Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695

Well, your club may not have existed without the USCA, but in my neck of the woods most of the clubs are 130 - 150 years old, easily predating the USCA and the old MCA, Midwest Curling Association. If Wisconsin has a dedicated ice club under 50 or 60 years old, I can't name it.

I am surprised to hear there are 19 non-USCA clubs, there may be one of the 26 Wisconsin clubs not enrolled. Is there a list?

Last I knew we had the highest population of registered curlers, although Minnesota's big clubs may be pushing that number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List...iscons
in

__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"-Winston Churchill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2015
Location:
Posts: 9

I don't know all of the club names but know of at least 3 in Minnesota.

And I understand that there are many clubs that pre-date the USCA. I don't think the USCA is trying to diminish their value or the work they have done over the years to build and maintain a membership. Quite to to the contrary I think the USCA looks at this as a partnership to do whatever they can to create awareness and interest.

A simple question really...

As a curler, would you pay $28 a year to ensure that more people know about and become interested in the sport?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695

quote:

---

Originally posted by SillyRock
I don't know all of the club names but know of at least 3 in Minnesota.

And I understand that there are many clubs that pre-date the USCA. I don't think the USCA is trying to diminish their value or the work they have done over the years to build and maintain a membership. Quite to to the contrary I think the USCA looks at this as a partnership to do whatever they can to create awareness and interest.

A simple question really...

As a curler, would you pay $28 a year to ensure that more people know about and become interested in the sport?

---

__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"-Winston Churchill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

Well said SillyRock.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by SillyRock


A simple question really...

As a curler, would you pay $28 a year to ensure that more people know about and become interested in the sport?

---

Last edited by dbsdbs on 11-02-16 at 04:40PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399

quote:

---

Originally posted by dbsdbs


You make is sound so simple. But what if that curling club has 100 members is struggling to make it? Would those curlers rather use that $2800 at their club to keep the doors open or send it to the USCA to grow interest in curling?

And at the other end of the spectrum, is a club with 500 or 1000 members really getting $14,000 or $28,000 value out of the dues they send to the USCA [plus the dues they send on to their state/regional association]?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 154

quote:

---

Originally posted by dbsdbs


You make is sound so simple. But what if that curling club has 100 members is struggling to make it? Would those curlers rather use that $2800 at their club to keep the doors open or send it to the USCA to grow interest in curling?

And at the other end of the spectrum, is a club with 500 or 1000 members really getting $14,000 or $28,000 value out of the dues they send to the USCA [plus the dues they send on to their state/regional association]?

---

Last edited by VanillaIce on 11-02-16 at 04:45PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 96

Clubs benefit from Olympics and television coverage regardless of whether they pay USCA/USOC dues. Their full Open Houses are due to the efforts of their dedicated members, not help from the USCA. I think the concern of many clubs is that the USCA/USOC seems more interested in the 1% of competitive curlers rather than the 99% of club curlers.

This resolution reeks of USOC influence. Just as rights to streaming was an issue a couple of years ago. In my opinion the USCA/USOC is doing a poor job of wearing both hats.

No offense to you John, but as a club member of the National Training Center, your comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. Very different viewpoints coming from two and three sheet clubs in Wisconsin.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanillaIce


The funny thing is that our club doesn't even think of it as our money. Both state and national dues are kept in a separate account until January when dues need to be paid.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

USOC and USCA are businesses focused on the cash from the Olympic TV rights they fear will diminish unless their "product" wins Olympic medals. USCA depends still on revenue from curler dues and fears decreased budgets if too many clubs decide to opt out. Curling clubs are popping up all over the USA especially in arenas where ice costs are astromonical and most new curlers have no huge desire or ability to become an elite player. The majority of new curlers come to play and socialize, not aspiring to be elite.

Ironic tonight, USCA forgets how the Chicago Cubs filled stadiums for decades despite being constantly a "losing" team at baseball's top event for 108 years.

The broom fiasco shows the elite game is living on a different planet than the majority of club members and new curlers. That is alienating many curlers who are not willing to give so much cash to USCA as in the past for playdowns fees or member fees.

I am the first ever in my family to curl. A grandfather almost curled right after WWII when he was invited to join a club in the northeast but he declined membership when he discovered the club excluded members from one religion in which he had friends. I grew up thinking curling was an all-male "restricted" activity until I went to an event in Grafton, North Dakota and saw who curlers really are.

