First of all, personally I don't care.  If it's legal, I'll bowl with it, if it's not, I won't, don't care.  I think USBC is missing a chance to differentiate recreation from sport though.  The average bowler doesn't get patterns.  Yeah the blue oil looks cool on the PBA shows, but there's no blue oil at league, so they have no basis for comparison.  You can show them lane graphs and pictures, but until they actually see it AND bowl on it, they're not going to get it or understand.  HOWEVER, it's really easy to understand the difference between college baseball players using aluminum bats and the pros using wood, and it's nothing that has to be explained to be understood.  All you have to say is that the pros have equipment restrictions, they can't use the balls that make it "easier" to score like league bowlers can, because when people see pros using the same balls they do bowling on lanes that look the same as theirs, they see no difference. 

Now the issue for the manufacturers becomes that they lose advertisement for balls that aren't legal for use on the PBA, but I really don't think the PBA has much influence on ball purchases anymore.  Literally not once in the last three years have I had anyone come into the shop and say, "I want the ball -insert random pro- won with the other day."  I could be wrong, but 10-15 years ago, that happened all the time.  Somebody would win with a ball on a Sunday, and Monday I'd have people in there wanting one.  Now it seems to be primarily consumer and manufacturer driven. 

This idea makes sense to me, continue with the current specs, but put spec restrictions on equipment for use in higher level competition.  The funny thing is it doesn't even matter, most people I know use equipment that's inside the new rumored specs anyway, not going to hurt my feelings, but it could hurt manufacturers who all the sudden lose maybe a couple ball lines, and more limited specs means more limited reactions which means more limited choices which means less revenue most likely.  There NEEDS to be a bolder line between recreation and sport, and it needs to be achieved without adjusting the recreation side. 

I asked USBC and they confirmed water is allowed and must be dried from the ball surface prior to throwing it.

Well that's a relief lol.  With the USBC assume nothing.  Still thanks for the clarification.  Its just too bad I have corrupted my arsenal for eternity because I have dared mixed SG with water and sprayed it on them in my own home to clean my own equipment.  Its ok though because the USBC is looking to phase out a good portion of my arsenal anyway because they can.  Sanction fees from me don't think so.  Be unsanctioned just for fun leagues in my near to medium term future (funny thing can find them cheaper at only $11 a week no up front fees in my area too, funny how the lanes can run them sans the USBC).  Funny thing about bowling is fun should come first at least for me.  Those big bad four digit prize checks (and only if world class lmfao) just don't have much allure for me on the holy sport side.  Keep rearranging them deck chairs on the Titanic USBC.

If they were serious about maintaining the "integrity" of the game, they would start with outlawing 2 handed and thumb-less bowling.

In most instances, the rev rates generated by these styles defiantly give the player an advantage over the traditional style bowler. The rev rates and entry angles created by this leads to massive carry in most instances.  I equate this in golf with the anchored club rule or the head-on putting rule.

In addition, when I turn on the PBA (what is left of it) and see guys winging two handed shots, doing something I cannot physically do, I just turn it off.  I can't relate. ... and I'm not alone.

 

C'mon man.

So what are the latest proposed ball specifications that USBC is sending to the  ball companies? I saw this article but I don't have a subscription to read the full story.

https://11thframe.com/news/article/10104/Ball-companies-have-until-March-15-to-respond-to-USBCs-latest-proposed

So what are the latest proposed ball specifications that USBC is sending to the  ball companies? I saw this article but I don't have a subscription to read the full story.

https://11thframe.com/news/article/10104/Ball-companies-have-until-March-15-to-respond-to-USBCs-latest-proposed

I'm not able to upload it directly here so I put it at this link:

https://www.scribd.com/document/372942166/USBC-Proposed-Ball-Specification-Changes-Letter-to-Manufacturers-Jan-16-2018

 Honestly, with all the tech work ball companies have done in the last 20 years, these changes will be little more than inconsequential.

 People have been lead to believe they need much more exotic drilling’s than they actually do. Some do need the help, but those are very, VERY few and far between.

 If people just stay calm and don’t lose their minds over this, they will soon see what I mean.

Elimination of hole for balance purposes in USBC certified competition effective August 1, 2020

That would eliminate 9 of 12 balls that I own which is not acceptable. Without some kind of grandfather clause then this will be the end of my USBC competition and membership. I will seek nonsanction play after that date.

Ok, so up to 3 ounces on statics and more more balance holes? Should be interesting