|
Post by spktatr710 on Mar 12, 2007 15:16:19 GMT -5
and it is not unusual for Div III or Div IV bowlers NOT to know who Charlie Mills, James Long, Jimbo Evans and Jeff Clark are either....... in fact I can bet that more than half the people on the Oxy league never heard of these bowlers until one of them started bowling on their league. Because WE know them, we just assume everyone else does too, but that is not the case. They know the Robert Thomas's, the Leo Childress's, the Alan McCorvey's, the Joe Choates, and the James Anderson Sr's though............. and they would get a big thrill hearing their names over the loud speakers. I am not trying to be rude to you jeff, but there are so many other bowlers out there besides just your friends.... and just because they aren't as talented as you doesn't mean they cannot love the sport as much as you do.
I didn't mean to stir the pot, I just am being an advocate for the majority of the Pasadena bowlers......... the non-scratch....... and again, just trying to come up with a way to attract other people to the tournament besides the 200+ average bowlers. I don't think anyone would disagree with me that this tournament is more focused towards the scratch bowler which intimidates the handicappers.
I am not fussing or complaining, I just would love to see more of our bowlers have as much fun as I did at our most important tournament of the year.
And the way its going now, if we didn't allow re-entries, we would probably only have 10 teams participating.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Mar 12, 2007 15:23:10 GMT -5
On another side note about why participation maybe down is that City entries and money are due at the sametime States and Nationals are due. With everything at the sametime, some people might feel they would rather just bowl State or National because they are out of town and can make it a vacation. Plus another killer is I bowled City, Michele bowled also, plus she is bowling Women's City, Women's State, and Women's Nationals. With everything as I stated about hurts all on top of each other. The only other problem is I don't think there is a better time to run the tournament, but it was just something to consider for reasons that entries are down. State and City are about the same time but Nationals should have been paid already. But if a person is going to Nationals and this year is a Reno year, many will be or could be by-passing City to save for Nationals and State expenses..... The last two weeks of May might be a good idea. Most leagues are paying off at that time or even just a little before that, so having the City Championships at that time, while bowers have the extra cash in hand.... might be a better time....just throwing that out for discussion....
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Mar 12, 2007 15:29:14 GMT -5
and it is not unusual for Div III or Div IV bowlers NOT to know who Charlie Mills, James Long, Jimbo Evans and Jeff Clark are either....... in fact I can bet that more than half the people on the Oxy league never heard of these bowlers until one of them started bowling on their league. Because WE know them, we just assume everyone else does too, but that is not the case. They know the Robert Thomas's, the Leo Childress's, the Alan McCorvey's, the Joe Choates, and the James Anderson Sr's though............. and they would get a big thrill hearing their names over the loud speakers. I am not trying to be rude to you jeff, but there are so many other bowlers out there besides just your friends.... and just because they aren't as talented as you doesn't mean they cannot love the sport as much as you do. I didn't mean to stir the pot, I just am being an advocate for the majority of the Pasadena bowlers......... the non-scratch....... and again, just trying to come up with a way to attract other people to the tournament besides the 200+ average bowlers. I don't think anyone would disagree with me that this tournament is more focused towards the scratch bowler which intimidates the handicappers. I am not fussing or complaining, I just would love to see more of our bowlers have as much fun as I did at our most important tournament of the year. The bowlers in the other Divisions know that they are not bowling against us, so I don't see how we could intimidate them..and I look at this Tourn. as being for all bowlers of all skill levels....I would hope to, that there was more turn out for the other Divisions and winners of these Divisions should be announced just as prominently as the winners of Div. I.....IMO...
