The results for the Southeast Bowling Association have now been posted. The high scorer, a Michael Owens has won the tournament in full compliance with the rules according to the tournament staff. He bowled 2428 Handicap All Events, 878 Handicap Singles, and with his partner bowled 1720 Handicap Doubles. He entered the tournament with a 146 average. Here's his history.
2007 -2008 (162),
2004-2005 (182),
2002-2003 (193)
2001-2002 (184).
Kinda makes you want to bowl another handicap tournament doesn't it?
Good afternoon Turkeyboy. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Southeast Bowling Association, I would like to provide you some information and reply to your post.
The 2008 Southeast Tournament hosted in Chattanooga, Tennessee has several rules in place for this tournament:
1. Entering Average:Bowlers must use their previous years highest average with a minimum of 21 games bowled.
2. The Ten Pin Rule: If a bowler was averaging (10) pins higher than their last year's highest average on January 1st, 2008, then the January 1st average must be used in the tournament, not the previous year's average.
3. USBC Rule 319-D: If a bowler had won more than $ 600 in an event within the last twelve months prior to the tournament, the bowler would have to submit monies won, and scores shot while winning the money for possible re-ratement.
The bowler that you have mentioned was checked, and re-checked, and not found to be in violation of any of these rules or any other rules in the SBA Tournament. Therefore, in accordance with USBC Rules, the prize money was paid out.
Now, with all that being said; Is this bowler better than his entering average for this tournament? I think his scores answer that question pretty easily. Do these situations cause ill will and people to stop entering this tournament or others like it? I feel that "yes" is the answer to that question. Is there anything that can be done to stop or at least curb this from happening? Maybe, if the bowlers that participate in this and other tournaments like it, start contacting these associations and demand change.
Several years ago, I submitted a proposal to the SBA Tournament Structure Committee regarding this type problem. I brought forth a proposal to have Divisions placed in the SBA Tournament, much like the USBC National Tournament, 180 and below in 1 division, and 181 and above in the other division, with Doubles and Team Events following the same, and have these two divisions in BOTH Scratch and Handicap categories. I felt then, and still feel so now, that this would curb these so called "strike it rich in the SBA Tournament bowlers", because they would be in the 180 and lower division, and also would be in the 180 and below division for brackets, and would not make enough money doing this to 'make it worth their while'. They would then either re-rate themselves to get in the higher division, or leave and start looking for another tournament that they could 'prey on" that didn't have sufficient rules in place to deal with them.
The SBA Tournament Structure Committee reviewed the proposal and brought it forth to the SBA Board of Directors three years ago, and the proposal was passed. The first tournament that would have had divisions in place would have been in 2009 in Augusta, Georgia. However, the SBA met at their Fall Meeting in 2007 and several board members came up with what they thought was an even better idea. They brought forth a proposal to banish the Divisions idea, and instead have Scratch Events for Team, Singles & Doubles at the cost of $ 10 an event, with the proviso that bowlers MUST enter all Handicap Events before they would be eligible to pay the extra $ 30 and get in the Scratch divisions. They felt that this would allow the 'scratch' bowlers a better chance to earn money. The SBA Board of Directors passed this proposal and the Divisions idea is now gone.
I think that the Scratch Divisions proposal does not address the problem that is going on with the SBA Tournament. The bowlers did not like seeing low average bowlers having the 9 games of their lives at the SBA Tournament and taking the money, year after year after year. This issue is still not being addressed, yet we are 'allowing' scratch bowlers the option of paying an extra $ 30 to try to win some money, as long as they continue to 'donate' to the handicap events, when they know they have little or no chance to compete against these '9 game wonders'. I think that as long as there is money to be made in a tournament, tournament prize money wise or bracket money wise, there are people that will bowl in "dungeons" to have very low yearbook averages to try to 'clean up' in the SBA or other similar tournaments. Rules can only go so far, and there will always be enterprising individuals that find an advantage, in the interest to gain money. Take the money out of the equation, or make the money less appealing, and I feel you will be able to at least slow this type behavior down greatly.
Anyone that would like to voice their opinions can contact the SBA at www.southeastbowling.com. That is the Southeast Bowling Association's website. If you feel divisions would make things better, they let them know, and have your friends do the same. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Steven O'Brien
Vice President/South Carolina
Southeast Bowling Association
Bowlers like this that beat the system are the reason why us bowlers with legitimate averages will have to reconsider bowling in future SBA tournaments. You're correct that the scratch division proposal does not address the current problem with the handicap division. A good bowler that did not bowl in a sanctioned league during the 2007-2008 season could join a sanctioned league in the fall 2008 season, sandbag and average 160 or less and enter the 2009 SBA tournament based on his average as of January 1, 2009, pull the same stunt that was done in this year's tournament by bowling a good 9 game series in the 2009 SBA tournament and with the high handicap, walk away with the handicap divsions.
The rules need to be changed to discourage this type of behavior in the future. Why not do the same thing that the Hoinke tournament does and do a composite average for 4 years with a minimum of 42 games in each season? If that rule were in place for 2008, this bowler would not have been allowed to use his 146 average as of January 1, 2008 and would have used an average of 182.
