| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BigSi |
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 11:34:11 AM
Hey, I would like to get players input on the Southwest Challenge 9-Ball format reguarding playing for points (like we do all year long)Vs the 2 out of 3 format that we currently follow? Being that we may field 3 players to a total of 15/SL with a rotating tournament system, wich puts a huge luck factor in play, I personaly feel that the team to reach 31 points would be the winner (3 matches = a total of 60 points) Vegas is a long way to go to have your first two matchs neck 'n' neck and have a completly one sided last match (I know i'm gonna get flack for that last statement) anyways, any feedback would be helpfull. Thanks Simon |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| jackiejankowski |
Posted - 10/07/2005 : 6:42:26 PM
Wow! Lots of opinions on this subject. Having been there last year for the first time I found the format a lot of fun and very fair. Personally, I wouldn't want to go as a 2 or 3 and just watch. I'd want to play. Fortunately when one of our players was a little off,
the other 2 picked up the slack. We lost our first match and continued on to the finals. we came in second and are very proud to have gone that far. The teams that went and were out before us came by to watch and support us. It was wonderful. I wouldn't change a thing. Everyone we played were great people and a lot of fun.
Phil and Taz have experimented and found out that this format is the fairest. They run a great tournament.
So just go and find out for yourself.
Jackie (Moorpark Billiards) |
| Taz |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 3:07:26 PM
ApaMVP,
Southwest 9-Ball Challenge is a three-person team event, not five. Big difference. |
| ApaMVP |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 2:15:04 PM
I like using the Point rule instead of win vs loss rule. Reason being, as an example posted earlier, perhaps a team DOES win 4 consecutive matches 12-8. It could be added that in each case ALL 4 games were decided by only 1 ball, meaning that each match was played nearly evenly with one team having the benefit of being ahead by having their players FORTUNATELY make the last ball. With the change of just one or two shots, the match score could be 40-40 and 2-2 respectively. If the final match is able to vie 2 opponents where one opponent clearly dominates the match... then that team should be awarded the team victory being they played, as a TEAM, better than their opponent. |
| Taz |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 8:08:19 PM
BigSi, it's not a matter of fixing something that is broken. The whole idea behind SWC has always been a fun weekend of competitive pool. We (and I'm pretty certain I'm speaking for all the League Operators involved in this one) believe we have accomplished that. The fact that the SWC format is slightly different is what makes it unique and special. |
| BigSi |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 5:58:43 PM
Hey Brian, I understand your train of thought here, but if one of my players get's beat 20-0 that's part of the game, How about this, which I know must have happened, 9 ball Upper Level- Team SanD1.Vs Team SoCo1. wins four out of five with scores of 12-8, Team Soco1. wins one game 19-1, Team SoCo1. wins overall 51-49!!!! If I'm not mistaken SWC 9-Ball is the only event that has changed it's format from regular league play? If it's not broken for the rest then why try to fix this one? Thanks Simon |
| Phil |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 4:31:07 PM
Yeah, we visit San Diego's board and they visit ours. I terrorize theirs much more frequently than they do ours, though...
Phil
|
| Doug Gill |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 4:16:18 PM
There has been a lengthy thread about strategy with regards to skill level matchups and such in another forum. The fact that this is NOT possible in the Southwest Challenge is a BIG part of the fun as far as I am concerned. The Southwest Challenge is a rather unique format and good luck/skill level matchups (it is Vegas afterall)and being copied almost stroke for stroke in other parts of the country.
My vote? DON'T CHANGE A SINGLE THING!
Good Shooting all!
Doug
p.s. Phil & Taz....I guess you weren't kidding when you said anyone could post, i.e. A Pool God (  and waves at Brian)
|
| A Pool God |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 3:34:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BigSi
Hey Taz, First, I would have to totally disagree with your statemnet that the lower skill levels do not get to play, thats unbelievable to think that your first 2 players would both win or lose all the time. And second I cannot maintain that having to decide which two players to put up (being the third is an obvious no brainer') would have that much impact on slowing the event down. You have and proberly will always run an excellent event (Kudo's) which I very much enjoy participating in reguardless of my bitching. But having run pool event's myself (nowhere on the grand scale that you guys do)my main focus is fairness to all, which I believe is not the case with the said rotation or the best of 3 format.
1/4 of the entire field at the SWC event will be eliminated in their first 2 matches. Many of those teams will be eliminated 2-0 in both matches. If teams did their own matching up, it's quite possible that many players would never get a chance to take their stick out of their bag even though they paid the same entry fee as their two teammates. Rotation allows/forces all players to play. You could argue that no team would sit their one player that hasn't played yet, but as one of the other tournament directors along with Phil and Taz, we've seen it happen numerous times before we changed the format to a rotating system that allows everyone to play.
