win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament  (Read 39886 times)

Mighty Fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« on: July 08, 2013, 04:38:19 PM »
Some people claim that the scores in the USBC Open Tournament are way too high, and they point to the high number of honor scores in attempting to make that point.

However, once again this year, the OVERALL averages of the tournament field are far from "too high" (as the following breakdown of this year's USBC Open clearly indicate) ...

* REGULAR TEAM ... 173.6 (120,335 games)
* REGULAR DOUBLES/SINGLES ... 173.8 (233,203 games)
* CLASSIFIED TEAM ... 152.1 (34,054 games)
* CLASSIFIED DOUBLES/SINGLES ... 149.3 (73,765 games)
* TEAM (both divisions combined) ... 168.9
* DOUBLES/SINGLES (both divisions combined) ... 168.0
* OVERALL (all divisions, all events) ... 168.3 (461,357 games)

So as I've maintained on many occasions, whereas there are quite a few high scores, only a very few -- outside of the best players and shotmakers -- are able to score at a high level. The statistics speak for themselves.

 

Joe Cool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #106 on: March 19, 2014, 01:24:09 PM »
They claim to need a certain amount of space to hold the tournament.  They require certain things for a city to be able to bid.  The full list is out there somehwere...you can probably google it.  To simplify it for the purposes of this discussion, they can do without the space "requirement" that they have, but they keep the requirement high so more cities can't bid and they can use the places that they want to use while claiming nobody else bid.  There's more, but that's simple enough for even Jorge to understand.
Hit the pocket and hope for the best

Joe Cool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #107 on: March 19, 2014, 01:29:32 PM »

What that means is they can hold the tournament with all the bells and whistles they have now anywhere in the country with much lower requirements than they require now. 


Joe, I'm trying to understand what "much lower requirements" means. If it's just profit, sorry. Jorge has covered that well, and you can't win that argument. If it's something else besides dumbing down the overall bowler experience, please explain.

Jorge covered what?  That profits should be put in front of bowler experience?  I'm pretty sure he loses that argument before it even begins.  Bowlers aren't begging to go to Reno every year, and despite all of the advantages going to Reno has for USBC, they are losing bowlers left and right.  What that means is in spite of all of the ammenities and convenience Reno offers to bowlers, people aren't going because they don't like the experience.  How exactly do I lose that argument?  Please explain.  Reno has everything in Jorge's imaginary world of bowling, yet people don't want to go there anymore.
Hit the pocket and hope for the best

Joe Cool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #108 on: March 19, 2014, 01:35:27 PM »
Reno is fine GTx2.  I love Reno.  I'd go there every year if they'd hold the tournament there.  I think the Reno experience is going to be better than the Vegas experience (even though I prefer Vegas as a city) unless you stay at South Pointe (for our group of 6 teams at least).  That doesn't blind me to the fact that I am in the minority on Reno.  Thousands of people aren't going because the tournament is in Reno.  Thousands of others are going, but aren't happy about it.  Instead of burying your head like Jorge does, you should look at it and figure out why it's a probelm and what can be done to resolve the issue.  That's exactly what I'm doing.
Hit the pocket and hope for the best

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #109 on: March 19, 2014, 01:47:58 PM »
They claim to need a certain amount of space to hold the tournament.  They require certain things for a city to be able to bid.  The full list is out there somehwere...you can probably google it.  To simplify it for the purposes of this discussion, they can do without the space "requirement" that they have, but they keep the requirement high so more cities can't bid and they can use the places that they want to use while claiming nobody else bid.  There's more, but that's simple enough for even Jorge to understand.



And do you have ANY evidence of this?
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

Joe Cool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #110 on: March 19, 2014, 01:57:59 PM »
They claim to need a certain amount of space to hold the tournament.  They require certain things for a city to be able to bid.  The full list is out there somehwere...you can probably google it.  To simplify it for the purposes of this discussion, they can do without the space "requirement" that they have, but they keep the requirement high so more cities can't bid and they can use the places that they want to use while claiming nobody else bid.  There's more, but that's simple enough for even Jorge to understand.



