PDA

View Full Version : WPBA in Peoria - The Morning After ...



Doctor_D
08-26-2002, 07:51 AM
Good morning:

Needless to say; between the posts here on the CCB, telephone calls and E-Mails, which we have either received and/or reviewed, there was a significant amount of discussion and/or displeasure over the revised bracketing and how the bracketing was determined and/or structured for the WPBA event in Peoria.

The question now begs; what, if anything, will be done as the WPBA moves forward?

Will this format continue?

Will the issues raised and discussed at this event prove to be the catalyst for a reversal of the WPBA's recent decision to give Two (2) byes to the Top 16 and One (1) bye to those in the Seventeenth (17th) through Thirty Second (32nd) positions?

How will the Top Sixteen (16) byes be determined when one or more of the Top Sixteen (16) players do not compete in the event?

Will the membership, those NOT in the Top Thirty Two (32), just roll with the punches and accept this as the new status quo?

In addition, knowing that certain members of the WPBA Board of Directors regularly monitor the posts here on the CCB, it would prove interesting to see if any member of the WPBA Board of Directors would be willing to identify themselves when they reply to posts and not hide behind an anonymous post.

Only time will tell...

Dr. D.

Chris Cass
08-26-2002, 09:02 AM
Hi Dr. D.,

Well, you can forget that. It ain't happening. Why argue a point when it's not going to change. They'll remain with their decision till the next yr schedule. We, well not me personally, will have to eat it. Although, I'm not affected in any way. I hate to see the WPBA end up like the mens tour. I would rather them be seeded in the first round play myself. Than, what I'm seeing now. It's just not fair for the up and comer. IMO

I watched as the seating area was so thin during the first days of the tourney. Then, the finals were standing room only. Ticket sales alone, proves loss I'm sure. The casino didn't advertise the event, like they should have either.IMO The last day of the tourney I had a guy in the casino say to me, "hey, is there a pool tournament in town? I've been seeing poeple with pool cases everywhere?" I said, "it's being held here. Where have you been?"

Regards and good morning to you,

C.C.

08-26-2002, 10:36 AM
Diana, here's my 2 cents. First, there is absolutely no way to give any byes in a 64 player field without having to do exactly what they did - 2 byes to the first 16 ranked plus one bye to another 16 players (either randomly given or to the next 16 ranked. The only way they can possibly give round one byes to the top 16 (without the additional byes) would be to return to the 48 player fields.

Secondly, I think it's rather obvious that when a top 16 player doesn't show up, the next in the rankings would move up and receive their bye position - which also means a 33rd ranked player also moves up in to a first round bye position. That's what happened with Tiffany this past weekend (with the absence of Robin and Jennifer), and she took full advantage of it.

Lastly, although there was clearly alot of opposition to these byes voiced here on the CCB and I'm sure in private conversations among lower ranked players while at Peoria, it remains to be seen whether any of them will make the effort to try and gain some united support among the membership to try to do anything about it to effect any change. For some of the talented ones (that have a very good chance to eventually become a top 10 player) they have to deal with their fear (and possible reality) that their opposition to any board decision may land them on the "black" list. And even for the top 16 or 32 seeds (even though they benefit from this new format) may not wish to rock the boat by expressing their opposition.

It is all politics, and as long as the tour players themselves hold the large majority of the board positions, their decisions will continue to be closely scrutinized and criticized for potential conflicts of interest. - Chris in NC

08-26-2002, 10:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr>
The question now begs; what, if anything, will be done as the WPBA moves forward?
<hr></blockquote>
I'd be very surprised if the complaining has any effect.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr>
Will this format continue?
<hr></blockquote>

If I rmember correctly, there was nothing in the email posted on this site that implied the new format would be implemented on a trial basis.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr>
Will the issues raised and discussed at this event prove to be the catalyst for a reversal of the WPBA's recent decision to give Two (2) byes to the Top 16 and One (1) bye to those in the Seventeenth (17th) through Thirty Second (32nd) positions?
<hr></blockquote>
Not unless the people with the power change their minds. Even then, I don't see how they could reverse the decision and save face.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr>
How will the Top Sixteen (16) byes be determined when one or more of the Top Sixteen (16) players do not compete in the event?
<hr></blockquote>
That will be interesting. They could replace the player with two byes. It seems like there are more byes than players now, what's a couple more?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr>
Will the membership, those NOT in the Top Thirty Two (32), just roll with the punches and accept this as the new status quo?
<hr></blockquote>
I'd love to see that happen, but it's doubtful. Those women have worked very hard and beat the odds to get where they are now. Why would they take a chance on losing what they've got? From an individual standpoint, it makes more sense to just roll with the punches. For there to be an uprising, there must be individuals who take charge and go out on a limb. More times than not, that is suicide.

