Seriously, the only reason you want to keep Pro and Reg Pro intact as it is now is because you would be facing demotions if it were competitive. Please stop applying your own selfish logic. It is healthier for the game to have competitive leagues that users give a shit about than it is to keep the clusterfrick in place at the Pro and RP level just so bad owners can stay at the Pro level. Having a Pro team used to mean something. Now it's a joke because there are much tougher minor leagues than there are tough Pro and Reg Pro leagues.
Forum > Suggestions > Focused team ownership
Originally posted by Dub J
Seriously, the only reason you want to keep Pro and Reg Pro intact as it is now is because you would be facing demotions if it were competitive. Please stop applying your own selfish logic. It is healthier for the game to have competitive leagues that users give a shit about than it is to keep the clusterfrick in place at the Pro and RP level just so bad owners can stay at the Pro level. Having a Pro team used to mean something. Now it's a joke because there are much tougher minor leagues than there are tough Pro and Reg Pro leagues.
+1
Seriously, the only reason you want to keep Pro and Reg Pro intact as it is now is because you would be facing demotions if it were competitive. Please stop applying your own selfish logic. It is healthier for the game to have competitive leagues that users give a shit about than it is to keep the clusterfrick in place at the Pro and RP level just so bad owners can stay at the Pro level. Having a Pro team used to mean something. Now it's a joke because there are much tougher minor leagues than there are tough Pro and Reg Pro leagues.
+1
Originally posted by Dub J
Seriously, the only reason you want to keep Pro and Reg Pro intact as it is now is because you would be facing demotions if it were competitive. Please stop applying your own selfish logic. It is healthier for the game to have competitive leagues that users give a shit about than it is to keep the clusterfrick in place at the Pro and RP level just so bad owners can stay at the Pro level. Having a Pro team used to mean something. Now it's a joke because there are much tougher minor leagues than there are tough Pro and Reg Pro leagues.
LOL no.
My reasons are the ones I stated. I tend to make honest accurate statements of my motivations. Being the one in here looking out of the Mark Is, I am singularly well situated in that regard. Trust me, I think contractions in Nat Reg Pro would be bad because it would make the GLB community fly out the door for one reason or another as stated above. That the rest of us remaining would have more competitive games would be small comfort when the website went off line.
And your logic is wrong anyway. If you contracted Nat Pro at least one of my teams would be one of the ones booted. Assuming you did it this season. Its a good chance they will demote anyway (depends on just how bad the CPU team nerf was, we wont make over 14th I think). The Grace should compete regardless if I get the chemistry roller coaster under control which would actually be easier with a league contraction. The Miracle are a solid playoff team and will be for seasons to come, just from my own player builds alone. And the truth is the OTMiracle are the only team I really desire to keep in National Pro, the other two being promoted were surprises. Pleasant yes, fun to keep them up. But they are not the focus of my GLB play strategy, relying mostly on free agents for them etc.
So no I do not fear league constrictions for me, other than the fact that I would like GLB to hang around for a long time.
After all I may need that long to get into World League.
Seriously, the only reason you want to keep Pro and Reg Pro intact as it is now is because you would be facing demotions if it were competitive. Please stop applying your own selfish logic. It is healthier for the game to have competitive leagues that users give a shit about than it is to keep the clusterfrick in place at the Pro and RP level just so bad owners can stay at the Pro level. Having a Pro team used to mean something. Now it's a joke because there are much tougher minor leagues than there are tough Pro and Reg Pro leagues.
LOL no.
My reasons are the ones I stated. I tend to make honest accurate statements of my motivations. Being the one in here looking out of the Mark Is, I am singularly well situated in that regard. Trust me, I think contractions in Nat Reg Pro would be bad because it would make the GLB community fly out the door for one reason or another as stated above. That the rest of us remaining would have more competitive games would be small comfort when the website went off line.
And your logic is wrong anyway. If you contracted Nat Pro at least one of my teams would be one of the ones booted. Assuming you did it this season. Its a good chance they will demote anyway (depends on just how bad the CPU team nerf was, we wont make over 14th I think). The Grace should compete regardless if I get the chemistry roller coaster under control which would actually be easier with a league contraction. The Miracle are a solid playoff team and will be for seasons to come, just from my own player builds alone. And the truth is the OTMiracle are the only team I really desire to keep in National Pro, the other two being promoted were surprises. Pleasant yes, fun to keep them up. But they are not the focus of my GLB play strategy, relying mostly on free agents for them etc.
So no I do not fear league constrictions for me, other than the fact that I would like GLB to hang around for a long time.
