Of course seeding would be a positive thing to do, that's why tournaments are seeded in tennis, to make it challenging for every participant. And it assures that the true cream will rise to the top. Then the younger players see what the #1 - #5 players are doing, and the attention they are receiving, they strive to get if for themselves (that was a motivating factor for me for sure). Money is not a top motivator, I studied this in the bar business and found out it was not even in the top three.
People that don't know, jump to the conclusion that professional pool players are only motivated by money - I know many players and this is simply untrue. READ BELOW:
CLICK PICTURE FOR SOURCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's Not About Money
Daniel Pink, in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, writes about how autonomy, mastery and purpose drive our motivation. Job seekers can use this understanding in conducting their job search.
Autonomy is the urge to direct our own lives
Mastery is the drive to get better and better at something that matters
Purpose for job seekers is ultimately getting re-employed
During your job search, seek to fulfill these intrinsic motivators rather than the extrinsic motivator, money.
What Can We Take from This?
As a job seeker, reflect on your motivators. Ask yourself these questions:
What is the community I want to be part of?
What do I want to be able to accomplish in a job?
Will I have a purpose in what I am accomplishing?
Money is a consideration, but it can't be the ultimate decision-maker in choosing what job, company and/or community to join. It goes much deeper than that.
Of course seeding would be a positive thing to do, that's why tournaments are seeded in tennis, to make it challenging for every participant. And it assures that the true cream will rise to the top. Then the younger players see what the #1 - #5 players are doing, and the attention they are receiving, they strive to get if for themselves (that was a motivating factor for me for sure). Money is not a top motivator, I studied this in the bar business and found out it was not even in the top three.
People that don't know, jump to the conclusion that professional pool players are only motivated by money - I know many players and this is simply untrue. READ BELOW:
CLICK PICTURE FOR SOURCE -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's Not About Money
Daniel Pink, in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, writes about how autonomy, mastery and purpose drive our motivation. Job seekers can use this understanding in conducting their job search.
Autonomy is the urge to direct our own lives
Mastery is the drive to get better and better at something that matters
Purpose for job seekers is ultimately getting re-employed
During your job search, seek to fulfill these intrinsic motivators rather than the extrinsic motivator, money.
What Can We Take from This?
As a job seeker, reflect on your motivators. Ask yourself these questions:
What is the community I want to be part of?
What do I want to be able to accomplish in a job?
Will I have a purpose in what I am accomplishing?
Money is a consideration, but it can't be the ultimate decision-maker in choosing what job, company and/or community to join. It goes much deeper than that.
Seeding
You make good points. On the other hand, seeding a previous champion into the finals (as was done in that 8-ball thing a decade ago) is ridiculous IMO. Playing one match, losing, and collecting a huge check?
If you want to see just the top players, have more invitational events, such as the Tournament of Champions...only do not limit it to four players and call it a "World" tournament as ESPN did on their website.
Have a committee put together a list of say the world's top fifty players, and accept the first 16 (or 32) that sign up to play. That's how you get the strongest field, the most viewers and the best sponsors.
Of course seeding would be a positive thing to do, that's why tournaments are seeded in tennis, to make it challenging for every participant. And it assures that the true cream will rise to the top. Then the younger players see what the #1 - #5 players are doing, and the attention they are receiving, they strive to get if for themselves (that was a motivating factor for me for sure). Money is not a top motivator, I studied this in the bar business and found out it was not even in the top three.
People that don't know, jump to the conclusion that professional pool players are only motivated by money - I know many players and this is simply untrue. READ BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's Not About Money
Daniel Pink, in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, writes about how autonomy, mastery and purpose drive our motivation. Job seekers can use this understanding in conducting their job search.
Autonomy is the urge to direct our own lives
Mastery is the drive to get better and better at something that matters
Purpose for job seekers is ultimately getting re-employed
During your job search, seek to fulfill these intrinsic motivators rather than the extrinsic motivator, money.
What Can We Take from This?
As a job seeker, reflect on your motivators. Ask yourself these questions:
What is the community I want to be part of?
What do I want to be able to accomplish in a job?
Will I have a purpose in what I am accomplishing?