08-26-2002, 03:24 PM
If the players accept the new format, they deserve what they get. Maybe us spectators can help by not attending any tournaments until fair changes are made. A friend told me the casino comped half the audience. Without all those free comps, attendance would have been much lower. I'd be willing to bet attendance is poor at the first tournament in a non casino envirement.

08-27-2002, 06:45 AM
The wpba is in critical condition and on life support. Death is inevitable.

Kato
08-27-2002, 07:27 AM
In December there is going to be a WPBA tournament in South Florida I believe. The only reason I'm going to go now is to meet Fran. This whole bye thing to the top 16 stinks to high heaven. I'll go and meet Fran, sweat all her matches and after she plays I'll leave.

Kato~~~my feelings. I'll support friends, not a dead organization.

Rich R.
08-27-2002, 08:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Kato:</font><hr> In December there is going to be a WPBA tournament in South Florida I believe. The only reason I'm going to go now is to meet Fran. This whole bye thing to the top 16 stinks to high heaven. I'll go and meet Fran, sweat all her matches and after she plays I'll leave.

Kato~~~my feelings. I'll support friends, not a dead organization. <hr></blockquote>
And you will NOT watch one match with Jeanette Lee? /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif
Rich R.~~~remembers Kato mentioning his affection for Ms. Lee.

PoolFan
08-27-2002, 08:19 AM
I've never been a great believer in seeding events, but I understand why professional organizations do it. Typically, an organization will seed their event to ensure top players to attend in order to attract a large audience.

The thing that bothers me with this WPBA decision is, if the WPBA did not change the chart and did not seed the events, what would have happened? Would the top 16 players drop out of the tour? If so, what would they do, they would be quitting pool altogether, because there is nowhere else to go.

If the whole issue is to make sure the top 16 get paid, why not reimburse them for some of their expenses. Maybe pay a lower entry fee.

I believe that if you make it to the top 16, you should be able to expect some perks since you've worked so hard. But it should not influence the chart by seeding it.

By seeding the events, it makes it that much more difficult for up and coming players to break through and make some money. By having an even draw, at least everyone has the same opportunity of being in the top 16. By giving the top 16 byes in events, just guarantees their ranking.

The WPBA is very short sighted. They should realize that, yes, they will obtain the top 16 players for their events. But they will stop the growth of their tour. It won't be long before up and coming players will just quit.

I urge the WPBA to think long term and put together strategies that will benefit all players. Don't just quickly make decisions to satisfy a small group even if that group is currently your core money maker. I urge the WPBA to re-think this new policy and to start thinking outside of the box. Make good sound decisions that will ensure the existence of the tour.

End result, my suggestion is give the top 16 a bone and let them earn the meat.

Fran Crimi
08-27-2002, 08:27 AM
Eddie, I don't know where you heard that about the casino, but I asked the gate people how they were doing and they were totally thrilled with the amount of money they were taking in. After the first day's sessions, the place was packed for every session. The only time I observed them letting people in for free was when there was standing room only.

Since no one but the Board really knew what the chart was going to look like, I think the players all decided to wait and see it before they made a judgement call. I think that was a wise choice. Now that they have seen it, the vast majority of players do not agree with it and are in the process of making that known to the Board.

In essence, what the chart is actually doing, is turning a 64 player field into a 48 player field with a preliminary or qualifying round. If a player qualifies to play in a tour event, they should not have to be subjected to a qualifying round. Also, no player should go home empty-handed. If you've gotten yourself there, you deserve to get paid, even if you lose your first two matches. You paid your dues to get there. This is the big show. Everyone should get paid, even if it's a small token amount for last place.