While you might sit on the side of the fence that feels the point system would be better served than the current 1 point for each match win, imagine being the team that has a player get beat 20-0 because your player shot really bad, and the opponent shot really good. If you won the next two matches 12-8 each, you'd still lose the match 36-24. If you won the next two matches decidedly by 14-6 and 15-5, you'd still be moving to the loser side, because you lost the match 31-29. If you were the team on the losing end of a 15-5 and 14-6 win and a 20-0 loss, you'd be joining our side of this argument. Why should one player out of 6 in a match get as much as a 66% win share for their team? 66%. That's what 20-0 gets you in a race to 30 or 31. 20-0 is just way too difficult to overcome in a 3 person format, therefore best 2 out of 3 matches wins.
The point system reflects not only how good or bad your player played, but also how well or badly the opponent played. Lopsided scores are quite common in 9 Ball. While it might seem rare to see a 20-0, there are a lot of 15-5's, and even a 15-5 gives the winning team quite an advantage in the remainder of a match.
In the end, it makes more sense to give the victory to the team that wins 2 out of 3 matches. No team really has any advantage, since no team controls when they play or who they play. No team knows what team they are playing or who will be first up to play. With the handicap system in place, any player could win, or any player could lose.
Getting away from the potential 20-0 score and looking at even a 15-5 score instead, a 12-8 win, 12-8 win and a 15-5 loss would be a loss for your team (31-29).
These are the types of things we thought about when we made the decision to go to best 2 out of 3. Best 2 out of 3 just made much more sense to us.
Brian Frankland
San Diego APA
SD APA League Operator |
| Phil |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 3:30:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BigSi
Hey Phil, Being tougher to fight back is a weak excuse to go to best of 3 format,( No Offence There) perhaps you don't realise just how much presure that puts on your lower skill level players when they have to win there match outright. It is not something they are used to doing and I have seen many of them fold in this situation, where they would have gotten enough points for the TEAM to have won.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think 19-1 in a race-to-31 format isn't that bad?
While you're at it, please explain why it's bad that your lower skill level player has to win a match, but not so bad that they have to win 18-2?
Phil
|
| Taz |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 11:46:28 AM
BigSi, With all due respect (and I mean that) you can disagree all you want. I'm not making this stuff up. It is through trial and error that Southwest Challenge has developed into the format we use today. I did not say that the first two win ALL the time, but often enough that it was a major issue. As to the time taken to strategize and decide who plays next and match up, it is a problem even on league night at the local level. Maybe not for you, but it happens with a large number of teams. We hear about it during league night, we witnessed it during Team Regionals. We have experienced it in the early years of Southwest Challenge. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Have a nice day |
| BigSi |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 10:33:25 AM
Hey Taz, First, I would have to totally disagree with your statemnet that the lower skill levels do not get to play, thats unbelievable to think that your first 2 players would both win or lose all the time. And second I cannot maintain that having to decide which two players to put up (being the third is an obvious no brainer') would have that much impact on slowing the event down. You have and proberly will always run an excellent event (Kudo's) which I very much enjoy participating in reguardless of my bitching. But having run pool event's myself (nowhere on the grand scale that you guys do)my main focus is fairness to all, which I believe is not the case with the said rotation or the best of 3 format. |
| Taz |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 09:39:57 AM
BigSi, Getting rid of the mandatory rotation system would result in two things. (1) The lowest skill level player (of the three-man team) would most likely not get to play, as teams would use their higher two and (2) The tournament would never again run on time, as people take forever to decide and figure out match-ups.
When Southwest Challenge first started (10-11 years ago) we did not have mandatory rotation. The two factors mentioned above ocurred time and time again. Players complained that they paid their share of the fees and never got to play a match and it was impossible to keep the tournament on time. Been there, done that. You would have a very hard time convincing the 11-13 league operators who run this tournament to go back to something that didn't work. Never-the-less, thanks for your input. |
| BigSi |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 09:13:11 AM
Hey Phil, Being tougher to fight back is a weak excuse to go to best of 3 format,( No Offence There) perhaps you don't realise just how much presure that puts on your lower skill level players when they have to win there match outright. It is not something they are used to doing and I have seen many of them fold in this situation, where they would have gotten enough points for the TEAM to have won. It favours the higher level players, why not put the presure on them? Myself at an 8 only allows a remainding 7 SL points to split between 2 players, and with the current rotational system (which alone can be the deciding factor in a match)that makes it very hard on the lower SL's. A SL 4 should beat a SL 3, thats why one player is stronger than another, the point system allows teams to play on a little more even field. In my opinion getting rid of the rotational system and letting teams match there players up would make things a little more even. |
| Phil |
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 2:18:03 PM
One of the big reasons we decided to race to matches instead of points is that a 19-1 or 18-2 is huge when you're only going to 31. When going to 51 the other team can battle back, but it's a LOT tougher in the shorter race.
Phil
|
| Taz |
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 12:05:08 PM
Simon, this option has been looked at and discussed by ALL the league operators involved in the Southwest 9-Ball Challenge. We have investigated and measured the pros and cons of 2 out of 3 vs. 31 points and there are a lot more problems related to scoring and skill levels due to the amount of DNF matches we would have to score if we went to 31 points. Feel free to discuss all you want, but it is just not doable at this time. |
|
|
