|
Post by MrPerfect on Jun 1, 2006 8:41:32 GMT -5
Well "Smooth Up-n-ya" didn't start off to well.... went 1-3 losing the third game by 14 pins and totals by 4.... but we still have 11 weeks to go...
I went 205, 262, 241 - 708 last night after a week and a half lay off from the fall...So I'm pretty happy with that....a pocket 7 - 10 in the 9th that 1st game really killed me....oh well...that's the way it goes...
Approaches were horrible last night which is unusual for Arm I but it had been raining all day and the air was very damp which I'm sure had a lot to do with it...
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Jun 1, 2006 9:25:19 GMT -5
Well "Smooth Up-n-ya" didn't start off to well.... went 1-3 losing the third game by 14 pins and totals by 4.... but we still have 11 weeks to go... I went 205, 262, 241 - 708 last night after a week and a half lay off from the fall...So I'm pretty happy with that....a pocket 7 - 10 in the 9th that 1st game really killed me....oh well...that's the way it goes... Approaches were horrible last night which is unusual for Arm I but it had been raining all day and the air was very damp which I'm sure had a lot to do with it... Farfrumluzzin (Mike, G, Tiner and Jaime) didn't start too well either... of course, with what HAS to be the stupidest entering rule EVER voted in for the history of bowling... they have little to no chance of winning at all for the first 9 games. I'll explain: Entering average to be used is in order: Average from last summer's ABC league, Any 2004-05 Book average with the order being Pasadena, Houston, other Assoc., All others MUST use 185 for 9 games. Jaime has about a 135 average, and just finished her first year of bowling. She had about 100 games, for her average. But, since she had no previous average, she has to bowl 1/4 of the league on an average 50 pins higher than what she actually averages. Conversely, Keith Wilson, in the same situation, average almost 210 for this past season, with no book average, he bowls on an average 25 pins BELOW his average established this season. Kirk Harper has been one of the elite bowlers in the Greater Houston area for 30 years... he belongs in the Houston Hall of Fame... he apparently has no book average from last season, and is also bowling on a 185... probably 35-40 pins below his capabilities... PLUS< factor in that the few bowlers that attended the organizational meeting (no secretary even), motioned and voted to adopt all rules from the previous season with no discussion. This is in violation of recommended USBC practices... rules are supposed to be discussed one by one, and may be adopted individually, or collectively after each is reviewed.I am not a member of the league, however, this rule is unfair to each and every bowler in the league. It either penalizes the new bowler by forcing them to bowl on too high of an average, while, it also, penalizes all bowlers in the league that have to bowl against someone on an average that is lower than their actual ability. It's a situation that is "legal sandbagging". For $20/ night, possible added Prize Money by the house, or an additonal $10/ bowler franchise fee, this is too much money at stake to have rules adopted by people who could care less.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Jun 1, 2006 9:40:32 GMT -5
Well "Smooth Up-n-ya" didn't start off to well.... went 1-3 losing the third game by 14 pins and totals by 4.... but we still have 11 weeks to go... I went 205, 262, 241 - 708 last night after a week and a half lay off from the fall...So I'm pretty happy with that....a pocket 7 - 10 in the 9th that 1st game really killed me....oh well...that's the way it goes... Approaches were horrible last night which is unusual for Arm I but it had been raining all day and the air was very damp which I'm sure had a lot to do with it... Farfrumluzzin (Mike, G, Tiner and Jaime) didn't start too well either... of course, with what HAS to be the stupidest entering rule EVER voted in for the history of bowling... they have little to no chance of winning at all for the first 9 games. I'll explain: Entering average to be used is in order: Average from last summer's ABC league, Any 2004-05 Book average with the order being Pasadena, Houston, other Assoc., All others MUST use 185 for 9 games. Jaime has about a 135 average, and just finished her first year of bowling. She had about 100 games, for her average. But, since she had no previous average, she has to bowl 1/4 of the league on an average 50 pins higher than what she actually averages. Conversely, Keith Wilson, in the same situation, average almost 210 for this past season, with no book average, he bowls on an average 25 pins BELOW his average established this season. Kirk Harper has been one of the elite bowlers in the Greater Houston area for 30 years... he belongs in the Houston Hall of Fame... he apparently has no book average from last season, and is also bowling on a 185... probably 35-40 pins below his capabilities... PLUS< factor in that the few bowlers that attended the organizational meeting (no secretary even), motioned and voted to adopt all rules from the previous season with no discussion. This is in violation of recommended USBC practices... rules are supposed to be discussed one by one, and may be adopted individually, or collectively after each is reviewed.I am not a member of the league, however, this rule is unfair to each and every bowler in the league. It either penalizes the new bowler by forcing them to bowl on too high of an average, while, it also, penalizes all bowlers in the league that have to bowl against someone on an average that is lower than their actual ability. It's a situation that is "legal sandbagging". For $20/ night, possible added Prize Money by the house, or an additonal $10/ bowler franchise fee, this is too much money at stake to have rules adopted by people who could care less. I have to agree with you PBA.... personally for a 12 week league, I think entering averages should only be carried for 2 weeks tops. And in those cases you sited, these bowlers should be setting an average.... not stuck with a 185 entering average... because it's not fair to the bowler in some cases and not fair to the league in other cases... Even though this rule didn't effect my team, but what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.... regardless if it effects your team or not...JMO...