I had an extensive conversation with our Board member Jim Reuter, and I like him. He's working his butt off to try to make things right and do the best he can for our organization. He is also open to ideas and suggestions. He did his best to explain the logic behind the decision to go with the controversial chart, and while I understand and appreciate where he's coming from, I and most others disagree with the logic.

OK, so where do we go from here? We communicate, with each other, the Board members and the public, which is exactly what we are doing.

I do not feel that this is the end of the world. There are definitely issues that will need further exploration and better solutions and I and my fellow players are confident that better solutions will be found because we're not just out there complaining, we're proposing solutions.

Fran

Kato
08-27-2002, 08:32 AM
Ok, ok, ok. I'll watch (1) match with Jeanette.........maybe 2/ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif. But I will be there to root for Fran, hopefully she plays.

Kato~~~~yes I have this lustful feeling in my soul for Jeanette but........................I must let the brain do the thinking........................sometimes.

Rich R.
08-27-2002, 10:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Kato:</font><hr> Ok, ok, ok. I'll watch (1) match with Jeanette.........maybe 2/ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif. But I will be there to root for Fran, hopefully she plays.

Kato~~~~yes I have this lustful feeling in my soul for Jeanette but........................I must let the brain do the thinking........................sometimes. <hr></blockquote>
I thought you may change your mind. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif
I have seen both ladies play and both are a treat to watch. You will not be disapointed.
Rich R.

Kato
08-27-2002, 10:24 AM
Rich, I'd bet there is a better than average chance that Fran will talk to me though.

Kato

Rich R.
08-27-2002, 10:45 AM
So will Jeanette. Just don't bother her when she is getting ready for a match. She is very friendly and is usually smiling and laughing. Don't believe all the rumors that some spread.
I have seen some people ask for autographs and/or try to start a conversation with her when she is preparing to start a match. She politely refuses and tells them to see her later. Then the person turns around and calls her a "bitch" or something else. They are idiots. I have always found her to be very friendly.
That is, depending what you decide to talk to her about. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif
The answer may still be "No". LMAO.
Rich R.

SPetty
08-27-2002, 11:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Rich R.:</font><hr> So will Jeanette.
I have always found her to be very friendly.<hr></blockquote>Hi Rich,

I was never a big Jeanette fan before, but I became one while in Vegas earlier this year. It was a few hours after she lost her match to Vivian to be put out of the tournament. She was standing off to the side near a major walkway in the Riviera talking to a couple of friends. I was passing by oh, maybe 10-15 feet away, and made a point to holler over at her "Hey, tough loss!". She stopped what she was doing, looked straight at me, put on that darling pouty face she makes, ran over in those tiny steps that only she could do, and stole a condolence hug from me while saying "Boo Hoo"! It was so cute and so unexpected.

I was expecting maybe a nod of her head or maybe a little wave of acknowledgement. She didn't know me from Adam, but gave this fan that tiny bit of personal attention that now makes me a big Jeanette fan.

08-27-2002, 11:42 AM
Fran, your honest response to this thread as a WPBA player is much appreciated and courageous. I'm just a little perplexed why the board chose to hide these double byes to the top 16 in addition to single byes for the 17-32 ranked in the letter they sent out to the members a few weeks before the Peoria event, informing them of the changes.

Yeah, I know you'll tell us the letter is not anyone's business other than the members, but someone of your ranks was so outraged that they chose to paste it in it's entirety on the internet - so it is now common knowledge. Fact is Steve did not come up with anything special or unique here. Any of us who knows a hoot about running DE tourneys and bracketing knew exactly what it would look like even before the chart was unveiled. Yet the board chose to leave the participating players in the dark until the draw was already made the night before the tourney started.

I am very interested to see how the WPBA powers will choose to bracket the upcoming women's U.S. Open tourney. Just by the very name of this event, the implication is that it should ultimately be a fair test with a level playing field for all contestants to determine the best player in the field - wouldn't you agree? You don't see Venus or Serena getting any byes in the U.S. tennis open - and they start with 256 players! Same as in the men's U.S. 9-Ball Open next month in Chesapeake. No byes for Earl, Efren or Corey unless there is less than a 256 player field. Even then, all the byes are given out totally randomly as it should be. If the WPBA chooses to stick with this new biased bracketing under the revered name of a U.S. Open title, I'll be very dissappointed.

