Handicap vs Scratch

[NewToBowling]

Ok, I'm new to the game (hence my screen name :))

I know handicap vs scratch is a big issue.

I think bowling is one of the few sports that has handicap. I'm guessing the main reason they do it is to get interest in local leagues and tournaments. Otherwise there would be less interest if you know you're going up against 240-260 average guys and you're at 170. And money is always the bottom line.

What if someone has been bowling 10 years and still has a handicap of 140 vs someone who has been at it for only 2 years and is already 220 average. Sometimes someone is just better than others, regardless of experience.

The 220 bowler is just a better bowler and will always be a better bowler than the 140 guy. Sure the 140 guy would probably win a handful of handicap tournaments but that's because he is being given 80 extra pins. So yes the 140 guy would technically "beat" the 220 guy in handicap tournaments but I'm sure the 220 bowled better than the 140 guy with more pinfall.

Some people just plateau and hit their max. No amount of teaching, sessions, practice will ever get them to improve. Like Iceman would say, they just don't have the GIFT.

And of course there is the whole sandbagging issue with handicap tournaments.

[jab5325]

I'm not a fan of handicap leagues or tournaments because of some of the issues you've mentioned.

A guy with a 170 average and a 30 pin handicap bowls 220, and you have to score 250 to beat him.

That said, where my game is at currently, I'm not ready to take on scratch leagues and tournaments. Hopefully I'll get there. If I don't, oh well......at the end of the day, if I beat someone in the scratch score, I don't really care whether the handicap final score ends up.

[Mike White]

I'm not a fan of handicap leagues or tournaments because of some of the issues you've mentioned.

A guy with a 170 average and a 30 pin handicap bowls 220, and you have to score 250 to beat him.

That said, where my game is at currently, I'm not ready to take on scratch leagues and tournaments. Hopefully I'll get there. If I don't, oh well......at the end of the day, if I beat someone in the scratch score, I don't really care whether the handicap final score ends up.

Back in the day, it was fairly normal to see a 170 bowler in a scratch league.

To make the teams competitive, there was an entering average cap.

4 man teams might be 760, so if you have a couple of 200 bowlers, they are going to need someone like 170, and 190 to fit under the cap.

With todays averages inflated, 170 might not quite be there yet, but if you're teachable, you can still be an asset to the team.

[mc_runner]

I really like the idea of scratch leagues with ceilings. It's not a direct handicap but levels the playing field.

Personally I have no problem with handicap leagues - I think, particularly for a more casual (or new) bowler, they are way more likely to get into/stay in the sport if at the end of the day there's a chance they can beat a 200 average person. The % difference in average more than offsets the likeliness of them winning on a regular basis anyway.

The sandbaggers are the ones you have to watch out for. Not too much of an issue in my leagues but in the big money Wednesday league that a lot of my tuesday league guys are in - apparently it really can be.

[Aslan]

Ok, I'm new to the game (hence my screen name :))

Like Iceman would say, they just don't have the GIFT.


If you're "newtobowling" and joined in February 2015, after Iceman had long since left the site, how do you know about Iceman's "gift philosophy"?? :confused:

Huh? Iceman?? :eek:

And I agree. If I could start a league it would be a sport shot league with 3-person teams and a reasonable cap of 525 total entering average. I'd allow returning teams to carry up to a 555 average over to a 2nd season and increase their limit by 10 pins each season the ENTIRE TEAM returns...in order to keep people coming back rather than quitting because their average went up too much and they still want to bowl together.

But a cap is fair. And new bowlers would certainly still be in demand when you got two high average bowlers looking to squeeze a low average bowler (especially a teachable one!!) onto their trio.

I dislike handicap leagues mainly because of the sandbagging. In my Tuesday league...the same male and female have won thousands of dollars at sweeps in Vegas both of the last 2 seasons. He is a high average, former competitive bowler, and the female is the niece of a former PBA (regional I think) bowler. The male bowler only "tries" when he has a 300 game on the line and still averages over 200 (1 of only 2 bowlers out of 172 in the league). The female bowler flat out said that she "doesn't really try until Vegas".

