I've done a lot of thinking about this and let's look at it from both sides. With the new system, every frame is essentially a game, you just have to win it, no matter how pretty or ugly it is. I DON'T like that it doesn't really include spares, but at the same time, the name of the game is and has always been knocking them all down on the first try. The good thing about this system is that one bad shot won't ruin your game, just like why tournaments have longer formats so one bad game won't necessarily knock you out of it. It also is very easy for newbies to the sport to catch up or figure out the scoring, which I think will be good for international or Olympic competition, but obviously just head to head. Plus this system should make games go down to the wire more often than not. Instead of one person getting a big lead and then just playing defense by getting on cruise control and hitting the pocket and picking up spares, they are required to keep their foot on the pedal the whole game.

There are a few things broken with the traditional system. Is it really fair for someone who goes front 7, stone 8, sheet to lose to someone who goes through the nose and leaves a 6-10, picks up the spare, then rolls the next 10 and finishes with a big 4 to win the game? Shouldn't the winner be the person who threw the most strikes? I suppose I've never really liked the traditional scoring system to begin with. Every night your score doesn't depend on the overall quality of your shots, it just depends on where your misses were. If you throw 30 strikes in a night, with the other 6 being 9 counts, assuming you make the spares if applicable, you could either shoot a 258 triplicate for 774 or a 289 triplicate for 867. But shouldn't your score be more dependent on how good you played rather than where everything fell? It would be like giving bonus strokes for consecutive pars or birdies or something. Unless I'm mistaken, this sport is the only one that gives a bonus just because you did something several times in a row.

Can you imagine on the PGA tour if somebody gets off on a hot streak to start their day and has 5 consecutive birdies and gets say an additional 2 strokes dropped off their score per hole for that? Then another guy birdies every other hole and actually ends the round with more birdies, but loses just because they weren't all in a row? That sounds pretty ridiculous to me. But that's the way it is, and that's what everybody is used to.

I think it needs a few adjustments, but I actually like the new system better. I don't like that the first ball is all that matters, I think spares need to be shot every frame. If they both throw a 9 count, they need to shoot the spare to tie the frame. In my mind, if someone goes 8/, they should win the frame over someone that goes 9-0. However, that also doesn't make the first shot very important, it shouldn't be ALL about spares. If nobody is ever trying to strike, just get good count and pick up the spare, you most likely wouldn't have that occasional 7 count. It would make it more like No Tap. It's a lot different game if you're just trying to get 9 instead of trying to get a strike.

So in the first match, did Sandra really bowl better than Liz? I think Liz won the game fair and square. I don't know what the traditional scoring number would have been, but we forget Sandra went 8-10, washout the last two frames before the extra one.

If you read this article on the PBA website, the players have some extremely good points. http://news.pba.com/post/2015/1/25/K...-Unveiled.aspx I feel the same way they do. I think it was more exciting for me than the traditional scoring, it keeps you honest longer, and it makes the matches more closely contested. The person who wins the most frames should win the game every time, period. I still think spares should be included to some capacity, I like my suggestion of course, but does anybody else have a better idea? This new system is actually really good if you think about it. People are more obsessed with scores now than good bowling, and I think that's why people don't like it.

I didn't get a chance to see yesterday's show because my DVR is set up for PBA telecasts; this show must have just been dubbed "Bowling" or something else. I'm ticked because I would've liked to have seen it. That being said, this is going to be a tough call. Traditionalists will hate this system just because it's new and different, which is very similar to why so many people dislike two-handed bowling, reactive balls, and other changes. The long and short is this. I don't think you'll ever see that type of scoring become mainstream; it's something the WTBA and, hopefully, the IOC can use during certain international competitions. To me, there is room for both. I wouldn't want traditional scoring to go away or even become the minority, but it would be kind of fun to bowl events that used that format every once in a while. Whether you loved it or hated it, at least it got some people talking about bowling. That's part of the battle right now as it is. The sport is slowly dying in many capacities. If this new approach to scoring - or anything else - brings interest and attention to the sport, I say that's a good thing.

Usually there is a replay of these shows on at least once or twice during the following week. Does anyone know if this one will be rebroadcast at all? If so, I'll set it up to record the second time around. I am happy any time bowling is on TV, strange scoring system or not!

I happened to be scanning the ESPN channels ahead of time and noticed "Bowling".  Mine was also set for PBA, so I wouldn't have gotten it either.  Problem wasn't ESPN2, but rather the different title. 

If you go onto youtube, the official PBA channel has been adding recently aired shows pretty quickly, this one may already be up. 

I guess I didn't find it boring at all, I actually found it more exciting because every shot mattered more.  Traditional scoring you just kind of have to wait until closer to the end to see what happens.  In this, every single frame is a win or a loss.  Every single shot matters NOW, and if you get into the 10th and one person is up 3, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.  If you're up 30 in a traditional scoring match, the person that's ahead really just has to stay clean.  Staying clean doesn't mean anything in this, you saw what happened to Sandra Andersson.  Maybe you don't feel it's fair, but she went 8-10, washout, and Liz forced an extra frame.  If Sandra just has to go 9/, 9/ to win in traditional scoring, all the sudden it's not as exciting, and I bet she gets it done, but because she HAD to keep striking, it was a different story.  There's pressure on every shot, whereas with traditional scoring, there's always a way to catch up.  If somebody leaves a split and drops 20-some pins, that's different than simply just losing a single frame. 

I don't know, maybe I think too much, but the new scoring appeals to me more.  Traditional scoring feels just like everything else in society today, over-inflated and over-blown.  People focus too much on flash and excitement and style over substance.  But I'm the type of person that could find watching a good game of chess enthralling, I don't really care about the pomp and circumstance, it actually annoys me.  I'm glad the shows are back in a regular bowling alley instead of these sets and crap too. 

Sure.  Let's make bowling as complicated to score as figure skating and bull riding.  If they want to do it for exhibitions or something, great.  If they implement in regular bowling they'll be driving a stake in the heart of league bowling.  Tried a 30 pt system in a league and the howling and complaining put an end to it in two years.

throwing a perfect game will be a lot harder now, 7-0

Well and that's one of my points, so what about the score?  If you're playing for a win or a loss, the actual score doesn't matter, just whether you won or lost.  Should be that way anyway. 

throwing a perfect game will be a lot harder now, 7-0