Don, the reason why the 181-205 average bowlers are not complaining is because it does them no good.  They have tried to complain before and the common responses have been........1) If you don't like it, don't bowl..........OR......2) They are better than you, suck up and practice more and maybe someday you will be as good as they are.

Getting back to the subject of sandbagging.  It's interesting to see that the two people who run the Ebonite booth at the Open Championships are in the Classified division and carry 160-170 averages in their league at home, however they were both able to shoot 600 series' on the lanes at Nationals.  Maybe they got lucky.  If so, then good for them.  However, it's hard for me to see how folks with a 160 average are able to give others advice on bowling.  Isn't that part of what the folks do at the vendor booths? 

Are they better bowlers than their averages would lead people to believe?  Isn't that the definition of sandbagging? 

I don't want to make anyone angry, but I do believe this is an issue.  I'm not sure how widespread it is.  I guess with over 60000 people bowling, some are bound to get lucky.  Perhaps it's all about luck?

 I sure hope I get lucky and people can call me a sandbagger...

MightyFish:

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.

 

Dear jorge300:

 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. 

No, Mr. Herald, what's really funny is how you still to this day refuse to answer a direct question posed to you. SSDD.

MightyFish:

 Dear jorge300:

I often DO comment on what others post, BUT I DON'T "spice up" my comments with name-calling ... and I DON'T indicate that someone else is a "jerk" or an "idiot" (or even worse) just because they stated a certain opinion.

For example, I've responded to you on many occasions. In all of those posts (in which I responded to you), what is THE WORST THING I've ever called you? [And then, in comparison, I'll list some of the things that YOU have called ME].

You see, I don't HAVE to reach into a "name-calling" or "demeaning-comments" mode to make my points, or to respond to others.

Is there really any need for name-calling or demeaning comments in these forums?

AND YES, I WILL ADMIT TO "YELLING AT YOU (AND OTHERS) IN CAPITAL LETTERS to help get certain points emphasized. Personally, I feel that the use of capital letters is much more polite and respectful than use of name-calling and insulting comments. 

Well I am glad you can take out the frusrations of your life by your self-admitted yelling at people on internet chat forums.....guess that kind of shows what kind of person you really are doesn't it? Maybe if you actually showed some respect to others, you might get some in return. But I guess that is too much to ask now isn't it?

And through all your self-righteousness in the post, how does the anti-semetic Hitler comment you made fit into that?

And the best part of this whole post is the fact that you keep lists of things people have said either to or about you. Based on your history on these forums, that list must be very long and distinguished, very very very long.

Mr. Herald, in my absence, I guess I missed where you were promoted to forum police chief, so let me offer you a belated congratulations. I am amazed that you have time to do this job on top of your already hectic schedule of harrassing the USBC, writing your world famous bowling column in your local paper, and your pining for the good old days when you were the self-described best bowler in your area. Oh wait, I almost forgot, there is the on-going fued/battle with your local association and the HOF as well......whew a full plate to say the least. Well now that I am aware of your new job policing these forums and keeping them safe for the members, I will be sure to be on my best behavior going forward.

I've been reading a lot of the suggestions in here and I have to be honest, I kind of like where Don is going with his suggestions.

I don't know if I have all of the details, but this is the way I see it.

*Eliminate the current Classified Division.

*Everyone bowls in the regular division, but in addition there will be smaller prizes in average groupings (or subdivisions).  Similar to what is done now for the long participation bowlers, but probably a little more money than that.

*To answer Jorge's (and others) concerns about where that money comes from... it comes from the current Classified prize pool!  So, the regular division prizes don't get watered down from their current levels.