Given the new exclude-em' behavior, USCA last month still forbids stick curlers in Arena or Club Nationals. USCA must decide which path it wants to take. Restrictive or inclusive?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 209

Good for Blain and Four Seasons's John, and I mean that sincerely. But our reality us we fight every year to keep dues affordable so we don't lose members because of the cost. I can guarantee we would have more members if we could knock that fee off our due structure. In the last 5 years we have put out $70,000 for stones and compressors, we can't keep pushing for fund raisers and higher dues.

Your reality is not ours, or most of the clubs in Wisconsin. Keeping that $4500 would make a huge difference to us, but we send it in dutifully every year.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 154

It's interesting to me that in all of this nobody considers the entire role of the NGB and the fact that nothing happens without representation. The USCA, as the NGB is responsible for representation of our country and club members to the following groups:
- WCF*
- IOC*
- USOC*
- Other International Curling Association
- NBC and other media outlets
- Other ancillary groups

In addition, they currently support (if not host themselves) the following championship events:
- Club Nationals
- Arena Nationals
- U18 Junior Nationals*
- U21 Junior Nationals*
- Men�s and Women�s Nationals*
- Senior Nationals
- Mixed Nationals
- Mixed Doubles Trials*
- College Nationals
- World University Games Trials*
- Youth Olympic Games Trials*
- Olympic Trials*
- Wheelchair Trials*

* These are tied directly or indirectly to the Olympic process.

None of this work is a small undertaking. Now you add on Member Services to whatever level you feel is appropriate. Involved in all of this are the operational costs:
- Logistics
- Travel Expense
- Staff Salaries
- Insurance Costs
- Other miscellaneous costs of doing business

So considering the above, here are my questions:
1. Are you suggesting that your club and other clubs should be totally autonomous and have no financial responsibility to any national organization? And as such, no representation to other organizations within the sport?

2. Are you suggesting that curling ended up in the Olympics by chance? And the fact that we are a Television feature in the Olympics (something that other sports would kill for) by chance? And that the NGB has no role in the unprecedented interest and growth of the sport for the last decade?

3. If there were no organization to act as NGB as described above, what would the remaining organization do? How would it be staffed and run? What would it's purpose be? How much, if any, money would the clubs or members contribute to it's operations?

Now, I certainly understand how you might see me as being conflicted and biased given my position and our club's status. However, I would point out that I have curled for 41 years, most of that in my Home Club of St. Paul. I have served at both the State and National level on Boards, I have been an athlete, coach, and broadcaster in this sport I love. I now have the great honor and responsibility of listening to and representing my club member's needs to the State and National organizations. I have literally seen nearly every facet of this sport and this conversation in this country.

Over the years, there have been many people and decisions within the USCA that I have disagreed with. And there continue to be things that I am not a fan of. But right now I have never been more proud to say I am a member. The organization is changing for the better.

And if you think we couldn't use the nearly $17,000 that we PASS THROUGH to the USCA, you are mistaken. We are a non-profit as many other clubs are. The fact is that our facility board knows, without a doubt, that come January to March of 2018 we will see a huge spike in interest that we then have to take advantage of. In that way, it's a partnership with the NGB. And just as we depend on member dues to staff and fund our part of that operation, so does the NGB. In a way, you could say that our $17,000 is a pretty inexpensive investment in a National Advertising and Marketing campaign.

Enough said. You all have your own choices to make but I implore you to consider all of the alternatives before you make those choices.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance�that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695

I think most everyone posting here realizes this and agrees with you.

I think everyone posting pays their $28.

I think the point being made is the resolution is heavy handed and overstepping what is needed and potentially damaging in the long run.

__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"-Winston Churchill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2014
Location:
Posts: 206

I think for me, the main issue is if someone who is affiliated with the USCA (who is impacted by the resolution) does something on their own personal time, and at the event is not acting in a role as an agent of the USCA, well, they're not allowed to do that anymore. Even if it's simply going to a weekend bonspiel with some buddies. They're not running some skills or ice-making clinic, or something else, they're simply competing in a bonspiel.

As an employee of Company X, there are rules that exist that prevent me from also being employed at Company Y if Company Y is a competitor. However, if I, as an individual, on my own time, decide to go to Company Y, and perhaps, buy something from them, that is perfectly acceptable.

Quite a disturbing resolution...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by biterbar
I think most everyone posting here realizes this and agrees with you.

I think everyone posting pays their $28.

