Playa
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
I up the ante
Well played.
Ranking System - Tournament Bowlers
- Thread starter JWhitty
- Start date
Well played.
the mothership
the mothership hears you
Roysa
Well-Known Member
Completely agree.
More respect to them if you ask me due to the fact that the prize money isn't always big enough to justify the trip. That comes back to entries and interest but that's another thread
jockey
Member
There is nothing wrong with the current rankings system. Yes you can say it is subjective but everyone at the start of the year had the same opportunity to choose to firstly register to be included and then bowl in any or all events. The fact only 26 people have chosen to bowl in the minimum number (4 events) plus the masters is not the fault of the system itself. It is a reflection of the tournament scene currently in this country. The tournament scene and thus the number of ranked events has been gradually dying off in the last couple of years. This can be put down to a large number of factors including [cost of entry fee; cost of transportation (car vs plane); cost of accommodation; family commitments (especially for women i.e. birth etc); mortgage commitments; loss of interest in bowling in events; lack of events] just to name a few. The advent of the masters brings hope of a reinvigoration of the ranked scene but I believe it is the sports series of the various states that hold the most promise of a fully revitalised national tournament scene. We need to encourage as many bowlers as possible to bowl in these events in order to enlarge the pool of bowlers who hopefully will eventually be encouraged to try their hand and bowl in multiple ranked events.
Troyza
Flash
My opinion is that the current ranking system measures tournament activity more so than ability.
I mean, obviously it takes ability to earn points. But as it has been pointed out - what about the bowlers who can't "make it" it tournaments, but deserve to be higher on the rankings? It's disapointing that financial committments could keep people from being recognised as australias best bowlers.
It'd be cool if TBA gave centers an opportunity to run leagues where people could earn ranking points on a week to week basis, & going to tournaments could act as a booster for said points. Sadly, the amount of control needed here would be horrendous. But it'd be cool if it actually worked, & was realistic.
I mean, obviously it takes ability to earn points. But as it has been pointed out - what about the bowlers who can't "make it" it tournaments, but deserve to be higher on the rankings? It's disapointing that financial committments could keep people from being recognised as australias best bowlers.
It'd be cool if TBA gave centers an opportunity to run leagues where people could earn ranking points on a week to week basis, & going to tournaments could act as a booster for said points. Sadly, the amount of control needed here would be horrendous. But it'd be cool if it actually worked, & was realistic.
Roysa
Well-Known Member
So running with your theory Troyza, if i bowl 5 leagues a week that are 'rankings leagues' i could become a top ranked bowler on a house shot and be higher ranked than the 4 tourney bowler on sports patterns?
This would reward league activity rather than ability wouldnt it?
becka_girl
Proud Vic Chick
A lot of bowlers can't bowl league every single week due to work committments or national team committments so i can't see how this will work and like roysa said people can bowl 5 ranked leagues a week and get a heap of points on an easy house shot.
I know for a fact that I never bowl a whole season of league
wchester
Bowling Tragic
I disagree Jason..Having been a tournament bowler in the USA since the early 1970's, I, and the majority of my fellow competitors alway based a tournament's worthwhileness the return on investment ratio for the 1st place payout. A 10-1 return on your entry fee was always the base which we looked for in deciding which tournament to bowl.. The problem with today's events is the spiraling cost of lineage and the ever growing amounts of equipment a tournament is required to have in their arsenal in order to allow them to be competitive.
As for paying a deep prizefund..do you really believe that it's necessary that we are give a bowler $100 - $200 for finishing far down the list when the entry fee is in excess of $250.
Give bowlers a shot at that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and see what happens. Kinda like the lottery really..
Michael Little
Active Member
Sorry, nothing personal, and any ideas are better than none, but this post is just crazy. As I have stated before, the first point you make could be understood if there were a high amount of national ranking tournaments to compete in and the maximum best tournament results were also high. But this calendar year, there are 6 events, plus masters. Compared to a few years back where we easily had double digits in ranked events, this in comparison seems to be a minimal amount to play in. I find the reasoning that a bowler couldn't make it to the event, but should still be considered for some form of rankings to be poor. Of course there are guys who don't always compete that have plenty of talent and could easily do so, but if we are to have a rankings system of any kind, then they should be competing in the listed tournaments if they wish to be part of it, if not, no big deal.
