Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 66

At the Glendale Cash Spiel in which Balsdon and Bowser ended up in the final. Balsdon gains 4.75 and Bowser 3.35. These two teams are knocking on the door of the grand slam qualifying spots.

Meanwhile over in the Masters, every team except two got at least as many points as Bowser. Murdoch and De Cruz win 1 game each and get 3 points for their efforts which almost equals Bowser's total for an entire spiel.

I get that Bowser and Balsdon had weaker competition compared to the Slam teams and clearly the system is geared towards keeping the top teams at the top. However, I don't follow the theory behind the grand slam points being worth 10 times more than spiels like Glendale.


Balsdon would have to win Glendale 5 times just to equal the points for making the playoffs at the Slam. He'd have to win 10 Glendales to equal Gushue's output at one Slam.

For the Fed Ex cup in Golf and the majors are only worth double what the regular events are worth. Perhaps Glendale is not a regular event, and maybe it is a Nike Tour event so to speak, but it still shouldn't be worth 10 times less points.


I think the CTRS system could use a little tweaking to provide a little more turn over at 10 through 20 spots in the rankings so more teams can get into bigger events and more teams get regular experience at the slams. It would also make for better viewing so we don't have to watch the same guys for the next 15 years.

Regular spiels should award points for C final and C semi losers or for wins perhaps, even if no money is given out to those teams. Then we would have a true ranking system as even some teams that don't qualify earn points, just like half the field earns point each week on the PGA tour. I'd also like to see a system that awards money to C final losers more often so teams are encouraged to come back and don't always feel like they are just donating even if they never qualify for playoffs.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged