#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

So I've been doing some thinking on the situation of tanking. We currently have a plan in place where you are put on warning and things like that. But my idea is as follows:

Whoever has the worst records in the league will be removed from their team and the team will be given to the next person on the waitlist. So if there are 3 people on the waitlist, then the three worst teams would be awarded automatically to those new GMs.

So in this case, if a person tanks for a season, they are not rewarded with a potential top pick. The team will be rewarded, but the GM will not be in charge of that team.

This idea could also potentially combat luxury tax. So in the case of the Magic this year, they went into cap hell the past few years, which forced them to sell of their pieces. With less talent, they were not able to compete, resulting in the worst record in the league. The Magic would lose their team to the first person on the waitlist. If CG would want to continue in the league, he would have to put himself on the GM waitlist.

In that same breath, if as a GM you are unable to amass the talent or gameplan accordingly with your talent, you will have a bad record, which would give you the potential of losing your team. This would encourage people to adjust gameplans and become more active with DC submissions.

In this idea, new GMs are not able to choose the team they want. The first available team is awarded to the next GM on the waitlist.

I've thought of some cons with this as well, but I want to see if other people think of them without me saying them.

So we've maybe once had more than one GM on the waiting list and very often we have no viable GMs on the waiting list due to them not being around to check up (as with Janjan). How does your plan factor with that?

Also another issue I see with this is why lose a GM like CG, who yes is in a hole currently but has otherwise been an active GM who has been in the league or many seasons for another GM when honestly we haven't had much luck with outside GMs save but a handful?

LoCo89 wrote:So we've maybe once had more than one GM on the waiting list and very often we have no viable GMs on the waiting list due to them not being around to check up (as with Janjan). How does your plan factor with that?

Also another issue I see with this is why lose a GM like CG, who yes is in a hole currently but has otherwise been an active GM who has been in the league or many seasons for another GM when honestly we haven't had much luck with outside GMs save but a handful?

If a season completes and no one is on the wait list, then the bottom teams wouldn't lose their team. But that is a risk you take potentially. So if you take that risk and get last place, maybe someone joins the wait list during the playoffs. You lost on that risk and you're without a team for that season.

If this rule was in place, CG might not have gone for broke over the past few years. We might would lose an active gm, but it would only be for one season at the most. It gives incentive to not be in that last place as an active gm.

A few more positives. It would encourage gms that are out of the playoffs to keep up with dcs. Also, it gives wait list gms a timetable for when they would get a team, so they aren't just waiting possibly 3+ seasons to get a team.

What happens if a new gm inherits a crap team that is cap strapped (i.e. Magic) and hits the last place spot again due to those limitations and then the learning curve that comes with this game? Would they lose their GM position?

IamQuailman wrote:What happens if a new gm inherits a crap team that is cap strapped (i.e. Magic) and hits the last place spot again due to those limitations and then the learning curve that comes with this game? Would they lose their GM position?

That's something that can be developed with this rule. Either have it straight up how it is. Or maybe have a brand new gm get an extra season. That would be something to discuss if this rule is considered.

In the example I dont think someone in CG's position should lose their team he's had plenty of success to guarantee job security. Take me for an example, my teams have pretty much sucked since the new millennium and if it was real life I would have been fired years ago. Punish the obvious tankers and the teams that habitually suck, recycle those GM's onto new teams and the waitlist if need be. Just a thought to provide some realism

logpmess wrote:

LoCo89 wrote:So we've maybe once had more than one GM on the waiting list and very often we have no viable GMs on the waiting list due to them not being around to check up (as with Janjan). How does your plan factor with that?

Also another issue I see with this is why lose a GM like CG, who yes is in a hole currently but has otherwise been an active GM who has been in the league or many seasons for another GM when honestly we haven't had much luck with outside GMs save but a handful?

If a season completes and no one is on the wait list, then the bottom teams wouldn't lose their team. But that is a risk you take potentially. So if you take that risk and get last place, maybe someone joins the wait list during the playoffs. You lost on that risk and you're without a team for that season.

If this rule was in place, CG might not have gone for broke over the past few years. We might would lose an active gm, but it would only be for one season at the most. It gives incentive to not be in that last place as an active gm.

A few more positives. It would encourage gms that are out of the playoffs to keep up with dcs. Also, it gives wait list gms a timetable for when they would get a team, so they aren't just waiting possibly 3+ seasons to get a team.

Right but you're also implying that after kicking him out, cg would want to stick around and wait for a team. I just don't think it's realistic to forcibly take someone's team and expect them to be willing to wait around for another.

LoCo89 wrote:

logpmess wrote:

LoCo89 wrote:So we've maybe once had more than one GM on the waiting list and very often we have no viable GMs on the waiting list due to them not being around to check up (as with Janjan). How does your plan factor with that?

Also another issue I see with this is why lose a GM like CG, who yes is in a hole currently but has otherwise been an active GM who has been in the league or many seasons for another GM when honestly we haven't had much luck with outside GMs save but a handful?

If a season completes and no one is on the wait list, then the bottom teams wouldn't lose their team. But that is a risk you take potentially. So if you take that risk and get last place, maybe someone joins the wait list during the playoffs. You lost on that risk and you're without a team for that season.

If this rule was in place, CG might not have gone for broke over the past few years. We might would lose an active gm, but it would only be for one season at the most. It gives incentive to not be in that last place as an active gm.

A few more positives. It would encourage gms that are out of the playoffs to keep up with dcs. Also, it gives wait list gms a timetable for when they would get a team, so they aren't just waiting possibly 3+ seasons to get a team.

Right but you're also implying that after kicking him out, cg would want to stick around and wait for a team. I just don't think it's realistic to forcibly take someone's team and expect them to be willing to wait around for another.