*I'd like to add my own suggestion to the mix.  I think the USBC could do the following... every person that is interested in bowling for subdivision prizes will need to have their average verification sheet done.  Each event... singles (& A/E), doubles, and team will be divided into X number of subdivisions.  Six subdivisions for for each event maybe?  But the key would be to NOT divide the divisions until after all entries and average verifications are in.  So, perhaps one year, the divisions for singles are: Under 157, 158-171, 172-184, 185-196, 197-209, 210 and above.  The next year maybe they'd be similar, but different based on the averages entered and verified that year.  Each subdivision would have approx the same number of bowlers in it.  Similar to brackets in where you don't know who you are bowling game to game, you would't know what subdivision you are in prior ro bowling.  By doing this, people won't know where the lines are, so sandbagging becomes somewhat useless.  Yes, a sandbagger could get him/herself in a weaker subdivision, but the money will be much less than what is currently in the Classified division, so why bother??

Is it true that we would still have some unfair things going on... bowlers being in a lower subdivision and taking advantage of lesser competition... for all the reasons we've mentioned before about the current classified division?  Sure, it would continue to be not completely "fair".  BUT... the amount won by these people would be greatly reduced.  By makng the prizes smaller and more distributed, you are basically telling each and every person that comes to bowl that if they bowl well in relation to their average, they will have a good chance to take home some of the cash.  There are many people that go now that don't feel that way.  Shouldn't that be the goal, especially if we don't impact the regular division prize fund??? 

Chado:

Don, the reason why the 181-205 average bowlers are not complaining is because it does them no good.  They have tried to complain before and the common responses have been........1) If you don't like it, don't bowl..........OR......2) They are better than you, suck up and practice more and maybe someday you will be as good as they are.

Chado,

     I understand what Don is trying to do, and your issues here. But what is wrong with those responses? Life isn't always 100% fair. Is it fair that the absolute top athletes in our sport make half or less then half of what the lowest paid performers make in other professional sports? That is just one example. As was said earlier in this thread, the idea is to "Bowl Like a Champion Today". That means to reward the people that go out and bowl their absolute best during their time at the USBC Open. There is nothing stopping someone in the 181-205 average bracket from doing that. I have seen bowlers from within that bracket shoot 300, 800, and other honor scores. So they can produce high scores. Why should we emphasize or reward them for bowling their averages or only slightly over their average? The idea is to reward those that bowl outstanding, not those that bowled pretty good.

beachbuzzard:

I've been reading a lot of the suggestions in here and I have to be honest, I kind of like where Don is going with his suggestions.

I don't know if I have all of the details, but this is the way I see it.

*Eliminate the current Classified Division.

*Everyone bowls in the regular division, but in addition there will be smaller prizes in average groupings (or subdivisions).  Similar to what is done now for the long participation bowlers, but probably a little more money than that.

*To answer Jorge's (and others) concerns about where that money comes from... it comes from the current Classified prize pool!  So, the regular division prizes don't get watered down from their current levels.

*I'd like to add my own suggestion to the mix.  I think the USBC could do the following... every person that is interested in bowling for subdivision prizes will need to have their average verification sheet done.  Each event... singles (& A/E), doubles, and team will be divided into X number of subdivisions.  Six subdivisions for for each event maybe?  But the key would be to NOT divide the divisions until after all entries and average verifications are in.  So, perhaps one year, the divisions for singles are: Under 157, 158-171, 172-184, 185-196, 197-209, 210 and above.  The next year maybe they'd be similar, but different based on the averages entered and verified that year.  Each subdivision would have approx the same number of bowlers in it.  Similar to brackets in where you don't know who you are bowling game to game, you would't know what subdivision you are in prior ro bowling.  By doing this, people won't know where the lines are, so sandbagging becomes somewhat useless.  Yes, a sandbagger could get him/herself in a weaker subdivision, but the money will be much less than what is currently in the Classified division, so why bother??

Is it true that we would still have some unfair things going on... bowlers being in a lower subdivision and taking advantage of lesser competition... for all the reasons we've mentioned before about the current classified division?  Sure, it would continue to be not completely "fair".  BUT... the amount won by these people would be greatly reduced.  By makng the prizes smaller and more distributed, you are basically telling each and every person that comes to bowl that if they bowl well in relation to their average, they will have a good chance to take home some of the cash.  There are many people that go now that don't feel that way.  Shouldn't that be the goal, especially if we don't impact the regular division prize fund??? 

