Ya anyone that thinks 100% of any average is on crack cocaine. Some fool was able to get this by on one of leagues that I've bowled every single fall and summer since 1997 which was previously 90% of 210 and never had a problem. Never wanted to raise the average or really lower it. But never even considered changing the percentage. It hurts the upper average bowlers TOO much and is unfair and next week if this same guy tries this in the fall it isn't going to pass without a fight. I will be the first one to revert this rule next summer also.

Quote from: BrianCRX90 on August 29, 2012, 07:59:17 PM

Ya anyone that thinks 100% of any average is on crack cocaine. Some fool was able to get this by on one of leagues that I've bowled every single fall and summer since 1997 which was previously 90% of 210 and never had a problem. Never wanted to raise the average or really lower it. But never even considered changing the percentage. It hurts the upper average bowlers TOO much and is unfair and next week if this same guy tries this in the fall it isn't going to pass without a fight. I will be the first one to revert this rule next summer also.

I agree.  I understand the thinking "on paper" that the base of 240 is fair.  Numbers dont lie.  HOWEVER...people dont look at the reality of what really happens when you place the base that high.  It will promote sandbagging unlike no other. 

In a point league where individual bowlers bowl against an individual from the opposing team, if the handicap is based off of 240, you are going to see winning percentages of those higher average bowlers in the 25% area.  In leagues I have bowled in, even at my 230 "average", I barely win half my points and the handicap is based off of 220.  So where is the advantage at?  It is basically 50/50 wins and losses. 

If you make the base too high, the "scratch" bowlers will disappear and if you make it too low, the handicap people will leave.  You have to find a happy medium. 

I think it's very subjective to the league base.  While you won 1/2 of your points, last year in a ind. point league (4) points per player per night I won 85 out of a possible 140 points.(which was the high point total)  This league uses 100% handicap and I averaged 10 pins over the base score.

We often look at different scenarios for our leagues to make them as fair for every team out there.  Our team finished tied for 5th place (highest team average in the league) just by changing the handicap to 90% we would have jumped into 1st place.  Also if we would have changed the base score to my average, I would have lost the point total award.

Like I said every league is different, but in today's bowling with the lack of actual scratch leagues, you have to equalize the playing field as much as possible or people will lose interest.  Does is sometimes promote "sandbagging" of course it does, there's kind of no way around that in today's environment.  98% of league bowlers are just that "league bowlers", most don't care if they get better, they just want to have a night out and have some sort of chance to win.

Just to play devils advocate here...

Why does the highest average, or above average team "deserve" to win?

Why can't the lowest average team win the league?  Why do they bowl if they have no chance to ever win?

Exactly! You are bowling in a HANDICAP LEAGUE! It means everyone has a chance.

Quote from: trash heap on August 30, 2012, 11:39:49 AM

Quote from: txbowler on August 30, 2012, 11:36:15 AM

Just to play devils advocate here...

Why does the highest average, or above average team "deserve" to win?

Why can't the lowest average team win the league?  Why do they bowl if they have no chance to ever win?

Exactly! You are bowling in a HANDICAP LEAGUE! It means everyone has a chance.

Mostly because the high average guys complain more than the low average guys.  I'm a high average guy but i realize you need all of the other bowlers to have a solid league.  not to mention the fact that i'm in the bowling business.  In our most successful men's league as I stated above my team had the highest team average and finished in 5th place.  Our league is set up to give every team in the league a fair chance to win.  I think that's all anyone wants, and it's my belief that 100% of somewhere around the highest average is a lot more fair than 90%.

I agree with that to an extent.  What some people should understand is that what happens in a town with 5 million people and a large bowler base is not the same as a town with only 200,000 people and a smaller base.  In Atlanta, where I am from, we dont necessarily have to have "those bowlers" to make a solid league because we probably have hundreds if not thousands of bowlers averaging over 200 on their league shots.  If you go to a smaller town, then you would need "those bowlers" to make a solid league.  So different locations are relevant to what is needed and what isnt.  But i do understand what you are saying though.

I think 90% of the high average is about right.  But there should be a rule that states the max score with handicap is 300.  301 and higher is not possible scratch, and it shouldn't be possible w/ handicap.  If you are allowed over 300, it just turns into a pins over average competition.  In this situation, a 225 average bowlers max pins over average is 75. While a 180 average bowler has a possible pins over average of 125.  In no way is this fair to a higher average bowler.