PDA

View Full Version : Ideas to improve PAW


theklein
Feb 9th, 2005, 09:53 PM
Last nite I was thinking, if there was any good ideas for the improvement of PAW.

Here are my ideas:


Maybe have qualifying for the events where there is a large number of people e.g over 64.


This is just 1 idea I have had, so please share your ideas with us :)

crazillo
Feb 9th, 2005, 10:04 PM
Well, I thought of the same in the past, but how should we do that. The number of players has exploded and even "small" events have as much work as "normal size" events had a year ago.
Sometimes those Q-Draws are released really late. With the time-zones being so different, it would be a big problem to have every player pick in time. I think it is a matter of fairness. also, quali-draws vary in their size, how would you do that?
The idea is not bad, but I think it is very hard to realise. But thansk for your thoughts on the game. It's much appreicated. :wavey:

Mr_Molik
Feb 9th, 2005, 10:25 PM
i think it would b cool if there were a limited amount of places in each tournament and entry was based on rankings, to make it more realistic. so then players have to work their way up through the lower tiers like on the real tour. obviously everyone would b allowed to play the slams.

SpikeyAidanm
Feb 10th, 2005, 12:41 AM
I like the idea of qualifying but it means extra work for us admins and it's pretty full on already...

Hayato
Feb 10th, 2005, 05:20 AM
Qualifying is a great idea, but in the past a lot of people haven't liked it. Maybe someone completely different to Aidan or sandg could run the Qualifying.

the jamierbelyea
Feb 10th, 2005, 05:25 AM
I think qualies could only be limited to really prestigous events like Grand Slams and Tier Is as they are the ones that tend to be out in a manner to make it possible for people to paw effectively with no hassle.

If you did that for big tournaments, it would also make them more presitigious and something people can work for, but it doesn't matter either way.

A cap on tournaments might make things more even, and easy for the managers running the bigger tourneys though, and now that I'm high enough I don't think it will effect me too much ;)

CCCP1
Feb 10th, 2005, 06:06 AM
I like the idea of qualifying

Hachiko
Feb 10th, 2005, 06:09 AM
I think players ranked outside the accepted ranking of the main draw should have to qualify, just makes it more realistic.

CooCooCachoo
Feb 10th, 2005, 08:07 AM
i think it would b cool if there were a limited amount of places in each tournament and entry was based on rankings, to make it more realistic. so then players have to work their way up through the lower tiers like on the real tour. obviously everyone would b allowed to play the slams.

I agree! That does make it more interesting :D And we could have Gold Exempt lists too and such :D

SpikeyAidanm
Feb 10th, 2005, 08:15 AM
I agree! That does make it more interesting :D And we could have Gold Exempt lists too and such :D
I like this idea too, but we need more staff!

crazillo
Feb 10th, 2005, 10:48 AM
True. A GE list would be cool!
Wait until Andrew gives us his view on it.

andrew_uk
Feb 10th, 2005, 10:55 AM
The rankings idea is very good - but qualifying will be difficult - because live scores can often be difficult to access and thus the admins will not know when the match started.

The only way to overcome this is to make the deadline for all picks of that day 5 minutes before the 1st match.

However - another difficulty is that many tournaments finish qualifying on day 1 on the same day as round 1. This wouldn't be a problem in grand slams but that's only 4 tournaments of the whole year.

And as Aidan said - we need more staff. :wavey:

kj-
Feb 10th, 2005, 02:38 PM
i prefer to limit the tournament, and no wild card will be given.. so the real commitment will get cut off..

rrfnpump
Feb 10th, 2005, 05:37 PM
maybe running 50k or 75k Tournaments when there are tournaments with lots of participants. I think the ITf Tournaments in France are quite good to manage cause of their great results update. I would like to run these tournaments! :D

But therefore we need new ranking distribution and other things. It is just a suggestion :wavey:

I also sympathisize with a limited amount of players in one tournament (question is if I would also like that if I wasnt #39 in the rankings.....)

jrm
Feb 10th, 2005, 06:09 PM
Some ideas: every month we have awards for Player of the Month and Riser of The Month ... i was thinking at the end of the year we could give away prizes for

Best Player in Tier I's
Best Player on US hardcourts
Best Indoor player

And my 'bright' idea: KNOCK-OUT SYSTEM

Example: we would need 128 players - someone should make a draw and everyone entering would have an opponent. We would need 7 tournaments to determine the winner. How would it work: when the pairs are made whoever gets more points at the end of the PAW tournament from both advances in round 2 of another tournament where another draw is made and so on ... great thing about this idea is that you don't need to be ranked best all the time to get far or even win a tournament. This competition wouldn't have any impact for PAW rankings (something like WTAWorld Popularity contest).

canuckfan
Feb 10th, 2005, 06:13 PM
Maybe when there're 2 tournaments or more in the same week, only the 64 best ranked players could play in the tier 1 or tier 2 event. The remaining players who could not not enter the big event would play the smaller tournament. It would be more realistic and it would be easier for the managers because there would be less players in each tournaments. Plus, it would be cool if being a high ranked player would give some kind of advantages because right now it doesn't.

