BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: txbowler on March 21, 2014, 11:05:22 AM
-
In reading thru the 168.3 opne avg 10 page post and several others where dues and money discussing about USBC have occurred, there are several views posted.
Here's the problem USBC faces:
Members might be willing to increase dues if you tell them where the money will go.
Here's the problem: Bowlers are selfish. They (not 100%) have a what about me mentality. If they do not approve of what USBC will use the money for, then they do not approve the dues increase.
The average common USBC member is a mixed league under 185 average bowler.
They don't care one bit about the following: (with rare exception)
1) Sport bowling
2) Support the PBA
3) The Sport of Bowling
4) The Open Championships
5) The Women's pro bowling tour
6) Youth bowling
They care about:
1) what do I get for my $5 + the increase you are asking for?
2) Why are you taking away MY awards
Most of the time when I read about what USBC plans to do with any extra money they may have, it involves some aspect of the 6 items on the list that the "AVERAGE" member doesn't care about.
Therefore, dues increases never pass.
If you ever want the average USBC member to pass a due increase, USBC has entice the member with something that benefits the "AVERAGE LEAGUE BOWLER"
-
You mean kinda like how we elect our politicians? :o :o ;D
You hit the nail exactly on the head txbowler. And I have to admit I am as guilty as everyone else. When I see the USBC posters showing how our membership fees are used, half of it doesn't apply to me personally.
Examples:
I don't have kids, so I don't care about the youth program(Yea, yea, I know, "the children are our future"), the youth already have more opportunities to bowl then I do.
I couldn't care less if USBC raises money for breast cancer research.
-
I think part of the issue is perception. The average bowler thinks those things on the list don't apply to them.....but they are only partially correct. While they may not care about youth bowling, or a Woman's PBA, or Sport Bowling, if we can increase the awareness of these things it will impact them, IMHO.
Women's PBA and even though not listed Men's PBA - if we can increase the visibility of this and make it marketable, it can attract sponsors. If bowling can get National Sponsors, they can trickle down to local sponsors (if a chain type store like Lumber Liquidators) or at the very least proprietors can show local sponsors that "look, we have these great National sponsors, we can add you to the list locally here". This means more local tournaments, or upgrades to the center, or even just keeping the open in some cases. It will apply to the average bowler if their home center has to close.
Youth bowling - If you can get a good youth program going, besides the obvious of keeping the sport alive, bringing along the next generation....it could also add adult bowlers today. If you have child, whose friends bowl and have a lot of fun in a youth league, they may decide to try it. If that childs parent(s) don't bowl, and they bring their child to the youth league/event and see that child having fun, it may inspire them to try out the sport and join a league.....viola 1 or two new USBC members. More members, less loss of services from the USBC. That effects the average bowler.
Sport bowling - while the average bowler whose 185 average in the mixed handicap league will probably never want to bowl on a Sport shot, it gives the serious bowlers a place to compete. If you have more Sport leagues, and you get the guys averaging 240 on THS to participate they may no longer bowl as many handicap fun leagues. How many people haven't joined a league because even though it's supposed to be fun, they see 2-3 guys averaging 240, a few at 230 and think they can't compete with their 160-170 average, handicap or not? Maybe I am incorrect and the number is tiny, but I think there is enough that it could make a difference in Membership numbers....now I know it won't be millions of people, but anything to get the membership numbers to go up, or stay flat is worth it. Again, the average bowler may not see a direct benefit, but it could mean more leagues for him to bowl in, more choices, better fit to their schedules. And hopefully, more money into the local centers.
That being said, and I have mentioned this in the other thread, I encourage everyone to read the 11thFrame.com blog from Riggs. In the archives, I am sure you can find the entry with his ideas around a governing body. I think his idea is brillantly simple, but I fear we will never see all the sides getting together. If you read it with an open mind, I don't see how you can not support it.
-
This is a big part of the problem. The average bowler wants to see something that affects him, and hopefully it shows a value for the amount of money he has put in. If the national's dues is $5, then he wants to see $5 of value.
