APA lowers the Axe on their Junior Program

[The_JV]

Received an email the other day from the local CPA (APA) LO.

My anti-CPA opinion of the situation is this. The APA has crunched the numbers and have come to the conclusion that the junior program isn't resulting in enough future revenue to bother. ...or tax law as changed and they can't write off whatever losses they may have been incurring.

According to the LO, the APA cites several reasons for the decision. Between scheduling, permissions, training costs, etc... which I don't doubt. However these difficulties have always been in place.

The APA is a business and some business decisions suck for the little guy. I get that. However I'm tired of hearing how the APA is about the growth of the game. They're quite literally killing the one aspect of their org that was purpose built for that purposes.

 

[Iwishiwasrich]

The APA is nothing but a pyramid scheme money grab.

 

[justnum]

Who needs money this year?
I am willing to trade labor for resources.

Cash is useless sometimes.

 

[justadub]

While I understand that its disappointing to see the APA drop their Juniors program (and I agree with that) I do get that if the APA can't do it right, it would be better to not do it at all. I'm pretty sure they were aware of the PR hit they would take by doing this, so the program has got to be really in a bad spot.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... which I don't doubt. ...

The APA is a business and some business decisions suck for the little guy. ...

I'm more cynical than you are.

I believe the APA is still a privately owned business. The decisions reflect the character of the owners -- it's not some COO trying to squeeze every penny out of the situation to bump up quarterly profits to please a board of directors.

 

[336Robin]

I'm more cynical than you are.

I believe the APA is still a privately owned business. The decisions reflect the character of the owners -- it's not some COO trying to squeeze every penny out of the situation to bump up quarterly profits to please a board of directors.

It's also a lot of small franchises. When something doesn't work for them or causes too much for too little, then there you go.

 

[Bob Jewett]

It's also a lot of small franchises. When something doesn't work for them or causes too much for too little, then there you go.

Were the franchisees required by the APA to run junior programs at their own expense?

 

[336Robin]

Were the franchisees required by the APA to run junior programs at their own expense?

I really don't know the specifics, but I sort of figure they bought the standard package of
APA offerings for a price and are probably obligated to some degree to any changes in policy
or organizational changes and are obligated to the business they signed on for.

I would imagine that the youth program would be considered new and likely (optional) depending on the
demand which now in the beginning anyone could say, (no demand).

I think it comes down the local operator and if they can't get local operators excited about it, then the
top policy makers might pull the idea of the program out of policy or vision statements.

I wouldn't like it if I were a franchise owner and someone told me I had to do something that came with
a lot of hoops to jump through. Not everywhere has a suitable place for Youth Pool especially if you consider
how some people feel about bars and alcohol. Not sure the school system would want to drop kids off there,
so that puts working parents doing the running.

I like the idea of youth programs, but it seems complicated to me. What I don't like is youth not having access to
Pool. The youth of my age found the Pool Room wherever it was located at the time and that exposure made many
of the Pool League players today.

I don't know what the answer is, I just hope the bars and their league systems continue to thrive because they seem
like it when it comes to Pool and its future.

 

[justadub]

Were the franchisees required by the APA to run junior programs at their own expense?

I don't have any answer to that. APA Operator will likely chime in at some point and he (she?) will know.

What I can guess is that it all has to work backwards, from whatever calendar window they would have to host the national tournament, and what National would provide to the individual franchises in terms of travel and tournament support. That has to fit in between all the other national events they have, which occur twice a year. 8, 9 and Masters teams, singles & doubles in both 8 & 9, wheelchair, probably some other formats that I can't remember.

Then once the National calendar is sorted out, the individual local franchise operators have to run whatever they have to do for qualifiers.

All of that will have to work around school. I'm sure different states have different requirements as to how much supervision is required, and time that can be spent away if not during the school year. And some places run school year round, without an extended summer break.

Then you have to deal with the fact that the majority of APA leagues are run in bars.

All of this is my observations as a long time player. I do not know anything about the actual specifics, but I expect that I'm probably close in my observations. And it's not just as simple as folks might think.

