BowlingFans.com, The site for the fans, by the fans....
Sponsored Links




ChatBox:

Sponsored Links


Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#8706 - 08/07/01 05:53 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
George Freeman Offline
League Bowler

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 70
A/S/L: Florida
A decision such as the "well considered decision" by the BPAA is precisely what holds us back. At every turn this industry seems unable and/or unwilling to unite. I'd be ashamed to be a BPAA member right now, and I know for a fact that the proprietors in my area, plus some I have heard from over the internet, are in general agreement. By not granting at least TV time, the BPAA is essentially saying, "You are not important." I don't see what else the PWBA could have done, and they are to be saluted for such an action. It's a slap in the face to every female athlete who has ever been discriminated against based soley on the fact she is a woman, and has had to work twice as hard as any male athlete to get at least half the respect they are deserved. This has set the sport of bowling back, and history will not be kind to the BPAA, nor should it be.
_________________________
George Freeman

Top
#10100 - 1 second ago Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links Online   content
Legend

Registered: Fri Aug 27 2004
Posts: 10100
A/S/L: Mountain View, CA
Top
#8707 - 08/07/01 06:00 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
bowlndiva Offline
Bumper Bowler

Registered: 03/03/01
Posts: 2
Even after reading the BPAA's version, it's pretty clear that not all proprietors agree, hence that "agree to disagree" line at the end of their statement. Indeed the proprietors I know and others I've talked to certainly wouldn't agree with the decision.

My question is this: If the BPAA sold out to the PBA, and the PBA is writing the checks for the men's side, what did the BPAA do with the money they had earmarked for the men? Couldn't they use some of that "bonus" money toward the women's event and truly turn this into the event of the century?

In a time when we're trying to unite the sport, we don't need organizations looking out for what's best for their bottom line at the expense of the other acronyms of bowling.

Top
#8708 - 08/07/01 09:38 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
George Freeman Offline
League Bowler

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 70
A/S/L: Florida
Exactly Diva, you don't further one organization by cutting the throat of another.
_________________________
George Freeman

Top
#8709 - 08/07/01 10:20 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
Bob Offline
Junior Coach

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 46
A/S/L: 46/M/Las Vegas
I must admit I just didn't understand what the issue was really about until I read this newest Right Approach, They Are Letting Them Eat Hotdogs .

Now I understand it completely and why it is discrimination against the women and not just a question of the women being (unjustly) upset about the men (who have more entries) having a larger prize fund.

This Right Approach really is a must read and should be read by or shared with anyone who still doesn't understand the hoopla.
_________________________
Bob in Vegas

Top
#8710 - 08/08/01 03:15 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
blondsquad Offline
Bumper Bowler

Registered: 08/06/01
Posts: 2
While I appreciate the attempt at the analogy to a backyard picnic, I think there is no comparison. The BPAA Board has a legal responsibility to manage its association's financial interests. It has, for the past several years, taken considerable financial hits with its administration of the Opens. Losses totaling more than $400,000 in some years. By allowing the PBA to license the men's event, BPAA gave up its income sources for the event, namely entry fees and marketing (sponsorship) opportunities. There is no $187,500 left over...that money came from the entries and sponsors. The Open, while intended to be a self-funded tournament, has never broken even and the BPAA accepted that and continued to support a quality event befitting a major. Prize funds and TV time are not the only expenses related to running a tournament and BPAA is still paying those expenses. The PWBA has a responsibility to take care of its members as well and by failing to provide BPAA with a proposal for television, even after being asked repeatedly,they have caused some of their own problems. It is not too late to get television. According to Jack Kelly during yesterday's press conference, he was told by PWBA executives just three weeks ago that ESPN had time available immediately following the men's event. Why didn't PWBA snatch that time slot up and ask the BPAA to help fund it? They can't know the answer unless they ask. It sounds to me that Someone needs to start holding the PWBA accountable for not helping themselves.

Top
#8711 - 08/08/01 03:51 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
George Freeman Offline
League Bowler

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 70
A/S/L: Florida
No offense, but it is fairly obvious that you are either an employee at BPAA HQ, or you know someone who is. This is evidenced by the fact that you are the first person I have seen that has tried to defend them at all. I understand the BPAA's need to spin this, I for one would not want to be the PR person for that association right now ROFL. The backyard picnic analogy is very clever, and fits perfectly. The bottom line is the PWBA got sold out, and even if they spin this all the way to China, it's not going to change that fact.


This isn't limited to simply female bowlers. Females everywhere should be appalled, heck, I'm a guy and I can't believe it either. It just irks me to see people get pushed around. But then again, noone has ever accused the bowling industry of common sense.
_________________________
George Freeman

Top
#8712 - 08/08/01 04:46 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
Anakin Skywalker Offline
League Bowler

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 86
A/S/L: Jedi have no need for this inf...
I'm sorry everyone, but I have to take the BPAA's side on the prize fund issue.

To me, the PWBA is out of line. The BPAA had guaranteed the same $187K to both the men and women. The PBA stepped in and upped the men's prize fund. Now the PWBA is demanding the the BPAA increase the women's? Why don't they do it themselves?

It would be one thing if the PWBA were out there trying to come up with the money and nicely asked the BPAA to help them out a little with some of the money that they don't have to spend. However, that's not what happened. The PWBA expected the BPAA kick in all the money, and demanded they do so.

Personally, they sound a bit lazy to me.
_________________________
"One day I am going to be the most powerful Jedi ever!"

Algebra for Prebowlers:
15X + 21EX = 900

Top
#8713 - 08/08/01 05:53 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
Angel Offline


Registered: 02/02/01
Posts: 401
A/S/L: F/So Cal
Jeff,

According to the BPAA's own press releases, the PBA didn't just bump up the prize funds. The PBA is paying ALL their prize fund.

