Let's continue here the debate that started in the commitments thread for 2004...
The subject is: Whether we should balance the # of players in tournament by introducing an entry system, and if we agree on it in principle, how to do that?

All the comments on this subject (I hope I didn't miss anyone) made on that thread are copied here:

And no less important... it helps players to keep track of their commitments...

After processing commitments of 20 players (I estimate about 50 posted commitments so far), I see a problem... on weeks of multi-tournaments there is huge unbalance between the tournaments... for example on the week of January 12th 16 of 20 players made commitments for Sydney, and on the week of February 23rd 17 out of 20 commited to Dubai... I expected that, but not a huge unbalance like this... it would be ridiculous to have on the same week one tournament with 60-70 players and another with barely 10 entries...
I think there should be a solution for this situation, and in fact I am developing that solution and will present it in a few days...
My opinion if we have 2 or 3 tourn in one week, the entries should be limited in the highest tourn and who already committed in the highest tourn before will be move directly to lower tourn. And no limitation entry for the lowest tourn.
Also if only 1 tourn in a week all participants can entry. Thanks
That was roughly what I was thinking of...
At this moment, on the week of January 12th there are 34 commitments for Sydney and 4 each in Hobart and Canberra... on the week of February 23rd there are 35 commitments for Dubai and 6 for Bogota...
It's not that bad on the week of January 5th... Gold Coast has 26 commitments and Auckland 13, but only 2 players are committed to Hopman Cup and I'm afraid it will be cancelled...
On the week of February 16th the commitments are 20 for Antwerp and 11 each in Memphis and Hyderabad... that week suffered from the calendar confusion (which was my fault...), and there are 2 players who posted commitments to Hyderabad while it was on Feb 9th and are also commited to Antwerp or Memphis, and on the other hand several players made commitment to Qatar that isn't played on that week...
I totally agree that we need to post a number of limit for the players in a tournament in order to spread it out.

After the US Open, I did propose a solution that there is cut-off for the "main" tournament each and I limited a certain amount of players - plus 3 wildcards.

However, the players didn't like it....

However I do think we need to reinforce this rule, only 4 players in Hobart and Canberra, is just not enough, considering 34 commitments for Sydney.

I hope you can help nitsansh...
Of course, the commitments list is far from final... but the trend will likely to continue...
I think we should put a top limit to tournaments (I like to make it clear, this is NOT applicable in weeks of one tournament!) and a bottom limit...
maybe in the case of Canberra and Hobart, if there are less than 10 players in each tournament, we better cancel one of them... even if we divert the "excess" players from Sydney and divide them between the 2 small tournaments, we'll have about 20 in each...
The main question is... how do we decide which players will stay in the big tournament and which will have to move to other tournaments?
By order of commitments? By ranking?
By ranking. (ie the top 50 players that commit to Sydney by a certain date are entered)... can be different for different tiers...

Thus it would be a good idea to order the players' commitments by their ranking (end of year rank)
i agree with this whole "ranking to get in" thing... but i only enter the big tournmanets because i know the players better and how they play, plus i go for more points because so far i havent really done 100% to my potential

as for the extra amount of players.. i also agree that players should be forced to play lower tiers if their rankings permit them to... but a heavy crowded tournament is not always a bad thing... for example... i placed 9th [my best finish ever] in pattaya... and the amount of people playing PAW in pattaya were obscene

also, i do not think you should inforce these ranking systems until after all the tournments that were available for committment are completed [ie after the week of February 23rd]... another possiblity is to start that after the austrailain because as a relatively new player in PAW i have not yet played a grand slam... so it is unfair to those who just joined to have no points from grand slam while the top 50 all do, thus placing them far ahead... give us time to show our talent

spikey :wavey: just keep in mind these are stricly MY opinions... you do NOT by any means HAVE to follow them... just giving my input into a game i love
There will be no limit to a grand slam, i can guarentee that.. :wavey:
I also believe that their should be "entry ranking cutoffs" for all of the events...I was supportive of this decision when proposed earlier in the year and still feel the same.
Yep the PAW management team is strongly considering this.

