View Full Version : wpba takes giant step backwards
Women's Professional Billiard Association
6407 South Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28217 9 Tel (704) 556&#64979;1128 Fax (704) 556&#64979;0699
Website: www.wpba.com (http://www.wpba.com)
Dear WPBA Member,
I am writing to notify you that the WPBA Board of Directors met, by
teleconference, on July 26, and some important decisions were made.
As a result of feedback from players after WPBA San Diego and a fine presentation to the Board in May by Jeanette Lee outlining some key player issues, the Board recognized that some changes to the structure of WEIBA events required further study and discussion. The outline gave the Board a sense of how many players felt, and, to get a better handle on it, the Board followed up with a player survey. Thanks to the high response rate, the Board learned where 70% of the players stand on some key issues. In addition, as so many players provided comments along with their completed surveys, the Board gained an even greater sense of what the players want and why the players feel as they do.
The most compelling messages that the players sent the Board, through both Jeanette's presentation and the player survey were:
1) The top 16 feel under appreciated as a group. They would like relief through either a return to a tournament chart that gives them a bye or a reduction in field size. They would also like some relief from the unfair burden of having to play a Thursday morning match after a Wednesday night Pro&#64979;am. They would further like to be paid a higher percent of total purse.
2) A prize structure in which the top half of the field would cover all costs of participation in an event (generally estimated at $1,000 per,event) would
&#64979;be highly desirable. Some players felt this should be accomplished by paying the top half of the field only, but just as many saw such an approach as inappropriate. Nearly all agreed that players finishing in last place should not cash at all,
3) There is great support for the 64 players, 4 day, eight&#64979;table format, but the Board will continue discussing field size to determine options for 2003.
4) The current rules for attaining touring pro status should remain the same in the eyes of most players.
The Board's Decisions
Decision 1: Field size will remain at 64
In view of the fact that we have 38 touring pros and the fact that the players as a group generally favor sticking with current rules for attainment of touring pro status, a field size of 64 is needed to accommodate the current players while continuing to leave the door to our tour open to emerging talent.
Without a major revamp of the rules for attainment and retention of touring pro status, field size reduction is not an option at present. The Board will continue to study this matter as it pertains to next year, but without major change in the touring pro system, the 64 player, 8 tables, 4 day event will remain the general rule.
Decision 2:'The Top 16 will get a bye
The Board desired to do this, but the question of how to bring back the first round bye for the Top 16 while maintaining a field size of 64 was no simple task. The Board is very pleased to report that Steve Tipton has devised a seeding chart (to be presented to the players at Peoria) that achieves this goal without compromising match schedule objectives. (It will be awkward at the six&#64979;table WPBA New York event, but we will all do our best.)
This may make it possible going forward to move the pro&#64979;am events to Thursday evening. The board has been discussing the possibility of the Top 16 arriving on Thursday rather than on Wednesday and not competing until Friday. Though it is fully understood that pro&#64979;am plans are already in place for 2002 venues, we are discussing the possibility of this change for the 2003 season.
For classic tour events remaining in 2002, the top 16 will be guaranteed to have their first round of play begin no earlier than Thursday evening, after participating in the Wednesday evening pro&#64979;am.
Decision 3: Only 48 places will cash in Classic Tour events as follows
1 10,000 9/12 1,600
2 7,000 13/16 1,400
3 4,500 17/24 1,200
4 3,000 25/32 1,000
5/6 2,500 33/48 500
7/8 2,000 49/64 0
*** The Board will discuss prize structure for the US Open and the WPBA &#64979;Nationals at the Peoria Board meeting, and its decisions will be disclosed to the players at that time.
The new prize structure meets some key objectives: a) all coming higher than 4 91h cover at least their $500 entry fee, b) the top half of the field cover all expenses of participation or better, c) every top 16 seeded player is guaranteed to cash for at least their entry fee in every classic tour event and d) there has been 2,100 added to the TV round, offering greater compensation to our most successful players, bringing our payout to TV round players up to a respectable 35% of the total purse, as compared to 32~ in our last classic tour event in San Diego. A broader comparison follows:
WPBASD New Method Increase(Dec)
Top 4 22,400 24,500 9%
Top 8 31,800 33,500 5%
Top16 43,800 45,500 4%
Top 1/2 57,400 63,100 10%
Bottom Half 12,800 8,000 &#64979;38%
Whether you look at the top 4, the top 8, the top 16, or the top half of the field, each of those groups will do better as a result of the new method for prize money.
