A "Major" Dilemma? by Thomas ScherrerI should qualify what I am about to say as passionately displaced, yet refreshingly honest. I love the sport of bowling...anyone who knows me and has bowled with me knows as much. When I have a love and understanding of a sport, I try to brush up on the history of the game, its past, the present, the future. You want to know what direction is has been in, where it is going, and most importantly, what we can learn from the mistakes of the past to avoid repeating them. Usually, the longer the history, the better. I can get into golf and how The Masters is a "tradition unlike any other" and how the US Open is the game's greatest challenge, or as a USGA official once told me while working for the US Open at Shinnecock Hills, "we are here to identify the best player". The mere fact that I could delineate The Masters and the USBC Masters should be a pretty clear for bowlers that bowling's majors do not matter as much. That is, to be blunt, a very, very bad sign. PBA Tour champions Women's World Championship winner (Kelly Kulick, as we all know) Senior World Championship winner (Henry Sullins) Senior US Open champion Senior USBC Masters champion RPI winner RPC winner Hall of Famers Past TOC winners New additions:
The "Elite" field: any current 2010-11 exempt tour players, any member of the "50 Greatest", any Hall of Famer, any past Major winner, and any players with at least 5 PBA titles. The "Champions" field (max. 180 entrants): 4 or fewer PBA titles, Women's Series winners, Regional winners, and Senior Regional winners. An added caveat is that all of those winners had to be PBA members at the time. "Champions" field bowlers must qualify, so to speak, in two seven game blocks, one 7 gamer Sunday, the other 7 gamer Monday. Half the field joins the "Elite" field for 4 five game blocks, cutting to the Cashers round. The Cashers round consists of two 8 game blocks, then cutting to the top 24 for some old-school round-robin match play. As you can see, the PBA decided to give as many members as they could a chance at winning this prestigious tournament, on top of winning the largest check ever handed out for a professional event. They have made their bed trying to make this event as special as they can.
Or did they...?
I always remember a few great things about the Tournament of Champions. A) you had to have won a PBA National Tour event to be eligible for it. Not a regional, not a senior event, not a senior regional event...a PBA Tour event. You might remember them, the ones that Burton and Schenkel televised on ABC every Saturday? Yep, those. B) the patterns were usually demanding and in my high school years, loooonnng. Up to 50 feet long in fact. We'll talk more about oil pattern and their significance later. Finally, C) I knew the that the winner was winning the elite TOC trophy. I alluded to this in my last blog that the same title Wayne Webb won is the same title Earl Anthony won is the same title Mike Durbin and Jason Couch won 3 times is the same title Marshall Holman won twice is the same title that Kulick won last year while making history. Now from a standpoint of finances, I totally understand the new criteria for the TOC: more bowlers eligible=more bowlers participating=more prize fund=bigger payout for the winner=putting the PBA's marquee event on a higher level. Also, from a purist standpoint myself as well as others that are bemoaning the new criteria, they say that the TOC has lost its prestige and its glory and honor. That the PBA sold out its grand event for one thing: credibility.
As much as I feel for those people and feel for the historian in me, I see it. I get it. It is a calculated and some would say, morally sorry risk. However, if bowling is to be taken on a level with other high profile individual sports, the money aspect almost
has to be there, doesn't it? I don't have to like it, in fact, not many will like it but it was something they had to do to make the sport matter more. We live in a capitalist society in which the almighty dollar controls our pockets and our hearts. The more lucrative, the more attention the media and people of a casual nature cover it. Sadly, I wish it weren't that way but this appears to be the direction the PBA is headed with its marquee event.
But what about its other 3 majors? Is there something we can do to make the other 3 majors more relevant without corrupting the integrity of the major itself? Fear not, Bowling America...I am here. Consider this an introductory course into being the Czar of Bowling. I like Ruler of Bowling better or King of Bowling, but King of Bowling would entitle that I could disgrace my sport by challenging an aging, shaved, news columnist to a bowling contest by using a plastic ball for which I could have used to bowl a tournament I did not embrace, then backtracked saying I would bowl if it fit my schedule, then when the event came around the following year in Long Island, I once again...no-showed for the event. I do love the power of the keyboard. But I digress...
PBA World Championship Current Format: different (again) from last year. This year, they will use the World Series of Bowling as its actual qualifying. Each animal pattern has its own event which has 12 games of qualifying. Those 60 games will determine the standings for the PBA World Championship. New this year is arguably, its most exciting wrinkle: the television finals will be a 3 day, 8 person final. My best guess: it will be a best 3 out of 5 with all 8 players on Friday, then same deal Saturday with the final four, then Sunday will be likely be best 3 out of 5 for the winner and $50,000.
