With the first half of the season concluded, I'd like to express my personal opinion on the positives and negatives of the first full year of the new PBA Tour.
Before proceeding further, kudos to Chairman of the Board Chris Peters and President Steve Miller of the Professional Bowlers Association. Peters' courage and vision resurrected the PBA Tour and transformed it from inevitable collapse to a healthy growing organization. Steve Miller, Peters' choice for guiding the ship, was stroke of genius. Miller, a former Nike dynamo, has exhibited the same fire and aggressiveness that vaulted him into one of the most successful personalities in the sports world.
Miller's office staff, headed by director of communications Beth Marshall and ably abetted by Russ Twoey and Jennifer Casey, has never been better.
Although Chris Peters and his group instituted a five-year plan for reviving the tour, the progress they have accomplished in less than two years has surpassed any envisioned expectations.
Inasmuch as the positives have far outclassed the negatives, let's begin by examining the most constructive and beneficial actions taken by the present leadership.
First of all, there's the increased prize list, featuring a minimum $40,000 winner's purse. This incentive has not only established professional bowling as a viable sport, but more important, it has lured many of the top amateurs into professional ranks, thereby increasing the membership roll beyond 3,300 players.
Second, the new PBA has succeeded in negotiating a solid television contract with ESPN. This pact not only assures bowling fans a steady slot time but, equally important, ESPN has not preempted the PBA Tour, nor has it ever failed to cover the entire program. This respect for our sport is sorely needed and appreciated.
Third, the new format has been outstanding. Although a number of players feel handicapped by the nine-game first round qualification, the 18-game qualifying score continues to determine the 32-man finals. Foremost in my opinion, the best three-out-of-five and four-out-of-seven elimination matches make a far more interesting and exciting show than the previous one-game, 30-pin bonus points of previous years.
The arena backdrop for the television show is nothing short of sensational. The sideline stands, the lighting effects, the highly visible scoreboard—the entire setting brims with excitement and professionalism.
The PBA regional program has been streamlined and continues to grow and draw entries from players who are unable to compete full time on the regular tour.
These are but a few of the new innovations concocted by the Peters-Miller team that has boosted and elevated professional bowling. Nonetheless, there are a few areas that I would like to see addressed and amended.
First, the most prestigious tournament in the history of the PBA has always been the Tournament of Champions. Once a year, this event included the title winners of each of that season's PBA Tournaments, the top title winner of the PBA regional tournaments, and filling the remaining slots were the past PBA champions who were chosen based on the number of titles they had earned.
After a year's absence, the new PBA resumed and restructured this important segment of the PBA Tour. However, despite the hoopla and supposed significance attached to this contest in the past, I feel that it has fallen short of its original intent.
I am cognizant that the new regime prefers to institute new policies and fresh ideas, such as changing the PBA National Tournament to the PBA World Championships. However, the Tournament of Champions should have retained its participation standards. It should have remained a tournament reserved for players who recorded PBA championships on the PBA Tour. Players with multiple victories should have preference over those with fewer titles, except for touring players who recorded victories during the past season. Allotting a spot in this tournament for the PBA national regional champion is prudent. Perhaps one spot for the leading senior player would not be preposterous, but three regional players and three seniors? What does that say for players with 10 to 20 titles who participate in 15 to 20 tournaments a year? After all, this is the Tournament of Champions, regardless of how old or how long ago they won, as long as they continue to bowl on the tour.
For example, Mike Aulby, with 27 titles, including the Tournament of Champions, three Masters titles, and the only player in PBA history to win all the majors, barely qualified. Others who have long established their marks but were not eligible under the present rules include:
The original Tournament of Champions featured a 48-man field. With the present list of 32 players, including five or six of the "iffy" variety, it would have enhanced the field to include these six great stars, five of whom are PBA Hall of Fame members.
Speaking of which, the other missing link in the present PBA system is the new rule for selecting PBA Hall of Famers. Although I totally agree with the new qualifications, I feel that players who barely missed on the previous ballot should have been given another opportunity to be selected instead of waiting for implementation of the new policies. Del Ballard Jr. and Randy Pedersen, two outstanding players, barely missed election in the last ballot and would have surely been elected. They were victimized by the new rule.
As it is now, no one will enter the PBA Hall of Fame for at least five years. This is due to the new rule that a nominee must be retired five years before they can become eligible.
Last but not least, I believe the four-man TV format in the recent Tournament of Champions should be instituted in all forthcoming TV shows for two very important reasons. First, a wild card qualifier has lost and should not be afforded a second chance on the basis of his won-lost record. This is not a double-elimination tournament.
Second, a four-man TV show not only features unbeaten players but also affords more time for trophy presentations. This is particularly significant for sponsors and advertisers who are in attendance. Throughout the history of the televised PBA Tour, the most depressing segments of the TV packages have been the rushing tactics towards the end of the program that did not allow sufficient time for trophy presentations and prevented any post game interviews—interviews that have become prime features in all sports.
Despite what I feel about these shortcomings, the PBA is alive and well and on the road to prosperity.
Due to the ingenuity and determination of the "new" PBA, I feel confident we will see bowling become a major sport within a few years.
ABC and PBA Hall of Famer John Jowdy is a past president of the Bowling Writers Association of America.