Hi all,
WOW, I had no idea this was causing this much of a stir, we heard little to nothing about all this during the event! I actually think it didn't cause much of a stir, but happens to be a topic close to the hearts of many of the 'regulars' on this website...
First of all, there's no place at all for personal attacks. Strong opinions are fine- name-calling is not acceptable.
Now, anyway, some random thoughts...
Again, there's two definite sides. Limiting bowles to one re-entry sounds decent to me. Very few bowlers had time (or room) for more than one re-entry anyway, and most of those bowlers actually DIDN'T improve enough to make the cut (I'll have to investigate that more closely later). So, the tournament wouldn't have been that different if one re-enry was the max.
If there were no re-entries, again, subtract $4,800 from the prize fund, mostly from scratch- so you're talking more like $3,000 for first place, and proportionally less on down. I would have thought prize fund was the #1 most improtant thing...
Cayson, on your squad leader bonus thing, the squad leaders are almost always in the top few anyway, so I don't really see that as a big deal at all. Squad leaders this year qualified #1,2,3,5, and 6, so guaranteeing them a spot seems redundant to me...
ANother thing we did think of is one thing Jared pointed out, that people who re-enter, especially last chance, would get so tired that the benefit from getting a second chance would be cancelled out by fatigue. That certainly appeared to be true for Jared, I don't know for how many other 'marathon' bowlers.
Here's the thing on raising the re-entry fee: I would hate for it to be seen as a big money-grab (even if it is in reality all prize fund). Upping last chance, for example, to $100 or more, for so few spots, will leave an awful lot of people with a bad taste in their mouths, and stuff like that is concerning to a tournament director...
See, putting any sort of limitation on things always opens up a new can of worms that you don't see coming beforehand. That's why we left it at just re-enter as much as you like. All of your ideas so far are very good, but every single one of them makes me go "but what if..."... In the end, 64 outstanding bowlers got into the semifinals, which should be the point of 'fair'.
As an aside, I don't think what we had this year was incredibly 'unfair'... You all were well aware of the re-entry format, so as a bowler I would have made sure to bowl my first squad the first squad possible, and re-enter at least once, especially knowing it would be a harder shot, Given the money you spent to be there, I think everyone could have come up with an extra $60 more, borrowed it from a friend, heck, borrowed it from me!
Specifically to Jon and the other younger ones, if this was an adult tournament the prize fund and entry structure would be WAYYYY different. I think you look at things differently (which is perfectly fine) because you've never known a time when scholarships WEREN'T a part of junior bowling. They only go back to the late 80s (YOU only go back to the early 90s, dang you!!!) If you look at junior bowling in terms of making money as in a business, it will always disappoint you... try not to do that too much! But I've had the whole financial discussion elsewhere of why I feel it's sooo very worth it, feel free to email me for it...
I don't want people to read these boards and think there were fights on-site over re-entries, that was certainly not the case.
OK... let's say the format was: $100 entry fee, no re-entries, $80 last chance. Last chance squad we could take 180 bowlers. This would allow a similar prize fund to this year, since the entry fee increase would offset the lack of re-entrants. Questions: 1) how many make it from last chance? 2) Do Last chance bowlers keep their new scores or old? 2) If they keep their new, won't it be seen as unfair if they do way better with the new ones because they're the only ones who got that second chance? 3) if they keep their old no matter what, what's the point of bowling it? 4) what do we tell bowlers we can't fit on that squad?
Let's say the format was only one re-entry max. Then, the big question is, do you have to take the re-entry score, even if it was lower? We asked this question for regular season re-entry events a few years ago, and it met with a resounding NO-- waay too much like gambling, and no reward for your 'good' score, etc... So, I don't think I could be convinced to do that.
What if all the re-entries were in one squad only? Well, fine, but what if that one squad kills them? That was sorta the case already in teh E squad this year, which was at least 50% re-entries.
SO... while typing all this, the "FAIREST" solution is simply this: NO re-entries, NO last chance. But then, is it less FUN??? Is what you'd be doing to squeeze out that last drop of 'fair' worth it for taking away part of teh fun of the tournament for many bowlers? Part of what makes it the "MAIN" event is that many fols are there for 3 days straight... If it's four hours and done, no need to stick around... hmmm...
I also implore you to remember that most of you here typing are some of our more successful bowlers, who often feel that re-entries hurt them by giving 'lesser' bowlers more chances. Which, in the short run, may be the case. But it's these 'lesser' bowlers entering 3,4,5 times that really bulk up a prize fund, and the fact that there IS re-entries is specifically what encourages them to bowl in the first place, because they're still learning and need second chances. These 'lesser' bowlers, mind you, often quickly become the next batch of superstars, so discouraging them to bowl makes no sense.
What I've tried to do above is show you the hundreds of different angles from which this one question can be approached, all of which have to be considered when you're running the thing. Whatever seems obvious to yuo might never have been thought of by someone else, and vice versa. And this is just one question of hundreds when conducting a national tournament. Ugh!!!
Again, if we grow at the same rate as we did this year, we'll have approximately 700 first time entries next year, which will almost completely eliminate room for re-entries anyway (we have room for 780 as it stands now). I think if you all do a good job spreading the word, we can easily fill that field. So, let me turn the tables and already beg the people who are most against re-entries to become our biggest recruiters, get to teh 780 mark, and prevent the re-entries altogether!
By the way, 780 entries at $100 each would mean one hell of a prize fund... git R done!!!!!
I realize that the point of all of this is to find a balance between the most "fair" and most "fun" tournament of all. Of course, everyone has a different idea of what fair and fun exactly is. In my mind, the 8 people that made the finals were the 8 best bowlers of the week, without a doubt. Isn't that 'fair'? The spots we're debating the 'fairness' of are the last few people in and the last few people out (in general), which always causes a big blowup in every sport (BCS anyone)...
Just some random thoughts, thanks to everyone for their input so far, keep it coming!
Thanks,
Jeff