Money is a consideration, but it can't be the ultimate decision-maker in choosing what job, company and/or community to join. It goes much deeper than that.
You make good points. On the other hand, seeding a previous champion into the finals (as was done in that 8-ball thing a decade ago) is ridiculous IMO. Playing one match, losing, and collecting a huge check?
If you want to see just the top players, have more invitational events, such as the Tournament of Champions...only do not limit it to four players and call it a "World" tournament as ESPN did on their website.
Have a committee put together a list of say the world's top fifty players, and accept the first 16 (or 32) that sign up to play. That's how you get the strongest field, the most viewers and the best sponsors.
Second question first: I suspect the priorities for TV-table matches are:
1) who? (we want players who will draw the most viewers and make viewers feel like they got their moneysworth),
2) when? We've got a 2:00pm slot but the only players ready to play are no-names (or, a no-name vs. a contender). Two contenders will match up soon but won't be ready to play until 2:45pm. Unfortunately the TD can't hold up the schedule -- to get the best matches on the TV-table -- without running the tournament into massive overtime (remember, you guaranteed the hotel that you'd completely vacate the space at noon on Monday because the Housewares Show starts setting up at 2:00pm Monday!).
The best solution (although costly) is to have two TV-table set-ups. That way you can air the match that's ready-to-go, but switch to the contenders when they're ready to start (assuming they can finish before your next scheduled TV match). (Insert argument for a Shot Clock
)
Seeding players is such a 50/50, good/bad idea that there's really no answer. Do we really want to have another thing for players to argue about?
1) who? (we want players who will draw the most viewers and make viewers feel like they got their moneysworth),
2) when? We've got a 2:00pm slot but the only players ready to play are no-names (or, a no-name vs. a contender). Two contenders will match up soon but won't be ready to play until 2:45pm. Unfortunately the TD can't hold up the schedule -- to get the best matches on the TV-table -- without running the tournament into massive overtime (remember, you guaranteed the hotel that you'd completely vacate the space at noon on Monday because the Housewares Show starts setting up at 2:00pm Monday!).
The best solution (although costly) is to have two TV-table set-ups. That way you can air the match that's ready-to-go, but switch to the contenders when they're ready to start (assuming they can finish before your next scheduled TV match). (Insert argument for a Shot Clock
)Seeding players is such a 50/50, good/bad idea that there's really no answer. Do we really want to have another thing for players to argue about?
I'm not for seeding anything...seeding is handicapping. If you are playing in a handicapped tournament, there is no need for seeding. If you are playing in a pro tournament, then there should be NO sort of handicapping.
I say "let the BEST player win!" It may not be the "best" player in the world that wins, it may be the best player for that particular tournament...maybe even a big UNDERDOG. As long as the UNDERDOG won without any sort of handicap, he is the CHAMPION as far as I'm concerned.
I come from the old-school "throw your money in the hat" and let's see who comes out in the end era.
Aloha.
I say "let the BEST player win!" It may not be the "best" player in the world that wins, it may be the best player for that particular tournament...maybe even a big UNDERDOG. As long as the UNDERDOG won without any sort of handicap, he is the CHAMPION as far as I'm concerned.
I come from the old-school "throw your money in the hat" and let's see who comes out in the end era.
Aloha.
Seeding is a good idea as it gives top pros more of an incentive to show and often produces a more exciting finals in many tournaments. TV is usually reserved for the finals or semi finals in pool and it would keep the top players for those spots a lot of the time. And when an underdog is there it is the talk of the town, so to speak, so it is a win win either way.
But how to seed fairly with no real pro tour standings would be the tough part. We really need a pro tour with TV coverage. If only I was filthy rich, I would produce one. I really am surprised some of the wealthy pool fanatics have not created a solid pro tour.
But how to seed fairly with no real pro tour standings would be the tough part. We really need a pro tour with TV coverage. If only I was filthy rich, I would produce one. I really am surprised some of the wealthy pool fanatics have not created a solid pro tour.
If you have an established tour then yes seeding will help but I highly doubt pool will ever have that. In tennis the top guys will play every major as long as they are healthy and I doubt they miss very many masters events unless it's not on one of their preferred surfaces.
