I was looking for a list of coaches in my area, just being curious to who they are.

Then I found this....

http://bowl.com/TheCore/Info/

Not sure where the 8 million number comes from....

morpheus made a choice to not sanction.  Even though some may view this as having no impact, a reduction of membership should signal something to USBC.  If morpheus is the only one, then perhaps they don't worry about it.  If it is more, I guess there comes a time where they decide to do something and morpheus's exodus could be the breaking point.

With zero members there is obviously no need for USBC.  This thread has had several posts talking about how USBC only benefits the upper 1%, that it somehow doesn't benefit the average bowler.  I guess I don't see a difference between what the 1% or the average bowler should expect from their governing body.  Members need USBC to provide services, resources and standards for the sport.  USBC accomplishes this.  So what exactly does the average bowler need that USBC isn't doing already?

As for the promotion of the sport of bowling, there is an effort to do this with the reintroduction of the PWBA.  Some may not agree with USBC money initially funding this, but I bet the hope is the PWBA becomes self-sufficient.  The PWBA is garnering national attention along the way showing bowling can be a competitive sport for all people.

Even the Today Show highlighted the PWBA:
http://www.today.com/video/strike-go-inside-the-rigorous-world-of-pro-womens-bowling-612225091989

And USBC has also presented new educational concepts for the local associations.  During the mass downsizing, many local positions were eliminated.  This seems to have led to a reduction in ability at the local level which was recognized by USBC.  Seems the intent is to bring back some of those positions and improve the local image.

From the Green Bay Press Gazette (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/door-co/sports/2016/11/01/association-services-priority-usbc/93111916/):

A component of yearly USBC membership dues encompass service to bowlers via local and state associations. And these associations rely on direction and assistance from USBC, whose plans for the added revenue generated from the dues increase will be to enhance their service to these associations by adding rules counselors and regional managers.

When membership dollars declined, USBC committed to extensive streamlining and cutbacks in a measure to keep from raising dues. In addition to transferring manuals and printed material online to save printing and mailing costs, employees were also cut, including reducing the number of regional managers whose job it was to serve the local and state associations in their jurisdiction.

Once reinstated, there will be increased flexibility for travel to requesting associations who may be in flux due to board changes, to help new boards run more effective meetings, conduct seminars on national changes, etc. It’ll be a commitment to furthering communication between USBC and associations.

Rules are probably the most important element of sanctioning. It’s easy to take something so seemingly simple as this for granted, but without rules league and tournaments would be more like “pick-up” games with rules made on the fly.

Sanctioning entitles and binds league and tournament bowlers as well as bowling centers and ball manufacturers to a set of written rules governing all aspects of the game. As the sport evolves and equipment advances, rules change keeping the game as fair as possible for everyone. To this end, USBC has plans to establish rules counselors whose job it will be to aid associations and bowlers on a more effective level with proper rule interpretation.

These services will be vitally important in providing more stability to the daily operations of those entrusted to keep bowling moving forward.

So in the end, each member/potential member should look at what USBC represents and what they provide and make the decision if they want to be a part of it.  I doubt the average bowler will see a 1:1 return on their USBC investment, but it would be near impossible to achieve that.  It has to come down to perceived value in bowling as a sport.  Is the investment worthy to prevent the elimination of the sport?

Quote from: morpheus on November 15, 2016, 06:35:28 PM

I'm one of over 8 million that have departed, does that matter?

 
Like the previous poster, I'm not sure where your 8 million comes from.....
 
People come and go for hundreds of different reasons. I 'departed' for 10 years during my adult life. Family, career, and heavy involvement in youth sports left no time for bowling. It had nothing to do with the USBC, and there was nothing they could have done to lure me back. I suspect with the massive sociological changes in the 70's forward, my experience was more the norm than the exception.
 
In terms of your personal departure mattering, it would if you were leaving for practical USBC related deficiencies. Clearly you aren't. You're projecting responsibilities on the USBC that do not nor have ever existed. Responsibilities that are unreasonable and impractical. Hopefully, for your own bowling sake, you'll understand some day.

