You're missing the bigger point I was trying to make. In the short-term, it may be better to give Reno the tourney 2/3's of the time, because they save on immediate overhead costs and team entries are still relatively good. But I am not going to Reno that often unless the event becomes a money maker for me personally, or it's a better place to visit. I have interest in going to that part of the country, maybe once every 5-6 years. I have limited vacation time, and I'm just not going across the country to the same place every year, especially Reno as it is now. I would go to alternating sites probably close to every year, regardless. IMO, I feel like more bowlers are coming from my viewpoint, than those that would go to Nationals every year no matter where it is. Is saving on overhead construction costs going to offset decline entries? Hard to tell, I have no idea what the profit is per bowler after all expenses are paid and I don't know what it costs to construct lanes and I don't know what kind of money the city bids bring in.
So what if we are stuck with Reno, what can they do to make it more attractive location? Point blank, what could they do, to make me more interested in coming every year. Investing in more bowling infrastructure is about the last thing they can do to keep me interested (well, maybe 2nd last, building another casino would be lower). How about make the city a better place. Make it more family friendly, maybe build an amusement park? Seasonal incentives to airlines from Feb-July so the entire east coast doesn't have to make 2 connections and blow a whole day of travel to get there and back. Better public transportation, specifically from hotels to the stadium. But no, they want to build 10 more lanes and a bowling HOF. You've got to be kidding me.
