And again, I'm saying I am FINE that it is in Reno so much.  And again, lowering the requirements to bid is a SOLUTION to the problem that I don't personally care if they ever solve.  I must be the only one willing to bite the bullet on my personal preference for the greater good.  Maybe I am delusional for wanting something better for the masses.

Joe,
     You keep saying "lower the requirements" yet you can't give any examples of what should be cut. How is spouting retoric "wanting something better for the masses"??

I hope riggs will weigh in.....

Joe,

*** Deleted the part where you act like a 7 year old to spare the rest of humanity your sense of humor or whatever ignorance that was ***

    In order to run the USBC, that difference has to come from somewhere. WHERE DO YOU THINK THE USBC SHOULD GET THAT MONEY FROM?
Oh wait, you said they should cut costs....but then you complain about them cutting costs like removing awards....so you want them to cut costs....just not the costs you want them to keep, right?

Yes, you see this is how the real world works.  When you're not bringing in enough money, you have to cut costs when you cannot bring in more money.  Apparently your 7 year old knows this and you don't.  Maybe your 7 year old can teach you something.

Oh and the tournament fees going up....see the inflation thingy up above....it happens. And paying extra for prime spots.....does it cost the same to sit in the front row of a concert or sporting event as it does 2nd level? Everywhere else we pay extra for better stuff.....why is it wrong here??? Oh wait, I know, cause Joe doesn't like in this case. 

Joe doesn't care actually.  I don't bowl weekends.  See, this is where you prove post after post just how poorly you read.  NONE of this is about me.  I love Reno.  I don't bowl on weekends.  I throw my awards away.  You keep trying to make this about me; I keep bringing it back to the real issue. 

Every association in the world has to either bring in more money or spend less to continue to exist.  USBC is no different.  They have tried for YEARS to get a dues increase, but it never gets approved.  Why is that?  Could it be they aren't very efficient with the money they get now so nobody wants to give them more?  Maybe.  Personally I'd be willing to give them much more if they could prove they could spend the money effectively, but I'm not about to give more money to an organization that only exists because it was a long term financial solution to a money problem they were having before.  I'm not giving them any credit for being able to solve financial issues when they have major issues 10 years later.  Fool me once, shame on you...

So the truth is they have no choice but to spend less.  However, if their ways of spending less offend their membership, they are going to lose even more members.  So now they have even less money.  I'm still waiting for the solution from them that is actually going to solve the multitude of problems they are having.  They have to address their financial situation or they are not going to be around.  That's not a threat or some inflammatory speech, it's the truth.  Doing what they are doing isn't working.  The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result.

LOL.  God forbid anybody question the establishment.  The only way USBC can be wrong is if you wear a tin foil hat?  Once again, attacking the messenger.

Why do they care?  It's not their job to justify anything to the sponsors.  Lets say they get to 10K teams this year...do they think they are all staying at a Motel 6?  USBC shouldn't obligate teams to give the dates and locations of their members' visits in order to bowl in the tournament.  That's problem #1.  If the hotels aren't sure they are getting something for their sponsorship money, THEY should be asking their guests if they are there for bowling.

But lets even ignore that whole situation.  What the hell was the rest of your post about?  The 4 or 5 times in a 20 or so year span it wasn't in Reno or Vegas?  So?  Nobody said NO cities were bidding.  What was stated is that few cities were bidding.  USBC has said that themselves.  You know how you get more cities to bid?  You lower the requirements to bid.  But if more cities bid, USBC has to spend more money sending people and materials to other places.  That isn't cost effective since they are losing sponsorhip money as well.  So how do you stop that from happening?  Keep the same requirements for less bowlers and make it sound like cities aren't bidding.  This is the dream setup for them...more money coming in, less money going out, less money spent sending employees to various locations for months at a time.  I'm not saying I blame USBC for doing this.  It's the smart move for them, but lets not pretend bowler experience has anything to do with the decisions they are making.

I was taught a long time ago to think for myself.  Do you just blindly believe everything you're told? 

Funny, it seems that I AM thinking by not buying your line or reasoning. Or are we supposed to just automatically buy what 'ol Joe is selling, without any evidence or proof, because well, you know, 'ol Joe KNOWS all the reasons for the decisions USBC makes. Right? 

Here is a bit of a business tip for you, just in case you ever own/run a business that sells any kind of advertising(you know, like USBC). If you can show your potential advertising clients proof of the return on their investment, then it's much easier to get repeat business. Or, you can just claim it to be the case. I'm sure the word of 'ol Joe would be good enough.

By the way, I highly doubt USBC is spying on you in your hotel room. That should save you some money, tin foil is getting expensive I hear. 

One more idiot.  Go back to the misc forums where you and jorgie can troll away and leave the rest of us alone.

Awww, don't like getting your face rubbed in it?

Besides, I no longer visit the non-misc forum, so you can have that. As for who is trolling, this thread was dormant from March 11 until today. And guess who brought it back to life? Yep, YOU. So go away and hump someone else's leg.

Yawn.  I see how you handle being wrong.  Last word is yours; believe whatever you want to believe.  I've done my job.  People can either figure it out for themselves or not.  Not my problem either way.

Personally I'd be willing to give them much more if they could prove they could spend the money effectively

This is what I'm looking for in raw empirical data for ineffective spending.  I've searched and cannot find the expenses that aren't needed.

Since these are "facts", what will I be looking at in Reno that isn't necessary for my experience?

So far I have:
-Requirement to list hotels of team members.  I don't know the percentage that will save the USBC Open budget (which I'd like to see).

Again, these are facts, someone should have the verifiable proof for this.  I'm just asking to see it since I personally cannot find it.

Time is ticking away Joe......your Final Jeopardy answer must be completed soon....but since you are so limited in your comprehension, we will dispense with it being in the form of a question....in fact we would prefer it be in the form of an answer to the questions all of us have asked you.