Author Topic: How about a 3rd Division? (Read 3895 times)

DukeHarding · « **on:** July 15, 2009, 12:36:12 PM »

We have a CLASSIFIED, we have a REGULAR Division....
Why Not a 3rd Division, for the guys that we know that us mere mortals can't compete against?

Let's call it, say the "TOP GUN" Division.

How many bowlers who average 200-210 on a THS can compete with the guys who are on the top of the leaderboard?

I'm not taking anything away from those bowlers... I know in my wildest dreams I couldn't shoot anywhere near what they shoot.

Any thoughts?

I've had 10-15 bowlers who bowled this year, bring up the same idea....
--------------------
Duke Harding

If Bowling had a Mount Rushmore, Bill Taylor should be George Washington.

JessN16 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 17, 2009, 07:32:24 PM »

There's good and bad to all the suggestions made. I think you have to look at the truths inherent in the tournament and then make your decisions accordingly:

1) The number of people capable of winning this event is a mere fraction of the total number of entries, but the prize fund is funded by Joe Bowler and Friends,

2) Given that amateurs are the target of this tournament, you have to make it attractive to bowlers of their ability level.

In other words, true high-average guys who take the attitude of "so what if you can't win -- practice and get better" are just making noise, to me. The true national championship for those guys is the U.S. Open. Golf has its U.S. Open for pros and pro-level people, and the U.S. Amateur for guys of lesser ability but who are still talented golfers.

I don't understand why this tournament isn't handicap-adjusted, unless the USBC knows that sandbagging is so much a problem that the entire system is flawed. And if that's the case, why do they advocate the system -- at 100 percent, no less -- for their leagues? It's a mixed message.

I also don't understand barring USBC-legal cleaners at the Nationals. I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Stupid.

If you want to win big prize funds and call yourself the sport's real national champion, the U.S. Open is where you need to go. If you want to win Eagles and call yourself the best amateur bowler of your skill level, go to Nats. So I wouldn't have a problem with adding other divisions.

However, if you're going to do away with the Classified division, then anyone who has or has ever held a PBA card should be ineligible, and steered toward the U.S. Open instead. Right now, those guys are having their cake and eating it too, at the expense of the amateur.

Jess

scotts33 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 17, 2009, 08:00:19 PM »

quote:
I don't understand why this tournament isn't handicap-adjusted, unless the USBC knows that sandbagging is so much a problem that the entire system is flawed. And if that's the case, why do they advocate the system -- at 100 percent, no less -- for their leagues? It's a mixed message.

Cuz USBC is screwed up. You have novices where 100% is not the correct average to work off of because they will/may get better. And you have established bowlers that may or may not get better so their 100% hdcp ratio is flawed. If you suck you probably always will suck. If you suck and you care and work on your game yes 100% is way out of wack.

So, if you want a Nat'l hdcp tourney than go for that but don't mix it up with a Nat'l tourney of scratch bowlers. Basic average bowlers are being used and always have been Wake up! Take your leadership and start your own hdcp. Natl's tourney. Why work off Natl's....start something else.

You are giving them your $$$$!

--------------------
Scott

JessN16 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 17, 2009, 08:16:29 PM »

quote:
quote:
I don't understand why this tournament isn't handicap-adjusted, unless the USBC knows that sandbagging is so much a problem that the entire system is flawed. And if that's the case, why do they advocate the system -- at 100 percent, no less -- for their leagues? It's a mixed message.

Cuz USBC is screwed up. You have novices where 100% is not the correct average to work off of because they will/may get better. And you have established bowlers that may or may not get better so their 100% hdcp ratio is flawed. If you suck you probably always will suck. If you suck and you care and work on your game yes 100% is way out of wack.

So, if you want a Nat'l hdcp tourney than go for that but don't mix it up with a Nat'l tourney of scratch bowlers. Basic average bowlers are being used and always have been Wake up! Take your leadership and start your own hdcp. Natl's tourney. Why work off Natl's....start something else.

You are giving them your $$$$!

--------------------
Scott

The problem with that suggestion is inertia (and I'm not talking about the Track ball by the same name).

Inertia as it relates to bowling and this tournament in particular is this: The USBC is one of the few groups with the money and the reach that can put on a tournament of this size, in venues as prestigious/large/etc. as the ones that are utilized, and offer prizes (i.e., Eagles) that people want to take home.

There are plenty of high-level handicap tournaments out there but none of them can get the momentum behind them to overtake the Nats. So a competing tournament to Nationals is not and will not be an option unless the USBC goes under completely.

And as much as I'd like to improve about the USBC, we need the USBC in some form or fashion or any notion that this sport really is a sport -- or even an organized competitive recreation -- will be gone after that (and before someone tries to say this isn't a sport or a competitive recreation, check yourself for a brain).

Jess

MI 2 AZ · « **Reply #19 on:** July 17, 2009, 08:39:12 PM »

quote:
I also don't understand barring USBC-legal cleaners at the Nationals. I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Stupid.