And if the issue is awards and local recognition, then why doesn't the USBC lift the rule stating the local association cannot charge more than the national association. Let the local association dictate what should be provided to their bowlers based on what their bowlers want. If bowlers in Anytown, USA want to have pizza available every night they bowl, then let the association charge accordingly to provide that service. And if bowlers want rings every time they shoot an award score, then let the association handle that; the national association has already put the awards issue on their plate.
And Jorge, what does added national membership provide the local bowler?
-
Maybe the USBC should completely redo the way sanctioning is done. Have different levels of sanctioning based on the type of league you wish to join. Create divisions and regions that league winners would advance to. Those not interested in those types of leagues could have a recreational membership. Tournament bowlers have something similar to the existing sport membership. Have something built into the OC entry that includes the highest sanctioning level offered since that is the showcase event.
The problem with the PBA right now is that they are a for profit business with very little exposure. The USBC needs to straighten themselves out before they can help anyone else.
-
spmcgivern,
I see it as all cyclical. If we can show membership increasing nationally, it will help attract even more sponsors both nationally and locally. I think it would allow the USBC to focus more on providing good service and support, rather that the main focus being on stopping the ebb of bowlers year after year. That could mean more awards nationally....as a supplement to your concept. The local association may have it's own awards, if that is what the bowlers want, then a secondary national award as well, uisng the old 1 per year concept. The local awards can be as many as you earn, and this allows the National award to be something other than a trinket. Maybe it allows the USBC to do more research....to find out that the perfect handicap percentage is 93.85% to make it fair for higher and lower average of bowlers (before people complain this is just an example and by no means should it be taken as fact, lol). Right now the focus is on attracting/retaining members while having to reduce costs because of the lowering membership. It has taken their focus away from where it probably should be. All of this impacts local bowlers in the long run....which is why I said the problem is perception. It's making the local bowlers aware of what the USBC is actually doing to help them and how these programs will actually help them, even if they don't participate in them directly.
-
In some way proprietors need to be included in the mix as they are the natural liaison between bowlers and the USBC. Right now proprietors have little interest if a league is sanctioned or not because all they care about is bodies coming in the door.
-
In some way proprietors need to be included in the mix as they are the natural liaison between bowlers and the USBC. Right now proprietors have little interest if a league is sanctioned or not because all they care about is bodies coming in the door.
You are 100% correct. If you read Riggs model, it includes proprietors as well. It captures everything in one organization. One of the many reasons I like his proposal.
-
In some way proprietors need to be included in the mix as they are the natural liaison between bowlers and the USBC. Right now proprietors have little interest if a league is sanctioned or not because all they care about is bodies coming in the door.
Liaison??
I thought the BPAA owned the USBC????
-
Not every bowling center is bpaa member.
I would call them more like kissing cousins.
-
Money
How much of the National dues does it take to pay salary's and travel expenses for Executives, director's, workers that are employed by USBC? Insurance for all and don't forget retirement plans. Also upkeep on The Taj Mahal in Texas? This is just a small amount of where the money goes. One swift way to cover bonuses, wage increases and anything else they think they should do with our money was to eliminate awards. That had to save a lot of money for something else. Maybe they should have reimburse each and every association some of the National dues to help local associations take over the awards program. People are just plain getting fed up with this organization.
-
Stu was the hatchet and he just left, so there can't be too many places left where cuts can be made and still run a credible organization.
-
I see it as all cyclical. If we can show membership increasing nationally, it will help attract even more sponsors both nationally and locally. I think it would allow the USBC to focus more on providing good service and support, rather that the main focus being on stopping the ebb of bowlers year after year.
... but what makes you think that there will EVER be a reversal in the "erosion of membership" trend that has continuously spanned a period of more than three decades?
-
In reading thru the 168.3 opne avg 10 page post and several others where dues and money discussing about USBC have occurred, there are several views posted.
Here's the problem USBC faces:
Members might be willing to increase dues if you tell them where the money will go.
