PDA

View Full Version : BCA PRO LIST ! HELP!



Bob
11-05-2003, 05:15 PM
Here is my dilemma. We have used the BCA pro list for our last tournaments and OMG have I been given grief regarding it.

Seems that there are people that are on the BCA pro list that rightfully should NOT be and more than a handful that I alone know about that should be.

This seems to be the biggest issue, but I have heard other complaints. I am interested in everyone's opinion as they all count. I listen very closely because we want our events to run a smooth as possible.


This question is regarding an amateur tournament. (sorry I should have stated that earlier)

My personal objective is to have a "semi-pro ~ Big Dawg" list. I do feel that in many cases the underdog has no chance. For the more serious of players, playing the big dawgs can be rewarding in some cases because it helps them improve their game. The underdogs are what finance the dig dawgs paydays and without them there would be no tournament at all. The semi pro list (big dawg list) would either include or exclude certain caliber of players from the event we are running at that particular time.

I am not happy with using the BCA pro list but, as I have redundantly mentioned, we need to follow guidelines and the BCA seems to be the best guideline that we know of, so until we have a different source, I have no other resource than the BCA list.

The whole theory behind this post is to gather info to create a different method of qualification for our events. We intend to bring several tournaments a year throughout the USA. We want people to know when we hold an event, it is done in a fair method where everyone can play to their ability.

In addition, when you attend our events you know what to expect from your room, food and bar being affordably priced to the playing field being one that you can have a chance at winning. In this industry, reputation is everything and we want our events to be held in high integrity.

Feed Back PLEASE!

Eydie

MarkUrsel
11-06-2003, 11:06 AM
Are you using the list to keep players out or handicap them differently? Are the tournaments "open" or limited to members only? I guess what I'm unclear on is what you are using the list for.

-- Mark <-- confused and easily led

eieio59
11-06-2003, 12:11 PM
Hi Bob.... Someone called me and said that you had posted a question regarding the "Big Dawg" list. As someone who has played in some of your events and also as someone who has, at times, been discussed as being a part of such a list (whether it was yours or someone elses).... I feel like this concerns a lot of people and somewhere we need to find a solution to it.

First, I have enjoyed yours and Eydie's events and will continue to support them in the future, whether it is as a player or vendor. You guys are the first ones who have at least given the players a say in helping to form this list. There are a lot of good ideas out there and hopefully some sort of solution can be found. So... here's my thing.

First, my current situation is that I am listed as a BCA Master. I have, in the past, been a professional on the WPBA tour and was.. to my knowledge, the last one to get into the "Amateur" rankings before they turned to the "once a pro, always a pro" list. I have not played professionally (other than a couple of hit and miss events) since 1994. The tour was a tremendous FINANCIAL burden for me, even at a time when we owned 2 businesses and had time to travel. If I had not been allowed to play in any of the amateur events, I simply COULD NOT have played. I have always supported the sport by running leagues, directing tournaments, owning pool rooms, etc.... so having an opportunity to play in competitive events only seemed fair.

My thing is this.... in other sports Professionals play for money... semi-pro's play for money... amateurs are NOT allowed to earn money. They play for trophies. We have a very good example going on right now where a coach paid some amateur basketball players $$ to make free throws and take charges...... his has now been forced out of coaching and the $$ must be paid back. Amateurs do NOT play for money. At the same time, Professionals are those people who CHOOSE to earn their living PLAYING their sport. They are not told (in most sports) that they MUST become professional because of their skill level. If they want to remain an amateur and receive no pay, then they have the right to choose to do so. In those sports, however, there is usually a "semi-pro" level at which players can choose to play. They want to play for money, but they don't want to play professionally and depend on the sport for their living. I believe that pool and billiards should have such a "semi-pro" division. This is where everyone who does not earn their living playing pool but DOES want to play for some $$ can CHOOSE to play. I say CHOOSE because that is what they would have to do. They would have to CHOOSE where they want to play and once they do so, they could ONLY play in that category. If they choose to play where the big $$ is (professionally) then they could ONLY play in that category and the same for playing in the Amateur... once they earn money in semi-pro or professional divisions, they could NOT play in the amateur division. The amateur division would only receive prizes or awards.

The Professional organizations would not like this idea, of course, since most players realize that they could not compete at the professional level and would simply choose to play at a more comfortable level, such as semi-pro. This would diminish the numbers that would be available to the professional tours. The numbers is the SEMI-PRO, however, would be HUGE! Imagine all of those players who have been "blacklisted" by being called a pro.. being allowed to play in the same event. I can name 30-40 women off the top of my head that would love to play in events such as yours, but because of this list they were not able to.. and the same is true of the BCA National event in Vegas. If there were some way of letting the players who want to play into the Vegas events as Masters, then the true Open players could then go back into their divisions, instead of being forced to play in the Masters division, where they just choose to NOT play instead of supporting the event.... and sometimes rightfully so.

