PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open

Posted by: Angel

PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/03/01 05:43 PM

Following extensive negotiations with the Bowling Proprietors' Association of America ("BPAA") on the prize structure of and broadcast time allocations for the 2001 BPAA U.S. Open, the touring players of the Professional Women's Bowling Association ("PWBA") have voted to not participate in the event, scheduled to be held December 1-9 at Fountain Bowl in Fountain Valley, California.

Bowling's U.S. Open, which is conducted by the BPAA, has been staged as a co-ed event the past three years, with an equal distribution of the prize fund contributed by then-presenting sponsor AMF Bowling Inc. and with equal television for women and men. AMF Bowling's involvement with the U.S. Open ended with the 2000 Bowling's U.S. Open.

Earlier this year, the PWBA was informed by the BPAA that it was entering into a licensing agreement with the Professional Bowlers Association for the U.S. Open that would guarantee the men a purse of $350,000 and all 90 minutes of television coverage allocated for the event, while the women's share for participating at the same venue and with the same competitive format would come to $187,500 or less with no television coverage. The U.S. Open is considered the most prestigious national championship for amateur and professional female and male bowlers in the country, and all competitors regardless of gender should be treated equally in terms of television exposure, prize funds and on-site amenities. Despite numerous attempts over the past several weeks to sway BPAA officials to this position, the inequity remains and the 2001 U.S. Open will be conducted within the above-stated parameters.

Read the complete story at:
http://www.bowlingfans.com/news08032001.shtml

.

How do you feel regarding the issues presented?
Posted by: usr bin geek

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/03/01 10:51 PM

Speaking as a proprietor and BPAA member I am shocked and outraged by the BPAA's and PBA's attitude and lack of support of the PWBA.

At every opportunity the bowling industry should act unified and supportive of each other instead of creating situations like this that lead to disunion. Furthermore, for it to have even been considered that the women should bowl in such an unequal tournament is an insult to all women everywhere.

Think about it in these terms, if the Men were all white and the Women were all African Americans I believe the BPAA/PBA would not even have considered making the same offer to the African Americans. Not only because it would be blatant discrimination but also racism. All bowlers need to be just as outraged as if that's what was done. It's 2001 and there are should be no excuses for sexism just as there are no excuses for racism.

Steve Mermelstein
Owner, Milton Bowling Center, Milton, VT

P.S. I will not be renewing my BPAA membership because of this unless the BPAA/PBA should make proper amends to the PWBA and its members.
Posted by: sebring843

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/04/01 12:25 AM

Its unfair that there is no TV for the women yet, but the PBA is putting up that money so if the PWBA wants to do that, then fine. Every year the women always have less entries than the men and have had the same number of cash spots. That's not fair either. They could fill those spots with more men but do not.

The new PBA guys can't take care of everybody.
Posted by: bowlndiva

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/04/01 12:46 AM

From the timeline I've seen, the PWBA has gone from being assured TV time to being left out in the cold with too little time to DO anything about it.

I'm assuming that the there would be no incentive money for the ladies if they don't actually BOWL on TV, right?

Which also begs the question, in the dual-pro families are the men bowling or joining the boycott?
Posted by: The Fish Bowl

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/04/01 11:59 AM

This all sounds like a lot of unnecessary whining. The women tour should more aggressively seek sponsors and pay their own way instead of relying on the BPAA or PBA to make up for their shortcomings. On the other hand, they shouldn't have been excluded from TV.
Posted by: George Freeman

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/04/01 12:32 PM

This was an error in judgement on the part of the BPAA. As far as the purse goes, I don't have a problem with that. Let's face it, there are more men's entries than women's entries, so by the laws of physics, the money should be less for the women. However, to deny the women TV exposure is ridiculous. Basically what the BPAA is saying is that the women aren't important, and that nobody would want to see them bowling for a major title. I for one would definately want to see equal time on TV for the ladies.

