One concern, wouldn't the owner(s) that take the better available teams in the 'tard world have a pretty big advantage over the other owners participating? More available assets to turn the roster over

Four seasons should be enough to work that out, plus the poorer teams will get a little more help in the first draft or two.

When I read the participants were described as pompous ********, I said "that's me".   Hope my record of stability, ability to win regular season games and have a MikeT23 type difficulty to win my first WS would make me a prime candidate.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/27/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Been kicking this around.   Not 100% sure I'd be willing to do it but that doesn't matter if no one else is interested.

The basics:
5-6 owners take a team in a public-y world(meaning it could be private with no rules/screening process).
All teams must be in AL or NL.

The objective:
Completely turn over personnel to "make it your own".
In S5, the game begins and is over after S8.
Beat the other participants senseless.
A points system that would include record, head to head, playoffs and WS wins would be used to determine the winner.

How you achieve the objective is up to you.  n00b-raping, tanking, anything but collusion.  You know, the standard MO in 'tard worlds.   But you cannot use a player who was on your roster when the game begins in the 5th season.

Would anyone be interested in the TWC?   It would mean what amounts to an 8 season committment unless you cry "uncle" before them.   Maybe a GC prize from the rest to the winner.

Assuming they didn't break any world rules, would you be ok with this in your worlds? IOW, they meet the MWR and obey all the other world rules, but don't give a crap about winning until year 5 and pursue a strategy geared towards getting points (whatever that may mean).

Posted by genghisxcon on 4/28/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by MikeT23 on 4/27/2012 2:14:00 PM:

How you achieve the objective is up to you.  n00b-raping



You are the one who said this. If you're not agreeing to lay off each other's trades, I'm not sure why you'd even mention it.

Because it's a possibility and, quite frankly, how a lot of owners build super-teams in 'tard worlds. 

As I said, there are no agreements in place.

Posted by genghisxcon on 4/28/2012 11:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/27/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Been kicking this around.   Not 100% sure I'd be willing to do it but that doesn't matter if no one else is interested.

The basics:
5-6 owners take a team in a public-y world(meaning it could be private with no rules/screening process).
All teams must be in AL or NL.

The objective:
Completely turn over personnel to "make it your own".
In S5, the game begins and is over after S8.
Beat the other participants senseless.
A points system that would include record, head to head, playoffs and WS wins would be used to determine the winner.

How you achieve the objective is up to you.  n00b-raping, tanking, anything but collusion.  You know, the standard MO in 'tard worlds.   But you cannot use a player who was on your roster when the game begins in the 5th season.

Would anyone be interested in the TWC?   It would mean what amounts to an 8 season committment unless you cry "uncle" before them.   Maybe a GC prize from the rest to the winner.

Assuming they didn't break any world rules, would you be ok with this in your worlds? IOW, they meet the MWR and obey all the other world rules, but don't give a crap about winning until year 5 and pursue a strategy geared towards getting points (whatever that may mean).

I'm not in any 'tard worlds.

Posted by caesari on 4/28/2012 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Mike, like I said, this sounds interesting. But what if instead of just going in, taking 5 teams, doing your thing, and leaving, you took a public world, made it private, and built it up into a top world? That seems better for the game on the whole.

I'm not interested in commishing another world.   And, in all likelihood, the type of world that would qualify is probably pretty comfortable with what they are.

Posted by mrauseo on 4/28/2012 4:51:00 PM (view original):
How do you control of inherited talent?  Even if you are turning rosters over, you would much rather start with the Nationals than the Pirates and thus winning the TWC with the Nationals not the Pirates would be less impressive. 

Also, can you sketch out with more details the criteria for winning?

You don't.    But everyone will have 4 seasons to solve their problems.

Points would be issued for regular season record, H2H, division titles, playoff appearances, WS appearances, WS titles.   1-5 or 1-6 each season in S5-S8.  I figure the participants can help me determine points for the last 4.    I'm thinking 2(DT), 1(PA), 3(WSA), 5(WST). 

I think the biggest flaw here is uneven talent at inception. I'm not sure if you can address it.

Posted by mrauseo on 4/29/2012 9:37:00 AM (view original):
I think the biggest flaw here is uneven talent at inception. I'm not sure if you can address it.

I disagree. Good owners have four seasons to use their skills at drafting, FA acquisition, trading etc. to get up to speed. I'd even be willing to start with a team with less talent to get the better draft pick. The only thing I can see that would be a small disadvantage would be if you landed in a division with a perennial 100 Win team who knew who to keep it in shape. It could make the division title and playoffs a little bit harder. Even then, it just makes it more challenging.

I don't think it will be an issue unless one of the 5-6 teams is loaded.   I'm not sure how many loaded teams are available in most worlds.   People tend to stick around when they have one of those.

If that's the case, there are ways to deal with it.   Simply limit the quality one can receive in return to "even" the teams. 

Not sure if you were replying to me or mrauseo, but in my case - I was referring to a situation where a TWC participant lands in a division with a "stacked" team. Sure there's still the Wild Card, but it makes division titles (and therefore playoff appearances) a bit harder to come by than someone who lands in a weaker division.

But there's no way things will be exactly equal, nor do they need to be. Just thinking out loud.

It was to mra.

There is something to being in a loaded division.   But, if you end up in a division with 2 other TWC players, you have the same problem.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/29/2012 8:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 4/28/2012 11:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/27/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Been kicking this around.   Not 100% sure I'd be willing to do it but that doesn't matter if no one else is interested.

The basics:
5-6 owners take a team in a public-y world(meaning it could be private with no rules/screening process).
All teams must be in AL or NL.

The objective:
Completely turn over personnel to "make it your own".
In S5, the game begins and is over after S8.
Beat the other participants senseless.
A points system that would include record, head to head, playoffs and WS wins would be used to determine the winner.

How you achieve the objective is up to you.  n00b-raping, tanking, anything but collusion.  You know, the standard MO in 'tard worlds.   But you cannot use a player who was on your roster when the game begins in the 5th season.

Would anyone be interested in the TWC?   It would mean what amounts to an 8 season committment unless you cry "uncle" before them.   Maybe a GC prize from the rest to the winner.

Assuming they didn't break any world rules, would you be ok with this in your worlds? IOW, they meet the MWR and obey all the other world rules, but don't give a crap about winning until year 5 and pursue a strategy geared towards getting points (whatever that may mean).

I'm not in any 'tard worlds.

Shrewd of you to avoid the question. So rename it the Great and Powerful MikeT World Challenge.

OK in your worlds?

I'm pretty sure owners do that in both worlds I commish.    It's called "A five year plan."    They just have to win 55/125/195/280 along the way.   Would you like me to list some owners who haven't made the playoffs in the last 4 seasons?   I'd start with me in MG.