I think the point being made is the resolution is heavy handed and overstepping what is needed and potentially damaging in the long run.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 107

The availability of the stone purchase program to member clubs that was touted as a benefit that was being preserved with the changes the USCA has undergone to maintain NGB status and its place in the WCF. If it's being extended to non-member clubs, without any strings attached, then shame on the USCA.

If a club took advantage of the USCA by stringing them along about intending to join to get other benefits then I think there should be repercussions. Lumping all non-member clubs into a resolution like the one passed may not be the right answer, but I'm not sure a "blacklist" of clubs that have taken advantage of the USCA is any better,

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

quote:

---

Originally posted by IMWright
I think for me, the main issue is if someone who is affiliated with the USCA (who is impacted by the resolution) does something on their own personal time, and at the event is not acting in a role as an agent of the USCA, well, they're not allowed to do that anymore. Even if it's simply going to a weekend bonspiel with some buddies. They're not running some skills or ice-making clinic, or something else, they're simply competing in a bonspiel.

As an employee of Company X, there are rules that exist that prevent me from also being employed at Company Y if Company Y is a competitor. However, if I, as an individual, on my own time, decide to go to Company Y, and perhaps, buy something from them, that is perfectly acceptable.

Quite a disturbing resolution...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 154

I actually agree with some of what has been said about how the 2nd resolution was written. Also, lost in this discussion is resolution #1 which allows new clubs to "step into" membership, which I think is a great move. So let's not forget that.

Also forgotten is the fact that these resolutions were passed, by what I'm told, was an overwhelming majority of the BOD, which is made up of the regional reps. So if there is a problem, let's not simply assume that the USCA staff is out to get everyone. Let's make sure that the BOD is accountable.

But back to the "heavy handed" resolution #2. I think the motive was compelling from a brand management perspective, but two distinctly separate policies got tangled together in the implementation. It probably would have been better to approach it as these two items:

1. Much like any disclaimer by most sporting organizations: "Any use of the USA Curling or Team USA brands, programs, or personalities by member or non-member clubs without the express written consent of USA Curling is prohibited." Stating it this way covers ALL clubs and protects the brand appropriately and doesn't have same "targeting" feeling that people are getting from the existing resolution.

2. As Curlky aptly pointed out, many companies have INTERNAL POLICY to cover employees and agents of their companies. Something like "No USCA staff, program athlete, or paid partner may represent USA Curling, Team USA, our programs in person, by name, or by likeness at any non-member facility, program, event or activity without the consent of USA Curling". Again, this would cover and protect the brand but would be an internal policy that USA Curling has every right to set for the people in question.

Just my thoughts.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2009
Location:
Posts: 99

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanillaIce


1. Much like any disclaimer by most sporting organizations: "Any use of the USA Curling or Team USA brands, programs, or personalities by member or non-member clubs without the express written consent of USA Curling is prohibited." Stating it this way covers ALL clubs and protects the brand appropriately and doesn't have same "targeting" feeling that people are getting from the existing resolution.

2. As Curlky aptly pointed out, many companies have INTERNAL POLICY to cover employees and agents of their companies. Something like "No USCA staff, program athlete, or paid partner may represent USA Curling, Team USA, our programs in person, by name, or by likeness at any non-member facility, program, event or activity without the consent of USA Curling". Again, this would cover and protect the brand but would be an internal policy that USA Curling has every right to set for the people in question.

Just my thoughts.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2014
Location:
Posts: 206

If I see Jon Doe (USCA member impacted by the rule) competing in a bonspiel, my first thought is not that Jon Doe is there acting in an official USCA capacity, or that the team he is on is a USCA Team...

Maybe that's just me... :: shrug ::

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlky


The 2 things that I slightly disagree with. You are who you are 24x7. You may jsut say that you are there for fun with your buddies and not on official duty, and in your mind that is 100% true. However, for Jon Doe at that spiel, they look at you and see the official person, not the off duty person.So while you have pure intentions, others will interpret it differently, even if that is not your fault.

And as I mentioned earlier, the company example you use works for some cases perhaps but not others. If you are an unknown person in a company your example is probably true. However if you are one of the faces of a brand, then special rules will apply. Professional athletes have contracts to wear Nike and cannot wear any other brand. You would not have seen Steve Jobs holding any phone except Apple. Prior to going to jail, Jarrod from Subway could not eat any fast food or fast casual food besides Subway. You will not see J.W. Marriott check into a Hilton hotel. And as a more lower level example, lets say you are a union line worker in Detroit that makes Ford. You are allowed to own a non-ford, but you cannot drive it to work. Best case you have to park in another lot off Ford property and walk onto Ford property. You can try to say that the curling thing is more like my Ford example, but really it is not. Jon Doe Ford worker can show up somewhere and no one knows he is a Ford worker, but John Shuster is going to be known as a US curler when he shows up.

