PDA

View Full Version : UPA not sanctioning US Open



08-28-2002, 08:36 PM
Who thinks what?

2 weeks ago web sites didnt automatically recognize me- Now they dont even recognize me WHEN I SIGN IN!!

Guess i have some creepy virus

NOSTROKE

Tom_In_Cincy
08-28-2002, 09:17 PM
Does that mean that the UPA will not bannish/bar/fine players for comments made during the tournament?

Or does that mean that Barry Berhman doesn't have to deal with Charlie Williams comments during the tournament?

Sounds like a winner either way for the US Open..

Imagine a Pro orgainization not sanctioning the 27th annual US Open Tournament. Shame on them... What possible reason could validate such a decision?

08-28-2002, 09:31 PM
I suppose the obvious is that the added money isnt posted up

It's a promise like last year.

Tom_In_Cincy
08-28-2002, 09:45 PM
Yeah.. I guess that this means that none of the UPA members will be attending?

9 Ball Girl
08-28-2002, 10:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> Yeah.. I guess that this means that none of the UPA members will be attending? <hr></blockquote>

That would suck since the members are currently http://www.upatour.com/members.htm

08-28-2002, 10:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: 9 Ball Girl:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt; Yeah.. I guess that this means that none of the UPA members will be attending? &lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That would suck since the members are currently <a target="_blank" href=http://www.upatour.com/members.htm>http://www.upatour.com/members.htm</a> <hr></blockquote>

Well /ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif ... at least Earl will be able to play since he evidently is no longer a member.BS

08-28-2002, 11:08 PM
I bet 2 of the UPA players will not attend! Can you guess which two?

lol

Cant wait until the U.S.Open

Drake
08-28-2002, 11:23 PM
I disagree. I think ALL of the players will still play in the OPEN. This just means that Barry won't put the money up front or maybe they just haven't came to a resolution over last year's purse. I just hope that both parties will bend a little and give men's pool a chance.

Rich R.
08-29-2002, 04:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> I suppose the obvious is that the added money isnt posted up

It's a promise like last year. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure it is the money.
It could also be that the Open will not seed the players according to the UPA rankings, which is a requirement of the UPA.
http://www.upatour.com/sanctioning.htm

Rich R.

rackmup
08-29-2002, 05:19 AM
Rather than the speculation that is going on about the UPA's decision, perhaps Brady could comment on why the UPA backed away from the table.

Regards,

Ken

Doctor_D
08-29-2002, 05:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Rich R.:</font><hr> I suppose the obvious is that the added money isnt posted up

It's a promise like last year.


I'm not so sure it is the money.
It could also be that the Open will not seed the players according to the UPA rankings, which is a requirement of the UPA.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.upatour.com/sanctioning.htm>http://www.upatour.com/sanctioning.htm</a>

Rich R.
<hr></blockquote>

Good morning:

Open events typically do not have seedings. Am I correct or not ?

Dr. D.

SPetty
08-29-2002, 07:08 AM
In looking at their web site, it doesn't seem that not UPA sanctioned means that they can't/won't play. It just means not sanctioned, whatever that means.

The BCA Invitational in Las Vegas wasn't UPA sanctioned, but they played. The World Championships in July weren't UPA sanctioned, but they played. Etc., etc.

Nostroke
08-29-2002, 07:09 AM
Im not sure if there is a universal definition of "seed" but in the past as i understand it, the US open has placed "ranked" players in different brackets so that they would not meet in early rounds. There were no buys- they still played the same number of rounds as anyone. I haven'theard anyone who thinks this is unreasonable so i still think maybe the money isnt posted. Barry has obviously has been living hand to mouth the last few years.

Rich R.
08-29-2002, 07:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr>
Good morning:

Open events typically do not have seedings. Am I correct or not ?

Dr. D.
<hr></blockquote>
I believe you are correct. Considering the required seeding, mentioned on the UPA website, that is why I think it may be the problem the UPA has with Open.
Rich R.

