Just thought I'd bring up an old debate...

Why not have tournament seeding in the tournaments? It seems perfectly reasonable to me, can hardly be too difficult to implement, and would give "lesser" players an incentive not only to take on and beat the "better" players in the early rounds, but also to radically improve their own game. I can undertand reasons why this may not be universally agreed upon, but I think a trial basis would be interesting.

There's then the argument of how the tournament should be seeded...ranking/tourney wins etc. Perhaps a combination of both is feasible? I think it would be an interest addition, even if it was only temporary.

Thoughts?

ok I have no idea what seeding is do you mean like the selection off who plays who?

That is correctumundo

Is that correct, I just thought seedings were players ranks converted into like top 8 in a tourney??

Like Roger Federer (1)
Rafael Nadal (2)
Novak Djokovic (3)

Yeah...well that's what I mean...

I mean for example in that last tourney, I'd have had you top seed, followed by lady, then ex_champ etc. combining rank, tourneys etc.

I just think it would be interesting, even for a little while

Yeah im all in support of it

oh i get it lol good idea would it work?

Yeah, would be good.

Sometimes it's nice to get Man Utd vs Arsenal in the first round to knock out one of the biggies. This way someone likeable like Portsmouth can nip in and win the competition.

Ok nick! But back to pool! Jeesh, football season is over!

haha lol

Yeah this idea seems good, gives you an idea of your achievement in the tourny

I for one would love it. Preferably, the seeding should be based purely on rank, but that would clearly be very unpopular among the rank haters. Based it on a combo of the two would probably be better, but at least it should be partially based on rank (would both give ranking even more meaning than it currently has, as well as give pure tourny players incentive to play ranked games so we could get their real ranks established rather than having all those players sit at 675 all the time).

Yes, they are of course entitled to do so if they please, no rule against it by all means, but it's hardly a secret that it bugs me to no end

if it was based on rank you would get more players willing to do anything to get their rank up, would this give ranking more meaning, nah, I personally rate players on tournament wins so would using rank make me wanna play more rank games, I don't think so.

seeding would be stupid

good point, they both are so why not have seeded tounys once a week advertise well enuf an it will be a big enuf size to seed the players

What is the point giving your opinion if you dont say why!? Then it can't be argued, stupid.

I think if it was based on tournament wins it would be the best, most accurate anyways.

it would be stupid because how do you judge how to seed someone

would it be

most wins
most tourny wins
highest rank
highest ever rank

After all its only a funkypool tourny

Seeding has always fascinated the naughty bits off me. I mean look at Champions League draws and the lengths they go to to rank teams based on club coefficient plus a fraction of national coefficient, and then sort them, and then, for the draw itself, make sure teams from the same county don't play each other. Addtitionally, access to these competitions is based on seeding; the more successful countries' teams get more qualifying places, and enter competitions later on. And somehow UEFA manages to pull it off every year, hundres of teams frothing at the mouth in Europe, all trying to win their way through to success.

HOWEVER... in the context of Funkypool, seeding might put an interesting spin on things, but if that were the case, then I'd never have got the chance to take on onua0767 back when he was winning UK 8 ball marathon tourneys on a near-nightly basis (I got him in round 1 and beat him 3-1, his first defeat in that tournament in about a week at the time). (more...)