I think the best solution, is to do away with the high pay-out sweeper. When the food supply disappears the predators go away, and look for greener pastures. Then everybody can go back to having fun, like it was meant to be.
guinevere: that's the fastest and most logical way to prove a sandbagging claim, especially if those averages are in the same house. keep ALL of your recaps, especially the ones from the beginning of the season, to compare the sudden drop in their scores. the bowlers who are saying that are either incredibly smart (because they're trying to get you to go back to the way it was) or incredibly dumb (if they actually believe that a real handicapping system-as opposed to the one you were using-would hurt the lower-average bowlers). going back to 90% of 210 when you have 240-average bowlers would be the perfect scenario for these "wolves." they get free pins and the lower average bowlers have no idea what's hit them.
that's the fastest and most logical way to prove a sandbagging claim, especially if those averages are in the same house. keep ALL of your recaps, especially the ones from the beginning of the season, to compare the sudden drop in their scores.
the bowlers who are saying that are either incredibly smart (because they're trying to get you to go back to the way it was) or incredibly dumb (if they actually believe that a real handicapping system-as opposed to the one you were using-would hurt the lower-average bowlers). going back to 90% of 210 when you have 240-average bowlers would be the perfect scenario for these "wolves." they get free pins and the lower average bowlers have no idea what's hit them.
So true
guinevere: on another note--and this won't help you until next year--you can always consider setting up an average cap. or you can just, um, "forget" to invite the cheaters back next year. remember, just because they show up to your meeting doesn't mean you have to let them into your league. leagues are by invitation. even if people show up, you can tell them straight up that you don't want them bowling with you--and don't be afraid to tell them why, either. even if you couldn't prove it well enough for the USBC to kick them out, that doesn't mean that they weren't cheating. you and your league don't have to put up with that.
remember, just because they show up to your meeting doesn't mean you have to let them into your league. leagues are by invitation. even if people show up, you can tell them straight up that you don't want them bowling with you--and don't be afraid to tell them why, either. even if you couldn't prove it well enough for the USBC to kick them out, that doesn't mean that they weren't cheating. you and your league don't have to put up with that.
Probably would never happen as the league officers, a lot of the Team Captains and the house pro 'run' the league and are some of the higher average bowlers complaining (Should have seen the faces on the officers when the vote to change the basis passed... LOL)
DM in Rules:Next year try this rule: All bowlers competing in the sweepers will use their highest book average from the last 3 years. See if they are willing to bag in all their leagues.....
Now this approach, I feel, has a chance to potentially address the sand bagging issue - even if it were written to trigger the higher book average if their current league-ending average was >10% lower than their 3-year book average of all leagues in the house - or something to that effect; not neccesarily the highest book average in the previous 3-years.
D.M.:Next year try this rule: All bowlers competing in the sweepers will use their highest book average from the last 3 years. See if they are willing to bag in all their leagues.....
i like the idea of using the highest book average for participants in the sweeper.
my question is this: do you currently have a majority of lower-average bowlers in this league? i'm reasonably sure that, given the current situation, a lot of your lower-average bowlers are probably seriously considering quitting the league because they're sick of the BS. we all know that the cheaters will not vote this rule into play, but the lower-average bowlers who are tired of being screwed over should be all about it.
if you can get the lower-average bowlers to agree to vote for a 10-pin drop rule, and they have the majority, you'll be able to beat the cheaters at their own game--and getting your lower-average bowlers together and explaining that's your plan for next year would probably be a double-fix. a 10-pin drop rule would keep your sandbaggers from bagging (to an reasonable extent), and i believe that getting a 10-pin drop rule into place will keep your lower-average bowlers from quitting over this particular situation.
guinevere: D.M.:Next year try this rule: All bowlers competing in the sweepers will use their highest book average from the last 3 years. See if they are willing to bag in all their leagues..... i like the idea of using the highest book average for participants in the sweeper. my question is this: do you currently have a majority of lower-average bowlers in this league? i'm reasonably sure that, given the current situation, a lot of your lower-average bowlers are probably seriously considering quitting the league because they're sick of the BS. we all know that the cheaters will not vote this rule into play, but the lower-average bowlers who are tired of being screwed over should be all about it. if you can get the lower-average bowlers to agree to vote for a 10-pin drop rule, and they have the majority, you'll be able to beat the cheaters at their own game--and getting your lower-average bowlers together and explaining that's your plan for next year would probably be a double-fix. a 10-pin drop rule would keep your sandbaggers from bagging (to an reasonable extent), and i believe that getting a 10-pin drop rule into place will keep your lower-average bowlers from quitting over this particular situation.
