SA CUP format!

[Beanie]

Good point Jason, I also find it strange that the eventual tournament 'winner' could get less dough than the top qualifier. It seems to me that both the qualifying and finals need to be treated as separate events, with 2 champions declared - 1 for the qualifying phase and 1 for the knockout. There is already separate prize funds allocated, this wouldn't be too hard.

This would be similar to the MTC in recent years, where we had a tournament champion who won the matchplay, and a challenge champion who won the stepladder after the matchplay.

Another question that needs to be ironed out by Tony Goodwin and AMF is how do you allocate ranking points (both Australian Rankings and Super 6) in a format like this? On qualifying position? On masters position? Treat both stages as separate events and apply ranking points on both? or on overall average?

I'm sure AMF would welcome any suggestions mentioned here as they talk about this issue. A final decision needs to be made quickly, the tournament is less than 6 weeks away.

David.

 

[Graham]

Now with a few minor touches this format can be PERFECT!

Keep the suggestions coming as I can assure you they will be listened to, and it can be made better second time around !

 

[daniel]

Although I'm not bowling, this format is looking very exciting - and I'm looking forward to being a spectator and experiencing the atmosphere that this should provide!

Well done to Tony Goodwin and to all involved in adopting this new format. Obviously with anything new, like some have said, continual improvements will make it perfect.

I dont think that it's such a huge deal to have the winner receiving less than the top qualifier. Odds are that the 24th qualifier probably wont win overall, and if they do then they have obviously worked hard on the Sunday but still they only deserve the cash for bowling exceptionally well on one of the days.

With the top 32/24 etc.. mankind's idea is a good one, to go in with 48 and run a bye for 16. This would generate more entries, i believe, as you would have almost half of the field making the cut.

The discussion is great though guys, and as Graham said, people will be listening!

Cheers,
Daniel

 

[BELMO]

just reading the last post....

If you want to cut it to top 48 then perhaps instead top 16 having a bye...why not reward the top few........ perhaps 8-16 receiving 1 bye.......... 3-7 getting 2 byes and the top 2 getting 3 byes.
With 48 bowlers there will be more rounds...that way you will protect your better bowlers as well as giving everyone a chance to win.
I mean it is only fair that the better you play the more protection you should get?????
i have not worked it out and made sure if it works out with 48 players but i know that is how they work it out in Europe.... I have never actually played in one, but i have spoken to all the guys from over there and they have explained it....i guess all it does is makes sure your top few are going to have a better chance at making the final... with that the best bowler will win!!!!! and rightfully so!
The main difference is in Europe they do not have a qualifying payout!!!!!!!!

But i still have a slight problem with the overall champ not get the most money on offer???? Why pay the qualifying round full payout when the event is NO WHERE NEAR FINISHED????

IDeas anyone??

 

[Beanie]

Having all those byes for the top bowlers as they do in Europe would be fair - if this event was bowled last year and there was no qualifying payout. But this is 2005, this is Australia, and there is a payout on qualifying. So I say the present format for the matchplay (Top 24, Top 8 get 1 bye) is perfectly fair, as the top qualifiers have already been rewarded for getting to the top by a payout AND being seeded against the lower bowlers. IMHO given the payout on qualifying is as big as it is, my personal preference on this format would be to skip the byes and open it up to a full field of 32 bowlers, giving as many bowlers as possible a chance.

Remember in knockout 1 doesn't play 2 until the final, indeed 1 doesn't play anybody higher than 8 in the first 3 rounds. And the qualifying payout should make sure everyone does their best to qualify as high as possible (given pinfall is dropped), ensuring that the seedings are as fair as possible on the given condition.

And before you ask, yes I would be happy being top qualifier in this situation - facing 5 rounds of knockout before I am declared the winner. If I don't win those 5 matches, I don't deserve to win the tournament.

FYI in NZ top prize is normally around $750, certainly no more than $1000. It's a rare tournament (Pepsi HighRoller, Enduro) where you can get more than that. If we ran this sort of format in NZ, top qualifier would get no more than $400, with a similar purse for the knockout winner. So I see no real problems whatsoever with the payout for this tournament.

The way I see it, if you want to win more money than anybody else, you have to win both days of the tournament. If you have an off day either day, you will be punished for it. It's that simple.

David.

 

[strop]

looks interesting the matchplay? Reminds me of a masters elimination.
Daniel 24th could win very easily with this format.
To me its the luck of the draw.
A sort of a raffle!!!
Fair or not , who cares, something different I suppose.
I'll still bowl. Good for us seniors and gives us a chance.
bye
tony

 

[KANAFA!]

just a question. Where will national ranking points come from? qualifying or matchplay/knock out round?

matty k

 

[Mankind_280]

First off

Has top 24/32 been confirmed??

