#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

I wanted to propose an owner mode for our league for lottory teams.

Basically what I want to propose is me taking over a "Global Owner" for teams and if you hit the lottory, you're given a list of goals for that season. We will have a couple of levels of goals to reach. Non-negotiable level and a Wish List. Things that aren't accomplished on the Non Negotiable list are fireable offenses.


For Example:
Charlotte Hornets

Non Negotiable:
Win 28 Games
Acquire another first round pick
Play (whoever he drafted) 30 MPG


Wish List:
Train one player under the age of 25.
Get Lue's contract off the books.
Still Be in the playoff race by March

To be removed from being under owner mode you would have to make the playoffs. I'm thinking about this and think that putting it out in the open wouldn't be good, but instead keep it in private so people can't hold your goals over your head as a negotiation tactic.



I know this isnt completely vetted out but i wanted to get everyone involved before i got too deep into it.

What happens if you fire an owner

Sent via Morse code

I like this idea. It helps with the tanking issues by setting achievable goals for teams that will make them somewhat competitive but also has a consequence if they fail to do so. Not sure I agree on being fired if not reaching the goals bc I'd rather us not have teams without a human GM but I do think that should be one of the consequences if it gets that bad. Maybe a tiered formula. Fail to reach 1 goal = ?
Fail to reach 2 goals = probation Fail to reach 3 goals over 2 years = Fired.

NOLa. wrote:What happens if you fire an owner

Sent via Morse code

Have to vet out a coaching carrousel, but in essence we'd move GMs around in different situations. So that kind of gets the restructuring of conferences and teams done as well.

PrepP wrote:I like this idea. It helps with the tanking issues by setting achievable goals for teams that will make them somewhat competitive but also has a consequence if they fail to do so. Not sure I agree on being fired if not reaching the goals bc I'd rather us not have teams without a human GM but I do think that should be one of the consequences if it gets that bad. Maybe a tiered formula. Fail to reach 1 goal = ?
Fail to reach 2 goals = probation Fail to reach 3 goals over 2 years = Fired.

I don't think firing means youre not running a team next year, i think it means your running a different team.

what? I read it 3 times... still... what?

I think that the owner would have to mutually agree with you on the goals. I know you just gave it as an example, but several teams launched championship runs after multiple sub-28 win seasons.

Initial reaction is that I don't like this at all, but the only way I'd be open period is if I mutually agreed with the 'non-negotiable' goals. Also. What happens if you're offered a trade mid-season that could really help your future or present but requires you to fail a 'goal'? I know I'm hitting the lottery, but one of the most fun things about this game is autonomy. I own something. Even if it's shitty. I own it. If you want to kick me or other owners that might not be as good as you out of the game, fine, but I really have no interest in sharing my team or living up to your goals.

Perhaps make it optional if there are a lot of folks that feel differently?

TheSyndicate wrote:I think that the owner would have to mutually agree with you on the goals. I know you just gave it as an example, but several teams launched championship runs after multiple sub-28 win seasons.

Initial reaction is that I don't like this at all, but the only way I'd be open period is if I mutually agreed with the 'non-negotiable' goals. Also. What happens if you're offered a trade mid-season that could really help your future or present but requires you to fail a 'goal'? I know I'm hitting the lottery, but one of the most fun things about this game is autonomy. I own something. Even if it's shitty. I own it. If you want to kick me or other owners that might not be as good as you out of the game, fine, but I really have no interest in sharing my team or living up to your goals.

Perhaps make it optional if there are a lot of folks that feel differently?

I don't think talking in hyperbole is going to get anything accomploshed here and this whole post is hyperbole.

The devil is in the details, but this is a good Fryeing idea.

No, this turns the game into Big Brother. I'm not a fan of this at all.

Big Brother form 1984, not the TV show.

I would hate to lose my Pacers but im very much down with this idea. Adds a new wrinkle to things and keeps GM's accountable

PaulyP wrote:I would hate to lose my Pacers but im very much down with this idea. Adds a new wrinkle to things and keeps GM's accountable

GMs should hold themselves accountable. We don't need big brother watching over us, setting our goals, removing us from the team, etc.

I would assume most GMs set goals for theirselves before each season anyway.


It's a decent idea in theory, ut I don't think it plays out like expected, and losing your team will mean losing GMs in the long run, I think.

Inner_GI wrote:

PaulyP wrote:I would hate to lose my Pacers but im very much down with this idea. Adds a new wrinkle to things and keeps GM's accountable

GMs should hold themselves accountable. We don't need big brother watching over us, setting our goals, removing us from the team, etc.

I would assume most GMs set goals for theirselves before each season anyway.


It's a decent idea in theory, ut I don't think it plays out like expected, and losing your team will mean losing GMs in the long run, I think.

Then why is Quail being nagged about tanking?

42PhD wrote:

Inner_GI wrote:

PaulyP wrote:I would hate to lose my Pacers but im very much down with this idea. Adds a new wrinkle to things and keeps GM's accountable

GMs should hold themselves accountable. We don't need big brother watching over us, setting our goals, removing us from the team, etc.

I would assume most GMs set goals for theirselves before each season anyway.


