Don can still roll em', I don't know if his rotator cuff is still on the fritz though? Hell everyones yapping about more divisions, might as well have one for age 70 and over too seeing as you all want more average divisions also.
Whoops ... somehow part of my last post didn't post ... operator error I am sure!
Anyway, I meant to add that I would prefer to let the Classified Bowlers have lower entry fees and lower/flatter prize funds to discourage baggers BUT also provide some of Don's ideas of side prizes for lower average bowlers like they have for us old timers who have 25, 30 or more tournaments in.
I also have said many times before that I wouldn't be opposed to Classified brackets ... except that they are just another invitation to baggers unless you really limit them to few per squad.
For those of us who go to the USBC Tournament mainly to compete for the national titles the money truly is secondary. If I ever do make it into the Hall of Fame there won't be any listing of how much money I won but my plaque will say how many eagles I won. The money obviously is welcome but I was as charged up about the tournament before there were brackets and when prize money was half what it is now.
Randy, rotator cuff put me on injured reserve just before Christmas, rehab didn't get the results I was hoping for so May 15th I go under the knife for the first time and hope for the best.
Randy, for me divisions and a bone with a little meat on it for all average divisions as a side bar are not the same and could be done without a severe cut on the overall prie fund.. With computers you can keep track of lots of things. For example, in 2008, the entry breakdown goes like this:
55-155 entering averages 142 121-140 742 141-155 2048 156-170 5022 171-180 4859
181-185 4223 186-191 3899 191-205 12, 9329 206-220 28,148 221-256 3647
Now at the end of the tournament you can determine the averages of those who did not cash in each event, the 40% who cashed for less than their entry fees back in each event, averages for the decent and those getting 'real money'
Right now there is no problem with filling the fields but maybe in the future there will be and with these kind of stats it can be determined if there have been average levels who pretty much dominated the did not or cash less than entry fee rolls and if those are the ones causing the decrease try and address it.
It's pretty obvious, at least to me, where a bone with a little meat on it as a sidebar could be used to make bowling a bit more fun for many.
Don Gates
it should be obvious but for nit pickers the first entry for tournament entries in 2008 should be 55 to 120 averages, not 55 to 155.
prunenow: Randy, rotator cuff put me on injured reserve just before Christmas, rehab didn't get the results I was hoping for so May 15th I go under the knife for the first time and hope for the best. Randy, for me divisions and a bone with a little meat on it for all average divisions as a side bar are not the same and could be done without a severe cut on the overall prie fund.. With computers you can keep track of lots of things. For example, in 2008, the entry breakdown goes like this: 55-155 entering averages 142 121-140 742 141-155 2048 156-170 5022 171-180 4859 181-185 4223 186-191 3899 191-205 12, 9329 206-220 28,148 221-256 3647 Now at the end of the tournament you can determine the averages of those who did not cash in each event, the 40% who cashed for less than their entry fees back in each event, averages for the decent and those getting 'real money' Right now there is no problem with filling the fields but maybe in the future there will be and with these kind of stats it can be determined if there have been average levels who pretty much dominated the did not or cash less than entry fee rolls and if those are the ones causing the decrease try and address it. It's pretty obvious, at least to me, where a bone with a little meat on it as a sidebar could be used to make bowling a bit more fun for many. Don Gates
Don, I didn't mean to insinuate in my post that I was referring to you, it was just a generalization. Good luck with the surgery, no arthroscopic? You have to go the hard way?
Randy, I wish you were not referring to me but on October Ist I join the 70 & over class if I survive the surgery which my surgeon says he thinks he can get it all done to my satisfaction arthroscopic but if he finds out he can't he will do it the hard way since I prefer that to not being able to bowl with little or no pain.
Randy, if you look at the stats provided you can see 142 entries in the 55 to 120 grouping who are 'donating' over $3500 to the prize fund in classified division, 4223 in the 181-185 entry group who are probably pretty much donating over $105,000 to the prize fund. If stats were to reveal a drop in total entries and most of it among the lower average entrants it would not be all that big a deal to take a piece of those donations and provide a sidebar prize list just within the scoring of that grouping; and do the same thing on up, even within the top 3647 in the 220-256 group. a kind of 'best of class sidebar; basing the sidebar on a percentage of the prize money each group is putting in the pot.
MightyFish: Dear jorge300: You may take issue with many of my posts, BUT I rarely (as you, and others, often do) ascribe MOTIVES as to WHY others post something or other. All too often, instead of simply commenting on someone else's post, you (and others) have to throw something else into the mix, such as refering to the other poster as being bitter (or making comments that ASSUME they know what the other person was thinking when they posted). For instance, there was NO REASON at all why you needed to state an opinion as to Don's current on-the-lanes talent level (which wasn't even an accurate assessment, by the way), and there was NO REASON to refer to him as being "bitter" (and no reason to infer some of the other things ON A PERSONAL LEVEL).
Dear jorge300:
You may take issue with many of my posts, BUT I rarely (as you, and others, often do) ascribe MOTIVES as to WHY others post something or other.
All too often, instead of simply commenting on someone else's post, you (and others) have to throw something else into the mix, such as refering to the other poster as being bitter (or making comments that ASSUME they know what the other person was thinking when they posted).