Should dual pro couples have their male counterparts join in the boycott? Well, this is the primary source of income for some of these families, and for those under contract one of the stipulations might be that they bowl the major tournaments, so in that case I would say they should bowl. That may sound confusing (I dont think I'm explaining myself very well on that LOL), but it's just my opinion.
Posted by: thehopeless_1

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/04/01 03:02 PM

I agree with freeman on this subject with the purse and the television time. They should allow the women more time on television and less money then the men until the women could get more entries.
Posted by: AMFBOB

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/04/01 05:19 PM

I agree with Steve M., 100%!!! When will all these bowling organization's become united? Instead all they do is fight with each other and nothing gets accomplished. It reminds me of the local mens leagues in our area, still in the "Stone Ages", by not letting women in their bigtime "scratch" leagues! Proprietors should take a long hard look at what the BPAA is doing here by aligning with the PBA and cease paying BPAA dues if things stay the way they currently are. I'll be glad to donate to the PWBA fund, hopefully thousands of others will do the same. Maybe some sponsor will step up to the plate and the PWBA can hold the event at another venue this year.
Posted by: bowlmeover300

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/06/01 05:09 PM

If more propieters have the guts to take a stand like Steve M. the BPAA will be forced to see how unfairley the Womens event has been treated and that there members care.

I think the prize fund difference is unforunate but the women never fill there end and the men have a waiting list to get in. The amount of money recieved back in the way of entries to the BPAA is significantly different. Although that is not how the prize funds were based on in the past. My understanding is the PBA added the money to the men's prize fund to bring it up to their new standards for a major and it still is a major for the men.

The real crime is the TV coverage. The women were sold down the river as not worthy of TV. The PBA has some real power behind it now and the BPAA didn't have the guts to stand up for them. What does this say about the new PBA that they wanted the women cut out of the TV show in the first place. Why did the BPAA let the PBA determine the format for the MEN'S BPAA US Open.
Shame on all of them.

As for the boycott all PWBA members touring or not that desire to keep membership in good standing will be unable to bowl because they intend to put a code of ethics violation in place for bowling in any tournament where men and women are not treated equally where prize funds are concerned. So not only can last years US Open Women's Winner not defend her title the field won't be of a major tournament strength.

How sad that our bowling organizations can't find the means to work fairly together. This could just take bowling down a couple of more notches and drive away mores fans, supporters, sponsors, ETC. This can't be good for the industry.

What about the proprietor who signed on for the men and women's US Open what is he getting. Proprietors who are willing to take on these types of events are few and far between.

HOW SAD!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: blondsquad

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/06/01 06:01 PM

It is my understanding that both the men and the women were given equal opportunity to secure television coverage and that the BPAA agreed to assist in the funding of the women's television coverage (the men are paying their own expenses). However, no proposal was ever submitted by the PWBA even though its been indicated that a specific time period for the women's broadcast was available. Let's not villainize the proprietors. Make sure you have all the facts before you pass judgement on what I'm sure was a difficult and well-considered decision by the BPAA. It is unfortunate that the women's tour has not been able to secure the sponsorships and funding needed to run the tour to the degree that they would like, but they can't expect the BPAA or the proprietors or the manufacturers to bail them out. Would they prefer the men lower the prize fund for the PBA players and hold the industry back completely?
Posted by: George Freeman

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/07/01 05:53 PM

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.
Posted by: bowlndiva

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/07/01 06:00 PM

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.
Posted by: George Freeman

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/07/01 09:38 PM

Exactly Diva, you don't further one organization by cutting the throat of another.
Posted by: Bob

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/07/01 10:20 PM

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.
Posted by: blondsquad

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/08/01 03:15 PM

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.
Posted by: George Freeman

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/08/01 03:51 PM

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.
Posted by: Anakin Skywalker

