Brainstorming an "Ultimate" Progressive Topic

all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect
     Over my years here, I have done many Progressive and Regressive Leagues.  Seems like the same issues have been around that whole time.  How do we keep the most teams competitive every season?, How do we stop tanking (by all definitions)?, How do we speed-up the rebuilding process?, How do we get owners to pay attention to posting keepers and submitting teams timely?, etc..

   I'd like to post some ideas, then collect input to hopefully give a new League a try.
1) League would be a 2-season League, meaning an owner could use either season of players on his roster.
     Any player who played in either season being used would be eligible.
2) Draft order would be 100% random every season.
3) Owners may keep a maximum of 6 players from League season to season.
4) Each day an owner is late submitting keepers is a spot they drop in the draft.
5) Each day an owner is late submitting team is a spot they drop in the next draft.

OK, I asked for it, so feel free to comment.  This is NOT a sign-up, just a collection of ideas.  If there seems to be a consensus on the rules, and enough interest, then I will start a sign-up forum.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. 
9/12/2014 11:45 AM
benhoidal
Posts: 12897 (3)
Hall of Famer
994 1
Veteran
I love it for the most part. Not sure if I am okay with the 100% random draft order though. I would love a 100% random draft order between all teams that don't make the playoffs, but I don't think championship contenders should get a shot at the top picks. That will really slow down rebuilding processes and would probably make some owners flat out quit.
9/12/2014 11:55 AM
hoopsdude
Posts: 661 (0)
Hall of Famer
41 1 2 1 3
Prospect
I agree w/ benhoidal on the totally random for lottery teams. There could then be a separate totally random order for the playoff teams (insuring the champ would not pick in the top half). Only 6 keepers is a bit iffy to me, but I can roll w/ that.

What would the cap be, and what (if any) player restrictions would be in place? Would it be an open player pool, or would it be a "season progressive" where you can only use players from certain seasons? 
9/12/2014 3:29 PM (edited)
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1832 (0)
Hall of Famer
70 164 12 18
All Star
I think one of the biggest problems is having a salary cap too high.  Unless you have a double draft (like the Parallel Progressive League), I think the cap should be $47M or lower.
9/12/2014 6:14 PM
all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect

   The reason I said 1 random draft instead of 2 (one for playoff teams and one for non-playoff) is that then you'd probably still have owners near the cutoff trying to get in the "better" Lottery.  Open to amend that if it's what people want.
 
   I wasn't thinking of having a cap.

   All players would start with the same season (probably where owners could use '70-'71 or '71-'72 for season 1, then '72-73 or '73-'74 for season 2 and so on). 

9/12/2014 6:20 PM
benhoidal
Posts: 12897 (3)
Hall of Famer
994 1
Veteran
It's tough because you are going to have at least some tanking regardless unless it is completely random and that is just a little too extreme I think. However, if someone really wants to tank out of the playoffs to get in the lottery, they are a chump. It's one thing to start tanking once you realize you are going nowhere, but I think most owners want to make the playoffs.
9/12/2014 10:56 PM
thohoops
Posts: 2670 (0)
Hall of Famer
380
Rookie
Posted by all3 on 9/12/2014 6:20:00 PM (view original):

   The reason I said 1 random draft instead of 2 (one for playoff teams and one for non-playoff) is that then you'd probably still have owners near the cutoff trying to get in the "better" Lottery.  Open to amend that if it's what people want.
 
   I wasn't thinking of having a cap.

   All players would start with the same season (probably where owners could use '70-'71 or '71-'72 for season 1, then '72-73 or '73-'74 for season 2 and so on). 

dspahlinger has successfully run a double-progressive for a very long time (currently at 2001-2003, so we have 6 seasons left)
9/12/2014 11:10 PM
all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect
Aware of that League, and don't want to step on any toes, but I think the anti-tanking measures would make this much different. 
9/13/2014 12:01 PM
masterdebate
Posts: 4502 (2)
Hall of Famer
280 143 1 1
Rookie
If someone doesn't pick in 24 hours, reserve the right to pick for them. If it's someone who is normally reliable, make good picks. If they are chronically late, give them duds.
9/13/2014 5:00 PM
benhoidal
Posts: 12897 (3)
Hall of Famer
994 1
Veteran
I wouldn't pick for them, just skip them. They can make their own pick when the get to it.
9/14/2014 3:44 PM
Malfunction
Posts: 3032 (2)
Hall of Famer
110 25 2
Rookie
Why not give the Ultimate Random as Possible Progressive a try? It fits nearly all of All3s criteria. In fact, we have one team open right now. A'll3 is in. Give it a season and see what you think. Team is posted in Ultimate Random threat in classifieds. Site mail me if interested and check it out.
9/17/2014 10:57 AM
jcred5
Posts: 5716 (0)
Hall of Famer
111 926 45 1 135 14
Rookie
Going to comment before reading replies to give my first impression. Which is that I love progressive leagues and I'm always up for a new spin. I'm in a "double" progressive now where you expose 2 full seasons of players and chose which season you want. It's been running for a very long time and has been very successful. If you're rebuilding, you can usually turn around pretty quick and if you have a great team - it's hard to stay on top for too long b/c your players progress so quickly through their career usually. About the specific league rules:

2) This rule I don't like. How do you rebuild if you don't have a good team? I worry if you have a team near the bottom who's trying to rebuild and they end up with picks in the middle or bottom of the 1st round - why keep coming back? You'll have a hard time keeping those owners I fear and a hard time attracting replacement owners when you're trying to sell a bad team that doesn't have a good draft pick.

