PDA

View Full Version : AZ Billiards Poll of WPBA Brackets



Doctor_D
08-27-2002, 09:01 AM
Good morning:

Check out www.azbilliards.com (http://www.azbilliards.com) for a new on-line poll seeking feedback from viewers on the new WPBA Brackets and Seeding as used in the Peoria, IL event.

Thanks Mike !!!

/ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Dr. D.

Fred Agnir
08-27-2002, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr> Good morning:

Check out <a target="_blank" href=http://www.azbilliards.com>www.azbilliards.com</a> for a new on-line poll seeking feedback from viewers on the new WPBA Brackets and Seeding as used in the Peoria, IL event.

Thanks Mike !!!

/ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Dr. D.
<hr></blockquote>
There is a response on the AZBilliards Forum.

Fred

Doctor_D
08-27-2002, 11:21 AM
Good afternoon:

Yes; Mr. James Ruder, the individual appointed by the WPBA Board to fill my vacancy, has posted an "explanation" !

Now maybe he will pay us a visit here at the BD CCB.

Dr. D.

Kato
08-27-2002, 11:47 AM
Has he ever played in a pool tournament? Has he ever invited me to dinner? I think byes suck. There, I said it. Maybe he will come to our board and explain how the WPBA board sucks up to it's top 16. Also, other than Allison, Karen, Jeanette, Gerda, Vivian, Ewa, Lorri Jon, Robin, and the super adorable Jennifer Chen who is making all this money in the pro-am for the WPBA? I must be missing something.

Kato

Fred Agnir
08-27-2002, 11:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr> Good afternoon:

Yes; Mr. James Ruder, the individual appointed by the WPBA Board to fill my vacancy, has posted an "explanation" !

Now maybe he will pay us a visit here at the BD CCB.
<hr></blockquote>
For what purpose?

08-27-2002, 12:34 PM
It's refreshing to see input from a board member, even though it wasn't what I hoped to read.

What concerns me most is the point system. Now if I understand correctly, the WPBA MAY change the system to accommodate the new brackets...

A good friend of mine played in Peoria. She won two matches on the winners side (one of them against a 17-32 ranked player) and one on the losers side (against a 17-32 ranked player). For her efforts, it LOOKS like she is going to get 25 points and a pro point. When I played in the midwest classic two years ago (a 48 player bracket), I won ONE losers side match and got 25 points, but no pro point.

So where it was difficult before to move up in the brackets, it is going to be much more so now. And when the players aren't gaining anything they are likely to quit showing up. Where would the tour be without the up and coming players?

As far as the payout goes, I can see both sides. If they decide to go back to paying a last place finish, they should at the very least NOT PAY qualifier winners whose entry fee was paid by their tour. This means that the total prize fund won't be set in stone, but I'm sure they could figure a way to do it.

I personally think they should go to a 96 player bracket, bye in the 1-32 ranked players in the second round, and expect to have a less than full field. I don't recall seeing many complaints about the 48 player brackets, and this could be done the same way. This may mean adding a day to the tournament schedule, or starting earlier and finishing later each day. But there would be more prize money, more players getting a chance, and less coddling of the top 16. IMO the 64 player bracket was a long time coming, and they should have done it sooner. Maybe it's past time to move ahead again.

Anyway, at the very least, I hope they make adjustments to the point system so that they are a little more rewarding of a good showing.

Karla

Fred Agnir
08-27-2002, 12:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Kato:</font><hr> Has he ever played in a pool tournament? Has he ever invited me to dinner? <hr></blockquote>
I didn't understand it before, but now that I read his response a few times, and checked out the bracket, I now understand the direction they took. Right or wrong. As far as the top 16 are concerned, nothing changed for them. If they had never opened the field to 64 players (remaining at 48), the top 16 still didn't get anything extra.

I'm think that it becomes analagous to U.S. Open tennis where players go through qualifying rounds who aren't seeded in the top 'X' amount of players. We don't say that the top player got "byes" through the qualifying rounds. Top players are seeded and get to be in that position based on past performance. If years from now they continue to add more and more qualifying rounds to the U.S. Open, that doesn't mean we're adding byes to the rest of the tournament.

Fred

AzHousePro
08-27-2002, 12:54 PM
But havn't the 33-64 players already won a qualifier or something else to deserve being there? We are just throwing up more obstacles in front of the players struggling to make it on the tour.

Mike

Doctor_D
08-27-2002, 02:06 PM
Good afternoon;

Yes Mike, the Regional Tour members must win qualifiers in order to compete.

Dr. D.

Doctor_D
08-28-2002, 04:40 AM
Good morning:

I have just learned, subsequent to my original post on this topic, that Mike from AZ Billiards will be providing the results of this Poll to the WPBA Board of Directors next week at the WPBA US Women's Open.

VOTE NOW so as to have your sentiments heard by the WPBA Board.

Dr. D.

Rich R.
08-28-2002, 05:19 AM
I've been there and done that.
I tried to vote again, but it seems to allow only one vote per PC.
I guess others out there will have to vote.
Rich R.

Doctor_D
08-28-2002, 05:27 AM
Good morning:

Excellent safegaurd Mike set up allowing only one vote. This way the results will be credible !!!

Dr. D.

CarolNYC
08-28-2002, 06:04 AM
Karla,
You must place in the TOP-half of the field or beat a seeded player to get a pro-point!
Carol

Doctor_D
08-28-2002, 06:18 AM
Good morning:

Results, as of 8:15AM EDST

Poll Results

What is your opinion of the WPBA brackets and byes situation in Peoria?

It was needed. The top players deserve a break.
10 Votes 10.20%

It was a good move, but needs refinement.
12 Votes 12.24%

Undecided.
4 Votes 4.08%

I think it was a bad move.
20 Votes 20.41%

It was the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.
52 Votes 53.06%

Total Votes 98

08-28-2002, 07:28 AM
Carol,

I didn't mean for it to sound like I thought I should get a pro point... I knew I wouldn't. What I meant to point out is that I got 25 points for winning one match in the 48 player bracket, while my friend only got the same number of points for winning THREE matches in the modified 64 player bracket. I think she made a great showing, but the points don't reflect that.

Karla

CarolNYC
08-28-2002, 08:12 AM
Karla,
I was speaking in a gentle-tone, just to inform you of the pro-point requirement-I ABSOLUTELY did not think you were implying that you should have received a pro-point:)The situation you described is what everyone is saying regarding the Peoria format-(I also have a friend who went 3 rounds in the winners and then lost the round in the losers,this was one of her best displays of playing ability-previously,she has gone two-and-out)If Im understanding this format correctly, the THIRD round in the winners bracket is the actual start of the tournament-the first two are preliminary-the third round is actually your FIRST round from a straight 32 or 64 bracket-this is the only way I see it ,if your friend received the points you stated.
Carol