Proposal for 2008 CSBC

[THE_REAL_MIBS]

As for the tournament, I don't know if that would work, either. My team was the anti-Sandro. I would still lose interest as my team only started tanking toward the end of July but I was still in first place so I would be out of the Cup format.

This is why I like the split season format. It allows teams to use both the offseason and the trading deadline to build their teams.

[Party]

We need to turn this into a couple of polls.

Poll 1: What format of the CSBC do you prefer?
Choices: 81 game split season schedule, Festa's 4 suggestions and keep the 182 game schedule

Poll 2: Would you be in favor of the side tournament?

I don't think the split season or 16 team play off format should be introduced unless 75% of the league approves. It's a big change.

[THE_REAL_MIBS]

I don't think the split season or 16 team play off format should be introduced unless 75% of the league approves. It's a big change.

That's why I suggested a poll. Right now, we've only heard from a handful of owners.

[Party]

As for the tournament, I don't know if that would work, either. My team was the anti-Sandro. I would still lose interest as my team only started tanking toward the end of July but I was still in first place so I would be out of the Cup format.

This is why I like the split season format. It allows teams to use both the offseason and the trading deadline to build their teams.

Well the Cup for the best teams in the league can occur early in the season using the previous season's record for seeding.

The Cup for the bottom 4 teams in the league could occur in August and September. Seeding being determined on the final day of the trade deadline.
--------------------
Bottom 4 Cup using 2007 records for seeding:

Round 1

August 20-22
(1) SEA
(4) SF wins 2-1

September 14-17
(2) CHI 2-1
(3) ATL

Finals

September 21-23
(4) SF wins 2-1
(2) CHI

[Branch]

The shitty teams can worry about that, right Las Vegas?

that #1 pick is mine

[nny]

Only if you suck. No thanks to an 81 game pre-season.

How is it 81 meaningless/pre-season games?

The first half have just as much meaning and just as much of an impact on the playoffs than the second 81 games

[Omar]

For the record, I would not envision a three game series, I think the seeds should be inverted (#1 to the worst record at the time of entry), and it shouldn't begin until after the ASB to reflect the current records. If it runs in August, it keeps teams interested and it gives the extra days off to teams in the hunt to reward them for strong first halves.

As for the tournament, I don't know if that would work, either. My team was the anti-Sandro. I would still lose interest as my team only started tanking toward the end of July but I was still in first place so I would be out of the Cup format.

Then make better roster choices!

[PitchingWinsGames]

For everybody that questions the "length" of the season, how about a faster sim schedule?

[Party]

For the record, I would not envision a three game series, I think the seeds should be inverted (#1 to the worst record at the time of entry), and it shouldn't begin until after the ASB to reflect the current records. If it runs in August, it keeps teams interested and it gives the extra days off to teams in the hunt to reward them for strong first halves.

Problem with that is the schedule may not fall in line with the tournament. As you saw with last year the winner wasn't decided until July.

[Omar]

Yes, but if you do it one game rounds instead of three games, it could be done over the course of a month.

No love for the relegation idea? You could have two different sims to do it and just transfer the teams over from one to another on a seasonal basis. I would seriously consider joining if that existed.

[Party]

For everybody that questions the "length" of the season, how about a faster sim schedule?

I think the current sim schedule and amount of games simmed is fine. Going over rosters 5 or 7 times a week would really turn me off. Simming 6,7 or 8 games wouldn't be fair for teams suffering injuries.
--------------------

Yes, but if you do it one game rounds instead of three games, it could be done over the course of a month.

No love for the relegation idea? You could have two different sims to do it and just transfer the teams over from one to another on a seasonal basis. I would seriously consider joining if that existed.

When the schedule is fixed before the season what does it matter if it's 1 or 3 games?

How would relegation work?

Are we going to kick an owner to AAA? They will just dominate there and come back the next season. All the AAA teams are feeder teams.
--------------------
Also if we use relegation, we better used a balanced schedule (which I think we do).

[PitchingWinsGames]

Yes, but if you do it one game rounds instead of three games, it could be done over the course of a month.

No love for the relegation idea? You could have two different sims to do it and just transfer the teams over from one to another on a seasonal basis. I would seriously consider joining if that existed.

We don't really have the resources to do a relegation system, we have 22 owners as is, and that's basically depleting almost everyone on the site that'd play (and some from off it)... Not to mention there's no real way to do it, OOTP is very handcuffed by doing things akin to how it's (been) done in the real world.

