|
Post by djmyte on Mar 4, 2007 1:42:52 GMT -5
Prior to the beginning of every season, have each team post their Team Goal for the year. Options - Championship contender, Playoff contender(could combine with the previous and only have 2 total), Rebuilding. Then, for Rebuilding clubs, implement a time limit on the length of the rebuild... for example, a standard of 3 seasons.
If at the end of the 4th year the team is still lotto, the GM gets fired for failing to rebuild in a reasonable amount of time(becomes an assistant, and is placed at the top of the future GM list).
If a "Playoff team" fails to make the playoffs for a predetermined number of seasons, the GM is fired for not producing positive results.
So, basically it's monitored by wins and the incentive is to remain in the league. Of course, you have to be aware of an instance where a team has a series of injuries for example. This could lead to a lost year which doesnt count against a GM if they fail to meet team goals.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 4, 2007 1:44:38 GMT -5
may we give you the picks at the end of the offseason?
i plan to make some deals to acquire a number of picks, which i will forefit once i receive them
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 4, 2007 1:45:14 GMT -5
If I were to hire a "Reward the Winners" admin Id need them to develop a fair way to determine who deserves extra RCs because of winning. Consecutive years in the playoffs? Consecutive years over 500? Consecutive 50 win years? Just some ideas. Consecutive Years over .500-- 10 pts Consecutive Years in playoffs-- 20 pts x as many years Consective 50 win season- 25 pts x as many years Division Champion-- 25 pts Conference Champion-- 50 pts Championship winner-- 100 pts Consecutive championship winner- 100 pts x many years I was thinking more like 4 Consecutive Years over .500-- 10 pts (then an extra 5 every season over 4) 4 Consecutive Years in playoffs-- 15 pts (then an extra 5 for every season over 4 ) 2 Consective 50 win season- 20 pts (then an extra 5 for ever season over 2 ) Division Champion-- 20 pts Conference Champion-- 35 pts Championship winner-- 50 pts ( then an extra 50 for back to back titles, an extra 50 for 3 peat..etc..)
|
|
|
Post by GP on Mar 4, 2007 1:45:49 GMT -5
Prior to the beginning of every season, have each team post their Team Goal for the year. Options - Championship contender, Playoff contender(could combine with the previous and only have 2 total), Rebuilding. Then, for Rebuilding clubs, implement a time limit on the length of the rebuild... for example, a standard of 3 seasons. If at the end of the 4th year the team is still lotto, the GM gets fired for failing to rebuild in a reasonable amount of time(becomes an assistant, and is placed at the top of the future GM list). If a "Playoff team" fails to make the playoffs for a predetermined number of seasons, the GM is fired for not producing positive results. So, basically it's monitored by wins and the incentive is to remain in the league. Of course, you have to be aware of an instance where a team has a series of injuries for example. This could lead to a lost year which doesnt count against a GM if they fail to meet team goals. seems a little harsh if a team cant field a winner in a certain amount of time...kinda dampers what you can do in some aspects...lets say your in the last year and you have to win to not get fired, you have to frantically make moves to win? i like parts of this but needs some work.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 4, 2007 1:50:45 GMT -5
teams have to start being held accountable for numerous losing seasons
i like the minimum amount of wins in 5 seasons...it still gives teams the opportunity to tank for a few years, but they need to field a winning team or they're gone...that's real incentive to win, staying in the league
|
|
|
Post by djmyte on Mar 4, 2007 1:51:46 GMT -5
Prior to the beginning of every season, have each team post their Team Goal for the year. Options - Championship contender, Playoff contender(could combine with the previous and only have 2 total), Rebuilding. Then, for Rebuilding clubs, implement a time limit on the length of the rebuild... for example, a standard of 3 seasons. If at the end of the 4th year the team is still lotto, the GM gets fired for failing to rebuild in a reasonable amount of time(becomes an assistant, and is placed at the top of the future GM list). If a "Playoff team" fails to make the playoffs for a predetermined number of seasons, the GM is fired for not producing positive results. So, basically it's monitored by wins and the incentive is to remain in the league. Of course, you have to be aware of an instance where a team has a series of injuries for example. This could lead to a lost year which doesnt count against a GM if they fail to meet team goals. seems a little harsh if a team cant field a winner in a certain amount of time...kinda dampers what you can do in some aspects...lets say your in the last year and you have to win to not get fired, you have to frantically make moves to win? i like parts of this but needs some work. Well in real life, its about wins/losses. This would prevent people from trading away good veteran players for young guys or draft picks just because they have a thing for young guys, draft picks... because Wins become important. 3-4 seasons should be enough time to field a playoff type team. This would provide greater motivation to improve since your job as a GM is on the line. The only thing giving RC's away does is make good teams better.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Mar 4, 2007 1:57:46 GMT -5
