If you could decide the future of the shootout?

SteveJJ wrote:Perhaps if the ranking points were that low, it might not just lose the top players but a fair few midranking players who were safe from relegation couldn't qualify for the coral events or weren't near the top 16.

You might end up with the bottom 64 and a few others

They could possibly distribute the same number of points more evenly? So the top prize is less but might still attract top players?

I Want it scraped entirely just complete Rubbish.

Wildey wrote:I Want it scraped entirely just complete Rubbish.

But the point is, it's one long weekend out of the year. If a person doesn't like it, they can chose not to watch it.

I've never watched Eastenders, but I don't campaign for it not to exist. I'm not interested in Soap Operas, so I don't watch them.

The problem comes when it affects a player's rank. Pretty unanimously people agree that it's wrong. And as such, it lingers like a bad smell over the tournament. If it was still an exhibition like when it was on Sky, those that wanted to watch it could and those that didn't could chose not to watch it. It wouldn't make any difference to those who didn't want to watch it. Now it does make a difference to the rest of the tour, because it has the potential to affect a players rank for future tournaments.

SnookerFan wrote:

Wildey wrote:I Want it scraped entirely just complete Rubbish.

But the point is, it's one long weekend out of the year. If a person doesn't like it, they can chose not to watch it.

I've never watched Eastenders, but I don't campaign for it not to exist. I'm not interested in Soap Operas, so I don't watch them.

The problem comes when it affects a player's rank. Pretty unanimously people agree that it's wrong. And as such, it lingers like a bad smell over the tournament. If it was still an exhibition like when it was on Sky, those that wanted to watch it could and those that didn't could chose not to watch it. It wouldn't make any difference to those who didn't want to watch it. Now it does make a difference to the rest of the tour, because it has the potential to affect a players rank for future tournaments.

If a snooker player watches every episode of EastEnders they get an extra 10,000 ranking points.

The_Abbott wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Wildey wrote:I Want it scraped entirely just complete Rubbish.

But the point is, it's one long weekend out of the year. If a person doesn't like it, they can chose not to watch it.

I've never watched Eastenders, but I don't campaign for it not to exist. I'm not interested in Soap Operas, so I don't watch them.

The problem comes when it affects a player's rank. Pretty unanimously people agree that it's wrong. And as such, it lingers like a bad smell over the tournament. If it was still an exhibition like when it was on Sky, those that wanted to watch it could and those that didn't could chose not to watch it. It wouldn't make any difference to those who didn't want to watch it. Now it does make a difference to the rest of the tour, because it has the potential to affect a players rank for future tournaments.

If a snooker player watches every episode of EastEnders they get an extra 10,000 ranking points.

Still a better idea than the Shoot-Out.

SnookerFan wrote:

Wildey wrote:I Want it scraped entirely just complete Rubbish.

But the point is, it's one long weekend out of the year. If a person doesn't like it, they can chose not to watch it.

I've never watched Eastenders, but I don't campaign for it not to exist. I'm not interested in Soap Operas, so I don't watch them.

The problem comes when it affects a player's rank. Pretty unanimously people agree that it's wrong. And as such, it lingers like a bad smell over the tournament. If it was still an exhibition like when it was on Sky, those that wanted to watch it could and those that didn't could chose not to watch it. It wouldn't make any difference to those who didn't want to watch it. Now it does make a difference to the rest of the tour, because it has the potential to affect a players rank for future tournaments.

There are no rules over what should and shouldnt be a ranking event, traditionally only events where everybody could enter counted but that is not now the case.

The players cant complain as they voted to make it a ranking event. If they felt strongly enough they would have voted to scrap it instead.

Players have more than enough opportunity via the other 19 odd ranking tournaments a year to qualify for the big money events.

Yes it is not played under standard rules, and is a fun event but if it is not to an individual's taste there are a million other things they can do with their time instead.

mick745 wrote:The players cant complain as they voted to make it a ranking event. If they felt strongly enough they would have voted to scrap it instead.

Players have more than enough opportunity via the other 19 odd ranking tournaments a year to qualify for the big money events.

Unfortunately a lot of players just don’t have the luxury of turning down a potential £32,000 (now £50,000) payday. Particularly in a tournament that theoretically levels the playing field and gives them a better chance of going deep (as evidenced by the winners since it became a ranking event).

Hearn had them over a barrel and he knew it.

Interestingly not on freeview this year which must have hit its viewing figures hard and thus potential sponsorship.

I guess we'll find out soon if it stays on the calendar.

It would be good to have either a doubles or scotch doubles tournament added to the tour if there is a desire to have a variant event.

mick745 wrote:
There are no rules over what should and shouldnt be a ranking event, traditionally only events where everybody could enter counted but that is not now the case.

The players cant complain as they voted to make it a ranking event. If they felt strongly enough they would have voted to scrap it instead.

Players have more than enough opportunity via the other 19 odd ranking tournaments a year to qualify for the big money events.

Yes it is not played under standard rules, and is a fun event but if it is not to an individual's taste there are a million other things they can do with their time instead.

The players were essentially blackmailed into that. If there was an option to keep it, but remove it's ranking status that would be one thing. But Hearn knew that would probably win, so he didn't have it as an option in his vote. It was keep the shootout or lose the shootout.

So many players outside of the top-16 are struggling to make a living these days, that there was exactly zero chance of an earning opportunity to be voted against. Hearn's vote, that he likes to boast about, proves nothing.

It certainly can't be used as an argument for the Shoot-Out staying on as a ranker.

mick745 wrote:Interestingly not on freeview this year which must have hit its viewing figures hard and thus potential sponsorship.

Yes.

Considering that this was dropped by Sky Sports and by ITV4, I can only conclude that the Shoot-Out doesn't have great TV viewership. This would also explain Hearn's several attempts at bribing the top-16 players to enter.

But if that's the case, surely putting it on Quest and making it available to a wider audience would be the way to go? I can't believe it was doing such poor ratings that the usual guff they put on Quest did more.

SnookerFan wrote:

mick745 wrote:Interestingly not on freeview this year which must have hit its viewing figures hard and thus potential sponsorship.

Yes.

Considering that this was dropped by Sky Sports and by ITV4, I can only conclude that the Shoot-Out doesn't have great TV viewership. This would also explain Hearn's several attempts at bribing the top-16 players to enter.

But if that's the case, surely putting it on Quest and making it available to a wider audience would be the way to go? I can't believe it was doing such poor ratings that the usual guff they put on Quest did more.

Makes you wonder why he bothers with it still, if that’s the case.

Iranu wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

mick745 wrote:Interestingly not on freeview this year which must have hit its viewing figures hard and thus potential sponsorship.

Yes.

Considering that this was dropped by Sky Sports and by ITV4, I can only conclude that the Shoot-Out doesn't have great TV viewership. This would also explain Hearn's several attempts at bribing the top-16 players to enter.

But if that's the case, surely putting it on Quest and making it available to a wider audience would be the way to go? I can't believe it was doing such poor ratings that the usual guff they put on Quest did more.

Makes you wonder why he bothers with it still, if that’s the case.

I assume there's an interest in it in terms of people who pay for tickets. If nobody was watching at all, it'd be scrapped.