Warrior General Games

I do not know if this was posted already but the title is pretty self explanatory.

Basically split the 16 teams in each conference into 4 divisions and games should be as follows:

-Each team plays the other three teams in their division twice: once at home, and once on the road (six games).
-Each team plays the four teams from another division within its own conference once on a rotating three-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (four games).
-Each team plays the four teams from a division in the other conference once on a rotating four-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (four games).
-Each team plays once against the other teams in its conference that finished in the same place in their own divisions as themselves in the previous season, not counting the division they were already scheduled to play: one at home, one on the road (two games)

So the last ones kind of confusing but to clarify this goes with the second bullet. Each year you will play all four teams of one division within your own conference. Now the other two divisions, not counting your own or the one you are already playing, you will play the team from each division that finished in the same place as you last season.

So for example, if you came in 4th place in your own division last season you will play the other three teams in your division twice, four teams from another division within your conference, and the two teams that also finished in 4th in the last two divisions in your conference. Along with this you will play one division from the other conference within your league.

Like I said this may have already been posted but I did not see it in a quick glance over and I believe the depth at which I explained this is most likely better! Let me know what you think

Only problem with this is you will never have the same 32 teams from season to season. Good idea though

Originally posted by jtrav21
Only problem with this is you will never have the same 32 teams from season to season. Good idea though

True. Could possibly be implemented to the higher up leagues at first to make it more even, as each season through this method you will play 4 teams placed at first, second, third, and fourth in their respective division. And then make its way down if it is liked and necessary.

This is a GREAT idea. As far as never having the same teams in the league they should setup something so that you would have to sign up for this type of league. You would need to show that your an active owner and have an active team. Maybe place a restriction that says you have to own a team for at least 4 seasons before you can even attempt to enter this type of league.

Just think of all the banter, everyone would get to know their opponents. There is no promotions or demotions. You either sink or swim. Some people will be shitty but it would be cool to see teams evolve and move up the ladder from season to season.

We will never probably see this happen but I personally would love this style league.

+420

bump

+100

-1

This works GREAT in the NFL, because in the NFL, all of the teams are roughly in the same neighborhood talent-wise. Even one of the most hapless teams of all time, the 2011 Indianapolis Colts, was able to take down a playoff team, the Houston Texans, so that shows you the level of top-to-bottom parity that exists in the NFL. Sure, some seasons you might get a particularly weak division with 4 terribad teams together, but everyone is still playing a schedule against 16 NFL teams, which lessens the significance of strength-of-schedule. A 14-2 team is probably better than a 10-6 team, even if the 14-2 team had an easier division to play in.

Contrast that to GLB, where every league EXCEPT World League is riddled with CPU-owned teams, absentee-owner teams, CPU-roster teams, under-leveled non-boosting teams... you get the idea. That's bad enough, but at least every team in each conference plays all 15 of the other teams in their conference, giving everyone a nearly-identical strength-of-schedule (aside from Game 1 against the opposing conference, of course).

Now, add Divisions to that mess. You could easily have a scenario where four of the best teams end up together in a "Division of Death" to borrow a World Cup phrase, while one mediocre teams ends up in a division with 3 CPU cream-puffs. The mediocre team gets 6 easy wins, while the teams in the Division of Death beat each other up. Then add in the cross-conference games... the mediocre team gets the luck of the draw and gets 4 CPU opponents from the other conference for 4 more easy wins, while the teams in the Division of Death get competitive opponents for their cross-conference games.

The result? That mediocre team gets a head start of 10 easy wins and gets a record that looks WAY better than it actually is. Teams in the same league but different divisions can end up with DRASTICALLY different strengths-of-schedule, because the parity of the NFL simply does not exist in GLB.

If the parity within leagues is ever fixed in order to eliminate or reduce these problems, then I could see Divisions being a good idea. But as long as non-WL leagues remain such a hodge-podge of varyingly-competitive teams, going to a Division system is a disaster waiting to happen.

-1.

There's always ways around this though. Like I am personally not sure how I would set up these divisions, just that they should be. So there are possible ways to try to split up the best teams within four separate divisions.

Also like I stated earlier it should be only implemented in the more competitive leagues. And if someone ends up with the luck of the draw of a schedule than whatever, thats good luck for them.

Look at the Patriots for example, except for last year the past couple years were no competition whatsoever. They have the bills, dolphins, and jets. They are a great team but they haven't won the super bowl in years despite having a great record. That's because in the playoffs the true teams come out and will win if they truly are superior.

in theory, it would be good. but lets face it, glb cant even level out the 2 conferences talentwise. no way they'd ever put the time in to get 4 leveled divisions.

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
in theory, it would be good. but lets face it, glb cant even level out the 2 conferences talentwise. no way they'd ever put the time in to get 4 leveled divisions.

-1 this

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
in theory, it would be good. but lets face it, glb cant even level out the 2 conferences talentwise. no way they'd ever put the time in to get 4 leveled divisions.

+1 to Guppy and -1 to the OP's suggestion

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
in theory, it would be good. but lets face it, glb cant even level out the 2 conferences talentwise. no way they'd ever put the time in to get 4 leveled divisions.

Understood, but we shouldnt have to base suggestions on the lack of fixing things. You could almost counter every suggestion with something along the lines of "they cant even get ________ right, let alone have the time to do this,that, or whatever."

Your right but suggestions should still be treated as if the game was good to go.

Originally posted by jtrav21
Only problem with this is you will never have the same 32 teams from season to season. Good idea though

It'll be close though, 4-8 teams will be in the same conference if they all make the playoffs every season

What a lazy suggestion.