Reduced pro division

[Needtopractice]

Just wondered which players have favoured this reduced field and with only 24 players does that mean that the top 8 will get byes into the last 16. If that is the case then think I can guess which players have asked for this ! Also feel this reduction will cause problems as there are generally 4 or more pro players per event who don't turn up.
Feel this action is very harsh on existing pro players ranked 17-24 who will now be relagated and don't agree this will strenghen the pro division at all as no disrespect to any challenge division player but surely the existing pro player ranked 17 deserves the spot more than number 8 on the challenge. Just making it easier for the top guys in my opinion

[Lee Rigby]

Thanks for posting. This is something we have found very hard to deal with and to find a good compromise that will suit everyone. I'll try and answer your questions one by one:

Who asked for it?
It was not the top by players quite the contrary in fact as it was the bottom ranked pros and higher ranked challenge that expressed concern about having to join pro next season. We have this problem last season too with many players seemingly not wanting to step up because of the standard of play in that division. We scraped 32 together last season but it was not easy and some went pro against their will. So what were we to do? It was clear we could not sustain 32 pros but looking at the players we had we felt 24 was the right number.

This will cause problems if 4 or more pro players do not turn up?
I think there will be less occassions where people do not show for events given the new conditions they will be playing under. Even so I'm not sure why that would cause problems and maybe you can elaborate.

Feel this action is very harsh on existing pro players ranked 17-24 who will now be relagated.
I doubt very much whether players will be relagated against their will because we know some players are not rejoining due to personal circumsances and not all players in the 'optional' positions will take up the option. I disagree with you about offering it to challenge (although I actually doubt very much that 7/8 will take their spots in pro). I think it would be harsh to deny a challenge player their right to a pro spot if they want it after they attained the required top 8 ranking and believe they should be offered first choice at it since they will not have had a chance to play pro already.

Does that mean the top 8 will get byes? Just making it easier for the top guys in my opinion?
Yes naturally the highest ranked players will get the seeding into round 2 - how else would we do it? However, these rankings are quite fluid and lets not forget it's not all the superstars that have atained top 8 pro rankings in the past (hell I wasn't far off it myself!). Also bear in mind this now means (unlike in previous seasons) the bottom ranked pro players will no longer meet a top ranked player in their first match so they do get a chance to get going. I agree we may need to have another look at the ranking points just to be sure it's fair in terms of lower ranked players having a chance to catch up to the top boys. We'll look at that.

I assume you are pro division player. Will you be taking up your option to play pro?

[Jonathan Mathers]

Hi,

I'm potentially affected by the 17-24 issue as well and i've seen the decision-making and considerations that have gone into this, being on the committee. I'm currently ranked 19th in the pro division. I do honestly think we've come up with the most practicable and fairest solution possible in the circumstances. We've assessed the scenario of needing to forcibly relegate pros ranked 17-24 and our belief is that it is highly unlikely that any of the 17-24 pros are actually going to find themselves in that situation. There are a couple of drop outs higher up the rankings as Lee says, leaving more spots, and the other options (not to go up, or choose to go down) are likely to be taken by the required number for us not to forcibly relegate anyone, which of course we don't want to happen.

Cheers,

Jonathan (AKA probablyneedmorepracticethanneedtopractice)

[Lee Rigby]

Also just to compare the position for a pro player outside the top 16 to this season and next:

This Season: If you finish in the bottom 8 you are relegated
Next season: If you finish in the bottom 8 you may get an option to stay up.

This season: To get in the money you have to win 2 matches but your first match will be against a top 16 player and possibly a top 8 player.
Next season: To get in the money you have to win 2 matches but your first match will definately not be against a top 8 player.

So I certainly don't think lower standard pros are worse off, in fact I think they are better off and so are the (even) lower standard pros who scrape in the top 24 and have to go pro when they really don't want to.

[Needtopractice]

Thanks for the responses. To ellaborate a little , the reason I think it will cause problems is purely down to numbers. If 4 or 5 don't turn up out of a 32 man field it is bad for the competition but 4 or 5 not showing up out of 24 man field is A hell of a lot worse.
With regards to difficulties getting 32 players , why are the top 8 in the challenge not forced to come up and if any of the existing pros don't renew their membership then give the players in relagation places an option to stay up if they so wish. I just feel 24 is too smaller field and leaves the potential for a top 8 player who already has bye into last 16 to get another bye into last 8 due to people not turning up and not pre notifying you as such.
How will this affect the prize money? Will the challenge division subsidise the loss of the 8 lots of entry fees ?
Don't take this as all negative feedback as I do congratulate all the committee on the hard work and achievements, these are just my own opinions

[Needtopractice]

Oh, and I assure you I need to practice more than you !

[Lee Rigby]

These are all valid points and something we have been mulling over when we tried to find a solution. Regarding difficulties getting 32 players the approach you describe is exactly what we did last season but this still didn't give us 32 players and we had to go right down the field in challenge to do it. And feedback this year suggested it was going to get a lot harder. This just tells us the numbers are not right otherwise it wouldn't be so difficult!

