win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Pro newer format arguments  (Read 1372 times)

Fluff E Bunnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5617
Pro newer format arguments
« on: March 26, 2007, 08:00:05 AM »
I was wondering...

What are the positives in the newer match play format that the PBA uses?  Comparing it to the format where they cut the field by total pins throughout the week and go into the stepladder, the newer match play bracket format seems kind of cheap.  

Also, from a TV perspective, it is more exciting to watch someone try to climb the ladder.  But even taking the TV part aside, I am mainly talking about the process it takes to get up to the TV show.  What are the positive arguments for the newer format?

--------------------
Thunderstruck $olid
Logged

 

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Pro newer format arguments
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2007, 04:27:38 PM »
The two formats test different skills.  In the best-of-7 format, you bowl one opponent on one pair of lanes.  You need to be able to follow your own transition, avoid the other guy's transition, while giving them as much grief with transition as possible.  Absolute score doesn't matter so long as you beat the other guy.  You can spend time finding a new line if the game is decided since total pins don't matter in the short run (in the long run, they still use average and record to determine the standings for the losers in a round).  For the players, you only have to beat two or three guys to get to the show or the final round instead of 16, 24, or 32.  

For the round robin, total pins is important, so bowling your best every game is critical whether you're losing or not.  You can lose all your matches and average 250+ to still make the show.  In a real sense, that's not really fair to the guy who average 220 but won the majority of his matches (thus averaging 245 or so with bonus pins).  You also don't have the opportunity to create a shot for yourself and you can't use a bad game to line up for the next game because you'll be on a different pair following a different couple of guys who broke the lanes down an entirely different way.

What's more fair?  Being able to take home the trophy by beating only five different bowlers, even if your average wasn't the highest?  Or losing most of your matches but with a high average to be the top seed, then only beating one guy to take home the trophy?  Winning most of your matches with a low average to not make the show?

There's a different kind of tension and drama for each format.  As a spectator, the best-of-7 is probably the best, there's much more one-on-one competition and you can get much more involved in individual pairings.  The longer round-robin format is more of a random-opponent grind.  For the show, it certainly is exciting watching a guy climb the ladder, but that doesn't happen in most shows.  Most only win one or two matches.

I really wish they'd bring back the old Strikepass where you could watch the best-of-7 match play on Thursday or Friday.

SH
Logged

Fluff E Bunnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5617
Re: Pro newer format arguments
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2007, 07:38:19 AM »
Hmm...  I am not sure those positives outweigh the factors of not being able to throw away pins and grinding it out all week and really getting the real top 4 or 5 on the show.

--------------------
Thunderstruck $olid
Logged

DON DRAPER

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5576
Re: Pro newer format arguments
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2007, 09:20:22 AM »
i enjoyed watching the pba telecasts this year as i always do but this year i enjoyed them a little less than in the past. i think it's a combination of no 5 man stepladder final and all that entails and the low number of exempt players that can actually bowl the tournament.
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Pro newer format arguments
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2007, 11:11:46 AM »
quote:
i enjoyed watching the pba telecasts this year as i always do but this year i enjoyed them a little less than in the past. i think it's a combination of no 5 man stepladder final and all that entails and the low number of exempt players that can actually bowl the tournament.


Actually, they had quite a few 5-man stepladders this year.  Last year, it was just the DW; the US Open was a 4-man (I wish they'd go back to five for that, too).

SH
Logged

Fluff E Bunnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5617
Re: Pro newer format arguments
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2007, 11:59:06 AM »
And really they can do whatever they want once they are on TV (although I like the stepladder WAY better).  I am mainly talking about the process of weeding out who gets on TV.  

The match play thing seems like someone can luck out and get an easier run in the brackets.  They can also throw away pins to experiment with different balls.  Also, I saw someone suggesting that a bowler was sacrificing a game to burn a new line in the pattern for the next game?  Well in a total pins format I don't think you could throw those pins away either.

So say Bowler A shoots 124, 201, 201 and Bowler B shoots 199, 200, 200.  Bowler A makes the show in a best out of 3 match play?  I don't see how that makes sense.

Now once they made it on TV I guess you could have #4 play #1 and #3 play #2 if you were really that crazy about match play.  Again, I think the stepladder is way better because you reward the guy who bowled the best throughout the week with an automatic number 2 and possibly number 1.

Anyway it is just my opinion as a viewer.  I just wanted to see what were the PBA's reasons for going to this format in the first place.  Like what were the selling points?
--------------------
Thunderstruck $olid
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Pro newer format arguments
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2007, 12:22:23 PM »
quote:
Again, I think the stepladder is way better because you reward the guy who bowled the best throughout the week with an automatic number 2 and possibly number 1.


The guys who lead qualifying are given the advantage that they bowl against the guys who trailed qualifying.  That's not guaranteed to be an advantage, but you don't usually trail qualifying and then shoot lights-out in match play.  It happens, though; they mentioned when PDW won at the beginning of the year that he was the first #31 or #30 seed to win.  They have a list of people who have gone from 24th in qualifying to win the tournament, climbing their way up to the show and then up the ladder (PDW's on there twice, I think).  It's not easy, and the brackets are set up so that the highest seeds won't have to meet until the show.

SH
Logged

Fluff E Bunnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5617
Re: Pro newer format arguments
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2007, 12:24:05 PM »
I understand that part, but how many qualifying games do they bowl compared to bowling the entire week and cutting the field?
--------------------
Thunderstruck $olid
Logged

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Pro newer format arguments
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2007, 02:33:15 PM »
quote:
I understand that part, but how many qualifying games do they bowl compared to bowling the entire week and cutting the field?


In both the current round-robin format (where they make cuts to 32 and 16 with nine games each round) and the best-of-seven match play format, they bowl 14 games of qualifying.  I don't know the old-style format, probably similar to the DW format.  Maybe a different number of games in each round (two or three 6-game blocks, cut to the cashers, another 6 or 8 games, cut to 24, then RR play).

In any case, the current format is still 14 games, cut to 32 for either best-of-7 or 9 games of RR to cut to 16.

SH
Logged

JoeBowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
Re: Pro newer format arguments
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2007, 02:59:18 PM »
Old Standard tournaments had 3 6 game block of qualifiers

cut to 24 and bowl a round robin of one game matches.

18 games + 24 more for 42games total.

Majors had another qualifier block after the cut.

The old style tournaments are harder for rookie spextators to understand because it was all based on +/- numbers.

The matches are easier to follow and allowed them to try and show early matches onthe internet (but didn't get enoguh spectators to make moneY). The round robin and constant lane changing didn't allow for thtat.

I liked the old style as every game every ball counts.

But their is pretty much the same guys winning both ways.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »