Yes if they were establishing average, you wouldn't know who won what till they figured the correct handicap based on those averages.
USBC book averages are based on a minimum of 21 games; since she bowled less than 21 games it won't carry over for the next season. So She would have to establish a new average. So not fishy.Situation 2: The team who runs the league has a pregnant woman on the team. She only bowled a couple weeks and not long enough during the period of time where our averages are re-established (4 weeks in the bi-laws). Since her average wasn't established this year, they're saying that when she comes back to bowling next season that they're going to have to create a new average for her and it sounds fishy to us... What's the point of having USBC sanctioning if the USBC averages don't apply or carry over from past seasons?
Sandbagging and handicap is a big bone of contention a lot of places (at least if you go by internet posts). If your there for fun, don't sweat it. Otherwise it's a big landmine step on at your own risk.We're not knowledable about USBC sanctions and we're trying to just bowl for fun, but the sandbagging and politics that appear to go on in the league really has been ruining it for us lately. We bowled our hearts out at the beginning of last season and were all happy with all the points we were winning only to realize the good bowlers were sandbagging to keep their averages low to get higher handicaps.Are we overreacting to the above two situations or are they messing with the scoring?
Bookmarks