In short, the Board has a very positive message to send out to our top 16 &#64979;you will make a greater percentage of the purse and, as you will get your bye back, it will be easier to finish higher. In addition, you will always cash for at least your entry fee. We similarly have a very positive message to send out to those who aspire to be in the Top 16 &#64979;&#64979; as long as you do not finish last, you will always cover entry fee and if you come in the top half of the field, you will always cover your total cost of participation. And when you do break into the Top 16, you'll get a bye. The one sad message we must convey is to those who frequently finish in last place &#64979; when you finish in last place, you will not cash. We understand that this may frustrate you, but the membership feels that this is at it should be.
In conclusion, on behalf of the WPBA board of directors, I'd like to thank Jeanette for her presentation to the Board and thanks to all who participated in the survey. Still, it is the survey itself that reminds the Board that each decision made will be favored by some and disfavored by others. We recognize and accept that there will be those that disagree, but we hope that most will feel that the Board listened carefully and did its best to give you, our players, what you have asked for to the greatest extent possible.
Best wishes to you and hope to see you soon.
Which parts of the letter do you not agree with?
I think most of it makes sense, except for the coddling of the Top 16. IMO, you gotta earn that distinction and then fight to keep it. It seems as if they've virtually guaranteed that the current top 16 will remain the future top 16.
- Steve Lipsky
08-14-2002, 10:34 AM
Top 16 gets a BYE ROUND? I guess Tiger shouldnt play any day except Sunday either. What a farce!! I support any pool player wanting to make things better but it seems to me that it only benifits the "elite 16". Looks to me like a "click-ish" move on their part. What happens if one of those top players loses her top 16 status...will it be the top 18 then? Just my 2 cents.
I doubt many of the girls will have a huge problem with the changes in the money payout, but the top 16 are already seeded. Now they get a bye, too. Tell me one professional sport where that happens.
But, as the devil's advocate, with the top 16 not playing the first round, won't that make it slightly easier for the rest of the players to win their first round. At least they won't be playing Karen or Allison right off the bat.
However, this whole bit about not playing the morning after the pro-am is almost comical.
God forbid a professional pool player has to get up after a late match and play and early one. I am sure every one of these women have spent entire nights without sleep practicing or gambling at one point in their careers. Not to mention the non-pro tournaments most have played in where it is non-stop play for hours on end.
The top sixteen are acting more like prima-donnas than pool players.
08-14-2002, 12:08 PM
I have to agree that I am not sure what your upset about. I think it's all okay... though I agree with the other posters about the top 16. It seems they want to play less and make more, hmmm?
Also from a buissness standpoint, aren't these the players that will draw the most ticket sales? Is it really wise to have them sit out a day? This seems like another bad business decision by the WPBA, acting more like Moms than professionals.
So they have to get up, and go to work! It's their JOB!! HELLO!
08-14-2002, 12:32 PM
No, I don't believe it's a giant step backwards. I think it's a band-aid patch. They're trying to juggle the little bit of sponsorship money they have. No matter how you split it up, it's not enough. IMO, they will have to continue to band-aid patch things as they arise until they can get out there and get serious corporate dollars.
I would rather have seeen them reward the top 16 with sponsorship "reward" money rather than give them all byes. For example: solicit a sponsor to reward the top 16 at mid-year and year-end with bonuses. You can also get sponsors to reward the top 16 finishers in any given event. There's lots of things you can do to reward the top players without having to give them a free ride in the tournament. I've suggested this and was told that this is not a viable solution. True. It isn't, unless you go out and solicit more money.
08-14-2002, 01:21 PM
I would love to see that chart. Seems to me that if 16 players are to get a bye while leaving the field at 64, 1)the other players will have to play more games than they would under normal conditions and 2) it will take longer.
