PDA

View Full Version : WPBA seeding



shayla
09-06-2002, 05:06 PM
Does the WPBA have some sort of matrix or equation on how they figure out who will get put into the 2nd or 3rd rounds with one or 2 byes? I thought it was just straight down the points list?

Lets see, out of the top 16, Loree Jon Jones and Robin Dodson aren't playing which means Belinda Campos (ranked 17th) and Nicole Mancini (ranked 18th) should move up. Checked the brackets, and they did. Out of the next 16 (17-32), Stephanie Bock ranked 29th didn't play. This means that there are 3 empty spots for players ranked 33rd, 34th, and 35th to move up. Right?

Well, if you look at official WPBA rankings from wpba.com as of Sept. 4th, Candi Rego is 33rd, Shari Stauch is 34th, and Shelly Barnes is 35th. If you look at the brackets, Kim Shaw who is ranked 32nd didn't get her 1 bye. However, Candi Rego (33) got a bye, Shari Stauch didn't play, Shelly Barnes (35) got a bye, and Aileen Pippen (37) got a bye. Vicki Paski who is ranked 36th didn't get a bye either.

Someone please explain to me how that makes sense?

09-07-2002, 07:18 AM
Shayla, for yourself or anyone to try to make any sense of the WPBA leadership is a tall and pointless task. I think it's obvious already by what we've seen recently that they can basically do whatever they wish without being challenged, and there is no apparent accountability.

I don't know what bracket you're looking at, but according to Mike's brackets, both Stephanie Boch and Shari Stauch (who you reported as not playing) are in the draw. Was the WPBA points list you're going by updated through the last tourney? Perhaps they take care of their more veteran players (such as Aileen) by awarding them byes as an incentive to come play. Or maybe they have an unwritten rule that any former top 10 players get preferential seeding. Can you honestly say it wouldn't surprise you?

Who knows anymore, and my view at this point is if the players themselves don't care to look in to these injustices, why should we bother? - Chris in NC

shayla
09-07-2002, 09:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Chris in NC:</font><hr> Shayla, for yourself or anyone to try to make any sense of the WPBA leadership is a tall and pointless task. I think it's obvious already by what we've seen recently that they can basically do whatever they wish without being challenged, and there is no apparent accountability.

I don't know what bracket you're looking at, but according to Mike's brackets, both Stephanie Boch and Shari Stauch (who you reported as not playing) are in the draw. Was the WPBA points list you're going by updated through the last tourney? Perhaps they take care of their more veteran players (such as Aileen) by awarding them byes as an incentive to come play. Or maybe they have an unwritten rule that any former top 10 players get preferential seeding. Can you honestly say it wouldn't surprise you?

Who knows anymore, and my view at this point is if the players themselves don't care to look in to these injustices, why should we bother? - Chris in NC <hr></blockquote>

Chris,
You're right. I don't know why I even bother. Maybe for some hope that there might be a little light at the end of the WPBA tunnel? I guess not. As much as I don't have the desire to play in the WPBA, I'm still a big fan of women's pool, and I hate to see the WPBA shooting themselves in the foot. Thanks for responding.

Thanks,
Shayla

facets58
09-07-2002, 11:37 AM
shayla,

The WPBA takes the top 32 touring pros by ranking 60 days out from the tournament and does the seeding. All other players go into a blind draw. Kim Shaw is not a touring pro and thus will not get seeded until she has 80% participation.

I don't agree at all with the double bye but this is one of the few things that does make some amount of sense.

Mike--