Besides, there's really no reason to "relegate" anyone, you can take a mediocre team to the playoffs in 3 seasons, I've done it. Nny and I are pretty good at developing teams and systems, and I, specifically, can talk owners through trading, drafting and building if they want the help.

One thing, in terms of activity, is being active outside the sim file, I did Buster Olney in TBBC for a good while, and I wrote some pretty nifty articles and stuff (while in college, during classes, it doesn't take too long) and I'd like to think most people enjoyed them.

Activity doesn't have to be winning or losing, be your own beat writer, your 3B is in a slump, why? etc etc...

[Omar]

Well, the way I'd do it would be by having two leagues. This prevents issues with minor leagues and stuff like that.

So you break up the superior league into two 8 team leagues (2 divisions each) or one large league (much more interesting and fair, in my opinion) of four divisions. If you have two 8 team leagues you can take the top two of each division to the playoffs (and keep the 8 team playoff format) or you can be more selective and only take the four division winners. I'd say the same thing for the 16 team super league.

The remaining six teams would be sent to the inferior league along with any new expansion teams (goal here would be four new ones). These teams would play in a different league (aka different file) against only each other. There is only one division, so you divide the schedule in a way where each team plays the others equally.

The bottom four records in the superior league are booted down to the inferior league every season, no questions asked. The top two teams in the inferior league automatically earn promotion. For the remaining two spots, could have varying levels of a playoff system to decide them or could just do auto qualification. Either way.

The cup would be thrown into a little flux, but that could be fixed through a compromise.

One twist I would add, in order to be realistic and to create a major incentive to stay up is create a salary cap difference between top and bottom leagues. If the cap for the superior league is 100 mil, make the inferior league hard at 75. You just created 25 million reasons to play through the whole season.

Benefits
- No tanking
- Quality of play is increased in the superior league
- Expansion teams have the chance to compete right away
- Year long interest among all teams
- Inferior league allows for experimentation in potential new layouts, rules, and other tweaks before they get incorporated in the big time
- More spots encourages owners to bring friends into the league from outside

Cons
- More work for the commissioners

[AdamRavs]

For those that lost interest yes your team sucked this year. there is always next year.. I hate hearing the argument i lost interest so lets change things. Then put together a better team! Why do we have to change the whole league? There is nothing wrong with the way things are now.

[Party]

Well, the way I'd do it would be by having two leagues. This prevents issues with minor leagues and stuff like that.

So you break up the superior league into two 8 team leagues (2 divisions each) or one large league (much more interesting and fair, in my opinion) of four divisions. If you have two 8 team leagues you can take the top two of each division to the playoffs (and keep the 8 team playoff format) or you can be more selective and only take the four division winners. I'd say the same thing for the 16 team super league.

The remaining six teams would be sent to the inferior league along with any new expansion teams (goal here would be four new ones). These teams would play in a different league (aka different file) against only each other. There is only one division, so you divide the schedule in a way where each team plays the others equally.

The bottom four records in the superior league are booted down to the inferior league every season, no questions asked. The top two teams in the inferior league automatically earn promotion. For the remaining two spots, could have varying levels of a playoff system to decide them or could just do auto qualification. Either way.

The cup would be thrown into a little flux, but that could be fixed through a compromise.

One twist I would add, in order to be realistic and to create a major incentive to stay up is create a salary cap difference between top and bottom leagues. If the cap for the superior league is 100 mil, make the inferior league hard at 75. You just created 25 million reasons to play through the whole season.

Benefits
- No tanking
- Quality of play is increased in the superior league
- Expansion teams have the chance to compete right away
- Year long interest among all teams
- Inferior league allows for experimentation in potential new layouts, rules, and other tweaks before they get incorporated in the big time
- More spots encourages owners to bring friends into the league from outside

Cons
- More work for the commissioners

1) There aren't enough owners. We would need atleast 6 more owners to make a relegation system viable.
2) The AAA teams are feeder teams
3) There is no incentive for a AAA team owned by me to try and make the CSBC
--------------------

For those that lost interest yes your team sucked this year. there is always next year.. I hate hearing the argument i lost interest so lets change things. Then put together a better team! Why do we have to change the whole league? There is nothing wrong with the way things are now.

I think discussing possible changes is better than not discussing ways to improve the league.

Just in this thread, the Cup system was proposed and I think if a vote were taken on it, there would be support.