NOTE: These opinions stated by the Editor do not necessarily reflect those of The Foundation or those of The Kegel Company.

A few months ago, Bowler's Journal International announced it would be accepting nominations for their annual Top 100 Coaches. Nominations were taken over a short period of time (about two or three months) and from the entries received the Top 100 Coaches would be named.

Now I am sure that narrowing down the list was not a task to be taken lightly. There are many excellent coaches to be considered. While I may not personally be able to think of 100 of them, I can certainly name a few who I think are more than worthy of the honor of making the list.

Selection for the honor was based on criteria from a nomination form. The information included level of coaching certification (bronze, silver, gold), type of coaching (youth, professional) achievements (any honors or awards; Championships, etc) and a host of other criteria. From that information, the daunting task of selecting coaches began.

I don't pretend to know what went into selecting the coaches; I wouldn't even speculate. I would imagine that there were several thousand entry forms that were received. I would also imagine that there were far more than 100 coaches that were nominated. Considering that many coaches probably received multiple nominations, I am sure the 'selection committee' had no easy job.

In the July issue of Bowler's Journal, the top 100 coaches were announced. Now, if you were like me, you probably assumed that the coaches would be listed in some kind of numerical order; say from 1 to 100 or maybe even from 100 to 1. To me, it only seemed logical that if you are going to name the top 100 coaches that they should be ranked in some kind of order. Unfortunately, this was just not the case.

Donning the cover of the July issue was Team USA Head Coach Jeri Edwards. I recently had the opportunity to meet her during the World Ranking Masters. I also bowl with one of her sisters, Brenda (Edwards) Viator, so in a sense I feel as if I already knew her. Jeri is a truly great person. Her energy and enthusiasm are infectious and she has a passion for this sport that is simply unbelievable. I watched her as she 'coached' Diandra Asbaty and John Janawicz during the WRM and found that she really just gets it. She knows when to be a cheerleader, she gets the strategy and physical part of the game, she is a motivator and a teacher; she really is phenomenal. It was of no surprise to me that she was on the list of top coaches. In fact, since she was on the cover, this lead me to believe that she was at the top of the list. But I was mistaken.

So here I am reading through the list knowing not what coaches are 'the best'. I only know that there are 100 coaches listed. To me, this seemed more of an advertisement for 100 coaches. To say I was disappointed would be somewhat of an understatement.

I want to know who the best coach is and why he or she is considered to be the best. All this list told me is that there are 100 active coaches in the bowling industry. Why would Bowler's Journal name the top 100 coaches and then not even rank them? Is it a political thing? Did they not want to hurt anyone's feelings? Were they just trying to be nice to everyone?

I don't really know the answer to any of that but as a reader and as a student of the game, I must say that I feel really cheated. If Bowler's Journal was trying to be nice by not ranking the coaches, I think they may have been better served by just naming all of the coaches that received nominations. I really just don't see the point in their list.

Isn't it supposed to be an honor to be on the list of the top 100 coaches? If you were on the list and you were the best, wouldn't you want to see the number one by your name? Is the honor diminished somewhat by not having a ranking system? In my opinion, the honor is somewhat diminished. After all, many of these coaches have dedicated their lives to bowling and to helping bowlers to be the best. And now we can't even honor them with a proper top 100 list.

If you were a coach and you were the best, wouldn't you feel proud to be at the top? And wouldn't your students feel great about their coach being the best of the best? I know it would boost my ego a lot to go to league and say that I took a lesson from the best coach in the country; especially if I bowled well.

To me, Bowler's Journal has done an incredible injustice to the coaches on that list. Maybe some of them like knowing that they aren't ranked and maybe some of them wish they were ranked. I don't know. But I personally would like to see a ranking system. After all, we rank athletes based on their performances. Jason Couch did win three successive Tournament of Champions. It's certainly safe to say that he was at the top. Why not apply the same sort of philosophy to coaches? I know it would be a little more difficult to do so as some coaches are more visible than others but that doesn't mean that a system of some sort can't apply.

Now don't think I am asking for a popularity system either. I don't think just because a coach got 500 nominations and a coach got 12 nominations that the 500 coach is better, but I think there should be some weight given to the number of nominations that a person receives. I also think accomplishments and accolades should be considered and given proper weight. Gordon Vatikin has lead the Wichita State Shockers to numerous National Championships and Richard Shockley coached Team USA and has worked with several of the PBA's top professionals and Pat Costello has coached team USA and has built a team at the University of Central Florida and led them to compete for National Championships. Would one of these coaches be considered the best in the country based on these qualifications? Not necessarily. If one were to judge based just on these qualifications, coaches that do not work with college teams or Team USA would seem to be eliminated right from the start. But then there are coaches like Stephen Padilla and Randy Stoughton who work with hundreds of students and foreign national teams throughout the year. They work with students of all styles and all skill levels all year long. Some may say that coaches in these types of positions, that help these volumes of students, would be better candidates for the top honors. But then we might be ruling out coaches who work with Teams. It really is a 'Catch-22'.

My point is that there are many great coaches and if only so they know where they stand in relation to other coaches, I think there should be some kind of ranking system. The Bowler's Journal list really disappointed me. I waited in anticipation for the list to be published so I could see who the best is and all I got was the best of the alphabetical best.