Harju.
Feb 10th, 2005, 06:13 PM
some great ideas there.

i like the jrm's idea of knock out system thingy. i like amri's idea about limited schedule. i aslo like mr. molik's idea.

SpikeyAidanm
Feb 10th, 2005, 11:55 PM
And my 'bright' idea: KNOCK-OUT SYSTEM

Example: we would need 128 players - someone should make a draw and everyone entering would have an opponent. We would need 7 tournaments to determine the winner. How would it work: when the pairs are made whoever gets more points at the end of the PAW tournament from both advances in round 2 of another tournament where another draw is made and so on ... great thing about this idea is that you don't need to be ranked best all the time to get far or even win a tournament. This competition wouldn't have any impact for PAW rankings (something like WTAWorld Popularity contest).

Interesting, so maybe we should start 1r in Indian Wells, since it's the only tournament that week?

SpikeyAidanm
Feb 11th, 2005, 12:23 AM
sandg, what are your thoughts on an entry system?

bionic71
Feb 11th, 2005, 12:45 AM
.....always been supportive of an entry cut off system.

crazillo
Feb 11th, 2005, 11:00 AM
Cool ideas.....

jrm
Feb 11th, 2005, 11:22 AM
Maybe restructuring points destribution? Especially Tier II tournaments tend to suffer because only 64 can get points and some event draw more than 100 players!

jrm
Feb 11th, 2005, 11:27 AM
Cut off - i don't know ... many enter but forget to pick or don't play after bad round. Why should other be excluded if someone doesn't have an interest? I think anyone who entered the tournament and has forgottten to pick/didn't pick should automatically me out of the tournamnet!

jrm
Feb 11th, 2005, 11:30 AM
Interesting, so maybe we should start 1r in Indian Wells, since it's the only tournament that week?

Yes ... i was thinking Indian Wells, Miami, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, Canadian Open, US Open and maybe Swiss Open.

kj-
Feb 11th, 2005, 12:38 PM
post tournament commitment thread.. :)

sandg
Feb 11th, 2005, 12:43 PM
Maybe restructuring points destribution? Especially Tier II tournaments tend to suffer because only 64 can get points and some event draw more than 100 players!

PAW Qualifying, PAW Challenger and limit the tournament ideas are all old ideas that re-talk again, its has been talked in last year.

I know very hard to play well consistently with 130-140s players play in a week, but its challenge.

As I talked before that I agree to expand the scoring points for main tournament in a week from 56 to 96 players. I thaught expand the scoring points (like jrm's idea) is the most simple way.

In Tier I and Tier II (Draw-28), sometimes I thaught to separate the league Table for lower rank players, give them easier & smaller points (like Qualifying but used Tier IV or Tier V points) and they pick the same match in main draw. But it would be proudless & unfair if someone win the main tournament but has points less than Qualifying players.

Shonami Slam
Feb 11th, 2005, 04:22 PM
well - i'm thinking maybe lead up tounries?
i mean - to enter the tokyo pan pacific for example, which is a tier I - only the top 100 players from the aussie circuit (race form) get to enter it.
the others have to go for the smaller tiers.
after each tier I evryone plays anything they prefer - but once again they sum up race points for the very next Tier I
i'm not saying this format is the best, but something of that sort...
US hardcourt circuit, grass circuit - things like that.
someone take the idea and polish it up - and it might work...

another idea:
players will be set into teams of 20 (or more if you wish) each month, and they will have a league of thier own. a month is 4 weeks max, so it runs really fast and then the no. 1 will recieve 100 points, no. 2 90 no 4. 85 and so on and so on (the points is just so you get my point)
the teams can be picked any way you choose - categories (3 players from 1-25 5 players from 26-60 7 players from 61-120 and the rest from 121 and up.

look - anything may go.
but the bottom line is this -
PAW is a betting system - pick a winner
some people will like the sorounding of who picks where, some won't like it.
but the PAWing has to be the same.

all the above said - i have never played paw yet, still waiting to start - but watch out, i'm doing myself some "self-PAWs" to check out how i'd do against you, as if i were playing, and i'm not bad at all... grrrrrr!

