Let me try to get my point across in another way...

I do not believe that higher and higher scores will lead to more entries.

Years ago a team walked into the Shammy Burt tournament in Toledo and tied the National Team record at the time.  A proprietor told me it was great and that the tournament would probably see a huge increase in entries.  I promptly said, "huh?"  How many bowlers/teams will walk into ANY center and think that they have a chance at tying or beating the National record?  Entries did not increase...in fact, I believe entries fell off considerably after the score was shot.

This same proprietor runs a nationally recognized tournament.  A few years ago a bowler posted 1189 (with handicap) for 4.  This proprietor again thought it was great and that the bowlers would flock to participate.  Again I said, "huh?"  Predictably, entries fell off after the score was shot...apparently despite the high scores, not many felt they could get to 1200 for 4.  Imagine that.

Being from the Detroit area, I can say that our local tournament is a disaster.  It has been hemorraging entries for years.  Perhaps it is the economy, or the poor way the event is marketed (since most bowlers I have surveyed know little of the event)...I think it is something else - high scores.  The event is conducted on a THS, consequently scores are very high.  Again, even if scores are high does anyone really think "Joe Bowler" honestly feels he can compete when the "All-Stars" in the area are posting HUGE scores?  Probably not.

My point is...I have NEVER seen proof that high scores bring in more bowlers, but I have seen the exact opposite.  I still believe the increase in bowlers at Nationals is a direct result of the "destination type" locales that are hosting the events.

IMO regardless of your level of ability, if scores are lower you still feel like you have a chance.  If a bowler thinks he has a chance, he will bowl.  If the bowler feels he has NO CHANCE, why should he bowl?  How many of you see 862 or 2300 and think...yeah, I can get to that?

EH, you are completely twisting what I said/explained.  None of what they have done with the lanes has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with scoring.

What has been told to me is that there has been an effort to apply more volume to the lanes WITHIN SPORT PARAMETERS so that when the average bowler who is used to playing second arrow comes out and throws somewhere around there he does not miss the headpin left.  Since it's still a Sport pattern the average bowler's score may not be much higher -- and on the fresh the lanes are not any easier this year, and clearly are HARDER than Billings or Corpus Christi -- but at least the average joe has somewhat of a chance compared to the past where there was much less volume.

The problem with all that volume is that when you have the right people in front of you for a team squad or a couple of minors squads you end up with dry from like 10-15 board and that high volume of oil inside for your minors.

I have had push at nationals before I have never had hold like I had this year. My matchup was a little off in drilling on my HY-ROAD or I could have had a lot more than 675-743.  But with the proper matchup for reaction and carry you can have mega scores by talented bowlers.

I would wager that the overall scoring levels -- like 100th place, 500th place, the per game average of the entire field, etc. -- will not be dramatically out of line with past years.  

And if you didn't have the inequity of minors not all being on fresh I guarantee you there would have been NO RECORDS SET.  (Did you notice Edwards' and Padilla's and Goergen's team scores?)

You are letting three performances -- Vokes, Goergen and Edwards/Padilla -- lead into comparisons with house shots at other tournaments. Respectively, I believe you are sorely lacking in big picture perspective.

Put the exact same pattern out next year with 24 or 23 mls instead of 26 and there will be no mega scores ... and overall scoring will be about the same.

Better yet, make all minors on fresh and you will have no 860s and 1560s and 2300s.

Riggs,
First, we are in complete agreement that ALL events should be conducted on fresh conditions.  That change would more than likely reduce the likelihood of record scores being shot as frequently as they have been recently.  However, as you have also reported, it will probably be a cold day you-know-where before such a change will happen...since it is apparently about $$$.

That said, I'm not sure how you can claim that what USBC has been doing has nothing to do with scoring.  Obviously luck of the draw (in Dbls/Sgls) and what type of bowlers you are following has A WHOLE LOT to do with what type of score you MAY be able to shoot in Minors.  However, if USBC had not been fooling around with the volume, scores would be lower as you suggest in your last post.  How does this have nothing to do with scoring?

USBC's efforts to make things "better" for the average player have probably been minimally successful.  In the process though, under the "right" conditions, the better than average (or elite) player has seen increasing scores, some even posting record scores.  Again, here we can agree.

My last post was not about comparing Nationals to other THS tourneys.  It was about the belief that bigger scores lead to an increase in entries.  The decision to put out certain conditions is a business decision, thus it is the same for Nationals and other tournaments.  IMO, based on what you have suggested regarding USBC's decision to put out increased volume, USBC is trying to increase certain scores in an effort to increase entries.  Sometimes these decisions lead to unanticipated consequences.  I'm sure that USBC didn't plan on having numerous records shattered, but it did.

So how will USBC respond?  Believe me, I would be completely content if USBC implemented fresh conditions for all events and lowered volume...exactly as you have suggested.  But again, what is the likelihood of that happening?  Time will tell...

As for big picture perspective, I believe I have a pretty good grasp of reality.  The big scores may be few, but tell me...what does the average bowler look at...the 10th, 50th, and 100th place scores?  Or the winning record score?  Reasonable people will look at various factors, but most average bowlers don't strike me as being that reasonable.

EH, we agree on most points ... just disagree on how to view three record performances.  I got no problem with them because I totally respect who shot them.  And I've got bigger fish to fry -- the unfairness of not having minors all on fresh.  

I think an argument can be made that having all minors squads on FRESH HOUSE CONDITIONS would be more fair than the current situation -- no matter what Sport pattern is chosen.  As much as I would hate the house shot, at least everyone would have an equal chance.  The current situation gives some people effectively a house shot and others something almost unplayable.  THAT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR.

However, unlikely to change.  Sigh!

Again, other than 3 record scores, overall scoring is going to end up relatively the same from everything I've seen -- I did a blog on this when we bowled in April.

USBC didn't add oil to increase SCORES for the average Joe.  They added oil so the average Joe could play in their comfortable normal area and not miss the headpin going away to the left on poor shots.  That does NOT MEAN their scores will be higher.  The average Joe isn't good enough to take advantage of what is out there this year any more than past year's.

Bottom line:  You see the sky falling with 3 record scores.  I think those scores are merely a symptom of the real problem -- minors not being on fresh.  The pattern is fine -- the format is the problem.  Fix the format and there is no 862, 2,321-857 or 1,566.