I bet you make it farther than we do in the open team event.
Dennis
And i bet you make it farther than we do in the MAsters Team event. :wink:
Your BCA National Team better watch out for us this year
- Thread starter SteveH
- Start date
And i bet you make it farther than we do in the MAsters Team event. :wink:
Gimmie a shout if any of you want polos with your team logo on em!
Good luck out there!
Good luck out there!
I had emailed Bill Stock of the BCA after last years event and offered some suggestions as did another one of my teammates.
I think that if any OPEN Team were to finish in the top 6 or 8 spots, that all the members on that team should become Masters Players. Maybe the top 4 teams (~20 players). For you to finish in the 'real money' of the OPEN Team event you have to have 4 or 5 players that play at the Masters Level.
What do you guys think?
It was troubling for our team last year, as we had a very strong team, to play the team that took 2nd place the year before in the opening round. And watching them run out 12 of 13 racks was unbelievable to us. How are they not in the Masters Division. They took 5th (Golden Cuesters). Luckily for us we were able to still get in the money. We dominated teams like 13 - 3 for 5 or 6 wins in a row after that including 2 shut-outs.
I hope my old teammate doesn't mind, but here is what he wrote as possible suggestions and issues with the Open Division of the BCA.
Thoughts?
"I think the Master's slipping in has to do with how players are moved up. I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression that if a team places in the prescribed cutoff (like top 24, or top 32), the team gets bumped as a Master's Team, but the players are still considered open players. Also, teams are allowed to send in a roster with only a few people on the roster and put together a team from their league or area if more than one league is ran by one League Operator, in effect, building super teams. For example, the team we played first round only had 2 people on the roster before the tournament began. I talked to their captain, and he told me they do this every year. He always places in the top 12 every year, and then they switch a few people around so they can continue to play in the Open Division mostly because he feels they don't have a chance to win the Masters. Another case in point, one team from Colorado had a known Master from Colorado on the team. I was told by this individual that the team he was playing on, took first two years ago. This known master has played on teams that won the Master's Division at the VNEA tournament. Look at the Winners this year. Ike Runnels played in the Open Division and was on the team that won that division. Ike isn't going to be playing with "Open" players. The players on his team are clearly Master's quality, if not grand master quality players. Also, look at the team that took second. Rob Maddson from Minnesota. He is clearly one of the strongest bar box players in the country having won multiple titles in the VNEA Master's Division. Again, I doubt that Rob is playing with players that could be considered Open players. Now I know that one known Master per team is allowed, and Rob, Ike and some of the others are the one master. But we also know that the guys playing with them aren't necessarily you're typical open player. They are just as good as the Master's player, but because they don't play singles or there isn't a bona fide way to make a player a Master other than through Singles competition, they sneak in to the Open events.
In any case, my suggestion would be two fold.
1. Open Division Teams need to have at least 4 original players from their league. These players must have their minimum of 8 weeks played in the league and on that team.
2. Open Division Teams that place in the top 16, are then bumped to Master level for Team and the players are bumped to Master for Singles events. The Master's division will then have a greater field of players so that the divisions are more rounded and the open division isn't infiltrated by players just looking for a quick and easy win."
Thoughts?
"I think the Master's slipping in has to do with how players are moved up. I might be wrong, but I'm under the impression that if a team places in the prescribed cutoff (like top 24, or top 32), the team gets bumped as a Master's Team, but the players are still considered open players. Also, teams are allowed to send in a roster with only a few people on the roster and put together a team from their league or area if more than one league is ran by one League Operator, in effect, building super teams. For example, the team we played first round only had 2 people on the roster before the tournament began. I talked to their captain, and he told me they do this every year. He always places in the top 12 every year, and then they switch a few people around so they can continue to play in the Open Division mostly because he feels they don't have a chance to win the Masters. Another case in point, one team from Colorado had a known Master from Colorado on the team. I was told by this individual that the team he was playing on, took first two years ago. This known master has played on teams that won the Master's Division at the VNEA tournament. Look at the Winners this year. Ike Runnels played in the Open Division and was on the team that won that division. Ike isn't going to be playing with "Open" players. The players on his team are clearly Master's quality, if not grand master quality players. Also, look at the team that took second. Rob Maddson from Minnesota. He is clearly one of the strongest bar box players in the country having won multiple titles in the VNEA Master's Division. Again, I doubt that Rob is playing with players that could be considered Open players. Now I know that one known Master per team is allowed, and Rob, Ike and some of the others are the one master. But we also know that the guys playing with them aren't necessarily you're typical open player. They are just as good as the Master's player, but because they don't play singles or there isn't a bona fide way to make a player a Master other than through Singles competition, they sneak in to the Open events.
In any case, my suggestion would be two fold.
1. Open Division Teams need to have at least 4 original players from their league. These players must have their minimum of 8 weeks played in the league and on that team.
2. Open Division Teams that place in the top 16, are then bumped to Master level for Team and the players are bumped to Master for Singles events. The Master's division will then have a greater field of players so that the divisions are more rounded and the open division isn't infiltrated by players just looking for a quick and easy win."
