So the guys trying to promote and recruit to be competitive get shafted because of owners who aren't responsible enough to make a simple request? Makes perfect sense.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Can we fix National Pro Leagues?
Moretti
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
So the guys trying to promote and recruit to be competitive get shafted because of owners who aren't responsible enough to make a simple request? Makes perfect sense.
Sorry I don't have time to argue just for the sake of arguing.
So the guys trying to promote and recruit to be competitive get shafted because of owners who aren't responsible enough to make a simple request? Makes perfect sense.
Sorry I don't have time to argue just for the sake of arguing.
greengoose
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
So the guys trying to promote and recruit to be competitive get shafted because of owners who aren't responsible enough to make a simple request? Makes perfect sense.
Ummm, I think the problem is the game is going into it's 6th year in existence and it's algorithm that moves teams going into a new league has absolutely no earthly idea that the team is 30 EL's below the competition AND is in massive decline - and it's 100% dependent on one owner not to ruin the experience for the other 15 owners in the league.
Makes perfect sense?
So the guys trying to promote and recruit to be competitive get shafted because of owners who aren't responsible enough to make a simple request? Makes perfect sense.
Ummm, I think the problem is the game is going into it's 6th year in existence and it's algorithm that moves teams going into a new league has absolutely no earthly idea that the team is 30 EL's below the competition AND is in massive decline - and it's 100% dependent on one owner not to ruin the experience for the other 15 owners in the league.
Makes perfect sense?
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by greengoose
Ummm, I think the problem is the game is going into it's 6th year in existence and it's algorithm that moves teams going into a new league has absolutely no earthly idea that the team is 30 EL's below the competition AND is in massive decline - and it's 100% dependent on one owner not to ruin the experience for the other 15 owners in the league.
Makes perfect sense?
That team doesn't have the right to recruit a competing team? They just won 10 games and earned that right to promote.
Ummm, I think the problem is the game is going into it's 6th year in existence and it's algorithm that moves teams going into a new league has absolutely no earthly idea that the team is 30 EL's below the competition AND is in massive decline - and it's 100% dependent on one owner not to ruin the experience for the other 15 owners in the league.
Makes perfect sense?
That team doesn't have the right to recruit a competing team? They just won 10 games and earned that right to promote.
vladykins
offline
offline
Originally posted by Moretti
the system is founded on principals that are not consistent to the makeup of all teams . This is evident with teams full of far declining players who should be well retired. The system works when the anomalies are removed naturally and it falters when there are not enough teams that are playing the game as its actually intended (fielding fully competitive rosters with proper time spent towards coordination)
Additionally I believe we have more then enough evidence to prove that relying on individual owners to do the right thing doesnt always work out. When teams gut from the WL they stick out a season in nat pro with full cpu rosters. How does that make sense within this system?
Additionally your point about non competitive teams becoming competitive from one season to next (and im assuming this is in an increased competition level as well?) would be considered the exception and not the rule. The system needs to apply to a larger general base.
Let's take a few qualifications and see if we agree:
1) A team that makes playoffs is more qualified to promote than one that does not.
2) A team owner that does not deny promotion probably wants to promote.
Based on this, your argument is that a team with higher EL that did *not* make playoffs should be promoted over a team that has a lower EL but did make playoffs. So we should have an arbitrary measure of EL and basically tell the owner that earns the spot that he doesn't deserve it for making playoffs.
Note: The only reason this happened is the owner took no action to right this, so the assumption is he wanted to promote. So we should make assumptions that he sucks as an owner? What other decisions should we make arbitrarily for the owner? Should we also correct his AI or adjust his DC for him?
the system is founded on principals that are not consistent to the makeup of all teams . This is evident with teams full of far declining players who should be well retired. The system works when the anomalies are removed naturally and it falters when there are not enough teams that are playing the game as its actually intended (fielding fully competitive rosters with proper time spent towards coordination)
Additionally I believe we have more then enough evidence to prove that relying on individual owners to do the right thing doesnt always work out. When teams gut from the WL they stick out a season in nat pro with full cpu rosters. How does that make sense within this system?