It's a decent idea in theory, ut I don't think it plays out like expected, and losing your team will mean losing GMs in the long run, I think.

Then why is Quail being nagged about tanking?

None of this (tanking) would be a problem if other GMs just worried about their own teams and focused on that. I know it sounds dumb, but it comes down to that. We are a league with self (league) imposed rules and people that are all invested in our own franchises. You don't like how someone else runs theirs? Do replicate their mistakes. I think overall the tanking issue is overblown, and this idea (as interesting as it is in theory) is an example over how crazy we are getting to "fix tanking"... when the real NBA can't fix it either.

ballsohard wrote:

TheSyndicate wrote:I think that the owner would have to mutually agree with you on the goals. I know you just gave it as an example, but several teams launched championship runs after multiple sub-28 win seasons.

Initial reaction is that I don't like this at all, but the only way I'd be open period is if I mutually agreed with the 'non-negotiable' goals. Also. What happens if you're offered a trade mid-season that could really help your future or present but requires you to fail a 'goal'? I know I'm hitting the lottery, but one of the most fun things about this game is autonomy. I own something. Even if it's shitty. I own it. If you want to kick me or other owners that might not be as good as you out of the game, fine, but I really have no interest in sharing my team or living up to your goals.

Perhaps make it optional if there are a lot of folks that feel differently?

I don't think talking in hyperbole is going to get anything accomploshed here and this whole post is hyperbole.

Which part is hyperbolic?

42PhD wrote:

Inner_GI wrote:

PaulyP wrote:I would hate to lose my Pacers but im very much down with this idea. Adds a new wrinkle to things and keeps GM's accountable

GMs should hold themselves accountable. We don't need big brother watching over us, setting our goals, removing us from the team, etc.

I would assume most GMs set goals for theirselves before each season anyway.


It's a decent idea in theory, ut I don't think it plays out like expected, and losing your team will mean losing GMs in the long run, I think.

Then why is Quail being nagged about tanking?

This applies how? People don't mind their own business (team), and this suggestion is another example of that...

The tanking issue is way overblown, and if this was meant to curb tanking, I think there are better ways.

IamQuailman wrote:
None of this (tanking) would be a problem if other GMs just worried about their own teams and focused on that. I know it sounds dumb, but it comes down to that. We are a league with self (league) imposed rules and people that are all invested in our own franchises. You don't like how someone else runs theirs? Do replicate their mistakes. I think overall the tanking issue is overblown, and this idea (as interesting as it is in theory) is an example over how crazy we are getting to "fix tanking"... when the real NBA can't fix it either.

If you truly believed the just worry about your own team mantra, when why are there any self imposed rules in this league at all?

ballsohard wrote:

IamQuailman wrote:
None of this (tanking) would be a problem if other GMs just worried about their own teams and focused on that. I know it sounds dumb, but it comes down to that. We are a league with self (league) imposed rules and people that are all invested in our own franchises. You don't like how someone else runs theirs? Do replicate their mistakes. I think overall the tanking issue is overblown, and this idea (as interesting as it is in theory) is an example over how crazy we are getting to "fix tanking"... when the real NBA can't fix it either.

If you truly believed the just worry about your own team mantra, when why are there any self imposed rules in this league at all?

Because the rules apply to every team equally? Not singling out the "bad" teams and making a rule just for them.

Inner_GI wrote:

ballsohard wrote:

IamQuailman wrote:
None of this (tanking) would be a problem if other GMs just worried about their own teams and focused on that. I know it sounds dumb, but it comes down to that. We are a league with self (league) imposed rules and people that are all invested in our own franchises. You don't like how someone else runs theirs? Do replicate their mistakes. I think overall the tanking issue is overblown, and this idea (as interesting as it is in theory) is an example over how crazy we are getting to "fix tanking"... when the real NBA can't fix it either.

If you truly believed the just worry about your own team mantra, when why are there any self imposed rules in this league at all?

Because the rules apply to every team equally? Not singling out the "bad" teams and making a rule just for them.

The Luxury tax has been applied to how many losing teams? 1-2? Why can';t we worry about our own teams and just let them run up the bill if they want to?

Inner_GI wrote:
This applies how? People don't mind their own business (team), and this suggestion is another example of that...

The tanking issue is way overblown, and if this was meant to curb tanking, I think there are better ways.

You said, "GMs should hold themselves accountable."

Quail said that he gets nagged by people about tanking, meaning, they are asking the League to hold the people accountable.

My point is that there is clearly a difference of opinion here among GM's, and neither faction is small.

42PhD wrote:

Inner_GI wrote:
This applies how? People don't mind their own business (team), and this suggestion is another example of that...

The tanking issue is way overblown, and if this was meant to curb tanking, I think there are better ways.

You said, "GMs should hold themselves accountable."

Quail said that he gets nagged by people about tanking, meaning, they are asking the League to hold the people accountable.

My point is that there is clearly a difference of opinion here among GM's, and neither faction is small.