If bowlers can't make it to tournaments, but are superstars in their local centres, who gives a rats? You just have to look at the latest youth tournament and look at how many of those kids have inflated league averages yet couldn't hit the broadside of a barn by the looks of the scores from the weekend. Even probably our most talented youth guy at the moment, averaged well below the norm due to the toughness of the pattern, but was still far superior to the rest. Obviously not all tournaments play with totally hard patterns, but they certainly aren't as easy as your general house shot league pattern and take a whole raft of different skills and talent to combat.
As you have said, it would be terribly hard to also grade or rank certain centres based upon judging their lane conditions and how easy they are. There are generally very few centres now that would lay tougher patterns or have devoted sports pattern leagues. It just isn't going to happen, logistical nightmare, waste of funds that aren't already there.
Any rankings system is there to be a yardstick and give an indication of who are the best performing players in any sport for that given period of time, irrespective of what sport, if competitors don't compete in the listed events that obtain rankings points, how can they therefore be considered period. As a side note, say a competitor in say the surfing world tour, was leading the rankings series, surfing really well, but then suffered an injury that would keep them out for the rest of the year, should they be entitled to points because of how they were going and because everyone knows they are really good and deserve to be there at the top if not injured? They are still prevented from competing in future events, and regardless of reason (back to bowling) ie costs, location, travel, work, family, injury, motivation etc, it is still a roadblock that prevents them from competing and ends up with the same end result. They aren't eligible to receive rankings points.
I don't understand why some people are thinking that bowling is different to any other sport in the world. Rankings in any sport is an indicator. Any competitor in any other sport in the world, understand they need to compete in a certain amount of events if they wish to win a world series, world title, no 1 ranking, whatever. So why is that some people out there believe that bowlers who don't compete in the listed nationally ranked events deserve to be considered in any rankings system period?
Plain and simple, competing in national events, give you rankings points, rankings points give everyone including other bowlers, national selectors, national body, state selectors, sponsors, sports commission etc an idea to who is performing for the current year or timeframe. It may not include all the best competitors all the time, but that is something for those individual competitors to decide whether they place any importance on how many events to compete in. Because someone used to compete and is still good, doesn't entitle them to freebie points by other method, I don't understand why a player who can't 'make it' to a ranked event, 'deserves' to be considered in a rankings system, no other sport in the world does this to my knowledge.
Michael Little
Active Member
Unfortunately, I tend to agree, we are talking about National events here, which are supposed to be the cream of competitive bowling in Australia. Do you really think we should be paying down half the field to make it equal and provide value for money in National tournaments?
Really, bowlers should be competing in National tournaments, because they have the skill, motivation and willingness to do so. Not quite the case in the West, but most eastern states have a variety of tournaments where the return on entry fair is spread out amongst the competitors and the prize funds are not top heavy in any way. We should be differentiating between these tournaments and 'National' tournaments and having long payout lists isn't one way of doing it. I don't disagree with paying some spots outside of the finals, but really the payout for making the matchplay or finals section should far and exceed the payout for placings outside of this. It places a value on that achievement, the effort required etc. I understand that a lot of bowlers are close to this level and want the experience and having a payout further down entices them to give it a go, despite what I have written above, I understand this, but I just believe we should be placing a premium on achievements in National events, especially making matchplay/final sections of these tournaments. Maybe where the focus should be instead is to keep these mid level payout figures around the same mark, so the mid level tournament bowler still isn't disadvantaged, but then work harder to increase the payout once inside the matchplay portion through sponsorships etc etc etc.
As Wayne has said, some proprietors can be greedy bastards sometimes and charging $6-7 a game per tournament for game fees, affects prize payouts significantly. One of the many reasons why prizefunds haven't gotten any better in the last 15 years, but everything else has gone up.
Easy Tiger
Active Member
Hi Wayne,
While I don't disagree with you, we also have to realise that the bowling scene in Australia will never emulate the US, or Europe or even Asia for that matter. Australian tournaments don't have the existing support number base, don't have the funds and don't have the same prestige.
The pot at the end of the rainbow is only ever going to go to the higher level players, this completely excludes the mid-field. This is where the major tournaments are failing is the mid-field. You have to make it worthwhile for them to have a crack for at least some return, even if minimal. The aim needs to be to get them to improve from mid-field to top-tier, but this takes many years (for most) of 'cutting their teeth' and paying their dues. You have to have the prospect of some return while doing that as part of the mid-field (small pieces of gold along the way), otherwise it is simply too cost prohibitive to spend years trying to steal the pot.
