I love the progressive, however the classifieds are filled with progressives that are falling apart.  There are many owners who do not enter for the long haul, they have the Huizenga approach of pillage purge and bail.

I am not ready to run a league, I don't have the time..but I'd like to start a discussion of a new kind of progressive that considers commitment, eliminates tanking, has an element of chance and rewards good managing.

I would like the progressive community to consider this.

A new progressive where there is a seasonal prize of cash, not much but something.  (using a site like leaguesafe)
This would also require a three season commitment of GC's upfront, so when an owner wants to bail he is bailing on three GC for future seasons.

I'd like to see a progressive that means something to all the owners involved, and allows for relative competitiveness every season.

Here is my ideal situation's original concept that I have been considering for some time.

A 30 team league representing every present day franchise, each team carry's one full minor league club.
(you protect 50 players)
The Major League franchise determines, cash and game credit prizes, the minor league franchise determines draft order for the upcoming season. ( this eliminates tanking)
Obviously to do this you have to have two to three eras of baseball represented, and I am not a fan of going way back to the 350 inning plus days of 1.85 ERA's, so I'd like to see three modern eras represented.

To avoid the cluster f^%$ of a 50 man draft, and to add both the element of the unknown, and the element of strategy, this is how I see it.

Every owner picks a season between 2000-2010 for a base franchise, no duplicate players (so the early version of a player gets first dibs).  You keep ten of these players who every season are assigned a random season of their career, repeats are possible and all of these players must have a minimum of three seasons, or still be playing so they can generate more seasons in real life.  This is my element of the unknown.

Then there is the middle group of players, starting sometime between 75-85 ( I haven't looked at it that hard)
These players progress normally but owners can choose to use the season they are in or the stats from the previous or next season.
(for example if we started with 1982...you could chose the 81,92 or 83 season stats, in 1983 you could use 82-83-or 84)  This my flexible competitive feature.

The earliest group ( somewhere between 55-65) would have players all start as rookies and run through their career normally, like a straight progressive.  I believe that below average AAA guys would be necessary in both the major and minor leagues.
The leagues would start on the same day, so you have to choose who plays where, to compete in the majors may lessen your chances to fight for a high pick.

To minimize anyone's desire to tank, the bottom teams in every division in the major league pays the GC of the division winner, or maybe there is a money pool where each team contributes 50 or 25 cents for every game they are under the .500 mark. (major league only again using a neutral site like leaguesafe)

The we would figure out a payoff system.

If an owner wants to bail, he has built equity, you could sell or leave knowing that another owner could come in without start up costs.  Using three eras should allow for a competitive league.


If interested in the general concept, let me know of problems with the idea, pitfalls I am missing or just tell me I'm nuts.  I always fancied the passion of the original rotissierie baseball league and the passions of owning a franchise.  I also enjoy the game play and historical aspect of   whatif, because as a boy i loved strat-o-matic baseball,  Thirdly I like fantasy baseball and playing for some cash, but having the uncertainty of how the players would perform that year.

Half the reason progressive's don't get filled (and die) is because people are always starting new ones.  A significant portion of players (particularly newones) would prefer to start from scratch than take over a rebuilding project.

With that being said, good leagues with good owners, and good commissioners get filled.  I've been in quite a few progressives and have only had one peter out and die on my watch.

As per your idea, any league that I get bored reading the rules is not going to get me to sign up.   Keep the rules simple and use bullet points, is my philosophy.

So
basically I want to play for some cash...I've been in a well run progressive for going on 19 seasons.  I am looking for a progressive that is the ONLY progressive that matters.  Cash prizes, solve the lottery/tanking problems and avoid 6 season rebuilding issues

Posted by schwingkid on 7/13/2011 5:18:00 PM (view original):
So
basically I want to play for some cash...I've been in a well run progressive for going on 19 seasons.  I am looking for a progressive that is the ONLY progressive that matters.  Cash prizes, solve the lottery/tanking problems and avoid 6 season rebuilding issues

Great idea.  I came up with league that might work.  