Stay tuned during the off season for the latest developments.
I still disagree with number players limit, but agree with minimum number players for lowest tier tournament.
Case of Sydney (Tier II), Hobart (Tier V) & Canberra (Tier V), if too much players commit in Sydney and less players in Hobart & Canberra and then cancel it. I think its better with only one tournament can play, this is "Real Competition", all players can play in a game.
In recent week so many newcomer PAW Players play well and get tittle although they have low PAW Ranking, I think its unfair if they can't to play in big tier (also big pts) because Ranking Cut-off .
I have spent the last few hours working on a proposal for entry system, and there it is in great details...
Basically I suggest that if it's decided to control the entry to high tier tournaments (usually tier 2), the quota of places should be divided to 2 sections: direct acceptance, which will be based on ranking, and qualifying, which will be based on results of tournaments on the previous week, thus giving all players an equal chance of qualifying. Also there will be a small number of wild cards which will be mainly awarded to new players.


A proposal for entry system

The problem:
In weeks of 2 or more tournaments, there might be a situation that the commitments list is unbalanced towards one tournament, which has by far more commitments than the other(s). Therefor I see the need to introduce an entry system that will balance the number of players in the tournaments played simultanousely.
The system will be used only in case there are more than one tournament in a week, there's no intention to limit the number of players if there is only one tournament in a week.

Data:
# of players in latest tournaments:
Moscow 48........Tokyo 22........Total 70
Filderstadt 55...Tashkent 21.....Total 76
Linz 45..........Luxembourg 32...Total 77
Philadelphia 56..Quebec 24.......Total 80

We see that from a total of between 70-80 players, 48-56 played in the bigger tournament while 21-32 in the smaller one. With the exception of Linz and Luxembourg, the # of players in the big tournament was more than twice the # of those who opted to play in the small one.
Naturally, most players prefer the bigger tournaments with more ranking points on offer.
From data of commitments to tournaments in January and February, the trend continues even further:
After 43 players posted commitments (about half the estimated # of active players), on the week of January 12th there are 34 commitments to Sydney (tier 2), and only 4 commitments each in Canberra and Hobart (both tier 5).
On the week of February 23rd, there are 35 commitments to Dubai (tier 2) and 6 to Bogota (tier 3). At this moment, these are the most unbalanced weeks, and I see a possibility that there will be over 60 players in one tournament and less than 10 in the others.

Should we let that happend?
I don't think so... I think there should be a solution in order to make the # of players more balanced in those weeks, and here is my proposal:

Entry system will be used to balance the # of players in tournaments in these cases:
1. If the # of commitments in one tournament is over 50, or:
2. If the # of commitments in one tournament is over two thirds (67%) of the # of commitments to all tournaments on the same week.