There are players that are on the BCA List that were not competitive players at the professional level. They were there because they had the time and opportunity to experience something that many people just dream about.... playing on a professional tour. They supported the sport, played in their events (maybe 1... maybe 100) and NEVER had the opportunity to WIN one. Now we are PUNISHING those players by saying that if they DON'T play on the pro tours, then they CANNOT play in any meaningful event. Let's face it... I play in almost all of the major amateur events and you are still looking at only a few.... Windy City, Midwest Open, BCA Nationals, VNEA Nationals, Valley Forge and a handful of MINOR tour events (ones that when you win, you are lucky to pay for your trip). How can we tell these people that they can't play? They are out there begging to play and looking for every opportunity and they keep getting the doors shut in their face. Why would they want to keep supporting the sport.

I know that something like this would take organization and collaboration between lots of people, tournament directs, leagues, pro tours, open tours, etc... but if it could be done (whether in this fashion or another) it would open the doors for HUNDREDS of players to play, so that instead of shutting out players, we are giving MORE players an opportunity to play.

One more thing... (and I know I shouldn't say this).... but what makes me upset is that for the people who DO work on their game, practice, play tournaments, read books, videos, gamble or whatever method they choose.... they are penalized for getting better. I work 50 hours a week, have a 5-yr old child and play 2 nights of league each week... I still have time to practice and try to get better. If I wanted to play bad and not learn and not get better then I would be satisfied to stay at home and play in my local tournaments. I am not. There are many players like me and I hope that I speak for them and I hope that we will not get left out of the loop when tournament directors are setting up the formats for their events.

Anyway.. it was a long post and I'm tired now!!

Thanks for all you do and good luck on finding a solution.

Tammie Jones

randyg
11-06-2003, 12:22 PM
Hi Bob

I use the BCA List on all my Tournaments. Never have any problem from either side of the fence.

I've just read Tammie's reply, she may have something there. Maybe we can figure something out.

The one thing that doe's make sense is the BCA List. We must understand where they are coming from to understand how they handle their problem. Nothing is simple, especially when one combines subjective feelings with real results....Good luck to all....randyg

Fred Agnir
11-06-2003, 01:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tammie W. Jones:</font><hr> First, I have enjoyed yours and Eydie's events <hr /></blockquote> Well, of course you have. You're a favorite to win!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
First, my current situation is that I am listed as a BCA Master. I have, in the past, been a professional on the WPBA tour and was.. to my knowledge, the last one to get into the "Amateur" rankings before they turned to the "once a pro, always a pro" list. I have not played professionally (other than a couple of hit and miss events) since 1994. The tour was a tremendous FINANCIAL burden for me, even at a time when we owned 2 businesses and had time to travel. If I had not been allowed to play in any of the amateur events, I simply COULD NOT have played. <hr /></blockquote>It's funny because I don't know if I ever expressed it here or not...probably... but in these threads, you are THE person I'm thinking of that confuses me to no end as it pertains to this list. Now I know the reason as to why you aren't on The List. Thanks.

The best female player in my area is Liz Bernier. She's on The List. She's a woman with no tour, as she can't afford to play the WPBA events, but she's not allowed to play some of the other events. So, as far as I know, she's all but quit the game. It's sad, and it needs to be addressed, IMO.

Fortunately, it looks like Bob and others are trying to address it.

Fred &lt;~~~ thinks Tammie has a great username

eieio59
11-06-2003, 01:26 PM
Fred.. thanks for liking the name! When my daughter was young, that was her fav song!

Liz was one of the first woman players I ever met. She was at the WPBA Nationals in South Fallsburg, NY.. I think it was like 1983 or 85, something like that. She was a player and I just went as a referee. I have often wondered about why she isn't playing anymore, because she certainly was talented. Tell her I said hi! (BTW, she would know me as Tammie Wesley).

CYA~

KBuck
11-06-2003, 01:44 PM
Like others, I don't like the "Once a pro, always a pro" system because it doesn't allow people to test their skills by playing on a pro tour for a while.

I think it would work better if say the top 20 (or 10 or 15) from any pro tour's year-end money list would fall into the "Once a pro, always a pro" category. Say the top fifty (or 30, 60 or 100) would be considered a pro for the following three (or 1,2,4,5) years.

I would also limit the number of times a player could win an "amateur" tournament(either total wins or wins in a period of time) to keep players from staying at a lower level than a person with their skills belongs.

I don't play anywhere near these levels so I am just looking for a system that seems to be more fair and I have no personal interest.

Steve Lipsky
11-06-2003, 01:56 PM
Fred and others,

Do you agree that this seems to be mostly a female problem? Not that this makes it any better or worse, but the men aren't really in this situation. There are remarkably few high-paying amateur events in the country. Everything else is just Open. You got the money, you can play.