And do you have ANY evidence of this?

Evidence?  I don't work for USBC.  One doesn't need to be able to prove something if you can read between the lines.  USBC history of making all decision based on money + less bowlers + same requirements + Reno and Vegas pretty much every year for 20 years.  You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on.
Hit the pocket and hope for the best

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #111 on: March 19, 2014, 02:09:12 PM »
They claim to need a certain amount of space to hold the tournament.  They require certain things for a city to be able to bid.  The full list is out there somehwere...you can probably google it.  To simplify it for the purposes of this discussion, they can do without the space "requirement" that they have, but they keep the requirement high so more cities can't bid and they can use the places that they want to use while claiming nobody else bid.  There's more, but that's simple enough for even Jorge to understand.



And do you have ANY evidence of this?

Evidence?  I don't work for USBC.  One doesn't need to be able to prove something if you can read between the lines.  USBC history of making all decision based on money + less bowlers + same requirements + Reno and Vegas pretty much every year for 20 years.  You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on.

You're right, I don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that you are presenting  your opinion as fact.

Baton Rouge met whatever the minimum requirements are. In 2009, Vegas did with the Cashman center. El Paso must have as well, since that is where the Open will be held next year. And Syracuse NY must have been able to crack the code since the Open will be there in a few years.

I doubt that Reno is the main reason for falling team numbers at the Open. It's probably more to do with the general state of bowling and the overall economy than anything else. Baton Rouge pretty much proved that.

Besides, Reno has EARNED the right to at least be in the rotation of where the Open is held. No other city has built a bowling specific venue for major tournaments.

Not that you want to admit it though. So carry on with your agenda.
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

Joe Cool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #112 on: March 19, 2014, 02:12:13 PM »
When you get to Reno, USBC is going to require you to identify where every member of your team is staying and for how many days in order to complete registration.  Think about that for a bit. 

I don't have an agenda.  I've stated numerous times (including today) that I love going to Reno.  So carry on since once again nobody can refute what I'm saying, so they attack the messenger.
Hit the pocket and hope for the best

Joe Cool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #113 on: March 19, 2014, 02:17:12 PM »
Amazes me how many USBC apologists are willing to go down with the ship instead of taking a look at the sad shape it's in and making an effort to identify and help solve problems.
Hit the pocket and hope for the best

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #114 on: March 19, 2014, 02:18:18 PM »
When you get to Reno, USBC is going to require you to identify where every member of your team is staying and for how many days in order to complete registration.  Think about that for a bit. 

I don't have an agenda.  I've stated numerous times (including today) that I love going to Reno.  So carry on since once again nobody can refute what I'm saying, so they attack the messenger.

Think about what? The fact that they are trying to justify the ROI of their major sponsors? Seems to be smart marketing to me. Then again, I don't wear a tin foil hat.
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #115 on: March 19, 2014, 02:25:45 PM »
Amazes me how many USBC apologists are willing to go down with the ship instead of taking a look at the sad shape it's in and making an effort to identify and help solve problems.

YOU aren't solving anything, just bitching about it. And I don't see anyone being an "apologists" for USBC, we are just stating why it's in Reno so much.

You remind me of a guy I was talking to last night. He was bitching and moaning about the same thing; How USBC is trying to make money off these tournaments. Of course they are, the members refuse to allow them to raise the membership fee, so the money has to come from somewhere. All the while, this guy had a six ball roller he drags to league every week ($250+ for the bag and at least $600 for the balls), plus he has a couple of pairs of the latest Dexter SST 8's(another $140 a pop), but the idea of paying an extra $5 a year for the membership was outrageous and un-affordable in his mind.

