Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, the "quality" of a world is what you perceive it to be.  

As for me, I find it boring if he same teams are at the top and the same teams are at the bottom.   I perceive it to be a lack of competition and, as you said, less owners who have figured it out.  To me, I equate that to playing Madden on rookie and winning every game 108-3.   So you and I, almost mirror HBD images with regards to success, seek different types of worlds.   I consider my worlds to be among the "best" as I'm sure you do with your worlds.    But my guess is that my worlds are going to fare better with these rankings.   Should that make you re-evaluate the worlds you play in?   Not if you enjoy them.

I don't want just ten people to figure it out. I'd rather everyone have a clue and make the effort. But the turnover at the bottom of worlds and restrictions on budgeting tend to keep some organizations closer to the bottom. There just aren't many *good* owners who look to pick up teams anymore.

The world I like don't have the same traditional bottom feeders. What usually happens more less is a cyclical process where things like the IFA market and strategic concepts that are mimicked ebb and flow. So you have to plan how to stay ahead of the competition. I prefer that to being able to half-*** my way to playoff spots in some leagues.

Ideally, you want 32 active and educated owners, but just basing parity off of who makes the playoffs doesn't really show this.

Posted by tomjames on 1/14/2011 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by r0b0t on 1/14/2011 8:22:00 AM (view original):
So leagues with good owners who consistently make the playoffs are punished by this ranking? 

Yes and no. Playoff percentage is less then 1% of the league total ranking. The highest league playoff percentage is 100% while the lowest is 72%. So the 100% team only has a .28 point advantage over the 72% team.

100% of what?

Posted by r0b0t on 1/14/2011 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tomjames on 1/14/2011 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by r0b0t on 1/14/2011 8:22:00 AM (view original):
So leagues with good owners who consistently make the playoffs are punished by this ranking? 

Yes and no. Playoff percentage is less then 1% of the league total ranking. The highest league playoff percentage is 100% while the lowest is 72%. So the 100% team only has a .28 point advantage over the 72% team.

100% of what?

100% is every team has made the playoffs during the leagues last 10 seasons. 72% is 23 out of the 32 teams had made the playoffs during the last ten seasons.

Posted by r0b0t on 1/14/2011 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, the "quality" of a world is what you perceive it to be.  

As for me, I find it boring if he same teams are at the top and the same teams are at the bottom.   I perceive it to be a lack of competition and, as you said, less owners who have figured it out.  To me, I equate that to playing Madden on rookie and winning every game 108-3.   So you and I, almost mirror HBD images with regards to success, seek different types of worlds.   I consider my worlds to be among the "best" as I'm sure you do with your worlds.    But my guess is that my worlds are going to fare better with these rankings.   Should that make you re-evaluate the worlds you play in?   Not if you enjoy them.

I don't want just ten people to figure it out. I'd rather everyone have a clue and make the effort. But the turnover at the bottom of worlds and restrictions on budgeting tend to keep some organizations closer to the bottom. There just aren't many *good* owners who look to pick up teams anymore.

The world I like don't have the same traditional bottom feeders. What usually happens more less is a cyclical process where things like the IFA market and strategic concepts that are mimicked ebb and flow. So you have to plan how to stay ahead of the competition. I prefer that to being able to half-*** my way to playoff spots in some leagues.

Ideally, you want 32 active and educated owners, but just basing parity off of who makes the playoffs doesn't really show this.

Don't know that I'd base it off who makes the playoffs.   I think I'd base it off who's a contender and who's a bottom feeder.   A 90 win team can miss the playoffs but I've never seen a 60 win team make the playoffs.   If the contenders, the teams that have a playoff shot with 20 games left, are always the same and the bottom feeders are always the same, I see a problem.   The bottom feeders have to up their game or move on.   If one bottom feeder is a turnstile for new owners every season, you have a problem.  You can address it by getting a competent owner to "fix" the franchise or you can take a warm body.   And, if it's a turnstile, you're taking the warm body.    That doesn't make you a "bad" world if you enjoy it but it would irritate the hell out of me.

Posted by r0b0t on 1/14/2011 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, the "quality" of a world is what you perceive it to be.  

As for me, I find it boring if he same teams are at the top and the same teams are at the bottom.   I perceive it to be a lack of competition and, as you said, less owners who have figured it out.  To me, I equate that to playing Madden on rookie and winning every game 108-3.   So you and I, almost mirror HBD images with regards to success, seek different types of worlds.   I consider my worlds to be among the "best" as I'm sure you do with your worlds.    But my guess is that my worlds are going to fare better with these rankings.   Should that make you re-evaluate the worlds you play in?   Not if you enjoy them.