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/08/01 04:46 PM

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.
Posted by: Angel

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

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.
Posted by: strkes14

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/09/01 10:23 AM

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:
Posted by: Anakin Skywalker

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/09/01 02:58 PM

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.
Posted by: George Freeman

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/10/01 10:30 AM

I agree with Jeff on the money issue, I've never felt the women should have as big a prize fund as the men. Not because they are women, but because there aren't as many of them in the tournament. In a morally correct world, yes, the BPAA should explain where all the money has gone, and why the money has become an issue for them. But this isn't a morally correct world unfortunately, and it IS the BPAA's tournament (well, now that the PBA bought it, it is theirs, but technically it is still the BPAA's), and they can do what they like. That leaves the PWBA with either rolling over and taking it, or doing something about it. The BPAA should have set aside time on TV for the women. They say the PWBA can't get funding, how are they supposed to be able to do so if they can't get exposure...I mean, this isn't rocket science.

No matter what excuses are given, the bottom line is going to be that the BPAA is going to lose face. I've already heard talk that some members aren't going to re-sign. That's an economics lesson even they will be able to understand, and the sad thing is it could have all been avoided.
Posted by: beamer01

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/11/01 02:14 PM

I understand the position the lady professionals are taking, but I also watched the last swing they bowled. It appears as if they are having a problem convincing the public that they are professionals. I for one did not enjoy seeing participants just give up! No that I am saying that this happened but this is the way it appeared to some fans. But my big complaint was why for the first 4 or 5 tournaments the bowlers appeared to stand in the same spot and play the same line! I maybe alone in my assumptions, but it looked like a case of self murder. With only 3 or 4 pros able to hit the shot. To me this is not competitive as much as selective. It looked as if it was a commercial for those who went to sebring for lessons. In any case the quality of the show took a nose dive. I hear so much talk these days about overpaying athletes. I would like to know just how entertaining the PWBA feel the shows were. With this said I do believe there should be some way to include the PWBA in the US open!! I was under the impression that the job of all of these alphabet organization was to expand the sport of bowling. If this is true then maybe someone will suggest that all parties sit down and negotiate terms for PWBA participation. I think they all should remember the quote about the toes you step on way up!! eek
Posted by: ZFAM14

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/12/01 01:47 PM

It seems that the organizations are not atempting to deal with the sport as a whole. Bowling is really in trouble. You cannot make comparisons to golf or tennis because their stars are all well known. I don't follow golf at all but I know of Annika Storestam and Karrie Webb. And most people know that Martina Hingis, Monica Seles and the Williams sisters are tennis pros. Bowling has an image problem, and because of this the BPAA, PBA and PWBA should realize that in unity there is strength. They need to work together and come to a common ground. When ABC Television dropped bowling, the handwriting was on the wall. The CBS year was a sham. The organizations need to utilze their resources. I'm not going to take any sides in the boycott. I just feel that these organizations really need each other. The PBA has to realize that just because they have a little more money they really don't have it made in the overall scheme of things.
Posted by: Bigdogoo1

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/12/01 02:28 PM

Exactly; Blondsquad, Without the entries and sponsor money how can the BPAA (which is supported by membership dues) possibly come up with that kind of money. The PWBA need to check there own agenda in keeping pace with the PBA, instead of expecting someone else to do it for them. Attempting to encrease membership would probably be a good start
Posted by: ricklpbt

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/13/01 09:25 AM

I am informed on this subject, I do work for the BPAA, and having traveled with the PWBA for five years I feel that I am qualified to address the issue. It is really a shame the top women bowlers might miss the biggest pay day of the year and hopefully the television issue will be resolved in the coming weeks. The prize fund issue will not be resolved since the PWBA management doesn't have the extra money or a business plan other than "begging for dollars" through a political action group. You can look at the PWBA tournament prize funds, number of entries, and corporate partners (or lack of) that the PWBA has this year and you can see that they are not very healthy. In fact the only thing that keeps them from being sold is finding someone with the money to step up to the plate.

