As was already pointed out, the best solution to the main problem being discussed here is to figure the handicap on a team basis rather than on an individual basis. My league that starts tonight gives a team 85% from 1050, since we have no teams over 1050. The number used to be 950, and when a team got over 950 a number of years ago, the following summer at the league meeting we raised the number to 1000. When a team got over 1000 a few years ago, we voted the number up to 1050.
This doesn't help when it comes to jackpots. In my leagues, the rules for the jackpots are established by whoever is running the jackpot. If someone is running a handicap jackpot that handicaps from 200 and there are 215 bowlers in that jackpot, the 215 bowlers have an edge and that discourages some of the lower bowlers from getting in. If the person running the jackpot wants that jackpot to have any size to it, they have to adjust the rules to encourage more bowlers to get in. If you feel the jackpot's rules are stacked against you, you have the option of not getting in--or starting a jackpot that has rules that suit you and try to drum up support for your jackpot.
quote:
It's a common misperception that higher average bowlers
always have the advantage in handicap. This may be true in
situations where nobody is improving (i.e. seniors, mixed
handicap 'just for fun', etc.). However, in leagues where folks
are competitive (where you want to be), lower average bowlers
have a better chance of improving, and therefore handicap
works to their advantage. This is one reason I no longer bowl
handicap.
In this quote, Steven points out the principle weakness of handicap leagues. Since not everyone can compete scratch, and it's safe to say that nobody wants to know that their 800 team is going to get stomped every week by the 1000 teams bowling scratch, just about the only way to keep lower average bowlers in the league is to have a handicap. This does occasionally result in the problem Steven pointed out. Personally, I like handicap leagues, and I've been fortunate to have not run into the situation Steven points out very much--or at least not to a dramatic enough extent that it enables a novice team to run away with the league. This did happen last year, however. In my Tuesday league, we had a new team of young guys. Just about every year we have a new team of young guys, but they usually don't take enough of an interest in the game to bother to learn to bowl better, and they stay down in the cellar. Last year, these guys got into it, and after establishing low averages in the early going, they started to get interested in the game and worked at it and in the second half two or three of them were shooting 100 pins over every night and their averages--while rising--didn't keep up. They ran away with the second half, and it kind of annoyed everybody. Since they were a friendly bunch and since we don't bowl for serious money anyway--and since a more experienced team beat them in the league playoffs--it didn't become a real issue. There was discussion of having some kind mid-season re-rating procedure for bowlers who had started to bowl well over average on a regular basis, but nobody came up with a system that was acceptable to enough people to pass a vote. We bowlers are an ornery bunch.
Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to finally getting started tonight.
Shiv
--------------------
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top