What we can do is wait for the 20 December deadline and see how many people want pro spots. There is a box on the app form for people who don't automatically qualify to state whether they would be willing to take one. Let's see what that reveals.

[Hannibal]

I just hope if it is 24 pro players the money lost by the drop in players will not be subsidised by the challenge players, this would be grossly unfair. If this were the case, not only would the challenge division be considerably harder with the extra relegated pros but the prize money would not increase. In my opinion this is a very poor move for challenge division players where the opportunity to win money is greatly reduced.

[andystoke]

The money is still the same as previous seasons in the 'prize money' section..

Is this still the case for 2010?

Challenge will be tough next year with more players coming down and new qualifiers on top, obv not as tough as the pro div but still, the pro field has been cut by 25%, doesnt seem fair that the money should be the same especially as all prize money comes from entry fees? (I know the pro players pay more, but still...)

[Lee Rigby]

We're looking at this in response to feedback. It's another tough one as there is a balancing act to do again. We still want Pro division to be enticing and a good advert for our tour and for there to be an incentive for Challenge Players to get promoted. Pro division players have always enjoyed a higher payout to entry fee percentage than Challenge. We'll take a look at the current percentages and see if we need to change anything.

[Banker]

Following my return from the eurotour the points below have been based on discussion with existing pro players, relagated pro's and current challenge players of which i have yet to find support around the reduction in the pro division from 32 to 24 players.

1. It is only 2 seasons ago when the total players were to be 96 maximum, 32 pros and 64 challenge. Due to popularity and also makiung the finances work the amount was extended by a further 32 players which were all added to the challenge division increasing the amount of matches that were required to be played in order to get to the money stages (depending on ranking).

2. Already the challenge players are the ones getting up at 8am in the morning as most play at 9am. The Pro division already have the luxury of 2 and 3pm starts, the increase in the challenge will further cause earlier and more matches to be played throughout the day.

3. The money - It is already hard enough to try to get to the money stages of the challenge tour given the year on year improvement in overall standard. While there have been a number of challenge winners this season it always seems to be the same names either winning or reaching the latter stages, Adam Ben Smith, Anthony Ginn, Kevin Hew are prime examples of a players already too good for the challenge but would maybe struggle to reach an 'elite 24' pro division and along with the pros relagated would find themselves stuck between the levels almost causing their own mini division between the two current divisions. In my opinion 32 is the right balance as it allows players (like the above) to enter into a 32 man field of which they are more than capable of winning matches/events and staying within that division, a reduction to the 24 is a much more 'closed shop' were I feel it would be much more difficult (and in some cases much less appealing to break into). There is also the quetion around the finances for the top 24 which in a previous post has been asked if the challenge will be supporting due to the reduction of fees into the pot due to the loss of 8 players.

4. Promotion/relagation - This is an area that needs to be sorted with firm rules around the obligatons of a promoted or relagated player. As the rule stands any player reaching the top 8 should enter the pro division with the bottom 8 pros relagated. This gives a very clear and fair system which everybody can understand and know exactly what they need to do. It also allows the players that have regularly drawn funds from the challenge pot to have a go in the pro division therefore both giving the exising challenge players a better chance the following season and allowing the relagated pro's chance to draw some money via the challenge and get their place back in the pro. My main area of concern around this rule is that their have rumours that players who should be promoted are asking to stay in the challenge in order to clean up again rather than having to tough it out in the pro division.

It is unfortunate that this change has been discussed and provisionally implemented as apart from this there are almost no issues to debate or complain given the huge strides made this year in the standard that I am sure we are all looking forward to. I feel that the reduction to 24 is far to small and the pro division is in danger of almost being a 'side' event were event on event the same players will be drawn against each other and matches will become a duplication of matches all seen before, from a spectator point of view the most exiting matches which generate the most watchers are the ones were a lesser player is on the verge of taking out one of the top boys, you only need to look at eurotour semi's and finals were the best players are pitched against each other with hardly anyone watching.

Brett Armer.

[Lee Rigby]

Thanks Brett for taking the time to post your comments, and again some very good points there which we will take on board.

This is all good feedback that's been coming out this last few weeks but unfortunately it doesn't match what we were being told throughout the season and in the run up to Barnsley. We are now starting to see the other side of the argument, which is good.

Regarding people attempting to stay in Challenge when they should go Pro, the change to criteria we recently agreed in response to the feedback we had at that time will only affect 2 players who would be allowed to stay in Challenge this season if they wish. Neither of those 2 players has won an event and only 1 has had a final appearance so whilst you may not agree with the new criteria I don't believe there is much damage done there and of course we can review that for next season. Getting more feedback from this forum will help us get it right.