Here's a history lesson, we used to have more than 8 million sanctioned members and now we are around 1 million. I'm merely asking the organization that receives funds from each sanction to focus on retaining and acquiring members instead of running a professional tour. Again, people on this site are the 1% of 1 million members that care about the sport of bowling and while you benefit most from the "sport", you provide very little in terms of financial support relative to the rest of membership. Local associations are volunteers so who is in the best position to stop the decline? Pump money into PWBA, membership declines. Pump money into more tournaments, membership declines. Membership declines, ask for a raise to continue "current levels of service"? If they want more money, get in the game and figure out how to help local associations retain and recruit members.

Quote from: morpheus on November 16, 2016, 01:47:34 PM

Here's a history lesson, we used to have more than 8 million sanctioned members and now we are around 1 million. I'm merely asking the organization that receives funds from each sanction to focus on retaining and acquiring members instead of running a professional tour. Again, people on this site are the 1% of 1 million members that care about the sport of bowling and while you benefit most from the "sport", you provide very little in terms of financial support relative to the rest of membership. Local associations are volunteers so who is in the best position to stop the decline? Pump money into PWBA, membership declines. Pump money into more tournaments, membership declines. Membership declines, ask for a raise to continue "current levels of service"? If they want more money, get in the game and figure out how to help local associations retain and recruit members.

 
Between the Open Championships, the Senior Masters, and the Super Senior Classic, I'm handing over $1,000 in entrance fees to the USBC. If you consider that 'very little financial support' relative to the pittance of $22 that most members contribute, maybe the problem you're experiencing is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic math.   
 
You're not acknowledging the title wave of societal changes that have altered the landscape of league bowling forever. It's clearly not what it was, but it will never completely go away. Enjoy what you have and move on from the bitterness. Your exile is nothing more than an exercise in self harm that will never be rewarded with change. If you're really a bowler, bowl where it counts and enjoy the experience. Life is short.

Again, I'm glad you get so much value from the program, the vast majority do not. I am but one of thousands that quit every year and have for over three decades. Whether you like it or not, the USBC is a membership organization and they are failing the vast majority of their members by solely focusing on the "sport" of bowling that you personally benefit from...congratulations, it's killing our membership.

After some research, there is information provided by USBC to the local and state associations with the intent on increasing and retaining membership.  The information insinuates (to me) that each association is different and requires individual programs/efforts to achieve membership increases.

http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/associations/pdfs/2010-2011/Forms%20and%20Manuals/Membership/Volunteer%20mbshp%20recruit%20plan%207-14-10.pdf

This is good and may or may not meet the demands some have of USBC.  To me, it needs to be updated since it was last revised in July 2010.  Even if USBC thinks it hasn't changed, they should keep this up-to-date.

So in this sense, I agree with morpheus.  USBC should be doing a better job of guiding local and state associations in membership growth and retention.  But I also agree with USBC that the local associations are responsible for determining what works in their environment.

USBC has also included educational material for the local association with the "A Future for the Sport" program, even for volunteer recruitment and volunteer skill sets and volunteer action plans (increase volunteer base):

http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/associations/pdfs/PlanningForSuccessRECRUITMENT.pdf

http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/associations/pdfs/PlanningForSuccessSKILLSETS.pdf

There are several resources for the local association to take advantage of in order to improve its performance.  The keys are there, they just have to put them in the ignition.

With this information, will any complainers take the reins and assist the local associations in this endeavor?

Are you seriously expecting them to answer this honestly? 

Not really.  But I couldn't let it go without showing what has been done to improve membership. 

I will say it isn't intuitive finding the information.  And I doubt everyone will agree on the methods.  But to say USBC isn't doing anything isn't true either.

I know, it was more of a rhetorical question question. If they didn't have USBC to bitch about, then they would have to find something else.

Based on 30 years of membership decline, can we all agree whatever is being done isn't working?

Based on 40+ years of being a member I can confirm what is being done today is different than what was done 30 years ago.

If you think otherwise then there is no helping you.

So you have reviewed the "A Future for the Sport" and have deemed it a failure after one year?  What part of the program do you disagree with?