Warrior General Games

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.





Having a merit system in place to enable users to buy an additional team is a good idea. Unfortunately I don't think Bort and DD would go for it as it would probably hit them in the wallet a bit. I don't agree with having no cap on teams at all, though. Not sure how it could be enforced to keep the teams in different age groups. Seems like it would be a strain on the admins to keep up with it. Also someone with a broad band of purchased accounts or a massive network could effectively take over an entire league.

+1

Originally posted by hatchman
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.

Originally posted by hatchman
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.

Actually you said more, to wit in bold

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.

That being why my response about me and the impact of the OP upon me was made.

And I am not surprised its not getting opposition. I actually said I liked the idea as well if you would take the time to read my first post. I like MY idea more, but this is not a bad one. The only caveat is that part of the back ground talk suggesting it be paired with a league reduction.

By the way, of all you guys giving me crap about beating dead horses and not giving up on my ideas etc, why is it that its okay for you guys to post about league reductions ad nauseum??? My ideas are at least new ones contained in the one newly posted thread. League reductions have been ranted on by beenlurken and yourself and others for season upon season upon season. I dare say Bort may have seen the idea once or thrice and rejected it as evidenced by his inaction on the point.

Maybe you all should accept that its not happening and consider how to fix the game as it stands league wise as my posts try to do.

Or if you choose not to, stop being a hypocrite and trashing me for sticking to MY guns on MY ideas.

Originally posted by yello1
By the way, of all you guys giving me crap about beating dead horses and not giving up on my ideas etc, why is it that its okay for you guys to post about league reductions ad nauseum??? My ideas are at least new ones contained in the one newly posted thread. League reductions have been ranted on by beenlurken and yourself and others for season upon season upon season. I dare say Bort may have seen the idea once or thrice and rejected it as evidenced by his inaction on the point.

Maybe you all should accept that its not happening and consider how to fix the game as it stands league wise as my posts try to do.

Or if you choose not to, stop being a hypocrite and trashing me for sticking to MY guns on MY ideas.

First off not everything is about you, despite your delusions of grandeur.

Second, sometimes ideas that are good fall right off of the page, often times because of a small cadre of posters who spam dozens of suggestions a day only to be shouted down. This idea is one such suggestion. It's a good suggestion with quite a bit of support but because of certain posters who use a "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" approach to this forum.

Still a huge +1. Focused team ownership would be a huge upgrade from what we have now, would actually encourage better teams since owners would have less going on to pay attention to.

+1

Originally posted by merenoise
First off not everything is about you, despite your delusions of grandeur.

Second, sometimes ideas that are good fall right off of the page, often times because of a small cadre of posters who spam dozens of suggestions a day only to be shouted down. This idea is one such suggestion. It's a good suggestion with quite a bit of support but because of certain posters who use a "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" approach to this forum.

Still a huge +1. Focused team ownership would be a huge upgrade from what we have now, would actually encourage better teams since owners would have less going on to pay attention to.

One, its about me if people are trashing me.

Two, it takes two to tango. If people want an idea to drop off the front page, they should refrain from flaming me and just ignore the idea. If they want to discuss it, then I am going to discuss it. It is, after all, what a forum is about.

Three, page one has threads with their most recent posts being from yesterday on it. Page two is two days ago. Threads are not exactly scrolling off the edge of the world with blazing speed here.

Yello1 you really need to get your timeline straight. I only started speaking about reducing the number oif teams at the end of last season. so your little poke at trying to be a smart ass and act like I had been beating the same idea like you do is completely wrong. look back in this forum and find where I have said anything about cutting the number of teams past the middle of last season.

If you can do that then I will give you your due and I will leave you alone. If you can't show me then I think maybe you should do your homework before trying to run off at the mouth.

also go back and read the very first posts you and I both had in this thread. and tell me where I attacked you. I could really care less about you and your constant line of suggestions. I try to come in here and offer my opinion that is it and nothing more. you are the damn person that can't let people just put a -1 on something without asking them why. you wanted me to discuss these suggestions then you bitch and whine when I do. seriously if you can't handle people voicing their opinions on your suggestions then stop making them.

Originally posted by hatchman
Yello1 you really need to get your timeline straight. I only started speaking about reducing the number oif teams at the end of last season. so your little poke at trying to be a smart ass and act like I had been beating the same idea like you do is completely wrong. look back in this forum and find where I have said anything about cutting the number of teams past the middle of last season.

If you can do that then I will give you your due and I will leave you alone. If you can't show me then I think maybe you should do your homework before trying to run off at the mouth.

also go back and read the very first posts you and I both had in this thread. and tell me where I attacked you. I could really care less about you and your constant line of suggestions. I try to come in here and offer my opinion that is it and nothing more. you are the damn person that can't let people just put a -1 on something without asking them why. you wanted me to discuss these suggestions then you bitch and whine when I do. seriously if you can't handle people voicing their opinions on your suggestions then stop making them.

Really? Well then my bad. Its been an unending litany from many, and you have brought it up often enough I guess I lumped you in with the rest.

That said, if you brought it up in several threads - and you have - you are still doing the same thing you complain of me doing in a single subject thread, which is repeating your arguments. And as far as it having to be in this thread, thats not the point. You bring it up in every discussion it seems. I think the forums should be pink I say, Not Until the CPUs are gone you say. Horses can be beat in many different ways.

So maybe you are not as bad as others I had in mind, but still. You are no paragon of horse kindness neither.

As for attacking me, hatch you constantly paint my responses in terms of my secret inner motivations (evil, or lazy, always) or personal failings for everything we discuss, rather than just focusing on the IDEAS because those ideas are the point. Not the sex lives of the posters. Do you REALLY need me to cut and paste the myriad examples? Or how about I just bold the ones you made in this very paragraph?

And I don't usually just ask why. I respond to a point with the countering logic that the idea contains. And when I do ask why its sincere puzzlement. Is that so wrong? If you can not handle a discussion in a discussion forum, perhaps you should take up a new hobby.

Meanwhile yes I can handle people responding to suggestions. My replies are how I handle that, with responses. Its how forums work, and why they have Quote buttons after all.

Hate to do this but...........

+1