1st Annual BowlingBoards.com Virtual Tour!!!

[J Anderson]

It hasn't been just a 12-13 hour delay...it's been 3 days (or more) if you consider the fact that assignments can be made before the month even starts. You made two assignments, why not all?

It isn't that I am SO BUSY that I WOULD HAVE been able to participate yesterday…but not today, but without assignments soon, I may not be able to schedule anything for the month of May, as my window is getting smaller and smaller as the days go by.

I suspect Aslan has been waiting for all of us to select our six centers to bowl the remainder of the tour. When I looked at my list of 87 centers to choose from, my reaction was: I don't have time to deal with this. Also, unless he assigned me to a center in NYC or out on the island, I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

[Aslan]

Not gonna bother re-hashing nor arguing about it.

My "vision" is everyone will bowl before the deadline, at the center assigned, with verification, and get me their scores by the end of the month. IF that happens…it'll take me like 1-2 days (depending on the day of the week) to update standings, scores, averages, and get new pairings/center assignments.

Those the rules. If anyone has some special need, like Jeral and tccstudent did…and the exec committee is on board…I can make assignments early so they can bowl that first weekend or whatever. I'm not completely unreasonable.

But no…I'm not making a 4-month schedule ahead of time. Had I done that in month number 1….I'd have had to completely re-do it. That takes a LOT of time! If we change something…and somehow it affects the assignments or pairings I make ahead of time…then thats time lost.

And as others have pointed out…everyone plays by the same rules. Sure, there may be slight differences for physical pairings…but other than that…everyone knows the rules…everyone plays the same game with the same set of rules.

A person bowling against someone who ends up NOT bowling (because they are losers)…the person bowling:
A) bowls against their average minus 10 pins from their handicap.
B) their opponent, in games/total points won does not get credit for those points.

It's fairly simple. It's how most leagues are run. No, you don't get to bowl against your average. That may (or may not) be fair depending on the person. High average bowlers are already penalized with handicap…and now you're gonna penalize them further by making them bowl above their average?? What if it's a month they are bowling someone they KNOW they can beat…he/she doesn't participate…now they lose against "themselves"??

A person showing up or not showing up shouldn't penalize their opponent and the person not showing up shouldn't benefit. The rules achieve that.

Also: If everyone that signed up wasn't lame…and deciding not to participate…we wouldn't even have this problem…so, think on that.

[noeymc]

if a person doesnt show up t should benefit the other team tho thats why u get -10 pins

[Mike White]

Alright. I won't even make Mud/noeymc/ZDawg approve the change. It's obvious you have no desire to be physically paired and it's obvious you don't want to face me in person. You can paint the duck whatever color you want to paint it….doesn't make it a Flamingo.

So, due to MWhite being scared of another embarrassing defeat at my hands…he has chosen to give up his home lane conditions in favor of the center "Universal Lanes". I will make the correction…and hopefully get the centers chosen soon.

Ha, I was just watching ESPN's 30 for 30 about Reggie Miller.

They we talking about Spike Lee.

"At every playground there is that one guy, who can't play, yet constantly talks trash"

Aslan, you're that guy.

[Mike White]

A person bowling against someone who ends up NOT bowling (because they are losers)…the person bowling:
A) bowls against their average minus 10 pins from their handicap.
B) their opponent, in games/total points won does not get credit for those points.

It's fairly simple. It's how most leagues are run. No, you don't get to bowl against your average. That may (or may not) be fair depending on the person. High average bowlers are already penalized with handicap…and now you're gonna penalize them further by making them bowl above their average?? What if it's a month they are bowling someone they KNOW they can beat…he/she doesn't participate…now they lose against "themselves"??

You're confusing what happens in league when one person on a team is missing, with what happens when the whole team is missing.

Since this is a singles competition, when one person misses, the whole team misses.

[Mike White]

Nope. It's been fixed. I also updated mine from 146 to 156. All the other averages seem to be correct.

Ok how did you update your average to 156, then now have it show as 154?

You have a few other errors as well.

Aslan         	156 <--	57 <--
Bunny        	145	67
classygranny	176	39
Janderson	193	24
Mudpuppy	190	27 <--
Mwhite      	192	25 <--
noeymc      	161	53
Stormed1	170	45
tccstudent	185	31
Jeral999ok	174	41 <--
tr33frog	213	6
vdubtx       	215	4
J-Dilly        	187	29
Zdawg       	141	71

[Aslan]

Ok how did you update your average to 156, then now have it show as 154?

You have a few other errors as well.