Personally, I really don't see what they are trying to accomplish by these byes. My guess is most of the seeded players would prefer playing their first match against a weaker player who is nervous coming out of the gate - as opposed to a player that may be going in to that 3rd round in-stroke with considerable momentum and confidence. It certainly has no apparent benefit for the top players who never lose in those first few rounds anyway - other than maybe being able to sleep in on Thursday!

Fran, as to your opinion on those going 2-and-out still receiving something, well I know there are some that feel both ways on this one so to me it's no big deal. IMO, if they wish to guarantee the bottom 16 say a $200 return, that is essentially is no different than saying that the so-called $500 entry fee is in reality only a $300 entry fee for all players - as they are guaranteed to get back $200 of the $500. - Chris in NC

Doctor_D
08-27-2002, 11:48 AM
Good afternoon Chris:

Check out the discussion forum at www.azbilliards.com (http://www.azbilliards.com) for a post by Mr. James Ruder explaining and justifying the actions of the WPBA Board !!!

Interesting reading to say the least...

Dr. D.

p.s.:

I have E-Mailed Mr. Ruder directly suggesting that he should send his letter to all of the Regional Tour directors so that they could then send it to ALL of the Regional Tour members.

Dr. D.

Rich R.
08-27-2002, 12:04 PM
Thanks for that story SPetty. As I said, I have always found Ms. Lee to be friendly.
I can accept the fact that right before a match and, maybe, immediately after a tough loss, she may not want to be bothered. But other than those times, she is very approachable. She does not deserve the slamming that some give her.
Rich R.~~~not necessarily a fan, but telling the truth.

08-27-2002, 03:01 PM
It was encouraging to see a board member (James Ruder) take the time and effort to post anything on one of the billiard forums in response to the posts - although IMO it probably should have been done here where the posts and various posters sharing their opinions/comments on this topic have far outnumbered those on azbilliards. I'm sure his respect for Mike and his website had alot to do with that decision, and I can understand that.

I find it interesting that in the minds of the board members (in regards to the newly adjusted brackets) they don't consider the top 16 to have 2 byes - in that a top 16 seeded player still has to win 5 matches (instead of 6) to make it to the hill - only one match less than they did previously with no byes. However, a #33-64 seeded player now has to win 7 matches to get to the hill - that's a 2 match advantage for the top 16 over the bottom 32, and a one match advantage for the #17-32 players over the bottom 32. We can do the math - that is the equivalent of 2 rounds of byes for the top 16 any way you choose to rationalize it.

So to understand correctly from their perspective, the top 16 only get ONE bye from the previous format, BUT the bottom half of the field must essentially play an ADDITIONAL round (from the previous format) at the start of the tourney.

This makes it that much harder for the struggling bottom half players that have historically had such a very hard time making it far enough in to the tournament to have any chance of helping to pay expenses - even without the advantage of the byes for the top players. Just what kind of message does that send to those struggling players - whose entry fee money ($16,000) is so vital to financially supporting the tour and the purses?

I don't believe these bottom 32 players want or expect anything special be done for them to improve their chances of a decent finish in a tournament. All they want is to have the same chance as anyone else in the field. However, what is now being done is just the opposite - making it even harder for them than it is for anyone else in the field. I would consider this new bracketing as the totally opposite extreme of a handicapped tournament - with an open tourney being in the middle of the spectrum. They are giving an additional burden to the lower ranked players and an added advantage to the higher ranked players - the very ones who don't need it!

Personally, I can't wait to see the next breed of talented players such as Michelle Rakin and Jasmin Ouschan come in and start kicking some butt - regardless of the extra matches they will have to play! Bottom line - the cream will rise to the top and you can't keep them down. The problem is that the marginal players that have been and will continue to be so important to the tour's financial future and success are being screwed - and virtually forced to drop off the tour. Why the board cannot see this as the eventual result of their decision is beyond me! - Chris in NC

08-27-2002, 03:30 PM
Are you sure you're not mixing up Jeanette with Vivian? I have never met a single WPBA fan, follower or spectator that does not love Jeanette Lee. Not just for the way she looks, but moreso for her personality. She goes out of her way to be friendly to everyone at an event - and makes each individual spectator or autograph seeker feel very special.

