Ok, so it's been determined that my perception on release angles is WAY off, realistically it's an extremely tiny window.  BUT, since it IS an extremely tiny window, why does it matter so much?  US Open pattern for example, completely flat.  If somebody intends to play straight up 10, I'm going to drill the ball significantly different than if they say they're playing 25-10 without changing anything about their physical game or approach, and there's a very good possibility I'd suggest going more aggressive with the ball too.  That difference at 40 feet is equivalent to a difference in angle of 1.79 degrees, virtually non existant at least theoretically.  If you changed your angle of rotation from 45 to 46.79, there's zero possibility of you noticing, and actually the standard deviation is most likely higher than that anyway.  (Standard deviation meaning that because of human error, even if your average is 45 degrees, you won't throw it at exactly the same angle every time)  I have a feeling I'm going to be fairly deep into physics by the time I'm done chasing this rabbit trail . .

Ok good, because that's exactly what I'm getting at.  All it means is that it was an interesting rabbit trail, but overwhelmingly irrelevant.  Interesting at the same time though because I think angle of rotation is very important.  However, the variance in degrees and angles are a lot larger.  But going back again, 10-10 is WAY different than the 1.79 degrees to 25-10 would suggest, several things have to be changed or adjusted for just that tiny little difference in angle.  There's gotta be a magnification factor or something. 

I would think the individual stats of a bowler who would attack the US Open pattern playing straight up 10 would be significantly different than one who would attack it 25-10.  That would have more of an impact on drill pattern than the launch angle. 

I see where you are going with the amount of necessary recovery playing into the drilling.  But a rev dominant bowler has the ability to make the recovery more than a down and in bowler.  And no amount of drilling adjustment will make that down and in bowler a deep inside player.  There comes a point of diminishing returns not because of the ball, but because of the ability. 

My 2 cents.....

Determine how much angle of rotation effects the needed release angle at a given speed and you can come up with a factor......I think.

I think too much is dependent on ball surface, lane surface, oil pattern, etc. to be able to make a "factor".  And as Gizmo has said before, the ability to adjust rotation (or inability to be consistent) will make any factor that is developed irrelevant.  One would just adjust the rotation to achieve the desired results instead of relying on a single rotation angle or the bowler would be so inconsistent the factor wouldn't be helpful.

I don't believe any of this can have any impact on actual results as there are too many variables that are not being taken into consideration.  But it is an interesting conversation.

Like bowling balls have a scale, length, hook, backend, all of that equals a rating of . .  Bowlers would have a similar scale.  Speed, rev rate, angle of rotation equal . .  I think the conclusion will be that there are so many variables that SEVERAL things are irrelevant.  Jayhawk has a surface scanner that determines the grit of the surface of the bowling ball, our pro shops group has a couple of them.  The surface of the ball changes so significantly from box surface to surface after only 3 games of use that it would blow your mind. 

Yeah I think you're right . . I'd hoped to keep it simpler than that.  Here's something Mo Pinel just directed me to.  Very interesting.

http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/equipandspecs/pdfs/08ballmotionstudy.pdf

perfect example of paralysis by analysis!!!!!!