My goal is to get good enough to smoke both of them at Sweeps since they obviously are not competing in a way that is in the spirit of handicap play...but the fall back option might be some change to the rules that factors in your Vegas series into your handicap. For example, in the Virtual Bowling Tour that was held last year...everyone had their average count as 1 game. So if they claimed they had a 157 average and then averaged 201, 210 the next two weeks...the good perfomances early on didn't "kill" them. And if they had a 200 entering average and then bowled two 157 average series (or tried to sandbag in the early rounds)...their average would always count that 200. I think leagues that sweep and pay out significant money at the end of the season should have that Vegas performance calculated into the following season's average. I mean, the guy that "averaged 205" throughout the season and then shot a 721 series (average of 240) should have his average the following season be something like (205+205+240)/3 = 223. And the female bowler that averaged in the 170s all season and then shot a 621 series in Vegas should have to enter the following season with a (179+179+207)/3 = 188. Granted, they certainly could still sandbag the whole season to lower it...but including it in that initial calculation hurts their ability to do that and ALSO doesn't allow someone to totally TANK in Vegas (which happens alot) and then have an unrealistic starting average of 160 when they are a 190 bowler.

[NewToBowling]

If you're "newtobowling" and joined in February 2015, after Iceman had long since left the site, how do you know about Iceman's "gift philosophy"?? :confused:

Huh? Iceman?? :eek:


These boards are kind of slow so I've been doing a lot of reading from past pages. Sounds like he was pretty active until he just decided to drop off the face of these boards.

[RobLV1]

I would love to see scratch leagues at different levels with realistic average caps. I bowl in an "almost scratch" league on Tuesday nights. It works like this:

1. Team max average is 865 for four players.
2. Lineups are automatically set with the low average leading off, and the high average bowling anchor.
3. Each game is scratch between players: #1 vs #1, #2 vs. #2, etc. with one point per game and one point for totals.
4. Team game is handicap, also with one point per game and one point for totals.

This league is a lot of fun, and I really don't see why it wouldn't also work for lower average leagues with a lower cap.

[Aslan]

I love the format of that league.

[jab5325]

I would love to see scratch leagues at different levels with realistic average caps. I bowl in an "almost scratch" league on Tuesday nights. It works like this:

1. Team max average is 865 for four players.
2. Lineups are automatically set with the low average leading off, and the high average bowling anchor.
3. Each game is scratch between players: #1 vs #1, #2 vs. #2, etc. with one point per game and one point for totals.
4. Team game is handicap, also with one point per game and one point for totals.

This league is a lot of fun, and I really don't see why it wouldn't also work for lower average leagues with a lower cap.

This league sounds awesome. Love every aspect of it.

[RobLV1]

I love it too, however realistically I see two problems with setting up leagues like this with too many different cap levels:

1. It would limit the social aspect of bowling together to bowlers with similar averages.
2. It would limit the size of leagues, and since many leagues are put totally into the hands of the league secretary who gets paid for his/her services based on the number of bowlers in the league, it probably wouldn't go over too well with them.

[Tony]

I love it too, however realistically I see two problems with setting up leagues like this with too many different cap levels:

1. It would limit the social aspect of bowling together to bowlers with similar averages.
2. It would limit the size of leagues, and since many leagues are put totally into the hands of the league secretary who gets paid for his/her services based on the number of bowlers in the league, it probably wouldn't go over too well with them.

I would certainly agree with 1, the team I am on and quite a few of the teams in the league have a range of bowling averages. My team has a 200 avg 180, 160 and 140 bowler, I've bowled with the one fellow 20 years, and known the other 2 30, and 10 years and we just have a good time even when we are not having a great game! We have several teams with brothers, fathers and sons and various relatives like that that have disparate averages.
I can see a place for leagues like this for the right group and I might even be tempted to join but it wouldn't replace the league with my buddies.

[HowDoIHookAgain]

Handicap is a really good idea in my opinion, because you're giving not-so-great bowlers a chance to compete against pros and more consistent bowlers. It's more for leagues where you have kids, or adults who just want to have a good time and not have crazy competition.

The problem occurs when 1 of a few things happen.
1. The bowler/team getting handicap goes above their average. Not only does the non-handicap bowler/team have to shoot better to compete with their better-than-average game, but they also have to fight the handicap.
2. Both bowlers/teams have an off-game, or shoot their average. The handicap bowler/team will win this because they have the handicap to push them over the non-handicap bowler/team.
3. The non-handicap bowler/team will most likely have to shoot above their average no matter what to catch up with the handicap bowler/team.

As I said above, handicap is more for leagues that aren't as competitive (no money involved, people who want to have a fun time, kids, etc.). My father and I bowl in a league with handicap, and some teams are getting 100+ handicap to us (combined average around 370), so you can see how much of an issue this can be become when one of us has an off game. But, it's fun nonetheless, and I think the handicap helps push me to do better anyways.

