1. You never have enough money to throw cash at bad tournaments, and even if you do, you shouldn't patronize the bad tournament because they're probably using it as a fundraiser.
2. Winnebago was bad, by the standards of good quizbowl. 17 or 18 of 20 teams there enjoyed it, from what I saw. Even then, argument from "17th place of 18 is A-OK" isn't valid.
@ Point One--I'm assuming that there's still enough money left to attend all good tournaments within whatever radius you're willing to travel. Granted, there's still the issue of saving money for Nationals, etc., but at the schools I've seen, tournament money has always been requisitioned per event (rather than getting, say, $1000 at the beginning of the year to go wherever you want), so it's not as if it's easy to plan ahead in that regard.
As for patronizing the event because it's being used as a fundraiser, I seem to be misunderstanding you--you're saying that because the team is running a bad tournament, the hosts are bad people and you shouldn't give them money because you shouldn't give money to bad people? I mean, even if you buy into the "bad Quiz Bowl = bad people" argument Matt Weiner puts forward (which is true in some but not all cases, in my mind), this seems to be going a bit far.
Also, as I mention below, nothing about Winnebago seems to be as awful as you seem to be implying.
@ Point Two--Nowhere am I saying that bad tournaments are A-OK; that said, what exactly was bad at Winnebago outside of NAQT, the blurt rule, and some issues with bonus conferral? I mean, don't get me wrong, those are all bad things that should be changed, but it doesn't make this event eligible for placement in the absolute bottom tier of Quiz Bowl ever. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if 1 is perfect and 18 is the worst possible Quiz Bowl ever, this is a 17--and that hardly seems true. Or am I misunderstanding your last sentence?