Tanking Rule Change -- Feedback Wanted Topic

philogenemay
Posts: 475 (0)
All Star
24 10
Prospect
Posted by opie100 on 11/2/2011 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Real general managers get fired after a number of seasons of bad performance.  That's why minimum win requirements make sense here as well.  50 is too low.  Start at 55.  I prefer the four season minimum win rule: 55/125/195/280 (ala Coop, MG, etc.).

At the end of each season, each GM should get a note in their inbox from their owner evaluating their performance.  Not incredibly detailed - just have some canned commentary related to how close they were to their win requirement (or congratulating for making the playoffs, etc.).
I like the idea of a "notice" from the owner. 

"Hey, I know we are rebuilding but our season ticket sales have plummeted. We are going to have to show some improvement this season or we may have to go in a different direction in the front office."

Quote post by deathinahole on 11/2/2011 5:03:00 PM:
I see logic needed for someone that took over an abandoned franchise mid season.

And a definition for mid season.

+1

Quote post by cp49 on 11/2/2011 7:20:00 PM:
I like where you're going but using your example, if a team only won 50 games in season 2 then they may legitimately be rebuilding in season 13 as they may have built up, made their run and be out of steam again. What about a penalty for twice in 8 years (or more often)?



Just because your team is running out of steam shouldn't allow you a pass on winning 50 games.
It's only 50 games.


 am not opposed to the credit for last place. 

IMO with all of the restrictions already in place, it is the only bright spot after spending $25 to watch your veterans decline and suffer through that 1st season in a new world.
11/2/2011 10:02 PM (edited)
kjmulli
Posts: 843 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 1 15 2 129
Prospect
i like this idea. it might be just baby steps to some people, but it's, at the very least, a good starting point
11/2/2011 11:41 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 200 602 203
Prospect
 .


Get rid of the $4 credit for last place in a division. That is one of the most absurd awards of any game I have ever played. I never seen a game that awards someone more for taking 4th place compared to 2nd place.

For private worlds give owners a dropdown menu for the commish so he can set  when this rule should kick in. example, 0,45, 50, 55, 60, 65, or 160.....This gives worlds the option to ignore the feature, or even allow worlds to make it so no one can transfer cash to prospects.
11/3/2011 6:32 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
The retroactive part is what bothers me. Seems like this might penalize perfectly good owners (now) who may have attempted a strategy early on that failed or who did tank in their first season, several real-life years ago, but would never do that now. There also has to be a mechanism that recognizes in-season replacements (good commissioners will sometimes find an owner to take over a team at the end of the season just to clean up the lousy owner's mess).

I like plague's idea about the drop-down menu for commissioners, and I like opie's idea about the canned messages. Maybe there could be two or three levels of punishment (e.g., warnings at 70+ losses, one-year prospect transfer bans for losing 60+, perma-bans for 50+ losses) or opportunities to escape those penalties so that owners will be encouraged to stay (if they're wanted).
11/3/2011 8:14 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Did you not know I could pity-block you in the forums?  Send me a sitemail so I can hit the trifecta.

11/3/2011 8:58 AM
crickett13
Posts: 2396 (0)
Hall of Famer
398 74 25 145
Prospect

Most private worlds already have their own rules. Would this supersede those rules?

11/3/2011 9:06 AM
mudcatbb
Posts: 105 (0)
All Star
6 2 39
Prospect
It works Mike - you must be uncomfortable with people calling you ouy on being a whiney baby :)
11/3/2011 9:08 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by mudcatbb on 11/3/2011 8:50:00 AM (view original):
Excuses excuses.  Whiney big mouthed loser. 
Ha!  That's what we call him in Coop and MG!
11/3/2011 9:48 AM
dcbove
Posts: 192 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 152
Prospect
I think this a great step to help address the tanking issues. I also like the suggestion where private league commissioners can set parameterized versions of these rules. Displaying the parameterized values on the private world rules page would be cool too.
11/3/2011 10:37 AM
carpetbagger
Posts: 1509 (0)
Hall of Famer
32 5 177 143 10
Prospect
Posted by dcbove on 11/3/2011 10:37:00 AM (view original):
I think this a great step to help address the tanking issues. I also like the suggestion where private league commissioners can set parameterized versions of these rules. Displaying the parameterized values on the private world rules page would be cool too.
plus some protection for the guy who takes over an abandoned team in mid season (like prorating the wins/losses over the number of games the takeover owner was in charge). 
11/3/2011 10:44 AM
maxdeardorff
Posts: 265 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 26 141
Prospect
This rule seems great to me.  50 wins is not hard at all. 
11/3/2011 11:12 AM
ratpoison
Posts: 8 (0)
Hall of Famer
64
Prospect
Like the idea and would like it more at a 55-win threshold.  Can programming be such that Commissioner can adjust minimum wins requirement to fit World's existing rules?
11/3/2011 11:42 AM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...7 Next ▸
Tanking Rule Change -- Feedback Wanted 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.