Average Management

I talk about bowling often.  Shocker.  The most interesting talks I have are with non-bowlers.  Let's call them educational talks, actually.  What makes them more interesting than the 'discussion forum debates I frequent is how much people a) don't know about bowling and b) are genuinely interested in learning about it.  Either that, or they are very polite.  Extremely polite.

Invariably, I am asked, "What's your average?"

What is my average, indeed. This year, I participated in a house shot couples league and a PBA Experience league.  I tell them both averages (217 and 182) - either before or after I explain the difference in how these averages are obtained.

The purists would maintain that my 'true' average is 182.  I can accept that and, really, think it is "true".  The trouble is, most bowlers do not participate in Sport Bowling leagues so comparison with most of my peers is not possible on that level.

Of course, comparison of averages is not really possible on any single level, even if all leagues were conducted on Sport conditions, house conditions, or something in between.  There are many factors that contribute to differences in playing conditions from one center to another and, ultimately to the final average.

This leads us to a complicated problem when it comes to tournaments.  Most tournaments are handicapped, as are most leagues.  This way a 165 average bowler can compete fairly with a 190 average bowler if you give the lower average bowler some pins.  This is a tested method that has worked well for decades, handicap percentages notwithstanding, and presuming both bowlers are using averages that more or less reflect their abilities.

By and large, most bowlers are honest by nature.  They pretty much try to do their best every frame.  Naturally, some frames are more important - 10th frame need the win, beer frame need a strike, have the first seven strikes, etc.  And, some frames are lost due to frustration - can't strike, can't win, etc.  I like to think these aberrations balance out.

However, there are bowlers who understand the handicapping system, compete in tournaments, and practice "Average Management".

The Current Rules

The current USBC rules regarding establishing averages, entering averages for tournaments, and adjusting averages are poor.  Here are the current rules applicable to this story:

USBC Rule 319a

• Makes an average official (book) when 21 games are bowled in a USBC league.
• Makes a bowler use their current average if it is 10 pins higher than the book average. (ten pin rule)
• Allows for summer league averages to be official if a regular season average is not available.
• Makes the bowler responsible for reporting correct averages, per the rules.

USBC Rule 319d

• Allows tournaments to require bowlers to report ANY prize winnings in excess of $600.

USBC Rule 319e

• Makes the bowler responsible for keeping track of and reporting prize winnings and scores from all tournaments.
• Makes a bowler use their tournament average if it is 15 pins higher than their book average.

USBC Rule 202

• Provides an adjustment scale for averages earned on Sport Bowling conditions 

The Current Problem 

Simple enough?

For a tournament, use your current/highest average or Sport adjusted average of 21 games unless you have none, then use your highest summer average or Sport adjusted average of 21 games unless your current average or Sport adjusted average of 21 games is 10 pins higher or your tournament average of 21 games is 15 pins higher and report earnings from any tournament certified or not of $600 or more and all certified and non-certified tournament scores for possible re-rating.

While this may be confusing, most tournament bowlers have a fairly good grasp of it.  Besides, some tournaments change the 10 pin rule to 15 pins effectively reducing the number of reports, and many tournaments waive 319d and 319e altogether.

The rules allow unscrupulous bowlers a number of windows within which to work so they don't have to report a higher average than necessary for a tournament.  Bowlers might quit a league if their average gets "too high".  They might only bowl "well enough" to keep their league average from being 10 pins higher or their tournament average from being 15 pins higher than the previous season.  They might participate in a 'non-certified-as-Sport' Sport Bowling league.  Or a bowler might just be a "real good summer bowler".

All of this is "Average Management" and it is wrong.

The Bowl.com message board has been very active the last couple years with self-appointed guardians of the Classified (180 and under) Division of the National tournament.  The threads have been rife with posts of accusations of impropriety.  Apparently the problem of Average Management is rampant.  Hence...


The Proposed Changes

There were four rule changes in the legislation at the convention this year to help deal with this problem.

The first allowed for summer averages to count just the same as regular averages instead of only counting if a regular season average did not exist.  This is one of the few changes that actually passed (801-183) and is something our association already utilizes in our Association Championship tournaments.

The second would have eliminated the 10 pin rule.  This, in essence, would require bowlers to use their current average of 21 game if it is higher than last years - at all.  (Tournament rules could still override this.)  This proposal was rejected, 312-674.

The third would have eliminated the 15 pin rule for tournaments.  Same story.  Same result, 382-602.

And a fourth would have created a composite average on the Bowl.com website.  If the composite average turned out to be the highest - it would have to be used.  Granted, this may be a rare occurrence, but if it can be done - why not?  Because it was also rejected 277-707, that's why not.


