Carl, I can very much relate. My league started the 2012-13 season with 27 teams (thus bowling the 28-team schedule with one BYE team). One team had various "issues" occur both between teammates and over a member's payments...that team withdrew after forfeiting week 9, I think...the new schedule took us to 26 teams and over the several weeks immediately following, there were several occasions of teams repeating a match-up, and some that never met, partly because of six scheduled position rounds. At least, both BLS-2013 and AMF/Advantage scorekeeping matched teamscheduling, with me doing the team deletion per each system's proper method therefor (Advantage is an older system incompatible with BLS).
This season, at the last minute, we started with 29 teams, the 29th asking in at the last minute. About noon before starting week 5, I got a call from team 29's captain noting members quitting and himself, out for surgery...he felt it best to withdraw the team. I was fortunate enough to be able to take an hour off the end of my work day to get to the lanes...at least, deleting the highest number team meant that the remainder could keep their numbers, but that everyone would be bowling on different lanes and in at least one case, against the very team they had bowled the previous week.
All I was able to do was text the other officers to let them know what I was going to have to do, as I would have to devote considerable time at the center re-printing sheets for week and configuring Advantage to the new schedule...it worked well with a few minor gripes that I pretty much expected. And yes, again both BLS-2015 and Advantage matched on schedule. Having a Facebook page for the league did help as more members over time use media for updates and this time, many showed knowing that they would be on a different lane than previously expected.
The notion of changing the schedule to reflect a revised number of teams is really the only true workable solution.
There is no Commonly Asked Question (CAQ) in the USBC rule book as the only rule coming close is 104d which deals with uneven number of teams, and it only addresses teams being added to the league. But if applied to a change, I would contend that USBC, if its Rules department were called, would agree that the undesignated statement following CAQ 104d/3 (at the bottom of p. 37, 2014-15 Playing Rules located here
) would apply, and it reads "No matter which option the league chooses, the schedule must be changed to reflect the new number of teams now bowling in the league."
I have the respect of my league's members, and I frequently tell them and the president/VP that regardless of what happens, the best course of action is to adopt the new rotation and go forward. I say that I could opt to not include a week that has many repeat matches, but that any attempt on my part to do that would be manipulating the schedule, which is something I just won't do. The 2012 issue removed an "undesirable" team and while it wasn't said, the idea that the lesser of two evils (a reschedule, or continuing to have a bad team present) prevailed. This season's withdrawal fortunately happened earlier and I was able to make changes.
Should BLS have a blatant warning when the number of teams changes? Perhaps. But, in the 13 seasons I've used the prouduct and participated on support communities, I don't recall seeing a request for it. But they generally are open to suggestions. The big thing we as users have to remember that it may be simple in our eyes just to insert a warning dialog, but anytime something is modified in a product, it could affect how other things function which wouldn't necessarily be known until after an update is released and a problem detected.
Always check, download, and install the most recent update of your software to ensure that issues may have been corrected.