I'm hoping that the rules will be changed for future tourmaments to prevent this from happening again.
Hmmmm, I wonder if a 146 average bowler would be allowed to pay the extra $30 to compete for the scratch money as well?
Steve,
First off let me say thanks for the quick response and explanations you provided. The tone of your note suggest you are of the same mindset that I am.
I am in agreement with you that there is no apparent violation of any rules as they are written and I am not suggesting that he violated anything. I did as much research as I could with the limited resources I had available and drew the same conclusion that the SBA did. I think you would agree though that there are some things in this whole issue that raise red flags. They are more than likely backed by legitimate explanations but are part of the trend when one looks at that fact that it happens. For example, the guy takes every other year off. His average is 146 on January 1 but is 162 at league end. With handicap he averages 269+ for the entire tournament. Between he and his doubles partner they average 286+ for that event. It is also strange that 2 of top 5 in handicap singles, and three of the top 25 in All Events come from same area. Perhaps they bowl on a non classified sport pattern. Something just looks amiss.
However there are many posts in these forums where bowlers, such as myself, fail to see why it is that organizations such as the SBA with its good reputation, refuse to put rules in place to prevent this kind of issue from cropping up. behavior. It is not specific to your organization. You can find the same discussions in the thread for the national tournament as well. There is a long thread under the USBC thread regarding apathy in bowling. This is just another example of why some of it exists.
I have been an advocate of composite averages for a long time. As gator points out above, the Hoinke uses it. SBA should think about it.
I applaud your attempt to create the scratch division and if it had gone through as proposed I might have bowled the tournament again next year. The change you indicate that has been made to your proposal does not get it done. As you point out, the SBA is still forcing the scratch bowler to subsidize or contribute to the handicap division. A better change would have been separate fees for each and let the bowler pick if they want to enter both.
Your suggestion to contact SBA directly with complaints is admirable but unfortunately I amd not of the opinion that it will bear much fruit. As an fyi, this information was provided to Scott Vandiver in an email from another bowler. His reply was short and to the point:
An appropriate response would have been that they are investigating ways for things like this to stop happening. I had also emailed Scott regarding the payout. Handicap paid out at 1 in 8, scratch is 1 in 80. The explanation was that the rules stated that 10% of the prize fund woudl be set aside for scratch. That is not the same as 1 in 80. The tournament officials can determine what the ratio is regardless of the size of the pot of money being used. So in your response to suggestion about contacting the SBA, it would appear that the only thing way to get heard is to get as many people fired up about this as I obviously am.
There will be a lot of people that watch to see what next years tournament format looks like. I for one will most likely not bowl it again unless there is a separate senior division without requirement to participate in the handicap. I can justify the donation if I bowled badly. I cannot justify it if scenarios like this continue to exist and they will until such time as the rules are fixed.
skullpants: Hmmmm, I wonder if a 146 average bowler would be allowed to pay the extra $30 to compete for the scratch money as well?
Actually, This happend last year and the year before as well, and it was discussed here. I can't believe people still bowl in this tournement. So some of the posters on here are correct, most bowlers aren't that smart.
dgarren: skullpants: Hmmmm, I wonder if a 146 average bowler would be allowed to pay the extra $30 to compete for the scratch money as well? I am sure that he would. The rule is kinda bass-ackwards if you ask me. Maybe everyone that signs up should be in the scratch division and you should have to pay the extra $30 for the handicap divisions. Would this not also help curb this kinda scenario?
Interesting idea. Unfortuantly I think it would just chase off a lot of bowlers. Reducing prize funds reducing attendance reducing prize funds. I believe bowling has been down that road before.
Texseals: dgarren: skullpants: Hmmmm, I wonder if a 146 average bowler would be allowed to pay the extra $30 to compete for the scratch money as well? I am sure that he would. The rule is kinda bass-ackwards if you ask me. Maybe everyone that signs up should be in the scratch division and you should have to pay the extra $30 for the handicap divisions. Would this not also help curb this kinda scenario? Interesting idea. Unfortuantly I think it would just chase off a lot of bowlers. Reducing prize funds reducing attendance reducing prize funds. I believe bowling has been down that road before.
Here is a novel idea - why not just let people sign up how they want? Scratch only, handicap only, or both. Duh!!
Having handicap bowlers competing for huge prize funds, competing and winning local and state tournament championships for such a long time the absurdity of it has been obscured. Pick any other athlete in just about any other sport and ask them if they think the least skilled should be able to bowl for huge prize funds and be recognized as champions in major events and I think they would all think allowing such a thing for them is unthinkable and doing it in a bowling would get a 'you gotta be kidding me' reaction from those not familiar with how far bowling has gotten off track.
Bowling badly needs a series of redos dating right from the start of sanctioned bowling and continuing right through to today. Unfortunately redos are not possible and probably dong what is right for handicap tournaments is pretty much impossible. The right thing to do, in my opinion, is to not have big bucks for handicap bowlers to bowl for, lower the prize funds at the top by making divisions so the 146 average bowler competes only with entrants averaging 150 and less for much less prize money.
