|
Post by voiceofthevolcano on Sept 24, 2007 16:12:01 GMT -8
I was asked to start a thread with some constructive opinions of eligibility and boundries. The rule at this point is "ONLY" bowlers that bowl at a center within the boundries (Eugene to the north, Yreka to the South, Bend to the east and the coast to the west). Discussion about letting individuals bowl the monthly tournament but not the Grand Finals was brought up at the first tournament. There was also a question raised about Sr bowlers, which I think will fall under the rule and/or the vote of such rule in the future. We could run a poll to see where the interest is on the rule as well.
|
|
|
Post by hollywood on Sept 24, 2007 18:28:54 GMT -8
i say OPEN it up, sure I am considered a NORTHERNER, but only a handful of portland bowlers would make the trip every so often. Only because you put out a very HONEST shot. I was hooked because of the friendlyness of the bowlers and the commute that show-cases the beauty of oregon.
I overheard a lady say that me and garret didnt belong like 4 years ago because we belong to the oba, and that more oba bowlers would show.....well, honestly....you have the strongest field around ( croucher-bedolla-drier-newston-warren-lee-tinsley-powell-shequen-smith-true-cochran-hafner-taylor-Elienberger-) and many others...
so as lifetime member, its an honor to bowl with you people and belong to the SOAS. It would just be nice to let a few more people experience a GREAT CLUB....
Just my thoughts.....James Hylton
|
|
|
Post by castaway on Sept 24, 2007 18:38:40 GMT -8
I see this as a constant issue every year. I think we as a organization should discuss it and the membership as a whole should vote. To me there are two options;
1. Leave it as the current rules state and if you live outside the boundaries bowl in a center that is in the boundaries. (minimum 2/3 of season as per usbc awards rules)
2. Open up all monthly tourneys to everyone with no restrictions.
I don't think we can complicate things by saying if you bowl in Sr. All-Stars your eligible and if you live in Albany you cant. Also this issue i feel should be addressed every year with a vote of the membership as the membership will change year after year. I suggest a ballot at Hanscams for the members to fill out(also mailings to anyone who bowled Lava and is not attending Hanscams) as there will still be 5 tourneys left to bowl so if the members vote to open up the boundaries those bowlers will still be able to qualify for Grand Finals.
Wynn
|
|
|
Post by powell300 on Sept 25, 2007 9:00:41 GMT -8
Let me see if I can sort through some of the issues here and offer my humble opinion on this subject. Fact #1 - It costs more to enter a tournament and pay for travel related expenses such as gas, hotel and meals for anyone that has to drive more than 3 hours - unless you make the Top 5 (even then it is very close to breaking even). I finished seventh and made $180. It cost me $75 + $25 to enter, hotel was $95 and meals were $25. Any non-math major can add that up and see I am not bowling for the money. Not many bowlers are going to get up at the crack of dawn from Portland and drive to K. Falls (we have two stops there) and Medford (we have two stops there) and Grants Pass. Fact #2 - Boundries were put into effect when Eugene was added as a stop. The thinking at the time was that a ton of bowlers from up North would come down and bowl and "take checks" away from the SOAS membership. Is this still a valid concern? Fact #3 - First tournament of the year - entries are down from 96 (last year at Showtime) to 77 (Medford Lava). They are not going to get any better next month with the tournament in K. Falls at Hanscam's (even with the new 5 tournament rule to make grand finals). So, it really comes down to the philosophy of what the SOAS wants to become in the future. Is the Board happy with the number of entries? Are they happy with the number of new bowlers coming out of the South? If they are not, they need to ask themselves why the numbers are declining. Maybe it was because Eugene was allowed to bowl. I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that we have done everything to help move the organization forward by serving in leadership positions, sponsoring tournaments and bringing quite a few bowlers to tournaments on a regular basis. I understand the rich history of the club. What I don't understand is why it cannot go back to where it was a few years ago when anyone could bowl a tournament, but a bowler had to petition to the Board to bowl the Grand Finals. What is wrong with going back to that concept? Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. I have started bowling OBA's again, I am now able to bowl the SOS and NWST. I want to promote the SOAS but have a very hard time explaining to bowlers that I meet that you can't come bowl our tournaments. What do I tell them? I start reeling off our long winded requirements to bowl in this club and I get this funny look on their face. Embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by castaway on Sept 25, 2007 11:29:55 GMT -8
All good points Dennis! I think that petitioning the board leaves room for problems though. Why he/she got in and i didnt. Is it because of my actions or where i live ect. If it is opened up it should have no restrictions in my opinion. If you commit to the oraganization we should commit to you.
