Author Topic: How did you like the new format? (Read 4770 times)

bowlallthetime · « **on:** December 09, 2007, 01:11:45 PM »

I personally really enjoyed watching the 4 bowler match(even though we missed a few frames). With 4 bowlers, there is a good chance that it will be an exciting finish. Plus we get to see a couple of new bowlers with 8 guys making the show. Did anyone else like the format?

tenpin · « **Reply #16 on:** December 10, 2007, 05:49:07 AM »

Quote

I liked the format, but I think that if they do this again that they need to use a different pair post the 4 man match. The break down was ridiculous.

I disagree with this as that makes the bowlers adjust. That is why they are on the PBA. It is no different than us bowling a tournament and then have to bowl on a championship pair which has 15 mins of practice and about 20 plus games of tournament bowled on it. It shows who has the real skill instead of just chucking a ball down and averaging 250. Let's watch them move and then try to carry that is fun.

I like the format did not like the frames cut out. Maybe they could do the top then bowl 6 5 4. That would cut out a match. for shorter television. Maybe they should consider this format for the majors..
--------------------
Derek Trowbridge
900 Global:No oil pattern we can't tame
www.900global.com
www.AMF300.com

Fluff E Bunnie · « **Reply #17 on:** December 10, 2007, 06:31:23 AM »

I thought it was an interesting format. It's a shame the winner had to go all Howard Dean and sound like a moron when he won but hey at least the bowling was exciting for the duration of the show.

REEEAAAAAH THATS TEN NOW ITS IN YOUR HANDS RAAAERGH!!!

dpunky · « **Reply #18 on:** December 10, 2007, 06:46:15 AM »

I actually liked the 4 bowler match. It definitely made it interesting because the match was decided on the last shot. If there was another opportunity to display this type of match, I would set it up this way:

1. Have the top 8 finishers from round-robin match play advance to the finals
2. Place these bowlers in two groups
a. Group A would consist of the bowlers that placed 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th
b. Group B would consist of the bowlers that placed 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th
3. On TV, each Group would play one game, with all 4 bowlers playing at the same time (just like they did on Sunday's telecast)
4. The winners of each group would play one game to determine the winner of the tournament

This format would make the two finalist from each group have to face the challenge of dealing with a pair of lanes that have been extremely broken down.
--------------------
Ken - aka "dpunky" - Certified USBC Level I Coach

Fluff E Bunnie · « **Reply #19 on:** December 10, 2007, 06:50:44 AM »

I am not sure about how I would feel about making two groups have to do it. I like the idea of having the 4 play for the spot on the stepladder but it seems kind of hard to ask a guy to bowl against 3 other players at once in single elimination.

shelley · « **Reply #20 on:** December 10, 2007, 07:33:20 AM »

quote:
4. The winners of each group would play one game to determine the winner of the tournament

That doesn't give any advantage to the guy who tore them up all week and led the tournament. One of the nice things about stepladder finals is that leading during the week gives you an advantage over the guy who just squeaked onto the show. If he wants to win, he's going to have to work a lot harder to do so, just like the leader did all week.

If they want more bowlers on the show, they could do what they did back in the early 2000s: Put 6, 7, and 8 in a shootout, winner advances to face 4 and 5. Winner advances to face 2 and 3. Winner advances to face the top seed.

SH

dechrist · « **Reply #21 on:** December 10, 2007, 07:37:36 AM »

quote:
quote:
4. The winners of each group would play one game to determine the winner of the tournament

That doesn't give any advantage to the guy who tore them up all week and led the tournament. One of the nice things about stepladder finals is that leading during the week gives you an advantage over the guy who just squeaked onto the show. If he wants to win, he's going to have to work a lot harder to do so, just like the leader did all week.

If they want more bowlers on the show, they could do what they did back in the early 2000s: Put 6, 7, and 8 in a shootout, winner advances to face 4 and 5. Winner advances to face 2 and 3. Winner advances to face the top seed.

SH

I loved the fact that there were 8 bowlers on as well. I think I like your format as well. My question is could they get everything in in an 1 1/2 - 2 hour window?

I also say let the lanes get chewed up. It makes for much more interesting bowling, and watching the pros adjust to ever-changing lane conditions.

I don't need to see a 300-298 to see a good match.
--------------------
Dale

My 2007-2008 arsenal is here.

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- General George S. Patton

KDawg77 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 10, 2007, 07:38:06 AM »

Good to see all the bowlers, but otherwise it was a touch long.

On a side note: can someone tell Rhino Page he doesn't need to wear Mike Devaney's clothes? He looked sloppy.

--------------------
Ken
Sometimes you are the cheetah and sometimes you are the stick...
http://www.myspace.com/lefthandedhammerpride
http://khlthe2nd.bowlspace.com
http://members.bowl.com/FindAMember/memberView.aspx?mp=418&ms=2006&s=2006-2007

Rantings · « **Reply #23 on:** December 10, 2007, 07:40:28 AM »

I thought it was confusing at best and didn't have any cohesiveness when 4 bowlers are going at it on TV.
--------------------
Bowling is for sissies..ask Bones...