Just like this post? Right on topic it is!
oh sorry ... maybe you are topic, your own topic? ... or maybe you are the topic?
Sorry that's right, it's only when OTHERS post something that may not be related to the topic that it is an issue ...
... hmmmmmmm.
Is the current system flawed? Perhaps, the one thing that I am not convinced of in the current system is the "dropping of points" i.e. points are based on Masters plus your 4 best results in nationally ranked events. In theory someone could play four events plus the masters, but then another person could play an additional two events and by dropping the two worst events they could in fact finish higher yet have been less consistent throughout the year?? If you play bad, that’s unfortunate. But if you still get points in that event then that's great and you move on to the next event. I understand the reason for this however for me, this is the biggest flaw in the current system. If we had 10-15 ranked events in a year then this would make sense, but with only six events plus Masters in the rankings I don’t think we need to be dropping points. I wonder if there would be much change to the current rankings if you took everyone’s points from every event rather than dropping some points? Would we see much difference? Maybe, maybe not? But it would probably make it a lot easier to know where you are on the rankings. It would be a strange feeling to know that you just beat someone at an event yet they overtook you in the rankings??
The previous system also had rolling points which I am not a fan of, events do change from year to year and while this continues to happen I believe the points should start a fresh each year. If we used ranking points to win our way through to certain events then a rolling points system would make sense, but as the rankings points don’t automatically take us through to the finals I think we can do without this. I think the calendar in which there are now less events, and is now better spread out both time wise and geographically will help give us an indication of who is playing well that year. That is the whole idea of the rankings isn’t it?
Double points events were used in the past as an incentive for bowlers to bowl in certain events, but in some cases the players numbers were still low yet double points remained on offer. That made the previous system flawed in my opinion. I believe in other sports, the bigger and more prestigious events carry more points on offer but in these events the field size is also greater. Maybe we could look at something like this, for example with the Masters or if an event attracts over a certain amount of entrants? Perhaps some form of points loading could be used, similar to the system I think they use in the Vic Sport Series. Your points are calculated on how many people you beat (which also means you can’t “buy” points just by travelling to all the events, you still have to beat people) but then there is an additional points bonus if you win (50%)/top 3 (25%)/make match play (10%).
In terms of the prize fund, if it is a national event I don't think the payout needs to spread out so far. If you make the finals you should be getting your money back and then some, if not well better luck next time. We are only talking about a few events a year. Spreading the payout does however benefit the state/local events and is where you will see not only the players who play the national events, but also the guys who want to get out there and have a go. I believe if we get the local/state events right (and spread the money a little more in some of these), then we will start to see additional entries in the national events. If there was a good local event say a fortnight before a national event in a state, you might see players who have played well in the local event have a go at the national event as they have some form and might have some cash and confidence? We currently have spots reserved in the Australian Masters for state winners, could we also have a spot for the number one ranked player for the Masters in the following year?
Mick and George have both commented on this thread (as they do with most), these guys are up there in the rankings – for me their opinion is worth a lot more than some people who just want to sit back in their arm chair and take pot shots from the cheap seats as the rankings don’t have anything to do with them as they have little to no interest in having a ranking..
The previous system also had rolling points which I am not a fan of, events do change from year to year and while this continues to happen I believe the points should start a fresh each year. If we used ranking points to win our way through to certain events then a rolling points system would make sense, but as the rankings points don’t automatically take us through to the finals I think we can do without this. I think the calendar in which there are now less events, and is now better spread out both time wise and geographically will help give us an indication of who is playing well that year. That is the whole idea of the rankings isn’t it?
Double points events were used in the past as an incentive for bowlers to bowl in certain events, but in some cases the players numbers were still low yet double points remained on offer. That made the previous system flawed in my opinion. I believe in other sports, the bigger and more prestigious events carry more points on offer but in these events the field size is also greater. Maybe we could look at something like this, for example with the Masters or if an event attracts over a certain amount of entrants? Perhaps some form of points loading could be used, similar to the system I think they use in the Vic Sport Series. Your points are calculated on how many people you beat (which also means you can’t “buy” points just by travelling to all the events, you still have to beat people) but then there is an additional points bonus if you win (50%)/top 3 (25%)/make match play (10%).
