Paid for Vacancy???

[classygranny]

Ugh...the drama of leagues at times.

Have a team that doesn't want to put a 4th bowler on and just wants to pay the league fees each week and use the vacancy score.

Another member is adamant about having the vacancy scored lower so there is a penalty and teams are encouraged to obtain a bowler (don't think this will pass at the meeting).

House at one time told me, if a bowler comes in to join I have to take them, if there is vacancy (meaning unpaid spot).

Do you think it's fair the team pay for the vacancy spot all year long and get the vacancy score each week?

[J Anderson]

Ugh...the drama of leagues at times.

Have a team that doesn't want to put a 4th bowler on and just wants to pay the league fees each week and use the vacancy score.

Another member is adamant about having the vacancy scored lower so there is a penalty and teams are encouraged to obtain a bowler (don't think this will pass at the meeting).

House at one time told me, if a bowler comes in to join I have to take them, if there is vacancy (meaning unpaid spot).

Do you think it's fair the team pay for the vacancy spot all year long and get the vacancy score each week?

Disclaimer: I have never had to deal with having a team in my leagues that had a vacant spot on the roster.

After skimming through the USBC rule book it appears that the team could go through the season like this. I have seen our youth league wind up with one or two team with a vacant bowler on the roster but I have almost no idea how the details of that work out. Since the team in your league is not making a good faith effort to fill the spot the team would be required to pay for the spot. I would assume your center will be willing to only charge lineage for the actual number of bowlers so the vacant fee might only be the prize fund portion of the weekly fee. It could be the whole thing.

USBC suggests that the vacant score for adult leagues be 120. But the the league may set its own number. They also say that the handicap for a vacant score be calculated the same as for a regular bowler. It does say that a league may adopt a rule using a lower handicap, say 0% to discourage teams from using a vacancy score any longer than necessary.

Personally, I think if the members of a team are willing to put in the extra money each week it’s fair. While the vacant spot is never going to have a bad game, it’s never going to have a great one either.

[Aslan]

This just came up in my men's league because they had a team that did the same thing the year previous. The way they handle it is to use the league average, but the other players on that team cover the full cost (lineage + prize fund) for the vacant bowler.

There were some rumblings from other players in the league saying they wanted more of an incentive for teams to fill the spot and more of a penalty.

Since I was new, I didn't put in any input. However,

- If your league went to a head-to-head scoring format...it's easy to penalize a team for doing this...because the opposing bowler would just need to bowl their average or up to defeat the vacant spot (for example)....and the team doesn't get a head-to-head point if the vacancy "wins" because the opponent didn't bowl their average.

- The "usual" way...in head-to-head and team scoring formats...is to deduct pins from the vacant spot. Average -10. You could do -20 or -30 depending how severe you wanna be. There's also the option of the vacant spot not getting handicap or getting only a % of the usual handicap.

I think there definitely should be more of a penalty...especially in 100% handicap leagues. And they definitely shouldn't get a break on lineage. The center is already losing money on a vacant spot that doesn't order food or drinks. The only time I could see it as "okay" is if the vacant spot is being held for someone. Maybe they have a player out with injuries and expect them to come back at some point. Otherwise you're trying to bring in a sub for a short or unknown period of time.

[boatman37]

Our league uses average -30 for blind scores so quite the uphill battle if you don't have a full roster.

[RobLV1]

Is it fair? Probably not. Is it wise? Not if the vacancy score is 140 like in most leagues. While the score will never be down, it will also never be up. It will most probably lose them more games than it will win them.

[boomer]

That's the prevailing thought - but the reality of it has been that having a reliable non-absent (which would be avg minus 10) bowler who ALWAYS hits their average and ALWAYS shows up is a big benefit to a team.

I bowled on a league where min number of bowlers was 1, two people were perpetually absent (but paid the whole league in advance) and had one vacancy. I led the league until my two absentees decided to show up for the last few weeks of the league and stank the place up. Having those three reliable scores, even though two of them were minus-10, meant that I could reliably win at least 2 points per week and more often win 3 points. You do that in any league and you're going to show up in the top ranks. . .

In my league now, teams that have a vacancy tend to be in the top half of the league. Granted, the top 4 teams are the full and LOADED teams, and we do work to fill the vacancies . . . but they do filter UP, not down.


It is a definite benefit to have a vacancy be a "non-absent" bowler. To my mind, vacancies should be at least "absent" (meaning average minus 10.) If they are just a 140Avg and get their full handicap then you might as well have the most consistent bowler in the world bowling for you - which is a massive benefit.

140Avg, 90% of 200 - 194 every game.
140Avg, 90% of 200, minus 10 - 184 every game.

And just dropping the average for the Vacant score doesn't help much.

140Avg, 90% of 200 - 194
130, same? 193
120, same? 192.

To my mind, while a vacant score shouldn't be a massive penalty, it at least should be FILLED and if the team doesn't want it filled, they should pay BUT they should also get it as an absent bowler.

[Aslan]

The other problem I've seen is that so many leagues are going for 100% handicap.

If everyone is getting 100% of 225 (or whatever the number), there is literally no penalty for vacancies. That's where I think you' should' subtract 10 pins...at LEAST. I'd even say, for 100% leagues especially, it should be average minus 30.

If league average = 170
220-170 = 50 * 100% = 50

170 + 50 = 220 (vacant)
170 + 50 = 220 (vacant)
168 = 52 = 220 (bowler)
189 = 31 = 220 (bowler)

90% handicap example:
If league average = 170
220-170 = 50 * 90% = 45

170 + 45 = 215 (vacant)
170 + 45 = 215 (vacant)
168 = 46 = 214 (bowler)
189 = 27 = 216 (bowler)

100% w/ a minus 30 penalty:
If league average = 170
220-170 = 50 * 100% = 50 - 30 = 20

170 + 20 = 190 (vacant)
170 + 20 = 190 (vacant)
168 = 52 = 220 (bowler)
189 = 31 = 220 (bowler)

Based on those examples, you really only can force bowlers to fill spots if you deduct pins from vacant/absent bowlers. Especially in 100% leagues. (Unless my math is wrong).

[boatman37]

lol. We are 80% handicap AND -30 for absentee...lol