Additionally your point about non competitive teams becoming competitive from one season to next (and im assuming this is in an increased competition level as well?) would be considered the exception and not the rule. The system needs to apply to a larger general base.
Let's take a few qualifications and see if we agree:
1) A team that makes playoffs is more qualified to promote than one that does not.
2) A team owner that does not deny promotion probably wants to promote.
Based on this, your argument is that a team with higher EL that did *not* make playoffs should be promoted over a team that has a lower EL but did make playoffs. So we should have an arbitrary measure of EL and basically tell the owner that earns the spot that he doesn't deserve it for making playoffs.
Note: The only reason this happened is the owner took no action to right this, so the assumption is he wanted to promote. So we should make assumptions that he sucks as an owner? What other decisions should we make arbitrarily for the owner? Should we also correct his AI or adjust his DC for him?
vladykins
offline
offline
Originally posted by greengoose
Originally posted by bhall43
So the guys trying to promote and recruit to be competitive get shafted because of owners who aren't responsible enough to make a simple request? Makes perfect sense.
Ummm, I think the problem is the game is going into it's 6th year in existence and it's algorithm that moves teams going into a new league has absolutely no earthly idea that the team is 30 EL's below the competition AND is in massive decline - and it's 100% dependent on one owner not to ruin the experience for the other 15 owners in the league.
Makes perfect sense?
So, if a team qualifies to promote and the owner doesn't do anything to resist promotion, we should not promote him anyway, because we know better than him what his plans for his team are?
Originally posted by bhall43
So the guys trying to promote and recruit to be competitive get shafted because of owners who aren't responsible enough to make a simple request? Makes perfect sense.
Ummm, I think the problem is the game is going into it's 6th year in existence and it's algorithm that moves teams going into a new league has absolutely no earthly idea that the team is 30 EL's below the competition AND is in massive decline - and it's 100% dependent on one owner not to ruin the experience for the other 15 owners in the league.
Makes perfect sense?
So, if a team qualifies to promote and the owner doesn't do anything to resist promotion, we should not promote him anyway, because we know better than him what his plans for his team are?
Icy Warrior
offline
offline
Originally posted by greengoose
Ummm, I think the problem is the game is going into it's 6th year in existence and it's algorithm that moves teams going into a new league has absolutely no earthly idea that the team is 30 EL's below the competition AND is in massive decline - and it's 100% dependent on one owner not to ruin the experience for the other 15 owners in the league.
Makes perfect sense?
This is where I'm at. Change the algorithm, change the criteria. Winning 10 games and making the playoffs as the last seed shouldn't be the criteria for promotion, imo.
Ummm, I think the problem is the game is going into it's 6th year in existence and it's algorithm that moves teams going into a new league has absolutely no earthly idea that the team is 30 EL's below the competition AND is in massive decline - and it's 100% dependent on one owner not to ruin the experience for the other 15 owners in the league.
Makes perfect sense?
This is where I'm at. Change the algorithm, change the criteria. Winning 10 games and making the playoffs as the last seed shouldn't be the criteria for promotion, imo.
Edited by Icy Warrior on Jun 7, 2013 15:15:31
greengoose
offline
offline
Originally posted by vladykins
So, if a team qualifies to promote and the owner doesn't do anything to resist promotion, we should not promote him anyway, because we know better than him what his plans for his team are?
His plans for his team are moot, on Day -8 once the new season starts either a team has a punchers chance in the league they are in or are horribly placed - they need a 2nd run after rollover to clean up this:
a) Teams that sell between Day 41 and 48 and are left CPU
b) Teams that simply don't belong where the game put them on Day 41 - the EL is a tool - they should use it when placing teams
The game promotes teams that make the playoffs, but it isn't smart enough to realize that the only reason that team made the playoffs anyway is 1/2 the conference was CPU anyway. They got promoted not on merit - but simply by default - their promotion should NOT be an indictment on the quality of their team - thats what the EL is there for.