Truth be told, the Masters Divison is tough! A poolroom can throw together their top five guys and not cash. However, if you properly rotate your top five guys amongst the Open teams, you can go for YEARS without forcing a Team Masters issue and quite frankly, although WINNING the Open division may be tough, CASHING is not - not when you're good.
It seems every time I go now, I see the same guys playing for different teams. It's like this - you have four teams that all have gotten moved to Master Team and then they all mix it up again. I don't think there's a rule or a check for that.
It seems every time I go now, I see the same guys playing for different teams. It's like this - you have four teams that all have gotten moved to Master Team and then they all mix it up again. I don't think there's a rule or a check for that.
Exactly Jude. That is why making these top finishing OPEN Teams all individual MASTERS players makes sense. Hard to mix-n-match after that to stay in the OPEN Division.
Yeah so, what's the incentive for playing in the Masters' Division again? Personally, I think most of the open teams that routinely finish in the top 25% would rather stay in the open divsion forever even though by doing this, they would allow other good teams to do so too. There simply isn't enough money to care that much about it. It's nice to get that check at the end of the week but it really does nothing for the ole' bank account. I also like the idea of facing familiar teams year after year.
I think the second chance tournament is a perfect way to satisfy the teams that don't cash. Not only do they get to continue playing for the duration of their Vegas trip but they can still make money.
I guess the incentive is different to different people. My understanding is that there is more added money in the Masters Division.
For our team, when we finally win the OPEN Division, we'd definitely play in the Masters from then on. It's the next stage for our games and we'd get to play better talent.
The incentive for the BCA is that they promote more of a balance as many players and teams have figured out how to mess with the system. After all this is a League System and not a Top Amateur/Pro Event.
I'm not saying to move the top 25% of the teams up, but maybe the top 4, 6 or 8 teams. This would build the Masters Division and thus improve the entire league system. More talent at the next level would help the system IMO. No different than moving the top 64 up in Singles.
Also, I'm not opposed to a Round Robin in the first stage of the Masters Division, as I like the fact that you get to play more matches. Then the top half of each round robin group get placed in a double elimination bracket. Or heck, place all the teams in a larger bracket and seed them by the Round Robin stats?? (ie. 32 teams, 8 groups of 4, everyone plays 3 matches, then seeded in tourney. Worst team gets 5 matches total, if schedules permit that is)
For our team, when we finally win the OPEN Division, we'd definitely play in the Masters from then on. It's the next stage for our games and we'd get to play better talent.
The incentive for the BCA is that they promote more of a balance as many players and teams have figured out how to mess with the system. After all this is a League System and not a Top Amateur/Pro Event.
I'm not saying to move the top 25% of the teams up, but maybe the top 4, 6 or 8 teams. This would build the Masters Division and thus improve the entire league system. More talent at the next level would help the system IMO. No different than moving the top 64 up in Singles.
Also, I'm not opposed to a Round Robin in the first stage of the Masters Division, as I like the fact that you get to play more matches. Then the top half of each round robin group get placed in a double elimination bracket. Or heck, place all the teams in a larger bracket and seed them by the Round Robin stats?? (ie. 32 teams, 8 groups of 4, everyone plays 3 matches, then seeded in tourney. Worst team gets 5 matches total, if schedules permit that is)
I agree wholeheartedly with your personal view but you can't expect the rest of the country to feel that way. I'm REALLY looking forward to the Masters' Team event because I really want to play the very best amateur 8ball players in the country EVEN if it means getting beat over and over again. The Vegas event has always been like a bootcamp for my pool game. I always walk away stronger.
However, the Open event is HUGE. It's so exciting playing in something that big and when you're good, you're going to get more matches than you can count. You can't blame guys for enjoying that.
If the BCA adopted this approach, you would see a bigger drop in the Masters. 90% of those team players would not come out to compete in the Masters singles, they would stay home. The only thing you would accomplish is thinning the heard of "unknown masters" in the event. Which would make the Open team event a little more even. Meaning teams would truly be 1 master and 4 open players.
I agree with playing better players and progressing up the ladder. However, there are many players who want nothing to do with the best player on league night let alone out in Vegas. Then there are master level players, that want nothing to do with other master level players and would rather hide in the open. I am not sure what the perfect system is.
We also have players that are of "known ability" but play as open players, when they should playing Strickland........................none of it makes any sense to me.
But I do believe the lack of standardized controls through out ALL league systems is the problem. Whats the answer? dunno!!!!
Mike
I agree with playing better players and progressing up the ladder. However, there are many players who want nothing to do with the best player on league night let alone out in Vegas. Then there are master level players, that want nothing to do with other master level players and would rather hide in the open. I am not sure what the perfect system is.
We also have players that are of "known ability" but play as open players, when they should playing Strickland........................none of it makes any sense to me.
But I do believe the lack of standardized controls through out ALL league systems is the problem. Whats the answer? dunno!!!!
Mike