CANTON — The Stark County United States Bowling Congress Association became a merged association of men and women during the 2017-18 season following a mandate by the national organization.
It was not an easy transition. Both groups had to agree on parameters for the merger, with a transition committee being appointed to oversee. It nearly resulted in arbitration.
But despite early difficulties between the two groups, finding a way through a pandemic and recent changes by USBC, the local organization continues to evolve.
Since its start, the Alliance and Massillon men’s and women’s associations now have become part of the Stark County group, giving the county one sanctioned body. It is also building a stronger relationship with high school bowling with the formation of a youth committee.
But the organization also is announcing a dues increase for the upcoming season, with USBC regular dues increasing from $20 to $25 annually and senior rates going from $15 to $20.
Association manager Sue Vukmanovich and president Kevin Johnson recently sat down with Snier On Bowling for a wide-ranging interview on the increase, USBC decisions and the organization’s future.
Here is a transcript of that discussion:
WE’RE TALKING BOWLING BALLS
SOB: Has anything been said about bowling ball bans?
SV: There was at city tournament, but really at the annual meeting, no one really said anything. Questions out of the tourney were if USBC is banning them, how can we use them here and how can you let people use them here? I made it very clear before the tournament that that equipment was allowed and these are the (balls) that are banned. Some of the balls we raffled were on that list, but that’s what Storm sent us. We are still waiting on replacements.
But we’re going to have to wait and see what USBC says in the fall. If USBC says that this equipment is banned we have to go along with them, which means it can’t be used in sanctioned leagues and events. If they are in unsanctioned leagues, they can use them, but when they go to tournaments, they will tell them they can’t.
KJ: I really don’t think this is any different argument than when they changed the ball weighing and weight hole specifications. Everyone jumped up and down about it, but as the governing body made decisions, people are seeing this as nothing new. This started in the late 1970s and they have always monitored it.
—-
SOB: I believe problem was the timing issue. Last year, with the mask mandate, USBC deemed everyone must remain in masks for the entire tourney, but trouble is people in February and March were in cooler temperatures. But after mask mandate was lifted, USBC said masks had to remain for continuity to whole field. With the ball ban, it came in late March after they had already been used for several weeks.
SV: I think the timing of the issue was what pissed people off because you allowed to use them to that point and stuff was already in bags or at the tournament.
KJ: Sue being tournament director was allowing bowlers the ability to use whatever they have because I guarantee if we had done anything else, we would have people jumping up and down.
SV: I kind of waited. USBC said balls could still be used, but not in USBC-sanctioned events or tournaments. But then the state said they could stay be used in the state tournament, so when they said that, I went right along with them.
—-
SOB: So what about next season for state?
SV: The state also said at convention that they are going to follow USBC guidelines.
KJ: The rules are the rules and the testing is the testing. USBC/ABC/WIBC has been consistent on testing those balls. Ball manufacturers have to submit balls and if a certain percentage did not pass, this is not a new rule. It comes down to that ball is illegal. Maybe the timing is wrong, but same as lot of sports. I think with everything going on, with COVID, mask mandates, weight hole/balance hole issues … USBC is always changing parameters, but there also is a set of rules that have been in place for so long. Sue stays with USBC rules and it is important as a board that we stand behind her.
—-
SOB: No flexibility in future about the rule?
SV: If they say effective Aug. 1 a ball is not valid in any USBC play, then, unfortunately, we will not be able to use them in any sanctioned leagues.
SOB: Will it cost you?
SV: Hard to say. Deadline for trade in was June 1. The bad part is I listened to people, but what if they decide in July this ball isn’t good anymore? It’s hurting where people can’t afford it. You just spent $200 on a ball and three months later you have to spend another $200? That’s what’s going to hurt. Don’t think it will affect ones that are in leagues as such, but now you are hitting them where it hurts. You bowl in an unsanctioned league Tuesday night and are asked to sub the following night and you go and bowl Wednesday night, walk in and put that ball on rack, and some captain says, you can’t use that in this league. That’s where I can see problems.
KJ: It will be a self-policing kind of thing.