How will we decide which players play in each tournament?
I suggest a system similar to the entry system in tennis professional tours.
1. A quota of participants in the tournament will be announced no later than 3 weeks before the start of the tournament. Let's say, for example, that this quota for Sydney will be 40 players.
2. The total quota will be devided to 2 sections: Direct acceptance and Qualifying. Let's say that for Sydney there will be 24 players entered by direct acceptance and 16 by qualifying.
3. The players entered by direct acceptance will be the highest ranked players on the commitments list, determined by the ranking list of 2 weeks before the start of the tournament (for Sydney that is December 29th, which is actually the current ranking list).
4. The players entered by qualifying will be those who got the best results in the tournament(s) on the week before the tournament in question (Gold Coast and Auckland in the case of Sydney), from the list of players who committed to the tournament and didn't enter by direct acceptance.
5. If a player who entered by direct acceptance withdraws from the tournament until a week before the tournament, IE before the start of the qualifying tournament(s), the next highest ranked player on the commitments list will enter the tournament.
6. If a player who entered the tournament withdraws after the start of the qualifying tournament(s), the next player in the qualifying will enter the tournament.
7. The players who enter as qualifyers are those who got the highest # of points in the tournament(s) on the week before the tournament in question, regardless of the tournament they played. If there are several players with the same # of points, the players who have the highest ranking among them (according to the ranking list published before the start of qualifying, IE the week before the tournament) will enter the tournament until the quota is reached.
8. Players who fail to enter the tournament by direct acceptance or qualifying could enter another tournament on the same week for which no quota of players will be set. If there are 3 tournaments per week and the entry system will be in use, players will be asked to name a 2nd choice tournament if they make a commitment to the big tournament in which the entry system will be used.
9. In addition to the quota of players entered by direct acceptance or qualifying, there will be a number of wild cards (maximum of 5) that will be given by the tournament director (manager). In general, wild cards will be given to new players in PAW game or to players who commited to the tournament and due to exceptional circumstances were unable to play in qualifying. Normally, players who would have entered by direct acceptance are not eligible for wild cards. New players, for this purpose, are players who joined the game recently, and they will be eligible to enter as wild cards for a maximum of 3 tournaments during their first 6 weeks in the game (2-weeks tournaments are counted as one week, and weeks in which no tournaments are played are not counted).
10. Aplications for wild cards should be sent directly to the tournament director (by PM), until Thursday on the week before the tournament.
The tournament director will announce the list of wild cards, including alternates (in case a player who recieve wild card enters as qualifier), no later than Saturday before the tournament. There will be no late entries in tournaments which the entry system will be used.
11. Players who were just outside the cut-off in qualifying can make themselves available to enter the tournament as lucky losers, in case a player withdraws during the first 2 days of the tournament. Players who entered the tournament should post picks until the end of the 2nd day or confirm their intention to participate until the end of 2nd day. If a player fails to do one of these, he will be considered to have withdrawn and the next player in the qualifying who made himself available for entry as lucky loser will take his place. A player who made himself available to enter as lucky loser must not post picks in the other tournament while he wait to see if he enters.
12. Players are free to make commitments to tournaments and change them until 2 weeks before the start of the tournament in which entry system will be used. After this deadline, the commitments list for this tournament will be closed, and players may only make commitment for other tournament(s) on the same week.
13. Unless otherwise stated, the deadline for commitments is midnight GMT on Sunday 2 weeks before the start of the tournament in question. If at this time one of the conditions for using the entry system has occured, IE there are more than 50 commitments for the tournament, or more than two thirds of all commitments on the same week, the entry system will be used to determine the players who can enter this tournament.
If there is no need to use the entry system, there will be no limit to the # of players in tournaments on that week.
...imo ... there shouldnt be qualifying that messes up everybodies week if we all want to play and we cant because we didnt have a good week

im very for the division of poeple accoridng to ranking into seperate tournaments... but really qualifying is making it like a dictatorship lol

no offence nitsansh

also.. it would seem that you wouldnt benifit from your own rules, seeing as you ended 2003 ranked 147 in 2 less tournaments than i did
nitsansh, I'm with you for all those proposals.

Rule 11 will cause concern to some players like Lee-Waters' Boy or others, who don't have regular computer access.

I agree with the 50 competitiors and the 67% rule.

I just want to make something clear... the qualifying is not an additional tournament, but the tournaments that are played on the week before the tournaments ARE the qualifying tournaments, and most players, as I see on the commitments list, don't take time off and play every week, so for the players, there won't be any more workload if they need to qualify... I (if I will be in charge of the entry system) will just use the results of those tournaments to determine who qualifies...

as to rule #11...

I suggested that because I think it won't be right to deny players to play in their 1st choice tournament while allowing a situation that players who entered the tournament based on commitments made months earlier (if we use the commitments posted in early November for entry to Dubai tournament in late February that's nearly 4 months!) and won't show up for the tournament will occupy places in the quota that are actually vacant. I just had an experience in Pattaya that from 72 players who made commitment to the tournament just 56 actually played, and only 2 bothered to announce their withdrawal.
It would be a joke if we decide to limit a tournament to 40 players and just 30 show up...

This entry system would be great to make it more real..

Hi
The closer Paw is to the real tour structure the better.
But at the end of the day its a game for all to enjoy,and every one who wants to play has to be catered for if possible.
WTA Handicapper :)

I want to revise rule 11...

