BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: mogators on July 29, 2014, 02:56:00 PM
-
We have our league meeting coming up this week and our secretary just put out an email informing everyone of the lack of awards from USBC. People in this league (once a week bowlers who most never bowl a tournament), have argued about why we should sanction before. I feel it will be difficult to convince them to vote to sanction this year (I'm not sure I want to myself). What are some benefits to being sanctioned that would sway us to continue to be USBC sanctioned?
-
I am waiting to see what our leagues decide as well.
I am not certain, but I thought the USBC award limitations are for repeat achievements.
I understood it to be for example:
if you have had a USBC sanctioned 300, and received a ring, you can purchase it at full cost. If you have not, you will receive the ring via USBC as in previous years.
Someone with more insight please let me know.
An argument to make if you want sanction is that if an honor score is bowled in a non-sanctioned league - it will not be recognized, or rewarded (awarded).
Argument against sanction is more money towards pay out or in house awards.
-
There are very few award scores shot in this league and most of the guys capable have already done it so wouldn't get another ring anyway. We have an older guy on our team that bowls the Greater Ozark tournament every year. This is the only league he bowls in so if he didn't have a sanctioned average, I'm not sure how they would handle that. With the few guys that actually bowl any tournaments, it's hard to use that as a justification for the whole league having to pay the sanction fees. I know the other awards for things like 700 series, 250 games etc were really crappy to begin with, but they have even taken those away. I think that is going to cause the league to say, they aren't giving us anything anyway, tell them to pound sand.
-
GO used to offer the option of buying an unattached card for $7 - $8 or so.
-
I think you should call your local USBC and have them attend the meeting to clear up any questions. An informed decision for all is the best case. Don't guess about awards or other issues that might arise.
Good Luck
Bob
-
if you are a tournament bowler and plan on bowling any pba events, including regionals, you must now be a usbc card carrying member, in good standing.
-
Big one is that in sanctioning the league, the league is bonded, so the prize fund is guaranteed. Not sanctioning means putting blind trust into your league officials, with no oversight.
-
Big one is that in sanctioning the league, the league is bonded, so the prize fund is guaranteed. Not sanctioning means putting blind trust into your league officials, with no oversight.
This plus all the rules and regulations that define bowling are the main reasons that I see. Awards rank about 25th or 300th in the reasons for sanctioning. Any league or association could spend 25 cents for more awards than are given by the USBC any more. Without the rules and regulations you could have full contact bowling, 18 b. bowling balls, or any amount of nonsense going on in the middle of what used to be fun game.
-
Charlest does your sanctioned league regular check for legal ball weight, or static weights? Ive seen several times non USBC approved balls used in league. They were store bought predrilled house balls basically but for some reason are not USBC approved.
Bonding is the biggest benefit in my opinion.
-
A majority of leagues in my entire association ARE NOT USBC-CERTIFIED ... and for at least a decade, more than 50 percent of area leagues have been non-certified. So there are a lot of bowlers around here that see no reason to certify.
-
IF you have a good association the regular awards have not been eliminated, just are provided by the local association not USBC. They are given access to buy them through the same company as USBC has used or do something on their own. The once in a lifetime honor score awards are still by USBC. Bonding is a big deal and we have had large sums of money stolen in the Dallas BA before and the bonding replaced, took a little time but they got paid in the end. For those few bowlers you mentioned that bowl tournaments they will have to find another league or bowl scratch anywhere they go. They might get a one year pass since they would have an average last year, if they just go on line and buy a card from USBC but after that they will have to do something. Always liked the old tale that a bowler in a non-sanctioned league started walking half way down the lane to throw his ball. They called foul, he said prove it. They pulled out the rule book and said its right here and his reply, we aren't sanctioned that rule doesn't apply anymore....
-
IF you have a good association the regular awards have not been eliminated, just are provided by the local association not USBC. They are given access to buy them through the same company as USBC has used or do something on their own. The once in a lifetime honor score awards are still by USBC. Bonding is a big deal and we have had large sums of money stolen in the Dallas BA before and the bonding replaced, took a little time but they got paid in the end. For those few bowlers you mentioned that bowl tournaments they will have to find another league or bowl scratch anywhere they go. They might get a one year pass since they would have an average last year, if they just go on line and buy a card from USBC but after that they will have to do something. Always liked the old tale that a bowler in a non-sanctioned league started walking half way down the lane to throw his ball. They called foul, he said prove it. They pulled out the rule book and said its right here and his reply, we aren't sanctioned that rule doesn't apply anymore....
