Separate But Equal (The Prize Fund for men and women)

[thwacking]

I am treasurer of a mixed league that is 2/3 men and 1/3 women, roughly. As a "mixed" league there used to be a rule stating that each team must have 1 woman at all times but the rule is no longer enforced (unfortunately).

The prize fund is to be redistributed at the end of the season to the top individuals for each gender/category, as well as prizes given to top teams. Each team also gets a participation award (divy up whatever's left over).

Individual winners are in separate men and women categories, for high game, high average, high series, and most improved bowler. There is a limit of one of the first three category prizes per person, so that runner-ups may still qualify for some share of this individual prize money as well. this demonstrates the spirit of a 'just for fun' league and also to avoid a clean sweep of all the scoring categories based on one good series. All are eligible for most improved.

Since the men have twice as much competition in terms of their current pool's size and available funding from what they paid in, we may be inclined to separate their prize funds instead of pooling them, and make each men prize worth $100 and the women's $50 (fully funded by each pool). However, in the past seasons to promote equality and fairness, or perhaps to further incentivize women bowlers, the prizes were all pooled and both men and women winners received equal payouts (say $75 each).

Which is fair? I think the official answer is that the $100/$50 is certainly defendable as "equitable." The men would have funded their own winnings as would the women. But it does not clearly demonstrate an "equal" prize so therefore it would be very difficult to pass this change without offending someone by creating the women's pool as a second consolation prize category instead of an equal.

Ultimately, a league committee will decide what to do... As it stands, I would not want to alienate men bowlers who now have exactly half the opportunity to win their share of these "equal value" prizes. I also don't want to discourage women bowlers by the impression that getting paid any less at the end of this season is any way indicative of a gender bias, which could be a disincentive to participate in the mixed (already male dominated) league.

Ultimately, a prize committee will select our method of distributing prizes. However, what would you consider doing in these circumstances? What would you consider to be most fair?

[bowl1820]

The individual prizes for Men and Women should be equal.

It doesn't matter if the league is 2/3 men and 1/3 women, it's the individual bowlers that count. If the individual bowlers (Men & Women) pay in the same amount to the prize fund, so the prizes for them should be the same.


The big problem your league has is this:

As a "mixed" league there used to be a rule stating that each team must have 1 woman at all times but the rule is no longer enforced (unfortunately).

If the leagues rules are not in forced, there's no point in the having rules. the league officers need to in force the rules. If they can't handle it they need to be replaced and/or complaint filed with the assoc. about it.

[americantrotter]

There should be one set of awards. There is no Gender requirement for team make-up, so why count their scores differently? Do women get extra pins handicap?

Easy answer? One prize pot. The PBA doesn't have a split anymore (financial reasons oddly enough).

Mainly there is no reason a woman is different than a man in bowling. Strength issues are moot due to ball weight being personal. There are many who argue that the heavier ball isnt always an adavntage and that lighter balls have tremndous value.

Believing anything else weakens women's standing it doesn't increase it. (IMHO)

[thwacking]

There should be one set of awards. There is no Gender requirement for team make-up, so why count their scores differently? Do women get extra pins handicap?

Easy answer? One prize pot. The PBA doesn't have a split anymore (financial reasons oddly enough).

Mainly there is no reason a woman is different than a man in bowling. Strength issues are moot due to ball weight being personal. There are many who argue that the heavier ball isnt always an adavntage and that lighter balls have tremndous value.

Believing anything else weakens women's standing it doesn't increase it. (IMHO)

Well, This is the other extreme. It certainly does NOT help us to incentivize women particpants to expect them to pay in to something that they're going to feel much less likely to win, just as I feel the men have it slightly more difficult in the other arrangement. This is a handicapped league to invite full participation, so there doesn't have to be such a woman vs. man competitive element to it.

[thwacking]

The individual prizes for Men and Women should be equal.

It doesn't matter if the league is 2/3 men and 1/3 women, it's the individual bowlers that count. If the individual bowlers (Men & Women) pay in the same amount to the prize fund, so the prizes for them should be the same.


The big problem your league has is this:

If the leagues rules are not in forced, there's no point in the having rules. the league officers need to in force the rules. If they can't handle it they need to be replaced and/or complaint filed with the assoc. about it.

I am hearing your pay in pay out rule - at an individual level it sounds nice and may be an attempt to follow great, consistent principles. However, do you think it actually succeeds as "fair" if we push this prize model in our situation? The reason I question the fairness aspect is because I like to consider this from everyone's perspective. Right now, the women are twice as likely to walk away with one of their categories than each individual man. That doesn't exactly mean prizes individuals paid for and prizes individuals received are the same all around.

While I do not want to make these women feel like their category is a lesser/consolation prize, the real problem is that paying them top dollar for an award that they had been set up twice as nicely (odds) to win, while paying half their share for these prize pots. And that doesn't even bring into it that their winners will likely be at a lower skill level and will likely be rewarded an "equal" prize for a score significantly lower than the men. So they are getting a less meaningful award, but we attach the same dollars to it to make them feel alright about winning the real thing.