For each player who entered the tournament by direct acceptance, qualifying or wild card, who doesn't "show up", IE doesn't post picks or announce his intention to play in the game, until a deadline that would be decided (my suggestion: 2 hours before start time on the 3rd day of the tournament), one player who was next in the order of qualifyers not entered to the tournament may enter the tournament as lucky loser, but a player who duely entered the tournament and "showed up" after the said deadline may still play in the tournament. That may increase the original quota of players, but I don't think by a significant number that would make the tournament too big.
In order to be considered for a lucky loser berth, a player who failed to qualify should inform the tournament director of his intention, and MUST NOT enter another tournament on the same week until the said deadline. The tournament director, or another person he appointed for this task, will determine the number of "no shows" and the list of players eligible to enter as lucky losers as soon as possible after the deadline has passed (the reason for the deadline I suggested is that lucky losers will be able to post picks for the 3rd day of play).

Changes to rules 1, 2 and 13:

The quota of players in the tournament in which the entry system will be used, will be determined as follows:
Half of the total # of commitments made to all tournaments on the same week, but no less than 40 players. The quota will be determined on the commitments deadline of 2 weeks before the start of the tournament in question.
The # of entries by direct acceptance will be constant in all tournaments that the entry system will be used. The # of entries from qualifying will be determined by the difference between the quota and the # of entries by direct acceptance.
If, at any time after the commitments deadline and before the start of the tournament, the # of players on the commitments list for the tournament will drop (due to withdrawals) to less than 5 above the quota, the qualifying will be cancelled and all players who made commitments can enter the tournament, plus new players who are eligible to enter as wild cards.
There is no need to use the entry system to eliminate just a few players.

i think everyone needs to keep in mind that this is a GAME... whether we are trying to make it more realistic... you have succesfullly cam up with good rules for entry systems... but the beauty of the current [lack-of any major] entry system is that everyone can play... when you take away that... it becomes very grammar school-like classical ostracization ...

i do not think that players should be told that they cannot play one week... its kinda rude and like a tyranny over the minority [in this case the people ranked below #50, including myself and even nitsansh]

i kinda do agree that people can be forced to play lower tiers until their rankings rise... i like that rule because that is like the tour and it doesnt leave out anybody

like... for instance if it is a huge problem... ill switch my commitments if you want me too

but im still strongly STRONGLY against the "players cant play" rule... and about qualifying... im still against that

...once again this is just the opinion of one of hte masses so dont mold everything over because of this... try to improve the current rules o that they are life-like but not life-like to the point that you can tell PAW players when they can and cannot play

No one (yet) has suggested that players will not be allowed to play on every single week of the tour...
No one has suggested to impose a limit on the # of players in cases that there is only one tournament on a given week, which include all the Grand Slams and tier 1 tournaments.
The suggestion is only for weeks in which there are 2 or more tournaments, and players who fail to enter their 1st choice tournament will always be able to play in another tournament in which there will be no quota and the deadline will be as of now, on the day before the start of the tournament (and may be extended if the qualifying tournaments don't end by then).
My proposal for qualifying was intended to give a fair chance to qualify to the bigger tournaments to lower ranked players who may never qualify if the entry would only be determined by ranking...
I believe that's the best balance of interests between the top ranked players, who will allways be able to enter the high tier tournaments by direct acceptance (as long as they maintain their high ranking...), and the interests of the lower ranked players who IMO deserve a chance to play in the big tournaments occasionally.
Remember that the ranking is changeable, and a player who is ranked high at the beginning of the year may find himself ranked low late in the year, and vice versa...

Also it should be noted that if the # of qualifying berths will be roughly as I suggested (no less than 16 in a 40-players tournament, plus lucky losers), players don't have to do exceptionally well in the week before the tournament in order to qualify, as that # exclude the players who enter by direct acceptance, and normally a ranking of 15-20 in the previous week, if there are 2 tournaments, or lower than 30 if there is only one tournament on the previous week, should be enough to qualify.

