Changes to World Professional Tour

World Snooker has announced changes to the structure of the World Professional Tour in order to assist in the further growth of the sport.

At a recent board meeting it was agreed that the number of players competing on the professional circuit will increase from 96 to 128 from the 2013/14 season.

It was also agreed that players gaining a tour card after Q School next May, will keep their card for a period of two years rather than one.

These decisions are part of a complete review of the structure of the tour, currently being made in conjunction with the WPBSA.

A further part of this review will include the option of fundamentally changing the ranking system so that it is based on prize money earned, rather than ranking points.

World Snooker Chairman Barry Hearn said: "Our sport is changing and we need to adjust the structure of the pro tour to reflect that. We are expanding on a global scale and we need to provide more opportunities to international players, and allow all players to develop their careers with the most talented ones rising quickly to the top.

"We are currently in a consultation process and will continue to work closely on this with The WPBSA. Further updates will be announced in due course."


From the World Snooker website.

Great news except the prize money based points system which I cannot personally see working or being in the slightest bit fair. Also it means the lower funded tournaments will be the least well attended so how do they get around that one?

Simply ridiculous.

World Snooker Chairman Barry Hearn said: "Our sport is changing and we need to adjust the structure of the pro tour to reflect that. We are expanding on a global scale and we need to provide more opportunities to international players, and allow all players to develop their careers with the most talented ones rising quickly to the top.

please explain how that would work based on prize money and if there are 128 players does players lower than last 64 get prize money.

with prize money the Player who wins the World Championship Wont need to Enter a lot if not all the PTC to protect his Ranking.

Aussie Open wont be worth it so it will die with Top Players Giving it a miss so potential of Growth is cut Dead.

There might come a Time where Prize Money in China will be on a Par with Sheffield.

Seriously Basing Rankings on how much cash sponsors can fork out is very unfair and sloppy.

Dave Hendon seems to think it's a good idea and also fair. I just don't see it. I see prize money based points systems as tacky. It also guarantees a poor turnout at those events trying to get off the ground. The Australian Open would have been attended by what, probably 6 to 10 top 16 players under the prize money list system?

Everything else, great. Prize money ranking lists - need to see the blueprint and get my head around how it can work otherwise I stay firmly in the "not on your nelly" camp.

Obviously, there needs to be some sort of blueprint drawn up for the Players to read and I do think that this is one time, seeing as it is so important that they get the chance to vote on it, otherwise I think there will be a mass revolt.

Maybe this is a plan to try and get extra money from sponsors for the events?

Casey wrote:Maybe this is a plan to try and get extra money from sponsors for the events?

if the moneys not there no ounce of pin ends sitting in meetings talking bullocks will get it.

So if i win the lottery, and start my own tournament with 50 millions prize money, does this mean I can give more points than the world champs? even if it is best of 3 soup?

mishcka wrote:So if i win the lottery, and start my own tournament with 50 millions prize money, does this mean I can give more points than the world champs? even if it is best of 3 soup?

No lol

But the Principle is the same its absalutly Stupid Having say £35,000 for Australia and £70,000 for Shanghai Equating to Points based on the sponsors you got.

Winning a best of 17 UK and Winning Best of 5s World Open = £100,000 last season ...

Despite a very poor Season Robertson would Still be World No 2 now.

Rankings should have Consistancies in how they work out having Price Money fluctuating could mean you winning Germany,Wales and Australia and yet have Less points than the Winner in China and a few Quarters in other events.

It should be remembered that this is just a proposal. They are still consulting but even if it were to be pushed through the player do have the power to do something about it.

snooky147 wrote:It should be remembered that this is just a proposal. They are still consulting but even if it were to be pushed through the player do have the power to do something about it.

im not a fan of it and never will be but if prize money was spread evenly without massive discrepency it would be fairer but i just dont think its right if a player wins the UK and Runner up in the World = less ranking points than the World Champ

my queries?

1) is there going to be money from the 2nd qualifying round onwards as how will an order of merit work if theres no differentiation between reaching last 128 and last 112 etc

2) wheres the money going to come from considering at the moment you need to reach last 64 or even 48 sometimes before prize money starts

3) surely losing seeds wont recieve the same money as qualifiers who reach the same stage? If so its even more protective than the current system

4) what incentive is there to play PTCs now given theyll be 1/25th value of the Worlds as opposed to 1/5th presently

5) with 128 players on tour will the qualifying structure be changed as teirs of 16 would mean lengthy 6 qualifying rounds per event

as the PTCs have shown there is no real need for protection to the elite, one possible set up that could be used is this

qualifying round 1 - seeds 81- 104 v 105 - 128
qualiying round 2 - seeds 57-80 play round 1 winners
qualifying round 3 - seeds 33-56 play round 2 winners
qualifying round 4 - seeds 9-32 play round 3 winners

24 qualifiers join TOP 8 at event

Witz78 wrote:my queries?

