League most improved award

[Andrew S.]

How does your league or Association or bowl decide the winner of the most improved award?

Should it be up to each individual league to decide on a method, or should there be a National ruling on this?

Some leagues I know take a view that all new bowlers should establish an 18, 21 or 24 game average at the start of the season, and simply use an entering average for existing bowlers, whilst other leagues take a minimum 18/24 game average for all bowlers.

What is the fairest way of doing this?

 

[Levithian]

The leagues i bowl in carry the average over from the previous season.

I think thats fair, you could get bowlers who come in on the new year and bowl shocking for 5 or 6 weeks until they get back into it, then as they come good again, their 160 average jumps 30 pins and blows away everybody.

Should be carry average from the previous season, that should be the basis. New bowlers, as usual, should be given 3 weeks (or 18 games) before average is established.

 

[Chips]

I'd say the fairest way would be to take their averages after 21 games. This allows bowlers that are new to the league to be in the running also. You can't take the end of the previous years average for the old bowlers and mid-way average for the new bowlers. Everyone should have the same process, and I think that after 21 games would be the only way to do that?

 

[Ben A]

Leagues of which i used to bowl in, the Most Improved Award was given to the bowler who had the biggest improvement in their average after 18 games to the end of season, and must have bowled at least two thirds of the season.