After all I may need that long to get into World League.
this idea is a homerun and I agree the only one that is even arguing against it is Yello1 and just basing things from what he has said in this very thread and nothing else he only disagrees for personal reasons.
seriously there are enough crappy teams at the Net Pro and Reg Pro levels that a league could be cut out. if you take those 32 teams at those age levels out then that would essentially upgrade the remaining teams at those 2 levels. personally I would rather have the competition back in this game rather than the ability to own more shitty teams. the competition is what will keep agents playing the game. not owning more crappy teams.
seriously there are enough crappy teams at the Net Pro and Reg Pro levels that a league could be cut out. if you take those 32 teams at those age levels out then that would essentially upgrade the remaining teams at those 2 levels. personally I would rather have the competition back in this game rather than the ability to own more shitty teams. the competition is what will keep agents playing the game. not owning more crappy teams.
TJ Spikes
offline
offline
What would make the most sense is to have a system where agents could earn more teams by doing well, and lose teams by not being competitive
If an owner makes it to his conference finals, then his account gets flagged to have another team available
If an owner fails to make the playoffs with one of his teams, his account gets flagged that he cannot buy any more Further more, he gets a notice that he's being watched and is at risk to have his worst team/s transferred to agents that know how to run a team. Just have a 1 team minimum.
I'm all for removing the cap on the number of teams owned, as long as it doesn't create some kind of conflict of interest. Like keep all teams in different age groups or something to that effect.
If an owner makes it to his conference finals, then his account gets flagged to have another team available
If an owner fails to make the playoffs with one of his teams, his account gets flagged that he cannot buy any more Further more, he gets a notice that he's being watched and is at risk to have his worst team/s transferred to agents that know how to run a team. Just have a 1 team minimum.
I'm all for removing the cap on the number of teams owned, as long as it doesn't create some kind of conflict of interest. Like keep all teams in different age groups or something to that effect.
spartan822
offline
offline
Originally posted by TJ Spikes
What would make the most sense is to have a system where agents could earn more teams by doing well, and lose teams by not being competitive
If an owner makes it to his conference finals, then his account gets flagged to have another team available
If an owner fails to make the playoffs with one of his teams, his account gets flagged that he cannot buy any more Further more, he gets a notice that he's being watched and is at risk to have his worst team/s transferred to agents that know how to run a team. Just have a 1 team minimum.
+1
What would make the most sense is to have a system where agents could earn more teams by doing well, and lose teams by not being competitive
If an owner makes it to his conference finals, then his account gets flagged to have another team available
If an owner fails to make the playoffs with one of his teams, his account gets flagged that he cannot buy any more Further more, he gets a notice that he's being watched and is at risk to have his worst team/s transferred to agents that know how to run a team. Just have a 1 team minimum.
+1
Originally posted by hatchman
this idea is a homerun and I agree the only one that is even arguing against it is Yello1 and just basing things from what he has said in this very thread and nothing else he only disagrees for personal reasons.
seriously there are enough crappy teams at the Net Pro and Reg Pro levels that a league could be cut out. if you take those 32 teams at those age levels out then that would essentially upgrade the remaining teams at those 2 levels. personally I would rather have the competition back in this game rather than the ability to own more shitty teams. the competition is what will keep agents playing the game. not owning more crappy teams.
Hatch I don't have 9 teams This idea would not hurt me it would help me, per my original post herein.
I think the idea of shifting leagues would do alot of the good of expanding the limit per my other thread. But with a limit of 7 not 6 because I think most existing mega owners already have 7 and would not be negatively impacted.
The only thing I am against is that the suggestion seems to imply that it would go hand in hand with a league contraction, in which case I would have the same objections as expressed elsewhere as to any contraction of the Big Leagues (Nat/Reg).
But really I do not think that a reduction from 9 to 7 would reduce the numbers of teams all that much. If you lower it to 6 it would reduce the numbers of Pee Wees I imagine or maybe Casual minor leagues. If you allowed the league shifting it would further reduce casual though. But not that much. There are not enough mega owners to have that much impact, at a guess anyway.
But one thing this idea would not do unless you artificially made it so (ie you just said contract bigs AND do this) is create smaller big leagues. People who have their limit reduced arent going to sell their top tier teams, but their lower level casuals or pee wees.
this idea is a homerun and I agree the only one that is even arguing against it is Yello1 and just basing things from what he has said in this very thread and nothing else he only disagrees for personal reasons.
seriously there are enough crappy teams at the Net Pro and Reg Pro levels that a league could be cut out. if you take those 32 teams at those age levels out then that would essentially upgrade the remaining teams at those 2 levels. personally I would rather have the competition back in this game rather than the ability to own more shitty teams. the competition is what will keep agents playing the game. not owning more crappy teams.
Hatch I don't have 9 teams This idea would not hurt me it would help me, per my original post herein.
I think the idea of shifting leagues would do alot of the good of expanding the limit per my other thread. But with a limit of 7 not 6 because I think most existing mega owners already have 7 and would not be negatively impacted.