Aslan         	156 <--	57 <--
Bunny        	145	67
classygranny	176	39
Janderson	193	24
Mudpuppy	190	27 <--
Mwhite      	192	25 <--
noeymc      	161	53
Stormed1	170	45
tccstudent	185	31
Jeral999ok	174	41 <--
tr33frog	213	6
vdubtx       	215	4
J-Dilly        	187	29
Zdawg       	141	71

Where did you pull that from? I think that was the pre-corrected averages/handicap. Those were changed to take into account the averaging error in the spreadsheet. The correct values are now being used and should be updated on the general information page.

As to how mine went from 156 to 154; you had me change the averages based on games played in each league rather than just add them together and divide by 2. I "guessed" at my number of games and did the calculation and it came out to 156. I then verified with the scoresheets and it turned out I bowled less games in the 166 average league than I thought…AND…after changing the rounding error…it was 165 not 166. So those slight changes resulted in a 2-pin difference which was updated last month.

Is everything correct NOW?? I've made all the changes and I "think" everything should be correct.

[Aslan]

Okay…need the executive committee to weigh in on this one:

After taking a look at the standings and thinking this thing through…we have a "slight" issue…actually TWO issues:

1) I didn't add anything in the rules about "tiebreakers" The league is set to take the top 7 finishers in points won from April through October. I have the following options for your consideration:

A) A tiebreaker based on highest scratch pinfall. If still a tie, most games bowled above starting average. If still a tie, most improved average.
B) Everyone tied for the last spot makes it into the tournament. So if our 7th and 8th place finishers host are tied with lets say 4 points…they both get in and we expand the tournament to an 8-team format, 9-team format, etc…

REALIZE: That option presents a logistic problem (read below) if it exceeds 8 teams.

C) We institute a "play-in" mini tournament for all those tied for 7th (or 6th/7th…etc..) In this format…we'd still use the 7-team format…but the 2-3 teams all tied for that last spot would have to bowl in the first part of the first month of the tournament to determine who moves on.

REALIZE: THIS means the person tied…that wins the play in round…will need to bowl TWICE that 1st month of the tournament…once to break the tie…once to bowl against the #2 seed.

I propose Option C. But only if we approve the proposal #2 below. I don't think asking the last team in to play twice in October is asking too much. It's only 1 team and it's sort of a "penalty" for barely making it in. But if we don't approve the move to shorten the tour and expand the playoffs to 3 months…I think a play-in would be WAY too much to jam into that first month (which would be November).

2) That leaves November and December for the final tournament. However, in a 7-team format…it takes 3 rounds…more if we add more teams. That would require participants to bowl TWICE per month rather than ONCE per month…during the BUSIEST 2 months of the year in terms of holidays/vacations.

Therefore, I propose:
The tour be changed to April through September leaving THREE months to do the 3 rounds to crown the eventual champion. That SHOULD give us enough time so nobody has to bowl twice in a month in those busy months UNLESS we do the play-in round (see above) but in that format only ONE team would have to bowl twice…a sort of "penalty" for being the last team in. If you don't agree, please propose an alternative plan.

Technically, it's up to me and the executive committee to decide…but all participant's opinions are welcome. I think if we make the tour April-September…that gives us 3 months to crown a champion by year end…and only ONE team has to bowl twice in one month (using play-in option)…and it would be October, the least busy of the three months. And I like the play-in option because it's the MOST inclusive option…allowing 1-2 teams (potentially) to keep their hopes alive.

Thanks!

[Aslan]

Also…note to other participants…I DID bowl this afternoon so my scores are already done, watched by MWhite, and documented/verified.

Without giving too much away…lets just say I have a feeling this "choosing our 6 favorites centers" thing is going to drastically increase scoring. I think my original plan of randomizing centers and forcing participants to bowl in unfamiliar centers on more random conditions…DID have the intended effect. Only 16 games above average of 57 games bowled. And that included one person bowling on his home center.

This month, nobody will be bowling at their home centers…so no 10-point deductions…but everyone will be bowling in essentially their backyards…no unfamiliarity.

[classygranny]

Also…note to other participants…I DID bowl this afternoon so my scores are already done, watched by MWhite, and documented/verified.

Without giving too much away…lets just say I have a feeling this "choosing our 6 favorites centers" thing is going to drastically increase scoring. I think my original plan of randomizing centers and forcing participants to bowl in unfamiliar centers on more random conditions…DID have the intended effect. Only 16 games above average of 57 games bowled. And that included one person bowling on his home center.

This month, nobody will be bowling at their home centers…so no 10-point deductions…but everyone will be bowling in essentially their backyards…no unfamiliarity.

Speak for yourself...I haven't bowled in some of houses I selected in over 5 years (like this month's selection) and some not at all.