~CANUCK~
Feb 11th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Also if we did the paw challengers, like the 50k's and 75k's the winner could get a fed up wc like the players do on tour. So if you win a 75k you get a wc into a tier 1, and if you win a 50k you get a wc into a tier 2, assuming you put in a cut off. I would love to see paw challenger events, i know i would play a few.

Louis Cyphre
Feb 11th, 2005, 05:06 PM
I read great ideas about PAW and i hope that you will realize them.Good luck!!!
And one more thing.Don`t you think that this stupid rule that you must wait 2 months until you can`t play PAW must be removed or modify???

Hayato
Feb 11th, 2005, 06:29 PM
No Evgeni, i think it's a great rule. In fact, I think it should be longer than 2 months :p

Dave B
Feb 11th, 2005, 07:29 PM
PAW Qualifying, PAW Challenger and limit the tournament ideas are all old ideas that re-talk again, its has been talked in last year.

I know very hard to play well consistently with 130-140s players play in a week, but its challenge.

As I talked before that I agree to expand the scoring points for main tournament in a week from 56 to 96 players. I thaught expand the scoring points (like jrm's idea) is the most simple way.

In Tier I and Tier II (Draw-28), sometimes I thaught to separate the league Table for lower rank players, give them easier & smaller points (like Qualifying but used Tier IV or Tier V points) and they pick the same match in main draw. But it would be proudless & unfair if someone win the main tournament but has points less than Qualifying players.

Speaking as a lower ranked player, I actually like the idea you have in the last paragraph. So if you have a tournament that has say, a 32 draw, for every 32 players you could have a "lower tier" tournament. So Antwerp, for example, coud have like "Tier 2", "Tier 4", "ITF 50K" point equivalent sections, etc.

I know what you are saying about it being unfair in that even though I am ranked 160, for example, I may make perfect PAWS but I don't get to beat the higher ranked players, but that is a lot like playing tennis. I don't get a Grand Slam trophy for playing the best tennis in the world in two 10K challangers the week of a Grand Slam.

It would also help develop a core of top players who play the elite events, adding excitment and rivalry. In addition, the bigger top events, like GS's and Indian Wells, will actually be bigger than say San Diego.

It just seems like this would be perfect since most PAWers in the thread seem to want smaller tournaments, and this would also be feasible since all the admins would have to do is split up the league tables. Therefore its a compromise between what the players want and what is feasible.

Dave B
Feb 11th, 2005, 08:37 PM
In addition, you could use that system save one exception:

Whoever has the most points wins the tournament. That way in terms of a champion you have the best pawer, but for the rest of the places you still have a much smaller tournament.

WTA Handicapper
Feb 11th, 2005, 08:49 PM
Jrm"s idea of a knock out tournament as Spikey said when there is only just the one Paw tournament in a week is a great idea,and one which has been in my thoughts for a while now.
An idea of a schedule would be,say one most months

Miami [March]
Charleston [April]
Roland Garros [May]
Wimbledon [June]
US Open [August]
Zurich [October]
Los Angeles [Final] November

maxomax
Feb 12th, 2005, 01:05 AM
Hello! According to me, the best ideas are a cut off for ranking and a knock out tournament!

Pintaled
Feb 12th, 2005, 04:16 AM
I think if a player retires in the first set - that paw shouldn't be counted.

Eg. Bovina def. Groenefeld 4-3 ret - French Open last year shouldn't be counted.

But when the player wins on retirement up a set, then it should be counted normally (eg. Peng def. Petrova 6-3, 4-2 ret.)

silverwhite
Feb 12th, 2005, 05:59 AM
I think if a player retires in the first set - that paw shouldn't be counted.

Eg. Bovina def. Groenefeld 4-3 ret - French Open last year shouldn't be counted.

But when the player wins on retirement up a set, then it should be counted normally (eg. Peng def. Petrova 6-3, 4-2 ret.)

It's really subjective. You have to consider when the player got injured. Eg. Golvin won the first set against Farina Elia 6-0, and she was obviously injured, yet chose to finish the set. And there are also players who finish matches in which they are injured, and the result may be due to their injuries. That's why it's really hard to make a call regarding retirements.

SpikeyAidanm
Feb 12th, 2005, 06:10 AM
I'd like to set up a database where all PAW players submit their:

Date of Birth
Gender

Also I'd like all tournament winners to do a speech once they win a tournament.