I would assume its 24 since it can only be done that way with byes


As for the prize fun pay out..... its the first i have ever seen and It is fair to reward the top qualifiers with a nice check... only thing is...... depending on entries I would
___________________________________
Increase winner (champion) to $1500 as well... therefore there is no bias.... winning matchplay games is just as important as qualifying 1st and increase 2nd to $900

Thats an $800 increase.....

I dont know the prize fund contributions as to entry fee but the winner should be rewarded with more money....


OR

alternatively.... if this format is played and works perhaps the champion should get the option auto entry into next years SA Cup or even seeded 24th


Just my two cents

James Sitters


PS: Any more exciting changes to the rest of the Super Six???

 

[jockey]

Here is a suggestion that is fairer for all:

Assumptions made were:

Prizefund as per listed on current entry form which equates to a total of $15,900 as payed out in qualifying and a further $4,400 during elimination giving a total of $20,300.

Top 24 make Elimination with 25 - 32 receiving $280 each

Now's here what I suggest they do:

Scrap after qualifying payout and state that the Top 24 earn a base payout of $325. They can earn more by progressing further in the tournament.

Round 1 Losers receive a payout of $470 (Base + $245)
Round 2 Losers recieve a payout of $625 (Base + $300)
Round 3 Losers receive a payout of $700 (Base + $375)
SF Losers receive a payout of $1050 (Base + $725)
RU receives a payout of $1550 (Base + $1225)
Winner receieves a payout of $2050 (Base + $1725)

Now there is reward given for progressing through the elimination format and no one dropping out early can win more than someone who progresses further than they do.

Here is the breakdown:

25 - 32 $2,240.00
Base Total (24 @ 325) $7,800.00
R1 (8 @ 245) $1,960.00
R2 (8 @ 300) $2,400.00
R3 (4 @ 375) $1,500.00
SF (2 @ 725) $1,450.00
RU (1 @ 1225) $1,225.00
W (1 @ 1725) $1,725.00

Total Payout $20,300.00

Even those finishing from 25 - 32 come out in front.

Any comments or suggestions for improvement would be welcomed.

 

[jockey]

Sorry guys R1 should be $570 (Base + $245) this does not alter the figures as I was manually calculating the total payout for a bowler per round.

 

[craig]

i like it

I LIKE IT ALOT

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Beanie]

Sorry Jockey, with your payout structure there is no financial incentive to bowl to the best of your ability in qualifying, there is only the incentive to make the cut. This is a bad thing, as I will explain with a couple of hypothetical scenarios here:

1) Payout structure as suggested by Jockey:
George Frilingos goes ballistic in qualifying, clears the field by a good 100 pins. Belmo struggles for the first few games, then figures the lanes out. He realises all he has to do is 'make the cut' (as the reward for doing so is the same whether you qualify 1st or 24th), and does so in a canter in 20th spot.

In the matchplay Belmo wipes out 13th qualifier in the first round. According to the draw, next in Belmo's firing line is George, who comes in cold having had a bye in the first round. George puts up a titanic fight, but loses a battle that should really have been saved for the final if possible. Belmo goes on to win in a canter, taking $2050, and George is left to look at his cheque for $625, the results sheet that says he out-averaged everybody on BOTH days by a country mile, and wonder if the format could be improved to make Belmo qualify higher than 20th (as we know he can) thereby preventing this sort of battle this early in the piece.

2) Payout structure as implemented by AMF for this year's event:
George Frilingos goes ballistic in qualifying, clears the field by a good 100 pins. Belmo struggles for the first few games, then figures the lanes out. He then realises he has to get up as high as possible in the qualifying to make any serious money, so he then goes ballistic for the remainder of qualifying and gets up to 4th.

In the matchplay, Belmo and George are drawn to meet in the semifinals, should they win through that far. Both do so, blowing away their opposition with ease. The crowd can see a huge battle on the horizon between these 2, and it turns out to be the case. Belmo wins this battle - just - and goes on to win the matchplay, cashing $1900. George looks at his cheque for $1750, the results sheet that says he out-averaged everybody on BOTH days (although Belmo's first few games in qualifying are all that cost him this honour), and realises he actually done quite well after all. They both have a beer afterwards, see that they both got 1st and 4th, got a similar amount of money for their efforts, and remark about what an incredible format this is.

