win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Sanctioned vs. Non-Sanctioned  (Read 8659 times)

Bowlaholic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
Sanctioned vs. Non-Sanctioned
« on: November 17, 2016, 07:21:05 PM »
This past weekend I bowled a tournament at The Villages in central FL.  The Villages is a "huge" complex covering parts of four counties with a lot of retirees.
I picked up a 2016/2017 league sheet from Fiesta Bowl (one of two centers, the other being Spanish Springs who holds a PBA event each year).  Looking it over I noticed how many leagues were not sanctioned.
30 Leagues (discounted 2 because they were colored pin fun leagues). Total 28
15 or 54% were 30+ weeks; and 67% were sanctioned.
13 or 46% were less than 30 weeks; and 33% were non-sanctioned.
Of the total of 28  leagues 11 or 39% were sanctioned and 17 or 61% were non-sanctioned.
This said to me that at this house the majority of leagues are non-sanctioned, mainly due to less than a 30 week duration.
So it appears there are a lot of bowlers who are bowling, but in a non-sanctioned USBC league.  Is it because "retirees" are bowling strictly for "fun" and do not see a reason to sanction?  Perhaps?
Or is it reflective of the current trend to discard sanction bowling which resembles the downward trend of USBC membership.
Frankly, I really don't know?  This is only one of many many league schedules, so I don't know if it mirrors the same results across the entire country.  One thing is known for sure .......the USBC is shrinking, not growing.  There appears to be a lot of bowlers (Seniors) currently bowling, yet who are not sanctioned.  So how can The USBC get them back while they are still actively bowling????  Food for thought. Your comments are appreciated.


Logged

 

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24524
Re: Sanctioned vs. Non-Sanctioned
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2016, 08:19:59 PM »
I would guess that the 3 major reasons for sanctioning are not enough for many retirees to spend their limited resources on:
1. Maintenance of averages across the US.
2. Rules governing sanctioned competition.
3. Bonding of fees collected for prize funds.

As for averages, I'd guess most seniors don't move much once they've settled into the retirement phase of their lives. They probably bowl in maybe 2 or 3 houses, at the very most.

As for bonding, maybe they don't contribute much beyond the fees for bowling; they have tiny or non-existent prize funds?

As for rules, most have been bowling for 50+ years and know the rules or just bend them delicately in fun leagues.

I'd bet most of the sanctioned leagues have larger prize funds.
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2006
Re: Sanctioned vs. Non-Sanctioned
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2016, 07:03:50 AM »
The USBC can't get them back.  You can not convince someone that will complain when the free coffee isn't out on time to spend money on something such as sanctioning.
Logged

storm making it rain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Sanctioned vs. Non-Sanctioned
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2016, 07:09:08 AM »
The #1 reason for declining membership is society.  It's just not the same as it was during the glory days of bowling.  That being said I also think it's a perceived value issue.  While the cost is (for a yearly fee) miniscule, most people really don't know about benefits or care about them.  I'd venture to say that the vast majority don't know what bonding is, don't know that they can look up their averages on bowl.com, and don't know that USBC governs the rules. 

Our center has several leagues that have decided not to sanction for no other reason than saving the money.  These groups are filled with once a week recreational bowlers that won't ever bowl a tournament or bowl in any other center.  But I'll continue to pay my $0.50 per week for as long as I'm bowling (most likely till the day I die).  For me the cost is well worth what you get for it. 

Logged

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24524
Re: Sanctioned vs. Non-Sanctioned
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2016, 07:44:02 AM »
Quote from: itsallaboutme on November 18, 2016, 07:03:50 AM
The USBC can't get them back.  You can not convince someone that will complain when the free coffee isn't out on time to spend money on something such as sanctioning.

That's an unfair assumption about all seniors when only some of the very older ones CAN BE like that.
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Strapper_Squared

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
Re: Sanctioned vs. Non-Sanctioned
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2016, 07:57:55 AM »
I would say that this is simply an activity for them... they have no plans to bowl tournaments, etc.  In that case , there is absolutely no reason to joing USBC....what do you get for it?  A plastic membership card?  Plus, many others have other activities they want to do in the spring.  Quite honestly, bowling till May it's a long season!
Logged
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Pages: [1]
« previous next »