Angel, In you editorial you mention the $187,500 that BPAA will save by not supporting the mens prize fund. The BPAA lost the marketing rights to the mens US OPEN when it was licensed to the PBA so there isn't an extra $187,500 just laying around.

The proprietors know that approximately 50 per cent of the bowlers are women and care about their customer base, but do you know how many of these women are in the 170 and above average catagory? How can you offer equal prize money when you have 240 men and only 150 women? Can you name one tournament that does that? In qualifying tournaments for the amateur spots the men out number the women at least 10 to 1. The past 3 years the women couldn't fill the 180 lady field and last year had 150 entries.

Timing regarding the television is a problem that we must share the blame and if the PWBA management will work with the BPAA it can be resolved. I truly believe that all of the women want to bowl and some will bowl regardless of the PWBA position. We will have a great event in Fountain Valley California and a deserving bowler will be crowned the 2001 US OPEN champion.

Thanks,

Rick Ramsey
Posted by: Anakin Skywalker

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/13/01 02:35 PM

Rick - your input is appreciated and I agree with it totally.

It is too bad about the TV issue. After all, that is where marketability comes from. I hope you are right and it will be resolved. I think maybe the PBA got a bit selfish on that one, but still maybe the BPAA should have insisted on the women being part of the TV show. It is reasonable to assume that the BPAA knew what the ramifications were going to be if the women's TV was taken away.

I do have one question though. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, but I'm just a bit confused. The BPAA was going to get the $187,500 (that Angel says the PWBA should have given to them) from the marketing rights to the Open, however those licensing rights were transferred to the PBA. My question is what the BPAA received in return. I understand about confidentiality, however it would seem to me that the BPAA wouldn't just hand those rights over to the PBA unless they file they were getting something back. Is all they got in return the relief from having to market at all or was there a monetary payment as well?
Posted by: out2bowl

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/13/01 02:49 PM

Rick Ramsey,

I, too, am informed on this subject. I'm one of the PWBA members involved.

You made the comment as many others have that the women don't fill their field. This tournament prize fund is NOT based on entries. If it were, we could not argue the aspects of it. The point of our argument is that we are bowling "with" (in the same center and at the same times) the men. This is absolute discrimination. BPAA is showing that there concerns are for the men and women get whatever is left over. Every tournament I've been to that had men and women bowling together, treated us as equals. They offered no "extras" to men or women.

You say the BPAA doesn't have $187,500 laying around from what they are saving on the men's side, but aren't they still taking all the sponsor money they've received? Or is that all going to the men as well?

We offered BPAA several "other" options so the money factor would not be such an issue. PWBA, as well as anyone else, is aware that we don't have the money to support a $350,000 prize fund.
1 - We asked BPAA to still advertise as an equal $187,500 prize fund and offer the additional $162,500 as added bonus based on position for the men. They said that was an option and obviously decided not to go that direction.
2 - We asked BPAA to let us add some of our own money to the $187,500 on the women's side to increase the prize money. They said no, if we added money, it would need to go to their bottom line.
3 - We asked BPAA to seperate the tournaments and let us hold it at one of our already scheduled venues with tv time secured. They said no, they would lose approximately $50,000 in sponsor money if they did and that would have to come out of our prize fund.

PWBA asked BPAA not to accept PBA's offer as a matter of principle. BPAA responded that, although they were sorry about the inequity, this was a financial deal they had to accept. So, they are aware of and chose to ignore the inequity.

The U.S. Open is BPAA's event not PBA's or PWBA's to pay for or manage.
Why are they allowing women to be treated unfairly?
Would they have allowed the men to be treated this way?
Why are they expecting PWBA and PBA to pay for tv time?
In one year's time have they forgotten that this is a televised event and all of the obligations that go along with that?