That is funny. Most non-sanction leagues use usbc rules to govern by just not usbc's fees. I still agree you want the league bonded.
-
Our association manager always liked telling that story. I really don't think it is true, but makes the point that if a rule dispute arises you have no back up to settle the problem. I have seen as a league secretary and previously an association board member more than one instance where the association had to go to a league meeting and settle rules questions. One of the areas I have used the ABC or USBC in the past was pulling sanction cards on bowlers that don't like to pay their fees. In some cases it was the local association that notified me that I had just let a bowler into my league that was banned due to such violations. I could see un-sanctioned leagues getting ripped off by bowlers that like to get behind and refuse to catch up, then you have no recourse but to not let them in next year. They can just go to another un-sanctioned league and do it again.
-
A majority of leagues in my entire association ARE NOT USBC-CERTIFIED ... and for at least a decade, more than 50 percent of area leagues have been non-certified. So there are a lot of bowlers around here that see no reason to certify.
You are mistaken, those "non-certified" leagues are not part of your association. Your association is the USBC local, the leagues are not part of USBC therefore they are not part of your local association.
-
Most leagues where I live have such a small prize fund that bonding isn't even an issue. There's really no good reason for them to certify. The house has discussed various ways around helping the few people that do want to certify (like putting them into an imaginary league using the scores from whatever night they bowl and sending it in as though they were in their own league). The house makes the calls on the rules (not that there's ever an issue there either). It's all recreation for 90%+ of the bowlers here.
-
For me, it is sort of the spare tire argument. You don't plan on having a need for the sanctioning, but when that time arrives, you are glad you did.
-
If I can quote the words of the infamous pcheee2, "bowlers are cheap!"
-
Our association manager always liked telling that story. I really don't think it is true, but makes the point that if a rule dispute arises you have no back up to settle the problem. I have seen as a league secretary and previously an association board member more than one instance where the association had to go to a league meeting and settle rules questions. One of the areas I have used the ABC or USBC in the past was pulling sanction cards on bowlers that don't like to pay their fees. In some cases it was the local association that notified me that I had just let a bowler into my league that was banned due to such violations. I could see un-sanctioned leagues getting ripped off by bowlers that like to get behind and refuse to catch up, then you have no recourse but to not let them in next year. They can just go to another un-sanctioned league and do it again.
Never thought of the individual not paying and nothing you can do about it scenario. We have at least 1 person every year that gets behind then quits. Pulling their card prevents them from doing it again to another league. We seem to go after one card a year in our association. The rules violation is also good point. Unless your league has developed their own rules to follow, what are your standards?
-
Here is another "rules" scenario that occurred in our travel league a couple of years ago.
2 teams bowling for the district championship. Winner gets into national tournament which is guaranteed at least the last place check.
10 frame last game decides the winner.
Their lead off bowler goes to bowl. Ball sticks to his thumb so bad, if flies straight up in front of him about 1 foot over his head. He steps on the foul line and catches the ball.
Is it a foul or not. Rule stated if the ball is released and you step on/over foul line a foul is recorded. And the ball came off his hand. So was that a release or not.
The captain of the team of the bowler said no foul. The opposing team captain said it is a foul.
We took it to the league secretary and president who combined have over 50 years of rules experience. Their answer. "I don't know".
The question that the rule book doesn't clearly answer is what defines a release of the bowling ball?
If this was a non-sanctioned league, someone would have ultimately made a decision, and if you were on the losing end of that decision and it was costing you money, you would have no appeal available to you. You cannot appeal to USBC, you aren't sanctioned. You are just screwed.
FYI - USBC ruled no foul. The release has not completed until the ball touches the lane beyond the foul line. Since he caught in mid-air, it was not released and therefore not a foul. Just like if a ball slips off your hand and goes backwards, that is not a release either.
