Normally, lifter bores are offset to one side of the lobe. Then the combination of the offset bore, the convexity of the lifter bottom, and the taper ground into the lobe in the crosswise direction serves to make the lifter rotate as it is swiped by the lobe rotation. This serves to keep the lifter from digging into the lobe and eroding the bottom with time.
The closer the bore comes to being centered on the lobe, the less it will tend to rotate.
The Club offered some Lunati grinds that were supposed to have about twice the crosswise taper ground into the lobe in an effort to promote greater rotation even when the bore was too close to being centered.
The grooved bore is an attempt to pour more oil onto the lobe and keep it cooler/as well as minimize wiping friction.
Factory springs were quite soft and matched the factory rpm range for the combination quite well. Many reported short spring life, tho', and it became popular to replace them with LT1 springs from the early chevies. These springs are closer to 100# and may have aggravated cam wear as they are 20-25% stronger than the factor units. Using the CC 979s or the 980s (without the cup) seems to keep the pressures in line with the original intent of the factor. Using higher lift cams with the attendant higher load on the lobe nose in combination of a centered bore probably shortens life in some cases.
More oil may well help lobe life. Plenty of cam break in lube, softer springs, and a properly executed break in period probably enhances the chance of long term success.
But, then, I had #5 fail after 20,000 miles on a Comp Cam, so who knows?

I do think a worn front cam bearing which caused a drop in oil pressure was the probably culprit, but, I am not positive.