THAT is what's wrong with bowling.
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

Jorge300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6407
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #116 on: March 19, 2014, 02:41:19 PM »
Joe,
    I could go into how delusional you are again, but I won't. All I will say are these 3 things:
 
1) I am not a fan of the USBC. I think Riggs had the perferct answer in one of his blogs a while bag, not that I think it will ever come to be. Check it out if you really want to educate yourself
2) I have said before, but I'll say it again just for you, I was a fan of the 3 year roatation of different cities then Reno. I liked traveling to see cities I would never get to otherwise. I even liked going to Billings. But I understand the reality of why it is in Reno so often, something you gloss over time and time again.
3) Milo has it correct. No one wants their membership to go up and it hasn't for about 5 years. Name one other product that is the same price today as it was 5 years ago, just 1. You can't. Costs rise, even to run something like the USBC. Even if it was run 100% lean and 100% perfect, cost go up. And without increasing membership dues, how else do you propose the USBC gets the money to run? Hope they pick the perfect NCAA bracket and win the $1 Billion prize?
Jorge300

Joe Cool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #117 on: March 19, 2014, 02:41:27 PM »
When you get to Reno, USBC is going to require you to identify where every member of your team is staying and for how many days in order to complete registration.  Think about that for a bit. 

I don't have an agenda.  I've stated numerous times (including today) that I love going to Reno.  So carry on since once again nobody can refute what I'm saying, so they attack the messenger.

Think about what? The fact that they are trying to justify the ROI of their major sponsors? Seems to be smart marketing to me. Then again, I don't wear a tin foil hat.

LOL.  God forbid anybody question the establishment.  The only way USBC can be wrong is if you wear a tin foil hat?  Once again, attacking the messenger.

Why do they care?  It's not their job to justify anything to the sponsors.  Lets say they get to 10K teams this year...do they think they are all staying at a Motel 6?  USBC shouldn't obligate teams to give the dates and locations of their members' visits in order to bowl in the tournament.  That's problem #1.  If the hotels aren't sure they are getting something for their sponsorship money, THEY should be asking their guests if they are there for bowling.

But lets even ignore that whole situation.  What the hell was the rest of your post about?  The 4 or 5 times in a 20 or so year span it wasn't in Reno or Vegas?  So?  Nobody said NO cities were bidding.  What was stated is that few cities were bidding.  USBC has said that themselves.  You know how you get more cities to bid?  You lower the requirements to bid.  But if more cities bid, USBC has to spend more money sending people and materials to other places.  That isn't cost effective since they are losing sponsorhip money as well.  So how do you stop that from happening?  Keep the same requirements for less bowlers and make it sound like cities aren't bidding.  This is the dream setup for them...more money coming in, less money going out, less money spent sending employees to various locations for months at a time.  I'm not saying I blame USBC for doing this.  It's the smart move for them, but lets not pretend bowler experience has anything to do with the decisions they are making.

I was taught a long time ago to think for myself.  Do you just blindly believe everything you're told? 
Hit the pocket and hope for the best

Joe Cool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #118 on: March 19, 2014, 02:55:51 PM »
Joe,
    I could go into how delusional you are again, but I won't. All I will say are these 3 things:
 
1) I am not a fan of the USBC. I think Riggs had the perferct answer in one of his blogs a while bag, not that I think it will ever come to be. Check it out if you really want to educate yourself
2) I have said before, but I'll say it again just for you, I was a fan of the 3 year roatation of different cities then Reno. I liked traveling to see cities I would never get to otherwise. I even liked going to Billings. But I understand the reality of why it is in Reno so often, something you gloss over time and time again.
3) Milo has it correct. No one wants their membership to go up and it hasn't for about 5 years. Name one other product that is the same price today as it was 5 years ago, just 1. You can't. Costs rise, even to run something like the USBC. Even if it was run 100% lean and 100% perfect, cost go up. And without increasing membership dues, how else do you propose the USBC gets the money to run? Hope they pick the perfect NCAA bracket and win the $1 Billion prize?

Tournament fees recently increased.  They are doing it again with their prime time slots.  They charge you no matter how you choose to pay.  I have no idea what you're talking about.  Prices have been going up seemingly every other year.