My Format: I actually do not mind using the WSOB as the WC's qualifying scores, but for 60 games of bowling, it doesn't really reward the better players for all their consistent bowling. I love the 3 day television format and my guess earlier was just that: an educated guess. If I were running it, it would no longer be a guess but a definite. Here is the added wrinkle: let's go with a 16 person final field for the 3 day TV finals, but let's reward the top 8 bowlers with a round off and the top 4 with
two rounds off. If they are going to bowl 60 games over 5 days, they could use a day off. Done and done (copyright William J. Simmons). So, seeds 9-16 will bowl a best 3 out of 5 Friday morning and afternoon, Saturday the 4 winners will bowl again the 5-8 seeds in a 3 out of 5 format in the morning and in the afternoon the Round of Super 8 will have the 1-4 seeds bowling. The best bowlers over 60 games getting two byes, fresh as a daisy, hopefully not crapped out on the Vegas tables (at least this year) going up against tired bowlers who have bowled close to 70-120 games over the WSOB while the top 4 have some games saved on their arms. They too will bowl a best 3 out of 5 with the winners advancing to the final 4 Saturday night, best 3 out of 5 to get to the Championship Match. Sunday afternoon will have the same best 3 out of 5 to a winner and the check of $100,000. The finances are real simple: we are going to simply take the low to cash away and make it out over 60 games to the top 32 scores. The bowlers 17-32 will get 3 times their WSOB entry which means in the $2,500 neighborhood. We clearly place the emphasis on winning the major, so finishing 2nd might only be $25,000. Winner should earn 6 digits, period. Oh, don't forget that sweet Eddie Elias trophy.
Wait, what about what the match play will be bowled on? What better way to tie in some PBA history with an oil pattern. Let's see...Earl Anthony won this event-called the PBA National Championship-6 times. He's got an oil pattern named after him. It's pretty demanding. Let's use it then! I don't want to see anyone human being winning a major on a pattern named after a damn reptile.
USBC Masters Current format: open field (pros and amateurs) all bowl 10 games, cut to a quarter of the field, bowl 5 more games, cut to the top 63 plus the defending champion. Match play is a double-elimination format, 3 game total pinfall wins. Get to the final 4, top seed is undefeated. Love it, don't ever want this to change. Can't argue with one open event that gives professionals and amateurs a chance at winning a major event that is both unpredictable and exciting.
My format: I loved Xtra Frame's free preview coverage of last year's Masters, so I am gunna basically call an executive decision and say that the PBA do this every year for this event (hell, I'm a Czar making decisions-just be thankful I didn't type this blog on a throne). It is easy to follow with bowlers bowling just 3 games against one another, the drama of seeing a bowler come back in one game to win a match is worth the dollar value and in this case, free. Most people simply remember Chris Barnes' final game 300 against Wes Malott to stay undefeated and feel like they were watching Barnes at his Master-ful best. It was amazing to see because fans were watching a moment and it was not happening on a weekend. They got to see an awesome comeback for free, which could only help drive their sales for Xtra Frame even more. I think you see my point. The Masters is first and foremost, a USBC event and not a PBA event, so the PBA should offer free streaming coverage of the event...before USBC does. During the Xtra Frame coverage, you heard that the seedings for the match play portion aren't exactly proportionate. For instance, the 14th seed bowls the 49th seed and not the 52nd seed in a traditional format. That was just an example, which isn't entirely accurate but you get the point. Let's just be simple and say 1 vs. 64, 2 vs. 63 and so on...
The defending champion gets the bonus of not having to qualify for match play but gets the 32nd seed. Why should their reward for winning their first match be...the 1st overall seed? How fair is that? Not really fair at all. In fact, it is a downright crime. The defending champion should get to at least be the 2 seed. You can relent on the top seed because that player earned that right over 15 games of bowling against roughly hundreds of bowlers, which is never easy given how much the lanes change during the block. We'll call the #1 qualifier the Harry Smith Masters leader in honor of the Tiger. This is for historical reasons: Mr. Smith, a Hall of Famer, 50 Greatest, and one of the first men to employ power into his game, won 10 titles but was probably denied more due to the original PBA scoring format. After traditional qualifying, all pins were dropped heading into match play. The Masters does not carry pins over as well. What better way to truly honor a PBA Legend in a more conventional, yet ironic way? As for the defending champion (#2 seed), we'll call it the Mike Aulby seed. Mr. Aulby is the only man to win this event 3 times and for a true gentlemen of the sport and all-time great, what better way to honor the past than at a major.