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=502&TopicID=441811&page=-1#postBox

Here is the reasons I think your plan falls short. 

1. No commitment guarantees.  By paying for three seasons ahead you develop capital. $20 dollars up front I think falls short. 
2. If your way down in a cumulative race what makes you keep playing. Your league does not allow you to find replacement owners
3. Tanking is one way to amass big win streaks, my way avoids that.
4. I worry about collusion in your system, I am out so I help you to win prizes.
5. Paying after 10 or more seasons is not realistic, success on the short term must be suitably rewarded.

These are exactly the problems that you have with any long-term prize pool. If it's cumulative and an owner digs a hole, he's out of luck. If he leaves, good luck replacing him. You can't change his place in the cumulative standings without screwing everyone else. The only way around it is something most people are hesitant to do - with good reason - everyone pays for all the seasons up front. Then if someone leaves at least you can let their replacement play for free, even if they have no hope of prizes beyond that.

I am advocating small prize pools every year.  Lets say you put up three GC to secure the league for three years, plus $25 to a site like league safe, in year two you pay $12 upfront plus say fifty cents for every game you are under .500.  Winning teams gets fifty cents for every game they are over .500 and the playoff teams find a way to divide up the prize pool.  two of the ten dollars a season go toward a final franchise showdown upon league completion using your best players over the history of the league.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/13/2011 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Half the reason progressive's don't get filled (and die) is because people are always starting new ones.  A significant portion of players (particularly newones) would prefer to start from scratch than take over a rebuilding project.

With that being said, good leagues with good owners, and good commissioners get filled.  I've been in quite a few progressives and have only had one peter out and die on my watch.

As per your idea, any league that I get bored reading the rules is not going to get me to sign up.   Keep the rules simple and use bullet points, is my philosophy.

Yep, yep and yep. 

I understand the OP's sense of frustration and appreciate the attempts to solve what he sees as major problems.  The rules aren't completely clear, and like T-joe just said I'd probably just pass this one by.  Also, I'm not sure how many owners you'll find who are willing to commit GCs.  Whenever I participate in an inaugural draft I always draft for the long term, which means my teams usually are fair to middling the first couple of league seasons.  I wouldn't be too eager to subsidize those owners who build for the short term, especially given the fragile nature of new progressive leagues, especially those run by new commissioners.

Do what I did.  Each owner paid $150 (i.e., GC) for a 30-season committment.  $100 goes to the various prize fund.  The other $50 is returned to the owner after season 30.  If a new owner takes over and is around at the end, he gets the $50. 

I still have 18 out of 24 and we're starting season 17. (Two of the owners disappeared without a trace - JohnGPF, moneymen). 

I understand about the long rule thing.....I feel the same way.

So my idea in cliff notes: slightly adjusted

Pay $60 dollars up front and 20 dollars a season....(using something like leaguesafe)
          So three seasons are paid for in advance, and the league operates paying for seasons three seasons out.
          Every year, $15 dollars go to the prize pool of that year, $5.00 goes to the league end, best of franchise league   prize pool.
          After 10 seasons of a thirty team league, that's $1500.00 for the final season, after 20 seasons ...$3000.
          Each year the prize pool would be $450 to be allocated in a predetermined formula., ...
                           like $50 for division winners and $50 for league Champs, another $50 for the world series.

         Although I'd rather see a system where fees where tied into success. ( like a 50 cent charge for every game you finish under .500)

Good idea, but in the second group, what prevents a player from going back and forth between two years?  For example what prevents me from taking '84 Ryne Sandberg to '85 Sandberg back to '84 Sandberg?

Nothing ....it makes Sandberg the best he can be.   However , I do want to point out that this part of the scenario is just an idea to allow for the most competitive rosters possible by maximizing great years.   My main idea is structuring the system that offers an attractive prize pool, and eliminates tanking as we know it.