Tennis Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Neutral site tournament

You get spend the hundred large on four players. The idea is to use this money to make more. Should you give this money to the #7, #8, #9 #10 players? Or #46, #49, #52 and #66?

The point is, that $100,000 are like wildcards. It's there as an investment, designed to make me money. Fairness indicates the #7, #8, #9 and #10 is the choice.
 

·
***** Emeritus
Joined
·
45,094 Posts
Something tells me I should have a look at the rankings ;)

I personally would give them to 7-10. I probably wouldn't be an organizer anymore the year after :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,740 Posts
I go with the names most recognized by the general public. It's the casual observer you need to convince people to part with cash, get their tickets and come to the stands. If the draw is strong the tennis fans are going to come whoever's playing. Therefore to someone who doesn't follow tennis closely the names Seles, Pierce & Sharapova will probably sell a ticket quicker than Myskina or Rubin.
 

·
***** Emeritus
Joined
·
45,094 Posts
MirjanaLfan said:
I go with the names most recognized by the general public. It's the casual observer you need to convince people to part with cash, get their tickets and come to the stands. If the draw is strong the tennis fans are going to come whoever's playing. Therefore to someone who doesn't follow tennis closely the names Seles, Pierce & Sharapova will probably sell a ticket quicker than Myskina or Rubin.
Not sure about this one. Sharapova maybe, cause she's a youngster, but giving WC's to Seles and Pierce is not the way to go imo. Cause soon, they'll be retired and Myskina will still not be known. Giving Myskina a WC this year (and assuming she does well) maybe people will know her next year.

Note: Myskina only used as an example ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
460 Posts
I personally would have to agree with mirjanaLfan. The allowing a recognized player will satisfy the public. It will get the crowd more into the matches as well as the tournament. If none of the players are players that would be recognized i would choose the players ranked 7-10. This would result in an exciting tournament because of all the potential of players being upset and ect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
#46, #49, #52 and #66 at the moment are Seles, Pierce, Sharapova and Safina. Will more people be interested in coming to see them, or to see Rubin, Dementieva, Myskina nd Mauresmo?

I'm in it for the money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,080 Posts
Volcana said:
#46, #49, #52 and #66 at the moment are Seles, Pierce, Sharapova and Safina. Will more people be interested in coming to see them, or to see Rubin, Dementieva, Myskina nd Mauresmo?

I'm in it for the money.
This is a really fascinating question!

I do have to say, though, that the tournament site has a lot to do with it; calling it "neutral" is tough, as each continent's fans will in general prefer certain players over others. If we're allowed to pick and choose from the eight players, instead of choosing between lots of four, it's even tougher.

If I'm in North America, where the fans generally seem to prefer the bigger names and/or "local" players, I'd go with Seles, Pierce, Rubin, and Sharapova. In Western Europe: Seles, Pierce, Mauresmo, and either Dementieva or Myskina. (In Germany: Pierce, Mauresmo, Dementieva and Myskina.) Eastern Europe: Seles, Dementieva, Myskina, and Sharapova. Asia: Seles, Dementieva, Pierce, and Sharapova.

Australia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America are dicier. Chances are I'd go with Seles in all four cases, and Safina would be off the list. Rubin would probably get in; Pierce too. In Australia, I'd probably go with Seles, Rubin, Pierce, and Mauresmo, as all have had good results in Melbourne and are well-known to the public. In the other three cases, I'm rolling dice for the fourth player. :)

Also, does the tournament have a history, or is it new? Logic would dictate that players who performed well there in the past might receive consideration over a newer player or one who hadn't played the tournament before. And a player's health would also factor in, because I'd want the players to whom I fork over the money not to lose early due to injury if I can avoid it. (Sorry to nitpick, but these are all variables to consider.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,645 Posts
seles definately
sharapova and safina have gotten a lot of exposure
but spen $99,000 on #69 (can't believe she fell nine places since the clay court season tho :mad: at least carpet is next)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,624 Posts
Suggestions such as giving a wildcard to a player so they will be recognized next year are pointless. If I give a wildcard to Myskina this year, when my tournament comes around next year am I going to find that the organizers from the other 40-some tournaments have helped me elevate Myskina's profile, or did they simply cash in with someone who can make them money NOW, like Monica Seles?

The reason that that the NBA and NFL are viable and profitable organizations is because they have salary caps. In less regulated sports with 30-40 owners/promoters each controlling their own product, looking out for #1 is the only way to survive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,619 Posts
The ones with the biggest tits.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top