So I ask yet again, can USBC really be both a membership organization AND the National Governing Body?
As a membership organization, USBC is bleeding members and losing revenue. So from a financial aspect, assuming that USBC is going to reap the rewards of this decision, in the short term, I don't have a problem with the decision. But what are the ramifications? Will less teams decide to bowl the event because of these changes, consequently costing additional revenue rather than increasing it? This looks like a short term solution to a long term problem...and not one that was well thought out either. Of course, if USBC is NOT getting any additional revenue from this, then the decision is reprehensible.
As a NGB, this is absolutely the WORST decision USBC has EVER made (since USBC hasn't taken an official position on the lane dressing issue, I'll leave that WORST decision in the hands of ABC/WIBC...for now). How is this decision going to help keep/restore the integrity of the game? How can participants being able to consume alcohol while competing help elevate the SPORT? I mean, what happens if someone takes the lead in one of the events then, during the subsequent interview, praises the decision saying "I've never really done that well [in the tournament] before, but thanks to the recent change allowing me to drink...well, it was just like a league night at home, and I lit it up!"
USBC is trying to be both membership organization and NGB. I think it is becoming quite clear that they CANNOT do both. Perhaps USBC is trying to screw up so bad that BPAA will take over as the membership organization, leaving USBC to be the NGB. Of course, that may actually make some sense...so that cannot be what is happening.