Start with a list of 100 players... Then have the those 100 vots and have industry members and media vote on a different poll.. Average the 2 pools and there is your list... Kind of like the way College footbal has the sportswriters and coaches polls... Yes we know some people will vote for their favorites but with enough ballots and 2 polls we at least have a basis for a top 100...
This actually helps in several ways especially marketting a tournament as having the top x players this weekend.... And sorry but luck of the draw is just crap and is one of the reasons that seeding needs to come into play....
Streamers, promotors, sponsors and the gate will all benefit from seeded play.. It will also function as tennis does to provide a ladder for moving up the list..... now who thinks they can come up with a valid list of 100?
Chris
This actually helps in several ways especially marketting a tournament as having the top x players this weekend.... And sorry but luck of the draw is just crap and is one of the reasons that seeding needs to come into play....
Streamers, promotors, sponsors and the gate will all benefit from seeded play.. It will also function as tennis does to provide a ladder for moving up the list..... now who thinks they can come up with a valid list of 100?
Chris
Not sure what the pros think about seeding. Let's say their opinion doesn't matter. Let's say it all about viewer ratings. What format would bring in the most viewers and make the game marketable. I for one did not like watching MIKA rack for two matches. I know it's been argued before and he should have lagged better. Don't know many sports in which the opponent can lose without ever playing. Yes MIKA did shoot and could have ran racks or played better kicks. Not a Mika fan. Just like alternate break especially in short races.
Seeding makes sense for an established tour where the players are members and there is a reasonable way to determine those seedings (or rankings if you will) that is fair and transparent (i.e. the criteria is pre-set public knowledge).
CJ, I know you like golf analogies. The world rankings in golf is obviously a somewhat complicated formula, and the formula has been tuned and massaged from when it was first established. But it's now widely accepted and at least everyone knows what that formula is at all times. You watch a golf telecast and the commentators can tell you where the players will end up in the rankings based on how they finish in that event and, for example, whether that finish will rank them high enough to get into say the Masters or some such event that is either invitational or has a qualification process. It isn't a backroom arrangement worked out at each event. Of course there's a big difference with golf rankings. They aren't so much to seed players into tournament brackets because only relatively few events are held at match play. Rather they are used more for players to get exempt into those events that would otherwise require playing your way in through qualifying. I don't believe the rankings have any impact on actual PGA tour events since it's an all exempt tour.
Unfortunately there isn't an established pro tour. Issues with seedings begin to creep up when the event is open to amateurs - which is what many events are. With so much of the purse being provided by the dead money entrants it seems a little unfair to spread the pros all over the chart so they can avoid each other and knock out all the amateurs in the first round like a killing field. Of course, it would give the amateur a better shot at getting a match with a pro, but only some of them entered with that as the motivation. Most still take pool seriously enough to want a fair roll of the dice to advance in the rounds. I'm not just taking the amateurs side here. I'm not sure that it ultimately is good for the pros either because if the amateurs see no chance to advance the dead money dries up and then what are the pros left to battle over? In golf, obviously they don't rely on dead money. In fact the major pro golf tours don't even rely on the professional entry fees to fund the purse.For example, I don't believe there even is an entry fee for an exempt player on the PGA tour. I think back when they did have any entry fee it was a meaningless $100 (nothing considering the purses).
CJ, I know you like golf analogies. The world rankings in golf is obviously a somewhat complicated formula, and the formula has been tuned and massaged from when it was first established. But it's now widely accepted and at least everyone knows what that formula is at all times. You watch a golf telecast and the commentators can tell you where the players will end up in the rankings based on how they finish in that event and, for example, whether that finish will rank them high enough to get into say the Masters or some such event that is either invitational or has a qualification process. It isn't a backroom arrangement worked out at each event. Of course there's a big difference with golf rankings. They aren't so much to seed players into tournament brackets because only relatively few events are held at match play. Rather they are used more for players to get exempt into those events that would otherwise require playing your way in through qualifying. I don't believe the rankings have any impact on actual PGA tour events since it's an all exempt tour.
