I have a question regarding the split season. Our team won both the 1st and 2nd half. Team standings from places 2-10 were very tight, and every point earned the last night of the rolloff was very important. The team we bowled in the rolloff were in 2nd place, with only 2 points seperating them from third place. They (along with several other teams that were close) thought that they should get to bowl the 3rd place team to determine final team standings (then teams 4 & 5, etc.). Their reasoning was that they had a much better chance of winning against the other team as opposed to bowling us. Also, we had already clinched the top spot and basically were "just bowling for fun" (their words).
Is there anyone who can tell me if they have any rules that their league uses that could be added to the league rules stating that in the case of the same team winning both halves, that they will bowl the last place team? In our case we had an odd number of teams, therefore we would have bowled unopposed. Any input would be greatly appreciated concerning this matter.
I personally believe that they have a valid point and totally understand their unhappiness, and would also be willing to add something to the league rules if this was to ever happen again.
Thanks,
Karen
Karen, yes, it is not all uncommon, especially in leagues with top heavy prize lists where the teams in the top half get most of the money and lower half peanuts. A rule of this kind could even go beyond just the first place team if say Ist and 2nd and even beyond were locked up to have teams where standings with 'some real money' involved were bowling against each other where winning or losing mattered. If it is only a couple of bucks or so then it is not worth the bother.
In your case since you have the top spot locked up it could, and I don't know that it would happen, you could influence the 2nd and 3rd place finishes by how much effort you put into winning. There are cases where the Ist place team, having locked things up, does not even show up on the final night and the 2nd place team has an easy time of it retaining that position.
Don Gates
Don,
Thanks for your response. I believe the prize list was very fair with only $100 seperating the top three spots. From 4th thru 15th it dropped in $20 increments.
I never even considered not showing up to bowl, that is the highlight of my week. And everyone on our team bowls the best they can - we all are very competitive and none of us wants to have the low score for the game on our team (and we love to rub it in to our husbands when we beat them!). The 2nd place team that we bowled are really nice and very competitive also, they are gonna give you a run for your money, so to speak. Our whole team was rooting for them, knowing that they had to win to retain the 2nd place spot. But we all bowled the best we could, as we always do, and just happened to bowl more over average than them. They were so very close 2 of the games, with it coming down to the anchor bowler to determine the win. The other game not so close for them. Because we took all 7 points from them, they were dropped down to 4th place. This is where I can see their point, it would have been more fair to them if they had to bowl the 3rd place team to determine standings.
I really hated to see them drop so far down, when I believe that they would have probably retained 2nd place based on their scores bowled against us.
This was the first time that any team in this league has won both halves, so there was nothing in the rules stating what to do if it does happen. If anyone could give me some examples of how they worded it in their league rules, I would be glad to give it to our secretary so that it could be discussed at our meeting in August.
I think what you are asking is called the "lock out rule" If at the end of any 1/2 the 1st place team even when losing all the points would still win that half they would bowl the last place team. If they win both halves they would then bowl the last place team. 2nd would bowl 3rd, 4th would bowl 5th etc.
If this happens too ofter then your league needs to look at the rules and find a way to make the league more even. Handicap or average.
D.M.,
Thank you so much for responding. As I stated before, this is the first time the same team has won both the 1st and 2nd half. It was not a "lock out" for either the first or second half. The first half we had to win 5 of 7 points to actually win the half. The second half also was not a "lock out" as we were competing against another team that floundered the first half. We had to sweep the points against them in the 2nd half to win it. So in this instance, only the roll-off night was affected. But teams were so close in positions 2-10 (of 15) that that final night was extremely important to many teams.
If I understand you correctly, we could vote to add it to the rules to also cover both the 1st and 2nd half, if the 1st place team is a runaway? That would make all the teams affected by this happy I am sure, and I would be willing to vote to add it to the league rules JUST IN CASE it does happen again.
By the way, our team would not be considered a "stacked" team, our highest average bowler was a 189...just my opinion. There were several teams on the league that had two or more 200+ bowlers on their team, so I would think that they actually should have the advantage as compared to our team.
Again, thanks for the response.
D.M.: I think what you are asking is called the "lock out rule" If at the end of any 1/2 the 1st place team even when losing all the points would still win that half they would bowl the last place team. If they win both halves they would then bowl the last place team. 2nd would bowl 3rd, 4th would bowl 5th etc.
yep...we call it a locked position round.
if you have a person on your league who can explain the rule correctly, the league will most likely vote it in because it really does make sense. this year, we had a league that voted in the locked position round and then complained about it because they didn't quite understand it...but then they figured out that it was actually a decent idea.
guin,
Thanks. It sure makes sense to me. Of course, I would have liked to see them raise the handicap (it was 90% of 200) and like I said we had several bowlers average over 200. To me that is an unfair advantage, but I am only one vote. I am going to try and explain why we should raise either the percentage or at least take it to 210, but these new league bowlers of today just don't seem to get it. Not to mention those teams with bowlers averaging over 200 DO NOT want it raised. But that didn't seem to help them this year!!!
karen60rene: guin, Thanks. It sure makes sense to me. Of course, I would have liked to see them raise the handicap (it was 90% of 200) and like I said we had several bowlers average over 200. To me that is an unfair advantage, but I am only one vote. I am going to try and explain why we should raise either the percentage or at least take it to 210, but these new league bowlers of today just don't seem to get it. Not to mention those teams with bowlers averaging over 200 DO NOT want it raised. But that didn't seem to help them this year!!! Karen
LOL! i can imagine they don't want it raised. at our house, most of our leagues realize why it's smart to set the handicapping average higher than the highest average in the league, even if they don't really understand the math. it took someone in this forum (i think it was D.M., actually) breaking it down for me before i got it. math isn't really my strong suit.
i would think that if you have enough bowlers in your league who are not on teams that have a member or 2 averaging over 200, you can probably explain to them why raising the handicapping average is a smart move, as long as they're paying attention, and you'd be able to get the motion passed. but then...some people just don't get it.
