What is the handicap based off of?

Right now I think the handicap is 80% of 220. It could be 200, but I think it is 220. Most of the people in this league are incapable of getting much better due to physical limitations. We don't want to go too drastic because the better players should still have an advantage

If you have to bowl over 230 to beat the hanficap it must be 105% of 220 and you are at 220+. 

If any team is close to the team hanicap of 880 or above it you need to raise the team handicap.

Same for individual events,  always raise the handicap to above the highest average. If a Bowlers at 235, then go 80 or 90% of 240. If a team is at 900 raise team handicap to 950.

I know this has probably been covered a million times,

Yes, The poor horse named "Handicap" has been flogged for years and just refuses to die, no matter how many times it beat. 

The current thinking is that you want the scratch base to be higher than whatever the highest average on the league is.

As for the percentage, 90% seems to be the most widely used.

You can base it on whatever you choose but if handicap is 80% of 220 (880) and you have a person at 230(0pins) bowling a person at 175(36 pins) the lower average bowler has to shoot 9 pins over his average to get to 220 with handicap. The higher average bowler can bowl 10 pins below to get 220.

Same applies for teams. If you have a team who averages above 880 for a league where handicap is  based off of 880 that team will be your winner.

I was just suggesting the 300 value since many feel the base should be the highest average in the league.  By making it 300, you eliminate any issues during the season if you intent is to always have the base be the highest average. 

If you base it on 230 and during the year someone is averaging 240, then that bowler gets a bonus.  By making it 300, the handicap benefit will be the same for the entire year regardless of the high average.

I don't necessarily like this concept, the same as I don't like the concept of using the highest average.

It depends on what you think makes a fair competition. 

I personally see bowlers that average above 200 bowl scratch pot games after league all the time.  So they must feel like they have a chance regardless if one averages 201 and the other averages 230. 

I also know that for over three years of tracking over 80 bowlers at various levels all bowlers bowl a game 30+ pins over average every 6 games (and 30+ under every six games as well).  Those are the frequency at teh nd of the season. A bowler can go on a streak of a month on either side of thier average.

I think fair might be 100% of 200.  If anyone averaging under 200 bowls a good game (30+ pins over) they are at 230+.  That is comeptitive but not a guaranteed win over a 220+ average bowler.  If they are average, they are at 200 which should be competitive when the 220+ bowler bowls a bad game (30+ pins under average). I could easily be argued into 100% of 190 for the same purpose. either way the lower average bowler has a chance at least one third of the time against the high average bowler.  That seems right to me.

It pretty much brings lower average up to competitive levels that people tend to put money on.  the 80% or 90% of a high base just is more complicated. It also gives some incentive to get to above 200 average since all the rest is the same. 

But your opinion of fair competition could be different.  I have a friend I respect a lot who thinks that 100% of 230 is fair so that any pin over average is the same  for everyone.  And he averages much higher than me, so he woudl get less benefit than most current systems and less than what I prefer.

I do know that no one is ever going to be completely satisfied because no one is ever giong to bowl a 300 every game. So there is always a chance someone is going to beat you. And always a chance you can beat someone.