I know Storm

It does sound unfair indeed.

Look at this way, 200 people bowl in a tournament with each bowler supplying $50 to the prize fund.  That is $10,000 in prize fund.  If there are only 30 bowlers bowling "scratch", then how can you justify a 50/50 split? 

The tournament should either be scratch or handicap, not both.  If you want both, then have the group left out submit extra money to apply to a separate prize fund.  Where I bowl, the tournaments are generally handicap and you can add say $10 for the Scratch All Events prize fund.  The more people that enter, the more money the winner can make.

And a little side note, why is there a cap AND handicap?  That seems contradictory.

I'd agree on the entry thing.  I'm not denying there are probably more handicap entries.  There's no perfect solution, i'm aware of that.  I think it also depends on your definition of the word "scratch" is these days.

Well, a cap and handicap is needed for the lower average teams.  You want to cap it at 840 so you don't have some team come in with 920 and obliterate everyone, but just because the cap is 840 doesn't mean that all the teams will be near that.  If you have an 840 team, but also have a 700 team, that 700 team needs some pins. 

Look at this way, 200 people bowl in a tournament with each bowler supplying $50 to the prize fund.  That is $10,000 in prize fund.  If there are only 30 bowlers bowling "scratch", then how can you justify a 50/50 split? 

The tournament should either be scratch or handicap, not both.  If you want both, then have the group left out submit extra money to apply to a separate prize fund.  Where I bowl, the tournaments are generally handicap and you can add say $10 for the Scratch All Events prize fund.  The more people that enter, the more money the winner can make.

And a little side note, why is there a cap AND handicap?  That seems contradictory.

I feel the same way . . but therein lies the issue.  I feel like to enter a competition or to justifiably be concerned about wins and losses, that I should have a fair bit of experience or skill.  I understand wanting to make the opportunity available to as many people as possible, but there's only so fair you can make something, at some point you have to be realistic.  I suppose at the same time I just really don't like the idea that you should adjust it so a 150 average bowler will beat a 230 average bowler 50% of the time.  What kind of competition does that really make it?  How is that "fair?"  People are trying to turn it into a roll of the dice, and that completely removes the spirit of competition in the first place.  Let's just do like we do with the kids and give everyone a trophy regardless of how they do, that's where this is headed. 

Quote from: Gizmo823 on February 21, 2014, 10:20:15 AM

Well, a cap and handicap is needed for the lower average teams.  You want to cap it at 840 so you don't have some team come in with 920 and obliterate everyone, but just because the cap is 840 doesn't mean that all the teams will be near that.  If you have an 840 team, but also have a 700 team, that 700 team needs some pins. 

That is all fine and dandy, but I guess I am a little old school (never thought I would say that) or perhaps it is different for leagues.  If I am told the cap is 840, well then I better have a team near that to be able to compete.  I can't enter a competition with a 700 average team and expect to compete.  That makes it seem like a fun, casual environment where people just bowl with their friends instead of bowling with people who give them a chance to win.

To me, handicap tournaments mean it doesn't matter who your team is and capped tournaments mean you need a team near the cap.  Not both.  If you want to prevent high average teams from winning, then adjust the handicap accordingly.

Fair enough, lol I like playing devil's advocate . .  I suppose I would ask why a 150 average bowler would feel like they should be able to enter any tournament and be guaranteed a chance at winning.  I've got a couple tournaments coming up that I have ZERO chance of winning, absolutely zero chance.  We also had a smaller sweeper here a month ago that I also knew I had zero chance of winning, but I bowled anyway.  Bowling seems to be the only sport where people try to ensure that money, time, work, practice, and effort gains you absolutely NOTHING. 

Obviously you aren't going to have a lot of entries into a tournament that's skewed in the favor of one group or another, but it's still the everybody gets a trophy mentality.  Should they start handicapping basketball?  Baseball? 

Now I realize that just due to the nature of the sport, it's impossible to make things truly fair.  I don't think 230 averages and 150 averages should ever be in the same league or tournament in the first place, but that's also impossible to avoid.  But I also don't understand why simply paying an entry fee is the most important factor in the competition. 

Fair or not fair aside, if you make everyone "equal," you're boiling it down to the equivalent of a slot machine tournament, which resembles a competition in no way at all. 

" I suppose at the same time I just really don't like the idea that you should adjust it so a 150 average bowler will beat a 230 average bowler 50% of the time."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Playing Devil's Advocate Here ----

Why shouldn't both bowlers have an equal shot at winning the tournament.  They are both paying the entry fee in hopes of winning.

If they are both legitimately averaging 150 and 230 (not a sandbag 150), how are you to convince the 150 to pay his entry fee with without an equal chance to win.