Here's the problem: Bowlers are selfish. They (not 100%) have a what about me mentality. If they do not approve of what USBC will use the money for, then they do not approve the dues increase.
The average common USBC member is a mixed league under 185 average bowler.
They don't care one bit about the following: (with rare exception)
1) Sport bowling
2) Support the PBA
3) The Sport of Bowling
4) The Open Championships
5) The Women's pro bowling tour
6) Youth bowling
They care about:
1) what do I get for my $5 + the increase you are asking for?
2) Why are you taking away MY awards
Most of the time when I read about what USBC plans to do with any extra money they may have, it involves some aspect of the 6 items on the list that the "AVERAGE" member doesn't care about.
Therefore, dues increases never pass.
If you ever want the average USBC member to pass a due increase, USBC has entice the member with something that benefits the "AVERAGE LEAGUE BOWLER"
Dear txbowler:
Well stated. You make many valid and logical assertions.
-
I am ok with the dues being increased. 5$ once a year shouldn't be that big of a deal guys anything to keep the BPAA from running bowling
-
I am ok with the dues being increased. 5$ once a year shouldn't be that big of a deal guys anything to keep the BPAA from running bowling
Dear mainzer:
What makes you think that BPAA isn't already running bowling?
-
I am ok with the dues being increased. 5$ once a year shouldn't be that big of a deal guys anything to keep the BPAA from running bowling
Dear mainzer:
What makes you think that BPAA isn't already running bowling?
I know the BPAA has a fair amount of control already imo not as much as the USBC does the.
If the BPAA has their way their will be no challenge left in the sport at all...
-
Dear mainzer:
A likely BPAA "takeover" will be as easy (and substantially unchallenged) as Putin's "takeover" of Crimea. A few may object to it, but nothing will (or can) be done to prevent such a happenstance.
-
Dear mainzer:
A likely BPAA "takeover" will be as easy (and substantially unchallenged) as Putin's "takeover" of Crimea. A few may object to it, but nothing will (or can) be done to prevent such a happenstance.
Maybe this is why i don't mind paying more. Better the devil i know
-
For more than the past decade, a majority of leagues in my area have been non-USBC-certified, so obviously, many of the bowlers don't feel that USBC is giving them any reason(s) to sanction.
About three decades ago, more than 95 percent of area leagues were ABC-certified, but the sanction percentage dropped off big-time, and the local association, which once contained more than 7,100 male members now has only about one-third of that membership (including both men and women in a merged association).
-
So all these non sanctioned leagues have long enough league meetings to address all the rules they need?
If you have to justify getting $20 worth of value to be sanctioned by the governing body of your activity to the participants you will never convince them it is worth it.
-
So all these non sanctioned leagues have long enough league meetings to address all the rules they need?
If you have to justify getting $20 worth of value to be sanctioned by the governing body of your activity to the participants you will never convince them it is worth it.
Dear itsallaboutme:
Personally, I never have had a problem with ABC/USBC dues, and I wouldn't have balked if the dues had doubled, but many of the bowlers I know would be opposed to any amount of dues increase.
As for your supposition of lengthy league meetings, I've never heard of that being the case (in any of those non-certified leagues), and I've never heard of a single instance of a non-certified league having a problem with a league treasurer misusing the league funds, and I am extremely well aware of most of what takes place in my bowling community.
To be fair, many of those non-certified leagues are senior leagues, and most area seniors see no reason(s) to certify with USBC. But there was a time when all of the area senior leagues were ABC-sanctioned.
-
I have been a delegate many times and have seen a lot of proposals for dues increase. It has always been tough to get them to pass. Have only been to one convention in recent years since I resigned from our local association a few years back but the one I attended as an athlete, well not much had changed. They spend more time arguing about dues than any other subject. A lot as Txbowler eluded was where is the money going, what is in it for the average bowler, how are we going to explain this when they don't want to pay the $XXX they pay now. I was there when the $20 was approved and it was a rough vote from what I recall.
