| |
BGonline.org Forums
Tournaments -- Attendance and More (Probably Much too Long)
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: Tournaments -- Attendance and More (Probably Much too Long) (Strato)
Date: Tuesday, 5 June 2012, at 1:49 p.m.
Michael, not being from UK or US, it's probably me who can't read, rather than you who can't write :-)
But I think I red and understood your initial idea as you intended it, I just concluded a bit myself: You probably wont WIN the prize-pool by just attending, I guess you'd have to cash as well - more than once or twice :-)
My points in my reply, as UBK states, are still valid (at least in my opinion) even though you change "cash" with "attend", wouldn't you agree?
Don't get me wrong, I clearly think your idea has some merit, but you have to tailor it a bit to the problem. And here as I wrote elsewhere, I think the problem addressed, should be at the lower end of the participation pyramid, ie getting players to go from attending zero events to attend just one, and getting the players that currently attend just one (their local event?), to maybe attend 2 or 3 events. That would really move the total attendance. Getting players that currently attend in 4 tournaments extend their attendance to 5 or 6, wont affect your totals anywhere near the same (again, in my opinion of the current ABT demographics).
So, that is why I criticized the way you had put together your proposal, and suggested an alternative (a more "sprint-like" prize-pool). Your way, the pool would without a doubt go to one of the players doing many tournaments. If you were attending one or two tournament and were considering moving to three or four, you would still have just a very marginal shot at the pool. THUS, the money going to that pool, would be seen merely as an additional expense.
Another problem with "your way", is that long before the last tournaments, you would have narrowed down the field of contenders to the additional pool, to very few people maybe even just one or two! At some point (well before the end of the season), it wouldn't have any attraction to the vast majority of potential players - it simply wouldn't draw more people to more events.
Turning things up-side-down (as I was trying to suggest), and putting in a low maximum number of events to count, would make the race more open! Eg. go for "3 best results", and more people would have the chance to win, going much deeper into the season. Players with 3 results early on, could still benefit from participating, in that they could improve their results. Having tournaments count by attendance or maybe even adding a big season finale, would make the pool even more "live" (to use a backgammon term).
Now, your idea could even be customized, to address the focus areas USBGF/ABT wanted to improve on. Say a pool for new players (players who are playing in events they haven't played in before), etc.
----
Regarding your "funding" of the pool, I might have got you wrong.
Are you not saying that:
The $$$ doesn't come off entry fees, they come from an additional mandatory fee, specifically for that pool?
If so - tomato/tomato?!
You pay $100 in entry, with $10 going to registration, $10 going to the "season pool" and $80 going to prizes at the tournament your attending.
or
You pay $90 in entry, with $10 going to registration, $80 going to prizes at the tournament your attending. And then you pay a mandatory additional $10 to the "season pool".
I might have got you wroong, but my point is this: you need to either make the pool in a way so players entering, think they actually have a chance of winning, OR you have to make it seem "sponsored". Otherwise a lot of players will (correctly) view it as an expense only.
Best regards, Henrik
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.