seems a little harsh if a team cant field a winner in a certain amount of time...kinda dampers what you can do in some aspects...lets say your in the last year and you have to win to not get fired, you have to frantically make moves to win? i like parts of this but needs some work. Well in real life, its about wins/losses. This would prevent people from trading away good veteran players for young guys or draft picks just because they have a thing for young guys, draft picks... because Wins become important. 3-4 seasons should be enough time to field a playoff type team. This would provide greater motivation to improve since your job as a GM is on the line. The only thing giving RC's away does is make good teams better. maybe after 5 seasons, and in year 6, no playoffs, guy is out? i think that works, thats plenty of time. If a GM cant do that, they shouldnt be in the league.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 4, 2007 1:57:47 GMT -5
DJ i think you have good intentions. i really think that even though BBS is awsome and all that it can be taken "too" seriously at times. gm's should have to really earn the honor of being fired imo. it's cool to have expectations of people but i hope it doesn't get out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Mar 4, 2007 1:58:41 GMT -5
DJ i think you have good intentions. i really think that even though BBS is awsome and all that it can be taken "too" seriously at times. gm's should have to really earn the honor of being fired imo. it's cool to have expectations of people but i hope it doesn't get out of hand. DUCE YOU'RE FIRED!
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 4, 2007 1:59:04 GMT -5
This shold be interesting...lol According to rosters and traded future picks thread the Pistons next two picks are Sea 05 1st and Pistons 09 1st. Both the Suns and the Bucks own the Pistons 07 1st as well. The next 1st that philly owns is in 2013. Ill have to fix that 07 pick. Yuck. Fixed it. The DET 07 went to PHX in the CWedd deal, then to me for Jon Bender. I dealt it to MIL.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Mar 4, 2007 1:59:16 GMT -5
of course im kidding duce
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 4, 2007 2:00:29 GMT -5
teams have to start being held accountable for numerous losing seasons i like the minimum amount of wins in 5 seasons...it still gives teams the opportunity to tank for a few years, but they need to field a winning team or they're gone...that's real incentive to win, staying in the league An average of 35 wins a season might be a little steep. The average team will win 41 games a season. Lets see if a team is rebuilding and year one they are 15-67They then make a nice little step year two and go 26-56 The next year they take another step forward and go 34-48 year 3. Now they start to develope more and in year 4 they go 45-37 and make the playoffs. Then comes year 5 and they make a little more progress, in year 5 they go 51-31 to win their division. 15, 26,34,45,51 That 171 total wins and they would get fired.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 4, 2007 2:01:25 GMT -5
teams have to start being held accountable for numerous losing seasons i like the minimum amount of wins in 5 seasons...it still gives teams the opportunity to tank for a few years, but they need to field a winning team or they're gone...that's real incentive to win, staying in the league An average of 35 wins a season might be a little steep. The average team will win 41 games a season. Lets see if a team is rebuilding and year one they are 15-67They then make a nice little step year two and go 26-56 The next year they take another step forward and go 34-48 year 3. Now they start to develope more and in year 4 they go 45-37 and make the playoffs. Then comes year 5 and they make a little more progress, in year 5 they go 51-31 to win their division. 15, 26,34,45,51 That 171 total wins and they would get fired. definitely right...i thought about it after i posted. i think 30 is more in line with this concept, especially since gms will be on the line if a team can't average more than 30 wins in 5 years, something is obviously wrong
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 4, 2007 2:02:37 GMT -5
DJ i think you have good intentions. i really think that even though BBS is awsome and all that it can be taken "too" seriously at times. gm's should have to really earn the honor of being fired imo. it's cool to have expectations of people but i hope it doesn't get out of hand. DUCE YOU'RE FIRED! haha true that.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Mar 4, 2007 2:03:43 GMT -5
True...Crap does happen though. Maybe they have to have either 150 total wins or make the playoffs at least once.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Mar 4, 2007 13:16:21 GMT -5
Read through everything, these are my thoughts.