1) is there going to be money from the 2nd qualifying round onwards as how will an order of merit work if theres no differentiation between reaching last 128 and last 112 etc

2) wheres the money going to come from considering at the moment you need to reach last 64 or even 48 sometimes before prize money starts

3) surely losing seeds wont recieve the same money as qualifiers who reach the same stage? If so its even more protective than the current system

4) what incentive is there to play PTCs now given theyll be 1/25th value of the Worlds as opposed to 1/5th presently

5) with 128 players on tour will the qualifying structure be changed as teirs of 16 would mean lengthy 6 qualifying rounds per event

as the PTCs have shown there is no real need for protection to the elite, one possible set up that could be used is this

qualifying round 1 - seeds 81- 104 v 105 - 128
qualiying round 2 - seeds 57-80 play round 1 winners
qualifying round 3 - seeds 33-56 play round 2 winners
qualifying round 4 - seeds 9-32 play round 3 winners

24 qualifiers join TOP 8 at event

SO, you want to protect the top 8 then?. Typical

Wild wrote:

Casey wrote:Maybe this is a plan to try and get extra money from sponsors for the events?

if the moneys not there no ounce of pin ends sitting in meetings talking bullocks will get it.

snooky147 wrote:

Witz78 wrote:my queries?

1) is there going to be money from the 2nd qualifying round onwards as how will an order of merit work if theres no differentiation between reaching last 128 and last 112 etc

2) wheres the money going to come from considering at the moment you need to reach last 64 or even 48 sometimes before prize money starts

3) surely losing seeds wont recieve the same money as qualifiers who reach the same stage? If so its even more protective than the current system

4) what incentive is there to play PTCs now given theyll be 1/25th value of the Worlds as opposed to 1/5th presently

5) with 128 players on tour will the qualifying structure be changed as teirs of 16 would mean lengthy 6 qualifying rounds per event

as the PTCs have shown there is no real need for protection to the elite, one possible set up that could be used is this

qualifying round 1 - seeds 81- 104 v 105 - 128
qualiying round 2 - seeds 57-80 play round 1 winners
qualifying round 3 - seeds 33-56 play round 2 winners
qualifying round 4 - seeds 9-32 play round 3 winners

24 qualifiers join TOP 8 at event

SO, you want to protect the top 8 then?. Typical

no but i knew if i didnt offer some protection then a stink would be kicked up.

what the heck, they all enter in qualifying round 1, on a seeded basis 1 plays 128, 2 plays 127 etc

2 rounds of qualifying to get down to 32 who go to venue.

that way the order of merit can work on a 128 tour as only the round 1 winners (64 players) need be paid so not much different to now.

Also makes it a totally level playing field and truly gives newcomers a chance to make venues, become well know stars as despite the young guys doing well in PTCs come the main rankers its the same old faces as the tiered system protects them.

so yeh i now want no-one seeded through to a venue anymore.

having thought about it if they bring in a prize money list you cant have tiered system every player will have to start from scratch for example if last 64 gets prize money that means players losing last 128 gets nothing and you get prize money rankings if you win a match etc.

im still against prize money rankings but tiered system could never work with Prize Money

top 64 v other 64 at round 1

so every player has to win 2 matches to get to a venue.

yep your singing from the same hymnsheet as me yet again Wild

the 128 man tour and a money list, both of these are the common denominator of the PTC set up so its basically an adaption of this into the whole snooker tour.

Witz78 wrote:my queries?

1) is there going to be money from the 2nd qualifying round onwards as how will an order of merit work if theres no differentiation between reaching last 128 and last 112 etc

2) wheres the money going to come from considering at the moment you need to reach last 64 or even 48 sometimes before prize money starts

3) surely losing seeds wont recieve the same money as qualifiers who reach the same stage? If so its even more protective than the current system

4) what incentive is there to play PTCs now given theyll be 1/25th value of the Worlds as opposed to 1/5th presently

5) with 128 players on tour will the qualifying structure be changed as teirs of 16 would mean lengthy 6 qualifying rounds per event

as the PTCs have shown there is no real need for protection to the elite, one possible set up that could be used is this

qualifying round 1 - seeds 81- 104 v 105 - 128
qualiying round 2 - seeds 57-80 play round 1 winners
qualifying round 3 - seeds 33-56 play round 2 winners
qualifying round 4 - seeds 9-32 play round 3 winners

24 qualifiers join TOP 8 at event

If Barry Hearn take this format, I think PTC is no need to create

Sponsors and TV Will simply not allow this if it was not seeded. I do not think it can possibly work.

snooky147 wrote:Sponsors and TV Will simply not allow this if it was not seeded. I do not think it can possibly work.

id expect you to take the protective stance towards your man

Will be interesting to see if they try and force a flat structure (i.e. all 128 players start in Q1). As snooky147 pointed I can't see sponsors or tournament organisers agreeing to this. The top players won't be happy with playing 2 Qualifying rounds either.