Oh, but I am not done...the trophy handed out by USBC should have always been and will always be the Frank K. Baker award. Not some creative, crappy design-it's a major and I want my trophies to have historical value. One more final trick: if the TOC shot has traditionally been a long shot (over 45 feet), another major should be a traditionally short shot (under 37 feet). Back in high school and my freshman year in college, the Masters pattern was 34 feet and pretty flat. Why can't we do that again? This is very doable and nowadays, they can go even shorter to like 30 feet or 29 feet...talk about backend reaction or in the days of these modern missiles...rollout?
Current Format: open to all bowlers as well, 18 games of qualifying, cut to the cashers round, 9 more game, get right to match play that night for 8 games. Then 16 on Saturday morning and afternoon. 33 games in the last two days on a 40 foot, flat oil pattern? Yikes...that is a worthy challenge. We're not changing a damn thing with the tournament format...sorta.
My Format: last year, there was 352 bowlers that bowled in bowling's truest test. And here are some quick, simple, and disturbing facts. At the end of play last year, only 10 men averaged over 210. It is not a big deal considering it is a brutal pattern. It means that under 3 percent of the best players in the world found a way to average over 210. Let's look at the other side of the list, that is the bottom of the list. I personally consider anyone averaging on the US Open pattern less than 160 to a problem for the sport. Last year, 12 bowlers averaged under 160, 3 bowlers averaged under 150, and one poor soul averaged under 140. A somber note Mr. Anthony Dompe of Georgetown, Illinois. You can now be Googled forever on this page for averaging a rancid 138.78 on the US Open pattern. Congrats sir, you certainly earned it!
I hate to make fun of such a person, but if this is what the sport of bowling is trying to promote, which is bowling badly at a major, then we are in serious trouble. Let's change the "open" in US Open to include these rules:
The US Open field will be reduced to 150 bowlers. The top 100 players in the Harry Smith Point Leaders list for the season are automatically entered into the tournament. Any player in that list not able or willing to bowl, their spot goes to the next in line and so on. The other 50 spots will come from each state running a US Open Qualifier. Each qualifier will be a 16 game format, with 8 games of qualifying Saturday and then 8 games of match play Sunday. A cut to the final 5 will take place after the 16 games are completed, winner goes to the US Open, entry fee paid in full. All players (averaging 190 and over) are allowed to bowl in the event and you can only bowl in one state and of course, the pattern will be the US Open-40 feet and flat. You're gunna have to earn this. Why would I want to restructure the US Open into making it an event where fewer players participate? It is simple...I hate seeing bad bowling on any major pattern. Where the TOC allowing winners of any PBA event to bowl is understandable because these players at some point, did win something that had a PBA banner on it, there are roughly 30 percent of US Open bowlers that don't stand a chance to win even on their best day. I am all for someone earning their way in via a qualifier and if he stinks up the joint at the Open, then so be it. Chances are though, is that they won't because they will a) be bowling with better players and the odds of them being able to match up better are greater and b) since they made it through the qualifier through the state, they have some game. I think this works, so much so that if I were the Czar so to speak, I'd make this mandatory. Would you lose possible money in the tournament? Possibly. However, if you make the entry fee for the qualifier reasonable ($100 seems reasonable for 8 games of bowling), more entrants would be able to bowl in each state and if you allocate funds toward the US Open, you'd make up the difference or at least be pretty close.
One more thing: the US Open trophy and Green Jacket award. Only one sport should have a jacket that is green for a major. Doesn't work in bowling. So let's get rid of it. Yes, I am actually getting rid of a tradition to start a new one. Instead, we should make a new piece of crystal and call it the Don Carter Trophy. Mr. Bowling deserves to be recognized as, with suitable logic, the greatest major bowler in history. If you add his 5 World Invitational Championships to the 4 PBAA All-Stars (US Open), 1960 PBA National Championship, and 1961 Masters title, that is 11 majors. That is one more than Mr. Earl Anthony and 3 better than Aulby and Pete Weber. Mr. Bowling deserves an award named after him that represents a major championship and what better than bowling's truest test, some would say its only true test.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your majors are set. We throw in some money, some history, some legends of the past and you have yourself majors that start to matter on a higher level. Maybe at long last, we can start truly evaluating players and where they stand in bowling history.
For those with a love and knowledge for the sport of bowling, This Is Bowling Philosophy. Namaste. 
Posts