I think it is because of their concern that bowlers would use illegal substances to alter the ball's surface/coverstock with no real way to monitor it. Banning everything other than a clean dry towel covers that.

--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this: BR FAQ

JessN16 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 18, 2009, 01:14:58 AM »

quote:
quote:
I also don't understand barring USBC-legal cleaners at the Nationals. I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Stupid.

I think it is because of their concern that bowlers would use illegal substances to alter the ball's surface/coverstock with no real way to monitor it. Banning everything other than a clean dry towel covers that.

--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this: BR FAQ

That's the same line of thought that keeps them from running handicap at Nationals, I'll bet -- "We can't make sure that (sandbaggers, ball surface cheaters, etc.) aren't cheating so we abdicate our responsibility to police it properly." In fact, that's pretty much the very attitude that permeates USBC at the national and many local levels. Laziness is all it is.

How about this one -- send the balls through tech, then have an area where they can buy their cleaners NIB from vendors before going out to the lanes. That way everyone knows exactly what's in everyone's hands and cheating can't happen. If you want to make doubly sure, don't just check balls -- check the bags, too.

Jess

MI 2 AZ · « **Reply #21 on:** July 18, 2009, 11:13:38 AM »

quote:
If you want to make doubly sure, don't just check balls -- check the bags, too.

Body/cavity searches next?

--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this: BR FAQ

JessN16 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 18, 2009, 05:36:57 PM »

quote:
quote:
If you want to make doubly sure, don't just check balls -- check the bags, too.

Body/cavity searches next?

--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this: BR FAQ

And dogs. Gotta have the EZ Slide-sniffing dogs.

Jess

Bill Thomas · « **Reply #23 on:** July 19, 2009, 01:37:00 PM »

I guess I don't really see why anyone needs to use a cleaner on their ball for 3 or 6 games at Nationals. Seems like a non-issue to me.

Russell · « **Reply #24 on:** July 19, 2009, 02:18:24 PM »

quote:
I guess I don't really see why anyone needs to use a cleaner on their ball for 3 or 6 games at Nationals. Seems like a non-issue to me.

+100
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/rlrussell

Little known fact: In Russian "Hope" and "Change" translate to "Tax" and "Spend"

JessN16 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:54:40 PM »

quote:
I guess I don't really see why anyone needs to use a cleaner on their ball for 3 or 6 games at Nationals. Seems like a non-issue to me.

1) Because the products have been stamped "legal,"
2) Because people use products on their balls during 3 games of league, too.

Either they're legal or they're not. So if there's a problem using them during Nationals, the logical inference to take from that is that there's a problem using them during ordinary sanctioned competition, too. And what happens if you get heavy belt marks on your balls during Nationals? You can't leave them there, as they're specifically prohibited by a separate rule.

It just doesn't make any logical sense. You play the same basic rules of golf, baseball, etc., whether you're in a practice round, a regular game or a championship. It's seems pretty clear to me that the only reason the USBC bans them at Nationals is they're too lazy to police them.

FWIW, I never use products on the ball during competition. Ever. But people who do should have that right allowed them during any other time. Otherwise, don't let cleaners/products be used during any kind of sanctioned competition.

Jess

J_L_B · « **Reply #26 on:** July 19, 2009, 06:57:12 PM »

If there is a need for new divisions at all, it should be by age alone and not by average.

This ELIMINATES sandbagging. You can't lie about your age....well you can, but your driver's license won't lie for you.

Have an senior division...like 50+ but allow crossing over for seniors who want to bowl on two teams (once in senior division and once in regular). Dual participation would only be allowed for those people 50+.

No more wasted administrative costs verifying averages (there's always someone who sneaks thru anyway). All you need is a valid ID and you put your team in.

Atochabsh · « **Reply #27 on:** July 19, 2009, 11:34:36 PM »

Out of how many bowlers that participate in this Open every year are PBA card holders, Regional PBA players (have cashed) and/or National PBA players? By percentage I'd guess that its very small. Therefore the huge majority are giving a paycheck to those that already bowl for a living or at least supplement their income significantly by bowling.

I've bowled Nationals several times now and I know I'm not going to cash. I don't even bother to get into brackets because I know I don't have a decent chance at making my money back. So that leaves me bowling and donating as a "vacation" tournament player. I'd probably go to more Nationals if there was an Elite classification that might give me a little bit better chance at some small payback if I bowl well. Now even if I bowl well, its not good enough.

But if things stay the same, I'll still bowl the events that are close and convenient to me. But I won't go out of my way to do so. Now isn't that telling? Wouldn't you think that USBC would want people to want to go out of their way to participate in this event?

Erin

Author Topic: How about a 3rd Division? (Read 3895 times)

DukeHarding

How about a 3rd Division?

JessN16

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

scotts33

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

JessN16

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

MI 2 AZ

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

JessN16

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

MI 2 AZ

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

JessN16

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

Bill Thomas

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

Russell

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

JessN16

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

J_L_B

Re: How about a 3rd Division?

Atochabsh

Re: How about a 3rd Division?