Let's see, 48 players for the opening round. 24 winners and 24 losers. Now we intersperse the 16 elite players into the winners side (8 of the 24 escape meeting the elite players) giving us 40 players on the winners side. So we now have a lopsided draw on both the winners and losers side. When the first round on the loser's side is played we now have 12 players out of the tournament. That would mean they finished 53rd-64th. Gonna be fun determining who will finish 49th-52nd. After the first round on the winner's side we now have 20 winners and 20+12=32 losers. Well we kinda got the loser's side back and in balance although 8 of the loser's side winners will have to play each other since only 12 opponents made it through on the loser's side. When the second loser's round is played 16 more players exit the tournament. Hmm, that would mean they finished in 37th-52nd position. They are only going to play the first 48. Now who would they be?
I could go on but you can see that there will effectively be more byes in the chart than just the 16 byes given to the elite players. In my opinion, this scheme adds an additional load on some the non-elite players.
Why not just guarantee the elite players apperance money and go with a standard 64 player tournament? Seed the entire field to ensure the 1st ranked player plays the 64th, the 2nd ranked to 63rd, etc. If they are truly elite players it should be more than enough of an edge.
It seems to me this is what they are trying to accomplish anyway.
I am really hard pressed to see how you can possible phenagle to have 16 byes in a 64 player double elimination bracket? That's what I would call bending over backwards. These top players should IMO have nothing to fear and should revel in the chance to get in stroke and pulverize these non-seeded players in the early rounds - so why should the current format bother them? This kind of reminds me of that big money Japan tourney last year in which the cuemakers that came to display their cues (as an incentive to come) got byes all the way in to the 3rd round and 4th rounds (and thus guaranteed in the money), as did a number of the big name players.
Isn't it enough of an advantage already that they are seeded - which means they are guaranteed NOT to have to play each other until at least the 3rd round of the winner's bracket - if they win the matches they are suppost to against the non-seeded players? These seeded players wouldn't start meeting up until at least the round of 16 - at which point they are already guaranteed no worse than a 17th place finish worth $1,200!
Bottom line - this is going to make it even tougher for any new blood to break through to a seeded position - particularly considering there are only 6 tournaments a year to gain that valuable match experience.
What the WPBA may also not even realize (but which I frustratingly experienced in Charlotte last year in wasting a 4-hour round trip drive) is that starting next year this will make the first day of the tourney (Thursday) almost a totally useless and wasted day from the viewpoint of the spectators who have come to watch some quality matches - including the top players. Those who come Thursday will be treated to watching only non-seeded player matches in the morning and afternoon, and no matches scheduled for Thursday night when the pro-am will be conducted. Do you think they are concerned about their fans who attend and support the events - apparently not. I've seen and participapted in some of these pro-am fiascos (5 person teams of which one is a top 16 pro with an alternate shot format under a match time clock) - and never again for me.
In fairness to the board, they are just trying to reward the seeded players. I believe only one (Monica Webb) is a current board member. So the argument that they are simply taking care of themselves would appear to be a flawed one. I like their decision to not pay those that go two-and-out and finished last. It also gives a break to the 16 non-seeded players that have the bad luck to draw in to playing a seeded player in a first round match. However, coming up with some contorted double elimination chart in order to give these prescious byes to the seeded players is just going too far!
I have some friends that are top 16 players, and although this decision benefits them, I'd have to wonder whether they really think it's necessary to go to these extremes and I will certainly ask them. Personally I think it is a poor decision for the future of the tour and in the development and breaking through of new talent in the Classic tour events. There is no doubt this change mostly benefits the "marginal" top 16 players, including some of the veteran top 16 players that are trying to hang on to their seeded spots. Any feedback to this response is certainly welcomed. - Chris in NC
08-14-2002, 09:13 PM
I agree with Voodoo that it's like saying to Tiger, "You don't have to start playing until Saturday. Your two scores equal everyone else's three." NOT!! The Sweet Sixteen are finding out that they can lose to players of lesser statue and THEY ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT!!
And sure, Steve can bend very well backwards - to his very special social group in the power positions of the WPBA and the top Pros. He has the manners of an a$$. And that's all you'll see of him if you're not in his "circle" when one of his "circle" walks by.
