Plus, as Nick said, the way the draw is at present, all random and open, throws up the lovely possibility that there'll nearly always be a Goliath and Goliath contest to remove one of the big guns, as well as some David and David ones to guarantee a fairytale for some of the lesser lights. Don't we all love it when we look at a tournament draw in Round 1 when we have a bye and time to kill, and see something like quick_pot vs allornothing?

So, seeding on an experiemental basis, why not. But as a permanent idea? To win a tournament, you're gonna have to face a formidable opponent in at least one round. I remember once in one of the early morning tourneys there were about four rounds cos there were only around 16 players in it. rangersfc (I think he's banned now!) was in the tourney too, and I figured he'd be the one to beat if I was to win. Sure enough, we met in the semi, he won, and he went on to win the final. If the tourney was seeded, and if... (more...)

...I was seeded well enough to be in the opposite half of the draw to him, I'd still have had to play him.

On a related-ish note, note at the start of a tournament how relatively few players have actually won tournaments. Looking at the most recent tournament on now, the 9 Ball Speed Tourney (which I forgot all about, goddammit! ), there are currently 36 players remaining, only 7 of whom have won a 9 Ball tournament. The chances are the winner will be a new winner.

Update: 6 players left, 2 former winners... bunrzybhoy beat a former winner in the q-final and got beaten by a former winner in the semi, so that was two taken care of...

Edited at 18:31 Fri 18/07/08 (BST)

Update: As it turned out, no former winner made the final, with dukesy getting the furthest before bowing out in the semi. The final then had two 0-time winners; and for the record, mediocre45 won his first 9 ball tourney by beating slickster 2-1.

I was right! ("The chances are...", above)

Edited at 18:46 Fri 18/07/08 (BST)