Doctor Doom: guinevere: D.M.:Next year try this rule: All bowlers competing in the sweepers will use their highest book average from the last 3 years. See if they are willing to bag in all their leagues..... i like the idea of using the highest book average for participants in the sweeper. my question is this: do you currently have a majority of lower-average bowlers in this league? i'm reasonably sure that, given the current situation, a lot of your lower-average bowlers are probably seriously considering quitting the league because they're sick of the BS. we all know that the cheaters will not vote this rule into play, but the lower-average bowlers who are tired of being screwed over should be all about it. if you can get the lower-average bowlers to agree to vote for a 10-pin drop rule, and they have the majority, you'll be able to beat the cheaters at their own game--and getting your lower-average bowlers together and explaining that's your plan for next year would probably be a double-fix. a 10-pin drop rule would keep your sandbaggers from bagging (to an reasonable extent), and i believe that getting a 10-pin drop rule into place will keep your lower-average bowlers from quitting over this particular situation.How would a 10 pin drop rule help the situation. It would all average out in the end, and the higher average bowlers would still have the advantage.
having an advantage and cheating to get that advantage are two very different things. i have no problem with the high-average bowlers having the advantage. they SHOULD have an advantage. they've earned it.
however, the way i read things, currently the high average bowlers are sandbagging the crap out of this league because they're pissed that the members got smart and raised the handicap base. as much as we want to believe that people "bowl how they practice," more often than not, it doesn't work that way. a 10-pin drop rule, if written correctly, would make it so that the sandbaggers have to use their highest book average for the sweeper if their league average has dropped more than 10 pins. there's a big difference between going into the high-pay sweeper with the 180 average you've BS'ed and being forced to use the 230 average you have on the books. or maybe, i'm just not applying a 10-pin drop rule correctly.
like i said, i really like the idea of using the highest book average just for the sweeper, especially in this situation. it seems to me that a 10-pin drop rule (or even a 15- or 20-pin drop rule--i would take my chances against a fake 210 average way before i'd take my chances against a fake 180 average), if written correctly, can curb this problem just as easily.
i have no patience for jerks who cheat in bowling. i believe that it drives away the people who are not that good (but enjoy the game anyway) and actually want to get better.
Many leagues around here use the 10 pin drop rule. They also use the 21 or 30 game cushion rule. Plus all new bowlers come in with the highest book ave. for the last 3 years. We pay off by the 7 point system. Bagging happens but is not that big of a problem. Returning bowlers with 21 games or more use their final ave. with the above rules.
guinevere:my question is this: do you currently have a majority of lower-average bowlers in this league? i'm reasonably sure that, given the current situation, a lot of your lower-average bowlers are probably seriously considering quitting the league because they're sick of the BS. we all know that the cheaters will not vote this rule into play, but the lower-average bowlers who are tired of being screwed over should be all about it.
I went through our current league averages - as of week 10 (~30 games per bowler):
80-90:1 -- 91-100: 2 -- 101-110: 5 -- 111-120:7 -- 121-130:5 -- 131-140:12 -- 141-150:13 -- 151-160:21 -- 161-170:19 -- 171-180:17 -- 181-190:19 -- 191-200:11 -- 201-210:6 -- 211-220:1
Mean average of 140 bowlers -- 161 average
I looked up on USBC the last year's league averages (some bowling in multiple leagues/same house) for some of the known high average bowlers in the current league/same house (I still need to review the other current house leagues to compare their current averages in other house leagues versus our league average):
House Pro- last year 236 avg/312 games in multiple same house leagues vs current league 206/24 games (-30 pins)
219/146 gms in multiple same house leagues last vs our current league 185/27 gms (-34 pins)
229/329 gms in multiple same house leagues vs our current league 195/26 gms (-34 pins)
220/228-gms in multiple same house leagues vs our current league 214/21 gms (-6 pins)
223/177 gms in multiple same house leagues vs our current league 187/24 gms (-36 pins)
206/81 gms in multiple same house leagues vs our current league 185/27 gms (-21 pins)
210/169 gms in multiple same house leagues vs our current league 177/27 gms (-33 pins)
Since the change in this year's HDCP basis adds ~27 pins to each sub-210 bowler's average, it would appear that some have done the same calculations and are sand bagging their averages to more than make up for the loss in advantage...
I'm unsure whether its better to wait until end of our 30-week league/before sweepers or to raise the issue now -- it would appear to be somewhat blatant, wouldn't you say?
Dear Tele:
Is there any chance that, for whatever reason(s), the lane conditions may be tougher-than-normal this season -- in your league, at least?
If not, it would certainly appear that at least some of your league members are engaged in sandbagging tactics. And according to you, some of them are all but admitting it.
MightyFish: Dear Tele: Is there any chance that, for whatever reason(s), the lane conditions may be tougher-than-normal this season -- in your league, at least? If not, it would certainly appear that at least some of your league members are engaged in sandbagging tactics. And according to you, some of them are all but admitting it.