Plus the only USCA person who has weighed in so far is John. I guess all of you who hate this rule are assuming that those within USCA hate this rule. I am assuming that they do not until I hear otherwise. Obviously John is not asking you to fight for his rights.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 81

The resolution reads like a spoiled brat that saw someone playing with their toy and threw a tantrum!

Instead of being thoughtful and reflective when the Chaska Curling Club had the Shuster Rink play in a promotional curling match, they "threw a fit"!

This isn't the way I'd like to see the BOD at the USCA behaving and I will talk to my regional board member. I really want to better understand the culture of this organization. I honestly don't get anything they are doing. They don't represent me!

How much time was spent at that board meeting discussing the reasons that clubs are not a part of the USCA? I guarantee that the problem with "non-dues USCA paying" clubs is more than the discussion here at curlingzone of how much the dues cost. I would venture to guess that the members at Chaska can afford the dues... And that the club can handle paying the dues...

Hey Chaska! You don't need HPP athletes to have a successful promotional curling event next time. How about you try having the reigning US National Champions (Team Clark) play Norway next time! I'm sure they would be happy to be invited.

Or hey, bring together some former World Champions or Olympians that aren't in the HPP Program. They could put on a good show against Norway.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 107

When the chairman of the board, Rich Lepping, addresses members at events like the Member's Assembly or on a town hall call, the subject of clubs who question the value of their USCA membership is a common one. He is also making a point of attending meetings within each region to keep the conversation going of what the clubs expect from the USCA and what the USCA is doing.

Of course everything associated with the national teams and Olympics gets the most publicity, but to think that's all they care about is far from the truth, and I don't believe the HP program receives any funding from members' dues.

I think there is more emphasis on World level success than is needed - there is a common belief that medals will mean members. I'm not sure it will, but fear continued poor results in the Olympics will eventually lead to lower ratings.


I don't know the details about what happened with Chaska, but if they told the USCA they were going to join, received benefits based on that, and then came back and said we're doing fine, don't need you, and don't want to pay any dues, then we should expect the USCA to be upset and do something about it, and a boycott limited to the BOD, staff, and athletes seems like a pretty reasonable response.

If you treated a girl the same way to get her to sleep with you, and then dumped her, you wouldn't be surprised that she keyed your car and told everyone you're a scumbag.

If Chaska really wants to go it alone they could reimburse the USCA for any technical consulting, pay commercial rates for their rocks, and not expect to see any more USCA events or supported athletes come their way.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

Following the Scottish model of publically owned ice facilities which are often home to many different curling clubs on the same ice surface, Chaska could host many different local curling clubs and as long as one of those formally joined USCA and thus "hosted" any USCA-supported activity at Chaska, then local curlers could pick which local club to join as full USCA-dues paying members or just be associate members who might choose not to pay any dues to USCA.

Last edited by Alice on 11-05-16 at 06:42PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alice
Following the Scottish model of publically owned ice facilities which are often home to many different curling clubs on the same ice surface, Chaska could host many different local curling clubs and as long as one of those formally joined USCA and thus "hosted" any USCA-supported activity at Chaska, then local curlers could pick which local club to join as full USCA-dues paying members or just be associate members who might choose not to pay any dues to USCA.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

I was thinking more about new clubs which have had no relationship with USCA yet or existing clubs which opt out of joining it by decision of its members. I was also thinking of new clubs which might be one of several based at park & rec facilities or at a privately owned ice facility.

The idea a curling league or spiel can only be created and run with the help of USCA and with all its curlers in the USA being full-dues paying members of USCA is laughable to many ice arena owners and curlers, too.

USCA's increasingly exclusive behaviors from ever shifting rules for selecting Team USA playdown competitors to excluding stick and wheels curlers from Arena and Club nationals, and this new Us v. Them thing about Chaska, show a very unsettling trend to many long time curlers. The USCA board will do whatever it wants but if it stays on this exclusive hyper-controlling path focused on USOC priorities then USCA membership will not grow as much compared to choosing more inclusive paths.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged