Thanks EH. Appreciate the kind words.
I am with you in the concept of everything you say. As I said I just see it as merely a symptom of the problem, which is minors not being on fresh.
We will never turn back the clock on technology in any major way -- these balls and oils are here to stay and everyone should just accept that. (USBC could never afford the legal fight that I'm sure they would face if they tried meaningful rolling back of technology.) That horse left the barn in 1982 or 83 when the PBA Executive Board overruled the unanimous vote of the Tournament Committee to ban urethane balls.
As an aside, I've said before I like how technological complexity has made bowling (at the sport level) more of a thinking man's game than it was when I started. The choices/adjustments are many, many times more complex than they were when we carried two balls and moved our feet a couple boards in a night.
Back on point, I don't see USBC ever going for all fresh for minors, based on a long and very friendly chat I had with a USBC official a couple of years ago. It's like this: USBC sees every one of those lanes for every squad as an economic opportunity. When one is not filled they in essence "lose" money.
To go to all fresh for minors they would have to extend the day even further, which they don't deem feasible, since bowling already goes for all but about 4 hours a day and they must have some down time for breakdowns, maintenance, etc.
Or they limit the number of teams so they can cut out one minors squad each day. Then they are faced with "losing" money due to those empty lanes. Yes you could do that and extend the tournament by a certain amount of time, but that costs money in salaries and expenses.
They could raise entry fees to cover that perhaps, but how many of the bowlwers would understand and agree to the trade-off of more money for true equity in all events? The top echelon for sure, but how many others?
I understand USBC's position but it still disappoints me because what it says is $$$$ trumps equity in deciding some of our national champions.
To take it to an extreme, I would concede that every one of my four eagles is "tainted" in a way since all of them came from events where bowlers in front of me helped determine how I did -- 1986 team, 1997 all-events, 2005 doubles, 2005 team all-events. It is one reason winning team would be so satisfying: every team starts with as close to the same environment as is humanly possible and it is up to you to make of it what you can. You CANNOT say that about doubles, singles, all-events or team all-events.