In terms of the prize fund, if it is a national event I don't think the payout needs to spread out so far. If you make the finals you should be getting your money back and then some, if not well better luck next time. We are only talking about a few events a year. Spreading the payout does however benefit the state/local events and is where you will see not only the players who play the national events, but also the guys who want to get out there and have a go. I believe if we get the local/state events right (and spread the money a little more in some of these), then we will start to see additional entries in the national events. If there was a good local event say a fortnight before a national event in a state, you might see players who have played well in the local event have a go at the national event as they have some form and might have some cash and confidence? We currently have spots reserved in the Australian Masters for state winners, could we also have a spot for the number one ranked player for the Masters in the following year?
Mick and George have both commented on this thread (as they do with most), these guys are up there in the rankings – for me their opinion is worth a lot more than some people who just want to sit back in their arm chair and take pot shots from the cheap seats as the rankings don’t have anything to do with them as they have little to no interest in having a ranking..
Casual Observer
Member
your usual constructive and narrow sighted input Fitzy. Good to see. How about you quote the other posts that are off-topic. You are like a little kid. You jump on the side of whoever you think is winning and you rarely have an opinion of your own unless someone gives it to you. Grow some balls and say what you think instead of what you think others want you to say.
Michael, I don't think anyone on here has said people should get points for not bowling. I agree with you that the idea of getting points like that is a bit ridiculous.
You keep saying every sport has a ranking system. Yes they do but unlike ours they include a lot more people. We fix that by getting people to bowl tourneys.
There are 2 guys at the moment who have shown what can be done if people try instead of being negative. They have organised a $10,000 first place tourney with total prizes of roughly $37,000 and they are getting people to bowl. It looks like they will get a full field of 112 bowlers. Correct me if I am wrong but that would make it the second biggest tourney in Australia behind the masters. I believe in the second year it will be ranked.
If we had a dozen or so of these tourneys spread throughout the country then we would have enough people bowling them to get a decent sample and have a meaningful rankings system. At present we have pretend tourneys that offer little return and they get half the numbers. Spending $1000 to try and win $2000-$3000 is just not worth it.
You can't have a good rankings system based on a small number of people competing in a small number of tourneys. It just wont work.
Michael, I don't think anyone on here has said people should get points for not bowling. I agree with you that the idea of getting points like that is a bit ridiculous.
You keep saying every sport has a ranking system. Yes they do but unlike ours they include a lot more people. We fix that by getting people to bowl tourneys.
There are 2 guys at the moment who have shown what can be done if people try instead of being negative. They have organised a $10,000 first place tourney with total prizes of roughly $37,000 and they are getting people to bowl. It looks like they will get a full field of 112 bowlers. Correct me if I am wrong but that would make it the second biggest tourney in Australia behind the masters. I believe in the second year it will be ranked.
If we had a dozen or so of these tourneys spread throughout the country then we would have enough people bowling them to get a decent sample and have a meaningful rankings system. At present we have pretend tourneys that offer little return and they get half the numbers. Spending $1000 to try and win $2000-$3000 is just not worth it.
You can't have a good rankings system based on a small number of people competing in a small number of tourneys. It just wont work.
It's great what the guys have achieved with the up coming tournament in Mildura.
The challenge will be getting the same sort of prize money year after year.
It won't get ranking next year because the events for next year are out but you never know after that.
Deano
Ummmmmmmm I dont know!
Well just to say somthing about this. Its not overly hard to do especially with the Country centres in Australia. Prizemoney part has been the easiest part for us. It would definitley be harder in the city centres to do what we have done but in the close communities its quite simple. If any centres or bowlers or whoever are out there and need help to oragnise somthing like what we have here I will help out however i can. So we only have 20 odd entrys left to fill our tournament with 2 months to go. Support us and you never know it could be quite easy to set up one of these tournaments every month at different centres all over the country. As for the ranking points who knows. Ill just stick to trying to organise tournaments of the SUNRAYSIA CUP nature.
Deano
Deano
GillS
Scott Gillington
How about a ranking system where you get the same points like the current system, but instead of taking your top 4 tournaments + masters points & ending up with a 'total points' ranked system, why not have an average points ranking?
Obviously if you bowled 1 tournament & came first your 'average points' would be 100 & it wouldn't be fair or accurate. So perhaps different brackets/divisions, average points over 3-5 tournaments, 6-8 tournaments or 9+ tournaments. This would give coaches/selectors a better idea of the performance over so many tournaments.
That way, there could be a few more tournaments added to the ranking system.