The only thing I am against is that the suggestion seems to imply that it would go hand in hand with a league contraction, in which case I would have the same objections as expressed elsewhere as to any contraction of the Big Leagues (Nat/Reg).
But really I do not think that a reduction from 9 to 7 would reduce the numbers of teams all that much. If you lower it to 6 it would reduce the numbers of Pee Wees I imagine or maybe Casual minor leagues. If you allowed the league shifting it would further reduce casual though. But not that much. There are not enough mega owners to have that much impact, at a guess anyway.
But one thing this idea would not do unless you artificially made it so (ie you just said contract bigs AND do this) is create smaller big leagues. People who have their limit reduced arent going to sell their top tier teams, but their lower level casuals or pee wees.
Edited by yello1 on Dec 31, 2011 09:59:04
Edited by yello1 on Dec 31, 2011 09:56:14
Originally posted by TJ Spikes
What would make the most sense is to have a system where agents could earn more teams by doing well, and lose teams by not being competitive
If an owner makes it to his conference finals, then his account gets flagged to have another team available
If an owner fails to make the playoffs with one of his teams, his account gets flagged that he cannot buy any more Further more, he gets a notice that he's being watched and is at risk to have his worst team/s transferred to agents that know how to run a team. Just have a 1 team minimum.
I'm all for removing the cap on the number of teams owned, as long as it doesn't create some kind of conflict of interest. Like keep all teams in different age groups or something to that effect.
Different age groups would not be needed. Just not in the same conference at a minimum. League preferably.
As for "unlocking" teams I like the idea in concept. But since buying teams puts money right in Borts pocket I am not so sure he would be all that fond of the idea.
What would make the most sense is to have a system where agents could earn more teams by doing well, and lose teams by not being competitive
If an owner makes it to his conference finals, then his account gets flagged to have another team available
If an owner fails to make the playoffs with one of his teams, his account gets flagged that he cannot buy any more Further more, he gets a notice that he's being watched and is at risk to have his worst team/s transferred to agents that know how to run a team. Just have a 1 team minimum.
I'm all for removing the cap on the number of teams owned, as long as it doesn't create some kind of conflict of interest. Like keep all teams in different age groups or something to that effect.
Different age groups would not be needed. Just not in the same conference at a minimum. League preferably.
As for "unlocking" teams I like the idea in concept. But since buying teams puts money right in Borts pocket I am not so sure he would be all that fond of the idea.
Originally posted by yello1
Hatch I don't have 9 teams This idea would not hurt me it would help me, per my original post herein.
I think the idea of shifting leagues would do alot of the good of expanding the limit per my other thread. But with a limit of 7 not 6 because I think most existing mega owners already have 7 and would not be negatively impacted.
The only thing I am against is that the suggestion seems to imply that it would go hand in hand with a league contraction, in which case I would have the same objections as expressed elsewhere as to any contraction of the Big Leagues (Nat/Reg).
But really I do not think that a reduction from 9 to 7 would reduce the numbers of teams all that much. If you lower it to 6 it would reduce the numbers of Pee Wees I imagine or maybe Casual minor leagues. If you allowed the league shifting it would further reduce casual though. But not that much. There are not enough mega owners to have that much impact, at a guess anyway.
But one thing this idea would not do unless you artificially made it so (ie you just said contract bigs AND do this) is create smaller big leagues. People who have their limit reduced arent going to sell their top tier teams, but their lower level casuals or pee wees.
no one said you owned 9 teams no one is really even talking about you all I said was you were the only one arguing against this stuff. was I wrong in that statement or was there someone else that is trying to argue your point. after looking back I didn't see anyone on your side of the debate.
Hatch I don't have 9 teams This idea would not hurt me it would help me, per my original post herein.
I think the idea of shifting leagues would do alot of the good of expanding the limit per my other thread. But with a limit of 7 not 6 because I think most existing mega owners already have 7 and would not be negatively impacted.
The only thing I am against is that the suggestion seems to imply that it would go hand in hand with a league contraction, in which case I would have the same objections as expressed elsewhere as to any contraction of the Big Leagues (Nat/Reg).
But really I do not think that a reduction from 9 to 7 would reduce the numbers of teams all that much. If you lower it to 6 it would reduce the numbers of Pee Wees I imagine or maybe Casual minor leagues. If you allowed the league shifting it would further reduce casual though. But not that much. There are not enough mega owners to have that much impact, at a guess anyway.
But one thing this idea would not do unless you artificially made it so (ie you just said contract bigs AND do this) is create smaller big leagues. People who have their limit reduced arent going to sell their top tier teams, but their lower level casuals or pee wees.
no one said you owned 9 teams no one is really even talking about you all I said was you were the only one arguing against this stuff. was I wrong in that statement or was there someone else that is trying to argue your point. after looking back I didn't see anyone on your side of the debate.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