Now if you're talking about USBC, you know how you solve the problem?  You spend less.  The only way to solve a financial problem isn't to take in more.  Maybe some of them are being overpaid for running the ship into the ground.  Maybe there are other ineeficiencies they can look at.  Here's what I know: USBC was sold as a long-term solution to ABC's money issues and about 10 years later they are broke.  Their most recent solution was to take awards away from the bowlers and pass that responsibility on to the locals that can't afford it.  Maybe they need to fix the actual problem instead of not making the tough decisions that need to be made.
Hit the pocket and hope for the best

Joe Cool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #119 on: March 19, 2014, 03:02:06 PM »
Amazes me how many USBC apologists are willing to go down with the ship instead of taking a look at the sad shape it's in and making an effort to identify and help solve problems.

YOU aren't solving anything, just bitching about it. And I don't see anyone being an "apologists" for USBC, we are just stating why it's in Reno so much.

You remind me of a guy I was talking to last night. He was bitching and moaning about the same thing; How USBC is trying to make money off these tournaments. Of course they are, the members refuse to allow them to raise the membership fee, so the money has to come from somewhere. All the while, this guy had a six ball roller he drags to league every week ($250+ for the bag and at least $600 for the balls), plus he has a couple of pairs of the latest Dexter SST 8's(another $140 a pop), but the idea of paying an extra $5 a year for the membership was outrageous and un-affordable in his mind.

THAT is what's wrong with bowling.


And again, I'm saying I am FINE that it is in Reno so much.  And again, lowering the requirements to bid is a SOLUTION to the problem that I don't personally care if they ever solve.  I must be the only one willing to bite the bullet on my personal preference for the greater good.  Maybe I am delusional for wanting something better for the masses.
Hit the pocket and hope for the best

Jorge300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6407
Re: Entire field averages only 168.3 in USBC Open Tournament
« Reply #120 on: March 19, 2014, 03:15:44 PM »
Tournament fees recently increased.  They are doing it again with their prime time slots.  They charge you no matter how you choose to pay.  I have no idea what you're talking about.  Prices have been going up seemingly every other year.

Now if you're talking about USBC, you know how you solve the problem?  You spend less.  The only way to solve a financial problem isn't to take in more.  Maybe some of them are being overpaid for running the ship into the ground.  Maybe there are other ineeficiencies they can look at.  Here's what I know: USBC was sold as a long-term solution to ABC's money issues and about 10 years later they are broke.  Their most recent solution was to take awards away from the bowlers and pass that responsibility on to the locals that can't afford it.  Maybe they need to fix the actual problem instead of not making the tough decisions that need to be made.

Joe,
    You really can't be this dumb, can you? I am asking honestly. No name-calling, just curiousity. This is a joke right???

Let's make this very simple for you, so simple even my 7 yr old can understand it, so it still may be a little difficult for you, but if you concentrate, I think you can get it....

It costs the USBC money to run itself....I think we can all agree on that, right?
We have this thing called inflation, which means prices of goods and services rise year after year.
So it costs the USBC more money to run this year than it did last, regardless of what they do.....still with me there Joe?!?
Membership dues has not increased in the last 5 years (give or take). Membership has also continually declined over those same 5 years.
Add that together that means that there is less money coming into the USBC, while the cost to run it has gone up.
In order to run the USBC, that difference has to come from somewhere. WHERE DO YOU THINK THE USBC SHOULD GET THAT MONEY FROM? ???
Oh wait, you said they should cut costs....but then you complain about them cutting costs like removing awards....so you want them to cut costs....just not the costs you want them to keep, right? ???
Oh and the tournament fees going up....see the inflation thingy up above....it happens. And paying extra for prime spots.....does it cost the same to sit in the front row of a concert or sporting event as it does 2nd level? ??? Everywhere else we pay extra for better stuff.....why is it wrong here??? Oh wait, I know, cause Joe doesn't like in this case.

Class dismissed......make sure you get that nap in today so you aren't so cranky and don't act like a spoiled brat tomorrow, K!
Jorge300