Use of Vacancies & Handicap

[Jack Bourgeois]

I am running a youth league that uses 90% of 210 as a handicap. I would
like to be able to set up Vacancy score of 120, but have the Vacancy
handicap of 90 (100% for vacancies only). That way, teams with vacancies
are not "punished" by always losing that extra 10%. Is this allowable and can it be set up in BLS?

[Lance Rasmussen]

Is it allowable? I believe that that is one of the rules that essentially is under "It shall be.............. Unless the league votes something else".

As far as BLS goes.... This isn't done very much. I've have only 2 calls about this this year.

BLS supports two concepts of a vacancy score. One is a Vacancy Score and the other is a Dummy Score. They both essentially are used for an unfilled position. But can be used strategically for different purposes.

A vacancy score is a fixed number and handicap will be applied to that number. You can not have a different handicap method as everyone else. So it would be 120. And the program would calculate handicap (210 - 120) * 90%.

A dummy score is a fixed number and it does not add additional handicap. So if you had a rule that says vacancies get 120 with no handicap, then you would put 120 in the dummy rule and use a dummy score. In your case, you would pre-add the handicap to the score. So it would be 210.

If you have further questions on HOW to do it in BLS, then post the technical questions in the appropriate BLS forum.

[Skip Horner]

You could always set the Vacancy score to a higher figure to lessen or offset the handicap issue. Would have to do that via league rule, though.

[Patrick Lajko]

You are not punishing a team for having a vacancy. If you had a real bowler with a 120 average and bowls a 120 - should you give that person 100% handicap? You would say no and the same holds true for a vacancy.

You might be confusing that with an absentee, where you take 10 pins off the average for the score. Now that is a punnishment, as you took off 10 pins (120 average the score would be 110).

A 120 vacancy with 100% of 210 would get 90 pins handicap. At 90%, it would be 81 pins. If we have a real bowler with a 120 .vs. a 120 vacancy, we get 9 pins less team handicap for the same average and same score. (Remember the punishment comes with an absentee as we lose 10 pins score due to the average less 10 pins rule.)

Therefore, if you gave a vacancy 100% handicap, you would be rewarding a team for having a vacancy. If I can have 120 with 100% handicap, why would I ever want to replace that with a bowler? As soon as I do, the handicap drops to 90% thereby giving my team less handicap. (Use a 120 bowler as an example and you'll see it is obvious you would not want to replace the vacancy with a 120 average bowler because you would lose 9 pins of handicap. Now use any other average with the bowler bowling their average and the same holds true, although the number of pins might be a little different. You still lose handicap pins when you replace the vacancy.)

[Larry Zaideman]

Just a note:
This past summer I had a 4 man league that ended up with 3 vacancies on a team (as this was a summer league we could get enough bowls)

This team almost won league with the 160 vacancy's plus 90% handicap. The league voted to change to also take 10 pins away from each vacant bowler to try to even things up, the team still finish 2nd.

It seems that who ever bowled against this had problem winning if said 1 bowler had a bad night it was hard for them to make 3 scores that where just a little under average.

So from my experienced 100% handicap would be a bad idea.

[Patrick Lajko]

3 vacancies on a 4 person team would not field a legal lineup. Without a legal lineup, how could this team ever win anything?

I find it odd that this was allowed. Better to grab 2 people from other team to have 3 real people on this team and scatter the vacancies around so there was only 1 on any team.

[Frank Goebel]

That, or when organized, might have been better to make it a league of three on a team (if there were enough lanes to support the intended size of the league, of course). Another option would be to have it all done as a "drop-in" singles league.

I run my juniors as such a league due to the small size, using varied regressive points based on a particular week's attendance, with no wins nor losses awarded to absentees, and standings based on percentages.

Since this is getting a bit off the original topic, I would be happy to detail exactly how I do this in a new thread on that subject, if asked.

[Larry Zaideman]

3 vacancies on a 4 person team would not field a legal lineup. Without a legal lineup, how could this team ever win anything?

I find it odd that this was allowed. Better to grab 2 people from other team to have 3 real people on this team and scatter the vacancies around so there was only 1 on any team.

I just manage the league, they didn't what to split up. So i just ran the league the way they voted to ran it.
Right or wrong it's what they wanted.

[Skip Horner]

Quote: "3 vacancies on a 4 person team would not field a legal lineup."

Not necessarily true...by league rule, you could have a legal lineup being "one regular team member"...

[Mike Masek]

Patrick was right on, comparing the Vacancy to a real 120 bowler. It's absurd to have a team with only one player - just delete the team, put the bowler on another team or as a sub, and change the schedule and prize fund accordingly.

Vacancies are for allowing a team to start bowling in a league when they have less than the required roster strength. They are only meant to last a couple of weeks - 4 at the most - time enough for a bowler to be found. Teams with Vacancies shouldn't be required to pay lineage - just the other expenses. Vacancies help a team be able to compete against the rest of the league without being penalized for being a man short from the beginning.

In any case, Rule 105.d.1.b states you have to use the handicap for the vacancy score used. If you have a rule that addresses Vacancies, you won't have the problem.