I quickly put the top 25 of last years rankings in Excel & got it to work out the 'average points' & sort, a few people moved around but it may work. You would need to take out those who have bowled less than 3 events (which I didn't) but it may be a valid idea?
What are your thoughts o great ones of the world wide web?
Obviously if you bowled 1 tournament & came first your 'average points' would be 100 & it wouldn't be fair or accurate. So perhaps different brackets/divisions, average points over 3-5 tournaments, 6-8 tournaments or 9+ tournaments. This would give coaches/selectors a better idea of the performance over so many tournaments.
That way, there could be a few more tournaments added to the ranking system.
I quickly put the top 25 of last years rankings in Excel & got it to work out the 'average points' & sort, a few people moved around but it may work. You would need to take out those who have bowled less than 3 events (which I didn't) but it may be a valid idea?
What are your thoughts o great ones of the world wide web?
I suppose I better put some thought to one post on the thread....
I would like to propose a system, that rewards bowlers for the more events that they bowl, by dropping their worst results. Let me explain this by explaining the way our State Golf Stroke Average is calculated:
You must play a minimum of 10 rounds to qualify for the rankings.
If you manage to play 18 rounds, you get to drop your worst score.
If you manage to play 22 rounds, you get to drop your worst 2 scores
If you manage to play 26 rounds, you get to drop your worst 3 scores
All scores are worked on "Par", that way, if I happen to shoot 71 on a Par 72 course, I get a better result than Jeff, who shot 71 on a Par 70 course... My score was -1 while his was +1.
All scores over or under par, are then based off a Par of 72, to show the results of the averages.
I'm sure something could be worked out for the bowling rankings.
Must bowl at least 2 ranked events.
If you bowl 4 ranked events, you get to drop you worst result
If you bowl 6, you get to drop 2 ect ect.
Average out the average points, or position, or whatever.... there's your ranking positions.
Flame suit on and ready
I would like to propose a system, that rewards bowlers for the more events that they bowl, by dropping their worst results. Let me explain this by explaining the way our State Golf Stroke Average is calculated:
You must play a minimum of 10 rounds to qualify for the rankings.
If you manage to play 18 rounds, you get to drop your worst score.
If you manage to play 22 rounds, you get to drop your worst 2 scores
If you manage to play 26 rounds, you get to drop your worst 3 scores
All scores are worked on "Par", that way, if I happen to shoot 71 on a Par 72 course, I get a better result than Jeff, who shot 71 on a Par 70 course... My score was -1 while his was +1.
All scores over or under par, are then based off a Par of 72, to show the results of the averages.
I'm sure something could be worked out for the bowling rankings.
Must bowl at least 2 ranked events.
If you bowl 4 ranked events, you get to drop you worst result
If you bowl 6, you get to drop 2 ect ect.
Average out the average points, or position, or whatever.... there's your ranking positions.
Flame suit on and ready
jockey
Member
Just a reminder to everyone about our two sponsors offering accommodation. Firstly we have the Mildura Grand Hotel which is right in the middle of town close to some of our finest restaurants (15% off if you mention the tournament) (03) 5023 0511. Secondly we have Aaah! Willandra Houseboats Hire Mildura - Holiday on the Murray River (03) 5024 7770, We would really like if some of you could organize ourselves into a group and hire one of these unbelievable boats, there top of the range boat works out to be for 12 people only $458 each for 5 nights and trust me it has everything, check them out !!! . .
Ray . .
Above is a quote of a post to the Sunraysia (Mildura) tournament thread in the the VIC Tournament forum. Now we bowlers who want a tournament scene need to take serious note of it as if bowlers don't support these non bowling industry sponsors then we won't have to worry about a 'flawed' rankings system as there won't be any events to allocate rankings points to.
Here is my suggestion of what may be a possible useful idea for a new forum here on Total Bowling. I suggest a new forum as it would ensure threads for actual tournaments don't get bogged down with posts other than for entries and or squad listings.