Jeanette's only popularity problems are with some of her fellow WPBA players - for the things she often says and does. - Chris in NC

Doctor_D
08-27-2002, 03:47 PM
Good afternoon Chris;

Thank-you, once again, for your insight and direction. The Board of Directors of the WPBA would benefit greatly from all you have to offer, if they were willing to listen to you and follow your direction.

Dr. D.

Retardo
08-27-2002, 03:58 PM
Once at a small event, Jeanette sat right next to me but she had a friend so I got up saying, "here take this seat.."

Jeanette grabbed me, pulled me down looked me in the eyes and said "no, you sit right here, I want to sit next to YOU"

Now we all know she didn't really want to sit next to me but she wasn't going to let me be "inconvenienced" because of her and she certainly went out of her way to make me feel totally comfortable in staying. I wasn't a huge J lee fan and I am still not stalking her but she went up a couple of notches on that one.

jjinfla
08-27-2002, 06:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr> Good afternoon Chris:

Check out the discussion forum at <a target="_blank" href=http://www.azbilliards.com>www.azbilliards.com</a> for a post by Mr. James Ruder explaining and justifying the actions of the WPBA Board !!!

Interesting reading to say the least...

Dr. D.

p.s.:

I have E-Mailed Mr. Ruder directly suggesting that he should send his letter to all of the Regional Tour directors so that they could then send it to ALL of the Regional Tour members.

Dr. D.
<hr></blockquote>

Ah Dr. D. you little rabble rouser you. Should we start a pool to see how long he lasts before the board takes a vote and kicks him out? Jake

Rich R.
08-27-2002, 06:53 PM
Chris, I agree with you totally. Kato implied that Jeanette may not talk to him. I have also read comments on this board and others, in the past implying that Jeanette was stuck up and was rude to fans. I was just setting the record straight. She has always been very friendly when I was around.
I have to add, Vivian has also been nice when I have spoken to her.
Rich R.

Doctor_D
08-27-2002, 06:56 PM
Good evening:

You never know !!!

However, you must remember, he was hand picked by the WPBA Board to fill my vacancy. NO election by the membership!

Dr. D.

08-27-2002, 07:59 PM
She is stuck up and VERY conceited about her game even against guys. How do I know this I live in Indianapolis and see her play alot and hear how she talks. She surrounds herself with little puppy dogs who all hang on her every word and she's not well liked here by the pool crowd. But by fans of pool shes very well liked.

Lester
08-28-2002, 05:13 AM
Rob - If you can't say something good about someone, don't say anything at all. The few times I met Jeanette, she was gracious and amiable. Plus she played some jam-up pool. She has a right to be conceited about her game, she worked hard to get it to where it is. Why is it that we love to root for the underdog, but once they achieve something, we play "King of the Hill", and love to see them toppled? ***Lester***

CarolNYC
08-28-2002, 05:53 AM
Chris,
Before this Peoria event, if you went two-and-out, you were guaranteed 350 back!So in essence, you only paid 150 to play!I agree with the monies-(on the regional tours, we DO NOT get any money for going two-and-out) and apparently,most of the bottom field are qualifier winners, so their entry was paid for,unless they were invited,then its their out-of-pocket expense!How many players can financially handle this expense?What I am curious to know,which I havent seen anyone inquire about,is the result of the 50-player survey that was distributed-quoted from AZbilliards forum by Jim Ruder,"a player payout structure and resulting elimination of the 1st round bye for the top 16 players that in of itself had two key flaws; both addressed in the most recent and first ever, WPBA Player Survey (top 50 players)"Has the result of this survey been made public anywhere? Was this survey the basis of the format in Peoria?
Carol

Lester
08-28-2002, 06:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: CarolNYC:</font><hr> WPBA Player Survey (top 50 players)"Has the result of this survey been made public anywhere? Was this survey the basis of the format in Peoria?
Carol <hr></blockquote>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;An excellent question Carol. I'd be surprised if they posted the results of the poll. This would open up their actions to criticism. I can't believe that the 50 top players would condone 2 byes to expand the field. ***Lester***

08-28-2002, 06:03 AM
If the survey was handled as fraudulently as the wpba elections last december then the results are very questionable.

rackmup
08-28-2002, 06:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Dr_D:</font><hr>In addition, knowing that certain members of the WPBA Board of Directors regularly monitor the posts here on the CCB, it would prove interesting to see if any member of the WPBA Board of Directors would be willing to identify themselves when they reply to posts and not hide behind an anonymous post.