An alternative might be:
Q1: 65-96 v 97-128
Q2: 33-64 v Q1 winners
Q3: 1-32 v Q2 winners
Which leaves 32 Qualifiers for the main event. Not too sure they'd go for this either though.

Witz78 - I quite like your idea of just having 8 automatic qualifiers. Certainly seems better than the current system.

If they retain the 16 automatic qualifiers then I can't see it addressing any of the current issues with the Tour. Best option might be:
Q1: 65-96 v 97-128
Q2: 33-64 v Q1 winners
Q3: 16 Q2 winners v 16 Q2 winners
Q4: 17-32 v Q3 winners
This creates too much of a division between the Top 32 and the rest though.

Don't know if it's on the cards, but another approach might be to have 2 separate qualifying events. 1 in UK, 1 in Asia. Not sure how practical this will be though.

An idea could be to halve the amount of players coming through the qualifying tournament (8 players). The rest come from PTC rankings - will encourage more outside the Top 16 to go along.

Wouldn't really encourage the top 8 though and it's their absence from PTCs that most people tend to whine about.

on a tour of 128 players its far too high a protection to have an elite top 16 who take up half the places at events whilst the other 112 players have to scrap out over 16 places at events, basically theres a 14% chance on average they will make it to an event.

Im fully in favour of just an elite top 8 instead (see my model above) though id almost be happy too with a PTC style format with everyone treated equally.

How about top 16 just for the majors ?

nah got to be all or nothing IMO

thats just another form of protection

by creating a top 8 instead of a 16 it would mean the scope for some to slump and drift in the elite knowing they can do what they need to do to stay there would be over, namely the likes of Ronnie as its obvious hes forever going to be happy now just tucked slightly inside the top 16, change it to 12 and hed raise his game and get in there, same with 8 im sure.

A top 8 would be truly elite and there wouldnt be anomalies such as Gould, Bingham etc (no offence) who are always going to be journeymen IMO.

IMO the ideal top 8 wed have would be Selby, Ding, Robbo, Trump, Higgins, Williams, Ronnie and Murphy. Lets face it, there easily the BIG 8 at the moment either namewise or formwise.

Witz78 wrote:nah got to be all or nothing IMO

thats just another form of protection

by creating a top 8 instead of a 16 it would mean the scope for some to slump and drift in the elite knowing they can do what they need to do to stay there would be over, namely the likes of Ronnie as its obvious hes forever going to be happy now just tucked slightly inside the top 16, change it to 12 and hed raise his game and get in there, same with 8 im sure.

A top 8 would be truly elite and there wouldnt be anomalies such as Gould, Bingham etc (no offence) who are always going to be journeymen IMO.

IMO the ideal top 8 wed have would be Selby, Ding, Robbo, Trump, Higgins, Williams, Ronnie and Murphy. Lets face it, there easily the BIG 8 at the moment either namewise or formwise.

it will be nothing then buck me world snooker cant work out PTC Qualifying structure unless its 32 or 28 they cant work ur way out lol

its a flat 128 like PTC if they go with bullocks marmite crappy pathetic load of cockerel prize money Rankings

or

Rankers 3 Qualifiers

65-96 v 97-128
33-95 v 32 qualifiers
1-32 v 32 qualifiers
Last 32 ON TV

World Championship 4 qualifiers

65-96 v 97-128
33-95 v 32 qualifiers
Then They play each other
17-32 v 16 Qualifiers
1-16 v 16 Qualifiers ON TV

if they will use the same structure as they use now with 128 Players 5 qualifiers

97-112 v 113-128 Last 128
65-96 v 16 Qualifiers Last 112
49-64 v 16 Qualifiers Last 96
33-48 v 16 Qualifiers Last 64
17-32 v 16 Qualifiers Last 48
1-16 v 16 Qualifiers Last 32 ON TV

Thing is all sports have some benefits and peaks for the top few players in whatever way, duno why snooker should be any different. What you don't wana do is make it so incredibly difficult for them to be ousted from that position of privilege by skewing the ranking point system, which is why we need live rolling rankings more than anything.

Bourne wrote:Thing is all sports have some benefits and peaks for the top few players in whatever way, duno why snooker should be any different. What you don't wana do is make it so incredibly difficult for them to be ousted from that position of privilege by skewing the ranking point system, which is why we need live rolling rankings more than anything.

YES i persanally think a complete Flat system like PTC would Nullify the Benefit of a Full on Rolling Ranking system i do think Top 16 even Top 32 should get some benefit so that players see that as the benchmark of trying to get in to a higher position for the Next Event meaning less Qualifiers.

thats the overhaul that should be looked at NOT Bloody Prize Money Rankings.