Handicapps for Tournements

[HORNEY]

Below I have put what I have said on the BUTBA Forum. Basically saying the current system is putting us at a disadvantage, as it rewards those who underperform in their league with higher handicapps in tournements.

*****

Although it would have made little impact on where we finished, I was very angry with the decision to change the system by which the handicapps were calculated seemingly half-way through the tournement.

I am referring to the motion that was discussed (at great length) at the SOSM and was agreed by the student members, to use previously qualified OOM averages over unsanctioned league averages. I know that the ex-studens still had to agree to approve this change, but as the newly agreed order of preference for calculating handicapps appeared on the Newbury Trios Entry Form, I assumed this had happened.

So to be told after the first 3 games we bowled in the early squad that my unqualified league average was to be used instead of my qualified OOM average from last season was annoying to the point of disctraction. Had I been aware that my league average would have been used for my handicapp I would have thought twice about entering the tournement, and any future tournements. But above this, it is wrong to mislead people in this way. Once you start a competition, you should follow those rules throughout.

The unscanctioned leagues we play in within clubs should not be taken as a true reflection of our ability over qualified averages in OOM events. For example: my current league average of 190 is a lot higher than any tournement I have ever played in over 7 years, or am likely to ever achieve! Last year my qualified OOM average was 174, and so far this year my qualified average is around 170. Where is the incentive to perform well in your league if it is to put you at a disadvantage in tournements? I'm not suggesting that people 'sandbag' in their leagues, but I'm sure not everyone puts in 100% every week. If scores from our club 'fun events' such as Halloween Fancy Dress had been included in our league scores, then most, if not everyone, in our club would have seen their average reduce. I have missed 2 weeks of our club league working, so in fact my average should appear as 136 as I failed to make those two fixtures. Although 136 is not an accurate reflection of my ability, doing this would put me in a better position for handicapped tournements such as Newbury at the start of the season.

Is it also true, as it was explained to me at the weekend, that you must take your highest current average for future tournements? Again, meaning that I will be off a 190 (if i maintain my league average on, in my opinion, easier lanes) rather than my newly combined qualified average of 170ish?

*****

Any thoughts?

[HORNEY]

This is the responce I got:

"This was explained to Loughborough in full on the day so i'm not going to repeat it all on here. If anyone has any questions on this please email the committee.

And yes you have to enter all tournaments on your highest current average."

[Joanne]

If those are the rules, those are the rules, so we have to take it

I don't think that we would be the only ones affected negatively

There's got to be some sort of rule, ie. when people are bowling in tournaments at their home centres they might be at an advantage...it is potentially fairly to others for the home club to use their (higher) league average, so must be the same for all

I would think generally, although not always, league averages are lower than tournie averages


If you can get a great average in one centre, why not in another? Sign of a good bowler..... [/devil's advocate]


The problem is that we have an unsanctioned, non-league, weekly averages table recorded by one person jotting the scores in a notebook. We say we verify ours, but what about other clubs? I think the real debate should be on how we get all clubs to verify and be truthful about their weekly averages. So what is required is transparency from all clubs as to how they formulate their averages, and get them to publish them online, and the averages must be from the first three games bowled on their proper bowling day, whether in league format or not. Otherwise there's a massive scope for cheating, and I know this is what you really are annoyed about. I suggest discussing with other clubs how to go about this, in a non-accusatory way

[hoddsiencfc]

I was under the impression this had all been cleared up at the SOSM-I know that at the EOSM last year there was a big debate on it because people felt they were being put at disadvantage because people were sandbagging in the league. I was told, for the cup, that you put last season's qualified average then the unqualified then the league in that order. It would only change after you have bowled 12 qualifying games this season-i.e. Notts Doubles, Newbury and BUTBA Cup. I really do not know what is going on with the averages if they have decided to change the rules again but from what you have said it seems totally out of order to change the handicaps half way through a tournament without prior consent and agreement of all teams involved. Even then I would be extremely annoyed-especially if no other teams were affected

[Ian]

The full explaination was given to myself and Marcus after 3 games of the Newbury tournament. In short, all that was discussed about entering average changes at the SOSM was subject to approval from the ex-students. The changes were rejected and we continue to play under the old rules. The entry forms for Newbury went out before the ex-students meeting (Notts doubles as most years) meaning that they reflected the expected changes rather than the old rules. No formal notification was given to our team (possilby any team) but it was assumed that most teams new the rules (followed by a whole list of communication errors...).

I'll explain it in more detail to anyone wanting to know tomorrow.

(Almost) Everyone has bowled at least 12 games on Wednesdays now. This will be your entering average for tournaments until you have bowled 12 or more games in OOM & BUTBA Cup tournaments, when your entering average will become the higher of the two.

[HORNEY]

Ian Wrote:(Almost) Everyone has bowled at least 12 games on Wednesdays now. This will be your entering average for tournaments until you have bowled 12 or more games in OOM & BUTBA Cup tournaments, when your entering average will become the higher of the two.

So for example: My current league average is 190, but my combined OOM & BUTBA Cup average is 170. So in order to give myself (and team mates) a better chance of winning, I 'should' bring my league average down below 170. Knowing this, where is my incentive to bowl well on a Wednesday?

[Ian]

There is none. Welcome to the world of trying to get people to bowl at tournaments. It's bad enough when there is a chance of winning, with the handicapping system open to league sandbaggers it is worse still.

[Marcus]

I know the feeling...

The problem that was explained to us on sunday though was with people who have a lower OOM average compared their unsactioned weekly average. When it came to a tournament at their alley they would get a better handicap than they probably should.

Thats one problem they mentioned, but I don't agree with that because surely having a home advantage is as much a part of bowling as it is with any other sport.

HORNEY Wrote:where is my incentive to bowl well on a Wednesday?

Tina was trying to say that the inverse could be the same. For instance you turn up at a tournament and after 3 games realise that you have no chance of getting a top position... Where is the incentive to bowl well for the rest of the games that day, when you could just bowl stupidly to lower your OOM average

As reguards the confusion from what was put on the entry form, and what it should be: This all seems to have stemed from the fact that, although the students and the ex-students are now under the same organisation, they had 2 seperate meetings. The ex-students aren't bothered with any BUCS stuff, and want their tournaments to be BTBA sanctioned. They obviously felt that the rule change for averages would in turn make it so that their tournaments wern't sactioned by BTBA - hense the vote against.

More communication from BUTBA would have been nice though

[HORNEY]

Ian Wrote:There is none. Welcome to the world of trying to get people to bowl at tournaments. It's bad enough when there is a chance of winning, with the handicapping system open to league sandbaggers it is worse still.

this is what we tried to avoid my changing it at the meeting (or so we thought)

this may cause others to consider how they want to perform in the league. i'll welcome ideas and suggestions about this from club members

[HORNEY]

Marcus Wrote:

HORNEY Wrote:where is my incentive to bowl well on a Wednesday?

Tina was trying to say that the inverse could be the same. For instance you turn up at a tournament and after 3 games realise that you have no chance of getting a top position... Where is the incentive to bowl well for the rest of the games that day, when you could just bowl stupidly to lower your OOM average

That is simply not true, as your OOM average counts towards your overall placement at the end of year standings (Average and Ranking Points) - both of which are calculated scratch. Also, you are less likely to bowl badly in a tournament you have travelled for hours to get to and paid a lot to enter as opposed to a league you dont pay as much to play in.