PDA

View Full Version : Seeding a Tournament



jjinfla
05-30-2003, 11:36 AM
What is your opinion of seeding in a tournament? Should it be used? Is it good for the game? Will you enter a tournament that is seeded if you are not one to be seeded? Jake

eg8r
05-30-2003, 11:46 AM
I understand the players wanting to be seeded, however I don't think it really matters. In the end, the best will finish on top.

I will still play in a seeded tournament. If I didn't I would never get to play. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Deeman
05-30-2003, 02:03 PM
I like seeding. I mean, if you play well you don't want to play your way through everyone. If you don't play that well, I would think you would rather have the chance to last longer if the better players are seeded and you would not have to play them for a round or so.

Tom_In_Cincy
05-30-2003, 04:00 PM
Positives IMO
1. better players don't have to match up in the early rounds.
2. lessor skilled players get more of a chance to rise to their level of play (rather than being ousted in the early rounds by playing a much higher skilled player)
3. More players tend to play in a seeded tournament.

Negatives IMO:

1. No top players getting knocked into the one loss bracket (of a DE tournament) in the first round..
2. Makes it easier for lessor skilled players to make it past the first round of winners side and maybe have a better chance in the one loss side..
3. Rail birds have to wait a couple of rounds to see the top seeds play..

Steve Lipsky
05-30-2003, 07:42 PM
I am surprised nobody has mentioned a clear negative of seeding: it makes it much more difficult for the lower players to break through.

In a seeded tournament, once you get out of the first round, you begin playing a never-ending stream of monsters. Good luck.

In a non-seeded tournament, pockets of lesser players will occasionally be bunched together, allowing one of these guys/gals to break through for a good finish.

Non-seeded tournaments are much better for the lesser players, and IMO, tournaments are sustained by these guys. There are necessarily many more of these players than of the monsters.

Also, I think non-seeded tournaments offer much more exciting early-round action (watch how intense two champions play when they know a loss here is a big problem). Add to this that even non-seeded tournaments almost always offer the champions in the last rounds, and I do not understand the need for seeding at all.

- Steve

jjinfla
05-30-2003, 07:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> Positives IMO
2. lessor skilled players get more of a chance to rise to their level of play (rather than being ousted in the early rounds by playing a much higher skilled player)
<hr /></blockquote>

Tom, Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the purpose of seeding was to prevent the matchup of the top ranked players against each other in the first round. so if the top players are not playing each other then they have to be playing the low ranked players. Giving the low ranked players a better chance to lose in the first round. But then the loser side should not have any top ranked players until the third round. Jake

Mr Ingrate
05-30-2003, 08:13 PM
Seeding is most common in single elimination competitions where a loss means a player is out of the tournament. The promoters do not want to see the top players meeting in the first rounds forcing the exit of a big name and box office draw.

If the entire field is seeded it means the first seed meets the last seed, the second seed meets the second last seed, etc. Lowly and unseeded players will indeed meet the "monsters" in the early rounds and usually put up with years of early exits before beating some of the seeds and moving up the ladder.

Tennis is a good example of seeding, although they are seeding less players than before.

If only 16 players are seeded it is entirely possible that the top seed could meet someone ranked 17th in the first round.

In double elimination tournaments there is a second chance. In my opinion, the only justification for seeding, in a double knockout format, is to attract the top players by giving them the assurance they won't meet each other early and giving them a better chance to finish in the money. The money in pool is pretty lousy and seeding is an alternative to the promoter putting up appearance money for the big names.

Tom_In_Cincy
05-30-2003, 08:38 PM
You are correct. Seeding does eliminate the match up of the players in the 1st round. But, some seeded tournaments have the top 16 (WPBA as an example did this last year) players playing in the 2 or 3rd rounds.

And Steve L. is correct about the lower skilled players getting knocked out of a chance of getting into a weak bracket and finishing high. Good observation Steve, as always.

PoolFan
05-30-2003, 08:39 PM
I agree with Steve.

There are a lot good reasons for a promoter to hold a seeded event, but my money is as good as anyone else's in the tournament. I want a chance for a good draw to get my money back. Being seeded ensures that I have to grind through the best players just to reach the cash line.

jjinfla
05-31-2003, 06:19 AM
If you check the brackets that Mike put up on AZB for the Orlando Open you will notice that the top pros do not have to face each other until round 4! Such a deal. To me that is nothing but a rigged deck. But I suppose that pool players are either so stupid not to notice that, have money to throw away, or are just that desperate. I'm sure the pros will be laughing all the way to the bank. Jake

cheesemouse
05-31-2003, 06:29 AM
I think pool players, especially those that are driven to compete, are so starved for good events that they will play in anything. Any player who puts his money up to play knows what he is getting into and has no excuses after the fact if he finishes poorly but.........I do think any event that is advertised as OPEN, should never be seeded.

Drake
05-31-2003, 08:00 AM
I disagree with the Cheese for a change. There are many reasons that Pool is not respected by the general public. One is that Nine Ball has a little to much luck involved. The Public doesn't mind when Tiger wins by 4 strokes instead of 2 because he got one lucky bounce off a tree on a bad drive but to have the 100th ranked player in the world knock Reyes over to the losers side in a tournament because he broke in the Nine 3 times and kept Efren from the table for 8 games should be unacceptabe. Seeding WILL produce more consistent results.

Steve Lipsky
05-31-2003, 09:59 AM
Drake, would you please elaborate on your post? I am not sure I see the connection between the Reyes example and seeding.

Thanks,
Steve

Drake
05-31-2003, 11:13 AM
I can see where my example can not be directly related to the seeding discussion. Because, Efren would probably end up playing the 100th ranked player in the world in the first round if seeding were used. My only point was that Tournament Nine Ball has a lot of Luck involved in it and it really shouldn't.....and seeding WILL produce more consistent results. EVERY other game uses seeding,even in their OPENS. Who wants to watch Earl, OOPS! Bad example, I mean......EFREN go three and out in a tournament because he drew Bustamante and then Johnny??