Post by mccleary on Jul 5, 2015 22:08:10 GMT -8
As a long time participant, past President & past Tournament Director, and current board member, I would like to bring up a couple of subjects for discussion for the upcoming season. The board will soon have their upcoming annual meeting before the season begins, and I intend to bring up the subject of using carryover from qualifying if we continue to use our current one squad of qualifying primarily on house conditions at that meeting.
I would encourage any member that would like the board to discuss this subject or any other subject that they feel strongly about, to reach out to board members or use this message board to discuss these ideas and voice their opinions. Chances are that there will be multiple different opinions on what should or should not be done in regards to current or future tournament formats for SOBA, so the board members will still have to take all bowlers into consideration before ever rendering a decision on any changes, but I would like to make this thread & post to give bowlers the right to speak up before our meeting. I would always ask that everyone be respectful to other bowlers and their opinions, whether they mirror your own or are in contrast to what you feel.
In regards to using carryover, I believe we should explore using it as I think if we continue to use our current format, using carryover would make for a more fair playing field than not using it. To explain further, let me start at the beginning.
When SOAS was started 28 years ago, I was just a junior bowler that bowled the pro-ams, but I did work as a pin-chaser at Medford Lanes, which just so happened to be owned by Roy Rider, who was the tournament director & person who made virtual of all the decisions for the organization in the beginning. By season 3, I started bowling as a regular tournament competitor and besides being involved in a variety of ways over the last 25 years, I also had quite a few conversations with Roy over the years before his passing (RIP) about SOAS, the PBA, scratch bowling, and the sport in general. When the SOAS was started, the tournament format was mirrored after the OBA, which borrowed much of it's format from the PBA. The one big exception was that SOAS did not have carryover when the cut to the top 16 was made after qualifying. When I asked Roy why SOAS didn't have carryover, he said there was 2 major reasons.
Reason #1 was that he believed if they had carryover, then the best bowlers of the that time would dominate and "run away" from the rest of the field. His fear was that the top bowlers would always pull away from the rest of the field, which would discourage all but the top handful of bowlers and entries would suffer as a result. Even though he thought carryover would be the most fair format, he believed no carryover would be the best format for SOAS because he wanted to avoid giving the best bowlers an advantage that would hurt entries. This seemed like a very reasonable & valid reason for not having carryover.
Reason #2 was that when we had multiple squads & with the lanes being dressed with older lane machines, Roy was worried about squad inequity, where one squad would have a significantly better lane condition and with only 5 games of matchplay, it could be too big of an advantage or disadvantage to be on the right or wrong squad respectively. This also seemed to be a very valid reason.
When I became tournament director, Roy gave me all of the old tournament results and I made spreadsheets of the results. I ended up studying the results extensively and analytically to learn about all sorts of SOAS trends over the years to always be on top of what was good for the organization (entries, scoring, where bowlers came from, how payouts & entry fees effected entries, etc...). One of the things I found was that although reason #1 sounded perfectly reasonable, the data just didn't support the conclusion. The top bowlers (those with multiple titles, & that season's all-star team) did not dominate qualifying any more than what would be expected from the best bowlers - they performed well, while many qualified near the top on a regular basis, they often qualified in the middle of the cut or occasionally just squeaked into the cut. If you broke those who made matchplay into thirds, the eventual tournament winners only came from the top 1/3 about 40-45%-of time, which is only slightly more than a completely random 33.3% (and certainly wouldn't be considered "dominating" to most observers). The top bowlers mostly dominated MATCHPLAY much more than qualifying. I do not have the past 2-3 years of qualifying & semi's to study, but I would guess the data looks similar to the first 15-20 seasons that I studied.
Reason #2 DID have some significant validity in certain tournaments in the past, but didn't come into play in many others. We often ended up with fairly equal squads, but there were instances of one squad completely dominating how many bowlers that made a cut (I remember one tournament with 14 from 1 squad, and only 2 from the other squad in a top 16). We also saw tournaments where the top five bowlers were all from 1 squad.