I do agree with the last 16 not getting paid. Go 2-and-out, well that hurts enough, but 16 players have to do it. Usually you really only pay the top fourth of a field that size. But the payouts do look better adjusted.
But definitely make all the Pros play the first round, PLEASE!
Barbara~~~looking at a lot of RT issues, too...
08-14-2002, 10:22 PM
Of course they want to keep the field at 64. That ensures 32 of them donating $500 each. Seems that nobody remembers that not all the membership received the survey. Only the top 30, 40 or 50 and probably those who they knew would vote "right". That way the board can guarantee getting the results in the survey that they were looking for. Does anybody think the results would be the same if the total membership received the survey? Both Dave and VooDoo have the right idea. Seeding by itself gives the top players a great benefit. Right off the bat the top players know that they will have a relatively easy 1st round match. But that doesn't seem good enough. The top players now get an automatic win in the first round and then they are seeded so that they are guaranteed that their first match will still be relatively easy. None of the top 16 have to worry about facing each other during the first two rounds. Yup, that sure sounds fair to me. Sorta like the "fair and square contest" that was on Bozo's circus every day. Just when one thinks that there are no more tricks that the WPBA board can pull they astound us with something new. I want to get some of what they are drinking or smoking. But I won't lose any sleep over this, they don't represent me. I actually think it is pretty funny that they can get away with it. Jake~~~will never understand a woman's mind; the worse they are treated the better they like it. I hope I can remember that in my next life.
08-15-2002, 05:52 AM
Good morning Chris:
Very well said and, like yourself and many others, I am eager to see how they work this out logistically. Now, at the risk of asking what might appear to be a very stupid question, I must ask what on earth these top 16 players are so worried about? Are they afraid that, with-out the "bye" and an assurance that they will not have to run into one another sooner rather then later, that they will no longer be able to maintain their top 16 position?
08-15-2002, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Saddened & Upset:</font><hr>They would also like some relief from the unfair burden of having to play a Thursday morning match after a Wednesday night Pro-am. <hr></blockquote>
Burden? BURDEN? Puhleeeze. Give me a freaking break. /ccboard/images/icons/mad.gif
How can anyone say that and expect to be taken seriously ever again?
Diana, thanks again for the plant! I'm very curious to see this chart and how they plan to pull it off. I've been running DE tournaments here weekly here for many years all the way from the club level to WPBA State Opens, and I can't possibly figure out how they can do it and remain fair to all the players in the draw.
With the old 48 player field format, the awarding of byes to the top 16 made perfect logical sense, but not with a field of 64. There must be additional players other than the top 16 that will randomly receive byes. Also as a result of this decision, there must be some byes given out on the one-loss side as well. It's very clear that some players will have to play and win more matches than other players just to finish in the same place - is that fair?
Bottom line is that doing this is bound to create alot of unfairness to nearly all of the players. They'll very soon figure this out the hard way from the conflict and rebellion that it will cause from within. At this point nothing surprises me in regards to the tour's current leadership.
This is yet another reason of why at this time (although I still have a number of friends on the tour) I can no longer justify spending my money to support the WPBA by being a sponsor and hosting the NC State Open and other WPBA qualifiers here. I realize that voicing my dissenting opinion on this issue in a public forum may likely strain some of these friendships. I'm sorry AF, GH and TN, but if you think I'm out of line in speaking out on this, I have to disagree. I value your friendships, but my conscience and concern for the future of the tour just won't let me remain silent. - Chris in NC
Bad enough they shoot themselves in the foot. Worse when they keep reloading and doing more damage.
