Here's where I'd start:

Metropolis	1	View	Yes	18	Simulating Regular Season Games
Gleeman World 2	2	View	Yes	3	Simulating LCS
Sand Bricks	3	View	Yes	25	Simulating Regular Season Games
Stargell @ Monument Park	3	--	Yes	52	Simulating Regular Season Games
The Show II	3	--	Yes	21	Simulating Regular Season Games
ARomano	5	--	Yes	26	Simulating Regular Season Games
BIG LEAGUE	5	--	Yes	58	Simulating Regular Season Games
Branch Rickey	5	View	Yes	10	Simulating Play-in Games
Double Mendoza	5	View	Yes	63	Simulating Regular Season Games
Doubleday	5	View	Yes	0	Eligible for rollover starting on 9/6
Hamilton	5	View	Yes	75	Simulating Spring Training Games
Hardball Central	5	View	Yes	34	Simulating Regular Season Games
High Fives	5	--	Yes	17	Simulating Regular Season Games
Ripken Jr.	5	View	Yes	0	Simulating World Series
Robert E. McCabe	5	View	Yes	56	Simulating Regular Season Games
Roy Hobbs	5	View	Yes	3	Simulating Regular Season Games
Shoeless Joe	5	View	Yes	69	Simulating Regular Season Games

If any of these worlds are not full after 7 days, I'd disband them. They're the "youngest" worlds so owners have had less time to get attached. I would think they'd be more likely to move on to another world than the guys who has been building a team for 12 seasons.

I think we are all over thinking it and MikeT is right. Its the economy. $25 for a team is not cheap. Times it by multiple teams .... every 3 months ... it gets expensive. People have to choose.

My feeling is don't retire any worlds, and don't start any new worlds. In rare cases combine worlds if you have to. Im in a combined world and its fine.

EDIT: I think MikeT is right about the economy, not the 2 posts above that were posted will I was typing. Closing worlds would upset me for one and I am in FIVE of the worlds he mentioned to close. My opinion .. not a good idea.

I'm not saying people wouldn't be upset. They would be. They'd raise holy hell. But, at some point, the demand would outweigh the supply. At that point, you'd have healthy worlds all around. No delays.

Delays aren't a big deal to you/me. You've got 37 worlds, so 30 of them are playing at some point. I have 4. I can't recall the last time 3 weren't active at the same time. But, to someone with 1-2 worlds, a 15-20 day wait to play is miserable. That's not good for HBD.

i'm in two of those worlds listed but i wont take it personally, cuz it isnt. it would be smart to start with the newest worlds where owners are less likely to be áttached'to the team.

on the contrary, is it not possible for WifS to look up the rollover history of worlds? take the last five rollovers of each world, measure the amount of spots open each season and how long it took each to rollover. then average it out and sayy.... cut out the bottom 20 leagues according to average time to fill each spot. something along those lines.

any takers?

I get what you're saying. But you're still taking the guy's team who has had to sit thru 10-12 delays to keep it. I still think he's going to be less likely to join another world. His first draft pick has 5-8 seasons in the bigs. They're buddies. The guy in S3 hasn't even had a draft pick reach AAA.

You are not wrong but Im just saying I have never seen a world not evently fill, with the exception of the worlds they combined, and my feeling is evently they would have filled also.

In my situation, I can wait. In fact the wait slows down my spending. So of course I say wait it out.

It's not going to happen. I just think it should. It would be better for HBD as a whole if all worlds rolled within 2-3 days.

It's not going to happen. I just think it should. It would be better for HBD as a whole if all worlds rolled within 2-3 days.

Stop with your doubletalk!

As someone in one of the worlds listed it doesnt bother me if we take that approach to contraction because I know the world we are in will fill.

I think that there are a lot of openings out there that scare people off. The guy with one or two teams in his history doesnt want to take on the huge reclimation project, he would rather take a team with just a few tweeks needed.

I took over an abandon team in Doubleday for the season and I wish luck to whomever ends up taking it over because that team was a dumpster fire, no prospects, no BL players. I did everything I could to shed contracts for the upcomming season but thats a lot of time for someone to put in before the team is decent.

(EDIT: In summary, if you let teams get so bad that you have trouble finding owners for them your world gets what it gets)

Again, it won't happen. WifS doesn't have firm grasp on supply/demand. Or, if they do, they don't have the conviction required to create the demand. They made a mistake early on by allowing world after world to be created. They should figure out a way to get the number down to a manageable level. My suggestion would do it but there would be much caterwauling.

I'm in a world that has 6 openings. It was the Fix-a-World project. We're moving to S7. I've brought in 18 owners since S4. It's a good, solid world now but, as the fixers meet the requested goal and leave(not all of us are leaving), we're still going to struggle for owners. I'm beginning to wonder if fixing it was such a good idea. Maybe, when it had 15 openings after S3, WifS should have said "This isn't working". If a "newer" world can't fill in a week, maybe it's better to make it go away.

If I were WifS, I'd make an announcement today.

If you roll after January 1, 2010, you're less than 10 seasons old and you have more than 5 openings, you will have 7 days to fill your world. If you are unable to fill within those 7 days, you may be subject to contraction.



This might lead to a small alias problem but that will sort itself out soon enough.

So you think an issue where the people with monster teams create an alias in order to keep their monster teams is "small"?

Of course, there's a solid chance that they have an alias, or five, anyway...

Yes. The world will just keep repeating the process until owners in that world are fed up with the alias problem. Then they leave and you get a world with 22 openings.

Owners who stay in crappy worlds get what they deserve.

I'd also add any public world that was once private into the mix regardless of age. And never let another private world go public.

And, in the interest of creating "better" worlds, I'd let public worlds go private with the understanding that they will never be allowed to go public again.