I'm truly upset about missing the U.S. Open. It was a tournament that I was looking forward to bowling. I wish that all parties involved could realize how this can hurt bowling in general. We are standing together at this time in an effort to improve bowling for women in years to come. Will it be the "right" decision? We won't know until some time in the future. We are just doing what we feel is the best we can do. Right or wrong, all we really want is not to be different because we're women. We, just as everyone else, don't deserve that.
Posted by: dr. detroit

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/13/01 04:47 PM

to diva

i asked jack kelly that question of switching the men's 187000 to the women and his reply was that that money didn't actually exist. It would have come partly from tv advertising had the bpaa retained control of broadcast rights. no broadcast rights, no money. the women's money will presumably come from a general fund and create a deficit as would a portion of the men's money. therefore, the BPAA won't increase the deficit by shifting the earmarked and now nonexistent men's fund
Posted by: ricklpbt

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/13/01 08:45 PM

Dear out2bowl,

Please allow me to correct a few of your comments;

1. The PWBA was told that the BPAA would guarantee $187,500 on a full field of 240 bowlers. The same size field as this years mens field. What has changed---The PBA is responsible for funding the cost of the mens portion of the tournament and the BPAA will pay $187,500 in prize money for the women regardless of the number of entries. This was said prior to the Terre Haute vote.

2. AMF did a wonderful thing when they stepped up and sponsored the event for 3 years when both tours were struggling. What has changed---The PBA has new owners who have committed financially to revive the PBA and the PWBA struggles more than ever. If the PBA is successful the lady pros will benefit from their success.

3. Bowling in the same Bowling Center gives the lady pros a chance to showcase their talents and improve the product. It also gave bowling a unique situation that no other sport has. I think it is safe to say that this is the last year of a joint event and you can probably expect a smaller prize fund in 2002 for the women.

4. The PBA has the right to market the mens portion of the event and get the revenue generated. The BPAA does have some marketing rights for local and regional sponsors which could help offset the financial committment to the womens portion of the event. How much money do you think the BPAA should invest (lose) on the Womens US OPEN?

Addressing your points 1,2,and 3;

What sport do you know that would advertise equal prize money and offer a bonus for either the men or women? Do earnings mean anything in Bowler of the Year races? I'm not sure why anyone would ever consider this option.

Your second comment about added prize money is again a little of base and in fact I asked John Sommer, during a conference call,last week if he was prepared to apply the "begging for dollars" money to the prize fund and he would not commit to do so. Who will get that money?

Please read the article written by Matt Fiorito that was printed in the BJ cyber report. He did an excellent job and I think he understands the facts. Matt has always given the women equal space and I think he has taken the emotions out of the issue and wrote a truthful article.

I am also amazed that someone would think that the ladies haven't received equal treatment at the tournament sites the past 3 years. If anything they have received more than the men. I often get accused of being biased for the ladies which doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the position we find ourselves in today because the PWBA went public with an issue that could have been easily resolved. How can we turn this negative into a positive for the game?

Since you are an informed PWBA bowler what do you think about the reduced prize funds, long travel between tournaments, and less manufacturer support on the PWBA Tour? I would also be glad to discuss this issue with you on the phone. I have no hidden political agenda.

Thanks for taking an honest look at the big picture.

Rick Ramsey
Posted by: George Freeman

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/13/01 08:57 PM

If the BPAA lost rights to the US Open, I guess it isnt the BPAA US Open anymore. It's the PBA US Open.

If the money didnt actually exsist, why did they promote it as such?

I too emailed Jack Kelly, and got pretty much the same spin I read in the press releases.

Did the BPAA consciously sit down and say, "OK, let's sell out the women completely and not care what they or the public thinks."? Of course not. However, this is what ultimately has happened.

