View Full Version : seedings in tournaments

03-25-2002, 12:56 AM
if you are having a large tournament and major pros are there should you have seedings for the top players. While in Rochester NY for the joss event yesterday i watched some great playing. But i personally thought that they should have had seedings. Ginky having to play Charlie Williams in the 1st round was a rather tough match and unfair after travelling so far. I would prefer to have seedings in Tournaments like this when so many great pros show up....mike

03-25-2002, 01:14 AM
Luck of the draw is believed to be the fairest to all competitors.

03-25-2002, 06:45 AM
Good morning:

Personally, I prefer random draw with no seeding.

Dr. D.

03-25-2002, 10:26 AM
Gotta go with luck of the draw. If your a sometime player you gotta hope your lucky enough to draw a champion early before they get warmed-up. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

03-25-2002, 10:33 AM
There are no "politics" involved with a blind draw. Can't say that about "seeding".

Rich R.
03-25-2002, 11:44 AM
From a player's perspective, there is no doubt that the luck of the draw is best. It allows some of the top guns to knock each other out early and, as Cheesmouse stated, it may allow you to catch a top player before they have warmed up.
However, to look at the other side of the coin, from the spectator's point of view, it is not good if most of the top players knock each other out early and the remaining few have a walk in the park to get through the rest of the field. Seeding players helps insure that the top players don't play each other until the later rounds and allows the fans to see their favorites play in more matches. It also helps the house keep money spending spectators around until the end.
The whole issue of seeding is like a "Catch-22".
Rich R.

03-25-2002, 12:07 PM
Here are some good reasons to seed an event.

1. Spectators get to watch the top players in the final days of the event.

2. For tours like the WPBA or the old PBTA, seeding is good for the touring pro to ensure their pay. By ensuring their pay, ensures their participation in other events within the tour.

There are many problems with seeding events. What ranking system do you use to seed the players? This problem occurs a lot with events overseas or for that matter right here in the states.

For example, this past weekend's Joss event. How would you rank Strickland, Hatch, Ginky and the other top players who played? Strickland never plays on the Joss Tour, would you put him in unseeded since he's on the Joss Tour's ranking list? Do you go by BCA rankings, maybe Billiard Digest's rankings? I don't know and who does?

Every time there are invitational events, don't we read articles in Billiard Digest and Pool & Billiards about how unfair it was that so-and-so wasn't invited based on his/her record.

Without a standard ranking system, the best way to go is a blind draw, especailly for a two-day event. Spectators can watch great matches on both days.

Ralph S.
03-25-2002, 03:26 PM
Blind draw. The easy choice and most fair one.
Ralph S.

03-25-2002, 05:34 PM
Seedings are a good thing for the spectators, the players that deserve the seeding, and for the promoter/host - to increase the chances that the better known players will advance further in to the tournament before they have to start against playing each other.

The real problem with seeding comes in how to fairly and accurately determine who gets the seeds and what they are seeded. On the men's tour right now that is a real tough one to figure out. As a result, anyone choosing to seed a men's tourney (with a number of pro players) is going to catch alot of complaints from the players since there is not really a true men's tour or men's point ranking system in place now to help fairly determine the seeds. Thus the players left out or seeded lower than they think they should be will think that the TD or promoter is showing favortism (and maybe even involved in the calcutta) by seeding certain players higher than others. It's a really a tough call on the part of a TD as to whether to seed the players - but if they decide to, they'll certainly have to be ready to defend and explain their seedings.

IMO even if players are seeded based on past tournament performance, reputation or whatever criteria is being used, that should not necessarily mean they should be given the 1st round byes - another question that comes up. The byes on the chart should still be drawn randomly - so that all players in the field have an equal chance to be given a 1st round bye. Of course in the situation of say a 48 player field with 16 seeds and 16 byes, then of course it makes sense that the seeded players get the byes - however that only further gives them advantage to advance further in to the tournament. On the bright side however, by giving the seeded players the 1st round bye, the other players are guaranteed not to have to play against a top seeded player in the first round.

Bottom line rule for a TD - it's impossible to please everybody at a tournament - you just have to do the best you can, make a decision, be prepared to take the heat and stand by it! - Chris in NC

03-25-2002, 06:19 PM
If ever there were a clear example of why seeding is a terrible idea, it's the current WPBA format. The odds of seeing a "new" player in the Top 4 (TV matches) are indeed remote. This is NO GOOD for the sport. When the Final Four are almost without question, there's no element of surprise at all. You wanna talk about pressure? Try having Karen play Allison (via a random draw) in the first round... or better yet, in an early loser's bracket round! Let's see who plays best when she knows a loss means virtually no money.

Another issue is that seeding lowers participation among the non-seeds. If the Joss Tour will begin catering to the top players, why should all the other players support it?

If a top player doesn't want to come play because he might not be given a gift through to the semis, do we really need him anyway?

- Steve Lipsky

03-26-2002, 01:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Steve_Lipsky:</font><hr> Try having Karen play Allison (via a random draw) in the first round... or better yet, in an early loser's bracket round! Let's see who plays best when she knows a loss means virtually no money. <hr></blockquote>

I really like this point that Steve makes. Not only do top players have easier routes to the finals, but the pressure is a lot less. I love to see two top players in a tournament playing each other in the early rounds of the losers side.

Basically, seeding sucks and I hope that the Joss Tour never subscribes to such a process.