[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine a much larger venue than the Rio had this year? And staffing an event that could be twice as large next year will be very difficult, if not impossible.

So, what’s the solution to the growth problem? Well, many think it’s time to increase the buy-in of the championship event to $20,000-$25,000. That would eliminate the problem of a massive field. Here’s my suggestion: Set the WSOP up like the U.S. Open golf tournament. Make players qualify regionally to play in the championship event. Bring the top 2,000 players from these qualifying events into Las Vegas for the final event. Allow another 1,000-2,000 to qualify at the Rio. In other words, players would have to earn their way into the championship event.

I would set up regional qualifying in Europe and other places around the world, as well as in the East, North, South, Midwest, Southwest, and West here in the United States; $10,000 buy-in tournaments would be held at the qualifying sites, where players would have to make the money to play in the final event in Las Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only real difference between Sexton's plan and the current structure is that Sexton's early "rounds" would take place outside of Las Vegas, placing less of a burden on the Vegas host. For someone with $10,000 to spend, the odds of qualifying for the final table would still be dependent upon the size of the field (skill level not withstanding), regardless of whether one started playing in Paris or Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but consider what happened when they expanded the NCAA field to "65 teams." Nobody picks that game in their pool, virtually nobody watches it, it's not a real part of the tournament. By the same token, playing in the Paramus, New Jersey qualifier for the WSOP is not the same thing as playing in the WSOP, even if you say "oh, it's the same thing as playing Round 1 at a different site!"