I'm not advocating 100% handicap. (80 to 85 is where I like it)

What I am talking about is the mentality that seems to exist that since I am a 230 average bowler, I deserve to take the 150 average bowlers money 9 out of 10 times.

Also, be happy that you are not a tournament director here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area.  You try to start up a tournament to attract bowlers.  If you are successful and the word starts to spread, Chris Barnes and team USA sign up to bowl.  Now you lose 1/2 of you entries because they have no desire to compete against the upper echelon of elite bowlers in the area unless they are getting pins.

Simple answer:  I do not know anyone who enters a tournament that doesn't have what they believe is a "fair" chance of winning.

In bowling that has been handicap.

In golf, there is a handicap.  They let certain level of players tee off from different tees.

Now if you label a tournament as scratch and a 150 or 180 enters, then so be it.

But on a handicap tournament, if a lower average bowler exceeds their ability and the higher average bowler just meets their ability, yes I expect the lower average bowler to win every time in that case.

Why else would you expect them to enter?

Most average casual bowlers (I am not talking about competitive tournament bowlers, or bowlers working towards that goal) are not going to enter a tournament they have no or little shot at winning.  People value their hard earned money more than that.

That's my 2 cents.

Fair enough, lol I like playing devil's advocate . .  I suppose I would ask why a 150 average bowler would feel like they should be able to enter any tournament and be guaranteed a chance at winning.  I've got a couple tournaments coming up that I have ZERO chance of winning, absolutely zero chance.  We also had a smaller sweeper here a month ago that I also knew I had zero chance of winning, but I bowled anyway.  Bowling seems to be the only sport where people try to ensure that money, time, work, practice, and effort gains you absolutely NOTHING. 

Obviously you aren't going to have a lot of entries into a tournament that's skewed in the favor of one group or another, but it's still the everybody gets a trophy mentality.  Should they start handicapping basketball?  Baseball? 

Now I realize that just due to the nature of the sport, it's impossible to make things truly fair.  I don't think 230 averages and 150 averages should ever be in the same league or tournament in the first place, but that's also impossible to avoid.  But I also don't understand why simply paying an entry fee is the most important factor in the competition. 

Fair or not fair aside, if you make everyone "equal," you're boiling it down to the equivalent of a slot machine tournament, which resembles a competition in no way at all. 

Quote from: txbowler on February 21, 2014, 03:26:47 PM

" I suppose at the same time I just really don't like the idea that you should adjust it so a 150 average bowler will beat a 230 average bowler 50% of the time."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Playing Devil's Advocate Here ----

Why shouldn't both bowlers have an equal shot at winning the tournament.  They are both paying the entry fee in hopes of winning.

If they are both legitimately averaging 150 and 230 (not a sandbag 150), how are you to convince the 150 to pay his entry fee with without an equal chance to win.

I'm not advocating 100% handicap. (80 to 85 is where I like it)

What I am talking about is the mentality that seems to exist that since I am a 230 average bowler, I deserve to take the 150 average bowlers money 9 out of 10 times.

Also, be happy that you are not a tournament director here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area.  You try to start up a tournament to attract bowlers.  If you are successful and the word starts to spread, Chris Barnes and team USA sign up to bowl.  Now you lose 1/2 of you entries because they have no desire to compete against the upper echelon of elite bowlers in the area unless they are getting pins.

If you have (or expect) enough entries, you could consider having two average divisions ... say, 800-up and 799-under. In that way, you wouldn't likely have too many 220+ players competing for the same prize-list standings as 150 or 160 bowlers.

Well but that's the deal I have with the handicap . . if you go into a tournament or league knowing it's 90% of 220 and there are 230 averages in the league, you should know what you're getting yourself into, right? 

And having a "fair" chance of winning is much different from having an "equal" chance at winning.  The THS makes everything so volatile that it's more the problem than handicap.  It doesn't take much for a 230 average to shoot 750, and it also doesn't take much for them to shoot 600.  It's still much easier for a 150 average to jump up to 170 a game than it is for a 230 to jump up to 250 a game. 

Maybe I do not understand the question.  Whats the problem with a capped tournament at 840.  If you have bowlers with 230 averages you just have to include some lower average bowlers to be allowed to bowl.  Same for the 150 average bowlers, they need to find some higher average bowlers to bowl with.  We do this all the time in leagues why not tournaments.  I do agree, you would want to get as close to 840 as possible just like you would in trying to get close to your league max.  If a team can only get to 700 then its their problem, they new the cap going in.  All this does is make the majority of the teams competitive.  What did I miss ?