I'd have to look at this a bit further, but I think at least in my first read through that I might be able to get behind this. I still feel their would be a reduction of the overall prize fund, as their would be more work needed by the staff to complete this, and in order to meet the deadlines for getting checks out, they would probably require more people to accomplish it, but it might be small enough that it could be offset by some incremental bowlers. Good idea beachbuzzard, very ingenious.

BeachBuzzard, I don't see much incentive to sandbag, at least with what I advocate.  The bone with a little meat on it would act as a supplement for many and for some, particularly in the lower divisions the only prizes they are likely to get.  The 142 entered in the 55-120 divisions I listed probably will not cash at the money they throw in the pot not coming back to them at all, ditto for the 181-185 entrants who throw in well over $100,000 and likely get a small percentage of that back.

If all the average divisions contributed 10% or a bit more of the prize money allocation to divisional sidebar prizes that came out of were returned to their own divisions it might make it just a bit more interesting and competitive for those who now pretty much know they are contributors.

Jorege may be right and it could turn off the bowlers and result in less entries and I am only pushing it as something to consider if the entries begin to fall off and stats tell USBC it is the non cashers who are the main causers of that decrease.  I would not be at all against it being considered right now as a method of perhaps not having a decrease in the future at all but I don't think that is likely to be considered any faster than average divisions in brackets so long as it ain't broke the entries and profits continue to roll in.

Don Gates

Jorge, your arguments work at local levels in league pot games and brackets so long as the better bowlers tap the pool of money and not get too greedy.  I have mentioned a few times the example of a very good left handed bowler in a pretty good league in the Villages dominated the brackets and entered both handicap and scratch brackets with the attitude that anyone could get lucky and he had worked hard to develop the skills to win.  Well, I told him what I thought would happen if he continued to  enter all the brackets and when it did happen and he was banned completely he dropped out of that league at the end of the season and maybe went where he could do the same thing.

I don't know that I can get the stats of even have to know them to think the 3,647 in the 221-256 average for entrants will get a good share of the top 100 prizes, the 28,148---206-220, a bit less of the top prizes  but cash well for decent cashes, the  12,939-191-205 may get a few decent checks but many of the not quite entry fee back prizes and non cashers and the  the 8,000 others will contribute a healthy percentage of those not cashing at all.

At one time there was no limit on bracket entries and the big hits like the $8,000 Steve Cook made were more common as some blue chippers would invest far more than the present $1,000 limit and dominate as the left hander I mentioned did in local league brackets. 

The top 32,000, I think, are accomplishing what the left hander I mentioned accomplished with no present danger of those they feed wanting to do anything about it  Perhaps the others could all work harder on their games and everyone average between 221-256, then again that might not be possible or certainly not likely to happen.

If the few that complain became louder and became a majority the day might come when something like several divisions or even worse handicap and scratch divisions if there was a really big fall off of entries.  Then again, perhaps the feeders and the fed upon can go on participating as is forever.

Don Gates

jorge300:

Well I am glad you can take out the frusrations of your life by your self-admitted yelling at people on internet chat forums.....guess that kind of shows what kind of person you really are doesn't it? Maybe if you actually showed some respect to others, you might get some in return. But I guess that is too much to ask now isn't it?

And through all your self-righteousness in the post, how does the anti-semetic Hitler comment you made fit into that?

And the best part of this whole post is the fact that you keep lists of things people have said either to or about you. Based on your history on these forums, that list must be very long and distinguished, very very very long. 

Mr. Herald, in my absence, I guess I missed where you were promoted to forum police chief, so let me offer you a belated congratulations. I am amazed that you have time to do this job on top of your already hectic schedule of harrassing the USBC, writing your world famous bowling column in your local paper, and your pining for the good old days when you were the self-described best bowler in your area. Oh wait, I almost forgot, there is the on-going fued/battle with your local association and the HOF as well......whew a full plate to say the least. Well now that I am aware of your new job policing these forums and keeping them safe for the members, I will be sure to be on my best behavior going forward.

