Australian Masters - triple rankings points

[GeorgeF]

Now I think the whole points, double, triple thing is getting out of hand. Why do TBA continue to do this? Do they think they will attract more bowlers? We've already proven that rankings mean nothing when it comes to team selection.

Here's another poll, do you think 'Triple and Double' rankings points should apply?

 

[Jez]

I have stated before that i do not agree with Double rankings so it is pretty obvious what i think of Triple. The best example i can give which highlights that it just doesnt make sense:

Lets just say Joe Bloggs wins Australian Open, NSW Open and Brunswick Cup, all "major" events in the eyes of Australian bowlers and all attract fairly good numbers to the events. Joe recieves 300 points for a awesome display of bowling throughout the year and a pretty dominant performance, winning three majors.

Then John Smith bowls the Nationals, bowls really well during the masters and gets few lucky breaks with the format (remember the format is elimination, meaning you do need to gets some breaks!) John earns just as many points as Joe who has won 3 majors!!!! It is crazy and doesnt make any sense. I know Nationals is meant to be the biggest event in Australia..but Triple points is just not the answer and doesnt give it any more value.

Something needs to be done with rankings..double and triple points are not the answer and results in the points not been true reflection of results.

My recommendation is points are allocated on how many bowlers u get, then the more bowlers = equals bigger tournament= more points distrubuted.

Sorry but no offence to Glen, but 200 points for Arafura with 30 bowlers!! I say no more.

 

[CSP]

Trippling the prize money rather than rankings points would attract more bowlers

 

[CHIN]

They might do that Christian after they triple the entry fee.

 

[Beanie]

My recommendation is points are allocated on how many bowlers u get, then the more bowlers = equals bigger tournament= more points distrubuted.

Here in NZ, we started doing this in 2007, as follows:

3 Grades of tournaments based on importance, Nationals being group 1, National Tour & other major events being Group 2 and other minor events being Group 3.

Base points for winning are as follows: Group 1 - 70 points, Group 2 - 60 points, Group 3 - 50 points. Points are multiplied by 2% for every entry received - so for 50 bowlers the points are doubled, for 100 bowlers the points are tripled - and are multiplied again by 50% for all bowlers qualifying for matchplay.

It's complicated, but it seems to work. The more bowlers that attend, the more points are handed out. And there is a significant drop at the 'cut' between those bowlers that make the matchplay and those that don't.

I can see the point of the TBA handing out double ranking points for tournaments with separate mens/ladies sections, but I don't agree with this point. And going to triple ranking points is just crazy - in my opinion.

David.

 

[Beanie]

Base points for winning are as follows: Group 1 - 70 points, Group 2 - 60 points, Group 3 - 50 points. Points are multiplied by 2% for every entry received - so for 50 bowlers the points are doubled, for 100 bowlers the points are tripled - and are multiplied again by 50% for all bowlers qualifying for matchplay.

Sorry I got my mathematical terms a bit confused. That should be INCREASED by 2% for every entry received and INCREASED again by 50% if you qualify for matchplay.

David.

 

[jason_doust]

Elimination formats have always and will always regarded as a bit of a raffle when compared to events which do not use elimination. This is because of the "(un)lucky break" syndrome Jarrod refers to. They are great titles to have your name against and often the best player wins, but not always.

Triple points? Not good. Let's face it, there are more prestigious events than the Masters. I can see why you'd try, but bad idea TBA. (Sorry.)

Want to attract more players to the Nationals? Scrap the outdated All Events and Masters qualifying and run a qualifying and finals event. Maybe run it on two FIQ patterns. The current masters qualifying and Rachuig ordeal is very expensive once you factor in All Events and days of accomodation. You could run one hell of a tournament for a lot less entry fee.

p.s. I like the idea of rankings points being calculated on numbers of entries. Like the old Grand Prix points. 84 entries, first place gets 84 points, second place gets 83 points et cetera...

 

[Deadman Inc]

p.s. I like the idea of rankings points being calculated on numbers of entries. Like the old Grand Prix points. 84 entries, first place gets 84 points, second place gets 83 points et cetera...

I agree. At the end of the year our National Ranking system needs to be scrapped, cleared and started all over again. The current rankings and handing out double and triple points is a farce

 

[Feral]

I agree. At the end of the year our National Ranking system needs to be scrapped, cleared and started all over again. The current rankings and handing out double and triple points is a farce

Agree. Scrap the ranking system altogether or pay for good bowlers, who can't afford to go and get points, so that the rankings truly reflect bowling ability hierachy. It's a farce - just a rich bowlers playground. Triple points? You're joking.

 

[Porto]

I'm pretty sure that the Australian Sports Commission requires us to have a rankings system in place so I don't think people should keep saying we should scrap it.
I agree it needs to be fixed... how is a good question for debate.
I'll repeat what Jez said because it's the most sensible way of fixing the rankings system,

Something needs to be done with rankings..double and triple points are not the answer and results in the points not been true reflection of results.
My recommendation is points are allocated on how many bowlers u get, then the more bowlers = equals bigger tournament= more points distrubuted.

 

[Deadman Inc]

I didn't say the Rankings should be scrapped I said the ranking SYSTEM needs to be scrapped and replaced with a new system that actually means something and is fair to the bowlers.

 

[twenban]

I am all for ranking events on the quality of the field. If you only get "x" number of top players it should not rank as high a a full field of the top 20.

And you are right you do need the rankings for Govt funding etc ...

Also Championship events should not attract many points either ...