Is it my favorite thing in the bowling world? Hell no, my favorite thing would probably be watching someone slide on the approach and fall on the lanes, and get a strike. But again, it does add an extra level of competitiveness for the people not getting handicap. If you can maintain a 220+ average, you can beat someone with a 130 average and 90 pins handicap, hypothetically speaking.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Most of the scratch leagues around here have a cap to discourage loaded teams. That really hurts the amount of teams signing up unless that is in place. Also, that gives a chance to some guys or gals in the 170-200 range to bowl with and against better players. Being able to witness and talk to others in regards to their lane play and thought process is a big help for those level players in the development of their games.

[RobLV1]

Handicap is a really good idea in my opinion, because you're giving not-so-great bowlers a chance to compete against pros and more consistent bowlers. It's more for leagues where you have kids, or adults who just want to have a good time and not have crazy competition.

The problem occurs when 1 of a few things happen.
1. The bowler/team getting handicap goes above their average. Not only does the non-handicap bowler/team have to shoot better to compete with their better-than-average game, but they also have to fight the handicap.
2. Both bowlers/teams have an off-game, or shoot their average. The handicap bowler/team will win this because they have the handicap to push them over the non-handicap bowler/team.
3. The non-handicap bowler/team will most likely have to shoot above their average no matter what to catch up with the handicap bowler/team.

As I said above, handicap is more for leagues that aren't as competitive (no money involved, people who want to have a fun time, kids, etc.). My father and I bowl in a league with handicap, and some teams are getting 100+ handicap to us (combined average around 370), so you can see how much of an issue this can be become when one of us has an off game. But, it's fun nonetheless, and I think the handicap helps push me to do better anyways.

Is it my favorite thing in the bowling world? Hell no, my favorite thing would probably be watching someone slide on the approach and fall on the lanes, and get a strike. But again, it does add an extra level of competitiveness for the people not getting handicap. If you can maintain a 220+ average, you can beat someone with a 130 average and 90 pins handicap, hypothetically speaking.

The team with higher averages and less handicap has a huge advantage over the team with lower averages and more handicap. Let's look at your example #2. If a league has a handicap system that is based on 90% of 220, and one team with four bowlers with 200 averages all bowl their average against another team of 150 bowlers, who also bowl their averages, the team with the four 200 bowlers will win by 20 pins (200 x 4 + 72 = 872, vs 150 x 4 + 252 = 852). At one point the USBC did a study and found that it would take a handicap of 116% (don't remember the exact figure, but this is close) to make handicaps truly equitable between higher average bowlers and lower average bowlers. This is why it makes me so crazy to hear high average bowlers whine because they have to give away so many pins. In fact, the more pins they have to give away, the greater their chances are of winning, unless they are so busy feeling sorry for themselves that they forget to bowl.

[Aslan]

Most of the scratch leagues around here have a cap to discourage loaded teams. That really hurts the amount of teams signing up unless that is in place. Also, that gives a chance to some guys or gals in the 170-200 range to bowl with and against better players. Being able to witness and talk to others in regards to their lane play and thought process is a big help for those level players in the development of their games.

I wish the sport league I was in had a cap. Both times I was in the league it was kinda pointless because I averaged 149 but if I didn't show up the team would get 160 for my vacant spot. If you had 3 guys that averaged around 200 (on a sport shot)…your team almost always won.

[Mike White]

I wish the sport league I was in had a cap. Both times I was in the league it was kinda pointless because I averaged 149 but if I didn't show up the team would get 160 for my vacant spot. If you had 3 guys that averaged around 200 (on a sport shot)…your team almost always won.

Thats not how it worked. If you didn't have a 3rd person on the team, you got 160, if someone was absent, you got avg-10.