I must of missed the part where Quail said a bunch of GMs were coming to him complaining about tanking. Fair enough.

ballsohard wrote:

IamQuailman wrote:
None of this (tanking) would be a problem if other GMs just worried about their own teams and focused on that. I know it sounds dumb, but it comes down to that. We are a league with self (league) imposed rules and people that are all invested in our own franchises. You don't like how someone else runs theirs? Do replicate their mistakes. I think overall the tanking issue is overblown, and this idea (as interesting as it is in theory) is an example over how crazy we are getting to "fix tanking"... when the real NBA can't fix it either.

If you truly believed the just worry about your own team mantra, when why are there any self imposed rules in this league at all?

Rules and guidelines for DC submissions, point systems, lux tax, FA, etc... Maybe were brought in and adopted via old league, many have been creating over the seasons here. Those are in place to ensure things run smoothly and timely. Lux tax is a means of checks and balances, and even new tanking rules are a new means of checks and balances. But none of these are threatening a GM with a coaching eviction notice.

I mean, ousting 1 person and making them take over another team... how do you develop any continuity? None of are "hired" for GM positions here. We joined, and a lot of us enjoy having our own team (although others have left and eventually come back and taken over another team). Being forced to lose your team, take over a team that you have paid no attention to over the course of season(s), and then if you don't meet benchmarks again... then fired again? I mean, a turnstile GM system like that would just create a bunch of shitty teams with GMs trying to scrap together (read: overpay) players that probably won't fit from a FA that is already pretty weak in substance to begin with. Long term, i think this could have more negative effects than postive.

Inner_GI wrote:
I must of missed the part where Quail said a bunch of GMs were coming to him complaining about tanking. Fair enough.

No problem.

For reference:

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1300

First line: "Addressing a few complaints that I have received lately about tanking here...."

Your most substantive comment in the thread:

I would instead ask us to focus our attention on the GMs that have dragged a team through the dirt for consecutive years (i.e what I did with the suns). Those are the cases we should be monitoring. Are they tanking because they just like drafting high? Do they need help understanding the game, DCs, etc? Do they not have time to be a full GM? Was there a valid reason that after 3-5 years of tanking, the team never got better?

Tanking 1 or 2 years to land potential star players is really the only way to get star players in these league outside of trading. RFA has limited the movement of the top players, and playing rookies has a benefit to the long-term success of a team. I'm more concerned with the "repeat offenders."

I'm more concerned with the "repeat offenders."

I'll hang up and listen.

IamQuailman wrote:

ballsohard wrote:

IamQuailman wrote:
None of this (tanking) would be a problem if other GMs just worried about their own teams and focused on that. I know it sounds dumb, but it comes down to that. We are a league with self (league) imposed rules and people that are all invested in our own franchises. You don't like how someone else runs theirs? Do replicate their mistakes. I think overall the tanking issue is overblown, and this idea (as interesting as it is in theory) is an example over how crazy we are getting to "fix tanking"... when the real NBA can't fix it either.

If you truly believed the just worry about your own team mantra, when why are there any self imposed rules in this league at all?

Rules and guidelines for DC submissions, point systems, lux tax, FA, etc... Maybe were brought in and adopted via old league, many have been creating over the seasons here. Those are in place to ensure things run smoothly and timely. Lux tax is a means of checks and balances, and even new tanking rules are a new means of checks and balances. But none of these are threatening a GM with a coaching eviction notice.

I mean, ousting 1 person and making them take over another team... how do you develop any continuity? None of are "hired" for GM positions here. We joined, and a lot of us enjoy having our own team (although others have left and eventually come back and taken over another team). Being forced to lose your team, take over a team that you have paid no attention to over the course of season(s), and then if you don't meet benchmarks again... then fired again? I mean, a turnstile GM system like that would just create a bunch of shitty teams with GMs trying to scrap together (read: overpay) players that probably won't fit from a FA that is already pretty weak in substance to begin with. Long term, i think this could have more negative effects than postive.

But why do we need checks and balances if we're just worried about our own teams. I just felt that comment was really talking out of both sides of your mouth considering your history on votes of restrictive and punitive actions for certain teams if you truly believe in "just worry about yourself" is all

42PhD wrote:

Inner_GI wrote:
I must of missed the part where Quail said a bunch of GMs were coming to him complaining about tanking. Fair enough.

No problem.

For reference:

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1300

First line: "Addressing a few complaints that I have received lately about tanking here...."

Your most substantive comment in the thread:

I would instead ask us to focus our attention on the GMs that have dragged a team through the dirt for consecutive years (i.e what I did with the suns). Those are the cases we should be monitoring. Are they tanking because they just like drafting high? Do they need help understanding the game, DCs, etc? Do they not have time to be a full GM? Was there a valid reason that after 3-5 years of tanking, the team never got better?

Tanking 1 or 2 years to land potential star players is really the only way to get star players in these league outside of trading. RFA has limited the movement of the top players, and playing rookies has a benefit to the long-term success of a team. I'm more concerned with the "repeat offenders."

I'm more concerned with the "repeat offenders."

I'll hang up and listen.

That's fine. We don't need to derail the convo so you can be right. You're right.

And I still stand by that comment. That's a more viable option to curb tanking then having big brother looking over loterry teams.