-
Most leagues not interested in sanctioning are playing for a few dollars of prize fund. I know it's hard for some to believe, but there are still people out there that just bowl for fun and to hang out with friends. Prize funds are little to nothing. Rules arguments never happen because nobody cares if there was a foul or not. For those leagues (and there are a lot of them in some places), USBC certification is worthless.
-
Most leagues not interested in sanctioning are playing for a few dollars of prize fund. I know it's hard for some to believe, but there are still people out there that just bowl for fun and to hang out with friends. Prize funds are little to nothing. Rules arguments never happen because nobody cares if there was a foul or not. For those leagues (and there are a lot of them in some places), USBC certification is worthless.
JoeCool, Would that have been the case for them in any case without the recent changes USBC made that bowlers are upset about? Why didn't they go unsanctioned 10 years ago. Most of them probably haven't bowled an honor score, so they will still get their ring if they sanction. Most if not all of them don't bowl tournaments, so they have never need sanctioned averages.
That would be my discussion point back to them. Why were they willing 10 years ago to pay a few dollars to sanction when they are practically in the same position now?
-
Most leagues not interested in sanctioning are playing for a few dollars of prize fund. I know it's hard for some to believe, but there are still people out there that just bowl for fun and to hang out with friends. Prize funds are little to nothing. Rules arguments never happen because nobody cares if there was a foul or not. For those leagues (and there are a lot of them in some places), USBC certification is worthless.
JoeCool, Would that have been the case for them in any case without the recent changes USBC made that bowlers are upset about? Why didn't they go unsanctioned 10 years ago. Most of them probably haven't bowled an honor score, so they will still get their ring if they sanction. Most if not all of them don't bowl tournaments, so they have never need sanctioned averages.
That would be my discussion point back to them. Why were they willing 10 years ago to pay a few dollars to sanction when they are practically in the same position now?
Because more and more people are becoming disappointed with USBC, so less people are talking them into it when they ask the question.
For years people have not wanted to certify, but were talked into it by the few that wanted to certify (I know, I've been one of them talking people into it), the league leadership, or the center itself in some cases. Heck, I saw leagues flat out tell people they didn't have a choice when they asked about it at the meeting before the season.
As things have continued to get worse, more and more people are asking why they have to certify, and less people have good answers for them. Taking away the awards was stupid because as much as people here love to make fun of the awards, there were a lot of non-competitive bowlers that enjoyed getting "something" for their $20. Now they don't even have support from those people.
I get that all of that sounds stupid to most of us. Most of us aren't your regular league bowler either. People have always questioned why they have to certify. Now you have less people giving them reasons to do so. Honestly bowling is lucky some people ask instead of just walking away.
-
Thanks for the good discussion. Unfortunately, my efforts fell on deaf ears and I was the only captain to vote for sanctioning. On a good note, I think, since we are now basically just organized open bowling, we voted to lower our weekly fee and eliminate much of the prize money. I usually did pretty well in the prize fund so it remains to be seen how paying $4 less per week and getting less money at the end of the season plays out. I just couldn't see paying full price for a league when my scores don't count for anything.
-
Thanks for the good discussion. Unfortunately, my efforts fell on deaf ears and I was the only captain to vote for sanctioning. On a good note, I think, since we are now basically just organized open bowling, we voted to lower our weekly fee and eliminate much of the prize money. I usually did pretty well in the prize fund so it remains to be seen how paying $4 less per week and getting less money at the end of the season plays out. I just couldn't see paying full price for a league when my scores don't count for anything.
Excellent point!! And to me, the best argument for sanctioning. For what it's worth, I am just your average league bowler who has never bowled in any type of tournement. I don't really care about the awards, but if I'm bowling on a league, I want it to mean something. For instance, I've never bowled a 300 or had a 700 series, but if I do, it's nice to know that it counts for something. Otherwise you might as well be open-bowling.
-
How many rules do you have??? If any??
-
Thanks for the good discussion. Unfortunately, my efforts fell on deaf ears and I was the only captain to vote for sanctioning.
Just quoting this for the many that seem to think things like this never really happen.
-
How many rules do you have??? If any??
They basically said we are not a usbc league, but we are going to follow their rules with a couple minor exceptions.
