Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
I haven't read a single post that belittles Kelly. I may have missed it but if I did, I hereby refer to any such post as nonsense.
Having said that, you stated that there is "nothing wrong" with the current system but there is. Any system wherein the winner of 2 of only 4 events is in SIXTH place is fundamentally, statistically flawed...at least from fairness and logical points of view.
Maybe so. But the point is that the board proposed it and the players voted on it. These are smart women, they can use a calculator as well or better than most of us. Maybe it's flawed in your view but maybe it rewards the things that the WPBA players WANT to be rewarded more highly than just winning. Then again, perhaps they agree with you and will tweak it next year using suggestions from the smart people on this board.
Granted the players voted on it and therefore, the changes were "democratic." Not to get into a debate on political science but democracy is not necessarily "fair" to all citizens. In fact, it is generally UNFAIR to large numbers of people.
Women were denied the vote in our democracy and blacks had less than one vote per person in the same democracy.
Of course, all the voting players had a right to vote as they saw fit and when they were given the opportunity to cast a vote that was unfairly biased in the favor of just about everyone other than Allison, they took it and so would every other group of people cast in the same situation.
I am NOT being critical of the players who voted for their own benefit as well they should.
But the fans have a right to have opinions on the fairness of the rules for all concerned and there are quite a few of us who believe the rules are unfair to Allison.
But to suggest that a player who has also been to each tournament and played under the same system is not a legitimate number one is crazy. Kelly earned this distinction fairly through good play.
It's not that Kelly being #1 is illegitimate because it is not. She is #1 because the rules say she is #1. But being the legitimate #1 does not necessarily mean that she is the FAIR #1 or the LOGICAL #1.
Don't get me wrong. I have met Kelly a number of times and think she is a GREAT person and a GREAT player who is improving all the time and who can play JAM UP. I am personally thrilled about her current success.
That's how you see it. Another way to look at it is that the first rounds are qualifying rounds where everyone gets two shots to make it into the single elimination round. Everyone knows the rules, the PLAYERS voted on this way to run the tournament.
I can't agree that a way to look at it is that the first rounds are qualifying rounds because they are not. And again, the players voted democratically but the RESULT of the vote was to increase the odds that their toughest competitor...BY FAR...would be more likely to get knocked out of the finals.
THAT is the reason that the rules were changed quite obviously. Certainly no one would suggest that the new rule makes it more likely that Allison would be IN the finals, so we all should just call a spade a spade and express out opinions as to whether we like spades more or less than diamonds, hearts or clubs.
If were going to have a democracy than the expression of such opinions should be defended to the death...not called crazy...especially since they are not crazy.
Sure it could and that is what makes it more exciting and pressure packed. I am guessing that players of Allison's caliber feel less pressure when they have a second shot at the tournament all the way through. Now it's a much tougher road to the winner's circle. Especially with the REALLY UNFAIR races to seven at the end of the tournament.
Races to 7 aren't "unfair" because ALL the finalists play races to 7. Unfair would be to single out certain players and make those races 8/7 or to give games on the wire to lower ranked players.
These are pros in the big league and not league players who get handicapped.
As a matter of fact, if races to 7 ARE unfair, they are more unfair to Allison. If the problem with short races is that the lesser player can "get the rolls" and beat the better player...that favors most other players and disfavors Allison.
But it really doesn't make much difference in the long run. If they played races to ONE, Allison would still be the dominant player because she has won more individual GAMES than the other players...by a LOT.
Sure as hell would get the players to practice their lags a lot though!!
(-:
Jim
JB Cases said:
I guess the only ones who will care about it will be the players in the end. Will they see that the income level goes up on average? Will the income level of the top players go down as the income level of the rest of the field goes up? Was this part of the reason for changing the system?
But WHATEVER the reasons it is what it is and all the players know what the system is - they all have to play under the same conditions and whoever can fade the pressure is legitimately and fairly ranked under the system.
Now, I will concede that Allison, as the dominant player, has far more to lose. This totally blows for her. On the other hand though Allison has enjoyed an illustrious career under a system that was perfect for a player of her caliber to dominate. She has received (earned) the most money from the WPBA system in the last 15 years. Dropping in rankings and finishing less than top three are things that will definitely not sit well with the game's most dominant player.
I, for one, find it more exciting as a fan to watch what happens under this system. I was not aware of the change in systems and was under the impression that Allison had number one locked up for the next decade or so. Be interesting to see where this goes.