08-15-2002, 10:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Chris in NC:</font><hr> I'm sorry AF, GH and TN, but if you think I'm out of line in speaking out on this, I have to disagree. I value your friendships, but my conscience and concern for the future of the tour just won't let me remain silent. - Chris in NC <hr></blockquote>
>>>>>Chris, I can appreciate your dilemma and respect your position. I only hope that the message gets back to the board. The WPBA is the only professional tour for the women. I would sincerely, hate to see them get in trouble. ***Lester***
Actually, the way the tournament will be run is that the Top 16 will actually kind of get 2 byes, and the 17-32 ranked players will get 1 bye. The bottom 32 players will play each other, with 16 winner & 16 losers. The 16 winners will then have to play the Touring Pros ranked 17-32, also creating 16 winners and 16 losers. The 16 losers will go face the 16 losers from the 1st round, while the 16 winners then have to go square off against the Top 16 ranked players. And so forth and so on. It is cumbersome and unfair to some of the newer blood on the tour who are trying to break into the Top 16. IMHO, I believe in seeding, but nobody should get a bye in a full field. Make the Top 16 prove that they belong there still. Allow the newer players to send them to the one-loss side early. Wouldn't that be the talk of the tournament...if Karen went to the one-loss side first round??
Anyhow, that is how they are doing it....we'll just see if it works out and if all the rest of the players will stand for it.
08-15-2002, 12:06 PM
I agree that the top 16 should not get a bye in the first round. It's almost like cheating. I think that everyone should play just like everyone else. In order to remain on top, you must keep earning it. I sometimes even think that seeding isn't a good thing.
From the recent WPBA newsletter:
WPBA Nominations Are Now Open
The WPBA office is now open to receive nominations for board of director positions coming vacant January 2003. <hr></blockquote>
Maybe things can change for the better?
FYI - also in that newsletter are these email addresses, in case anyone ever wanted them:
Jan McWorter, President
Kelly Oyama, Vice President
Stuart Mattana, Treasurer
Candi Rego, Secretary
Monica Web(sic), At Large
James Ruder, At Large
Stephen D. Ducoff
maybe it's time that companies like Budweiser, Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co, Frito-Lay, the candy companies & so on, get on board as sponsors. Heaven only knows how much money they are dragging out of the Pool Halls of the World & not spending nickel one. I believe we should have a National Organization of Pool Hall owners, Sports Bar owners (where Pool Leagues are played) & use their small membership fees & sponsorship monies from the above mentioned to pay for TV & Tournaments for both Men & Women Professional Groups. The only other game I know of that is as "equipment expensive" is GOLF.... & we all know how golf is doing for money. Maybe the Pool Halls should be showing POOL TOURNAMENTS, INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEOS, PROFESSIONAL PLAYER TALK SHOWS & so on, instead of Football, Basketball or Basesball on their TVs. Maybe promotion of their own business would do just that.... PROMOTE Pocket Billiards & Billiards for the great sport & family game it is & how much larger a participation there could be... Maybe that's a place to get some dough...
Are you kidding me??? Two byes? If I'm reading this correctly, the top 16 can finish no worse than 17-24!
When they tell this to the non-seeded girls (at the Peoria tournament next week), they should all pack up their cues out of protest and leave. So they'll forfeit their entry fees; by playing in this sham, they're effectively giving their money to players (the top 16) who might not even win a match.
(Actually, I just re-read the explanation by Anon, and now I'm even more confused. It seems the first THREE rounds of the winner's bracket will all have 32 players! This is crazy.)
Well, that doesn't work according to their new payout structure, either. Because if one of the bottom 32 wins the first match, and then loses the following match and goes to the left side of the bracket and loses again - that puts her in last place and she would earn no money although she had won a match.
Lester, we can rest assured that the WPBA board (if not lurking themselves) certainly has their informants that get back to them and let them know anything shared on this board concerning their organization - most certainly the controversial and negative stuff such as this. I've already been placed on their black list for my comments on the board earlier this year surrounding the Dr. D dismissal. I know this because of the way I was treated and ignored by a number of the seeded players and board members at Valley Forge earlier this year, as well as from some of the players - who directly told me I should stay out it as it doesn't concern me.
This is precisely why I choose to post my opinions here as opposed to e-mailing the board directly - which is what they would prefer we do to keep it in-house and under the rug. I only wish one of them had the balls to post a response in defense of their decision directly on the board - under their true identity as we do. But why would they ever feel a need to do that? We are just lowly players, fans and supporters of the game and of the WPBA, so our opinions / suggestions obviously don't really matter to them. If they did, it's likely they wouldn't find themselves in the position they are currently in.
