TBA RANKINGS WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!

[bfcc]

i am sorry i offend anyone with this post but something has to be said.

the national ranking system currently in use is a complete joke , can someone tell how a tournament with 28 bowlers gets a national ranking!!! and how the winner of that tournament will get 80 points bowling against 27 other bowlers , yet the winner of a super 6 event gets 100 and beats 100+ bowlers????
the system needs to be changed i agree with the lane policy tba have brought in but there should be limit on the amount of bowlers u need to have before u get a national ranking. lets say 60 bowlers if you can't attract 60 bowlers with a $2500 top prize then the tourny shouldn't get national ranking points!!!

the way the current system works u won't get the best bowler as number 1 in the country, u will get the best bowler who can afford to bowl the most tournaments!!!!!!!!!

ps. i am not having a go at any bowler just the system in use.

 

[bfcc]

under the current points system the person that came 28th at the last tournament will recieve 10 ranking points, in the last super 6 event to recieve 10 points u had to finish between 37th-40th , that means u had to beat half the field home.. somehow this doesn't seem fair!!!!!!!

 

[milkman]

Hey bfcc,

I did make this comment to TBA when I emailed them recently about the rankings also.

I agree, I do think there should be a minimum number of bowlers participating, or maybe a percentage of points based on the number of bowlers.

Maybe they could create one standard points system, based on say 100 bowlers (which they currently have for > 85 bowlers), then multiply the total by number of bowlers in tournament / 100. So if 80 bowlers rock up for a ranked tournament, the winner will only get 80 points.

So, if more than 100 bowlers bowl, you can potentially receive more than 100 points, which also means you beat more bowlers, which means you had to work harder to win.

This way, you can go hold more than one ranked tournament on the same weekend (which may not be totally desired, but solves some of the distant issues bowlers face), but the bowler will be fully aware that the less bowlers that participate in the event, the less chance they have gaining a lot of points.

 

[wchester]

I think Cameron's onto something here....Great idea Cam!

(much better than your idea of bowling a handicap tournament while using a 166 average as a base for handicap. That will never fly.)

 

[crazzzed]

i think a percentage based system would be better than the current system. As Cameron said if you have to beat 100+ people why shouldnt you be rewarded for it.

 

[AdrianS]

Sounds more like the old Pin Action system. More players, more money equalled more points. I'm sure if the TBA got in touch with Bob Cook he'd show them how it was done.

 

[Pilko]

Why not award the points on the number of entries? 150 players then 150 points...... last gets 1 point, Then it does not matter if you have 2 people or 200 first place gets the same number of points that there is participants in the tournament and last position always gets 1 point.

The advantages of this is that it can grow with tournament numbers. If you are 10 points from winning with one major to go for the year then you know exactly how many places you need to beat that person by to win the rankings.

Some people would say that if a bowler bowls every event then they have an unfair advantage (in respect to points) but under this system it would have a lesser impact, as going to the small event to chase ratings points would not have as big an impact on the ratings.

Just an idea.

 

[CSP]

I like pilko's idea. You still can have the rolling point system but base the rankings on number of entries.

 

[Harry Copeland]

TBA Ranking What a Joke

You sometimes have to wonder who dreams up some of these schemes.

Rankings are separated into three categories to provide some equity based on age. It is therefore strange to me that Senior rankings include points for competing in Adult events.

I have no doubt that a vast number of seniors can match it with the younger bowlers. I enjoy the challenge too. If Seniors want to bowl in Adult events thats fine, but their points should go to the Adult competition, not the Seniors. Why have separate categories?

It is similar to what was said earlier, those who can afford to get around to all the tournaments (Senior and Adult) will obviously get the greater number of points. You won't necessarily get the best Senior bowler. Tad unfair I think.

 

[jockey]

Rankings:

If Adult events were not included in the Senior Ranked events then there wouldn't be a whole lot of events to include at present.

If you look into it further you will see that Adult events are also included into Youth rankings despite there being a healthy Youth national circuit.

Now I agree that this could be considered unfair by some, however it all comes down to how serious you are about the rankings.

If you want to be recognised as the best in your age group then you will simply chase those events. If you want to be recognised as one of the best in your sport then you will bowl in events when they are there.

I think that the senior or youths who choose to step in against the best bowlers in this country deserve to be rewarded for taking the chance. They may not have many opportunities locally to compete within there age groups so why should they be penalised for simply competing.

This opinion comes from one who never had the opportunity to bowl as a youth but wishes he had and whose senior bowling career is still at least 12 years away and counting.

Regards
Terry

 

[Harry Copeland]

There was never any mention of penalising those who wish to compete in the Adult events.

Field Archery had a similar rankings system to Tenpin, but it proved inequitable with the rankings going to competitors with the capacity to travel rather and gain extra points in Open competition. This ranking system was subsequently scrapped.

Other sports, Golf and Cycling to name but two, permit Senior, Masters, Veterans competitors to compete in Adult (Open) competition, but they are ranked as such. They may also compete in the Senior competition and can attain rankings in that category also.

I agree that any competitor who is serious about his sport wants to have ago against the elite. But, if there was no difference between Senior, Adult and Junior, why have separate rankings.

If a Senior bowler wants to compete in Adult competitions there is nothing stopping them from requesting separate rankings in both categories.

As I said previously, the current system will only benefit those who can afford to get to all the competitions, it may not necessarily be an indication of the best.

 

[jockey]

Valid points Harry.

I believe it is the TBA who have decided to base the Rankings on the birthdates of bowlers. Thus this filters every bowler into there correct division. Makes perfect sense and is fair for all.

However, on reflection there is a level of unfairness introduced by allowing points to be earned by bowlers in events held outside their (age) division. This unfairness is mostly regarding the question of a bowlers ability or willingness to travel or not.

There is merit in allowing bowlers to be listed in more than one of the rankings categories provided they meet the eligibility criteria (age) for the division in question.

This would ensure that the winner of each of the restricted divisions earned the title by points only earned against their fellow aged competitors. This would also allow a restricted division bowler to maybe win both their division title and also the adult division title.

Through this method their could be no question of unfairness as the only points you have are the ones that were available to you in that division you bowled in per tournament over the year.

Another good point raised by others in this thread, regarding basing the allocation of rankings points on the number of entries in the tournament (i.e. 100 entries = 100 points for winner through to 1 point for finishing last, 200 entries = 200 points for winner through to 1 point for finishing last) should also be seriously considered. This also will eliminate the unfairness of bowling in a ranked event but not earning any points as can be the case at present.

Both these suggestions may help eliminate any unfairness that have unintentionally been introduced to the current ranking system in place.

Maybe John Coxon can consider this and talk to his colleagues as to whether the introduction of these policies with regards to the current allocation of rankings points are warranted.

Let's hope common sense prevails.

Regards
Terry
It's time to be Hammer-ed!

 

[Harry Copeland]

No arguments there Terry. Common sense??? an oxymoron there!!!

Over to John Coxon and colleagues.