SV: On the weight-hole thing, some were real good about it. Some would call or text before play in a league began and ask wasn’t that rule put in for sanctioned leagues? I would respond yes, and then it’s what do we do (every hole filled by finger or thumb)? Or a bowler has bowled five frames and someone notices. That ball has to come off rack and bowler must use a different ball. If he doesn’t, then that score is not valid. That’s what we went through. It might be same situation here.
KJ: Been through situation before — Columbia with Sure D, later Yellow Dot, Visionnary with the Gargoyle — there have been a lot of cases with same problems. So many buck the system but then bowling jackpot or league and someone sees you throwing that ball and you’re getting your butt kicked they self-police themselves. Social media also inflames the situation, with things like (PBA player) Jason Belmonte saying what’s going on behind the curtain.
SV: It’s just a wait and see attitude right now. We just have to wait and see what USBC says and once state goes along with it, the chain will continue on down. If there was going to be any changes, it would have occurred by now. The fact that nothing has been said to this point, they are going to let it go for state and local events. But when they start up again, people will have new equipment to take anyhow.
KJ: They adjusted the softness rule and that’s when it started. The USBC should have controlled it at that point.
SV: You’re a month and half into the tournament, you have convention coming up, and you pass a dues increase six years ago that you are going to talk about during convention and it’s like, wow, guys what did you do?
EXAMINING DUES INCREASE
SOB: Area bowlers are looking at a USBC dues increase this season?
SV: At our annual meeting, we voted in a dues increase. USBC is going up $2 this year, which was part of a package instituted in 2016. The first $2 went into effect in 2017. Then had spread it out until the 2022-23 season, which was another $2 increase. The state dues were $1. The state added another $1 at its convention to make it $2. So it’s $3 overall. And it’s $1 for the local.
KJ: As far as the $1 state dues, we were eating that since 2017 season.
SV: Basically that added up to $2,000-some a year that we paid. If they sanctioned on line, they paid the $1, but if they sanctioned through their leagues, we covered it. But I think the biggest thing I hear is what do we get? The awards suck, etc., etc. … OK, that’s four years and we paid $8,000 for state dues. We would have a helluva award program with that. Even that $2,000 a year gives me the opportunity to explore other options and things just locally, because they are tired of magnets, key chains and that. I get it, I understand. But with the funds we have, it’s what we can do. The lower average bowlers appreciate some type of recognition, the better bowlers are well over that. When I was coming up, every little thing was exciting. But at that time, WIBC had really nice awards. Now looking back, I know why they dropped that and why people don’t get rings and everything when you shoot 300. No. 1, you get people who shoot three 300s in a week sometimes. What are you going to do with three rings? And do you realize how much money that is? Rings are around $75 to $100 just for one. One bowler has three, around $300 in one week. USBC and the local just can’t afford that.
You get the recognition on line by showing your statistics. That money that we’ve been paying for state dues, maybe we could have jazzed things up a little more. Like the 140 over or 175 over where bowlers are accomplishing things way over their averages. Getting that money would allow us to research and look for something different. Some associations use a points program for things like gift cards. Some work with centers, and they can win certificates at centers for food or free bowling, but the centers would have to be on board for that to happen.
For 300s, for example, I’ve seen shirts or wind shirts from some associations. But It’s also like USBC — once in a lifetime. With today’s equipment and lane conditions and everything, award scores are not what they were 10 or 15 years ago, in my opinion.
KJ: You are still honoring bowlers who shoot their first 300, and that’s where the accolades are. At the annual meeting, there was no argument on the increase. Discussion was brief.
SV: The secretaries have a copy of the financials. This is what the increase is and we explained it all. We called for discussion, and no one said anything. You expected something from among over 30 people. We had good representation of young people to senior players, bowlers from Massillon and Alliance, and there were no dissensions. I don’t think it’s out of line. If you break it down only on the $25, if you bowl a 30-week league, it’s less than $1 per week.
—-
SOB: It’s always the same argument: what do we get for it?