A number of speakers voiced concerns with the ability to manage these changes - as bowlers, as tournament managers, and as association managers.  Apparently the potential hardship was too much for them to bear.  It's already the bowler's responsibility to know and report their average.  And it is already the tournament managers responsibility to check said averages.

I don't get it.  Here we have a problem that speaks directly to the integrity of the sport, and the delegation - YOUR representatives - chose the status quo.  Incredible.


The Necessary Changes

In addition to implementing the above rejected rule changes, the USBC must regain control of lane conditions.  Forget about the nuances of each center for now.  The integrity of any sport fully depends on the governing body to, well, actually govern the conditions of competition.  Currently, the USBC is not in the best position to do this across the spectrum.

Sport Bowling is a 3:1 ratio and only when certified.  Everything else is "standard".  Everything!  Because there are no parameters defined for "standard", we have problems.

Bowlers competing on Sport Bowling conditions, not certifying the league that way, and using these averages in competitive play on standard conditions is the best example of 'within the rules cheating'.


Fortunately, the USBC already has a system that could give them the control they need, the Red, White and Blue (RWB) lane patterns.  This system defines increasingly difficult ratios for four distinct levels of bowling ranging from easy (Red / current house patterns) to difficult (Blue).

If only they had the stones to mandate the system instead of offering it as an option, er, an educational tool.

The RWB/Sport System

The RWB system, in conjunction with Sport Bowling, could be seamlessly integrated and should be the de facto standard for lane conditions.  All certified leagues and tournaments should define their "Class" of competition - Red, White, Blue, or Sport.

A number of common lane patterns already exist; Kegel patterns, PBA animals, and a variety of different tournament patterns.  Most would fit neatly into the RWB/Sport ratio system.  The USBC could also test each pattern (and any new ones) and potentially reclassify them, if necessary.  Issues like the left / right disparity are addressable within a defined, finite set of competition conditions.

Average Adjustment Scales

Right away, averages become somewhat more realistic since all are tied - definitively - to a condition.  Still, most bowlers will not maintain an average for each of the separate Classes.

With the RWB/Sport system, averages could be adjusted to fit the Class of competition.  Average adjustment scales - like the Rule 202 Sport Bowling Average Adjustment Scale could be developed.

For illustrative purposes, let's say it is 10 pins per level.  So, if you average 200 on Sport, you would be assigned a 210 average for Blue, 220 for White, and 230 for Red.

Of course, if you have an average from a Class, you would just use that for a tournament.

National Tournament Database

USBC Rule 319e regarding tournament averages and 319d regarding prize winnings is unwieldy - no matter what the "pins over average" number is.  Although the rule specifically puts the onus on the bowler to track, maintain, and supply this information - there is no way a tournament manager can verify this information.  Especially if there is a one day tournament and prizes are paid the same day.


Imagine that all certified tournaments were required to report the results of their competitions to the USBC.  A tournament manager could go to Bowl.com and easily see a members tournament average and prize winnings information.

I realize this would add some work to the duties of tournament managers, but the work answers the cry for fairness from bowlers (and from tournament managers themselves), and puts more integrity into the system.

It's a Start

The bottom line is integrity.  Outside of the current Sport Bowling system which IS defined and produces TRUE averages, bowling lacks integrity and definition.

The goal is to have a system that:

1. Provides the USBC with the control to test, maintain, and classify a variety of lane conditions based on degree of difficulty. 
2. Closes the 'Average Management' windows of 10 and 15 pin differentials and non-sport certified averages.
3. Defines 'true' averages for bowlers of a wide range of skill levels based on defined competition conditions.
4. Challenges bowlers to improve by providing better rewards and more lucrative tournament opportunities at higher levels.
5. Maintains a recreational setting and recognition system for the (majority) bowlers who compete at this level or, simply bowl for fun in a non-competitive setting.
6. Requires more frequent lane condition inspections by associations and reports from leagues and tournaments in order to produce real integrity.

Although the proposed rule changes did not get the required support this year, there are a number of ways the USBC can address the dearth of integrity in our sport.

You can help, too.  Contact the board members of your local association and voice your opinion.  Encourage them to draft legislation, attend the USBC national convention, and bring integrity back to the sport of bowling.

Merger Isn't Bad - It's Necessary

I'll start my convention review with the one piece of legislation I am most passionate about and the one which is probably the most contentious among the delegates.