For instance, there was NO REASON at all why you needed to state an opinion as to Don's current on-the-lanes talent level (which wasn't even an accurate assessment, by the way), and there was NO REASON to refer to him as being "bitter" (and no reason to infer some of the other things ON A PERSONAL LEVEL).
ROFLMAO.....You really think anyone is going to believe that first sentence? You always have to say why you think someone says what they do, or why say the USBC responds the way it does. In fact you went so far as to say that is your job, that you are not a reporter, but an opinion writer, who gets paid to voice your opinions. So again, I'll ask the question you so conveniently ignored (as usual), why is it ok for you to do it and not ok for me? And I see you may need to get your keyboard looked at, it appears your caps lock key sticks a little. I know you didn't mean to type all the words in caps, effectively yelling them at me now did you? You really aren't that much of a hypersensitive little weenie to feel the need to yell at people on the internet, correct?
And as far as my posts to Don, I have already stated to him, though it appears he refuses to acknowledge it, that I did not mean anything as a personal attack, just stating my opinion based on the tone and content of his posts. Unlike you, I freely admit that I am not right 100% of the time, and as Randy has so kindly posted, I was incorrect about Don's bowling ablity. I still disagree with the ideas of multiple divisions within the USBC Open, from an expense point-of-view, a effectiveness point-of-view - meaning stopping sandbaggers from feasting on others, and a prize fund point-of-view - I don't see enough added bowlers to offset the added expense meaning smaller prizes for all and a diluted prize fund among multiple divisions. I also think Don needs to change the terms he uses to describe bowlers in the 181-195 average range. If I were one of them I know I would not happy with the terms Don used to describe them.
And lastly, Don while we may have our disagreements, I hope for the very best for you with your surgery. Bowling can sorely afford to lose any more members, especially someone like you who has been active in the sport for so long. You have my wishes for a successful surgery and a quick and as painless as possible recovery.
Don,
I think there is somehting you are missing just looking at the numbers. Based on what you have shown there are 142 people with an average between 55 and 120 who entered the tournament this year. Now if that number declines next year, you can't assume that it is because they feel they have no chance to cash. With averages that low, how many are fill-ins on teams because someone couldn't make the trip? Maybe they aren't returning due to the location of the tournament? Maybe family or personal issues are keeping them away? These are just a few examples of a reason that number may decrease. Also, even if the reason is because they feel they don't have a chance to cash, there are two ways people can look at even that. Are they deciding not to return next year so they can practice and get better, and raise their average to return in 2010 with a better game? Or are they as you say, just frustrated and not ever returning because it isn't worth it? Just declining numbers won't give you what you are looking for, and to rationalize a single reason behind it won't be correct. I mean Mr. Herald might jump on you for assuming things as he did to me.
And while you have your idea about a little added bonus, that money has to come from somewhere. You would have to show that there would be enough of an increase in bowlers to offset the added expense to maintain it as well as fund it as to not detract from the main prize fund as it currently stands. Similar to Dr. Doom's idea, having to show that the increase in revenue more then offsets the added work/expense/costs/etc. I don't think that would happen. And as is this case with anything like this or different divisions, where do you draw the line. If you say it is only for those 160 and under then you upset the 165 average bowlers. If you say it is for the 181-195 average bowlers, you will upset the 199 average bowlers, etc. Trying to single out any group, for whatever reason, will just lead to more discord. Part of the comparison I was talking about above also must take into account the lose of bowlers upset over the change. If we have this for 181-195 average bowlers, howmany 196-200 average bowlers will not participate anymore because they too may feel they don't have a good chance at making money in the tournament, then they are slighted by this new sidebar as well? No matter where you cutoff at you will always have people on the other side upset.
Jorge, thanks for the best wishes and I sure hope I can get back to bowling with little or no pain to contend with. I have told my surgeon that if he screws it up and I am any worse I intend to burn his house down and feast on his fingers while watching it burn, an incentive to show up for an early morning operation fully alert.
Jorge, while I may think changes like what I suggest might be considered before there is a problem (like wise folks treat their cars) with total entry decreases, my proposal is something to look at and study the stats to see where the problem is if such a thing happens, and it has happened with every other tournament where those who feast enjoy it and those who are the feeders see the 'light' and begin to end their participation, witness the high rollers, mini elimintor type events and even local pot games and league brackets.
Anyway, with the stats I provided on 2008 entrants my proposal would be to consider an across the board 'best of class' side bar prize list, not just for lower average bowlers. For those at the lower end who do not cash or cash at the bottom end of not quite entry fees back there would be more benefits but if the side bars were based on a percentage of the prize money each division puts in going back to that division puts in (maybe 10% or so..say $400 for the 55 to 120 average entrants to realistically strive for, $100,000 or so for the 181-185 average bowlers to strive for rather than just pretty much donate) rather than just bowl for the fun of it) I see no reason for complaints except from folks who think those in the 220-256 average area somehow deserve to take most of the good checks, the 206-220 maybe sneaking in there, every year at the expense of those in the 18l-185, 185-191 and 192-205 divisions who may get little or nothing for the most part.