Unfortunately there isn't an established pro tour. Issues with seedings begin to creep up when the event is open to amateurs - which is what many events are. With so much of the purse being provided by the dead money entrants it seems a little unfair to spread the pros all over the chart so they can avoid each other and knock out all the amateurs in the first round like a killing field. Of course, it would give the amateur a better shot at getting a match with a pro, but only some of them entered with that as the motivation. Most still take pool seriously enough to want a fair roll of the dice to advance in the rounds. I'm not just taking the amateurs side here. I'm not sure that it ultimately is good for the pros either because if the amateurs see no chance to advance the dead money dries up and then what are the pros left to battle over? In golf, obviously they don't rely on dead money. In fact the major pro golf tours don't even rely on the professional entry fees to fund the purse.For example, I don't believe there even is an entry fee for an exempt player on the PGA tour. I think back when they did have any entry fee it was a meaningless $100 (nothing considering the purses).
Last edited:
IMO, seeding the "pot" is ensuring that the "same" top players have an advantage right off the bat. Now, it doesn't settle too good with me that a pro needs an "advantage" over anybody. Why not seed the WORST players to ensure they make it to the final so they can get killed like "baby seals" by the pro in the end...assuming the pro makes it to the finals.
If we are going to "ensure" that the top pros always make it to the finals, then just limit the tournaments to the top 16 pros and get it over with. Of course the pot will be substantially reduced due to the "dead weight" being discarded.
Aloha.
If we are going to "ensure" that the top pros always make it to the finals, then just limit the tournaments to the top 16 pros and get it over with. Of course the pot will be substantially reduced due to the "dead weight" being discarded.
Aloha.
Pro tennis can seed because they are the only pro tennis game in town . Most pro and amateurs that play in pro events have someone else funding their travel and entry costs and fees. Pool has to many competing events and no one can control anything in a free society.I wouldn't use my own money to fund a tournament then be put at a disadvantage to someone else , better player or not. 9 Ball has more of a luck factor than tennis , an inferior level player has a better chance of getting into the money in 9 ball than other games.
Of course seeding would be a positive thing to do, that's why tournaments are seeded in tennis, to make it challenging for every participant. And it assures that the true cream will rise to the top. Then the younger players see what the #1 - #5 players are doing, and the attention they are receiving, they strive to get if for themselves (that was a motivating factor for me for sure). Money is not a top motivator, I studied this in the bar business and found out it was not even in the top three.
People that don't know, jump to the conclusion that professional pool players are only motivated by money - I know many players and this is simply untrue. READ BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's Not About Money
Daniel Pink, in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, writes about how autonomy, mastery and purpose drive our motivation. Job seekers can use this understanding in conducting their job search.
Autonomy is the urge to direct our own lives
Mastery is the drive to get better and better at something that matters
Purpose for job seekers is ultimately getting re-employed
During your job search, seek to fulfill these intrinsic motivators rather than the extrinsic motivator, money.
What Can We Take from This?
As a job seeker, reflect on your motivators. Ask yourself these questions:
What is the community I want to be part of?
What do I want to be able to accomplish in a job?
Will I have a purpose in what I am accomplishing?
Money is a consideration, but it can't be the ultimate decision-maker in choosing what job, company and/or community to join. It goes much deeper than that.
Autonomy is the urge to direct our own lives
You can't achieve this in most societies without money.With money you not only can direct your own life but you can control the lives of others. I think an international banker is quoted in regard to this. Pool has no controller , but if he would have been above board Kevin Trudeau could have . The guy who started the WPA is trying to do this using others money , it will never work .
+1 Good post. Yes aside from majors ( W9B,W10B, W8B, USO,CO,AJ), I am enjoying more Invys like CSI Invy, Accu-Stats and looking forward to BigFoot 16 Invy this month-quality of players and matches higher and less dead money. For TV ratings sponsorship obviously need notable and quality players on TV table , don't want dead money missing here and there and making us spectators think we are better than them LOL
But the field should not be so small or have too many "ESPN World Champion"
Real simple Al... put a bounty on the top 16 for the first round....... Not only do you get bragging rights you get cold hard cash.... Lets say double your entry.. comes out of the pot of course at the end but there is the extra incentive... Give me SHANE first round!!!!!!!