SV: That $2,000 so you got your state dues free, but with that gone, I can’t really look at anything. Towels, coozies, other things are nice, but …
KJ: We were organized about two years, then we had COVID. We are comparing an association on the men’s side that was, at best, dysfunctional. Merging with the women was great because they had an organization in place. We tried to do so much in a short period of time, but nobody wanted to be involved really. We started the paper work, the transition committee and getting everything agreed to, then an organizational committee and getting everything passed, which all took time. Then we go right into COVID, and we are not sanctioning any kids. We’re just a Canton organization. On the men’s side, there were no awards/recognition program while the ladies had one. Then right into COVID and no tournament. So many things went on so quickly. The association is very healthy once we get our feet on the ground again. We have scholarships, with a youth committee that is running tournaments after COVID, and only 1 1/2 years since, and things are on the rise now. But it couldn’t be done all at once.
—-
SOB: Stark Association has been merged group since when?
SV: Since the 2017-18 season. We had to have a merger. We worked on it. Some men who left came back. We had to do a transition committee, and I sat on the women’s side of it. Everything the USBC wanted, here it is from the women’s side. But it was like pulling teeth from the men’s side.
KJ: We sat at Colonial and USBC wanted us to have an arbitrator between the men and women. I had nothing from the men for the transition committee, so I said were were going to do it your (women’s) way.
SV: A lot of things we are funding now are off reserves that we came into the merger with, mostly from the women. And it’s used for everyone. When Massillon came on board, they designated $3,000 for scholarships for junior bowlers west of Perry Drive, which is fine. They also designated $7,500 to be used for Bowlers to Veterans Link, and I was just ecstatic over that. That’s such a huge thing. Same way for us. We designated part of women’s funds to be used for the city tournament and other designations. That’s why we had giveaways. With what the men gave us, some went to scholarships — maybe enough to fund one.
KJ: The last year there was a big Hall of Fame induction class and they paid out a lot toward the association tournament. It was going by way of Alliance and Massillon men, sticking with an old-time mentality, which was fine at the time. But to the bitter end, they tried to hold out.
SV: Summit and Columbus did it right off the bat, but there were a lot of others who didn’t.
It was this is the way it’s always been done, so we have to do it. No …
KJ: We agree, but we don’t agree. We come from two different sides, but it never as at an impasse. We always progressed forward. One thing I do now, there’s no way that this county would have an association without a strong office manager with experience. We can’t remake the wheel, and we were lucky Sue was there.
SV: You have to have a basic knowledge of bowling. Somebody with great computer knowledge, they can physically do the work. But if you get a phone call from someone who says someone is using an illegal ball. How does someone with no knowledge answer that?
LOOKING AT HIGH SCHOOLS
SOB: So the increase in basic is from $20 to $25 for regular bowlers and then $15 to $20 for seniors with the increases. Youth sacntions also are based on an entire season. How many high school teams sanctioned this year?
SV: Not enough … maybe less than 300 kids total, and that includes our youth leagues.
The communication was there, the high schools were notified. What I find most disconcerting that some of the coaches who are sanctioned bowlers didn’t sanction their teams. I don’t understand that. It’s $4 per bowler. Their averages, honor scores are recognized, and there are rules to fall back on. I just don’t understand it. It also brings eligibility for scholarships.
—-
SOB: Schools outside Stark County that are in the Stark County High School Conference, do the high school kids sanction through you or their own associations?
SV: They can sanction through own associations. But if they sanction through us and the Stark Conference also, all its costs is the time to fill out the card. They just pay once and that’s it. If they sanction in their home associations, that’s wonderful. But what they need to do is fill out ours also. It costs them nothing as the official sanctioning body of Stark County Conference to be eligible for awards and scholarships.
KJ: We also have one scholarship available for a non-Stark County bowler. All the communications are there for it with our youth group. But the adults have to let the kids know.
SV: It’s a good time to get this out there. The same thing with that $4 … it’s $4 and this is what it gets you. (Perry High School’s) Hannah Miller won the $3,000 scholarship from the state, and that is the second one that came out of Stark County. (Jackson’s Kailey Bonniwell won it two years ago.) Every little bit helps. It’s only $500 per scholarship from us, but it pays for books at least. We have eight, but only gave out six due to lack of applicants in one and the board didn’t believe applicants had the qualifications for another.