Is there any chance that, for whatever reason(s), the lane conditions may be tougher-than-normal this season -- in your league, at least? If not, it would certainly appear that at least some of your league members are engaged in sandbagging tactics. And according to you, some of them are all but admitting it.
I finished last year's league with a 183 average through 90 games. Through 30 games this year, I'm at a 175 w/a 544 series Fri-nite. I'll need to check the averages of their other current house leagues for comparison but my 8-pins after a summer layoff versus their 30+ pins is a bit much... much too much consistancy in the amount of their averages being off by nearly the same amount that the change in basis brought IMHO...
Tele: guinevere:my question is this: do you currently have a majority of lower-average bowlers in this league? i'm reasonably sure that, given the current situation, a lot of your lower-average bowlers are probably seriously considering quitting the league because they're sick of the BS. we all know that the cheaters will not vote this rule into play, but the lower-average bowlers who are tired of being screwed over should be all about it. I went through our current league averages - as of week 10 (~30 games per bowler): I'm unsure whether its better to wait until end of our 30-week league/before sweepers or to raise the issue now -- it would appear to be somewhat blatant, wouldn't you say?
2) i have always been a proponent of getting things on the table as early as possible. if i were you, i would do it now or within the next couple of weeks. it's always nice to not be blindsided with things.frankly, i would start talking to people and see if you can get some support for a "cheating proceeding." (i just made that up--it's kinda great because it rhymes.) you can even try to get rid of them now--BEFORE they mess up your sweeper again. sandbagging is ridiculously hard to prove, but between the obvious inconsistencies in book averages, inconsistencies in current averages and a statement from the lane guy that the house shot is no harder for this league than it is for any others in the house (aside from normal breakdown, of course--especially in a late league), you might actually have the proof on your side.
3) if you can't fix this crap for this season, absolutely start talking now to your lower-average bowlers about putting in a new sweeper average rule for next season. you won't be able to vote it in for this season, but you only need a majority vote at your organizational meeting. it would be even more awesome if the cheaters didn't know it was coming, didn't show up to the organizational meeting and then were surprised by the new rules when the come back in the fall--but sometimes, i tend to be a little bit vindictive and mean, especially when the little guy is being screwed over so blatantly. i'm sure it would be a real heartbreaker for everyone if the cheaters quit the league because you put in a new rule to actually provide a little fairness for the high-paying sweeper.
Tele:I finished last year's league with a 183 average through 90 games. Through 30 games this year, I'm at a 175 w/a 544 series Fri-nite. I'll need to check the averages of their other current house leagues for comparison but my 8-pins after a summer layoff versus their 30+ pins is a bit much... much too much consistancy in the amount of their averages being off by nearly the same amount that the change in basis brought IMHO...
Whereas I tend to agree that 30+ pins "is a bit much," IF the lanes were quite a bit "tougher" for your league this season, there COULD be a major dropoff with high-average players in comparison to the dropoff experienced by bowlers (such as you) with a 175-185 average. But, obviously, you know a lot more about your situation (and your league and lane conditions) than I do.
MightyFish: Dear Tele: Whereas I tend to agree that 30+ pins "is a bit much," IF the lanes were quite a bit "tougher" for your league this season, there COULD be a major dropoff with high-average players in comparison to the dropoff experienced by bowlers (such as you) with a 175-185 average. But, obviously, you know a lot more about your situation (and your league and lane conditions) than I do.
Bill-
I agree that there's always the 'possibility' of lane conditions at play. That's why I'll be looking at averages in other house leagues for 'patterns' and inconsistancies. To my knowledge, they oil the same for all house leagues.
Last year's house league averages for the House Pro were -- 245; 237; 233; 227 and 232; 231; 231; 230; 224 for one of the other high average bowlers so there are always some variability in league averages.
I'm contemplating keeping tabs on the averages over the course of the house league(s) and, if it still appears to be an issue in our league, will probably write a summation of the issues/USBC rules for distribution to the league officers/membership for their consideration of whether an issue exists and, if so, what the membership's opinions are/what to do to address them...
Bottom line, for me, is that a Mixed Handicap league should be 'fun' and afford all bowlers an opportunity for being rewarded for good-great bowling. I don't begrudge the advantage a high average bowler has, and should have by the 90% rule, but to game the system by sand bagging to gain more than the 10% is... an 'Unfair Tactic'
Tele:Bottom line, for me, is that a Mixed Handicap league should be 'fun' and afford all bowlers an opportunity for being rewarded for good-great bowling. I don't begrudge the advantage a high average bowler has, and should have by the 90% rule, but to game the system by sand bagging to gain more than the 10% is... an 'Unfair Tactic'
As you indicate, sandbagging IS "an unfair tactic."
On the other hand, proving sandbagging IS usually extremely difficult to prove.
But perhaps, in your situation, on the basis of what you have posted, it may be easier to prove than in most situations.