I think a lot of the blame in regards to sanctioned vs. non-sanctioned leagues falls back on the center. They can say, all league in my business will be sanctioned. The bonding alone can be worth making that statement. To my knowledge all leagues in my center are sanctioned, only exception would be a 9-pin no tap that is a morning league. It is just part of our deal. I personally would not bowl any league that isn't sanctioned. I don't really like tournaments that are not either. That opinion is from being a long time league secretary and seeing leagues in our area have money ripped off by bad secretaries or presidents, if not for USBC and bonding the bowlers would have lost everything and this was a money league.
I don't like the award changes, but if they would provide finances for local associations to purchase these awards then it might be an improvement. Will be interesting as to how we put these awards in the different software packages, but I am sure it won't be that big a deal. Those awards however was one of the only things I used to point to for the average bowler on where their money went. Averages in the book, awards and the bonding, that was about all I could show them. In our case, the only real change will be the honor score change for this year, but not sure about 2015-2016 when they run out of stock from the current list of awards.
Side note on the comment about the Taj-Mahal in Texas. Txbowler and I frequent the ITRC each spring multiple times. The training and research center is nice, but its not any nicer than a lot of bowling centers. It provides a great service both for research, coaching and for those of us lucky enough to live in DFW or willing to go there a great place to practice on conditions you can't get in bowling centers. The Hall of Fame, is small and very interesting but its not huge or anything compared to what other sports spend for this type of facility, and is just part of the ground floor of the USBC / BPAA office building. The office building is a square glass box, that sits just behind 6 Flags over Texas and is an older office building and nothing fancy for sure. I design the products used on office buildings and this is just off the shelf standard stuff from back 20 years ago if I guessed. My guess is that other than the training center, probably no big improvement over what they had. Just a better location for travel and can share expenses with the other organization. Arlington where it is located really goes out of their way to get sport business to locate there..Cowboys Stadium, Texas Rangers...they love sports venues.
Personal opinion on the dues. I wouldn't have an issue with another $5 per year. I would welcome tiered memberships (pushed for them the first time they tried). I like the idea of recreational, mid-level of some sort and sport memberships. Just wish my center could do sport, but if you can't afford a $50,000 lane machine you can't do sport or PBA. The key for the increase to me is still where will the money go, if you aren't going to do awards and locals are, then I think the extra $5 should all go to the local or at least $3 of the $5.
-
You don't need a fancy lane machine to be able to apply a pattern that is sport compliant. If the center doesn't have a new lane machine it won't be plug and play like a Kegel machine and the mechanic will have some trial and error. The problem is it is time consuming and does very little to benefit the proprietor, thus one of the reasons Sport bowling hasn't caught on.
The big question I have with membership is why does the guy that bowls 5 leagues a week year round pay the same fee as the little old lady that bowls 1 league a week for just the winter season?
-
What has caused a decline in ABC/USBC memberships? I started bowling in the 60's and started working in the bowling business in 1978. The sponsors that the PBA had back 50 years ago was amazing compared to today. How much of a decline did they see after ABC became USBC? Not all members care about tournament bowling and I think as the bowling population gets older they just do it more for recreation and a form of exercise. Some tournaments that I bowl in aren't USBC sanctioned because of the calcutta they have and USBC is against even though they have brackets at Nationals! They want the locals to change handicap percentages to make it fair for all the bowlers, but they create another problem. They want handicap, but their National tournament is scratch, only they have two divisions to separate the higher average from the lower. Bowling membership has been on a decline for years and think more leagues with opt for the non-sanction type in the future. A lot of youth bowlers are in the sport because their parents make them bowl for the little bit of scholarship money they can get. We can have a debate on the fees for USBC membership till the end of time and we still won't have a solution that will make everybody happy. Maybe they could have sanctioned tournaments have a fee they send to USBC instead of making every member pay more? I don't know what the answer is or should be, but I heard our local bowlers complain about increases, but they don't bowl anywhere but our leagues!