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Jun 1, 2006 9:43:46 GMT -5
Farfrumluzzin (Mike, G, Tiner and Jaime) didn't start too well either... of course, with what HAS to be the stupidest entering rule EVER voted in for the history of bowling... they have little to no chance of winning at all for the first 9 games. I'll explain: Entering average to be used is in order: Average from last summer's ABC league, Any 2004-05 Book average with the order being Pasadena, Houston, other Assoc., All others MUST use 185 for 9 games. Jaime has about a 135 average, and just finished her first year of bowling. She had about 100 games, for her average. But, since she had no previous average, she has to bowl 1/4 of the league on an average 50 pins higher than what she actually averages. Conversely, Keith Wilson, in the same situation, average almost 210 for this past season, with no book average, he bowls on an average 25 pins BELOW his average established this season. Kirk Harper has been one of the elite bowlers in the Greater Houston area for 30 years... he belongs in the Houston Hall of Fame... he apparently has no book average from last season, and is also bowling on a 185... probably 35-40 pins below his capabilities... PLUS< factor in that the few bowlers that attended the organizational meeting (no secretary even), motioned and voted to adopt all rules from the previous season with no discussion. This is in violation of recommended USBC practices... rules are supposed to be discussed one by one, and may be adopted individually, or collectively after each is reviewed.I am not a member of the league, however, this rule is unfair to each and every bowler in the league. It either penalizes the new bowler by forcing them to bowl on too high of an average, while, it also, penalizes all bowlers in the league that have to bowl against someone on an average that is lower than their actual ability. It's a situation that is "legal sandbagging". For $20/ night, possible added Prize Money by the house, or an additonal $10/ bowler franchise fee, this is too much money at stake to have rules adopted by people who could care less. I have to agree with you PBA.... personally for a 12 week league, I think entering averages should only be carried for 2 weeks tops. And in those cases you sited, these bowlers should be setting an average.... not stuck with a 185 entering average... because it's not fair to the bowler in some cases and not fair to the league in other cases... Even though this rule didn't effect my team, but what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.... regardless if it effects your team or not...JMO... It may not have affected your team head to head, but, look at the standing sheet... your team was affected by "tainted" wins and losses by teams in the league...
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Jun 1, 2006 9:49:20 GMT -5
I have to agree with you PBA.... personally for a 12 week league, I think entering averages should only be carried for 2 weeks tops. And in those cases you sited, these bowlers should be setting an average.... not stuck with a 185 entering average... because it's not fair to the bowler in some cases and not fair to the league in other cases... Even though this rule didn't effect my team, but what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.... regardless if it effects your team or not...JMO... It may not have affected your team head to head, but, look at the standing sheet... your team was affected by "tainted" wins and losses by teams in the league... Yes in that way, you are right.... I was only meaning, we didn't have a bowler that had to shoot on a 185 entering avg. because they didn't have a book avg. last year.