SpikeyAidanm
Feb 12th, 2005, 06:12 AM
And also I'd like someone to post a "PAW Press Room Thread" - similar to the one andrew_uk did for the Aus Open, except it is one for the whole year, for PAW players to post and view articles.

silverwhite
Feb 13th, 2005, 06:46 AM
Also I'd like all tournament winners to do a speech once they win a tournament.

Sounds familiar. :p

Hayato
Feb 13th, 2005, 07:24 PM
I think that the ranking points should be adjusted. There are like 90 players playing some weeks, and if you finish top 20 then you only get around 20 points, for a tier II.

Captain.Canada
Feb 13th, 2005, 09:31 PM
There are a lot of great ideas.

jrm's idea sounds fun!

I agree with canuckfan on giving some sort of advantage to higher ranked players. An entry system would be good. For those worried about people who commit and don't show up, then maybe create sanctions, or allow 5 or 6 players below the cut-off list to post picks just in case. I love the idea of working your way up the rankings instead of people just randomly showing up and winning Grand Slams and Tier I's when in reality that wouldn't happen.

Hachiko
Feb 14th, 2005, 04:15 AM
The ranking points definetly need to be changed and more points awarded.

sandg
Feb 14th, 2005, 08:49 AM
As I posted before about my idea to separate the league table for lower rank players as PAW Qualifying, I wrote the detail of idea to be learned & taught together.


PAW Qualifying


1. The tournament with Qualifying

PAW Qualifying would be done for tournament Tier I, Tier II & Tier III with Draw-32 or Draw-64 and PAW committed players more than 80 players. Ranking points for this tournament use 56 players except Olympics (64 players).

2. The number of players

The number Qualifying players min. 16 and max. 40 players.

Cut off for main tournament is 64 players (remember that not all committed players will play).

If Qual. players less than 16, all Qual players would be moved to main PAW.
If Qual. players more than 40 players, the bottom-40 would be in Qualifying and others moved to main PAW.

3. Ranking points for PAW Qualifying

Tier I Qual. Ranking Pts use Tier IV (32 players)
Tier II & Tier III Qual. Ranking Pts use Tier V (32 players)


4. The matches to be picked & the number of picks

PAW Qualifying players pick the match from First Round to Quarter Final matches with the number of picks less 2 picks than main PAW.
Draw-32, main : 13 PAWs, Qual : 11 PAWs
Draw-64, main : 16 PAWs, Qual : 14 PAWs

5. Qualifying players posible to play in main PAW.

Top-4 Qualifying players (include tied position) can continue to play in Semi Final & Final for main PAW (2 picks more). The highest ranking points between Qualifying or main PAW will be taken for PAW Ranking.

6. No Qualifying PAW in Grand Slams, Draw-96 Tier I, Tier IV & Tier V.

These are detail of my idea abt PAW Qualifying, quite complicated but I think applicable for recent growing PAW players number (130-150 players in a week).

Different rules would be adjusted if more than 200 PAWer's play in a week.

Dave B
Feb 14th, 2005, 05:50 PM
I think that sounds awesome sandg. Got my vote.

Dave B
Feb 14th, 2005, 05:52 PM
One question though, how are ranking points counted for the four qualifiers who get into the main draw?

sandg
Feb 15th, 2005, 03:00 AM
One question though, how are ranking points counted for the four qualifiers who get into the main draw?


The answer at point 5.

Ranking Pts counted from main PAW Ranking points if main PAW Ranking points bigger than Qual. Ranking Points, otherwise use Qual. Ranking Points.

Dave B
Feb 15th, 2005, 04:31 AM
The answer at point 5.

Ranking Pts counted from main PAW Ranking points if main PAW Ranking points bigger than Qual. Ranking Points, otherwise use Qual. Ranking Points.

One more question:

How does someone at a good college with a stronge GPA still not have the ability to read?

Sorry for the Brain fart! :wavey:

~CANUCK~
Feb 21st, 2005, 01:33 AM
maybe a way to make it easier on the managers would be to enforce some rules about picking. Such as all picks must be in a standard form such as paw 1: Willams over henin
and if its not in that form it won't be counted. ive been reading alot of the managers asking people to post there picks like that to help them out and people still refuse to do it. Also why not put a rule about replacing picks. You shouldn't be allowed to change a pick once made in my opinion. If you picked it you should be stuck with it, unless someone withdrew. That way the managers wouldn't have all that extra work with finding the picks that have been changed.

ghosts
Feb 21st, 2005, 03:12 PM
Some time ago I had the idea that seeded players in a tournament get one pick extra ...

:)

Dave B
Feb 21st, 2005, 06:12 PM
I still like Sand's idea. I just like trying to work your way up to the tour...just like real tennis!