The new criteria also affects existing Pro players and I think that's where I have more sympathy with those that wanted a go at Challenge but did just enough to scrape in to the top 24 Pro. Often (and I can speak from personal experience) you can do this quite easily without winning any money in the Pro Cup - just by continuially winning your first match but losing in the last 16. These players felt the system wasn't quite right for them. They were getting demoralised with the Pro Cup and weren't getting their shot at Challenge so I think the change we announced here was very fair and sensible - i.e. 17-24 can now choose to stay or go. This also opens up an opportunity for a small number of other players lower down Challenge to volunteer to step up and take their chance if they wish.

Money-wise we would like to announce what we are doing here in terms of prize money but unfortunately we need to wait and see how many people renew their memberships. It's a bit 'chicken and egg' I'm afraid. We are aware of the need to increase prize money in Challenge, especially if the size of the field increases and we will do it if we get the size of field we are looking for.

First and foremost we have to make sure we balance the books and this is always going to be harder in 2010 than in 2011 and so on. And this is the big point here! This is where we, more than ever, need our members to support us to get the new improved tour up and running. If we (that's all of us) make this a success then we can open the door to bigger increases in prize money in the future but we have to start somewhere and this is just the beginning of the journey. We won't start with a perfect system but if players get behind us and give us honest feedback like you have done we'll get there more quickly.

[Jonathan Mathers]

Just to add to Lee's reply. As per our latest update to members, we will reconsider this proposal post the renewal deadline if there are sufficient players to maintain a Pro Division of 32 players within the constraints of the promotion / relegation criteria that we have recently advertised. If the demand's there and the overwhelming feedback is that this isn't the best move, we will reconsider.

[Capaldi]

1. Really like the introduction of the forum.

2. Amazed by the respect in posts and dedication to finding a generally accepted and fair solution to next years format.

3. Many excellent points Brett.

4. My thoughts. The players who are 'inbetween' the pro and challenge tours are always going to have strong views. The reason I like Brett's views - because the rules are clear, in place, and we've used them for 2 successful years. 32 is the correct number, although you could alter the number of players promoted/demoted.

5. An alternative.
The players in each pro and challenge competition are made up by the total ranking points gained in their last 4 main tour events (the last 4 played in, no zero scores *).
This also determines seedings for each event. Players will be told after each event which competition and round they enter at for the next event.
Everyone pays the same - pro prizes could be top heavy.
The cut could be at 32 players or 24, but the best players would be at the top all the time.

Benefits - 'inbetween' players would not be stuck in the wrong division for a whole season.
It's always fair, best players at the top, weaker in the first round. It adds a little interest from one event to the next.

* players who are new and have only one main event score would have it multiplied by 4, and after 2 events doubled, so that immediately they would play in the appropriate competititon. This avoids dommination in the challenge tour. It also keeps Daz, Drago, Shaw, etc in the pro tour where they belong.

think about it

[Buckster_uk]

Just to confirm, I am currently ranked 18th on the Pro Division; under the new guidelines am I right in thinking that I have the option of either staying in the Pro or moving down to the Challenge? Will we be receiving emails as to what our choices are or is it down to the players themselves to let GB9 know their preferred option?

Thanks

[Jonathan Mathers]

Just to confirm, I am currently ranked 18th on the Pro Division; under the new guidelines am I right in thinking that I have the option of either staying in the Pro or moving down to the Challenge? Will we be receiving emails as to what our choices are or is it down to the players themselves to let GB9 know their preferred option?

Thanks

Sorry Chris - this seems to have gone unanswered. The above is correct. Players can indicate a preference for pro in their application forms. I assume Lee will use this and a combination of contacting individual players to confirm and assess who will play in the Pro Division next year. I'm sure he'll correct me if i'm wrong!

Cheers,

Jonathan.

[Lee Rigby]

OK we've collated all the responses on the applications forms and considered the feedback from tour players now. It was a close run thing and we even had to go to a vote with the Committee but we have now decided to revert to 32 players for the Pro division. Our original feedback was bourne out as there are only really 24 ish players of a pro standard who qualify by ranking or who have volunteered and we feel are good enough to be there. Having said that there are enough other players willing to try the pro division this season to make a 32.

So our job now is to work on ensuring there is the correct balance between pro and challenge prize money and there is sufficient incentive for players to pay the extra and step up to pro. We are not looking to make prize money the sole incentive for pro status BTW and appreciate that it's not fair to have the challenge players providing big subsidies to pro prize money.

Thanks everyone for your feedback and if you have more comments or ideas please keep them coming.

[Buckster_uk]

Hi Lee

I presume you will be compiling a press release about this info but just for now, does this mean that all those Pros that stayed up last year are now obligated to play in the Pro this year or do players like myself still have the option of moving down to the Challenge?

Chris

[Lee Rigby]

The criteria we announced previously when we thought we would go with 24 players still applies. It just means more people are being given the option. We may need to change this criteria for 2011 back to somethijng closer to what we had previously. Everyone has had an email confirming their allocated division.

[viper]

Is there any chance of knowing who has been picked to play in the pro this year just being nosey !!!