-
How many rules do you have??? If any??
They basically said we are not a usbc league, but we are going to follow their rules with a couple minor exceptions.
This could be a potential problem.
What rules are going to be followed and what rules are not. Who decides? I have seen leagues get into heated debates over rules (both ways: too many rules or a lack of).
In my experience a Non-sanction League only works if the league chooses to have one or two people running it. These people make all decisions in the league. If you are okay with that, then it will work. Get too many chiefs then you are going to have issues.
-
One of the areas I have used the ABC or USBC in the past was pulling sanction cards on bowlers that don't like to pay their fees.
Dear Tex:
Supposedly, it's against the USBC (and formerly ABC) rules to withdraw from a sanctioned league, coupled with non-payment of league fees. BUT THAT RULE ISN'T ALWAYS ENFORCED, and sometimes, bowlers go scot-free, even after determined to be GUILTY.
I can cite the names of more than 50 bowlers in my local association who were found GUILTY of withdrawing from a league without sufficient cause and owing league fees. However, not only were the bowlers not suspended (or penalized in any way), THEY WERE GRANTED A REFUND OF A PRO-RATED SHARE OF PRIZE MONEY IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF MONEY OWED.
Ridiculous, but true.
-
You are mistaken, those "non-certified" leagues are not part of your association. Your association is the USBC local, the leagues are not part of USBC therefore they are not part of your local association.
Dear milorafferty:
To be TOTALLY accurate, they are leagues in centers CERTIFIED by USBC, and they compete in an area UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the local association. And the FACT remains that of all leagues in such CERTIFIED centers, A MAJORITY ARE NON-CERTIFIED.
-
You are mistaken, those "non-certified" leagues are not part of your association. Your association is the USBC local, the leagues are not part of USBC therefore they are not part of your local association.
Dear milorafferty:
To be TOTALLY accurate, they are leagues in centers CERTIFIED by USBC, and they compete in an area UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the local association. And the FACT remains that of all leagues in such CERTIFIED centers, A MAJORITY ARE NON-CERTIFIED.
If the league is not USBC certified, then it's not under the local USBC Association jurisdiction. It doesn't matter whether or not you capitalize. That is just a fact. In case you wanted to be "totally accurate".
-
If the league is not USBC certified, then it's not under the local USBC Association jurisdiction. It doesn't matter whether or not you capitalize. That is just a fact. In case you wanted to be "totally accurate".
Dear milorafferty:
Thanks for your attempts to nit-pick, but I stated things accurately.
I stated that those non-certified leagues bowl IN AN AREA that is under my local association jurisdiction. According to USBC, an association’s jurisdiction (sometimes referred to as its jurisdictional boundaries) is the
geographical area the association services.
Again, although the leagues have no official ties to USBC (because they didn't certify with the national organization), they do compete in USBC-certified centers and they compete within the AREA served by the local association.
Are you saying that because they aren't under the association's jurisdiction and/or area of jurisdiction, they don't exist at all? Or are you attempting to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about?
-
Now you understand my meaning perfectly.
-
I'm glad you guys got that straightened out because I was getting confused.
-
I'm glad you guys got that straightened out because I was getting confused.
You're welcome! ;D
-
I'm glad you guys got that straightened out because I was getting confused.
... but the FACT that more than half of the leagues in my area are non-USBC-certified shouldn't be confusing.
-
I know some people dislike the comparisons to golf. But one here sorta makes sense.
If a bowler has no desire to ever bowl in a tournament, bowls in a house where the house banks the league and has no worries about their money, and doesn't care if their scores are officially recognized, then not sanctioning makes sense.
Here's the golf analogy. I play golf. I keep score during my round and play by the rules. I try to beat the guys I am playing with and have a good time playing. I never have any desire to enter a golf tournament or have my score officially recorded. I don't keep track of a handicap, and I don't pay to belong to a golf association.
See where I am going here?
Now here is the question. Do I know if maybe 5 cents or 25 cents of my green fee was sent to some local, state, or national golf association where my round was "recorded". They have no idea what I shot, but they know I paid for a round of golf.