Dear jorge300:

I suppose I'm supposed to congratulate you because you have me "all figured out." But the fact of the matter is that you don't even know me. At any rate, a few comments about your latest set of "comments" about me ...

* You allege that I don't show respect toward other posters, but do YOU always show respect to other posters?

* You state AS A FACT that I "keep lists of things people have said either to or about" me ... BUT THAT IS NOT A FACT. I have not compiled such a list.

* HOWEVER, why don't you reply to my request that you provide me with THE ABSOLUTE WORST THING I've ever said about you? (You always claim that I "avoid" answering, or some such thing, so why don't YOU tell everyone what is the worst thing I've ever called you -- or called ANYONE ELSE, for that matter)?

* Then, AFTER you would answer that question (if you were to do so), I would look up some of your past posts to determine some of the things you have called me. BUT I don't currently have a list (of such things) at my disposal at the current time.

* You bring up my "Hitler comment." First of all, the quote didn't include Hitler's name at all (and it didn't include any direct reference to Hitler). Secondly, I fully explained the context of what I said ... AND I FULLY APOLOGIZED for the post, both to everyone -- and in particular, to those posters who claimed to be offended. So in that regard, do YOU apologize for all of the name-calling (and personal insults) that you have aimed in my direction?

* As for your indication that you plan to be "on your best behavior going forward," I don't tend to believe you ... but I hope you prove me wrong..

This thread has been about opinions and suggestions.  I am glad to see that Jorge and Don are back at it again after Jorge's absence.  Yes there were some of us that noticed you had gone silent. 

After reading all the suggestions put forth in the thread, I am sure that each and every one of them has their merit.  But, if history repeats itself, someone will always find a way to manipulate the system to their advantage.  IMHO, the bowling industry is suffering from many different things.  The economy has a lot to do with it and it seems that the median age of the league bowlers has risen every year.  Maybe it is because the older we get, the more discretionary funds we might have available to bowl leagues and tournaments.   The cost of tournament entries has risen, the cost to get to the tournaments has risen, and in a lot of cases the distance you need to travel to get to a tournament has increased.  You have to be a true enthusiast and have the mentality that you are good enough to compete to justify spending that kind of money.

And then there are the bowling centers.  Most of the ones around here are not promoting leagues nearly as much as they are recreational bowling.  One of the centers I bowl in stopped making calls to notify previous league bowlers when the new league was to begin. 

And my final thought.  I have been against the different divisions in the Open tournament since their inception.  I made my first trip as a 190 bowler some 18 years ago when I, and a group of friends thought I was ready to bowl in the open division.  This may be a bad parallel but you do not have t-ballers participating in the little league world series, just like you do not have high school or college teams playing the big leagues.  The Open tournament was founded on the premise of having the best teams compete, just as the Masters was set up to have the best singles compete.  Accomodating the lower average bowlers by having different divisions just creates more issues.  If you think you are good enough, then by all means come and bowl but don't expect that the Open Championship should cater to you because you do not yet have the skill level or experience.  We as a society have gone, IMHO, too far towards the other end of the scale towards accomodating everybody.  Not just in bowling.  How many times have you called only to get an answering system that requires you to press 1 if  you want to hear the message in English.  Why don't the people who don't speak English have to push 1 to hear the message in their native tongue.  In fact why are we accomoating that at all?  Oops, did I say that.  Different subject for a different audience.

 Thanks for listening.

MightyFish:

Dear jorge300:

I suppose I'm supposed to congratulate you because you have me "all figured out." But the fact of the matter is that you don't even know me. At any rate, a few comments about your latest set of "comments" about me ...

* You allege that I don't show respect toward other posters, but do YOU always show respect to other posters?

* You state AS A FACT that I "keep lists of things people have said either to or about" me ... BUT THAT IS NOT A FACT. I have not compiled such a list.

* HOWEVER, why don't you reply to my request that you provide me with THE ABSOLUTE WORST THING I've ever said about you? (You always claim that I "avoid" answering, or some such thing, so why don't YOU tell everyone what is the worst thing I've ever called you -- or called ANYONE ELSE, for that matter)?

