#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

Conroy wrote:Can we rename the divisions too, and whichever one Sound ends up in, we call it the Career 40% GMs Division

"Luckiest division ever"

Does travel affect teams in this game?

Inner_GI wrote:Does travel affect teams in this game?

A little, but if your team has high stamina there will be very little penalties. But if say, you play in Boston, then you go to Sacramento the next day, the distance time will effect your team. Back to backs usually penalize your teams stamina as well no matter the distance. Stamina is more important that some think.

Sent via Morse code

Well that's new info. Hmm then I would think we should try our best to make travel between divisions similar.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

NOLa. wrote:A new team would be neat

Sent via Morse code

Totally would, an even 30 teams would be great

30 teams is probably for the best.

78# wrote:30 teams is probably for the best.

Agree . A solid even number

Already preparing a "chip on my shoulder" speech for the gm draft.

As near as I can tell, besides the effects of the travel schedule that it seems need some consideration, divisions play the following roles:

1) Determine which teams you play the most (4) as opposed to the least (2)
2) Give a single team a 2 seed that may be seeded lower if records were the sole factor in each conference, for a total of 2 teams

Things like who you have to get by to make it to the Finals is at the Conference level.

If you want to rearrange conferences, the travel things becomes a bigger factor plus there are a couple schedule changes plus who you face prior to the Finals may change.

It would seem that what is really interesting here is the playoffs since in the regular season you game plan for groups of teams, never a team, so rivalries only really get going associated with the playoffs.

So, playoff tweaks?

To be honest, this seems gimmicky and I'd vote against it as-is were it a vote, but i'm trying give it the best look I can.

Guys I was fawking around with the travel part of my statement. The game does not consider travel times

weird, it's gotten to the point when trolling is interfering with actual information dissemination

NOLa. wrote:Guys I was fawking around with the travel part of my statement. The game does not consider travel times

Then its less harmful.

I still don't see a reason to realign the divisions if the playoffs are really the focus. I'm not sure it is . . . I can't really tell what this is supposed to accomplish.

This is why at this point I never take NOLa serious in any thread.

The realignment isn't for playoffs. It's for the 20+ that have been here from the get go and to shake up the competition between division foes. Not to single out newer GMs, but it would be a new change of pace for some to have the ability to compete with different people for a division crown.

At least that was my reason for proposing.

IamQuailman wrote:This is why at this point I never take NOLa serious in any thread.

In a total "THIS RELATIONSHIP IS STALE, LETS TRY A NEW RESTAURANT" kinda way

IamQuailman wrote:This is why at this point I never take NOLa serious in any thread.

The realignment isn't for playoffs. It's for the 20+ that have been here from the get go and to shake up the competition between division foes. Not to single out newer GMs, but it would be a new change of pace for some to have the ability to compete with different people for a division crown.

At least that was my reason for proposing.

If the issue is the GM's, then spreading the shit around the league doesn't really eliminate the shit.

Rearrange the whole league so a few GM's benefit and at the expense of the others who have to then deal with that issue? Seems like a very thin band-aid on something that is not the problem.

i get the urge, but I don't get how it fixes whatever the problem is, but I don't have to.

I guess this was more of a cosmetic surgical option than one that was curing an ailment.

Voluntary team swaps seem the best idea to me. Alternatively when a team comes available, any current owner can claim it (leaving his old team and point total behind).

A voluntary swap seems a reasonable idea, but we'd may want to consider a prohibition of certain trades for a season or something. Something to stop colluding or circumventing the intent.

WigNosy wrote:Voluntary team swaps seem the best idea to me. Alternatively when a team comes available, any current owner can claim it (leaving his old team and point total behind).

Like the first part of this, hate the second part of this


Sent via Morse code

Frye up your build with terrible contracts and bad picks ? Just take an open team ! That's why I do not like the second part.

There has to be an accountability for the moves you make. Switching teams should only be available for playoff teams IMO, maybe even top 5 seeds.

ballsohard wrote:WIG up your build with terrible contracts and bad picks ? Just take an open team ! That's why I do not like the second part.

There has to be an accountability for the moves you make. Switching teams should only be available for playoff teams IMO, maybe even top 5 seeds.

That would make sense if this were real life. Think about it: if a GM who has assembled a top team is suddenly looking for a job, he'll get one without much hassle. If a GM who has essentially hurt his team for the future was suddenly a free agent, his demand would be lower.

I can get behind that general idea.

Picture this: Cleveland decides to blow it up. They trade their key players away to New York along with some picks. Then the GM moves team.

The GM wants to make a mark, starts doing trades, gets some nice trades and points from New York. Not everything Cleveland traded, as some of that stays in New York. Now Cleveland is stripped bare, the GM has the good parts of both the new and old team, got a points boost from all his savvy GMing, and is stocked on 2 teams' picks, less one.

Sign me up.

End sarcasm.

If two guys want to trade (like Messi and Inner . . . too soon?), then who's to stop them, but there should be a trade ban in place of some type. Going to an open team seems ripe for exploit, at least once. If we allow it, however, I'm first.

Create d league, d league champ plays worst team in league, winner gets last spot in league.

Seriously though, league vote if move would be ok. Only problem I see is if more than one guy wants to make the switch to a specific team.