The first thing to realize is where they get the term "#1 Participation Sport". This applies to anyone who has bowled in at least 1 game in a 1 year period. Now, if Joe Smith comes into a bowling alley on Jan 1st, bowls one game, leaves, and doesn't come back for the other 364 days of the year, is he really considered a "bowler"? In my opinion, no. Joe Smith is no more a bowler than I am a golfer (I golf maybe 4 times a year). So the whole participation sport issue really does not hold any water.
You're right about the limited exposure bowling gets in the mainstream media. One reason for this is the long standing image of what a bowler is: Beer belly, cigar chomping, a la Al Bundy from Married With Children (no offense Jeff

). In the last 10 years, there have been sporadic efforts to clean up the image... the term "bowling alley" was replaced with "bowling center", the centers were more brightly decorated, and had more to offer than just bowling, playrooms for kids, in some cases even restaurants were added, making it more "family oriented". But still the image has stuck with us. The PBA, now owned by former Microsoft exec Chris Peters, has re-vamped how the Tour is bowled, some decisions have been good, some have not. Steve Miller put it exactly right, "The PBA didn't get into trouble in one day, and Steve Miller and Ian Hamilton are not going to fix it in one day". One of the keys to fixing our image will be the PBA tour, because the tour is the only exposure that people who do not bowl will get of our sport. I'm not thrilled about the shortened season, and I'm not convinced a world tour will work in the off season, but these are decisions that have to be made. I'm sure that if a certain decision does not work, they will do something else to try to make it work. The guys from Nike weren't successful by accident, and if anyone can help the PBA, it would be those guys.