[Tony]

The team with higher averages and less handicap has a huge advantage over the team with lower averages and more handicap. Let's look at your example #2. If a league has a handicap system that is based on 90% of 220, and one team with four bowlers with 200 averages all bowl their average against another team of 150 bowlers, who also bowl their averages, the team with the four 200 bowlers will win by 20 pins (200 x 4 + 72 = 872, vs 150 x 4 + 252 = 852). At one point the USBC did a study and found that it would take a handicap of 116% (don't remember the exact figure, but this is close) to make handicaps truly equitable between higher average bowlers and lower average bowlers. This is why it makes me so crazy to hear high average bowlers whine because they have to give away so many pins. In fact, the more pins they have to give away, the greater their chances are of winning, unless they are so busy feeling sorry for themselves that they forget to bowl.
My team bowls in a League with 100% of 220 and the top two average / low handicap teams are 2nd and 10th spots in the standings, my team with one of the highest handicaps is in 3rd place another higher handicap team is in first. FYI our team has finished in the top 3 every year for the past 5 years with different players and different handicaps but we have always been in the top third of teams getting handicap. We have battled the top average team for the league championship for 2 of the last 3 years and beat them once. We used to use a 90% of 210, 215 before we adopted the 100 % of 215 and now 100% of 220, 5 years ago and that has seemed to reverse the statistics and make it somewhat closer. For our league we wanted to make it more competitive and this move to a 100% handicap did make a difference.
In the example with 4 -150 average bowlers vs 4-200 average bowlers (100% of 220) shooting their average you would have a tie, the exception would be if you have bowlers with an average above 220, we have 5 out of 16 teams so it hasn't been making a big impact since they are all on different teams, should we get a few on one team we would have to make a change to keep it competitive.

[Mike White]

My team bowls in a League with 100% of 220 and the top two average / low handicap teams are 2nd and 10th spots in the standings, my team with one of the highest handicaps is in 3rd place another higher handicap team is in first. FYI our team has finished in the top 3 every year for the past 5 years with different players and different handicaps but we have always been in the top third of teams getting handicap. We have battled the top average team for the league championship for 2 of the last 3 years and beat them once. We used to use a 90% of 210, 215 before we adopted the 100 % of 215 and now 100% of 220, 5 years ago and that has seemed to reverse the statistics and make it somewhat closer. For our league we wanted to make it more competitive and this move to a 100% handicap did make a difference.
In the example with 4 -150 average bowlers vs 4-200 average bowlers (100% of 220) shooting their average you would have a tie, the exception would be if you have bowlers with an average above 220, we have 5 out of 16 teams so it hasn't been making a big impact since they are all on different teams, should we get a few on one team we would have to make a change to keep it competitive.

If you want every team to have a 50% chance of winning each game, bowl your game, then at the end, flip a coin to see which team wins.

The higher the % of handicap, the easier it is to manipulate the system.

With lower % handicap, the higher average bowlers have an advantage, but in theory, it's an earned advantage.

It gives the lower average bowler an incentive to go out and practice to become better.

[Tony]

If you want every team to have a 50% chance of winning each game, bowl your game, then at the end, flip a coin to see which team wins.

The higher the % of handicap, the easier it is to manipulate the system.

With lower % handicap, the higher average bowlers have an advantage, but in theory, it's an earned advantage.

It gives the lower average bowler an incentive to go out and practice to become better.

Certainly it's the Yin and Yang effect, the higher average bowler vs the lower average bowler, I'd prefer the challenge of bowling above my average in order to have a better chance to win vs the coin flip but that's just me :) We must consider the motivation of the house in all this, if the lower avg bowlers and teams lose consistently what percentage takes it as a challenge and what percentage just quits because it's no fun to lose all the time. The demise of bowling can be all but insured without a system of some sort that will allow lower skilled players to have a chance at winning while they apply themselves to learning the game. If you have any doubt, look around, leagues are dropping players and teams consistently and the industry is hurting. If ways are not found to encourage and reverse this trend more bowling centers will close. I understand that it makes sense that the more highly skilled player has a better chance to win and we see that in the scratch and higher level leagues but those leagues alone will not support the industry.

[Mike White]

Certainly it's the Yin and Yang effect, the higher average bowler vs the lower average bowler, I'd prefer the challenge of bowling above my average in order to have a better chance to win vs the coin flip but that's just me :) We must consider the motivation of the house in all this, if the lower avg bowlers and teams lose consistently what percentage takes it as a challenge and what percentage just quits because it's no fun to lose all the time. The demise of bowling can be all but insured without a system of some sort that will allow lower skilled players to have a chance at winning while they apply themselves to learning the game. If you have any doubt, look around, leagues are dropping players and teams consistently and the industry is hurting. If ways are not found to encourage and reverse this trend more bowling centers will close. I understand that it makes sense that the more highly skilled player has a better chance to win and we see that in the scratch and higher level leagues but those leagues alone will not support the industry.

This may come to you as a bit of a surprise, but bowling doesn't support the industry.

Bowling is just a reason for people to come in and eat, and drink.