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Mar 12, 2007 15:29:15 GMT -5
On another side note about why participation maybe down is that City entries and money are due at the sametime States and Nationals are due. With everything at the sametime, some people might feel they would rather just bowl State or National because they are out of town and can make it a vacation. Plus another killer is I bowled City, Michele bowled also, plus she is bowling Women's City, Women's State, and Women's Nationals. With everything as I stated about hurts all on top of each other. The only other problem is I don't think there is a better time to run the tournament, but it was just something to consider for reasons that entries are down. State and City are about the same time but Nationals should have been paid already. But if a person is going to Nationals and this year is a Reno year, many will be or could be by-passing City to save for Nationals and State expenses..... The last two weeks of May might be a good idea. Most leagues are paying off at that time or even just a little before that, so having the City Championships at that time, while bowers have the extra cash in hand.... might be a better time....just throwing that out for discussion.... Remember they extended the entry deadline for Nationals until March 30 this year.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Mar 12, 2007 15:33:14 GMT -5
State and City are about the same time but Nationals should have been paid already. But if a person is going to Nationals and this year is a Reno year, many will be or could be by-passing City to save for Nationals and State expenses..... The last two weeks of May might be a good idea. Most leagues are paying off at that time or even just a little before that, so having the City Championships at that time, while bowers have the extra cash in hand.... might be a better time....just throwing that out for discussion.... Remember they extended the entry deadline for Nationals until March 30 this year. True... but I doubt they ar still receiving entries at the rate they were at one time. And that will only effect any bowlers from Pasadena that might decide to go at this later time.... We may never know how that may or may not have effected our entries this year but I'm inclined to think that Nationals had little to no impact this year.
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Mar 12, 2007 15:45:22 GMT -5
Remember they extended the entry deadline for Nationals until March 30 this year. True... but I doubt they ar still receiving entries at the rate they were at one time. And that will only effect any bowlers from Pasadena that might decide to go at this later time.... We may never know how that may or may not have effected our entries this year but I'm inclined to think that Nationals had little to no impact this year. True, but with all of the other tournaments I was just throwing it out as a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Mar 12, 2007 16:00:32 GMT -5
I honestly feel that most bowlers in the other Divisions just don't put that much emphasis on bowling as they once did 15 and 20 years ago. Houston's City Tourn. entries are way down, even to a greater percentage than Pasadena's IMO.... There's just too many other things to do, that these bowlers would rather do with the money these days....
The reason or part of the reason I feel that Div. I has done so well these last several years, is because the Div. 1 bowlers are more dedicated to bowling and they know if they ever really want to be considered for Hall of Fame induction, they need to bowl this event and also win a few events over the years. I know from talking to the other scratch bowlers, that the prize fund in not the draw to bowling this event. We do it for the competition among our friends in the area and for some, to help their resume' so to say for possible induction to the Hall of Fame if not already in.....JMO...
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Mar 12, 2007 17:37:50 GMT -5
Specktatr.... I agree with you 100%... also, I try to take too much on to myself at one time... I DID want to recognize former champions...I GUARANTEE younext year, at the 2nd annual tournament I will recognize each tournament winner from this year's tournament when they bowl their first event... from each division.
|
|
|
Post by spktatr710 on Mar 12, 2007 18:59:08 GMT -5
Specktatr.... I agree with you 100%... also, I try to take too much on to myself at one time... I DID want to recognize former champions...I GUARANTEE younext year, at the 2nd annual tournament I will recognize each tournament winner from this year's tournament when they bowl their first event... from each division. I agree that you take too much upon yourself, and NO ONE can do it all, and I personally don't expect you to -- you already do MORE than your share. My comments were more directed at the Board Members (me included) to try to come up with ways to attract more lower average bowlers.......... and some form of recognition could be one of the keys. I don't feel it is your responsibility to go to every league in both houses and present these awards; that could be the responsibility of the House Reps in conjunction with the league officers. BUT I feel each of those awards is a VERY big deal and should be presented as such. It WILL be a nice touch when you introduce the winners' from last year's Women's Tournament this year and for all the tournaments next year.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Mar 21, 2007 15:18:47 GMT -5
Just noticed on the unofficial standing sheet for the Open City Championships that the "Low score to Cash" on every event is the lowest score posted on each event and all divisions. I don't think we had more entries than what is shown on the standing sheet and everyone one didn't cash....
So when will the accurate "low to cash" scores be corrected for every event and Division? Who ever did that, doesn't understand what low to cash means...lol.....It's not the lowest score shot overall....lol...