* Then, AFTER you would answer that question (if you were to do so), I would look up some of your past posts to determine some of the things you have called me. BUT I don't currently have a list (of such things) at my disposal at the current time.

* You bring up my "Hitler comment." First of all, the quote didn't include Hitler's name at all (and it didn't include any direct reference to Hitler). Secondly, I fully explained the context of what I said ... AND I FULLY APOLOGIZED for the post, both to everyone -- and in particular, to those posters who claimed to be offended. So in that regard, do YOU apologize for all of the name-calling (and personal insults) that you have aimed in my direction?

* As for your indication that you plan to be "on your best behavior going forward," I don't tend to believe you ... but I hope you prove me wrong..

Mr. Herald,

    Here is your quote "For example, I've responded to you on many occasions. In all of those posts (in which I responded to you), what is THE WORST THING I've ever called you? [And then, in comparison, I'll list some of the things that YOU have called ME]." Since I haven't even been on this site for about 4-5 months, are you going to tell me you are going to quote from memory things I supposely called you? If so, that makes it even worse then having a list cause you are wasting brain power to keep things like this within your memory, that is really sad actually. What's he worst thing you've said to me, I don't know, nor do I care, I don't get bogged down with insignificant people and things, so you don't register on my radar. So print your list of things I supposedly called you, be my guest, if that makes you feel better, since your yelling at me isn't getting the desired results.

 I never said you didn't apologize for offending people, and you did both, you offended a large group of people and you aplogized for the comment. But I have said that what I wrote to Don was not a personal attack on him and yet you won't let it go, so why should we let go of your offensive comment? Again, you have standard you want yourself held too, which is totally different then what you hold everyone else to.

I guess you didn't recognize the sarcasm of my statement.....Mr. Forum police chief. I am not changing anything about how I post and you can continue to get your panties in a bunch over what I write. Maybe if you try really hard you can actually get to a triple or a quadruple standard on how things get posted here. You can what's right for you, what's for me, what's right for the USBC and what's right for everyone else.

 Now if you were even a quarter of the man you try to pose as on here, you would just let this go and let this thread continue on topic, but that will never happen which again shows the real you. But then again if you were a quarter of the man you pose as, you wouldn't have felt the need to write the original reply that got this started in the first place. RESPECT, Mr. Herald. If you want to receive any, you have to give it, you refuse to do the latter, so I refuse to do the former, very simple.

Turkeyboy,

     Thanks for noticing {sniff, sniff}!

Your post has hit on the point I was trying to make, just a bit more eloquently then I. Although, I do not oppose the Classified division as you do. I think the tournament should be open to all membership and agree that there needs to be some division to all the lower average bowlers a chance to win bowling against those more closely aligned with their averages. But I feel the winners in both divisions should be about bowling your best. Not about finding ways to help those he haven't done so get money back to appease them. Don does have a legitimate point, if at some point in the future, entries begin to drop off, the USBC will need to look at why and do something to correct it. We just disagree on what needs to be done.

turkeyboy, in the early days of the ABC tournament it was promoted by local associations and it was mostly classic league and classified classic league teams participating with maybe 5,000 teams that included a booster divisions for locals with a 800 team average  maximum, low entry fees, mediocre prize lists, no outside gambling, just a great place for the very best league teams to gather.

Today the classic leagues have long gone bye bye, the teams are mostly made up teams just for the tournament with the very best teams including five blue chippers and there are not all that many blue chippers around in most areas so many have to settle for second and third tier capabilities for their entire lineup.

If grow the sport becomes more than just talk there will a junior league program deveoped that actually teaches young boys and girls how to bowl, encourages excellence provides good coaching for those who want to excel and activities for them to keep them interested while in high school, college and graduate far more very good bowlers into adult bowling where there is enough of them to rekindle classic leagues and get the best bowlers out of handicap and mixed leagues.  If that happens maybe there will be a  ruturn of actual classic league teams entering and better scattering of blue chippers as most classic league teams did not have five blue chippers in their lineups as some makeup teams do today.

Rig