Any "pro" in this region can choose between the Tri-State tour, the Joss Tour, any pro event coming to the area, or any of a number of weekly handicapped tournaments. Of all the above, the Tri-State tour is the only organization that will NOT let the pros play in some (most) of their events.

I am sure it is similar in most of the other major regions, what with the Viking Tour, the Florida Tour, the Players Tour, etc...

- Steve

Barbara
11-06-2003, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> The best female player in my area is Liz Bernier. She's on The List. She's a woman with no tour, as she can't afford to play the WPBA events, but she's not allowed to play some of the other events. So, as far as I know, she's all but quit the game. It's sad, and it needs to be addressed, IMO.

Fortunately, it looks like Bob and others are trying to address it.

Fred &lt;~~~ thinks Tammie has a great username <hr /></blockquote>

Fred,

Liz quit because she's got 6 kids to look after and no money to travel to any event.

She's still allowed to play for WPBA Qualifiers because she never made Touring Pro in the WPBA. How the heck she ever made the BCA Pro List is a total mystery and totally wrong.

Barbara

Scott Lee
11-07-2003, 09:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eieio59:</font><hr> Hi Bob.... I feel like this concerns a lot of people and somewhere we need to find a solution to it.

Amateurs do NOT play for money. At the same time, Professionals are those people who CHOOSE to earn their living PLAYING their sport. They are not told (in most sports) that they MUST become professional because of their skill level. If they want to remain an amateur and receive no pay, then they have the right to choose to do so. In those sports, however, there is usually a "semi-pro" level at which players can choose to play. They want to play for money, but they don't want to play professionally and depend on the sport for their living. I believe that pool and billiards should have such a "semi-pro" division.

The Professional organizations would not like this idea, of course, since most players realize that they could not compete at the professional level and would simply choose to play at a more comfortable level, such as semi-pro.

Now we are PUNISHING those players by saying that if they DON'T play on the pro tours, then they CANNOT play in any meaningful event. Let's face it... I play in almost all of the major amateur events and you are still looking at only a few.... Windy City, Midwest Open, BCA Nationals, VNEA Nationals, Valley Forge and a handful of MINOR tour events (ones that when you win, you are lucky to pay for your trip). How can we tell these people that they can't play? They are out there begging to play and looking for every opportunity and they keep getting the doors shut in their face. Why would they want to keep supporting the sport.

I know that something like this would take organization and collaboration between lots of people, tournament directs, leagues, pro tours, open tours, etc... but if it could be done (whether in this fashion or another) it would open the doors for HUNDREDS of players to play, so that instead of shutting out players, we are giving MORE players an opportunity to play.

One more thing... (and I know I shouldn't say this).... but what makes me upset is that for the people who DO work on their game, practice, play tournaments, read books, videos, gamble or whatever method they choose.... they are penalized for getting better.

There are many players like me and I hope that I speak for them and I hope that we will not get left out of the loop when tournament directors are setting up the formats for their events.

Tammie Jones
<hr /></blockquote>

I agree about the 'semi-pro' division...I suggested this on an earlier thread about the Windy City Open, et al. However, the truth is firmly established, with a 20+ yr track record. The alleged "amateur" organizations (BCA,APA,VNEA,TAP, etc.), who all hold their own national events, are organized around, focused on, and advertised as PAYBACK money events. The BCA and APA, alone, hold annual events that pay out close to, or in excess of, a million dollars each in prize money, to "alleged" amateur players (like yourself). Nobody complains about these events, and they increase, in PAID paricipation and prize $$$ paid out, every year!

I believe, like you, that there should be some kind of "semi-pro" designation...so that amateur events could be just that (whether the entrants win prize money or not, is, imo, not the most important issue). I think, like you, that there would be huge numbers of semi-pro players to participate in these "mid-level" events...keeping the lower echelon tournaments available to lesser skilled players.

The APA has figured it out, to some degree. Their annual singles tournament, every May in Las Vegas, has triple-tiered winners, for both 8-ball and 9-ball...ensuring that a BEGINNER (SL 2-3), and INTERMEDIATE, and EXPERT champions will be crowned (given NICE trophies, and PAID handsomely) every year. This is a new concept, within the last few years, and has yet to prove itself beyond doubt. It does seem, on the surface, to be a very sound business practice, for the APA franchise in general.

I don't think any poolplayer should be excluded from pursuing competition. I just think it should be catagorized from the bottom up, and the legions of "semi-pros", pros, hustlers, and road players (who are ALL rampant within the ranks of all of the 'amateur' organizations), should be delegated to the proper level of play. Open tournaments should remain just that...open to any and ALL that CHOOSE to pay and play.

btw...Tammie, you forgot to mention taking lessons, as way of improving your game! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Nice post!

Scott Lee