Stop throwing darts for a second and look, that team won 7 games last year against CPU teams - it's the ONLY reason they got promoted. It wasn't a promotion they earned, it was by default.
Sure, in a perfect world every owner would be Jerry Jones, think they are God's gift to the game and be trying to win a championship every year - the reality is there are just as many William Clay Ford's out there who really could care less either way.
So, if a team qualifies to promote and the owner doesn't do anything to resist promotion, we should not promote him anyway, because we know better than him what his plans for his team are?
His plans for his team are moot, on Day -8 once the new season starts either a team has a punchers chance in the league they are in or are horribly placed - they need a 2nd run after rollover to clean up this:
a) Teams that sell between Day 41 and 48 and are left CPU
b) Teams that simply don't belong where the game put them on Day 41 - the EL is a tool - they should use it when placing teams
The game promotes teams that make the playoffs, but it isn't smart enough to realize that the only reason that team made the playoffs anyway is 1/2 the conference was CPU anyway. They got promoted not on merit - but simply by default - their promotion should NOT be an indictment on the quality of their team - thats what the EL is there for.
Stop throwing darts for a second and look, that team won 7 games last year against CPU teams - it's the ONLY reason they got promoted. It wasn't a promotion they earned, it was by default.
Sure, in a perfect world every owner would be Jerry Jones, think they are God's gift to the game and be trying to win a championship every year - the reality is there are just as many William Clay Ford's out there who really could care less either way.
bhall43
offline
offline
You guys are consistently missing the point that there is the option to decline promotion and the owner did not. That isn't GLB's fault for not assuming this team wasn't planning on competing. That is the teams fault for accepting promotion.
Originally posted by greengoose
Sure, in a perfect world every owner would be Jerry Jones, think they are God's gift to the game and be trying to win a championship every year - the reality is there are just as many William Clay Ford's out there who really could care less either way.
In a perfect world these owners wouldn't be allowed teams. But they are paying customers and allowed the chance to compete as much as the next person.
Originally posted by greengoose
Sure, in a perfect world every owner would be Jerry Jones, think they are God's gift to the game and be trying to win a championship every year - the reality is there are just as many William Clay Ford's out there who really could care less either way.
In a perfect world these owners wouldn't be allowed teams. But they are paying customers and allowed the chance to compete as much as the next person.
Icy Warrior
offline
offline
Originally posted by
The game promotes teams that make the playoffs, but it isn't smart enough to realize that the only reason that team made the playoffs anyway is 1/2 the conference was CPU anyway. They got promoted not on merit - but simply by default - their promotion should NOT be an indictment on the quality of their team - thats what the EL is there for.
This.
The game promotes teams that make the playoffs, but it isn't smart enough to realize that the only reason that team made the playoffs anyway is 1/2 the conference was CPU anyway. They got promoted not on merit - but simply by default - their promotion should NOT be an indictment on the quality of their team - thats what the EL is there for.
This.
superpunk
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
In a perfect world these owners wouldn't be allowed teams. But they are paying customers and allowed the chance to compete as much as the next person.
this
In a perfect world these owners wouldn't be allowed teams. But they are paying customers and allowed the chance to compete as much as the next person.
this
I don't think it's in GLB's interest to have a 100% competitive league below WL. When you pit 16 teams against each other, some of the teams are going to lose big. There's a kind of "just happy to be here" mentality that keeps the WL losers going (at least at first.) But the rage quit rate of guys who try their hardest and finish 3-13 or worse in the lower leagues has got to be huge. I think realistically, GLB is better off in the long run if there are 10-12 competitive teams in each league.
vladykins
offline
offline
Originally posted by greengoose
Originally posted by vladykins
So, if a team qualifies to promote and the owner doesn't do anything to resist promotion, we should not promote him anyway, because we know better than him what his plans for his team are?
