I definitely look at potential payout when I consider going to nationals.  Not so much at state and local where other expenses are less significant.  Just as a note I was very disappointed in the payout at Reno in 2014 compared to prior years.

Turning to your examples, in number one I would think they should pay pretty close to the same for 19th, assuming there is not a huge guarantee in one of the tournaments. 

In the second example I would expect 19th to pay significantly more in the larger field.  For example assume you are paying 1-4 and the one tournament has 76 entries, but the other has 304 entries.  In the first tourney 19th is the last cash, and the prize should probably be about the amount of the entry fee.  In the second tourney I would expect 19th to pay a lot more than the entry as the payout goes down to 76th, which again should probably be about the amount of the entry.   

As for whether state local and nationals should have similar payout structures, I am not sure.  I will say that if two tournaments have the same payout ratio and end up with the same total prize fund, then I would expect payouts for any particular spot to be the same.  A lot depends on how you guarantee the top spots.  At one time it was an ABC rule that a sanctioned tournament couldn't pay less than half of first for second, and that the top two spots couldn't be more than 40 percent of the total prize fund.  This usually only came up in local tournaments that were trying to enhance entries with a big guaranteed first prize. 

I developed prize funds for our local scratch association for many years trying to come up with payouts that satisfied the most bowlers.  What I discovered was a long term trend toward higher payout ratios ( we eventually were 1 in 3 ) at the expense of lowering first place prizes.  Back in the 60's there was a rule of thumb that first place should be 10 times the entry fee, but payout ratios never exceeded 1-4 in scratch tourneys, and were usually much higher in handicap tourneys. 

The first scratch tournament I won in 1966 paid me $300 for a $25 entry fee.  I think we had about 40 entries and it paid about 1-5.  By 2003 we were paying about $400 for first with 50 bowlers and a $75 entry fee but we were paying 1-3.         

I would have to totally agree.  Not sure how many spots were paid, or what the entry fee was but any prize fund I ever saw would not look like this between second and third.

To give an idea of what we had, here are some comparisons to other states:

• Doubles in my state paid $11,732 (57 places).  19th place received $241.  Doubles in Wisconsin paid $40,407 and 19th place received $230.  Yes, ours paid more with 1/4 of the entries.
• New York paid out $20,156 and gave $1,550 to first and $1,100 to second.  We gave $450 for first and $300 to second but had more than half the prize fund.
• Even within our own Doubles Divisions there were inconsistencies.  Div 2 again had $11,732 while Div 4 gave out $11,865, very similar.  Div 4 received $217 more dollars in the first 5 places and 85 dollars less from 6th place down.  Div 4 paid one more spot.  Low cash in Div 2 got $102 and low cash in Div 4 got $101.50

I realize it is a job no one wants.  I just can't see how USBC as a whole can have such varying ranges of payout structures.  Worst of all, it isn't advertised and will probably be finalized after the tournament is over or near the end of the tournament run.

I just feel it should be standardized based on total entries.  That way it will be understood what to expect upon entering the tournament.