08-29-2002, 07:35 AM
Rich, the US Open has been seeded for awhile. I suppose they may be arguing over which ranking system to use (UPA or another), but not over whether there'll be seeding at all.

In previous years, it was seeded as such, I believe:

32 top players from Camel Tour
16 top players from European Rankings
16 top Senior Tour players

They were dispersed randomly throughout the chart, but one seed for every group of four players (approximately).

- Steve

Rich R.
08-29-2002, 08:02 AM
Thanks for the clarification Steve.
It looks like the main sticking point, IMHO, would be WHO controls the seeding, the UPA (Charlie Williams) or the Behrman's.
Rich R.

jjinfla
08-29-2002, 09:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: 9 Ball Girl:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt; Yeah.. I guess that this means that none of the UPA members will be attending? &lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;That would suck since the members are currently <a target="_blank" href=http://www.upatour.com/members.htm>http://www.upatour.com/members.htm</a> <hr></blockquote>

I notice Earl Strickland is not listed as a UPA player. Does that mean the rumor that he dumped them is true? I'll bet old Earl is laughing his a$$ off at the UPA now. Sure does make it easier for Earl to win the US Open again. Maybe that is the real reason the UPA is going on strike - they are afraid of Earl. I wonder if the UPA players notified their sponsors that they will not be participating in the US Open. I can just hear the sponsors now, "SAY WHAT?". The most prestigeous event in the USA and these bozos are not going to attend. Well, good riddance to them. Hope they have a day job. Better practice this line: "Do you want fries with that?" Jake~~~waiting to see what kind of backstroke CW will do on this one.

PoolFan
08-29-2002, 09:34 AM
Drake,

I agree with you 100%. Just because the UPA does not sanction an event, it doesn't mean the UPA member can't play in the event.

Everyone knows that the US Open is the most prestigious title in pool and all the players know Barry and his family. All the big players will attend as usual.

From my understanding the UPA mission is to help protect pro pool players in getting their money. When an event is not sanctioned, the UPA is saying that the event does not guarantee the payout to their standards. I think that is great, but in the case of the US Open, the longest running pool tournament in the world, I really don't believe that the players are afraid of being screwed.

PoolFan

Rich R.
08-29-2002, 09:45 AM
Jake, nobody said that the players will not be at the U.S. Open. They only said that the event is not sanctioned by the UPA. I'm betting that all the players, except maybe one or two, will be there.
Rich R.

stickman
08-29-2002, 09:54 AM
http://www.azbilliards.com/2000storyb.cfm?storynum=363

Drake
08-29-2002, 10:19 AM
Well, it must be the money up front that's keeping it from being sanctioned. But, I still think ALL of the players will still be there...even Charlie. As for Earl, He'll be back in the UPA in no time. Earl always makes big statements when he is unhappy. The UPA tournaments will continue and he'll come around in about 6 months. Just wait.

08-29-2002, 12:33 PM
Seems to me that, right now, the UPA has put the fan in a terrible position. Key phrase being right now. What does matter is that both parties recognize the importance of the fans. Fans who have already, IN ADVANCE, in good faith, paid for their tickets etc.
1- the promoter should publish a list of players registered and paid to date and up date the list as changes occur and publicize any refund policy.
2- the UPA should make a statement to the fans clearly indicating the problem with the US OPEN and clearly stating whether or not they are asking their players to withdraw or not participate

rackmup
08-29-2002, 12:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Barry Behrman:</font><hr>
Barry Behrman Responds
August 28, 2002

We understand the UPA has withdrawn official sanctioning of the 2002 US Open. We are sorry to hear this news. We would like to assure everyone that all past debts have been paid and there will be no money issues at this years's open.

Looking forward to a great 2002 tournament,
Barry Behrman

<hr></blockquote>

Rod
08-29-2002, 12:57 PM
There are two generic statements.

http://www.azbilliards.com/2000storya.cfm?storynum=362
http://www.azbilliards.com/2000storyb.cfm?storynum=363

Perhaps neither side wants to be specific or drag it through the mud as can happen on an internet board.