Still, it's a shame that they couldn't come up with a way to make it work. Who knows, perhaps in the future they can start over and restructure the whole program.

 

[zetetikos]

Its a shame league pool became a for profit business in the US, but i guess everything does. Instead of a parent organization and league directors making massive profits, the surplus beyond cost of operations should fund youth development, regional and national tournaments and help with competition expenses for pro players.

 

[sjm]

I'll take a different angle. Player development is not the role of APA. They tried to make it work but could not, so they bowed out. Makes sense to me.

 

[Atorontopoolplayer]

Is there issues in USA having junior programs in pool halls? In CPA they'd just host it on like a Saturday morning when nobody was there and nobody was drunk yet and then usually after like 10 PM it becomes legal drinking age only.

 

[justadub]

Is there issues in USA having junior programs in pool halls? In CPA they'd just host it on like a Saturday morning when nobody was there and nobody was drunk yet and then usually after like 10 PM it becomes legal drinking age only.

In theory, no. But you'd have to have rooms interested in opening early, for this purpose. And to have people ready (and trained) to watch for alcohol sales if they started doing that later in the day, and a host of other issues that could come with that.

Just my .02

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

I don’t think there is much interest for people to enroll kids in pool league. You would think with so many adults playing APA there would be more interest. But then you have to look at the league collectively. How many of those players don’t care much. Why would they push their kids to play?

So you have a majority of the adults in league that don’t practice much(maybe just right before league starts), and a lot of the ones that do take it more serious have their own tables at home. The people who might push their kids to play a bit probably have a table.

Plus as someone mentioned, APA is mostly played in bars. Here it’s only played in bars. Some people refuse to bring their children to the bar.

Idk. It sounds like a reasonable move is all I’m saying. There are only 4 younger kids around here that I ever see playing with their parents. You can’t have a league without players.

 

[336Robin]

I wouldn't be the only person who has ever thought of a way to do something for Pool and in so doing I studied the market. Pool is a complicated market of niches that evade Google search, so you have to trust the numbers that the sports and games manufacturers association releases which are estimates from retail sales if you want to buy that report for about $350 last time I looked. Every once in awhile you'll find one of the reports for Pool results posted for a year. Here is what Statista has to say via AI search.

According to a 2013 survey by Statista, there were approximately 34.55 million participants in billiards/pool in the United States 1.

I also asked about bars that served alcohol which is where Pool takes place today in either organized leagues or house leagues.

According to a 2023 report by Statista, there were approximately 67,000 bars and nightclubs in the United States 1.

What I get from that is that all bars do not contain pool tables and that is not searchable even with AI because no one has done a report on it yet.

So: 34.5 million div by 67k=514.93 pool players per bar and you know that isn't near correct.

From the numbers of the last time I saw a report of the sports and games manufacturers association it said 11-13 million was the core active players.

So 11 million divided by 44,890 (less 1/3) of bars that don't have pool tables= 245.04 players per bar.

That is still high from what I see in the bars I have gone into.

So lets say that instead of 67,000 bars or 44, 890 bars that only half of them have pool tables.

67k div by 2 = 33,500 now on average let's give them 50 players per bar= 1,675,000 players

That is probably closer to how many players there are because it accounts for a lot of players that are not organized league players. If you only counted those the last figures I had were around 60k BCA/CSI, 260k- APA and I estimated
40k Valley or others in various other league systems= 360k players in organized league systems which is well shy of the numbers being quoted for totals.

Even if I'm dead wrong and all bars have pool tables then that total is 3,350,000 total active players at 50 players average per bar.

The average per bar could be a lot less but since most of the bars with pool tables are in urban areas, I think we can settle on the fact that the core part of the sport might be a lot less than 11-13 million which is the estimate.

When you start looking at the number of viewers on YouTube for Pool related content those numbers show themselves, but an interested player can generate several clicks per week on videos.

If we had interested persons watching YouTube more often, that could turn the commercial tide.

It takes a lot of clicks to get a corporation interested in the market players represent.