If your practice and get better philosophy, which is pretty much in place now, were in place rather than handicap tournaments all over this land it would probably not work all that well and may not work all that well forever in the USBC national which is the only place where it is practiced. Then it may work and there may never be a need to make any changes.
Don, remind me never to operate on you, I like my house too much, lol. And the fact that I'm not a doctor might be another reason not to operate on you as well.
I see another flaw in your plan....and that is the certified and uncertified sports leagues/PBAX Leagues out there. If someone, while not intentionally sandbagging, is a 220 average THS bowler who decides to bowl in a Sports league as their only league and they wind up averaging 185 this year as they adjust to the tougher shot and 191 next year as they improve. Now they come in and they bowl against the 185-191 bowlers who averaged that on an easy THS. Would they not then take advantage of the added money in this bracket? How many folks are there like that out there? I understand what you are trying to do, but for every scenario you come up with, there are 2-3 realistic scenarios to offset it. The bottomline is this world we live in isn;t always 100% fair. It is that way in business and it is that way in bowling. Currently the USBC Open is an event most bowlers want to particpate in. There are a great majority of them, no matter what average they are, that do so knowing that at best they will get their entry fee back or nothing at all. That does not deter them because it is the USBC Open. If we start to tweak it to try to make it "fairer" and it loses some of the prestige, that may drive them away more then the money. I know a lot of bowlers who look at this a family vacation each year. They know it is an expense, they save for it, and they enjoy themselves, and they get to bowl a little too. If any changes are made we have to be 120% certain that they do not make this tournament appear lesser in the eyes of the bowlers, cause that would be far more damaging then anything.
And another thought around the numbers you posted, and looking at cashing percentages. They won't tell you anything. If in the 160-170 (sorry I forget the exact average breakdowns you posted) shows a 15% cash ratio. What it doesn't show is who that 15 percent is. Is that 15% made up of people who were 150 averages last year, got better and now cashed, meaning they are even more likely to return and might even use their story to enlist new entrants? Is it made up the steady bowler who every 3-4 years bowls well enough to cash and make some money back, and to them that is enough to come back year after year? Or is the same 15% every year that make the money while the other 85% suffer which might cause them to eventually walk away? If that 15 percent rotates around that average bracket, that might be enough to satisfy this group (meaning that there is a relatively small amount of repeat winners from last year). Those kinds of answers are tough to come by without seeing the detailed information from the tournament.
And lastly, a decline very well could be from non-bowling reasons. With the rising number of kids playing soccer, plus the routine sports people may just not have the time or desire to be away for this tournament. There time is better spent coaching little league, watching their childrens soccer matches, etc. This is a big reason for the overall decline of bowling memberships. Your added prizes aren't going to do anything to stop those folks from leaving, while you are hurting the tournament overall with the added expenses and lower overall prize funds. I think we need to stop looking at ways to make this "fairer", as I said we all know life isn't fair and we all accept it everywhere else. Those who feel they don't stand a chance to cash will do one of three things: 1) Practice and get better so they can cash 2) Walk away or 3) Just accept the fact and come back next year to enjoy the tournament. We need to accept that we will have some in the 2nd group and our goal should be to try to find new bowlers to replace them not trying to force them to be there when they don't want to.
Jorge, it's certainly working out just fine right now, especially for the 500 or so elite teams and the bowlers listed in the 220-256 category who also clean up in the brackets. The 181 to 205 average bowlers are not complaining so there is no compelling reason to change anything.
My point is that if USBC keeps close tabs on the continuance for the lower end entrants to continue feeding the upper end in both classified and open divisions and find some time in the near or distance future there are problems with that then they should have a contingency plan and mine is just one with other better ones very possible.
Don:
I had arthroscopic surgery on my rotator cuff in my bowling shoulder in 2002. The 1 1/2 hour operation took 4 1/2 hours and rehab took 18 months (instead of 8 weeks). With all that, I haven't had pain in my bowling shoulder since the finish of rehab, and continue to throw 15 lb equipment (too hard according to my son) with no problem.
Best of luck with the surgery, follow ALL of the Dr and physical therapist's instructions, and do the exercises religiously. We need people with a passion for the game and sport, not only talking about it, but participating in it. Hang tough, we're all pulling for you.
Kelly
I will say the same thing as Kelly. I had my ACL repaired (I completely tore it) 3 months ago today. I did all of the stretches and exercises that my therapist told me to. As it is right now, I am able to run on it. There are people that I see at therapy who had theirs done before me and still walk with a limp. I still can't cut or play basketball but I you can't tell that I had the surgery done. My goal was to get to the point where I had no pain by Nationals. I am leaving in a little over 2 weeks and I have had no pain in 6 weeks. Take it easy.
jorge300:I also think Don needs to change the terms he uses to describe bowlers in the 181-195 average range. If I were one of them I know I would not happy with the terms Don used to describe them.
Now, THAT'S funny!
The way YOU refer to others -- INCLUDING Don and I -- YOU claim to be worried about how DON describes others?
At least, Don doesn't resort to name-calling and personal insults ... as seems to be YOUR modus operandi.