As far as what someone here mentioned as to the seeded players receiving two byes all the way in to the 3rd round and the #16-32 players receiving one bye in to the 2nd round, I considered that as a possible scenario to make this work, but dismissed it. It would be so far out of the realm of what would be deemed acceptable to the entire field and to the fans, that I cannot possibly imagine that they would even consider thinking they could get away with it. Whether this poster was just speculating or has clear knowledge and confirmation that this is how it will be done is what I'd like to know? I will not respond as to how much more flawed and outrageous of a solution/decision that would be until I receive direct confirmation of it. - Chris in NC
08-15-2002, 04:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> Actually, the way the tournament will be run is that the Top 16 will actually kind of get 2 byes, and the 17-32 ranked players will get 1 bye. The bottom 32 players will play each other, with 16 winner & 16 losers. The 16 winners will then have to play the Touring Pros ranked 17-32, also creating 16 winners and 16 losers. The 16 losers will go face the 16 losers from the 1st round, while the 16 winners then have to go square off against the Top 16 ranked players. And so forth and so on. It is cumbersome and unfair to some of the newer blood on the tour who are trying to break into the Top 16. IMHO, I believe in seeding, but nobody should get a bye in a full field. Make the Top 16 prove that they belong there still. Allow the newer players to send them to the one-loss side early. Wouldn't that be the talk of the tournament...if Karen went to the one-loss side first round??
Anyhow, that is how they are doing it....we'll just see if it works out and if all the rest of the players will stand for it. <hr></blockquote>
Let me see if I understand this. The opening round will have the 32 players ranked 33-64 (non-elite). This will give us 16 winners and 16 losers.
Players 17-32 (semi-elite) will be added to the first round of the winners side making 32 players in round 1 on the winners side. The 16 losers of this match up will be combined with the 16 players already on the loser's side.
The first round on the loser's side will result in 16 winners and 16 players out of the money. This means a player could win their first match and still be out of the money. So now we got 16 players sitting on the losers side.
Player's 1-16 (elite) are now added to winner's round 2 making 32 players. After this match-up we now have 16 players for round 3 of the winner's side and 32 players for round 2 of the loser's side. Play the next two rounds on the loser's side and we are back to a regular chart.
As to seeding, the primary reason is to try and insure a big name final. It is usually only done in single elimination tournaments such as tennis. The most compelling reason for double elimination is to give a player a second chance after an upset. If they are upset twice, perhaps it wasn't an upset.
But double elimination, seeding, AND two round of byes. Boggles the mind!
08-15-2002, 06:47 PM
Forum members seem to be using terms like, the good of the tour, the good of the up and coming players, or it is a player issue. No one seams to say anything about the fan. You understand the guy like me who pays from $120.00 to $200.00 for a 4 or 5 day VIP pass.
I know you are a room owner so you and the other forum members may scorch me but here it goes. I am using my experience of having scene almost every setup and tournament format from say like World Games at Akita, Tokyo 9-Ball, IBC, Ladies English 8-Ball, WPBA, Regional tours and the most recent UPA.
First the survey was sent to the top 50 players and the decision was arrived at using the survey. I looked at the top 50 WPBA players on the points list who I have seen play. Out of the 50 only 22 of them gave me my moneys worth. The 28 ladies I don&#8217;t want to see can go get a real job. I can name names if you want me to but it will only extend this post far beyond acceptable limits and create needless tension.
Second as a fan of pool and an amateur player I hate 9-Ball as it is brain dead. I prefer more traditional games 8-Ball, 14.1, one pocket, and snooker. 9-Ball is so boring I wouldn&#8217;t watch it at all if the four players I know and like didn&#8217;t play it and they are in my 22 out of 50 list.
Third what I would like to watch for my money is, I hope I do not shock you, a three day, 32 player, four table, single elimination, best of three frames, 5 racks a frame tournament.