Why not have a forum where tournament directors can place a post outlining all actual sponsors for there upcoming event. Obviously initially I am talking about ranked events but sports series directors etc could also post or events like the one at Mildura. In this way bowlers would be made immediately aware of a few important things:
1. Be able to identify any accommodation that are offering discounts to participants of the event.
2. Be able to identify any eateries that are offering discounts to participants during the event.
3. Be able to identify any other sponsors that have taken up an association with the event.
The other main purpose I envisage is for bowlers who want to bowl but would be travelling solo and are currently reluctant due to the associated costs to put up a post seeking someone to:
1. Share a room at the sponsored accommodation
2. Share a meal at the sponsored eatery
3. Share a ride (to the event, from the airport, to the bowl, to the accommodation etc.)
4. Share car hire
5. Stay in a room at a local bowlers place.
6. The list is endless but all attempts should be made to utilize as many of the sponsors during your stay as possible.
The idea is by trying to maximize the use of the sponsors offerings by the maximum number of bowlers atending the event this will have the effect of not only retaining the sponsor but helping to encourage more to come on board. There would also be the ability for bowlers who travel to the same location at a different time to the event to utilize these sponsors if it is within there budget and ensure they mention they stayed / ate and/ or hired (Car, House Boat etc.) because of the fact they sponsored that tournament. This would show them that they can benefit from sponsoring an event not just at the time of the event but hopefully right throughout the year.
There must also be a drive by the tournament directors to make it known to the locals (accommodation excluded of course) that they should where ever possible give there continuous custom to the sponsors to encourage those sponsors to stay onboard always mentioning the tournament.
Now I know this is in one way slighly hijacking this forum but this comes from my own experience of posting to a thread set up for an event asking if anyone would be interested in sharing accommodation and not getting any replies. Now it could be noone likes me, but it is more than likely that the post gets lost amongst the constant tournament entry or confirmation of deposit posts sent since I posted.
Maybe it isn't a good idea for a new forum, Jason could probably decide quickly on that, but if we want a vibrant national ranked tournament scene we badly need sponsors and this is one way to try to maximum the benefit to both sponsor and bowler and also help get people to events that might otherwise choose to stay home by helping reduce there costs enough so that they do decide to attend.
Ray . .
Above is a quote of a post to the Sunraysia (Mildura) tournament thread in the the VIC Tournament forum. Now we bowlers who want a tournament scene need to take serious note of it as if bowlers don't support these non bowling industry sponsors then we won't have to worry about a 'flawed' rankings system as there won't be any events to allocate rankings points to.
Here is my suggestion of what may be a possible useful idea for a new forum here on Total Bowling. I suggest a new forum as it would ensure threads for actual tournaments don't get bogged down with posts other than for entries and or squad listings.
Why not have a forum where tournament directors can place a post outlining all actual sponsors for there upcoming event. Obviously initially I am talking about ranked events but sports series directors etc could also post or events like the one at Mildura. In this way bowlers would be made immediately aware of a few important things:
1. Be able to identify any accommodation that are offering discounts to participants of the event.
2. Be able to identify any eateries that are offering discounts to participants during the event.
3. Be able to identify any other sponsors that have taken up an association with the event.
The other main purpose I envisage is for bowlers who want to bowl but would be travelling solo and are currently reluctant due to the associated costs to put up a post seeking someone to:
1. Share a room at the sponsored accommodation
2. Share a meal at the sponsored eatery
3. Share a ride (to the event, from the airport, to the bowl, to the accommodation etc.)
4. Share car hire
5. Stay in a room at a local bowlers place.
6. The list is endless but all attempts should be made to utilize as many of the sponsors during your stay as possible.
The idea is by trying to maximize the use of the sponsors offerings by the maximum number of bowlers atending the event this will have the effect of not only retaining the sponsor but helping to encourage more to come on board. There would also be the ability for bowlers who travel to the same location at a different time to the event to utilize these sponsors if it is within there budget and ensure they mention they stayed / ate and/ or hired (Car, House Boat etc.) because of the fact they sponsored that tournament. This would show them that they can benefit from sponsoring an event not just at the time of the event but hopefully right throughout the year.
There must also be a drive by the tournament directors to make it known to the locals (accommodation excluded of course) that they should where ever possible give there continuous custom to the sponsors to encourage those sponsors to stay onboard always mentioning the tournament.
Now I know this is in one way slighly hijacking this forum but this comes from my own experience of posting to a thread set up for an event asking if anyone would be interested in sharing accommodation and not getting any replies. Now it could be noone likes me
, but it is more than likely that the post gets lost amongst the constant tournament entry or confirmation of deposit posts sent since I posted.Maybe it isn't a good idea for a new forum, Jason could probably decide quickly on that, but if we want a vibrant national ranked tournament scene we badly need sponsors and this is one way to try to maximum the benefit to both sponsor and bowler and also help get people to events that might otherwise choose to stay home by helping reduce there costs enough so that they do decide to attend.
