Private World prospect Budget rules. Topic

willsauve
Posts: 2255 (0)
Hall of Famer
168 1 1 1 200
Prospect
Thats great and all but you're more than 5 seasons away from the damage being corrected.
11/4/2011 12:09 PM
a3morey
Posts: 58 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 5 2 163
Prospect
there are ways to effectively manage your payroll, stay competitive, and still have shots at top internationals year after year.
11/5/2011 12:49 AM
Crump123
Posts: 361 (0)
Hall of Famer
238 132
Prospect
Only by trading away quality for prospects before they get expensive, smart owners know that's bad for them in the long run.
11/5/2011 2:19 PM
kahrtmen
Posts: 307 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 1 78
Prospect
Posted by willsauve on 11/4/2011 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Thats great and all but you're more than 5 seasons away from the damage being corrected.
You're right - that is a perfect example of a tanker.  That's not really a good example of a good team getting all the IFAs though.  Generally speaking once a team gets good they are forced to start putting at least a little money into payroll, at which point they will start losing out on IFAs to teams with lower payrolls.  

The Hartford example shows how ineffective a win floor is, IMO.  It's really pretty damn easy to win 50 games while tanking.  We were slow to put in the win floor but even if we had put in a floor at the beginning there is nothing to stop a team from winning 55 games every season for 8-9 seasons and racking up top 5 picks and top-dollar IFAs.  The only way to really combat tanking IMO is to put a cap on prospect budget.
11/6/2011 1:40 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
55/125/195/280 stops a team from winning 55 every season.   Single season minimum wins don't work.   Neither does 2 season MWR. 
11/6/2011 6:18 AM
kahrtmen
Posts: 307 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 1 78
Prospect
Agreed, multi-year win rules are much more effective.  The problem at this point is that it's very hard to fill worlds if you lose owners to the win rule.  There are some owners that are not capable of winning 280 in a 4-season stretch, even if they are not tanking.  I imagine you lose several owners to the min win rule who aren't even trying to tank.  It's good for the world in the long run, I guess, but it's a tough sell when you are running a world where several people are worried about getting booted while trying to field a winning team.
11/6/2011 4:12 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I've had no problem filling Coop or MG.
11/6/2011 4:42 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
What I'm saying is that there are dozens of reasons to not do things(or do things) but, if you set a rule, follow it and you'll be OK.
11/6/2011 4:49 PM
soursurfer
Posts: 371 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Prospect
Posted by kahrtmen on 11/6/2011 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Agreed, multi-year win rules are much more effective.  The problem at this point is that it's very hard to fill worlds if you lose owners to the win rule.  There are some owners that are not capable of winning 280 in a 4-season stretch, even if they are not tanking.  I imagine you lose several owners to the min win rule who aren't even trying to tank.  It's good for the world in the long run, I guess, but it's a tough sell when you are running a world where several people are worried about getting booted while trying to field a winning team.

Inadequate GMs fearing for their job makes the game more like real-life.  It's a good thing.

11/7/2011 11:11 AM
kahrtmen
Posts: 307 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 1 78
Prospect
My point was simply that commishes can't just implement World Rules by fiat.  Putting in a rule requiring 280 wins every 4 seasons would probably not receive a majority of votes in many worlds.
11/7/2011 1:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
280 probably doesn't work in every world.   I came up with 55/125/195/280 by running a lot of previous seasons.   It was achieved by all but the worst of the worst(some who I suspected of tanking down to the 55 win minimum).    However, every commish could find a suitable 4 season number.    You just have to be willing to live with it when Johnnyoriginalowner falls short.
11/7/2011 2:21 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by kahrtmen on 11/7/2011 1:55:00 PM (view original):
My point was simply that commishes can't just implement World Rules by fiat.  Putting in a rule requiring 280 wins every 4 seasons would probably not receive a majority of votes in many worlds.
In Mantle, we just changed our rules to 55/120/185/260 by vote by a significant margin.
11/7/2011 3:01 PM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
Posted by kahrtmen on 11/7/2011 1:55:00 PM (view original):
My point was simply that commishes can't just implement World Rules by fiat.  Putting in a rule requiring 280 wins every 4 seasons would probably not receive a majority of votes in many worlds.

I put in a vote in Powers and required 2/3 approval for any of the rule changes to be implemented. The rule passed easily. The only real debate was whether not meeting the minimums is automaic removal or would go to a comittee. And there were only a couple owners that were pushing for a comittee. I too, look at it not as banishment for tanking--but as a GM getting fired for poor performance. IRL fans will only put up with re-building so long.

The majority of our owners were also for a prospect cap, but not enough to make it a rule.

11/7/2011 3:35 PM
soursurfer
Posts: 371 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Prospect
Posted by kahrtmen on 11/7/2011 1:55:00 PM (view original):
My point was simply that commishes can't just implement World Rules by fiat.  Putting in a rule requiring 280 wins every 4 seasons would probably not receive a majority of votes in many worlds.
No, nor should it.  What's nice about varying rules in private worlds is that everyone should be able to find a league that meshes with their views on what a league should and should not police.
11/7/2011 5:14 PM
◂ Prev 123
Private World prospect Budget rules. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.