0 registered
and 6 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
#7321 - 11/30/09 12:30 PM
Re: Limit the number of bowlers at school...
[Re: footpba]
|
Duke of Earl
forum member
Registered: 02/26/07
Posts: 14
|
The sad part of all this is that the schools don't support bowling as they should because they do not see it as "revenue producing". Yet I would say differently. When you have a school where you have any number of kids coming in (especially from out of state) and the reason they picked that school is because of the bowling program, then you have created a revenue source that does not otherwise exist. While this is an interesting argument to which there probably isn't a real right or wrong answer, clearly the potential for limiting the number of bowlers also has the potential to eliminate the argument of what financial benefit the programs bring to their respective schools.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7322 - 11/30/09 12:53 PM
Re: Limit the number of bowlers at school...
[Re: Duke of Earl]
|
headdawg
forum member
Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 11
|
In my opinion, Mr. Uffman, Mr. Raymond, Mr. Kierpiec and Mr. Kubacki captured the essence of Karl's proposal at the coaches meeting. Dean, two comments on your post. First, we won't be able to grow programs if all the talent is "hoarded" by fewer and fewer schools. Second, you mentioned the success of your C and D teams. With 28 bowlers, you would still have those C and D teams. Dug, the old saying in business was "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well in the 21st century that has been replaced by "How can we continually improve". Karl is trying to be a visionary and address a potential problem that is minimal now (3 men's teams and 1 women's team exceed the 28 number), but appears to headed to a much larger issue. If that happens, it may be too late to stop the runaway train. Great discussion by everyone on the forum.
_________________________
Jeff Fleck
Wright State University
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7323 - 11/30/09 01:47 PM
Re: Limit the number of bowlers at school...
[Re: headdawg]
|
Bowlmvcc19
forum member
Registered: 02/19/07
Posts: 44
|
wow interesting subject.......
idk the answer to this question but im gonna go based off a movie i once saw called RUDY....do players on a JV squad never get moved up to varsity midseason?? If someone on your "jv" squad is putting in the hardwork and effort and they are not on your 28 person roster from the beginning of the year should they still not get a chance to dress for a tourney and possibly get a couple fill balls or baker frames to show them that their hard work is paying off??
And we had a kid this year who didnt make the first weekends cut at tryouts this year make an all tourney team which means he was not in the top 34 i believe at tryouts....he is in the bowl more than almost everyone on the team practicing and working because he saw how hard he needed to work and showed himself that the work could pay off
How about if 3 players on your 28 man roster get injured or become ineligible now you would only have a 25 man roster because you had to turn in a season starting roster of 28???
Kerp- do you ever think that these people going to school such as Sag WSU or LU come here or there to get better because of the great coaching and opportunities we have to practice at these schools??
Mr. Fleck- you say that us larger schools "hoard" the talent.....practice, watch videos of yourself improve your game then we will no longer be better than you and you will gain more players who will want to come to your school because your school will be better than ours talent wise. Do you think Urban Meyer has to work to get the best players in the country when they all wanna win a national title at florida?? many of them im sure drop right into his lap because people wanna win so therefore they are gonna go places that they see an opportunity to win at!!
_________________________
Brett Cunningham (MVCC alum)(Lindenwood)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7325 - 11/30/09 02:55 PM
Re: Limit the number of bowlers at school...
[Re: Bowlmvcc19]
|
headdawg
forum member
Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 11
|
Brett, I knew someone would misunderstand my post because I used the word "hoard". We do all those things you suggest and more to make our team members better. And we don't feel that anyone is better than us. The point I and others are making is that there is a certain amount of talent available each season. Everyone needs to work hard to try and get some of that talent. The difference between bowling and your Florida football analogy is that ALL the NCAA division 1 schools have scholarships to give. That is not true in bowling. And please remember that no one is directly blasting Lindenwood.
Edited by headdawg (11/30/09 02:56 PM)
_________________________
Jeff Fleck
Wright State University
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7326 - 11/30/09 03:32 PM
Re: Limit the number of bowlers at school...
[Re: footpba]
|
Captain Obvious
forum member
Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 61
|
Seems to me that if the rosters were limited, the talent level will even out and distribute itself better throughout the country, making things more competitive accross the board.
My vote is for the roster limitation. IMO it will make things better in the long run.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7327 - 11/30/09 03:43 PM
Re: Limit the number of bowlers at school...
