|
Post by Spencer on Feb 18, 2007 13:57:09 GMT -5
Heres a more specific look at what we could do to encourage winning....
New Reward Points Rules...
Reward Points
Here is a run down of Reward Point Values....
1 for each post. 50 for each article worthy of the BBS Insider. 50 for making a signature 10 for a team overview. Edited from 5. 5 for a FOF one on one. 25 for making the playoffs. Edited from 5. An additional 25 for winning 50 or more games. Edited from 5. An additional 25 for winning your division. Edited from 10. An additional 25 for winning the 1st seed in your conference. Edited from 10. 100 for winning the BBS Crown Edited from 50.
Also....
No Cap Penalties for those teams that have an over 70 win rating. This means you will not be subject to any cap penalties if your win rating (found on your team history page) is over 70 at the end of the year. This isn't an easy thing to maintain though. For example, the Pistons are at 62.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 18, 2007 14:20:08 GMT -5
Anyone? Thought, opinions?
|
|
|
Post by JDawg on Feb 18, 2007 14:20:29 GMT -5
i like this.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Feb 18, 2007 14:25:57 GMT -5
doesn't have to do with the winning, though i love the changes, but Team Overviews are now worth 10 pts
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 18, 2007 14:29:00 GMT -5
doesn't have to do with the winning, though i love the changes, but Team Overviews are now worth 10 pts K, Ill edit that to. Hopefully all the new point values make sense.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Feb 18, 2007 14:31:55 GMT -5
doesn't have to do with the winning, though i love the changes, but Team Overviews are now worth 10 pts K, Ill edit that to. Hopefully all the new point values make sense. i think so, winning a championship definitely deserves at least one upgrade. the rest seems perfect. maybe one other reward is winning the conference finals, not sure how many points or it's even something people will be interested in, but that's a pretty big feat
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Feb 18, 2007 14:34:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by duce on Feb 18, 2007 14:46:24 GMT -5
this is all excellent. the one thing i could argue against is that most tanking teams are not in much position to win the championship, their division, or 50 games.
so i don't know that 25(1/4 upgrade) is much incentive to stop that, but we could always come up with more, and what you proposed so far is great.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Feb 18, 2007 14:49:10 GMT -5
i really hate to even think this but maybe teams who don't make the playoffs should have to work harder to get their RC's... like their articles/posts/etc. could be worth half? that probly sounds dumb lol but i'm just brainstormin.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 18, 2007 14:50:22 GMT -5
i really hate to even think this but maybe teams who don't make the playoffs should have to work harder to get their RC's... like their articles/posts/etc. could be worth half? that probly sounds dumb lol but i'm just brainstormin. This would make it harder for new Gms coming in to rebuild the teams that were driven to shit. its an interesting idea though.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 18, 2007 14:52:23 GMT -5
great idea nice job
|
|
|
Post by aaronjh on Feb 18, 2007 14:52:39 GMT -5
nothing will ever be effective unless it comes down on tanking teams. but whatever, all this talk about anti-tanking is a massive overreaction and, in my opinion, total bullshit. you want to take a season or two off in order to improve your team? go for it. nobody seemed to have a problem with spence and dj doing it for the entire span of BBS, and there's no grounds to arbitrarily pick a spot in time to start coming down on teams. so i'm glad to see this rule doesn't do that at all, even if it intends to.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Feb 18, 2007 15:00:16 GMT -5
i really hate to even think this but maybe teams who don't make the playoffs should have to work harder to get their RC's... like their articles/posts/etc. could be worth half? that probly sounds dumb lol but i'm just brainstormin. This would make it harder for new Gms coming in to rebuild the teams that were driven to shit. its an interesting idea though. true, i'm tryna screw the suns over. though new gm's should be very active but yea too harsh.
|
|
|
Post by cjmjones008 on Feb 18, 2007 15:11:29 GMT -5
I won't be affected with this for awhile so whatever
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 18, 2007 15:35:56 GMT -5
nothing will ever be effective unless it comes down on tanking teams. but whatever, all this talk about anti-tanking is a massive overreaction and, in my opinion, total bullshit. you want to take a season or two off in order to improve your team? go for it. nobody seemed to have a problem with spence and dj doing it for the entire span of BBS, and there's no grounds to arbitrarily pick a spot in time to start coming down on teams. so i'm glad to see this rule doesn't do that at all, even if it intends to. Ive tanked for the entire span of BBS? This was an idea to reward winning more. Not necessarily stop tanking. Tanking if done correctly, is fine.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Feb 18, 2007 20:44:46 GMT -5
so what are the new uses of RCs... can we upgrade players who are older?
|
|
kjkeelty
Starter
Celtics
Go Green
Posts: 802
|
Post by kjkeelty on Feb 18, 2007 21:24:04 GMT -5
All these ideas are fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by manasrai on Feb 18, 2007 22:24:04 GMT -5
I like it all but the no Cap penalties rule. I think that it hurts parity if a team is allowed to break cap rules in order to maintain what would (with a win rating of at least 70) already be the best team in the league.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Feb 19, 2007 1:07:57 GMT -5
Too much for me to handle...
|
|
|
Post by Lumley316 on Feb 19, 2007 1:51:29 GMT -5
Fine except for the no cap rule.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Feb 19, 2007 1:57:12 GMT -5
yea the cap rule kinda kills it for me too.
|
|
|
Post by Lumley316 on Feb 19, 2007 2:04:02 GMT -5
Remember the old BBS when there was no cap penalty some teams abused it big time.
|
|
|
Post by aigatdula on Feb 19, 2007 9:56:20 GMT -5
fine by me, but a Lums mentioned, 'no cap penalty' could be a concern...
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 20, 2007 14:06:53 GMT -5
New idea....
3 rolled over DCs can be combined to give a over 25 yo player a +10 in any category. The 85 rule would still be in place, so no player could be raised over 85.
|
|
|
Post by JDawg on Feb 20, 2007 14:07:48 GMT -5
like it. keep up the good work spence.
|
|