The idea that the $187,500 never actually existed is a new one to me though. I was wondering what would come next....
Posted by: Bob Rutkowski

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/14/01 01:36 AM

Boy there is a lot of opinons about the PWBA here. So heres mine the woman can go to **** for all I care. Woman are never equal in any sport and that includes Bowling. Lets see Tennis men play 5 sets woman 3; golf woman hit form much shorter tees then the men; basketbaall men play 48 minutes woman 40; bowling is what a 56 game tournanment for men woman 42. So show me where the equality is. There is none. Let the woman go out and find someone to bank roll their side of the US Open like the men did and then they be happy.But I guess no one want to put up the money Because no cares about womans bowling. I see that the woman have been using the sport shot in their events but scores havent changed that much. Must be a different type of sport shot for the woman then the men. Also if the open is ABC sanctioned can't the woman bowl on the mens side. Oh they wouldnt want to do that becaused they proably get their *** kicked by not just the Male Pros but also the Male Amatures.
Posted by: George Freeman

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/14/01 05:50 PM

Ok, I'm just going to ignore that last post, cause there wasn't anything there to comment on.

As far as the BPAA losing the TV rights to the US Open, let's be realistic. The BPAA didn't "lose" anything. They sold the TV rights, right along with the rest of the tournament. They were compensated very nicely for this, so to say they lost anything is a poor choice of words at best.

In the end, it's the women that lost.
Posted by: bowlergirl300

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/14/01 10:52 PM

Mr Bob,

I would just like to inform you of a few facts that you may have overlooked!!!

Fact: The PWBA has been bowling on the patterns that the PBA will be bowling on in the fall. The only PBA bowlers that have been bowling on the sport patterns are the PBA Southern region.
Fact: The current PWBA format is 42 games, so is the past PBA format(they will start a new elimination format this fall, which they could potentially bowl less than 32 games to get to the tv finals). So where is your quality issue justified?!?! confused

I am curious if you know what a "SPORT" condition is. I am sure that you are missinformed. If you think that there are different patterns for men and women, you are clearly mistaken. Please quote the exact definition of a Sport pattern, if you can. If you don't know, you can find out at bowl.com
I am curious to know...Will you be bowling the US Open? I will be there and I for one would love to watch you flail on the "SPORT" pattern. I will be looking for you name starting at the bottom of the sheet!!! laugh

See you there!! :rolleyes:
Posted by: Bob Rutkowski

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/15/01 01:30 AM

It's not about weather or not I can bowl on the sport pattern, I can and have, its a matter of woman wanting a free ride again. the PBA has put up the additional funds for their side of the Open .I'm just saying let the woman find their own sugar daddy and not sponge off the men. Let's face it woman are not equal at all things. Ratings are what drives money flowing into a event weather it be bowling or the superbowl. And womans bowling really doesn't attract enough viewers to attract a sponsor. Isn't that why Sams town got out of the pwba because they weren't geting a sufficent return on their investment. I bet there are alot of ametures who really hope the woman go through with this for it will really make for a exciting open.
Posted by: Iron Chef

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/15/01 11:20 PM

It seems to me that the BPAA or PBA should assist the PWBA find air time and help fund it BECAUSE they decided to leave them out without giving the women enough notice.

Shame on them!
Posted by: mbelanger

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/16/01 01:01 PM

Quote:
quote:


careful there bowlergirl...some people get confused when presented with facts smile

What too many people that responded negatively in different forums have overlooked is that there is more at stake than just the prizefund. Those that are not willing to look beyond the front page dollar sign aren't ever going to get it. Many of those are also likely the ones that start whining when a competent woman bowler wants to join a predominantly mens scratch league...

I'm still waiting for the response from ESPN about where the 'contiguous' 90-minutes availability came from since I have also been told that the men requested additional time and were told it was not available.