Just my two cents, but I don't mind tanking at all. I'm in 2 progressives like this now and was in a 3rd that went the distance and I never minded tanking. It's realistic like the NBA and I think it has little to no impact on the owners competing for the playoffs. You can put in some anti-tanking rules to make sure teams aren't sending out teams who don't have enough minutes. 19K minute floor to qualify for the lottery. One league has a 15 win floor to qualify for the lottery. I think those are enough. Besides some of these rules, you could have a lottery where every non playoff team gets one ball in the lottery. Then tanking is almost pointless. And if you're rebuilding, you'll at least get a pretty good player in the top 10 or so.

3) Really like this rule. Definitely helps balance

4 and 5) I don't mind as much, they make me a little nervous you'll lose owners. But you could always adjust if needed.
10/13/2014 4:38 PM
superrobb420
Posts: 1107 (0)
Hall of Famer
201 3
Prospect
Posted by jcred5 on 10/13/2014 4:38:00 PM (view original):
Going to comment before reading replies to give my first impression. Which is that I love progressive leagues and I'm always up for a new spin. I'm in a "double" progressive now where you expose 2 full seasons of players and chose which season you want. It's been running for a very long time and has been very successful. If you're rebuilding, you can usually turn around pretty quick and if you have a great team - it's hard to stay on top for too long b/c your players progress so quickly through their career usually. About the specific league rules:

2) This rule I don't like. How do you rebuild if you don't have a good team? I worry if you have a team near the bottom who's trying to rebuild and they end up with picks in the middle or bottom of the 1st round - why keep coming back? You'll have a hard time keeping those owners I fear and a hard time attracting replacement owners when you're trying to sell a bad team that doesn't have a good draft pick.

Just my two cents, but I don't mind tanking at all. I'm in 2 progressives like this now and was in a 3rd that went the distance and I never minded tanking. It's realistic like the NBA and I think it has little to no impact on the owners competing for the playoffs. You can put in some anti-tanking rules to make sure teams aren't sending out teams who don't have enough minutes. 19K minute floor to qualify for the lottery. One league has a 15 win floor to qualify for the lottery. I think those are enough. Besides some of these rules, you could have a lottery where every non playoff team gets one ball in the lottery. Then tanking is almost pointless. And if you're rebuilding, you'll at least get a pretty good player in the top 10 or so.

3) Really like this rule. Definitely helps balance

4 and 5) I don't mind as much, they make me a little nervous you'll lose owners. But you could always adjust if needed.
About number 2; I don't really see it as an issue. If it's truly random, you end up with favorable picks half the time. Plus with only 12 keepers, the better teams have tough decisions to make and the draft pool will be bigger than it is in the current dual season progressive. Besides, in a league like this, the reason you are bad is usually because the guys on your team haven't hit their best seasons yet or else they wouldn't be on your team. The rebuild would naturally occur as a result of your current guys getting better.

I get what you're saying. If someone pays their 10 bucks they should spend it how they see fit. I think as long as we there's a minute floor it should be fine. But I also think it might be fun to do the split lottery and then let the league vote on tankers if people feel that strongly about it.

10/15/2014 11:18 AM
all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect
Thanks guys. Appreciate the comments. Was hoping for many more though. Guess WIS's apathy for the game has rubbed-off on most owners too.
10/15/2014 12:23 PM
longtallbrad
Posts: 4792 (1)
Hall of Famer
432 51
Pro
I like the idea and agree with most of the comments.  I don't see a need for a cap.  Let the free market reign. 

I'm fine with rule #3.  I don't care for 4 or 5, though.  Seems too punitive, and it's very possible to have extenuating life circumstances.  If you're going to go this route I suggest having very generous timeframes so it's blatantly obvious when someone stretches reasonable limits.

I'm not a fan of completely randomizing the lottery.  My experience tells me that WIS owners will start bailing once they feel screwed two seasons in a row.  However, I'd be willing to run the experiment and see how it plays out.  Just would hate to see the league stall out because we have trouble keeping people on board.

What about a minutes floor of something like 19K?

10/15/2014 1:36 PM
12 Next ▸
Brainstorming an "Ultimate" Progressive Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.