Snack Bar, and Liquor Bar are the prime profit sources at a bowling center.

Lineage is a distant 3rd.

[NewToBowling]

This may come to you as a bit of a surprise, but bowling doesn't support the industry.

Bowling is just a reason for people to come in and eat, and drink.

Snack Bar, and Liquor Bar are the prime profit sources at a bowling center.

Lineage is a distant 3rd.

Agreed. I don't think bowling centers would survive without a busy kitchen and bar

[Tony]

This may come to you as a bit of a surprise, but bowling doesn't support the industry.

Bowling is just a reason for people to come in and eat, and drink.

Snack Bar, and Liquor Bar are the prime profit sources at a bowling center.

Lineage is a distant 3rd.

It does not come as the least bit of a surprise, if you only count the dollars in income derived directly from each source. Unfortunately it's not that simple, take a look at the primary source of the food and drink revenue, and you will find the league bowler. If you look at the income taken in hour by hour it's very evident
that the money flows when the leagues are in the house. I can't verify that this is the case for every bowling house but I know it's a
fact in many. You see I have been bowling on a team for many years with a fellow that owns some bowling alleys. We don't bowl at one of his locations so
every so often the fellow that owns the one we bowl in (and several others) comes over to talk shop. Sure they also make money when people come in and open bowl, but when they compare what drives the dollars it always gets back to the number of leagues and bowlers. League bowlers purchase more and on a more regular basis, plus many of them come early and stay late to consume beverages and food. They come in to practice, they bring their families to open bowl, and each time they are likely to spend some money on food and drinks, but if they weren't league bowlers would they be there ?
In most locations the drop in leagues equals a drop in total revenue, some locations have a thriving bar business, pool hall or gambling establishment, they might drive enough non league business to make up for the drop in leagues, that's their goal anyway. Things might be different in other area's but in the midwest according to bowling proprietors, the drop in league bowlers hits them directly in the pocketbook.

[Tony]

Agreed. I don't think bowling centers would survive without a busy kitchen and bar

I totally agree, the question is, would the bar and kitchen be busy if it weren't for the league bowler ?

[Aslan]

Thats not how it worked. If you didn't have a 3rd person on the team, you got 160, if someone was absent, you got avg-10.

That makes it even worse!!

[bowl1820]

We must consider the motivation of the house in all this, if the lower avg bowlers and teams lose consistently what percentage takes it as a challenge and what percentage just quits because it's no fun to lose all the time. .

The motivation of the house is basically irrelevant in regard to handicap they don't set handicap.

Houses don't promote/have scratch leagues, because there's little to no interest in them these day's by the majority of bowlers. No interest, No money.

As for handicap leagues, The house (with the exception of maybe a few special cases.) don't control the handicaps used in the handicap leagues. So they can't say lets raise handicap or we'll lose customers.

You want to see a scratch league, get a sponsor that will pony up $10,000 first place prize money. (Back around when I started bowling here, they had one. It was full house or almost full league, first place got 10k and 2nd & 3rd got a good payout too.)

Then you'll have one.

[Aslan]

It does not come as the least bit of a surprise, if you only count the dollars in income derived directly from each source. Unfortunately it's not that simple, take a look at the primary source of the food and drink revenue, and you will find the league bowler. If you look at the income taken in hour by hour it's very evident
that the money flows when the leagues are in the house. I can't verify that this is the case for every bowling house but I know it's a
fact in many. You see I have been bowling on a team for many years with a fellow that owns some bowling alleys. We don't bowl at one of his locations so
every so often the fellow that owns the one we bowl in (and several others) comes over to talk shop. Sure they also make money when people come in and open bowl, but when they compare what drives the dollars it always gets back to the number of leagues and bowlers. League bowlers purchase more and on a more regular basis, plus many of them come early and stay late to consume beverages and food. They come in to practice, they bring their families to open bowl, and each time they are likely to spend some money on food and drinks, but if they weren't league bowlers would they be there ?
In most locations the drop in leagues equals a drop in total revenue, some locations have a thriving bar business, pool hall or gambling establishment, they might drive enough non league business to make up for the drop in leagues, that's their goal anyway. Things might be different in other area's but in the midwest according to bowling proprietors, the drop in league bowlers hits them directly in the pocketbook.

Correct on all points.

Lineage doesn't support the center as much as food and even to a greater extent bar. I used to pay $13 a night in league fees (most going to lineage since it wasn't sanctioned or a sweeper league) and my bar/food tab was on average about $37.