The reason I think we should consider going to carryover now is threefold. Looking at Reason #1 from above, by studying the data we can conclude that while it sounded like a reasonable assumption, it just isn't much of a valid reason to not have carryover. There just hasn't been a distinct pattern of the best bowlers dominating qualifying & it shouldn't impact entries. Even Roy Rider - the person who made the "No Carryover rule" originally - stated that carryover was "more fair" than non-carryover. Looking at Reason #2, we could agree that is a good reason - however, we rarely have tournaments with more than 1 qualifying squad anymore. I would propose that we use carryover on all 1 qualifying tournaments and no carryover on tournaments with 2 or more qualifying squads. The third reason I believe we should go to carryover is the one I feel the most strong about - that not having carryover with modern bowling balls on house conditions with 70+ bowlers on one squad actually is having the effect that Roy worried about - it is giving a certain type of bowler(s) a distinct advantage.
I am not here to debate the type of lane conditions we bowl on - it has been decided to bowl on mostly house shots as that has resulted in the most amount of entries for OUR organization. I completely understand that. The problem with this decision is that the lanes often have plenty of friction to the outside of the lane right from the get go at most tournaments. Five games of qualifying with 5-7 bowlers on a pair with modern bowling balls absolutely blows up the shot on most house conditions. This means the shot moves in deeper and deeper as the day goes on, which has resulted in giving 2 types of bowlers an advantage. Left-handers that have much less play, so therefore don't have as much lane transition & can play farther out; AND high ball speed/high rev rate right-handers that are the most comfortable once the shot gets into 4th arrow (or farther). I want to make sure that everyone understands that I am not trying to discredit the best bowlers in our organization that share those traits. Warren Crawford, Joe Lipan, Anthony Thompson, Kevin Croucher, Rick Snead, etc... are all great bowlers - they ARE THE BEST bowlers in our organization currently, not because of what we bowl on - because they are the best bowlers. Period. I just so happen to think they are the best bowlers AND are get to start the semi's/matchplay in most tournaments when the lanes play the best for their style as well. If you are a straight or "tweener" right-hander, the lanes are usually going to be the best for you either on the fresh or during games 3 thru about game 6 or 7. While those game help you make cuts, you don't get to use most of them when it comes to the semi's when the final results are truly decided. If I am good bowler on the gutter (or the track area), why don't I get to use the games where I have an advantage playing out to help me make a TV show or compete for a title, but bowlers who love them burned up and lofting from the left gutter get that in the semi's in a majority of tournaments? Wouldn't having carryover mean that everyone gets to use ALL THEIR games, when they like them best and when they are most out of their element? That is my two cents.
McCleary
I would encourage any member that would like the board to discuss this subject or any other subject that they feel strongly about, to reach out to board members or use this message board to discuss these ideas and voice their opinions. Chances are that there will be multiple different opinions on what should or should not be done in regards to current or future tournament formats for SOBA, so the board members will still have to take all bowlers into consideration before ever rendering a decision on any changes, but I would like to make this thread & post to give bowlers the right to speak up before our meeting. I would always ask that everyone be respectful to other bowlers and their opinions, whether they mirror your own or are in contrast to what you feel.
In regards to using carryover, I believe we should explore using it as I think if we continue to use our current format, using carryover would make for a more fair playing field than not using it. To explain further, let me start at the beginning.
When SOAS was started 28 years ago, I was just a junior bowler that bowled the pro-ams, but I did work as a pin-chaser at Medford Lanes, which just so happened to be owned by Roy Rider, who was the tournament director & person who made virtual of all the decisions for the organization in the beginning. By season 3, I started bowling as a regular tournament competitor and besides being involved in a variety of ways over the last 25 years, I also had quite a few conversations with Roy over the years before his passing (RIP) about SOAS, the PBA, scratch bowling, and the sport in general. When the SOAS was started, the tournament format was mirrored after the OBA, which borrowed much of it's format from the PBA. The one big exception was that SOAS did not have carryover when the cut to the top 16 was made after qualifying. When I asked Roy why SOAS didn't have carryover, he said there was 2 major reasons.
Reason #1 was that he believed if they had carryover, then the best bowlers of the that time would dominate and "run away" from the rest of the field. His fear was that the top bowlers would always pull away from the rest of the field, which would discourage all but the top handful of bowlers and entries would suffer as a result. Even though he thought carryover would be the most fair format, he believed no carryover would be the best format for SOAS because he wanted to avoid giving the best bowlers an advantage that would hurt entries. This seemed like a very reasonable & valid reason for not having carryover.