Wynn
|
|
|
Post by powell300 on Sept 25, 2007 12:05:27 GMT -8
Wynn; I see your point regarding petitioning the Board. I totally agree with your last statement. If the boundries are lifted and a member makes the commitment to bowl the mandatory number of tournaments to be eligible, then they should be allowed to bowl Grand Finals. I was just trying to at the very least get it back to where it was before.
Making a commitment to bowl 5 out of the 7 tournaments is probably a rarity, rather than the norm, for most bowlers North of Eugene. It just isn't going to happen. It is cost and time prohibitive.
|
|
|
Post by breshears24 on Sept 25, 2007 14:50:59 GMT -8
if a bowler outside SOAS boundrys bowls in four or more tournaments in one season he or she is showing that they are willing to support the SOAS tournament and are there to compete against the best bowlers around and true its not all about the money because honestly you realy dont make a whole lot its more about competing against the best bowlers around
just my thoughts
|
|
|
Post by voiceofthevolcano on Sept 25, 2007 15:25:50 GMT -8
First of all, Dennis made an eloquent and provoking post. It could be embarasing, if you couldn't defend it from it's original inception. The Idea back in 1987 by Roy Rider, Cheryl Eilenberger and some input from Jim Pope (all 3 deceased and great human beings), was to form a club in the southern region of the state where people could get together once a month and compete for very little investment (original entry fee was $35 and not much traveling). The club grew from about 30 of us to 80 in 5 years. Most of us maintain that it was because the playing field was level enough for questionable talent levels to earn a check. There were probably 16-20 guys that cashed regularly and the other 60 rotated on picking up the other checks. The problems that arose when Eugene was included into the mix were: most of them regularly get a check, and were very voiceful and how this organization should be run. It was an "invasion" in some eyes. The fear is that if the boundries are unlimited, that only the "cream of the crop" will bowl the monthly stops. I personally don't think that a lot of the strong players in the Portland area would be willing to invest $100 and traveling to bowl down here. I don't think it will affect the organization either way on this issue. We are already competing against some the of the best bowlers in the country. (ala Bryon Smith, Chris Warren, Kevin Croucher, Joe Salvemini all with national PBA titles). Don't forget Jerome Lee and Brian Tinsley, 2 of the greatest "amateur" bowlers in the country. Heck we already got Ball and Hylton, how bad could the rest of the north be?
|
|
|
Post by powell300 on Sept 25, 2007 15:54:55 GMT -8
Randy; I find your analysis interesting. The original concept of the SOAS in 1992 (five years later than origination) to today is exactly the same. The organization is averaging 80 bowlers per tournament with the top 16 - 20 players getting a check regularly and the others rotating on picking up the other checks.
Educate me. So back then, why was it ok to bowl against the best and sometimes pick up a check vs. today under that same logic - and it is not ok? All we have done is spread out geographically to create the same environment.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofthevolcano on Sept 26, 2007 9:23:08 GMT -8
Logic 101, It is all about perception (with a little reality thrown in the mix). The concern or at least the way it is interpeted, is that only really good bowlers will come down and bowl. If there isn't a significant increase in entries, and the checks are about 26-28 places, then it will become so hard for the "middle class" to cash, and ultimately quit bowling. Reality or not, it is a concern. I have to agree with Cranky that I do not think the current members are going to stop bowling if we open it up. We were no worse off with "outsiders" being allowed to bowl as far as entries are concerned. I think it might be time to remove the boundry issue. Lesson #2, When this whole thing started, each center had it's core of "scratch" bowlers. Most of us were die hard bowlers. Roy took the idea of a travel league a step further in creating the SOAS. There was some loyalty, respect and appreciation for all the proprietors involved. League bowlers (especially scratch) are a dying breed. Open play customers are what it takes to keep centers operating. The organization and the proprietors have more of a business relationship than a comaradarie.
|
|
snead
Junior Member
I hope they're dry.........cause I need them to be!