Lower the top prizes in the classified division of the national tournament and pay better on down the line to give more entrants to at least get their entry fees back and a little profit. Make it not at all profititable for 'baggers' out to make a good buck to find events to satisfy their hunger to make good money at the expense of those more honest than them.
Why should a 180 average entrant have an opportunity to make a very good return on investment that a 181 average entrant has no prayer of even thinking about that kind of cashing? Before the classified division there was a booster team division that drew quite a few teams but they bowled only for squad prizes and a modest overall prize list.
Don Gates
prunenow: Having handicap bowlers competing for huge prize funds, competing and winning local and state tournament championships for such a long time the absurdity of it has been obscured. Pick any other athlete in just about any other sport and ask them if they think the least skilled should be able to bowl for huge prize funds and be recognized as champions in major events and I think they would all think allowing such a thing for them is unthinkable and doing it in a bowling would get a 'you gotta be kidding me' reaction from those not familiar with how far bowling has gotten off track. Bowling badly needs a series of redos dating right from the start of sanctioned bowling and continuing right through to today. Unfortunately redos are not possible and probably dong what is right for handicap tournaments is pretty much impossible. The right thing to do, in my opinion, is to not have big bucks for handicap bowlers to bowl for, lower the prize funds at the top by making divisions so the 146 average bowler competes only with entrants averaging 150 and less for much less prize money. Lower the top prizes in the classified division of the national tournament and pay better on down the line to give more entrants to at least get their entry fees back and a little profit. Make it not at all profititable for 'baggers' out to make a good buck to find events to satisfy their hunger to make good money at the expense of those more honest than them. Why should a 180 average entrant have an opportunity to make a very good return on investment that a 181 average entrant has no prayer of even thinking about that kind of cashing? Before the classified division there was a booster team division that drew quite a few teams but they bowled only for squad prizes and a modest overall prize list. Don Gates
I have always wondered why the only go back 1 yr. Why not go back 3 years? When are they going to get that national data base for all tourn. scores? Maybe even go back 5 yrs.
It would seem that someone might be afraid that integrity in a handicapped event might hurt the bottom line more than allowing someone to beat the system. Congradulations, you have just reduced a game of skill to a game of strategy. If everyone adopted what has become the best winning strategy for this type of contest what would be the difference in everyone just bowling in a scratch contest? Wake up and smell the coffee handicappers. It is a fools game. You can never hpoe to beat a player who has both skills and a good strategy.
DoctorDoom, as mentioned a few times, I was with the minority for many years lobbying to give the lower average bowlers who love the tournament and but pretty much just donate their entry fees with most occupying the did not cash ranks.
When the tournament transitioned from a local association sponsored and promoted event with thousands of classic league teams participating, usually well over a thousand mostly lower average locals bowling in a Booster Team Event, to a Chamber of Commerce/casino promotion of bodies to warrant million dollar support with all star teams at the top and thousands of for whatever reason particpants at the bottom feeding the prize lists but not feeding themselves I , along with others, thought some changes needed to be made in the interest of fairness.
I was not in favor of 180 as a classifed number since I think you could raise that to 190 whose entrants at that level also occupy the did not cash or cash for very little most of the time. I was definitely not in favor of doing much more than giving those lesser skilled bowlers with little chance at all of actually having more than an opportunity to get some of their money back and maybe a bit more. I think it was a big mistake to award eagles to those who place first in each classified division, preferring that honor to go to the bowlers who roll the best scores in any division as it is with the women who have far more divisions.
Anyway, what you and I think does not matter much but we can have fun expressing them and if I had crafted the addition of a few 'bones' for the lower average entrants I would have not had a 1/3 cashing ratio, would have had 1/6 instead with the low to cash figure at $50 to show a tiny profit and going up there to $500 on top in Singles and the same ratio for the other events.
If something like this was in place for this year's tournament the 12,813 entrants in classified singles would have had about 2,135 cashers with a bit over a bit over $100,000 of their $300,000 prize fund allocated to the $50 base number.
Doom,, not only would I have the classified number moved up to 190, or whatever number research determined was the number where occupied the did not cash or cash for less than full entry fee return ranks, I would have side bar prize lists that offered those $50 minimum prizes to a few of the over 200 entrants who average 160 & under and on up in ten or fifteen pin increments to the designated classified maximum.
The National USBC Championship has maybe a thousand or so teams with an 'on any given day' chance to come out on top. The rest and the vast majority of individual participants are there for other reasons and getting a good check is a long shot at best. With something like this the incentive to cheat goes away, the desire to bowl just because you love the event and the visits to the chosen sites does not go away.
prunenow:...as mentioned a few times, I was with the minority for many years lobbying to give the lower average bowlers who love the tournament and but pretty much just donate their entry fees with most occupying the did not cash ranks.
You’re just a pillar for lower average bowler.
You’ve said before that you just throw ideas up on the wall to see what sticks. It’s too bad that they are old and regurgitated. Something fresh might actually have a chance.