Only time will tell... <hr></blockquote>

...and show that they actually have thoughts and opinions of their own? Not likely to happen if the penalty for having an opinion or wanting to better the WPBA for all of it's members and not just the elite few, results in their ouster from the board!

Regards,

Ken

CarolNYC
08-28-2002, 06:27 AM
Lester,
The survey should be redistributed to EVERY member-there are 10 regional tours/~100 players per tour-without the regional tours, there would be no pro-tour!Every player on the pro-tour was/still is, a regional tour player, otherwise they would NOT hold State Titles!
Carol

Fred Agnir
08-28-2002, 06:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Chris in NC:</font><hr> It was encouraging to see a board member (James Ruder) take the time and effort to post anything on one of the billiard forums in response to the posts - although IMO it probably should have been done here where the posts and various posters sharing their opinions/comments on this topic have far outnumbered those on azbilliards. I'm sure his respect for Mike and his website had alot to do with that decision, and I can understand that. <hr></blockquote>
I'm sure it didn't (not that he doesn't respect Mike). The reason why he posted on AZBilliards is because it was a response to the poll.

Fred

Doctor_D
08-28-2002, 06:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fred Agnir:</font><hr>

I'm sure it didn't (not that he doesn't respect Mike). The reason why he posted on AZBilliards is because it was a response to the poll.

Fred <hr></blockquote>

Good morning:

Regardless of his reasons and/or motivations, the information applicable to his post and the AZ Billiards Poll has been very well circulated. As a very wise friend one said "If you sneeze in California, someone from New York City will offer you a blessing" ...

Dr. D.

Rich R.
08-28-2002, 07:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fred Agnir:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: Chris in NC:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt; It was encouraging to see a board member (James Ruder) take the time and effort to post anything on one of the billiard forums in response to the posts - although IMO it probably should have been done here where the posts and various posters sharing their opinions/comments on this topic have far outnumbered those on azbilliards. I'm sure his respect for Mike and his website had alot to do with that decision, and I can understand that. &lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I'm sure it didn't (not that he doesn't respect Mike). The reason why he posted on AZBilliards is because it was a response to the poll.

Fred <hr></blockquote>
Another reason for posting it on AZBilliards could be the fact that it is not directly associated with a major publication, unlike the CCB.
Rich R.~~~just a thought.

Fred Agnir
08-28-2002, 08:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Rich R.:</font><hr> Another reason for posting it on AZBilliards could be the fact that it is not directly associated with a major publication, unlike the CCB.
Rich R.~~~just a thought. <hr></blockquote>
No. Despite presumptions, assumptions, guesses, and downright gossip-mongering, the reality is that I e-mailed Jim Ruder about the poll, and he responded on AZBilliards as that's where the poll originated. That really is all there is to it, no more no less.

Fred

Rich R.
08-28-2002, 09:56 AM
Thanks for sharing that Fred. We had no way of knowing.
Rich R.

08-28-2002, 11:05 AM
Keep in mind that not all of us on this board are "fans". Some of us know many of these pros personally, so we are around them in private situations where there are no "fans" around. And we get to see what many of these pros are really like. Sometimes it is different than what they are like in front of "fans".

"And that's all I have to say about that" - Forrest Gump

TomBrooklyn
08-28-2002, 12:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Chris Cass:</font><hr>The casino didn't advertise the event, like they should have either. The last day of the tourney I had a guy in the casino say to me, "hey, is there a pool tournament in town? I've been seeing people with pool cases everywhere?"<hr></blockquote>I have yet to see a pool event that I thought was well advertised. For major events, why isn't a flyer sent to every pool hall in the country that they can stick on their wall or bulletin board. With a data base set up and a label making program, this would cost about fifty cents per flyer including postage. Any smart pool hall operator would post such a flyer because the tournament is not in direct competition with their business, and it could promote a general interest in the game amongst their customers.

08-28-2002, 02:48 PM
Adverising is NOT a guarantee that your info will be disseminated to your audience. You can place all the ads you want, the right people (ie. Your target audience)still have to pick up the paper or turn on the TV at the right day/time.