The Problem With Single Elimination PBA Matches

I wrote yesterday about how much I dislike this week's single-elimination match play format at the Go RVing Championship. I tried leaving a comment about this on Jef's Bowling Blog article about the early disappearance yesterday of Chris Barnes and Walter Ray Williams, but, for some reason, it never appeared. So I'll post it here as a concise reiteration of what I wrote yesterday. Do you agree or disagree with my point?

I've come to the conclusion that seeds and predictions in bowling are largely meaningless, especially when you're talking about professional caliber bowlers. At that rarefied level, pretty much anyone can beat anyone else at a given time.

This is even more true in single-elimination bracket matches like we see this week. I despise that format because I think it negates a key element of what makes great bowlers great--their ability to rebound from bad starts by making the right adjustments.

Barnes never had that chance yesterday because he ran into a guy who'd already fine-tuned his game to the dual pattern during the TQR and came right out of the chute with an 800 series for the last three games of the match. Poor Chris didn't have a chance, and the format prevents him, unlike the double-elimination format in the Masters, from getting a second chance, unless you count his "Chris Barnes Challenge" match against Aguiar tomorrow night.

I hope Barnes kicks butt tomorrow, and I also hope that the PBA abandons a format that eliminates some of its best players from a tournament before they've even had a chance to warm up.

PBA's Unfair Double Standard?

"Win or lose, bowling a doubles tournament is one of the funnest things I've ever done."
--Randy Pedersen

"Voss is playing today like someone has handed him a ransom note on one of his kids."
--Rob Stone

"As we've seen, crushing the pins during the week and doing it on Sunday are two different stories."
--Rob Stone

"The two of them are showing their mutual arm swing love for one another."
--Rob Stone's quip of the week regarding the compliments Brian Voss and Diandra Asbaty expressed about each other's graceful and efficient arm swings

I'm thrilled that Brian Voss and his partner Diandra Asbaty won the tournament Sunday. They bowled very well together and earned their victory, just as Jason Belmonte and Michelle Feldman earned their right to bowl for the title after the dazzling show they put on in qualifying and match play.

Voss hadn't won on the regular tour since 2006, but Sunday's victory gave him his 25th title, exempt status next season on tour if he wants it, and a sure shot of confidence in the arm to pursue his profession with renewed passion, not that he seemed lacking in passion from the get go Sunday.

About.com's bowling writer, Jef, said that even though he enjoyed the bowling, he had concerns that the Baker format might have confused and alienated bowling novices and that the PBA should go light on "gimmicky" tournaments like yesterday's. But I disagree with him about yesterday. Even though I don't care much for the Baker format, it's the only way they could have shown so many matches featuring such an impressive panoply of male and female stars, and I doubt that any ESPN bowling viewer worth keeping was befuddled or turned off by the Baker system.

But I'm befuddled about one thing. As much as I like, respect, and even revere Brian Voss, I have misgivings about crediting the winner of ANY doubles tournament with a PBA title. But, more than that, I don't begin to understand why Diandra didn't get credit too. The way I see it, if Kelly Kulick was credited with a PBA title and awarded an exemption for winning the TOC, and Brian Voss is credited with a title and awarded an exemption for winning Sunday, Diandra Asbaty darn well deserves HER PBA title and exemption too.

How do YOU feel about this?