Riggs (Jeff Richgels) who is one of our sports best supporters out there, came up with an idea where instead of asking bowlers at the start of the year to pay an extra $20 to sanction their league, instead 15 cents or 20 cents of each game bowled throughout the year in "organized" play (leagues) was deducted and sent to USBC. If you bowled 3 leagues, you would pay 3 times the sanctioning of a bowler who only bowled 1 league. The small fee deducted from lineage would add up over the course of a season to equal the typical $20 sanction fee. In a 36 week league it is around 18 1/2 cents a game.
Yes proprietors would raise fees to adjust for this by probably a quarter a game to cover the cost of fee and collecting/mailing to USBC.
This way the cost of sanctioning is behind the scenes. And within a couple of years of implementation, I doubt no one would even worry about it any more.
But if presented to the bowler, that the sanctioning is being deducted from your lineage fees that you pay to the house already, and the houses (BPAA) requesting/requiring that all their leagues participate in this program.
I wonder if bowlers would care that less than 20 cents of their lineage is being used to pay sanction fees?
-
I know some people dislike the comparisons to golf. But one here sorta makes sense.
If a bowler has no desire to ever bowl in a tournament, bowls in a house where the house banks the league and has no worries about their money, and doesn't care if their scores are officially recognized, then not sanctioning makes sense.
Here's the golf analogy. I play golf. I keep score during my round and play by the rules. I try to beat the guys I am playing with and have a good time playing. I never have any desire to enter a golf tournament or have my score officially recorded. I don't keep track of a handicap, and I don't pay to belong to a golf association.
See where I am going here?
Now here is the question. Do I know if maybe 5 cents or 25 cents of my green fee was sent to some local, state, or national golf association where my round was "recorded". They have no idea what I shot, but they know I paid for a round of golf.
Riggs (Jeff Richgels) who is one of our sports best supporters out there, came up with an idea where instead of asking bowlers at the start of the year to pay an extra $20 to sanction their league, instead 15 cents or 20 cents of each game bowled throughout the year in "organized" play (leagues) was deducted and sent to USBC. If you bowled 3 leagues, you would pay 3 times the sanctioning of a bowler who only bowled 1 league. The small fee deducted from lineage would add up over the course of a season to equal the typical $20 sanction fee. In a 36 week league it is around 18 1/2 cents a game.
Yes proprietors would raise fees to adjust for this by probably a quarter a game to cover the cost of fee and collecting/mailing to USBC.
This way the cost of sanctioning is behind the scenes. And within a couple of years of implementation, I doubt no one would even worry about it any more.
But if presented to the bowler, that the sanctioning is being deducted from your lineage fees that you pay to the house already, and the houses (BPAA) requesting/requiring that all their leagues participate in this program.
I wonder if bowlers would care that less than 20 cents of their lineage is being used to pay sanction fees?
So if I bowl in one league a year and they decide not to sanction and let's say I average 190, what would be my course of action for city tournament? Would I be allowed to use a "non-sanctioned" average that will never be put in a yearbook or would I be required to bowl scratch.
-
Perfect Pro shop ... I would imagine if the secretary of that league gave a signed letter specifying your average it would be acceptable (no experience only my opinion).
TxBowler .. seems like a workable solution .. maybe more acceptable if it was tied to NO SECRETARY fees!
-
So if I bowl in one league a year and they decide not to sanction and let's say I average 190, what would be my course of action for city tournament? Would I be allowed to use a "non-sanctioned" average that will never be put in a yearbook or would I be required to bowl scratch.
Given if the city tournament was a USBC sanctioned tournament.
1- You'd most likely have to get a sanction card.
2- For average it would depend on the City Tour. Rules for entering averages. Most say if no yearbook average you bowl scratch or possibly use some set entering average like 2XX they might have.
You definitely would have to check with the Tourn. Director in advance to check the specific's for the situation.
-
I know some people dislike the comparisons to golf. But one here sorta makes sense.
If a bowler has no desire to ever bowl in a tournament, bowls in a house where the house banks the league and has no worries about their money, and doesn't care if their scores are officially recognized, then not sanctioning makes sense.