|
|
|
Post by rjj on Jun 1, 2006 9:55:03 GMT -5
yeah, when G got home last night and i saw what happened to Jaime and their team, i was hot. they lost one game by 10 or so and total by 5 also. and Jaime had to bowl on a 185 average. "why are we losing bowlers? why don't new bowlers like it" gee, I wonder. I agree, it's legalized sandbagging when it happens the other direction, especially when you have "professionals" who never bowl in one place enough to "book" and average. I also agree with how lazy the league officers are and the people of the league at these meetings. I know the Monday night Arm $$ league, (although WHO CARES?) actually just made a motion to vote same people and same rules in and didn't even know one of the officers wasn't even bowling again. I guess the beer line just gets too long after a proper meeting. the officers need to attend trainings to let them know their responsibilities. no wonder this sport has the reputation of being just where people drink and it takes no skill, it's starting to look that way. if you had meetings, you could address some of the issues that makes people want to quit the sport. that average rule for a 12 week league is ridiculous. Jaime thought that would be a good league because she realizes bowling with the better bowlers will make you better, but instead, we just insured that she needs to bowl the beer and pizza leagues and never get better.
|
|
|
Post by spktatr710 on Jun 1, 2006 10:39:04 GMT -5
I knew about that particular rule last year because I had a new bowler on my team...... about a 130 bowler..... having to use that 185 average. Danna DID mention that rule offhand in the meeting and NO ONE said anything -- and if I remember correctly, she even asked if anyone had a problem with that and still no one said anything. I think that is due to the fact that everyone in there were established area bowlers and it didn't effect their team AND we could have "assumed" that this current year's average would be used. This rule effected me personally last year, and I still sat there and let it go, simply because I didn't think the odds of it happening to anyone else would be that great, and this league has been run the same way for years, with no complaints before..... well, no public complaints at least.
So now that total pins were lost by 5, I feel confident that the rule will be changed NEXT year -- and if Garland doesn't speak up first, I guarantee you that I'll bring it up.
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Jun 1, 2006 10:44:28 GMT -5
I knew about that particular rule last year because I had a new bowler on my team...... about a 130 bowler..... having to use that 185 average. Danna DID mention that rule offhand in the meeting and NO ONE said anything -- and if I remember correctly, she even asked if anyone had a problem with that and still no one said anything. I think that is due to the fact that everyone in there were established area bowlers and it didn't effect their team AND we could have "assumed" that this current year's average would be used. This rule effected me personally last year, and I still sat there and let it go, simply because I didn't think the odds of it happening to anyone else would be that great, and this league has been run the same way for years, with no complaints before..... well, no public complaints at least. So now that total pins were lost by 5, I feel confident that the rule will be changed NEXT year -- and if Garland doesn't speak up first, I guarantee you that I'll bring it up. Of course, I was being nice and not focusing on the fact that the games were very close and totals was close, and speckledtater's team had a 220, 214, 202 and 190 averages... with Jaime's average 50 pins higher than she has... so, I was being nice by focusing on thr crummy rule and not y'all's crummy spare shooting... #SmlyROFL# #SmlyROFL# #SmlyROFL# lol
|
|
|
Post by rjj on Jun 1, 2006 10:52:07 GMT -5
it has nothing to do with the team that beat them, they were following the rules - it's just a dumb rule, and if Danna did ask then David or Garland should have said something, i wasn't there, and Jaime doesn't know any better. Maybe David wasn't there for the meeting, but to expect Garland to say something is a joke, man doesn't speak out loud ha ha ha
thanks Christine, but they will have to learn to speak for theirselves next year. jaime will if i tell her how and when to
thanks!
speckledtator - that is hilarious!!!
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Jun 1, 2006 11:10:02 GMT -5
From what I understand the meeting was last week... but, if it was last night, Tiner went in to draw team numbers, and Fravel won't get to a bowling center 30 minutes early unless they are giving away thousands of dollars... he wouldn't even do it for hundreds.. it would have to be thousands....
So, regardless, live and learn... next year the rule should be different.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Jun 1, 2006 11:22:24 GMT -5
From what I understand the meeting was last week... but, if it was last night, Tiner went in to draw team numbers, and Fravel won't get to a bowling center 30 minutes early unless they are giving away thousands of dollars... he wouldn't even do it for hundreds.. it would have to be thousands.... So, regardless, live and learn... next year the rule should be different. Now if I would have made last weeks meeting, I would have said something..... but I'm sure I would have been criticized for dragging the meeting out by discussing these type of things at their proper time....lol.... I can't win for losing....lol...