And Blond,

I agree with George. You sound like you have inside information. All the public can do is look at what we've been given to read. And after reading the press releases again, and what you claim, I'm confused--if the BPAA had planned to pay $187,500 for the men, and the PBA is now paying that, please explain something to us regular folk:

Where did that money go? Surely the PBA isn't allowing the men to bowl for free. And you can't say that sponsors have disappeared (they may join the boycott, but they haven't disappeared because the PBA is paying).

As for the TV, my understanding is that if the women buy the TV, the BPAA reduces their "guarantee" (maybe the BPAA should look *that* word up in the dictionary).

If the BPAA has been losing money on this every year, the obvious question is why did they keep doing it, or why are they so concerned now? It seems the more ethical thing would be to tell the parties there would be no more BPAA involement rather than to sell out to one side.
_________________________
BowlingFans.com
Angel Zobel-Rodriguez

Top
#8714 - 08/09/01 10:23 AM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
strkes14 Offline
Bumper Bowler

Registered: 04/05/01
Posts: 1
A/S/L: Orlando/FL
Apparently you are very close to the BPAA. Why don't you tell us you exactly you are? You seem to have "inside information" that most of us don't. I am far removed from both organizations. I am merely a spectator. Here is my opinion.

The backyard analogy is EXACTLY a comparison to the situation and that is exactly what the BPAA and yourself does not get. Now, while I do agree with you in that the BPAA does not have the extra money that they do not have to spend on the men's prize fund and cannot add that to the women's prize fund, I don't agree with the television problem. As many have stated, the women do not bring in the entries and therefore cannot justify the BPAA raising the prize fund to what the PBA has put up.

Last year the US Open was held in July. This year's tournament wasn't even decided on until a couple months ago and conincidentally put into the men's schedule. From everything that I've read, the BPAA had promised airtime equal for both sides since last year, when the show was given to a different network at the last minute and the show was cut in half. Then the PBA came up with this proposal. I think the BPAA should not have accepted this proposal until it was guaranteed that both sides had equal TV time. That is what they gave their word on and then took back after a better offer came along. I understand the need to keep losses at a minimum. I stuggle with choices in my life in this regard as well. But when I give my word to someone that something will be done, I make sure it is done, otherwise they will not trust me.

This is what I see to be the main problem. The fact that the BPAA promised equal airtime and then 4 months before the tourny turn around and say "you have to find your own airtime!" doesn't show much consideration for the PWBA or portray the BPAA as very trustworthy. The PWBA is a business organization just like the BPAA. I imagine they set up their budget for the year and plan accordingly. I'm not sure how much it costs to get the finals on espn but I'm sure its not cheap. Having no money to go and buy a TV spot as soon as you find one makes it hard to secure a spot. It takes time to raise money and then you're hoping the spot is still available. And I find it hard to believe ESPN has a spot after the men's show that they would be willing to give to the women since their shows are only on ESPN2 right now.

While I agree that the PWBA has its own problems, namely having only 50 women compete in each tournament, the main problem with all of this is that the 2 tournaments are being run together. Unfortunately, the prize funds in the PBA and PWBA are far from equal. Tennis' US Open (men and women) are held at the same time and place, but they have the same prize fund and the same amount of airtime (held in different time slots). Golf's US Open are held separately and they have different prize funds (and they secure their own time slots). Apparently the BPAA needs to give the US Open back to the respective tours for next year so they each can plan the major the way they want to and not have to rely on another organization to do it (or the issues of equality due to gender).

Thanks for reading my opinion.
Crystal from Florida

Quote:
quote:

Top
#8715 - 08/09/01 02:58 PM Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open
Anakin Skywalker Offline
League Bowler

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 86
A/S/L: Jedi have no need for this inf...
Angel, it doesn't matter if the PBA is paying part or all of it.

The PWBA didn't ask for the BPAA's help in the wake of the PBA's move. It's not like they said, "We're trying to raise the prize fund as muh as we can be getting some outside sponsors, could you please help us out with some of the money that you're now not putting in the men's prize fund."

What the PWBA did was DEMAND that the BPAA take the money from there and put it in the men's prize fund. I don't know about you, but I get really angry at people who make unfounded demands to me. I can imagine how the BPAA must feel. The PWBA should get up and start trying to raise the money themselves like the men did and not demand that the BPAA give them a handout when they already DID give them a $187K handout.
_________________________
"One day I am going to be the most powerful Jedi ever!"

Algebra for Prebowlers:
15X + 21EX = 900

Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >



Moderator:  Angel, Community Manager 
Savings That Support BowlingCommunity.com
We need your help!
Rather than begging for donations we're asking you to do one simple thing to help keep these forums running smooth:
When shopping for anything on Amazon.com or eBay please use these links to go to the web sites.

This won't cost you a cent!
You'll still get the exact same low prices, deals and free or low cost shipping; it doesn't change anything for you at all! The items do not have to be bowling related; all purchases made through these links help us! Amazon.com and eBay will pay us a small commission for every sale and it's helping us cover the expenses.

BowlingCommunity.com Recent Posts
End of Days
by steveA - 10/16/19 06:00 PM
Resurface is always a thrilling topic
by BOSStull - 10/04/19 06:17 PM
Terms Of Use
Use of this community signifies your agreement to the Community Standards and Conditions of Use.

About BowlingFans.com | Contact Us | Advertise With Us | Site Map
Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. | Material Connection Disclosure

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 - usrbingeek LLC | Copyright Policy
BowlingFans.com, BowlingFans, The Right Approach, Kegler's Connection, Tour411, BallBeat, BowlingCommunity.com, BowlSearch.com, and Bowling News You Can Use are trademarks of usrbingeek LLC. All other trademarks and tradenames are property of their respective owners.