[Re: headdawg]
|
VUbowl
forum member
Registered: 12/03/08
Posts: 59
|
First I want to say a huge thanks to everyone that has posted on this topic, in keeping it professional and civil so that we can have the absolutely fantastic exchange of ideas and opinions that has taken place so far.
No doubt this is a very emotional issue that really goes to the core of what college bowling is and can be. Hopefully this is providing Gary Brown and USBC Collegiate some great feedback to help them make the ultimate decision on this.
Concerning some of the recent comments, I think the most important point that needs to be remembered for this topic is that this is really a "proactive" response to something that could eventually happen. Therein lies the back and forth issue because none of us really know what the potential affect that having the rule, or not having the rule might be.
I do feel all us need to look at this, and hopefully can look at this by setting aside any personal feelings toward our own individual programs and look at it from the whole college bowling aspect.
Randy, on your comment about us already being a sport...I cant agree with you more. The problem lies, in my opinion that WE are the only ones that look at it that way. Collegiate bowling along with high school bowling IS the sport of bowling right now. What we do, or dont do on several issues, I believe is going to have a major impact on "bowling" overall through many years, not just the next few. We must figure out some means of getting the non-bowling sporting world to understand us, let alone accept us.
Even though I am a believer that our sport is different in many ways, we still must be able to look at it from an overall viewpoint in how "sports" are perceived. This is where bowling loses. Although I dont think we can change everthing about bowling, nor should we even try for some of the things that make us unique, we do have an obligation as the leaders of this segment of our industry to promote the betterment of the sport.
That particular point addresses those that feel that the monetary impact at the schools would be affected by this rule in that, if that is the only reason to not support the limit, is that really looking at the long term health of the sport? As has been mentioned a few times now, there are presently only a handful of schools that this would impact right now, thus the "proactive" nature of the rule. If a school would truly think about cutting a program's funding solely because they cant have more than 28 on their roster, is that school really going to back that program through the good times and bad...again looking at long term feasibility??
This really looks at another side of this issue that really hasnt been brought up yet. One thing that has always been a thought to me about the schools having large roster numbers and relying on that for "funding." What happens, when down the road, which it inevitably will do at some point, that school is not able to recruit the 60-80 players that they have been used to getting? And I think this IS a likelihood in some cases because at some point, bowlers will choose NOT to be on a 6th, 7th, or 8th team at a school JUST to be at that school. Will the school's program now be in jeopardy, I dont think anyone can say because it hasnt happened....yet.
Which is the whole point of a rule such as this, it in reality protects BOTH sides in providing a viable and responsible number, that represents the "sport" while giving all the programs a chance to recruit high level athletes to let their individual programs prosper.
Gary Sparks
Vincennes University
NCBCA Vice President
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7328 - 11/30/09 03:48 PM
Re: Limit the number of bowlers at school...
[Re: Captain Obvious]
|
fishe0711
forum member
Registered: 03/30/08
Posts: 43
Loc: Saginaw, Michigan
|
It takes more than talent to win a national title. At sag we dont have many scholorships and this turns away many "high talent" recruits, however every year we are right there in the mix at nationals. And that is because of the work ethic and team chemistry it takes to make it to end. and besides i dont feel a roster limit would spread out the talent. all it would do is cause those bowlers like me to get discouraged cause i got cut and quit bowling.
_________________________
Bobby "Aquaman" Fisher
S V S U
"second place is just the first loser"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#7331 - 11/30/09 04:32 PM
Re: Limit the number of bowlers at school...
[Re: town]
|
VUbowl
forum member
Registered: 12/03/08
Posts: 59
|
Ryan,
Thanks for your comments and view point. The one thing I would reply to is to reiterate the point that the rule would not require ANYONE to cut players.
In fact the very situation you cite could happen exactly the same way under the proposed rule. Brad still could have been on the roster, working on his game, developing, and trying to get his level up to the 28 "eligible" players.
If he did just that as you described, then when 2nd semester eligibility forms were submitted, he could have been added to replace another player that maybe wasnt performing, or maybe having attendance problems, academic situations, injuries etc.
This rule could actually ENCOURAGE players to try to improve their games to try to make the 28 number. It could also actually help DISCOURAGE players from just riding the wave so to speak and NOT working on their games. For example, maybe a player or two that fits into the #27, #28 positions sees other players below them working hard to make the "team," that very well could encourage them or give them the motivation to do what it takes to STAY on the 28 list rather than lose their spot.
A "win" win" situation for both the player and the team.
Gary Sparks
Vincennes University
NCBCA Vice President
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