It's actually quite simple. How many bowling alleys don't have leagues but are still successful? I can only think of a handful of very high-priced kinda niche centers or centers in resorts or something.

Why? Because if you look at ALL non-league time revenue…it spikes when they have a lot of parties, corporate events, etc…but for most times it's virtually nothing. You have an alley with 2 people working there at 2PM-4PM…at $9/hr…thats $18*2hrs = $36. In addition, you have utilities and bills to pay for the center…lets say round number of $50/hr for all non-payroll expenses. That means it costs $136 to be open for 2 hours. On a NON-LEAGUE time…you'll be LUCKY to have more than 10 people bowling. 10 people renting lanes and shoes = lets say $130/hr.

So without leagues or bar/food…the bowling alley probably loses money. The pro shop CERTAINLY loses money because very little business comes from non-league bowlers. House bowlers use house balls and rent shoes.

So…if you add in snack bar revenue for that 2hr period…figuring half the people or so (6) eat…average cost of $10/person…thats about $120. $120 - $6 = $114. So a bowling alley with only 2 workers and no leagues likely makes $114/hr. Open 12 hours thats nearly $1400/day. So using that absurd example…a bowling center could theoretically survive on that. Granted…virtually no bowling center with a snack bar would have 2 employees…but you also have to factor in that there will be birthday parties and at night, if there's a bar, thats gonna be bar $$$ coming in.

But here's the thing, to Tony's point; while an average hour in a bowling alley may generate $120 of net profit before tax…I'd say the average bar/food/lineage PER TEAM in a league on any given night is = $50. I usually buy a large diet coke and get some take-out when I leave…and that runs about $40 in ADDITION to whatever lineage comes out of my $25/night league fee. So…$50/team…conservatively…even if there's just 10 teams in the league…and it takes 3 hours to bowl…thats $500/3 = about $170/hour. And thats in ADDITION to the $120/hour they are getting from casual/walk-in bowlers.

So most centers can increase their revenue by 140% by having leagues. You'd have to hire a minimum of one extra person…so that cuts the profit to 130%…but still…are you gonna more than cut your revenue in HALF on the hopes that with the leagues cleared out you'll get more birthday parties or young drinkers?? Some centers it works. My home center would be okay without leagues. Lots of colleges in the area, affluent community, a more nightclubish environment…good at bringing in corporate events, etc… But I gotta think they're the exception…not the rule. Otherewise I think we'd see far, far, far more centers give up leagues rather than actively try to get people interested in them.

[NewToBowling]

I know the Brunswick XL near me does very well across the board. They are always busy. Go in at 8am on Sunday and at least 30 of the 48 lanes are being used

[Tony]

The motivation of the house is basically irrelevant in regard to handicap they don't set handicap.

Houses don't promote/have scratch leagues, because there's little to no interest in them these day's by the majority of bowlers. No interest, No money.

As for handicap leagues, The house (with the exception of maybe a few special cases.) don't control the handicaps used in the handicap leagues. So they can't say lets raise handicap or we'll lose customers.

You want to see a scratch league, get a sponsor that will pony up $10,000 first place prize money. (Back around when I started bowling here, they had one. It was full house or almost full league, first place got 10k and 2nd & 3rd got a good payout too.)

Then you'll have one.

I'm not trying to promote either one but simply noting some important idea's that might be overlooked when considering the idea of handicap vs scratch leagues.
They heavily promote the idea of handicap leagues to try and recruit new bowlers. They also set or suggest the handicaps as they manage some of the leagues.
I thought this was commonplace since I've seen it around here.

I can't speak for other area's on the the house having input into the handicap system, the proprietors around here attend the league meetings
for the leagues whether they manage them or not. They make suggestions that are then put to a vote by the league members.
The move for our league to go from 90% of 210 to 100% of 215 was suggested by the owner of the lanes. (he also suggested going to
100% of 220 where we are now a couple of years later)
He looked at the history and could see:
A) The same few teams dominating
B) Could see teams dropping out
C) Upon contacting those teams the big complaint the same teams win everything
This was part of his little speech to get the league to adopt the new handicap,
every team voted for it except one, but they didn't leave the league they stayed
and they are still a contender because they're good bowlers, but they don't win all the time anymore.
In fact now they are glad to see the change because it makes them work a little to stay near the top.

We used to have companies that would sponsor things, they are pretty much a thing of the past around here.