His plans for his team are moot, on Day -8 once the new season starts either a team has a punchers chance in the league they are in or are horribly placed - they need a 2nd run after rollover to clean up this:
a) Teams that sell between Day 41 and 48 and are left CPU
b) Teams that simply don't belong where the game put them on Day 41 - the EL is a tool - they should use it when placing teams
The game promotes teams that make the playoffs, but it isn't smart enough to realize that the only reason that team made the playoffs anyway is 1/2 the conference was CPU anyway. They got promoted not on merit - but simply by default - their promotion should NOT be an indictment on the quality of their team - thats what the EL is there for.
Stop throwing darts for a second and look, that team won 7 games last year against CPU teams - it's the ONLY reason they got promoted. It wasn't a promotion they earned, it was by default.
Sure, in a perfect world every owner would be Jerry Jones, think they are God's gift to the game and be trying to win a championship every year - the reality is there are just as many William Clay Ford's out there who really could care less either way.
Let me make this real simple to explain the scenario (because the real live situation involves more pro leagues and lots of teams gutting/dropping):
Imagine we have a very simple ladder- One WL, one PL, and one Regional Pro. Each has 16 teams. In each league, the top 8 make playoffs and the top four promote, bottom four demote. (Again, simplified for illustration).
WL promotions are run first to make sure WL is full. In our hypothetical case (similar to last season), WL has four openings when the teams demote. But two other teams in WL also gut, leaving WL with six openings. The expected top four PL teams promote, plus two more that didn't expect to promote. So WL is full, PL is missing teams 1-6 and teams 13-16 (who demoted). RegPL has teams 1-4 promote.
In the PL, five more remaining teams gut. In addition, the former PL teams that demoted also gut, because they just can't hack it in PL. So PL is now missing five teams, which are sucked up from RegPL. Teams 5-8 in RegPL decline promotion using the system, so the next five teams in line are 9-13. Note: in this scenario, the teams promoting to PL didn't even make playoffs in RegPL, but promote because there is an opening and the owners above declined promotion.
Originally posted by vladykins
So, if a team qualifies to promote and the owner doesn't do anything to resist promotion, we should not promote him anyway, because we know better than him what his plans for his team are?
His plans for his team are moot, on Day -8 once the new season starts either a team has a punchers chance in the league they are in or are horribly placed - they need a 2nd run after rollover to clean up this:
a) Teams that sell between Day 41 and 48 and are left CPU
b) Teams that simply don't belong where the game put them on Day 41 - the EL is a tool - they should use it when placing teams
The game promotes teams that make the playoffs, but it isn't smart enough to realize that the only reason that team made the playoffs anyway is 1/2 the conference was CPU anyway. They got promoted not on merit - but simply by default - their promotion should NOT be an indictment on the quality of their team - thats what the EL is there for.
Stop throwing darts for a second and look, that team won 7 games last year against CPU teams - it's the ONLY reason they got promoted. It wasn't a promotion they earned, it was by default.
Sure, in a perfect world every owner would be Jerry Jones, think they are God's gift to the game and be trying to win a championship every year - the reality is there are just as many William Clay Ford's out there who really could care less either way.
Let me make this real simple to explain the scenario (because the real live situation involves more pro leagues and lots of teams gutting/dropping):
Imagine we have a very simple ladder- One WL, one PL, and one Regional Pro. Each has 16 teams. In each league, the top 8 make playoffs and the top four promote, bottom four demote. (Again, simplified for illustration).
WL promotions are run first to make sure WL is full. In our hypothetical case (similar to last season), WL has four openings when the teams demote. But two other teams in WL also gut, leaving WL with six openings. The expected top four PL teams promote, plus two more that didn't expect to promote. So WL is full, PL is missing teams 1-6 and teams 13-16 (who demoted). RegPL has teams 1-4 promote.
In the PL, five more remaining teams gut. In addition, the former PL teams that demoted also gut, because they just can't hack it in PL. So PL is now missing five teams, which are sucked up from RegPL. Teams 5-8 in RegPL decline promotion using the system, so the next five teams in line are 9-13. Note: in this scenario, the teams promoting to PL didn't even make playoffs in RegPL, but promote because there is an opening and the owners above declined promotion.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