|
|
|
Post by spktatr710 on Jun 1, 2006 11:29:59 GMT -5
I knew about that particular rule last year because I had a new bowler on my team...... about a 130 bowler..... having to use that 185 average. Danna DID mention that rule offhand in the meeting and NO ONE said anything -- and if I remember correctly, she even asked if anyone had a problem with that and still no one said anything. I think that is due to the fact that everyone in there were established area bowlers and it didn't effect their team AND we could have "assumed" that this current year's average would be used. This rule effected me personally last year, and I still sat there and let it go, simply because I didn't think the odds of it happening to anyone else would be that great, and this league has been run the same way for years, with no complaints before..... well, no public complaints at least. So now that total pins were lost by 5, I feel confident that the rule will be changed NEXT year -- and if Garland doesn't speak up first, I guarantee you that I'll bring it up. Of course, I was being nice and not focusing on the fact that the games were very close and totals was close, and speckledtater's team had a 220, 214, 202 and 190 averages... with Jaime's average 50 pins higher than she has... so, I was being nice by focusing on thr crummy rule and not y'all's crummy spare shooting... #SmlyROFL# #SmlyROFL# #SmlyROFL# lol You have to admit that one of those averages is WELL above what that bowler is physically able to do now (yes, ME !), so we were pretty much even, and if push came to shove, we should take me and Jaime out of the equation ....... it boiled down to the guys' shooting, not the gals. ;D ;D Garland and Mike have an excellent team and really should have taken us to the cleaners last night, even with that 185 average.
|
|
|
Post by secretariat on Jun 2, 2006 12:39:28 GMT -5
First of all, I must say that the 185 rule is ridiculous. I totally agree. That came from the original rules that were in place before I became secretary and noone has hardly ever mentioned anything about it. Now as for any comments about my attendance at these meetings. 1. I don't set the dates for these meetings. 2. Going to my daughters end of the year school party is far more important to me!!!!!! 3. In my current personal situation, they are the most important and always will be. 4. I don't like missing meetings or any situation about a league I am involved with, but by God I already feel that I let my babies down by not being there for them everyday, I d**n sure am not going to miss something they beg me to go to for a meeting that, if somebody is concerned about, they should be there or get somebody in their place. 5. I was told not to worry about it and that the meetings would be handled.
Sorry for going off , but I get sick of hearing or seeing comments about me that I either think are unfair or just come and say something to me. Especially when they are from people I consider to be my friends. Usually there is a good reason for why things happen the way they do. Some need to get the facts first and then if they are still dissatisfied, oh well.
But I must say going back to the original reason for this thread, that rule is about stupid. I looked at some old copies of the league rules and it is there. Go figure!!!
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Jun 2, 2006 13:18:45 GMT -5
First of all, I must say that the 185 rule is ridiculous. I totally agree. That came from the original rules that were in place before I became secretary and noone has hardly ever mentioned anything about it. Now as for any comments about my attendance at these meetings. 1. I don't set the dates for these meetings. 2. Going to my daughters end of the year school party is far more important to me!!!!!! 3. In my current personal situation, they are the most important and always will be. 4. I don't like missing meetings or any situation about a league I am involved with, but by God I already feel that I let my babies down by not being there for them everyday, I d**n sure am not going to miss something they beg me to go to for a meeting that, if somebody is concerned about, they should be there or get somebody in their place. 5. I was told not to worry about it and that the meetings would be handled. Sorry for going off , but I get sick of hearing or seeing comments about me that I either think are unfair or just come and say something to me. Especially when they are from people I consider to be my friends. Usually there is a good reason for why things happen the way they do. Some need to get the facts first and then if they are still dissatisfied, oh well. But I must say going back to the original reason for this thread, that rule is about stupid. I looked at some old copies of the league rules and it is there. Go figure!!! Roger, My comment about the secretary not being at the meeting was NOT a personal attack at you, but rather, just another factor in the overall scheme of why that crappy rule was still there. As was mentioned by speckledtater, Danna mentioned the rule twice and NOONE challenged it or questioned it... AT ALL. I have always known you to mention rules or circumstances in the meetings that needed to be discussed and/ or reviewed. Being a league secretary and dealing with the paperwork, not to mention the hassles of all the money dealings makes your secretary fee a well earned bit of change. I'm sorry if you thought my take on the meetings was an attack at you, it was not meant to be that...
|
|
|
Post by secretariat on Jun 2, 2006 13:29:49 GMT -5
Thanks a bunch, David. I have always respected your view of things, especially going way back to that newspaper writer about the 300 vs. 800. Remember that? Anyway, a couple of people just walked by and made a comment or two which got me riled up about the meeting. Sorry I am so, I guess sensitive recently. I don't know if it is from the divorce deal or that I am getting old.....I do appreciate all you do for bowling and especially in our area....
|
|