Keeps accommodation costs down for players and fans, only half the field paid to keep the players playing at the highest level. Four tables so fans can have a good sight line to watch all the matches and it can be set up almost anywhere from a VFW to a collage field house or even a sun deck on a cruise ship. Also the fans can build a close relationship with the players. Play format can be used for 8-Ball or 9-Ball. Pool tournaments have to get out of the pool rooms, casinos, get rid of the old dad image. You know the old retired guys I am talking about. They think they know everything about pool, push up to the tables, and start drinking at 10:00 AM when the room opens and they do not stop until closing. The ones who sit down in your VIP seat when you go to buy a sandwich and will not get the devil out until you ask them. I am tired of this and I have not even discussed revenue and prize funds. Oh, I would accept double elimination but only if I have to.
So they want to protect themselves from any possible competition that is what they are trying to do.
Look at the top 16 and it all makes cents.
08-16-2002, 12:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> So they want to protect themselves from any possible competition that is what they are trying to do.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.wpba.com>www.wpba.com</a>
Look at the top 16 and it all makes cents. <hr></blockquote> It is not readily apparent to me. Why does it make sense to you? What is it about these particular players that would make you say this?
08-16-2002, 01:19 PM
Hey Dave, Have you been sampling that morphine already? Surely, nobody would come up with that plan; but if they did would anybody accept it? Checking the standings I see that Fran is now ranked 40. I wonder what she thinks of the new arrangement. And did she receive a survey? Jake
"The most compelling reason for double elimination is to give a player a second chance after an upset. If they are upset twice, perhaps it wasn't an upset."
08-23-2002, 02:09 PM
I believe that it is important to remember that the Top 50 WPBA players, those who responded to the survey anyway, seemed to have wanted this new structure.
Diana, that is true, but it's highly unlikely there was a question posed in the survey of how these respondents felt about the top 32 receiving a bye and the top 16 receiving not one but two byes in the draw. It is no secret (some of us on the CCB figured it out last week) that this is the only way any byes could possibly be given in a 64 player field - and they knew it.
I find it revealing (but not surprising) that in the letter the board sent out to WPBA members last week explaining their dictated changes (of which a copy was pasted here on the CCB), there was clear explanation of the top 16 again receiving the bye they had taken away from them when the fields expanded from 48 to 64. However, I recall no mention in that memo of the top 16 receiving 2 byes, nor of the next 16 ranked also receiving a bye. They surely knew it, but it was conspicuously left out of the memo - as they anticipated it wouldn't go over well with the membership.
Instead, they not only waited until this week's tourney to inform the players, but they went ahead with the draw before even holding the pre-tourney players meeting in which for the first time they revealed to the players how this new format would work - shame on them.
What I find very strange and unfair is that of the players who finish 49-64 and take home absolutely nothing, some of them may very well have won their first round match before losing their next 2 matches, as where others finishing in the same place (T49) have lost both their matches played. Those 16 who lose their first round match receive an automatic bye in the first round of the loser's bracket, and then match up with the 16 players that lose in the 2nd round winner's bracket matches. It's just not fair that some players may leave this tourney with a match win and absolutely nothing to show for it other than a last place finish, while at the same time the seeded players can fail to win any matches and still finish in 33rd place and take home a nice little paycheck.
Bottom line however - nothing is going to keep the dedicated and skilled young women from eventually breaking through. I'm looking for a strong showing from the Florida gals - Tiffany Nelson and Sarah Ellerby. They've been working hard on their games and it's just a matter of time until they both break through and make it to a TV match. - Chris in NC
While there does seem to be some merit to the argument that many of the top 16 women players place so consistently in the top brackets that they deserve a bye, surely part of the purpose of organised tournament series should be to promote the development of new players. An aspiring player may raise her game substantially to play Allison & co. But this denies many players valuable experience.
The top 16, or to be more accurate, the top 5 or 6, dominate TV coverage and therefore dominate in sponsorships. The WPBA series is already good to them. Multiple guaranteed byes may be good for their tired arms, but surely it's not good for the fans, or for the womens' game in general.
08-23-2002, 07:43 PM
As I sit in my office, banging my head to "Downfall" by "Trust Co." I almost feel sad for the ladies that are playing that event. Sad days these are, I'm hoping the ladies dont take that road paved with quicksand that the men took several years ago. Thank god I work for a living....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.