Fluff E Bunnie · « **Reply #24 on:** December 10, 2007, 07:42:28 AM »

One thing I will say is that I didn't get to watch this show at home like I normally do so I didn't get a feel for how the 4 man match worked in terms of cohesiveness.

dpunky · « **Reply #25 on:** December 10, 2007, 07:54:50 AM »

quote:
quote:
quote:
4. The winners of each group would play one game to determine the winner of the tournament

That doesn't give any advantage to the guy who tore them up all week and led the tournament. One of the nice things about stepladder finals is that leading during the week gives you an advantage over the guy who just squeaked onto the show. If he wants to win, he's going to have to work a lot harder to do so, just like the leader did all week.

If they want more bowlers on the show, they could do what they did back in the early 2000s: Put 6, 7, and 8 in a shootout, winner advances to face 4 and 5. Winner advances to face 2 and 3. Winner advances to face the top seed.

SH

I loved the fact that there were 8 bowlers on as well. I think I like your format as well. My question is could they get everything in in an 1 1/2 - 2 hour window?

I also say let the lanes get chewed up. It makes for much more interesting bowling, and watching the pros adjust to ever-changing lane conditions.

I don't need to see a 300-298 to see a good match.
--------------------
Dale

My 2007-2008 arsenal is here.

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- General George S. Patton

The time restraints of a 1 1/2 hour show does make it hard to pull a tournament finals format that I described. It's hard enough for the PBA to fit in enough time to do their normal bracket and stepladder formats that they do. I do like the way the bowlers struggled through lane transition. It gave them the challenge of overcoming obstacles like that. Maybe the next time they do this, they have the top 6 bowlers get in, with the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th finishers playing in a one game match, where the winner faces the 2nd seed and the winner of that match faces the 1st seed. There may be time restraints trying to fit this into a 1 1/2 hour telecast, but I thinks this may cut off 30 minutes from the telecast.

The only other option that I see the PBA doing is having a match go without any commercial interruptions. A company could sponsor one of the matches and have their ads splashed on the graphics and around the lanes. I've seen this done in soccer where companies sponsor blocks of time so that the match can be seen uniterrupted. Not sure if this even possible in a PBA telecast, or if this would save the PBA more time to show more segments or interviews, but this is just my thoughts.
--------------------
Ken - aka "dpunky" - Certified USBC Level I Coach

shelley · « **Reply #26 on:** December 10, 2007, 08:24:47 AM »

quote:
The only other option that I see the PBA doing is having a match go without any commercial interruptions.

They did that once or twice last year. Can't remember which show, I think it was one with Pete Weber on it. Each match was shown uninterrupted, followed by some large amount of commercials. I want to say it was the Bowlersparadise.com Classic two years ago, PDW's first win after the crappy 04-05 year, but I won't swear to it.

SH

Brickguy221 · « **Reply #27 on:** December 10, 2007, 10:23:44 AM »

I missed the whole show because of an ice storm where I live knocking our the cable, phones, and etc. By the time they fixed the problem, the show was over.

Does anyone know if and when it might be re televised?
--------------------
Brick

Fatboy8 · « **Reply #28 on:** December 10, 2007, 10:26:47 AM »

It's on right now on ESPN Classic.........
--------------------
Hammer-Lane #1

Sawuser · « **Reply #29 on:** December 10, 2007, 10:55:31 AM »

I loved the show except for the unfair transitioning of lane condition. Two lefties & six righties makes a HUGE difference in the condition, especially when the first four bowlers were righties. The left side only had 2 games bowled plus warm-ups & the right side had how many?!

In that type of format maybe take top 4 lefties & top 4 righties. Well, that wouldn't be real fair either considering the number of each.
--------------------
Righty
Think about it!

justdale · « **Reply #30 on:** December 10, 2007, 10:58:06 AM »

Loved the concept, really good to see Chris Warren on TV, it has been a real long time for him, he bowled a great game
--------------------
Dale Williams
Columbia 300 Utah Amateur Staff

Author Topic: How did you like the new format? (Read 4770 times)

bowlallthetime

How did you like the new format?

tenpin

Re: How did you like the new format?

Fluff E Bunnie

Re: How did you like the new format?

dpunky

Re: How did you like the new format?

Fluff E Bunnie

Re: How did you like the new format?

shelley

Re: How did you like the new format?

dechrist

Re: How did you like the new format?

KDawg77

Re: How did you like the new format?

Rantings

Re: How did you like the new format?

Fluff E Bunnie

Re: How did you like the new format?

dpunky

Re: How did you like the new format?

shelley

Re: How did you like the new format?

Brickguy221

Re: How did you like the new format?

Fatboy8

Re: How did you like the new format?

Sawuser

Re: How did you like the new format?

justdale

Re: How did you like the new format?