Here's the golf analogy. I play golf. I keep score during my round and play by the rules. I try to beat the guys I am playing with and have a good time playing. I never have any desire to enter a golf tournament or have my score officially recorded. I don't keep track of a handicap, and I don't pay to belong to a golf association.
See where I am going here?
Now here is the question. Do I know if maybe 5 cents or 25 cents of my green fee was sent to some local, state, or national golf association where my round was "recorded". They have no idea what I shot, but they know I paid for a round of golf.
Riggs (Jeff Richgels) who is one of our sports best supporters out there, came up with an idea where instead of asking bowlers at the start of the year to pay an extra $20 to sanction their league, instead 15 cents or 20 cents of each game bowled throughout the year in "organized" play (leagues) was deducted and sent to USBC. If you bowled 3 leagues, you would pay 3 times the sanctioning of a bowler who only bowled 1 league. The small fee deducted from lineage would add up over the course of a season to equal the typical $20 sanction fee. In a 36 week league it is around 18 1/2 cents a game.
Yes proprietors would raise fees to adjust for this by probably a quarter a game to cover the cost of fee and collecting/mailing to USBC.
This way the cost of sanctioning is behind the scenes. And within a couple of years of implementation, I doubt no one would even worry about it any more.
But if presented to the bowler, that the sanctioning is being deducted from your lineage fees that you pay to the house already, and the houses (BPAA) requesting/requiring that all their leagues participate in this program.
I wonder if bowlers would care that less than 20 cents of their lineage is being used to pay sanction fees?
So is the lineage rate the same for a short league of say, ten weeks? Or since they have to spread the sanction fee across a smaller amount of weeks it will be a larger lineage fee.
And, it's not 20 cents like you stated if the house adds a 'service fee' to collect and send in the fees, it will be as you said at least 25 cents or more depending on the house fee and the size of the leagues (I assume).
With a lineage fee method, the bowlers who bowl multiple leagues would be paying more (unless USBC has changed the way the sanctions were paid - it used to be one fee for an entire season, no matter how many leagues). And for those who bowl only a ten week league, the lineage fee added would be about a dollar per game so good luck getting bowlers to join more of those type of leagues.
What happens if the proprietor is not honest about how many league bowlers he has?
Why do we have to make something so simple so difficult or complicated?
-
Perfect Pro shop ... I would imagine if the secretary of that league gave a signed letter specifying your average it would be acceptable (no experience only my opinion).
TxBowler .. seems like a workable solution .. maybe more acceptable if it was tied to NO SECRETARY fees!
I know the answer. I would have to bowl scratch as someone would raise the question that I bowled in an unsanctioned league. I just threw it out there as another scenario. Believe me, this question has been brought up a lot lately in our area. I personally feel that sanctioning a league gives that league rules and structure. No rules, no structure you might as well be open bowling like someone stated previously. If I am going to bowl in an unsanctioned league, I would rather open bowl. I can go when I want and not be committed to 36 weeks on same night plus I do not have to pay a secretary to print a standing sheet since scores are already in the computer system.
Do I agree with the path USBC is going down? No. Do I have answers? No. I do think that if they do not address their sinking ship soon that someone will create a new body that will force them out.
-
With secretary fees. I think it depends on the league and house.
In one of the leagues I bowl, it was a 38 team league with a $75,000 prize fund.
And we got paid in cash the last night.
I have no problem with paying a secretary fee when she had to goto the bank and withdrawl 75K in cash and organize and payout everyone in exact bills.
How about the secretary of a travel league who has to drive for over an hour from her home ever month to a different center to be our secretary and she doesn't bowl in the league. Again, the fee covers her expenses and again this secretary pays us in cash at the end of the year.
Some secretaries earn their money.
Imagine, a 38 team league where you have to count money in 38 envelopes and keep track of is the envelope marked correctly. $60 due, $80 in envelope and no one marked the extra $20. You are the secretary bowling on lane 5, and the team you need to ask the question to is on lane 33. You have to walk down to the lanes and locate who put in the extra money while bowling in a competitive league.
Also, while bowling, you have over $2000 in cash and checks you are responsible for on your lanes that you have to keep track of while you bowl until you turn it in to the center for banking. Not that someone's kid would come by the team table and walk away with any cash.
No that never happens, right?