| |
BGonline.org Forums
"World Championship" -- Demographics (partial) and Ideas
Posted By: Bill Riles
Date: Tuesday, 20 July 2010, at 12:02 a.m.
This is meant constructively, as I would love to see a "World Championship" succeed, and to be received, beyond our wildest dreams, How can we help that to occur?
As we all recognize, the "World Championship" in Monte Carlo is but another tournament with a claim to a name. It has, seemingly, suffered considerably over the past few years -- both in decreased attendance and in reduced prestige. Many factors doubtlessly contribute to these observations -- we could argue them for days and compile a substantial list.
I've done a bit of a quick review of this year's "World Championship" field. It is certainly not exhaustive in topics of interest. As an example, I do not know the nationalities and residences of all of the participants -- that would be interesting to analyze as it relates to general attendance and to the skill composition of the field.
There were 156 entrants this year. Of those, by my count, only 51 appeared on the suggested ballot of the "Giants of Backgammon" -- the ballot this year included 207 names, I believe. This is most surprising to me, I draw several conclusions. I think BOTH the "World Championship" tourney field and the "Giants of Backgammon" suggested ballot are probably flawed. The WC tournament field is not nearly as strong, or as deep, as it should be. The GoB suggested ballot, unless expanded, doubtlessly includes names that it should not and omits names, inadvertently I'm confident, that should be included.
Further, a quick perusal resulted in finding only 8 of the 32 Giants of Backgammon in attendance at the WC this year. Additionally, 9 of those ranked 33-64 in the Giants balloting attended. I think it quite sad, I was going to say pitiful, when only 25% of those voted as the top players in the world attend the "World Championship". Again, I think it says volume about the tournament and the players.
How can this be improved? I think several factors need be addressed: costs, location, duration, date, format, seeding, and, perhaps, qualification (though I think a format change can also well address seeding and qualification). I'm sure others can add to my discussions, and probably add other topics of discussion.
I think the WC should not be held in Monte Carlo -- certainly not every year. It is one of the most expensive locales in the world. I think this discourages attendance. I think the venue should be rotated through a, perhaps, five year cycle to various global venues -- this could well encourage attendance by making the tournament more accessible to other players. Hook somebody in NYC or Tokyo that has never been to the tourney in MC and they may follow it year-to-year to the various locations. I think a USA city, a S. American city, an Asian city, and maybe N. European and S. European cities would make sense. Within those five generalized areas, a committee could vary those cities. Every fifth year the USA holds the event -- maybe once it is NYC, LA, Chicago, Las Vegas, or Miami. Make the global schedule a six year cycle and let it be in MC every sixth year for historical sake.
I'll discuss a few things out of order but maybe it will be clearer. I suggest a preliminary round of round-robin matches within seeded groups. As an example, all entrants go into 8-person groups and play each of the other players in the group. Obviously, it would depend on the total number of entrants, but let's assume we had 32 groups -- 256 players. A committee could establish the top 32 players, and the top 33-64 players. Randomly, each playing group would be given a top 32 player and a top 64 player. The remaining six players to each group would be completely randomly assigned. Each group plays their round-robin series (perhaps, nine point matches) over a two day period -- seven matches in two days (maybe a Sat-Sun weekend). Think World Cup group play. Then the top two players in each group advance -- 64 advancing -- and maybe anyone that advances gets at least his entry fee back. All group winners would play group second place players in the first playoff round. Pairings would be random except that groups feed their two players to opposite sides of the playoff bracket. Then the tournament is completed in a knockout type bracket as currently used. Those not advancing beyond the group play round can go home, if they choose, after a long weekend. The remainder of the tourney can occur during the following week with relaxed play and longer matches -- one round per day Mon thru Friday. Then the finals are played on the second Saturday and people can get home on Sunday for a full week of work.
By so seeding and by having the round-robin group play, it is quite likely that a much higher percentage of the better players advance -- which makes for a more realistic world champion. But the unknowns and less experienced players still have their opportunities to advance and win also. With the seeded group play, however, a single upset loss to an unknown or inexperienced player will not eliminate a Giant from the tournament, and two Giants will not knock each other out in the group play rounds.
Also, change the date of the tournament so it does not conflict with the World Series of Poker -- this just seems nonsensical not to do.
So, by varying cities we hopefully can reduce costs, attract more people, get more exposure, let the players see the world a bit, etc.
By varying the format, we can let all play a minimum of seven matches. We can facilitate the greatest number of the best players advancing, yet not exclude the unknown player or the less accomplished player on a hot streak from doing so as well. By changing the date we can get away from the WSOP conflicts of interest. By doing the group play on a first weekend the room/board costs of up to 75% of the players are greatly reduced -- which may justify higher entry and/or registration fees. If you don't advance you're out of there after the first weekend. If you do advance, you're around longer but you get your entry fee back for advancing.
The seeding aspect, in addition to helping choose a true World Champion, also adds more significance, and hopefully participation to activities such as the Giants of Backgammon voting.
Another thought would be to potentially have the group play at say, eight, satellite locations around the world and only have those advancing go to the WC host city of the year. The satellites could be weighted by attendance -- for example, if 200 play in the group session in Tokyo and only 50 play in the group session in Rio then Tokyo gets 4 times as many places in the knockout round.
These are a lot of random thoughts, but I think we could do so much better than what we are currently doing.
What do you think?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.