Author Topic: Future of the PBA Tour (Read 4802 times)

mixnmash · « **on:** October 12, 2003, 10:45:06 PM »

I was thinking...
Seeing as the "names" on the tour are WRW, Duke, PDW, Barnes, etc. Do you think that the PBA would be wise to play patterns such as "E" which plays as a power shot of the ditch in most cases as well as patterns that match-up power players(Smith, Rudi, etc.). I think that while no one can disagree with the level of talent that the WRW, Duke, PDW, and Barnes have, they will be around as long as they want because of their ability to score on anything....I think as a telecast people would find the "crankers" as more exciting and entertaining which may bring ratings and thus more money to the tour.
Obviously, competing head-to-head against the NFL is difficult and PBA telecasts are not going to take over as the new king of Sundays. With the newer blood such as Smith winning yesterday Wouldn't it be beneficial to market a player with his game and such than like they have done with PDW?
I for one believe WRW is the man and his ability to play anything is amazing. I am an avid bowler and much of the reason I can watch bowling 24-7 if I could is b/c of the respect I have for their games. If a casual fan tunes in and sees the sheer power of the game, perhaps our sport could reach a level of it's former hay-day or higher.
I know that the tour is about the best bowlers on the most demanding conditions, however should it be? I mean the new owners are there for a profit right? I really could care less as to who in particular wins although I do have a few favorites. I just enjoy the sport and enjoy seeing the sport I love get the coverage.
I guess my question is this: Should the PBA knowingly increase the odds for a particular style of bowling to generate revenue or stick with the current philosophy of best players/hardest conditions winner takes all?

The Hose · « **Reply #16 on:** October 15, 2003, 10:47:35 AM »

Get away from the patterns, wall em up, and lets see some scores. Football made the hashmarks smaller in order to have a more open game. Basketball got away from zone defense to make for a more exciting and higher scoring game.

Screw shot making, lets see some power. I want to watch a 288 to 279 game or a 280 to 268. I don't care about watching a match that is 205 to 198.

I know what you are going to say. The best should win, not who gets the breaks and carries.
I'd agree with you if bowling as a whole would go to a fair pattern for everyone. Don't give THS so a guy can bowl 3 games a week and average 230. It's league bowlers who watch the PBA, and when they see sub 200 matches, they think, "so what, I could do that".

A 100 yard dash is a 100 yards reguardless of whos running. A basketball goal is the same height for High School, College, and NBA. A Tennis court is the same size. So why should we get a THS yet make the PBA bowl on crap? Bring back the Wall.

The currents patterns do not set up well for lefties. Unless things change, there may not be but a couple make the top 50. Because of the lefties being shut out last week, it wouldn't surprise me to see a lefty on the show this week. The laneman can tweak the patterns to open it up on the left or shut them out. I'll be happy to give you a couple of example of that if you wish.
--------------------
CLIQUE MEMBER

Pinbuster · « **Reply #17 on:** October 15, 2003, 10:50:37 AM »

The sad truth is that the PBA is not about identifying the best bowlers in the world. It is about making money by providing entertainment.

The early PBA did both. Viewers got to watch scores they seldom saw shot locally and see the PBA pros do things to the ball they could only dream about. But as bowling changed for the masses with higher scores and local power players the novelty of the show was lost. The PBA continued to try and identify the best bowlers but in doing so the scores became nothing that bowlers couldnâ€™t see every week at their local center. Ratings went down, sponsor left, the PBA was bankrupt.

The new owners of the PBA are looking at it like a business and trying to make a profit. They are using TV and sponsors to generate a revenue stream. They want name recognition and think they can get that by limiting the fields next year and seeding the top ranked players in such a way that they get further into the tournament and not meet early in the match play. By limiting the number of players it means they can spread the money they have to fewer bowlers making for higher yearly earnings for the few exempt. It is well recognized that probably 100 players are capable of winning each week. But they donâ€™t want that, they really want 4 or 5 guys to dominate.

The new PBA went to the brackets and matches to eliminate the need to keep track of the over/under par that the casual spectator doesnâ€™t understand. Smith probably would not have qualified for the telecast using the old total average method but he was able to beat his opponents this week and make the show.

Iâ€™m actually surprised that they havenâ€™t changed the lane patterns. One, to have fewer patterns they use so that the same players show up every week. Two, to make the easier so that the higher rev players can dominate. And three that they havenâ€™t favored the left side of the lane more. The easiest way to have a dominate player or two is to favor the left side. You instantly take out 80% of the field. Of the 20 or so lefties 2 or 3 will dominate on a condition. Presto, you have an instant star(s).

Tiger Woods is great because you have this charismatic person who is far and away better than anyone else. He simply plays better than the others and you donâ€™t have to lock out any of the other players for him to dominate.

Bowling doesnâ€™t really have that, Walter Ray may come as close with his skills with Duke a close second, but they doesnâ€™t come across TV in such a way to make him compelling to watch. Pete Weber has trouble keeping his head on straight. Smith, maybe but to date he hasnâ€™t shown the ability to dominate and might not without lane help.

mixnmash · « **Reply #18 on:** October 15, 2003, 10:56:55 AM »

I will admit that maybe the "wordage" I used could possibly have been better.

"Should the PBA knowingly increase the odds for a particular style of bowling to generate revenue or stick with the current philosophy of best players/hardest conditions winner takes all?"

