Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/2/2026 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I use this idea. “The best way to solve tanking I have seen is go directly in order of the standings for any non-playoff team. 2nd place teams pick 1-4, then 3rd place teams 4-10, then last place teams 10-16, then all the playoff teams. Then go reverse order of the standings (worst to first) for the remaining rounds.”

we also add in bonus picks at the end of the first round for any team with a losing record 4 or more consecutive years.

I really like it, and I think the league does as well. We don’t have a lot of turnover.

The positives as I see it are:

1. It makes every game important, the wins , even when you’re out of it, matter because you are constantly trying to win to improve your draft position.

2. If you’re bad, it’s not a death sentence. In a double season progressive, with 16 teams, the worst team is drafting 12 and 17. There’s PLENTY of talent there.

3. If youre really bad, it would be something 12, 17 and 18.

I like the idea of every game mattering a lot. It keeps me engaged.

I copied this idea directly from you lol. I think the CYCYP does a great job of rewarding competitiveness while also helping owners rebuild. I think we are in year 8 now and 12 owners have won at least one league title (7 in the AL and 5 in the NL). 7 of the 8 AL owners have won an AL pennant.

Put me in the NL-Atlanta

How about something different - 15 Keepers (no more, no less) - 10 round draft ?

I could be open to doing a specific number of keepers to help the fluctuation of talent. Either that or some sort of contract system.

Thoughts?

Tanking will be a real problem when Babe Ruth is available.And perhaps Barry Bonds.putting a player with an annula 8 figure salary will distort the league.If you are in a division with Babe get accustommed to 2nd pace finishes at best.That is why you may wish to consider a salary cap,to force Ruth's team to sacrifice some high salary players.

After doing the math, our first season will now be 1885/2026. That will give us full access to the entire WIS player pool, as well as make it so each season will be a true dual progressive. The final season will be 1955/1956.

In, subject to the final rules...

L.A. Dodgers - NL


DBP

Posted by dilligafdbp on 10/5/2026 1:21:00 PM (view original):
In, subject to the final rules...

L.A. Dodgers - NL


DBP

Love it! Out of curiosity, which rules would be a deal breaker for you?

Posted by giannivanaco on 10/5/2026 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dilligafdbp on 10/5/2026 1:21:00 PM (view original):
In, subject to the final rules...

L.A. Dodgers - NL


DBP

Love it! Out of curiosity, which rules would be a deal breaker for you?

Not a fan of 'caps', nor telling me how many keepers I MUST have...

Understand the Ruth/Bonds dilemma...I would suggest a simple solution; alignment by salary, or TOTAL realignment every season...That way nobody will be 'stuck' in the Ruth/Bonds division forever, which WILL lead to owners leaving...


DBP

Posted by dilligafdbp on 10/5/2026 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by giannivanaco on 10/5/2026 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dilligafdbp on 10/5/2026 1:21:00 PM (view original):
In, subject to the final rules...

L.A. Dodgers - NL


DBP

Love it! Out of curiosity, which rules would be a deal breaker for you?

Not a fan of 'caps', nor telling me how many keepers I MUST have...

Understand the Ruth/Bonds dilemma...I would suggest a simple solution; alignment by salary, or TOTAL realignment every season...That way nobody will be 'stuck' in the Ruth/Bonds division forever, which WILL lead to owners leaving...


DBP

Good to know. I also do not foresee any type of salary cap or keeper limit.

I personally am also not too worried about the Bonds/Ruth dilemma. In a dual progressive, the talent pool is strong enough where one player does not automatically make a roster a contender. Babe Ruth may win 6 MVPs, but there is no guarantee that roster will win the division, let alone a championship.

That is also why I am in favor of the first round being in order of the standings for all non-playoff teams. You can't tank for a player like Bonds/Ruth, you have to be good enough to actually earn them.

Posted by giannivanaco on 10/4/2026 1:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/2/2026 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I use this idea. “The best way to solve tanking I have seen is go directly in order of the standings for any non-playoff team. 2nd place teams pick 1-4, then 3rd place teams 4-10, then last place teams 10-16, then all the playoff teams. Then go reverse order of the standings (worst to first) for the remaining rounds.”

we also add in bonus picks at the end of the first round for any team with a losing record 4 or more consecutive years.

I really like it, and I think the league does as well. We don’t have a lot of turnover.

The positives as I see it are:

1. It makes every game important, the wins , even when you’re out of it, matter because you are constantly trying to win to improve your draft position.

2. If you’re bad, it’s not a death sentence. In a double season progressive, with 16 teams, the worst team is drafting 12 and 17. There’s PLENTY of talent there.

3. If youre really bad, it would be something 12, 17 and 18.

I like the idea of every game mattering a lot. It keeps me engaged.

I copied this idea directly from you lol. I think the CYCYP does a great job of rewarding competitiveness while also helping owners rebuild. I think we are in year 8 now and 12 owners have won at least one league title (7 in the AL and 5 in the NL). 7 of the 8 AL owners have won an AL pennant.

Can put me in as tentative with something like this - i dont enjoy "lose more to get a better pick" leagues. Either a formula (ATP and J4M both have very good examples of this), totally random (NWP has this), or the inverse from standings like in Cy Cy are what I feel is best - especially when you're gonna have a lot of stud drafts, not just Bonds and Ruth.

I'm interested. I would like Detroit but want to be in the NL because I hate the DH. If I need to pick an NL franchise, give me Pittsburgh. (do you have to use a stadium from a season we are playing?)
I've run/played in several progressives/regressives so I have lots of thoughts on rules. :)

-- Tanking can be a problem but I've found that good owners work around that. Definitely favor some type of lottery (you could use my Ted Lasso one as a possible---we have had no tanking issues).
-- I have also done leagues where you can only keep X number of people but I think that's overkill for a dual season progressive.
-- On the Ruth/Bonds issue, one potential solution is to limit the number of seasons you can keep a player. 5 seasons max and then they go back in the pool. That would require a bit more commissioner data tracking though.
-- One thing to think about as you go along...will you allow clones? For example, one Ted Williams going backwards and one going forwards as we converge?

Looking forward to it.
OG

Posted by odalisgagne on 10/6/2026 11:46:00 AM (view original):
I'm interested. I would like Detroit but want to be in the NL because I hate the DH. If I need to pick an NL franchise, give me Pittsburgh. (do you have to use a stadium from a season we are playing?)
I've run/played in several progressives/regressives so I have lots of thoughts on rules. :)

-- Tanking can be a problem but I've found that good owners work around that. Definitely favor some type of lottery (you could use my Ted Lasso one as a possible---we have had no tanking issues).
-- I have also done leagues where you can only keep X number of people but I think that's overkill for a dual season progressive.
-- On the Ruth/Bonds issue, one potential solution is to limit the number of seasons you can keep a player. 5 seasons max and then they go back in the pool. That would require a bit more commissioner data tracking though.
-- One thing to think about as you go along...will you allow clones? For example, one Ted Williams going backwards and one going forwards as we converge?

Looking forward to it.
OG

Glad to have you OG! You can have Detroit NL.

I will probably allow clones as we get into the late 40s/early 60s so that each player can get a full career. I would hate for players like Mantle and Williams to not get a full career

Also after hearing feedback we will definitely either do simple random or best-to-worst record (non-playoff teams) for the draft (with supplementary picks for frequently bad teams).

I have also made the decision that there will not be a keeper limit. If anyone has any suggestions on player contracts/contract points, I am still open to suggestions though.

Just for the record I Hate Contracts/Points, would rather to only be able to keep a certain # than that lol