The entry system is a good idea but what about the players who want to start PAW or those ranked around the 100 mark

perhaps if there are highest tournaments then you could have the cut off 15/20 places below the points you can score ( 32place points - cut off 52)

again you cant really have a cut off of cause some weeks have 3 tournaments where as others only have 1

you should continue as it allows some people to use stratergies to gain points and some people like to follow there favourite players around and they might change tournies or pop you unexpectedly in other ones

whatever happens make sure PAW continues to KICK ASS !!!!!!!!

I don't quite understand your idea of a cut off 20 places below the points line...
I am more concerned of a situation that in small tournaments the # of players is smaller than the # of places that award points, and even the player who ended in last place with 0 points get more points than many players in the big tournaments...
At least in my short experience (only 6 tournaments as you can see in my signature), when players get to a situation that they can no longer get "into the points", they often lose motivation to continue the tournament and you see many of the players at the bottom don't bother to post picks in the last days... the bigger the tournament is, there are more players in this unpleasant situation... if you have a tournament with 40 players, only few will be in that hopeless position, if you have 50, that increase their number by 10... this is irrelevant in grand slams (and also Key Biscayne) where there is more opportunity to earn points...

My proposal include a suggestion to award wild cards to new players, to allow them to experience the big tournaments and opportunity to earn points that would get them higher in the ranking.
The qualifying tournaments give the low-ranked players opportunity to get into the big tournaments if they had good results in the previous week. If you don't make the cut-off for direct acceptance, no matter if you're ranked 30 or 200, you have the same chance to enter the tournament as qualifyer.

If I take my case for example...
If the entry system was used to determine entry to tournaments in October, my 14th position in Moscow (let's assume I would have entered that tournament) might have been enough to qualify to Filderstadt, but I would probably not qualify to Philadelphia with 25th place in Linz and have to play in Quebec instead, and if an entry system was used to limit the entries to Linz (according to my proposal it looks like this system wouldn't be used in that tournament) I would probably not qualify with 37th place in Zurich and have to play in Luxembourg...

Here is the latest version of my proposal... you may take it in full or part of it, or leave it...
I suggest that the system will be tried in one or two tournaments in the beginning of 2004, and after the trial, it would be brought to a vote by all players... I think this is a subject that all players should have the opportunity to take part in the decision making, and needs the approval of the majority of players to become the general law of the game.

A proposal for entry system

1. Entry system will be used to balance the # of players in tournaments, on weeks in which there are 2 or more tournaments, in these cases:
A. If the # of commitments in one tournament is over 50, or:
B. If the # of commitments in one tournament is over two thirds (67%) of the # of commitments to all tournaments on the same week.
The necessity of using the entry system will be determined by the # of commitments on the deadline, which will be 2 weeks before the start of the tournament in question (at midnight GMT on Sunday unless otherwise stated).

2. The quota of players in the tournament in which the entry system will be used, will be determined as follows:
Half of the total # of commitments made to all tournaments on the same week (rounded up if necessary), but no less than 40 players. The quota will be determined on the commitments deadline of 2 weeks before the start of the tournament in question.

3. The total quota will be devided to 2 sections: Direct acceptance and Qualifying. The # of entries by direct acceptance will be constant in all tournaments that the entry system will be used. The # of entries from qualifying will be determined by the difference between the quota and the # of entries by direct acceptance.

4. The players entered by direct acceptance will be the highest ranked players on the commitments list, determined by the ranking list of 2 weeks before the start of the tournament, or the latest ranking list available at that time if no ranking list was published on that week (for example in the middle week of Grand Slams or after Fed Cup weeks).

5. The players entered by qualifying will be those who got the best results in the tournament(s) on the week before the tournament in question, from the list of players who committed to the tournament and didn't enter by direct acceptance. See details in article 10.

6. Players are free to make commitments to tournaments and change them until 2 weeks before the start of the tournament in which entry system will be used. After this deadline, the commitments list for this tournament will be closed, and players may only make commitments for other tournament(s) on the same week.

7. If, at any time after the commitments deadline and before the start of the tournament, the # of players on the commitments list for the tournament will drop (due to withdrawals) to less than 5 above the quota, the qualifying will be cancelled and all players who made commitments can enter the tournament, plus new players who are eligible to enter as wild cards (see articles 12&13). There is no need to use the entry system to eliminate just a few players.