YouTube pay from sponsors is dismal but if you have predictable content you can negotiate with sponsors who will pay anywhere from 1c per click to 5cents per click, but if so, you better have a plan to sell some of the sponsors stuff to your viewers.

5k viewers that watch ten times per week or 10 clicks= 50,000 clicks
50k click x .03 cents= $1500.00 worth of sponsorship money.

If you can manage 150k views per video x. 0.03 (negotiated) that would be = $4500 the sponsor would pay for that video. That is not a lot of money.

Its not enough to justify the cost of the creation of the content much less to pay the players.

However, there is a way and I've worked it out on paper, but then we are talking about Pool Players who are never satisfied, so where is the motivation to set things in motion risking one's own money?

It can be done I have no doubts, but someone needs to want the exposure and the expenses would have to be under control to do it. It can be done, nothing is impossible.

Someone has to want the market which means (sales to the viewers). Now get the pool players together under that idea and I'll deliver the plan. I do believe it's doable for a corporation that wants to commercialize the sport, but its not going to be 1million dollar prize funds to start out with.

It has to start somewhere and its viewer and customer who buys stuff from sponsors oriented. One without the other and it won't work. It is a magical wonderful combination when it does. More interest means more clicks which mean more money for the sport.

Pool is kind of tough, but it always has been, it is doable but is it worth the trouble?

I have all but given up on anyone figuring it out.

The other option is 5k or so pool rooms opening up in Americas small towns. That would help a lot but it would take a number of years to raise the new interest, so we have to work with what we have right now.

(Rant over)

 

[APA Operator]

I'm afraid I can't speak much to this topic. I don't have a Juniors program, so when the APA announced it to the LO network I didn't pay a lot of attention. I do know that the LO's who do have Juniors are very upset, and I know there are lots of hoops to jump through in this country just to run a juniors program, and state requirements vary. APA's software and processes don't easily accommodate the juniors, so it was much work to run them, but those LOs who got them going all said the extra work for no money was worth it. But it was APA corporate's decision and was based on a number of factors, not the least of which was making sure LO's all over the country were jumping through all the necessary hoops, like background checks on everyone involved. They don't have the framework in place to even know who all is involved. It's very easy to say locally "Steve is sick today so you can fill in for him, Rick" without ever doing any checking into Rick or reporting that to the national office. Three weeks later some parent wants to know why you have a registered sex offender working with their kid, and now you're in trouble. Maybe Rick got arrested because he took a leak in the weeds on a golf course, and some homeowner nearby took a picture with a hi-zoom lens and sent it to the police, who arrested Rick for indecent exposure. But the parent doesn't care why, they just want to protect their child from anyone who's in the registry. That ripples up the chain and puts not only the LO and the national office at risk, but eventually shows up as a post in forums like this, with a title like "The horrible APA hires sex offenders" instead of "The horrible APA axes their juniors program". Then consider the scenario where Rick is in the registry for actually molesting children. The LO unknowingly put the juniors in danger, because APA does not have the framework in place to prevent it. Everybody likes to say "Oh, that'll never happen here" and they may be right, but it only has to happen once, anywhere, for it to be very costly. APA has stated that they would like to bring a program back in the future, but it won't happen until they figure out how to navigate all the obstacles. This is just one of them. I don't know all the reasons behind APA's decision, but not all of them are necessarily about money. Some of them are about being responsible. I know the folks at APA were very fond of the juniors too, and hate that they have to make this decision. Nobody wins.

 

[336Robin]