What AMF have done with the payout structure this year is reward good bowling on BOTH days, and by doing so some order will be kept in the matchplay seedings. Most, if not all of the big names will end up at the top of the list - that's where they belong, cause that's where the money is.

In the event that you make the cut, Jockey's scenario gives you a flat amount for doing so, thereby placing all the reward on how you bowl on Sunday, not Saturday. This takes us back to the days when pinfall DIDN'T carry forward to the matchplay - WITHOUT the qualifying payout.

Not only that, the sheer lack of incentive to qualify high once you have cut will turn the knockout into a lottery as the big names are scattered through the list. Someone like me (who didn't cut once out of 3 tournaments this year) could get through to the final without having to beat any big names, if they all end up on one side of the draw and knock eachother out, and I'm on the other side of the draw.

Surely we want to be moving forward with our formats, not backwards. If I want to win money in a lottery, I'd rather play Lotto (or whatever equivalent you have in Australia).

My apologies to George and Belmo for using you in the examples above, but I am sure you both appreciate what I am getting at here.

David.

 

[Mankind_280]

I like it too

I hope it can be used next year

 

[Jez]

Ok have to buy in on this matter..

Firstly congrates to AMF on trying a new format it is excatly what this country needs.

I agree tho that the final day should be paying a little bit more i mean it is the finals and in the first couple of rounds the guys are playing for around $50 difference. The format will be exciting but will be alot more exciting if people are playing each other for a big difference in money. I mean if u lose in rounds 1 or 2 only $50 difference or $75. Imagine if it was $150 to $200 or more difference then u would get guys really trying to win those games and u will see some great matches.

The 42 is a great idea..it may mean a longer day but i think you could play 2 rounds on the Saturday night to cut it back to the magic number of 24 or whatever it is . Then u could have some minor amounts of money for the early rounds but then really kick it up when it gets to the interesting bit.

All in all as i said great to see AMF trying something new, it will ensure that this tournament has alot of interest and should be great to watch for the spectators.

So all in all ...maybe drop the qualifying payout a bit and make the finals for the big money to get the COME ON! cries coming from bowlers trying to win the cash.

i can see it now...George and Trotts playing each other knowing the loser is going to miss out on some descent $$ it would be great...and is what the sports needs.

 

[jockey]

David

You raise some good points in your comments.

I beg to differ on one point that there isn't a financial incentive to qualify higher. To get an automatic bye in Round 1 for finishing in the Top 8 which gaurantees you a return of $625 I think is a great incentive for qualifying higher. Your point is relevant however considering the other 16 qualifyers are currently guaranteed $570 only $55 less than the Top 8 if we went with my original proposal.

I suggest then that the R1 losers could be payed $100 less or only $470 in order to bump up the figures for R2 or R2 and R3. If this was done then I can't see your argument then being relevant.

I like everyone else do not bowl in an event simply to qualify but to win it.

The base payout means 9 - 24 are now equal again (as the format proposes) however the Top 8 are guaranteed more money than those bowlers (reward for qualifying efforts).

Dropping pinfall after qualifying is always going to be questionable!

However I believe the tournament is there to be won not to simply be qualified for. The elimination format as outlined on the form gives everyone a chance and also rewards those who qualified in the higher positions. I don't know if their is any other way to satisfy all of us but this format and suggested prize payout with the above listed adjustments must be pretty close to the mark.

I assume it is based on 96 bowlers being Top 32 prize payout. Obviously if more bowlers than this turn up we could payout more prizemoney.

 

[Graham]

This is from Tony Goodwin re the SA Cup :

The top 24 to the elimination stage
Prize fund is based on 80 entries
Qualifying prize fund will be paid as advertised.
Elimination matches payout will possibly pay more a sponsor is getting sourced.
Finishing positions will be determined as follows First round losers will be placed 17 - 24 on average over qualifying and round 1 scores.
Second round losers will be placed 9 -16 on average over qualifying and round 1 & 2 scores Third round losers will be placed 5 - 8 on average over qualifying and round
1 2 & 3.
Fourth round loser will be placed 3 - 4 on average over qualifying and round
1 2 3 & 4
First and second place as 5th round winner and loser.
The feedback is appreciated and as someone said we want to give it a try and see how it goes. Certainly will appreciate constructive comments before and after the tournament.
All feedback can be directed to [email protected]

Regards
Tony G

 

[Mankind_280]

Thanks Graham and Tony


Seeya all in January

James Sitters

 

[Peanut]

so...... what is the cut now? 24 or 32?

 

[daniel]

Peanut,
It's the top 24

Daniel

 

[Peanut]

Thanks for that Daniel