Yes, we should definently implement something that forces teams to win or get fired. Yes, the Hard Cap rules should stay in place. Yes, teams should get rewarded for winning.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by manasrai on Mar 4, 2007 14:35:32 GMT -5
Read through everything, these are my thoughts.
I agree with Chris.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 4, 2007 14:47:22 GMT -5
Definitely gonna need to come out with some kind of replacement program for teams that continuously lose. Didnt want to have to do this, but it seems like the tanking in this league has become a major problem and for some reason winning isnt a top priority for everyone. Ill develop something today, and probably need to hire someone to help me enforce it.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 4, 2007 15:18:32 GMT -5
if a team is top 7 or something in the lottery for x amount of years in a row, they just forfeit their draft pick. plain and simple. only flaw is it won't stop immediate tanking. but the major positive is you can't get more than a couple stars out of the draft.
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Mar 4, 2007 15:20:57 GMT -5
top 5 for 2 years, the 3rd year if they're top 5 they forfeit top 7 for 3 years, the 4th year if they're top 7 they forfeit top 10 for 4 years, they forfeit picks for the next 2 drafts. top 13 for 5 years, they forfeit picks for the next 3 drafts.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 4, 2007 15:22:10 GMT -5
top 5 for 2 years, the 3rd year if they're top 5 they forfeit top 7 for 3 years, the 4th year if they're top 7 they forfeit top 10 for 4 years, they forfeit picks for the next 2 drafts. top 13 for 5 years, they forfeit picks for the next 3 drafts. I think some kind of replacement system is more attractive to me.
|
|
|
Post by cjmjones008 on Mar 4, 2007 15:49:00 GMT -5
I don't like the pick forfeit idea.
People getting fired for losing every year should happen. I don't really like either plan (average of 30 wins or playoffs). I think it would be hard to not average 30 wins unless you are complete idiot (basing this partly on the fact that tanking teams won 20 games this year... one 40 win season to get back on pace for 30). Saying you have to make playoff once in five years sounds a little to easy as well. I don't see anyone getting fired from this either way... if we want teams to just win enough this will work but you don't have to be very successful to keep your job in either proposed way.
I think proposed hard cap is a little harsh but I don't have a problem with that. I think there need to be some penalties for being over the cap but not over the hard cap because if there aren't teams will be adding talent to easily through picks.
The rule proposed of you can't sign anyone in FA that will put you over hard cap didn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't think anyone would sign a player that would allow them to go over the hard cap unless they have another deal worked out to get back under right away. I'm guessing if they do it should be allowed
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Mar 4, 2007 15:58:03 GMT -5
top 5 for 2 years, the 3rd year if they're top 5 they forfeit top 7 for 3 years, the 4th year if they're top 7 they forfeit top 10 for 4 years, they forfeit picks for the next 2 drafts. top 13 for 5 years, they forfeit picks for the next 3 drafts. I think some kind of replacement system is more attractive to me. yes, has to be replacement...that's the only real incentive to try and win
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 4, 2007 16:02:51 GMT -5
I think we should have the hard cap rules in place, and if teams go over multiple times they should be penalized for that harsher each time they keep going over. though i have no idea what system we could use, im just putting that out there.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Mar 4, 2007 16:03:13 GMT -5
i'll go with whatever but i would think not having a draft pick would be the best incentive to force people to attempt to win. just my view. i'm glad at least something is being done about it though just because it adds to the overall realism to the league.
|
|