I hate these "studies" not because of anything having to do with equipment but because of what it represents.
To me, these studies represent a USBC wasting time, energy, and resources. Not focusing on bringing value to USBC membership. Not focusing on advertising or attempting to lure more bowlers to the game. Not focusing on what really matters to the 99% of league bowlers.
At first I was excited to see an accomplished and respected bowler taking over USBC. The more I watch Cad however, the more I see he's really only interested in pushing an agenda that the 1% rumble about.
That's what I think of these studies. My favorite balls have always been the lowest tier in the lineup. I love Vibes and Tropical Heats. I won't miss the super soakers. Scores were sky high in the 90s when strong reactive then is comparable to weak reactive today. Once the lane oilers catch up to the rule changes, scores will remain high. This will make no difference at all.
In the mean time leagues continue to dwindle. Members gripe about value. Many leagues go unsanctioned. Sandbagging seriously infiltrated the USBC Open last year. Those are the things that matter to me and most of us. How do we get more people bowling? Answer that question first; then we can focus on whether or not equipment is too strong, if there's too much oil, and how do we "slope rate" each house in America.
Nowadays, I open bowl practice and go to Nationals every year.
USBC Open personal bests: 226/602/1690
USBC Open career average: 174.66 (45 Games)
See you in Reno 2020!