Reason #2 was that when we had multiple squads & with the lanes being dressed with older lane machines, Roy was worried about squad inequity, where one squad would have a significantly better lane condition and with only 5 games of matchplay, it could be too big of an advantage or disadvantage to be on the right or wrong squad respectively. This also seemed to be a very valid reason.
When I became tournament director, Roy gave me all of the old tournament results and I made spreadsheets of the results. I ended up studying the results extensively and analytically to learn about all sorts of SOAS trends over the years to always be on top of what was good for the organization (entries, scoring, where bowlers came from, how payouts & entry fees effected entries, etc...). One of the things I found was that although reason #1 sounded perfectly reasonable, the data just didn't support the conclusion. The top bowlers (those with multiple titles, & that season's all-star team) did not dominate qualifying any more than what would be expected from the best bowlers - they performed well, while many qualified near the top on a regular basis, they often qualified in the middle of the cut or occasionally just squeaked into the cut. If you broke those who made matchplay into thirds, the eventual tournament winners only came from the top 1/3 about 40-45%-of time, which is only slightly more than a completely random 33.3% (and certainly wouldn't be considered "dominating" to most observers). The top bowlers mostly dominated MATCHPLAY much more than qualifying. I do not have the past 2-3 years of qualifying & semi's to study, but I would guess the data looks similar to the first 15-20 seasons that I studied.
Reason #2 DID have some significant validity in certain tournaments in the past, but didn't come into play in many others. We often ended up with fairly equal squads, but there were instances of one squad completely dominating how many bowlers that made a cut (I remember one tournament with 14 from 1 squad, and only 2 from the other squad in a top 16). We also saw tournaments where the top five bowlers were all from 1 squad.
The reason I think we should consider going to carryover now is threefold. Looking at Reason #1 from above, by studying the data we can conclude that while it sounded like a reasonable assumption, it just isn't much of a valid reason to not have carryover. There just hasn't been a distinct pattern of the best bowlers dominating qualifying & it shouldn't impact entries. Even Roy Rider - the person who made the "No Carryover rule" originally - stated that carryover was "more fair" than non-carryover. Looking at Reason #2, we could agree that is a good reason - however, we rarely have tournaments with more than 1 qualifying squad anymore. I would propose that we use carryover on all 1 qualifying tournaments and no carryover on tournaments with 2 or more qualifying squads. The third reason I believe we should go to carryover is the one I feel the most strong about - that not having carryover with modern bowling balls on house conditions with 70+ bowlers on one squad actually is having the effect that Roy worried about - it is giving a certain type of bowler(s) a distinct advantage.
I am not here to debate the type of lane conditions we bowl on - it has been decided to bowl on mostly house shots as that has resulted in the most amount of entries for OUR organization. I completely understand that. The problem with this decision is that the lanes often have plenty of friction to the outside of the lane right from the get go at most tournaments. Five games of qualifying with 5-7 bowlers on a pair with modern bowling balls absolutely blows up the shot on most house conditions. This means the shot moves in deeper and deeper as the day goes on, which has resulted in giving 2 types of bowlers an advantage. Left-handers that have much less play, so therefore don't have as much lane transition & can play farther out; AND high ball speed/high rev rate right-handers that are the most comfortable once the shot gets into 4th arrow (or farther). I want to make sure that everyone understands that I am not trying to discredit the best bowlers in our organization that share those traits. Warren Crawford, Joe Lipan, Anthony Thompson, Kevin Croucher, Rick Snead, etc... are all great bowlers - they ARE THE BEST bowlers in our organization currently, not because of what we bowl on - because they are the best bowlers. Period. I just so happen to think they are the best bowlers AND are get to start the semi's/matchplay in most tournaments when the lanes play the best for their style as well. If you are a straight or "tweener" right-hander, the lanes are usually going to be the best for you either on the fresh or during games 3 thru about game 6 or 7. While those game help you make cuts, you don't get to use most of them when it comes to the semi's when the final results are truly decided. If I am good bowler on the gutter (or the track area), why don't I get to use the games where I have an advantage playing out to help me make a TV show or compete for a title, but bowlers who love them burned up and lofting from the left gutter get that in the semi's in a majority of tournaments? Wouldn't having carryover mean that everyone gets to use ALL THEIR games, when they like them best and when they are most out of their element? That is my two cents.
McCleary