Toward Part 2 of your response: Rejecting a team from a social league on the basis of gender is something we could continue doing if bowling alleys weren't already dying a slow death in our area, or if this was a seriously competitive league. It is a social league with almost no rules other than to be respectful of others and have fun and improve our bowling. We voted to accept these teams so we have modified the rule in our bylaws to accommodate our actual dwindling pool of prospective bowlers. The rule had been there to protect standards which we can no longer afford.

Considering some alternatives:
-Pay the men $75 and the women $50. The women still would have a greater "chance" at winnings and therefore their expected value (EV calculation) would still be greater than their counterpart man's and they have become incentivized by the consolation prize being of greater value than the men's prize.
-Pay the men $80 and the women $40. This sounds too harsh, but it goes exactly according to who signed up and paid to participate in these categories.
-Allowing women to be eligible to win the same $100 prize that the men are, then giving the top woman roller a lesser prize if she does not win the overall category

The only way I feel to make the fairness argument go away would be to admit that the women are currently twice as incentivized to win these prizes and that's the way we get women interested in the sport and let's keep our mixed league from morphing into an all men's league next season. Another thing to consider is if some day the league is 75% women and they are subsidizing the men's own prize categories. At that time, wouldn't there be some women that would like to question why they are subsidizing the men's prizes?

[bowl1820]

Toward Part 2 of your response: Rejecting a team from a social league on the basis of gender is something we could continue doing if bowling alleys weren't already dying a slow death in our area, or if this was a seriously competitive league. It is a social league with almost no rules other than to be respectful of others and have fun and improve our bowling. We voted to accept these teams so we have modified the rule in our bylaws to accommodate our actual dwindling pool of prospective bowlers. The rule had been there to protect standards which we can no longer afford.

The simple solution to the rule problem is to remove the rule requiring at least one female bowler.

If the leagues there can't afford to have that rule, then why did they vote the rule in?

There had to be a vote at the beginning of the season on the rules and just because they did it before, doesn't mean they had to do it now. They should have voted it out.

But if the rule was voted in, then it should be followed.

As I said before there's no point in having the rules if there not followed.

I'll take a guess why the rule is still there, they are worried if they remove it they'll lose teams. Because the teams with women on them will figure that there will be more and more all male teams and that they will dominate the league. So they won't have a chance and not join the league.


As for the prizes draw up a prizelist, how you think it should be and submit it to be voted on. See if it flies with the league.

[thwacking]

let me clarify since this is not a typical league in which women's teams and individuals may perceive to have "no chance" of winning (or any other disincentive to join)

1- as I said, the women individuals have twice as much access to the individual prizes based on statistical odds of winning, also being a category that does not require as high of a score to usually win

2- as far as team chances go, we follow 100% handicap to 225. therefore, women teams do not have any real disadvantage, nor do any of them perceive one. they have all the incentive they need to bowl with us

3- it is primarily a social league that happens to have monetary prizes distributed.

the mandatory woman rule does not exist anymore, as I implied it is no longer enforced, I should have said it was voted out as amatter of unfortunate necessity

[Baroncad]

The individual prizes for Men and Women should be equal.

It doesn't matter if the league is 2/3 men and 1/3 women, it's the individual bowlers that count. If the individual bowlers (Men & Women) pay in the same amount to the prize fund, so the prizes for them should be the same.


The big problem your league has is this:


If the leagues rules are not in forced, there's no point in the having rules. the league officers need to in force the rules. If they can't handle it they need to be replaced and/or complaint filed with the assoc. about it.

I agree with bowl1820, the "fairest" is equal payouts for the men and women bowlers.

[bowl1820]

I really can't see any individual payout, where the women got less than the men. That would at least at first glance seem fair/equitable.

The closest you might could do would require 3 separate prize funds.

1-A team prize fund that would pay the team position payouts and individual team awards.

2- A Men's prize fund that would payout the men's awards (high game, series etc.)

3- A Women's prize fund that would payout the women's awards (high game, series etc.)

Then for the Men's and Women's awards the payouts would have to be listed as percentages.

Example:
1st Mens high game hdcp-10%
1st Womens high game hdcp-10%

That at first glance looks fair, because your saying "look you both get the same percentage". And in a way it is fair because they are both getting thee same percentage of money.

But then some player will do the figures and see the the mens 10% equals say $20 and the womens 10% only equals $10 and they'll say "whats going on here?" They won't see that fine distinction about how they are both getting the same percentage.

Then theres problem of dividing up the money going to the prize funds in the first place. If your paying in say $4 a night, you'd have to divide that up a fair way. Say $3 to the team fund and $1 to the appropriate male or female fund.

the only other option maybe to eliminate male and female awards and just pay the highs to whoever wins it regardless of sex and pay down a little further also.

I am hearing your pay in pay out rule - at an individual level it sounds nice and may be an attempt to follow great, consistent principles.

Also I don't think suggesting to use the "pay in pay out rule" as you call it. Is spouting some lofty idealist principle, that we should all strive for. It's just the way the majority of prize lists are structured in leagues today. you asked for opinions on what others thought and you got one.

If the majority of the league doesn't like it the way it's done, they are free to change how it's done. Thats what the prize committee is for and voting is for.

[billf]

My mixed league pools the prize money from both genders and then distributes it to each category of male and female equally. Top average female shouldn't pay less just because they league can't attract more female bowlers.