Trying to get into the Olympics is a nice goal, but... I still think this is a horrible idea when it comes to changing the scoring format.

This ain't golf. This is bowling, damnit!
And to be quite honest, anything to do with the Olympics is hyperpolitical and border-line corrupt, anyway. So, unless bowling ponies up lots of money, or it can show it can generate lots of money, Dornberger and his pinhead colleagues are grasping for the wind.

In the article, Kevin Dornberger is quoted as follows: "We have had an image problem. "Not enough people understand the way the game is scored and that can make it boring for them to watch."

Dornberger should know something about bowling's image problem and the way the game is scored, because he was a key member of the USBC committee that investigated and approved a pair of 900 series by Robert Mushtare.

I don't understand the big push to get bowling into the Olympics.  Most of the sports that are currently in the Olympics we only see once every four years.

Has any one in Dornberger's operations even looked at what's going on with the Olympics? I assume we would be talking about the Summer Games for Bowling, as I don't see it fitting into the Winter Olympics. The Olympic committee recently cut sports that have been traditional Olympic events for years, and one that dates back to the very first Olympics, wrestling. They feel there are too many sports now. So which sport gets cut to add bowling in a hypothetical scenario? Which sport do think Bowling has a better lobbying position then?? I don't really see one. This idea of getting bowling into the Olympics is a pipe dream.

I have no opinion on the "new" scoring system because I haven't seen enough experience to form a valid opinion yet.

But from an interview they gave about why they were even looking into it was the following:

Bowler A bowls X/XXXXXXXXXX
Bowler B bowls XXXXXXXX/XXX

Now we all know bowler A beats bowler B.

But to the non bowling score trained person, they asked who should win?

The answer was neither.  It should be a tie as they had they same number of strikes and spares.  That's what they are looking at.  The non trained person.  They don't get why bowler A beats bowler B.  And even if you explain it to them, they think it is stupid because both bowlers had the same number of strikes and spares.

The fact that one bowler had his spare before the other bowler is not relevant to the non-trained public.

So that is what this new system addresses.  In the new system, they do tie.

Now bowlers will say it sucks because we have all been trained for years and decades on scoring and how it works.  But assume you didn't know the rules of scoring.  Wouldn't it make sense that if 2 bowlers bowled 11 strikes and 1 spare in a game, they should tie if the spare count was equal?

If you are shooting 12 free throws and 1 guy makes 7 misses one and makes 4 more.  and the next guy misses 1 then makes 11 in a row, it is still a tie.

They are just taking where the spare occurs out of play in scoring.

I can see their point.  Yes it is different from what we have always done.  Maybe it is better, maybe worse.  But let's give it some time before we call it the worse thing ever.

Txbowler, I get your point regarding the non-participatory observer of bowling. But I submit two points: It would seem to me if I really want to learn another sport's scoring system, say, like cricket then I'd invest the time and effort to learn it. Secondly, golf makes its Olympic debut in 2016. Did golf change its scoring system to be added into it the Olympic program? Golf was added because of the financial appeal it brings to the IOC. It's all about money, baby.