SV: Our scholarships are not paid until the second semester. We want to make sure they are staying in school and we are not just handing them $500 to play with.
MORE ON THE FEES
SOB: You expect some complaints once word gets around in the fall about the increase?
SV: There is going to be some chirping. USBC actually passed this when we were still just the women and the men. The men didn’t pay state dues. But that was something women were used to doing and the men were not. I saw the financials at the convention. Without the increases they couldn’t afford the programs that they have because of COVID and other things that have caused their income to drop. They depend on that money the same as we do. If people look at it realistically, seniors are paying $20 for a membership they can use for an entire year, and the same with the regular at $25. How many other clubs have dues that cheap for an entire year? And we provided a fact sheet for what it provides. The biggest thing is the bonding. Any league that has had its money stolen or someone’s car is broken and money taken, the USBC covers the loss if the league is sanctioned.
ON THE TOURNAMENTS
SOB: Will tournament fees remain the same?
SV: I don’t know yet, it’s to be determined. It depends on what lineage is going to run us.
—-
SOB: The perennial complaint is we don’t make enough during the tournament?
SV: I wish they would say that when they are paying off brackets. They get into it for the side action. Another complaint is why can that Cleveland guy bowl in our local tournament? All they have to do is pay the local dues as a sanctioned bowler. Did you read the entry rules on your entry blank? Summit has let our bowlers bowl in there’s if we pay their fees. They should be allowed to bowl down here, so I opened it up. That rule was blown up, put in plastic and displayed at the entry table. We didn’t hide it. The other complaint is that the prize list I posted is written in stone. That is a proposed prize list. This is probably the first year we’ve had complaints on that.
KJ: The proposed prize list league secretaries have to submit is just proposed, but it’s also not written in stone.
SV: I based the prize list on 100 entries; we had 95. That’s $200 less going into the prize fund.
It’s the same thing they have been doing for years.
—-
SOB: Can women’s tourney survive with entries it has?
SV: We had 22 entries this year, which was 12 more than the year before. We actually picked up, but it’s sad. Stark County USBC added $1,000 to the men’s and women’s tourneys and $500 to each of the two youth tournaments. So we took $3,000 out of our ways and means account, which is money the board raises to fund things, and put that toward the tournaments. They are looking at the payouts, but not using the numbers that are listed. They didn’t get that we added $1,000 and from brackets we added another almost $1,200 for the men. We added $1,350 to our scholarship fund from the brackets. They don’t know where the money goes, but they made $800 in brackets.
KJ: You’re also trying to base entries on people who have quit, not bowled because of COVID that maybe coming back, non-sanctioned leagues, bowlers we’re getting from Alliance and Massillon, since they are on board now. Sue is trying to come up with her best guess (for the prize list).
SV: We’re already thinking about next year. I give up a month, and this year even more, doing nothing but tournaments (two youth, women and open events). On top of that, getting end-of-season averages and other items together. I’m really looking at trying to make this easier in the future.
KJ: Everything is transitional. Hopefully, the youth committee in the future will be able to handle their own events, but they have to do it correctly too or it can turn into a bigger headache.
SV: The men were pretty close to last year; maybe a couple down. I had girls bowling this year that I hadn’t seen in a tournament since we merged. It was nice to see them back, and I would like to see that trend continue. We tried walk-ins this year. We will keep it for the women’s not that it had much effect. Some won’t go to the Open because they are intimidated by the men.
Both events ran pretty well. We had a few glitches, I make mistakes. But stuff happens. But it’s all about giving back to the association. Some people take advantage of it and bowl and some people don’t. If you don’t bowl, don’t complain about it. Same thing, if you don’t sanction you have no right to complain about those that do.
KJ: We have workshops and try to explain that to the secretaries that people will come to you, and it goes in one ear and out the other.
SV: I keep my seat on the board because I want my opinion to count also. If I lose that seat, I can’t say anything. Am I’m not willing to give that up yet. I am getting more comfortable with the way things are going because I like what I’m seeing.