If you want the league as fair as possible with a slight advantage to your high average bowlers....90% of 240.  Anything less than 90% or 230 gives a very big advantage to your high end bowlers.

This gives everyone a 90% level playing field.  Your high average bowler shooting their average will beat a lower average bowler by a pin or two when they shoot their average.

Math doesn't lie....

100% of your highest average in the league.

If you truly want to make it equal, that is a close as you can get.

Agree.

According to comparison studies by the USBC, I had heard that the percentage that would make handicap bowlers = to scratch bowlers is 110%.

When I told that to our league president last night at our annual league meeting (he is also the association lane rep and is very active in the USBC), he told me the current figure is 116%!!!

In our league we have people averaging anywhere from 170 to 242. We changed our handicap to 100% of 250. It had been 90% last year. I just rejoined this league after a hiatus of 6-8 years.

My personal opinion, NOT being a 240 average bowler, is that a fair figure would be somewhere between 90 and 100%. Somehow 90% seems too low and 100% seems too high.

I have seen that study as well (the %110 figure), but there is no way you would convince the higher averages to give up those extra pins! 

But it is reasonable when we consider that generally a career 170 bowler is not going to hit their average as often as a 230+ bowler. So even with %100 percent, the higher average will still have an advantage.

I would find %100 acceptable if I bowled in a handicap league, but I'm glad I don't have to deal with it. 

I was the league pres a few years back and was trying to get some accurate info on this very subject
It was when the ABC was till here in the Milwaukee area
I did talk with someone there nad at the time the studies showed 113% as the fair handicap based on 2 years of all sanctioned league scores bowled.

I was on the higher side of the league averages and I stood up and tried to convince everyone that 100% would be a good thing.
then a couple of womens teams, low average 1st timers joined the league.

I was at 225 and there were a few under a 100 average
Was agonizing, couple spares and good counts, think I lost every time,
even had 750 something and lost

I am glad I'm away from those leagues, no way to keep everyone happy

What so amazing about USBC and handicap is they promote handicap and their annual tournament is a scratch event!!! If they're so sold on handicap, why is their tournament scratch? They do have the classified division, but it's for lower averages! Just a thought when talking about handicap and the USBC!!

The other side of the argument in regards to having a high handicap base of 230-240, is that most people think that the high average bowler has an advantage.  BUT what most people dont realize, is that one guy doesnt win a league; a TEAM does.  If you cap the entering average for a team, then teams cant stack 4-5 guys with 220+ averages.  So, is there really a need to base handicap that high?

A couple years ago, my team won a league even though on paper we were far from the best team in the league.  We had 1 guy at 195, 3 at 205, and myself at 230.  The handicap in that league was 90% of 220.  The highest average in the league was 242 and that team did not win.  I am not for certain if there is a team average cap but I know on paper we were probably a top 10 team, maybe.  We did not win that league because of me at 230.  We won that league because every week, there was someone at those "lower" averages shooting 680+.

IMO....it depends on the type of league that should determine handicap.  Money leagues should be based on lower handicap because it should be the top bowlers bowling in that league.  If it is a handicap "fun" league, then handicaps should be a little higher.  People always say that high average bowlers should not be bowling in handicap fun leagues and it should be said vice versa.  A guy averaging 170 probably should not be bowling in a big money league because they will be considered donators. 

SO..........you take a money league, make it lower handicap base (210ish), and you put an entering average team cap so teams cant be stacked.  Therefore, the 230 guy doesnt really have an advantage because he is going to have to bowl with two 190 guys to fall under a cap and also the 230 guy wont be able to say he shot 750 and doesnt make a dime in brackets and also lost points for the night to a guy that shoots 680.  THEN...you take a handicap mixed league that doesnt have much money and you make the handicap higher so that it steers away the guys that do average 230 because they know they have no chance to make any money as they know they have to shoot 725-750 every night to stay competitive. 

heres a link to the "THE FACTS ABOUT HANDICAPS" article:

http://www.bowlhouston.com/pdf/misc/TheFactsAboutHandicaps-2010.pdf

Thanks for linking to that.  I have heard that 116% number thrown around.  its funny how the people that say that rarely discuss the section about how higher average bowlers have earned it and that the USBC does not recommend using that value.   What incentive would anyone have to get better if you got rewarded for being bad?  Sounds like an awful plan for bowling.

And like all systems ... people will find a way to cheat it.   Most systems are successful when the people that are governed by them are honest and fair.  A system that rewards bad bowling doesn't seem like it will make an honest person out of anyone.

So lets see, Team A, a team of 150 average bowlers who get 116% of 240 for their average get  240 - 150 * 1.16 =  104 pins a person or 520 for a 5 person team.  Team B has 5 240 average bowlers ... well they get 0.

So on an average night Team A bowls their average and shoots 150 x 5 + 104 x 5 = 1270 ... Team B bowls their average and gets 1200 and loses by 70 pins.  Yeah, that sounds pretty fair.  I think I will recommend this at my next league meeting.