And maybe that's the point of contention that people don't like with this idea, but at that same time, precautions will have been taken by a gm if they don't want to lose their team.

And as far as wanting to stick around, that's going to be dependent on the gm. Some might not be willing to go on the wait list, but again, they are guaranteed a team immediately after a season.

PaulyP wrote:In the example I dont think someone in CG's position should lose their team he's had plenty of success to guarantee job security. Take me for an example, my teams have pretty much sucked since the new millennium and if it was real life I would have been fired years ago. Punish the obvious tankers and the teams that habitually suck, recycle those GM's onto new teams and the waitlist if need be. Just a thought to provide some realism

This is the ideal with my idea. I just didn't know how to designate teams from one way to another.

logpmess wrote:

LoCo89 wrote:

logpmess wrote: If a season completes and no one is on the wait list, then the bottom teams wouldn't lose their team. But that is a risk you take potentially. So if you take that risk and get last place, maybe someone joins the wait list during the playoffs. You lost on that risk and you're without a team for that season.

If this rule was in place, CG might not have gone for broke over the past few years. We might would lose an active gm, but it would only be for one season at the most. It gives incentive to not be in that last place as an active gm.

A few more positives. It would encourage gms that are out of the playoffs to keep up with dcs. Also, it gives wait list gms a timetable for when they would get a team, so they aren't just waiting possibly 3+ seasons to get a team.

Right but you're also implying that after kicking him out, cg would want to stick around and wait for a team. I just don't think it's realistic to forcibly take someone's team and expect them to be willing to wait around for another.

And maybe that's the point of contention that people don't like with this idea, but at that same time, precautions will have been taken by a gm if they don't want to lose their team.

And as far as wanting to stick around, that's going to be dependent on the gm. Some might not be willing to go on the wait list, but again, they are guaranteed a team immediately after a season.

I guess I just don't see a payoff in forcing GMs to give up their team, having them take a month off, hoping they stick around, giving them a different bad team to play with, and hoping they can avoid doing it again starting from the bottom. On top of that, the concerns with not actually having a consistent waiting list, there not being a difference in this system with tanking and bad luck (what happens if a team loses let's say two top players to injuries?) plus the fact that I just don't like setting the precedent of forcing GMs out unless there is a legitimate concern like cheating

This is a trigger to say a few things.

1) Name two tankers or there is no tanking issue to prevent. Then, we can discuss what tanking is and why it is bad, if it is.

2) Why should tanking be the only criterion, other than basic abandonment for losing a team? Being a bad owner seems the real issue. How much has the top pick helped recent winners? Other favorable picks?

3) I feel an unpaid tax bill should follow an owner and not encumber a new owner of a team. Leave a mess, stick it with someone else, land on a team with likely ok books? Nope!

Instead of losing a team, the GM should be forced to run a D-league team as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

78# wrote:Instead of losing a team, the GM should be forced to run a D-league team as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No

So here we go penalizing a GM for a totally legitimate option of rebuilding. So if you rebuild you can lose your team.....lol I'm sorry but this is legit funny af. Sorry Logan, nothing personal but....c'mon. And I don't know your exact motives here but there's always been rumblings of this by some of you. There's like a handful of GMs in this league that are basically "rebuild/tanker haters" and it's Fryeing hilarious. These certain "haters" keep throwing shit at the wall yet can never accomplish anything significant, so when they see the "tankers" they get upset that these GMs are getting fresh talent and rebuilding.

I know my name wasn't mentioned but I'm sure it's on the top of your minds. I've been in the lotto for what 3 years now? I am without a doubt a "tanker" and I have no reason to shy away from it. I do it legally and geniusly. I made a go-for-broke move to try and win another ring and it failed and was a bad move on my part. But hindsight is 20/20 of course. I had no assets other than old Fryes so it was time to rebuild. I play my best players, I put in the appropriate gameplan, I play them tons of minutes. I still lose because I purposely sell off talent that isn't part of my future for more assets. I purposely draft young guys that need to grow so that they won't help my team immediately so I can build a bit better. Hate this strategy all you(directing towards anyone who feels like it is) want, but it IS a strategy and a completely legal one. They can't even fix the shit IRL.

As was pointed out, we rarely even have a waiting list, so this is more about penalizing GMs whom you deem as "tankers" which you deem as what....? Illegal? In bad taste? Morally wrong? I have no clue, but this is some funny shit.

Did pedro die?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

IamQuailman wrote:Did pedro die?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

¿Who Pedro?

1. I know he was just used as an example, but CG should be rewarded, not penalized. He went all in, it failed, and he paid the price and stuck through it. I wish more would go for it all. It's rewarding Nick right now.

2. No way in hell are we kicking out active GM's cause their team is not good right now. We need as many active GM's as we can get at all times.

Activity should be rewarded at all times regardless of the results in the win column. And maybe it's time we start rewarding winning more. That I think is the proper discussion to be had.

I don't even have my pick so I think Tray should be kicked out for having the best odds at the #1 pick. Sorry Tray <3

coltsguy510 wrote:I don't even have my pick so I think Tray should be kicked out for having the best odds at the #1 pick. Sorry Tray <3

Glol

LoCo89 wrote: Also another issue I see with this is why lose a GM like CG, who yes is in a hole currently but has otherwise been an active GM who has been in the league or many seasons for another GM when honestly we haven't had much luck with outside GMs save but a handful?

Soundwave wrote:1. I know he was just used as an example, but CG should be rewarded, not penalized. He went all in, it failed, and he paid the price and stuck through it. I wish more would go for it all. It's rewarding Nick right now.

Awkward

Sent via Morse code

logpmess wrote:So I've been doing some thinking on the situation of tanking. We currently have a plan in place where you are put on warning and things like that.

Post Date wrote:Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:22 am