8. If a player who entered by direct acceptance withdraws from the tournament until a week before the tournament, IE before the start of the qualifying tournament(s), the next highest ranked player on the commitments list will enter the tournament.

9. If a player who entered the tournament withdraws after the start of the qualifying tournament(s), the next player in order of the qualifying will enter the tournament.

10. The players who enter as qualifyers are those who got the highest # of points in the tournament(s) on the week before the tournament in question, regardless of the tournament they played. If there are several players with the same # of points, the players who have the highest ranking among them (according to the ranking list published before the start of qualifying, IE the week before the tournament) will enter the tournament until the quota is reached.

11. Players who fail to enter the tournament by direct acceptance or qualifying could enter another tournament on the same week for which no quota of players will be set. If there are 3 tournaments per week and the entry system will be in use, players will be asked to name a 2nd choice tournament if they make a commitment to the tournament in which the entry system will be used.

12. In addition to the quota of players entered by direct acceptance or qualifying, there will be a number of wild cards (maximum of 5) that will be given by the tournament director (manager) at his discretion. In general, wild cards will be given to new players in PAW game or to players who commited to the tournament and were unable to play in qualifying. Normally, players who would have entered by direct acceptance are not eligible for wild cards. Tournament directors may make exceptions from these guidelines in exceptional circumstances.

13. New players, for the purpose of the entry system, are players who joined the game recently, and they will be eligible to enter as wild cards for a maximum of 3 tournaments during their first 6 weeks in the game (2-weeks tournaments are counted as one week, and weeks in which no tournaments are played are not counted).

14. Applications for wild cards should be sent directly to the tournament director (by PM), until Thursday on the week before the tournament.
The tournament director will announce the list of wild cards, including alternates (in case a player who recieve wild card enters as qualifier), no later than Saturday before the tournament. There will be no late entries in tournaments which the entry system will be used.

15. For each player who entered the tournament by direct acceptance, qualifying or wild card, who doesn't "show up", IE doesn't post picks or announce his intention to play in the game, until a deadline that would be decided (my suggestion: 2 hours before start time on the 3rd day of the tournament), one player who was next in the order of qualifyers not entered to the tournament may enter the tournament as lucky loser, but a player who duely entered the tournament and "showed up" after the said deadline may still play in the tournament. That may increase the original quota of players, but I don't think by a significant number that would make the tournament too big.

16. In order to be considered for a lucky loser berth, a player who failed to qualify should inform the tournament director of his intention, and MUST NOT enter another tournament on the same week until the said deadline. The tournament director, or another person he appointed for this task, will determine the number of "no shows" and the list of players eligible to enter as lucky losers as soon as possible after the deadline has passed (the reason for the deadline I suggested is that lucky losers will be able to post picks for the 3rd day of play).


I rest my case.

I think the Old Entry System (Simon's version) is better than recent system.
The System is symple, efficient and all players easy to follow it.
Just confirm to sign in 3 days in lower tier tournament, if enough player the tournament will go. For the highest tournament automatically will play.

What was the minimum # of players required in Simon's system?

I just added the latest commitments to the record, and these are the current # of commitments:

Jan 5: Gold Coast 28, Auckland 14, Hopman Cup 2.
Jan 12: Sydney 37, Canberra 5, Hobart 4.
Jan 19: Australian Open 47.
Feb 2: Tokyo 47
Feb 9: Paris 39+6?
Feb 16: Antwerp 24(1), Hyderabad 12(2), Memphis 10(1)
Feb 23: Dubai 38, Bogota 6.
The ? for Paris represent the # of players who commited to Hyderabad while it was put by mistake on Feb 9, and presumably would want to play in Paris as it is the only tournament left on that week.
The figures in brackets on the week of Feb 16 are the # of commitments of players who commited to Hyderabad while it was on Feb 9 and also to Antwerp or Memphis, and now have 2 commitments for that week.
There are also players who commited to Qatar while it was in error on Feb 16 (instead of Mar 1), and some of them have no commitments for Feb 16 now.
The projected # of commitments, assuming there will be a total of 80 players who make commitments, are 48-24-3 in Gold Coast, Auckland and Hopman Cup, 63-9-7 in Sydney, Canberra and Hobart, 41-20-17 in Antwerp, Hyderabad and Memphis, 65-10 in Dubai and Bogota.
The projected # of commitments in Sydney and Dubai are well over the required # or percentage for using the entry system according to my proposal. Gold Coast is nearing the threshold, but as this is the first week of the season the qualifying system is not applicable.

