Recently got the ABC bowling magazine and saw once again even though the delegates voted it down, Dalkins is pushing for it still. The question: Should he be able to air his views inside a magazine published by the ABC, not Roger Dalkins, without having the alternate views published? Is this abusing his power or is the ABC leadership autonomous as far as the publications go? Any one have any insight on the government of the ABC. Is it a dictatorship or representive form of government? Just ranting....

Edited on 6/3/2003 2:20 PM

Edited on 6/3/2003 2:56 PM

The best way that a single organization can increase membership is with the co-operation of the proprietors as part of the plan.  Many non sanctioned leagues are often house leagues that the local associations have to attempt to "sell" on sanctioning.  If the house chose to have every league sanctioned or decided to take the sanctioning $'s out of a increased lineage fee for the league, very few leagues would opt for the non sanctioned route.  Tiered membership based on # of weeks bowled or even type of league would also have some value.

Unfortunately, under the current system, any type of alternate membership or membership test needs to be approved by the delegates and that makes the life cycle of any type of change as long as 2 or sometimes 3 years.  This renders a national board almost powerless and ineffective.  

Stormlefty - you make so excellent points and I agree with your thinking for the most part.  There is one problem with the start combining at the top and work our way down theory.  One of the major benefits of a single organization is to the mixed league.  Sanctioning for them would become a single form and single one sanction card.  If they were to go that direction, would collects the fees?  Do they get handled by the local ABC association since it can currently sanction men and women?  Would that leave the women's association to operate only on fees generated by women's league's.  I don't know if I would want to hear the whining that would cause.

One thing that has always amazed me. There should be a rule or if there is one it should be inforced that states "any center which is sanctioned by the ABC/WIBC/YABA shall not operate any league that's bowlers are not members of the national organizations (ie: unsanctioned leagues). Penalties for operating unsanctioned leagues shall be a fine or termination of sanction until such leagues are sanctioned through the appropriate governing body." Part of the responsiblity of the center that requests and pays to sanctioned should be that they will not operate any league that has not filled for and sanctioned its members. We did have a center in the DFW area that refused to sanction and he basically was unable to get any organized, long term league program off the ground. The center is now sanctioned and my understanding is they have leagues. His newest center is sanctioned but at this time has no leagues, yet.

As far as the list of ideas. Yea, right. They would basically find themselves with no volunteers from the current local associations and no one to promote the programs. So, they would have to hire full time employees in each of the regions and would ultimately lose money. At least that is what I think would happen. On the lane condtion, don't expect any change on that in the near future. It is like the new teacher that comes into a school. You must be extra tough at first, because if you are easy you can never get tough later. The current generation will no stand for tough conditions. Not that I would not mind seeing something, heck I just wish they would enforce what we have now.

stormlefty  -  sorry if you misinterpretted the reply as "harsh".  I was actually replying more tongue in cheek.  I felt that the original version of SMO was actually a better plan, developping zones and regions with full time staffs for processing and inspections.  It also featured a flat membership program so that everyone in the country paid the same fee and that the zones and regions would work with the local volunteers to assure a consistent level of service.  Obviously that plan shattered a few to many kingdoms, and there was a huge negative reaction from a majority of locals.  

I have always believed that the proprietors should be responsible for the awards program.  In that way, if a house wants to put out an easy shot, they are financially responsible for the number of rings or trinkets that will be distributed.  The associations should be responsible for the lane and condition inspections and should give the house a rating for the lane condition(s) that it uses.  That would give us a truer basis for rating a bowler when competing in a tournament on a different condition.

I do like the theory of sanctioning per game bowled, although I believe it should be based more on schedule for the league rather than games bowled since I rarely see two leagues that handle subs / replacements the same way.  Your thinking is right, however, on continuing to pay a sanction for each league bowled since the services increase with the multiple league members.

Where I still see the biggest stumbling block is in getting the delegates to agree to make a drastic change. That appears to be one of the flaws in the current system.  Many delegates seem to develop opinions on partial truths and a limited number of facts.  They react to rumors and often have a distrust of the national boards who work at these issues on a full time basis.

I have read some articles on the concept that BPAA plans on getting much more involved and may offer some plans of its own for single membership.  That organization realizes how important this is and may get impatient waiting for the ABC and WIBC to make their move.  What they decide may soon force the issue.

Keep up the great posts, you have some great ideas that provoke others to think and debate this important issue.