I don't want just ten people to figure it out. I'd rather everyone have a clue and make the effort. But the turnover at the bottom of worlds and restrictions on budgeting tend to keep some organizations closer to the bottom. There just aren't many *good* owners who look to pick up teams anymore.

The world I like don't have the same traditional bottom feeders. What usually happens more less is a cyclical process where things like the IFA market and strategic concepts that are mimicked ebb and flow. So you have to plan how to stay ahead of the competition. I prefer that to being able to half-*** my way to playoff spots in some leagues.

Ideally, you want 32 active and educated owners, but just basing parity off of who makes the playoffs doesn't really show this.

These rankings are not based off parity. This ranking is based on competitiveness of the league. I did a ten year gap to minimize the up and downs that every league goes through.

Maybe the classified section needs to be improved, then, because competent owners don't just up and decide to get new franchises on a whim. The better owners usually have their fill of teams and don't actively look for new worlds.

Ha. MikeT thieved a team-name from me.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2011 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by r0b0t on 1/14/2011 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, the "quality" of a world is what you perceive it to be.  

As for me, I find it boring if he same teams are at the top and the same teams are at the bottom.   I perceive it to be a lack of competition and, as you said, less owners who have figured it out.  To me, I equate that to playing Madden on rookie and winning every game 108-3.   So you and I, almost mirror HBD images with regards to success, seek different types of worlds.   I consider my worlds to be among the "best" as I'm sure you do with your worlds.    But my guess is that my worlds are going to fare better with these rankings.   Should that make you re-evaluate the worlds you play in?   Not if you enjoy them.

I don't want just ten people to figure it out. I'd rather everyone have a clue and make the effort. But the turnover at the bottom of worlds and restrictions on budgeting tend to keep some organizations closer to the bottom. There just aren't many *good* owners who look to pick up teams anymore.

The world I like don't have the same traditional bottom feeders. What usually happens more less is a cyclical process where things like the IFA market and strategic concepts that are mimicked ebb and flow. So you have to plan how to stay ahead of the competition. I prefer that to being able to half-*** my way to playoff spots in some leagues.

Ideally, you want 32 active and educated owners, but just basing parity off of who makes the playoffs doesn't really show this.

Don't know that I'd base it off who makes the playoffs.   I think I'd base it off who's a contender and who's a bottom feeder.   A 90 win team can miss the playoffs but I've never seen a 60 win team make the playoffs.   If the contenders, the teams that have a playoff shot with 20 games left, are always the same and the bottom feeders are always the same, I see a problem.   The bottom feeders have to up their game or move on.   If one bottom feeder is a turnstile for new owners every season, you have a problem.  You can address it by getting a competent owner to "fix" the franchise or you can take a warm body.   And, if it's a turnstile, you're taking the warm body.    That doesn't make you a "bad" world if you enjoy it but it would irritate the hell out of me.

MikeT23 you are correct in my opinion. If a league has the same bottom feeders every season, then they will be punished in these rankings but if you enjoy the world there's nothing wrong with that. I did these rankings for me to find the most competitive league I can play in and decided to share it with everyone. If people want to hall-*** there way into the playoffs or a winning season that’s fine but I would rather earn it.

As I said back on page 1, people who have worlds near the top will say "Good job" and people who have world near the bottom will say "You suck" but I'm sure you knew that. 

As for worlds/owners, it's obvious that some owners like the guarantee of 110 wins and a playoff spot before the season starts or we'd never have had an alias problem.   That's just not for me.   I've been raising hell in Hamilton for 3+ seasons because the same teams(and I'm one of them) stay on top.   I just don't find that fun.

The formula should include most recent blog updates. I think that's part of what makes one world more enjoyable than another.

Posted by moy23 on 1/14/2011 12:07:00 PM (view original):
The formula should include most recent blog updates. I think that's part of what makes one world more enjoyable than another.

The blog update rankings will be out next week. PSYCHE! haha, 1.5 hours to go and we'll run this live!

This is LIVE right now blogtalkradio.com/knucklebones

knuckle, i'm on the phone as a caller.  not accepting?

thanks man.  no matter what your thoughts are on the rankings these guys put alot of time and effort into this.  good luck with it, its entertaining.

I can't seem to get anything to work, but I might also be half corked, so any help is appreciated......