What was the minimum # of players required in Simon's system?



Simon give time for commitment from Thursday until Main Draw release and required minimum 6 commited players to go. Even the games play, more than commitment players to play in the game. Many players who no commitment still can to play.

so do the not so high ranked players have to enter qualifying events?

that sounds alot better

might be more work but if your up for it go for it

you were awesome in running the last few PAWS of the year, very effecient and organised . . . .

I believe commitments are needed for all tournaments, because Simon's system of posting commitments 3 days before meant lots of tournies such as Acapulco, Hobart etc etc couldn't be played.

I also emphasise that the PAW player per tournaments must be spread out...

Let me get it... if there are 6 players in a tournament, the last player gets 6th place ranking points? That's ridiculous in my opinion...

I think it's also ridiculous to have at the same time a tournament with 60-something players and a tournament with 6 players, and that's where all the discussion began... was a situation like that a common practice in Simon days, or as Wojtek put it, in PAW1 time?

It's not about the entry system but it's an idea to make the game as real as possible. I think that the seeded players should have some kind of an advantage as in real tournaments. So I thought that the seeded players could receive first round bye (top 4 seeds in 32 draws, top 8 seeds in 64 draws, top 16 seeds in 128 draws). The bye could be worth 10 points, or maybe the average points value of all the first round matchs. The seeded player would choose if he wants to use the bye or not.
Ex: PAW1: bye PAW2: player A over player B...
The bye could be used only for the first pick.

I think it would be a good idea to give some advantage to higher ranked players. And some lower ranked players would choose smaller tournaments in order to be seeded and gains easy points.

Tell me what you think...

I think the seeds should have about two or three extra picks so they dont get points for paws they havent chosen. - just an idea

I know that this may not sound player friendly, but i feel there is a need to limit the number of entries in bigger tournaments. This is because I've often noticed that players who finish 29th and below in a Tier 1 get 0 points, while some 6 or 7 players who play the lower event get upto 90 points.

If we limit the number of entries in big events, it will also imply a flow of players to the other events held during the week, thereby levelling the playing field.

Some events that have only a few players seem like a sham.

Just my thoughts.

What do you guys reckon about this?

a) If there is one tournament a week:

>All players that committed to that tournament before the deadline may enter, those that can't may apply for a wildcards (however only 5 wildcards limited per tourney and 1 per player)

b) If there is two/three tournaments a week:

> If each of the tournaments has a minimum of 12 commitments before the deadline, two/three tournaments go ahead.

>If one of the tournament fails to reach 12 commitments, those players who committed to that tourney are automatically forwarded to the highest tiered tourney of that week...

:wavey:

sounds reasonable

This avoids the "top 50" entry rule and allows all newcomers to compete in their desired event.

It also ensures that for a player the comes last in a tourney, they only get 12th ranking points rather than 6th. Of course there are usually likely to be more than 12 commitments anway...

Hi Spikey, I was thinking along the same lines, but maybe set the lower limit at 16, not 12. That will be at least half the size of the actual 32 size draw.

Another option would be to downgrade events if only a few players enter, and award fewer points to the winner, etc. But that would be a bit too subjective, right?

Hi Spikey, I was thinking along the same lines, but maybe set the lower limit at 16, not 12. That will be at least half the size of the actual 32 size draw.

Another option would be to downgrade events if only a few players enter, and award fewer points to the winner, etc. But that would be a bit too subjective, right?

Yeh too subjective IMO, 16 players sounds the best option (considering there are likely to be more entrants during the week).