....for money leagues? We got into a debate recently at the fact that leagues that are $20-25 a night, have 30 teams, and the overwhelming majority of the bowlers are over 200, have handicaps based on 220 and even 230. So I thought it would be cool to debate that. If you are in a league where you have a hefty prize fund, what is a "reasonable handicap"? Should it be based off of 210, 220, 230....?
IMO.....handicaps should be based on a lower average, say 210, because I think it would help eliminate some bagging that goes on. Granted there are people in the leagues that average 220+ but the overall majority of the league is 200-210, with similarities in the number of 220 bowlers as there are 190 bowlers. I think that if you continue to have handicaps based on 220-230, you will continue to have teams with a "We won the first third/quarter so we can bag the rest of the year and build up handicap for the rolloffs" mentality. I know it goes on in just about every money league and realize this is a huge uphill battle. But, it has gotten to a point to where I dont care about those types of leagues anymore. I have had more fun in the $15.00/week leagues the past few years than the money leagues. There is a league at a center here that is $15.00/week and takes up almost all 40 lanes.
So what do you guys think? Curious to find out if it was completely up to you, what would you base the handicap on?
Peace doesnt always have to be silent.