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Mar 21, 2007 15:34:49 GMT -5
Just noticed on the unofficial standing sheet for the Open City Championships that the "Low score to Cash" on every event is the lowest score posted on each event and all divisions. I don't think we had more entries than what is shown on the standing sheet and everyone one didn't cash.... So when will the accurate "low to cash" scores be corrected for every event and Division? Who ever did that, doesn't understand what low to cash means...lol.....It's not the lowest score shot overall....lol... Pay-off ratio has been listed in the tournament rules and discussed on this website numerous times. 1:6 Each event and division has every score listed. In order for the WinLabs to list all scores (for bowlers to reference), you have to turn off the pay ratio... this causes the program to list the "Low Score to Cash" as the last score listed. Take the total number of scores listed in each division and divide by 6. this will give you the number of places to cash in whichever event you are interested. The final pay-off (Official Prize List) amounts has not been calculated as of this date. The plaques for event winners have been selected and the City Champion's plaque has been potentially identified... it will be a really nice plaque listed @ more than $120...
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Mar 21, 2007 15:45:03 GMT -5
Just noticed on the unofficial standing sheet for the Open City Championships that the "Low score to Cash" on every event is the lowest score posted on each event and all divisions. I don't think we had more entries than what is shown on the standing sheet and everyone one didn't cash.... So when will the accurate "low to cash" scores be corrected for every event and Division? Who ever did that, doesn't understand what low to cash means...lol.....It's not the lowest score shot overall....lol... Pay-off ratio has been listed in the tournament rules and discussed on this website numerous times. 1:6 Each event and division has every score listed. In order for the WinLabs to list all scores (for bowlers to reference), you have to turn off the pay ratio... this causes the program to list the "Low Score to Cash" as the last score listed. Take the total number of scores listed in each division and divide by 6. this will give you the number of places to cash in whichever event you are interested. The final pay-off (Official Prize List) amounts has not been calculated as of this date. The plaques for event winners have been selected and the City Champion's plaque has been potentially identified... it will be a really nice plaque listed @ more than $120... Ok, cool.... that explains it...... Just a reminder note.... personally, I feel that the plaques should have City Champions on them for each event. Like: 2007 Team City Champions Div. 1 and so on for each event and divisions Last year, Jack's and mine Doubles plaque only said 2006 Open City Championships Doubles Div. I then our names and total score. I felt it should have read "Doubles City Champions Div. I" at least Jack and I both felt that should have been on our plaque, I would hate for this years winners to be equally disappointed as Jack and I were, when we got our plaque and that wasn't on them..... Our 1995 Doubles Plaques did.....
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Mar 21, 2007 16:00:43 GMT -5
I remember you mentioning that from last year now that I read it again... I will be ordering the items this year and will make sure the inscriptions detail that the plaque is a Championship award and could not be misinterpreted as a participation award...
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Mar 21, 2007 16:10:22 GMT -5
I remember you mentioning that from last year now that I read it again... I will be ordering the items this year and will make sure the inscriptions detail that the plaque is a Championship award and could not be misinterpreted as a participation award... That's good in my opinion that will be done..... No one thinks they are participation awards, they really don't know what it was for basically, I have to explain it for 2006 plaque, the 1995 does not need any explanation.... I just feel it makes the Plaque much nicer and more prestigious... IMO.... and I feel they should be and feel the Assoc. wants it's winners to feel pride in the Plaque they will receive and have earned and not have anything negative to say about it....JMO...
|
|
|
Post by WineUdotKing on Mar 22, 2007 7:16:26 GMT -5
Ok, cool.... that explains it...... Just a reminder note.... personally, I feel that the plaques should have City Champions on them for each event. Like: 2007 Team City Champions Div. 1 and so on for each event and divisions Last year, Jack's and mine Doubles plaque only said 2006 Open City Championships Doubles Div. I then our names and total score. I felt it should have read "Doubles City Champions Div. I" at least Jack and I both felt that should have been on our plaque, I would hate for this years winners to be equally disappointed as Jack and I were, when we got our plaque and that wasn't on them..... Our 1995 Doubles Plaques did..... It should still have the name of the tournament on the plaque. "2007 Open City Championship Tournament" on the first line and then "Divison 1 - Doubles" or whatever on the 2nd line. To me it still shows who the champion was of that event, so I'm confused at why you are saying the plaque doesn't explain itself.
|
|