Oh...and I'm curious Bob...just how did you fare on the sport condition, and which of the myriad patterns that satisfy the requirements did you bowl on?
Posted by: Bob Rutkowski

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/16/01 07:13 PM

I do bowl in a league that was all male till few years ago when we let woman bowl with us, in fact she bowls on my team. i have no problem with woman bowling I have a problem with woman wanting equality when equality dosent exist on te same level for all. I have bowled on all 3 sport conditions and agv very well.
Posted by: George Freeman

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/17/01 04:30 PM

Quote:
quote:


Well, 1st of all, there are more than just 3 sport patterns, many more.

2nd of all, "very well", is very vague. But of course, since there is no way of checking up on it, there really isnt a point to it is there?
Posted by: Community Manager

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/17/01 07:24 PM

This thread is for the discussion of the PWBA Touring Players Voting To Sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open. wink

If you would like to continue the discussion on Sport Bowling please see the thread, Bowling's Savior or Foe? in the Leagues, Sport Bowling, & US Bowling Assoc. Forum. smile

Any further off topic posts in this thread will be removed. Please read our Community Standards regarding message board participation and for more information on what is appropriate in our community.

We anticipate your understanding and look forward to your future participation in our community discussions! laugh
Posted by: BowlingFanscom

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/22/01 02:40 PM

The PWBA and BPAA have reached a tentative agreement.

Read the complete story at: http://www.bowlingfans.com/news/news08222001.shtml
Posted by: usr bin geek

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/22/01 03:22 PM

It's very good to hear that the BPAA and the PWBA have come to an agreement.

However, I still believe that the bowling industry should act unified and supportive of each other instead of creating situations like this that lead to disunion. To this end, The BPAA should have never permitted the PBA to take control of the their own event and which through their "improvements" excluded the women from having equal parts in it (especially in terms of the TV time).

Even though it appears the BPAA is trying to make amends I question if they are worthy of supporting through my renewal of membership. The question should not be what will be the best way for the BPAA to save some dollars, but, how can we as an organization best support bowling as a whole and promote the entire sport. Surrendering to the PBA fat cats, who are only interested in filling their own deep pockets, doesn't serve the rest of industry and the majority of proprietors.

Steve Mermelstein
Owner, Milton Bowling Center, Milton, VT
Posted by: Anakin Skywalker

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/22/01 03:22 PM

I just hope that they can still agree to make both tournaments go on at the same time in the same venue.
Posted by: Krusty The Clown

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/22/01 05:08 PM

Quote:
quote:


You are so right! BRAVO!
Posted by: BowlingFanscom

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/24/01 09:25 PM

The PWBA and BPAA announced today that the BPAA has agreed to license the rights for the Women's U.S. Open to the PWBA for the year 2001, with future years to be negotiated at a later date.

Read the full story: PWBA Obtains Licensing Rights To Women's U.S. Open
Posted by: George Freeman

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 08/25/01 10:57 AM

Quote:
quote:


The problem with unifying the industry is that even though everyone in the industry claims they want solidarity, they want it on their terms. All these organizations have their own little agendas, and it is these little agendas that is keeping the entire industry back. Bowling Inc was created to move in this direction, but they became just another group with its own agenda. The BPAA saw a fast way to make some money on a tournament they had claimed they lost money on, and instead of sitting down and thinking about what it would do to the sport as a whole, they take the money, and sell the soul of the sport. Does the PBA deserve to be immune to all blame? No. But it was the BPAA's shortsightedness that brought us here. Hopefully they will make amends, and salvage at least some of their crediblility. However, they may never fully be able to do that in the minds of alot of female athletes across the country.
Posted by: BowlingFanscom

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 09/10/01 03:56 PM

Laughlin, Nevada's Riverside Lanes And Resort To Host Women's U.S. Open

Read the complete story at: http://www.bowlingfans.com/news/news09102001.shtml
Posted by: usr bin geek

Re: PWBA touring players vote to sidestep 2001 BPAA U.S. Open - 12/01/01 04:39 PM

The Daily Herald had a very good article on the USOpen today, "Female bowlers stand their ground."

Read it here: http://www.dailyherald.com/search/main_story.asp?intID=37226181