Posts: 65
|
Post by snead on Sept 26, 2007 11:47:55 GMT -8
Philosophy 435, Entries were down at the first stop this year. fact. There must be a reason. certainty. There are many reasons that may have impacted bowler tournout on an individual basis. proabably. Everyone who likes to play mechanic must first identify the problem, if "fixing" something is the goal. The boundry discussion is a fine one to have- every year might get old, but let's see how it goes . More on that later. I would like to point out that boundries were in effect last year and compared to the previous year we had 15 less total entries for the monthly tournaments and 16 more at grand finals- a push. This year, we had 19 less at the fist tournament. WOW >: Was the boundies this year suddenly a reason for 18 guys. There were over 40 bowlers in just the Rouge valley bowling association(btw: doesn't inlcude Grants Pass) that averaged over 210 that didn't bowl on sunday. How many of them bowled Brickey's tournament only? How many didn't know there was an SOAS? I have stated this before, but EVERYONE needs to take some pride and exibit some stewardship when it come to getting peopel you all know and bowl league with to come and be a part of the SOAS with you. There are guys that you all bowl with every week in league that throw the ball decent, average 195 or higher who have never bowled a SOAS. Why? Invite them to come and bowl! If you see someone down practicing or signing up to bowl a PBA excperience league, get them interested and involved. Tell them about the tournament when you get back. Make sure your center manager/owner is trying to get people to bowl or sign up for the pro-ams..........or selling raffle tickets, ect. There are some new bowlers that would like to bowl from outside the boundries, and we will be voting next tournament I believe. Everyone has heard of the Brian Coleman example plenty of times, but one quick fix for this year could be to lower the number of games needed to qualify for GF to 1/2 a league season. I think there is a league at emerald that is run in quarters throughout the whole year, they could join next quarter. Past that a full summer league season in a inside the boundry center might/could qualify to bowl the SOAS. That way it would be supporting the center(part of the spirit of the rule) as well as keeping elite players from coming down and only bowling 1-2 tournaments a year: inevitably taking more money out of the organization than they bring in- for all of you that aren't good at math, that means taking it out of someones pocket from southern oregon who might not cash that frequently(but is bowling to try and get better and learn-, with a cashing position being the positive reinforcement they may need to prove that they're hard work and dedication is starting to pay off, making it more likely for them to continue.) Sorry for the long post, haven't posted in a while, so hopefully that is out of my system. phew. Snead ;D
|
|
|
Post by cookiemonster on Sept 26, 2007 13:00:21 GMT -8
I relocated here after retiring from the Navy in 2002, so obviously I know none of the HISTORY that makes SOAS what it is or what it was. After watching a decent scratch league die on the vine it is my opinion that over-regulation and under-advertising is eliminating good competition oportunities. As far as the SOAS boundary issue goes-it is my impression / opinion that it is BEST to open up the field to anyone who wants to bowl and is willing to travel where there is a tourney. The obvious risk is more talent / competition BUT isn't that why we all bowl competitively? To see if we have what it takes to beat Brian Smith or Chris Warren or the many others mentioned previously. I personally don't think the boundary issue is THE "WHY" to the low turn-out. I think we need to advertise our existence. People seem to know exactly how many bowlers in the Rogue Valley with 210 averages or higher didn't show up Sunday at Lava-how many of them got invited? I will personally supply the postage to send them a monthly invitation. Who knows their names and addresses? We need to have flyers at every stop on the SOAS a good month or more before the stop. Most facilities like LAVA in Medford have a BIG Sign out front-I've never seen it mentioned like when the PBA is here in January and it is unmistakable. I do agree with Wynn-don't make it hard...either open it up or don't but I believe this thing will die without advertising and bigger fields. If the integrity of SOAS is essential than we must identify and encourage those in the boundary to participate. If the SOAS is open to change then open it up BUT still advertise...Thomas Cook
|
|
|
Post by powell300 on Sept 26, 2007 14:08:32 GMT -8
Tom; I just love a great new fresh perspective on things. Great post. I could not agree with you more. It is too bad (y)our thinking is in the minority.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofthevolcano on Sept 26, 2007 15:05:35 GMT -8
The most obvious objection comes from the beginning of Tom's post. The scratch league in the very first year was 14 teams of 5. Last year, the last year of the league was 8 x 5. The scratch league at Caveman (the longest running and most successful) is down this year. WHY? It isn't because of underadvertising. We had 70 bowlers in the beginning. The problem locally is that a majority of those bowlers found that they were small fish in a big pond. They would rather compete against Joe Schmo on a handicap league than Jerome, Marshall Holman, Greg Newtson, Steve Mead, Allan Reyes, Greg Hafner, Kevin Henley etc etc. In the beginning of those 70 bowlers, 60 of them bowled All Stars, now maybe 15.............
your serve!
|
|
|
Post by mccleary on Sept 26, 2007 15:19:52 GMT -8
To answer one question asked, 54 bowlers in the Medford area were sent entries and only19 bowled. The low turnout was not because they didn't know about the tournament, they choose not to bowl for whatever reasons.
|
|