I'm afraid I can't speak much to this topic. I don't have a Juniors program, so when the APA announced it to the LO network I didn't pay a lot of attention. I do know that the LO's who do have Juniors are very upset, and I know there are lots of hoops to jump through in this country just to run a juniors program, and state requirements vary. APA's software and processes don't easily accommodate the juniors, so it was much work to run them, but those LOs who got them going all said the extra work for no money was worth it. But it was APA corporate's decision and was based on a number of factors, not the least of which was making sure LO's all over the country were jumping through all the necessary hoops, like background checks on everyone involved. They don't have the framework in place to even know who all is involved. It's very easy to say locally "Steve is sick today so you can fill in for him, Rick" without ever doing any checking into Rick or reporting that to the national office. Three weeks later some parent wants to know why you have a registered sex offender working with their kid, and now you're in trouble. Maybe Rick got arrested because he took a leak in the weeds on a golf course, and some homeowner nearby took a picture with a hi-zoom lens and sent it to the police, who arrested Rick for indecent exposure. But the parent doesn't care why, they just want to protect their child from anyone who's in the registry. That ripples up the chain and puts not only the LO and the national office at risk, but eventually shows up as a post in forums like this, with a title like "The horrible APA hires sex offenders" instead of "The horrible APA axes their juniors program". Then consider the scenario where Rick is in the registry for actually molesting children. The LO unknowingly put the juniors in danger, because APA does not have the framework in place to prevent it. Everybody likes to say "Oh, that'll never happen here" and they may be right, but it only has to happen once, anywhere, for it to be very costly. APA has stated that they would like to bring a program back in the future, but it won't happen until they figure out how to navigate all the obstacles. This is just one of them. I don't know all the reasons behind APA's decision, but not all of them are necessarily about money. Some of them are about being responsible. I know the folks at APA were very fond of the juniors too, and hate that they have to make this decision. Nobody wins.

A very thoughtful reply.

Thank you.

It is a shame but maybe things like this have to happen on the way to getting there.

 

[Black-Balled]

Who needs money this year?
I am willing to trade labor for resources.

Cash is useless sometimes.

I thought your Harriman Acadummy was involved in your development?

What became of that?

 

[justnum]

I thought your Harriman Acadummy was involved in your development?

What became of that?
View attachment 738113

Harriman got sponsored to become Harriman Studios and train future billiard production techs. I am teaching lighting tonight.

Stop by and you can inspire the group with your tales on the road.

If someone wanted to put together a decent homemade production there is no one.

Harriman Studios is starting its Harriman Film Academy program.

Teaching lighting and camera perspective is easier on small scale equipment.

 

[justadub]

I'm afraid I can't speak much to this topic. I don't have a Juniors program, so when the APA announced it to the LO network I didn't pay a lot of attention. I do know that the LO's who do have Juniors are very upset, and I know there are lots of hoops to jump through in this country just to run a juniors program, and state requirements vary. APA's software and processes don't easily accommodate the juniors, so it was much work to run them, but those LOs who got them going all said the extra work for no money was worth it. But it was APA corporate's decision and was based on a number of factors, not the least of which was making sure LO's all over the country were jumping through all the necessary hoops, like background checks on everyone involved. They don't have the framework in place to even know who all is involved. It's very easy to say locally "Steve is sick today so you can fill in for him, Rick" without ever doing any checking into Rick or reporting that to the national office. Three weeks later some parent wants to know why you have a registered sex offender working with their kid, and now you're in trouble. Maybe Rick got arrested because he took a leak in the weeds on a golf course, and some homeowner nearby took a picture with a hi-zoom lens and sent it to the police, who arrested Rick for indecent exposure. But the parent doesn't care why, they just want to protect their child from anyone who's in the registry. That ripples up the chain and puts not only the LO and the national office at risk, but eventually shows up as a post in forums like this, with a title like "The horrible APA hires sex offenders" instead of "The horrible APA axes their juniors program". Then consider the scenario where Rick is in the registry for actually molesting children. The LO unknowingly put the juniors in danger, because APA does not have the framework in place to prevent it. Everybody likes to say "Oh, that'll never happen here" and they may be right, but it only has to happen once, anywhere, for it to be very costly. APA has stated that they would like to bring a program back in the future, but it won't happen until they figure out how to navigate all the obstacles. This is just one of them. I don't know all the reasons behind APA's decision, but not all of them are necessarily about money. Some of them are about being responsible. I know the folks at APA were very fond of the juniors too, and hate that they have to make this decision. Nobody wins.

I had completely overlooked the background check issue. MAJOR issue. (I should have known better, with the time I spent helping my sons Scouts Programs, as well as Little League.)

It's a shame that society has gotten to the point where this is such a major contributing factor, but here we are.