I will say this however...It is a business to them. It may be more fun than working at Microsoft, Nike, etc. or it may not. But, when they have to start digging into their own pockets....pack up the lanes the parties over. Do I think that will happen? No. The way to keep it from happing??? Revenue. I have gone over the ways that I think they could create additional revenue. As far as the owners making every buck and stuffing it into the parachute....Yes, the would deserve some of it. However, say the cash was really coming in do you not think that the players would get their slice as well? $40,000 grand a tourny now 100k in majors this year perhaps in a couple years 60-75k for a regular stop? What's wrong with that? Yes I know that it is speculation and they could pack it up at the end of the season and say "thanks guys".

"I know that the tour is about the best bowlers on the most demanding conditions, however should it be? I mean the new owners are there for a profit right? I really could care less as to who in particular wins although I do have a few favorites. I just enjoy the sport and enjoy seeing the sport I love get the coverage."

Michigan bowler, where have I deviated from my origional post? Where is the weaseling to which you refer? I have maintained my original stance of what I personally think would bring added viewership, that ever dangerous word of "revenue", and create a "buzz" about our sport.

I am not beating anyone with a club here, if you do not agree with my thoughts....so be it. I if nothing else enjoy reading the responses as I try to look at it from other perspectives. The only thing that I can think of is that with the replies to others and trying not to sound like a robot and say the same exact thing thing over and over, I tried use different ways to explain the same thing. Again maybe I could have been confrontational and cut and pasted my quotes and replies....That just seems a little point-couterpoint to me. I have tried my best to explain my position on the topic, asked what others thought, and then had to go back and restate my position a couple times b/c I got the vibe that a few misunderstood what I was saying...Like anything people are going to hear, see, and understand things differently.

Splitz · « **Reply #19 on:** October 15, 2003, 09:07:45 PM »

I watched the PBA tour religiously for years from the late sixties on until they went off TV. Now unless you have cable you are screwed and I don't know anyone who will buy cable just to watch bowling, so in my opinion it doesn't matter what they do if there is no audience. Get a network to put bowling back on Sat. afternoons at a fixed time week after week again and the audience will probably go up. If they are banking on all the bowlers that want to watch having cable, guess again PBA.

MichiganBowling · « **Reply #20 on:** October 16, 2003, 01:23:11 AM »

Again, please remember that ratings are up. Last year WAS the most successful year they've had in a long long time.

I'm sorry guys, but I can't help but notice that there seems to be only one way of thinking in this post. Everybody is concerned about having a marketable player that draws attention to our sport. The further we go with this discussion (and it's been goin on for years now), the more pointed and narrow the discussion seems to get. A lot of the people in this post have been trying to look at the situation from another party's perspective, mainly the PBA's perspective and how to keep the PBA afloat.

With that said, let's truly reflect on what we the people would like to see. I for one do NOT want to see shots set up for anybody. I don't care how flashy they are. I would like to see a pure shot where whoever bowled the best during that tournament actually won the tournament. Perhaps the problem with that scenario is the equipment. The equipment these days will allow a certain kind of bowler to open up the lane on a certain pattern better than another kind of bowler. Baseball anybody? Wooden bats right? Why not say plastic balls only for PBA bowlers? I'm guessing the ball manufacturers wouldn't be thrilled about that one...

I suppose if you look at bowling, you could also look at society. The trend is to keep the industries and big companies within their respective industries happy and fat. The idea of an automobile that runs on garbage has been around for years. But alas, what would the oil companies do? How much money do the ball manufacturers pour into the PBA every year? And probably at our expense!!! Why do you think we have to pay $200+ for a bowling ball these days? PBA Tour bowlers generally get them for free

I have no problem with the ball manufacturers putting money in to the PBA to be sponsors, don't get me wrong. The promotion of the PBA is a great way to generate interest in the sport again. I just want everybody to recognize that keeping their ball manufacturers happy limits what they can do to truly make the PBA the best it can be. As long as we see the resins and urethanes and particles out there, we're never going to truly see a "fair" PBA where everybody has an equal chance. And that's a fact!

1) Am I interested in the revenues and profits of the PBA? Absolutely NOT! 2) Does the success of the PBA as far as popularity amongst bowlers affect the popularity of the sport in general? Well certainly. But do we really need to concern ourselves with the 1st in order for the 2nd to be attained? Let's really get creative here and try to find a way for them to have their cake and share it with the rest of us to eat too!
--------------------
Brian
MichiganBowling.com
http://www.MichiganBowling.com

Famous Last Words of a Pot Bowler--"Ok, but this is my last game!"

Edited on 10/16/2003 1:46 AM

The Hose · « **Reply #21 on:** October 16, 2003, 09:52:37 AM »

I still say...Give them a House Shot. If you had Walter Ray an Pete Weber tie at 300 or a 300 to 299 match, I bet ESPN would make a big deal about it. Nobody wants to hear that Dave Arnold beat Doug Kent 213 to 197. Wall em up and let the pins fly. Big Scores=Entertainment. People may start to watch again. I for one do not care if I see the show or not. I'll only watch it if the football game are not any good, or I just stumble across it. When is it even on?
--------------------
CLIQUE MEMBER

Author Topic: Future of the PBA Tour (Read 4802 times)

mixnmash

Future of the PBA Tour

The Hose

Re: Future of the PBA Tour

Pinbuster

Re: Future of the PBA Tour

mixnmash

Re: Future of the PBA Tour

Splitz

Re: Future of the PBA Tour

MichiganBowling

Re: Future of the PBA Tour

The Hose

Re: Future of the PBA Tour