When the USBC was borne of the former ABC, WIBC, and YABA, local and state associations were given the option to merge.  Many did not and it is futile to bemoan the past.  The USBC would like everyone to merge, and so have annually supported the merger legislation.

Merger

This is an odd one to fight for because the process of merger could, frankly, cost me my job.  Fortunately, I saw Star Trek II  and so understand the needs of the many versus the needs of the few.  Or the one.  Even though I can't do that thing with my right hand.

As an elementary illustration, a merger dissolves all existing organizations and creates a new one.  Only assets and liabilities are combined.  Some budget items, such as the Fred G. Engelke scholarship fund would retain their independent status.  Other financial considerations, such as the Hall of Fame, would be worked out prior to the merge.  The MBA Hall of Fame, I think, has a more generous budget than the MWBA Hall of Fame.  Would the budgets be combined for one Hall of Fame, or would they have to be adjusted for equity?

People are not combined, though.  All the Board members are done, the officers are done, and the association managers are done.  Individuals from each of the merging associations convene to establish an interim new Board of Directors, elect new officers, and hire a new association manager (or an old one!).

Frankly, our association does not need to merge.  There is excellent rapport between the organizations and we are able to work together harmoniously.  I still think we should merge.

I have yet to hear one good reason not to merge.  Not one.  Of course, those that deliver the reasons think they are good reasons...



Reasons Not to Merge

The most common is; "We don't get along with the (men/women/youth)"

I immediately challenge this reason for its very foundation.  Should you really be in a service position if you don't (or can't) get along with people?

More importantly, though, is fewer leagues are exclusively men's or women's leagues.  Many men's leagues are changing to allow women to compete - even if only to maintain their league playing strength.  I know of at least one women's league in our association that has done the same.

Societal lines between the genders are more blurred in this age than ever before.  The predominantly gender-based division of associations is not germane to the age we live in.  And, so, they cannot be in a position to best represent today's league bowlers.

Remember - a new association is a new association.  Those who are inflexible, hard to get along with, or otherwise draconian, need not be a part of the new association.  You better learn to get along at the association level, because your league bowlers are getting along just fine.

Another reason for not merging may be the best reason to merge.

One speaker at the convention asked about the effect of a merger when one of the associations was in financial disarray.  The suggestion here is that a solid organization would suffer by merging with an inferior one.  Who would want to do that?

Again, the focus of this inference is his singular association - not the USBC members in his jurisdiction, nor bowling as a whole.

To me, there are a number of bowlers in his jurisdiction who are more than likely under-served.  If the counterpart association is in financial disarray, it is likely the leadership is in the same boat.

A true leader with a greater focus on the bigger picture would recognize this and take the necessary steps to merge immediately.

Associations are not turf to be defended, nor should associations be competing.  Their focus should be on how to best serve bowlers.

The Convention of NO!

I have returned from what was my third USBC National Convention.

The first two were decidedly energizing. The first because it was my first, probably, and the second because I am an eternal optimist and was still hopeful.

This one though, has left me more frustrated than anything - not entirely, but enough that it matters.

A number of good pieces of legislation - some supported by the USBC Board of Directors, some not - were summarily executed by the roughly 1100 voting delegates in attendance.  I can't say the exact number for sure right now, because I don't have one of my pieces of luggage back from the airlines.  The important bag, of course, with my notes and toothbrush and deodorant.  Maybe if they charged more for checked bags...

Anyway, 1100 is an interesting number to me.  This is also (roughly, again) the number of bowlers our association lost last year.  It was enlightening to see a representation of them all in one room.  It was sad to think that many people left the game for whatever reason just in our association.

We do have around 650 first year members, so it is not all bad.   Still, a 16% loss is substantial.

I like to at least try solve problems; the harder, the better.  I consider my self progressive, yet have a staunch traditionalist tendency.  Paradox.

This problem with organized bowling today is pretty difficult, as it is almost innumerably multi-faceted.  There are many aspects of the game to consider; many types of bowling and bowlers each having a variety of wants and needs.  Bowling is as popular as ever, yet membership continues to plummet.

Well, my bag is here finally.  There were 1132 in attendance, 1049 voting.

I was frustrated by the dismissal of the merger proposal (again), the rejection of three tournament rules regarding averages, the nominating committee forwarding only four candidates for four positions, and the slot machines that took my money and put it into the machine next to me.

So, I have decided to try to get the word out and energize the membership with what I think is good for bowling, bad about bowling, or otherwise bowling.

My first posts will be about the convention.  Later, I'll begin some updates on the aggressive plans I have for the future of the Madison USBC Bowling Association.

I hope to keep you entertained, I hope you return the favor.