More on the Belmonte/Angelo Brouhaha

I wrote Wednesday about the mini-controversy pba.com's Jason Thomas has stirred up over the recent altercation between Jason Belmonte and Brad Angelo in a televised match. Actually, the match in question hasn't even been televised yet. It will air this Sunday on ESPN. But a clip of the altercation itself has made an advance appearance on YouTube. And people are talking.

They're saying all kinds of things. Some are saying Belmo's a "jerk." Some are saying Angelo's a jerk and a "crybaby." Some are saying it isn't absolutely clear that anyone is either a jerk or a crybaby, but that if Angelo was distracted by Belmonte's noisy water bottle, he could and should have handled it better. Belmonte himself has publicly apologized for his carelessness and said that he "made up" with Angelo after the match.

However, Belmonte also seems a bit perturbed by the way the PBA has handled this "tempest in a teapot," as one commenter on my piece Wednesday characterizes it. In his Facebook comment of last Monday night, Belmonte wrote:

"I didn't attempt to open the bottle in his swing like people or the PBA are trying to suggest. That would be a D-Bag move and last time I checked I'm not a D-Bag...I'm a little sad to see the PBA try and blow this out of proportion, considering the match itself is a great match and was very close all the way to the end. Clutching at straws I guess."

I think Belmo's probably right. I think the PBA probably *is* "clutching at straws" to lure as many viewers as it can to its telecasts lest it not have enough of them to remain on TV or in business. But to what lengths should it go to "live long and prosper"? Should it slyly impugn the motives and character of one of its brightest stars in order to drum up more business, or do you think it even did this in Belmo's case?

I don't know what kind of financial condition the PBA is in today. But I do know that since it was rescued from oblivion when three former Microsoft executives purchased it in 2000, it has had trouble attracting and keeping sponsors and has hemorrhaged so much money that its chairman, Chris Peters, withdrew last year from most of his involvement with the organization and, as I wrote last year, its current CEO, Fred Schreyer, has ominously warned that the PBA's owners will "not invest the same amount of money over the next ten years as they did over the last ten."

So, short of turning PBA telecasts into bowling's equivalent of "Wrestlemania" with manufactured or real feuds, shouting matches, and even fisticuffs between the bowlers, what, if anything, can the PBA do to draw more fans and earn enough money to stay solvent and ultimately become successful again? Or have the times changed so much that the PBA can never hope to regain the glories of its past or even stay in business much longer, no matter how many provocative articles Jason Thomas writes?

About.com's bowling writer Jef Goodger has written a piece about this story on his bowling blog here.

Bad News for the PBA?

“They have a lot invested, so they’re not going to walk away from their investment. But at the same time, they’re evaluating how well their investment is performing, as one would in any business activity. I can assure you that they’ll not invest the same amount of money over the next 10 years as they did during the last 10.”
--PBA Commissioner Fred Schreyer

I just read an article that reinforces concerns I've been having and anxieties I've been feeling about the future of the PBA.

According to this Bowlers Journal article, Chris Peters, the Microsoft-rich guy who organized a partnership group with Rob Glasser and Mike Slade to rescue the PBA from bankruptcy and dissolution a decade ago, is now going to be taking a much less prominent and active role in the organization. And while PBA Commissioner Fred Schreyer says that Peters, Glasser, and Slade continue to believe in the potential of the PBA and will continue investing money in it for the time being, the organization is losing a lot of money, and those who are bankrolling it are going to be taking a hard look at the wisdom of their involvement.

"There’s no internal dissension, and they’re united in their belief that pro bowling can be a viable sport,” says Schreyer. “It’s just a matter of who wants to continue to accept financial responsibility for supporting the PBA. Chris is going to play a less prominent role, and exactly what that means remains to be seen."

What it strongly suggests to me is that the PBA's days may be sorely numbered unless it can stop losing sponsors like H&R Block, CLR, Edward Jones and Flomax and start earning money fast. But how can it do this? And what will happen to bowling in this country if it doesn't?

The PBA is planning its 2011 season, and there will be a big meeting next Wednesday between the bosses and players to discuss its plans. Bowlers Journal will be reporting on the results, and so will I.

Stay tuned, and keep your fingers crossed.