MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Tuesday, August 14th, 2018 - 06:09:05 PM (gmt)
 
ball MSWL UNITED ① - Landing
 
Home Auctions Blog Forum History Login Rules Scores Stats Tables Teams
 
Coaches Directory Donate Guest Rankings Schedule Updates Waitlist Wall
 

Join
MSWL
UNITED!

Recent Entries

Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Mike Parnaby
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Tim Batth
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Dave Dohm
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Hayes
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
19 Comments
Brian Beerman
20 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Andy Bate
1 Comment
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
21 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Graham Wilkes
1 Comment
Jose Freitas
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
10 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Rob Baptiste
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Graham Wilkes
6 Comments
Graham Wilkes
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rob Peterson
5 Comments
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
John Holden
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
19 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Rob Baptiste
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Rob Baptiste
5 Comments
Mark Stretch
5 Comments
Jake Hanny
1 Comment
Andy Bate
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Graham Wilkes
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
David Blair
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
12 Comments
Brian Beerman
5 Comments
David Blair
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
18 Comments
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Mark Stretch
17 Comments
John Holden
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Peterson
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Allan Sellers
30 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
15 Comments
Andy Bate
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Mike Cabral
4 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
26 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Kevin Martin
6 Comments
Dave Dohm
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
14 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
John Holden
4 Comments
Mike Cabral
9 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Simon Compton
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Abe Hamdali
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
6 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
20 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Andy Bate
7 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Lewis
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Simon Compton
4 Comments
Kevin Martin
12 Comments
Simon Compton
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rene Wilkens
5 Comments
Trevor Taylor
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
17 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Trevor Taylor
7 Comments
Trevor Taylor
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
27 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Dan Fitzgerald
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Alon Atie
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Rob Peterson
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
 
Rules Proposal: Apprentices, SL, and QNL
Posted by Allan Sellers on Wednesday, Jul. 25th, 2012 at 7:59 PM

 

Hi guys,

See the thread below for the initial discussion on this topic:

http://www.olmec.org/mswl-united/forum_topic.php?topic_id=151

The proposal is this:

At the end of each season, if a player is an APP who has a QNL of 1, 2, or 3 (no matter the SL) the player has a chance (25% x QNL) to be raised to the next SL to start the following season 1 SL higher.  For example an APP 8 QNL 1 has a 25% chance of being an Age I SL 9 the following season.  Likewise an APP 9 QNL 3 has a 75% chance of being an Age I SL 10 to start the following season.

The poll is simple.  Should we incorporate this change?

If you are on the fence either vote or don't vote but please leave comments.   

Thanks,

Al

Readers Comments

Why the 'No' vote, Dave?

Rob Baptiste on Thursday, Jul. 26th, 2012 at 1:06 AM
 

 

Anything that encourages managers to use and develop sby/app on their team is a good thing in my opinion.

Bill Bushby on Thursday, Jul. 26th, 2012 at 2:31 AM
 

I'm voting "no" because this fringes upon my 'fairness' alarm.  Imagine the following two scenarios:

1) Team A faithfully trains up their Sbys & Apps for two seasons, only to have injuries derail the program for two players in the last 2 or 3 sessions of their App season.  They finish at SL 9, QNL 3.  Neither one makes the odds and both start at age I, SL 9 the following year.  Team B has two Apps at SL 9, QNL 1 heading into session 9.  Manager deliberately chooses not to play them for the last two sessions in order to put out a stronger lineup and push for league wins or a Cup trophy.  Both players beat the odds and start at SL 10 the following season.  If I were team A, I'd be rather unhappy with that outcome, the impact of which will carry over for at least the next three seasons with regard to the teams' respective T11 strengths.

2) Last session.  Perhaps a promotion/relegation spot on the line.  Both managers have an App at Gk that needs playing time, sitting at RSD 4, QNL 2 otherwise so they have to play at least one match this session.  Team A plays the App Gk to get the last QNL.  Team B risks it and plays the top Gk.  Gk makes the difference in the match, and Team B wins.  They get the 10 CP for the win, advance or survive over Team A on the tables, and then get the same SL 10 player anyway when luck goes their way.  Maybe they are Sweepers instead of Goalkeepers, or Forwards where the extra 5-7 shots the vet generated made the difference.  In any case, the responsible manager ends up being punished while the manager that "gambled" gets no negative consequences at all.

In short, it creates a system where managers who are pushing hard to "win now" potentially face no repercussions and also get to "win later" at no penalty - or with bonuses since they get extra SL on the field for the "win now" matches that lead to more CP or award cash for the team to use in the future.  If a team is going to risk the future for the sake of winning now, there needs to be a penalty attached that counter-balances that push.  Otherwise, the team that gets luckiest in getting their SL 9, QNL 1 players to all go up to SL 10 the next season starts to gain a significant competitive advantage over the unlucky teams (striking out at SL 9, QNL 3) and those teams that faithfully fully train up the Apps at the cost of putting out less SL for at least 3 matches more than the gamblers.

While not specifically addressed in the proposal, it does say "regardless of SL" which opens the possibility of an SL 10 player going up to SL 11 if they finished at SL 10, QNL 1 (which is possible).  I am definitely not in favor of some teams getting SL 11 players solely determined by luck.  At Gk or even Sw, those can be game-changing players with slightly boosted odds on every scoring chance faced for up to 4 full seasons, potentially leading to large team impact.  There needs to be a significant upfront cost (1200k+ at auction typically) to balance that possible future gain.  If just luck determines it, there is no cost and all profit looming for some teams to upset the competitive balance apple cart.

Kevin Martin on Thursday, Jul. 26th, 2012 at 12:04 PM
 

I am sure that I do not understand the question.  But I do understand that the majority of us who find ourselves short of SL/QNL do not do so out of ignorance or misfeasance.  It happens because, as luck would have it, our SBY or APP ran into a red card or injury somewhere in the course of their development.  It seems like this "good luck" is a bit of relief from the "bad luck" scattered throughout the game.....

Phil McIntosh on Saturday, Jul. 28th, 2012 at 1:09 AM
 

Great summary post from Kevin there, count my in for a "no" vote for all the reasons he gave.

Ian Lindsay on Saturday, Jul. 28th, 2012 at 12:25 PM
 

Kevin's argument has swayed me - wish I could change my vote at this time.

Rob Peterson on Thursday, Aug. 2nd, 2012 at 11:49 AM
 

Point to self: Always wait to read Kevin's thoughts before voting.  

Brian Beerman on Friday, Aug. 3rd, 2012 at 3:06 AM
 

Kevin summarized my thoughts exactly, hence my NO vote. I feel that the SBY/APP program helps level the playing field somehwat and I think if you institute this rule you will create that much more disparity by allowing the top SL teams the opportunity to forgo playing the youth and potentially get away with it.

Dave Dohm on Saturday, Aug. 4th, 2012 at 12:03 PM
 

I disagree that the responsible manager is punished.  Sure, a "gambling" manager might make out but nothing technically changes for the responsible manager's team.  [I do not think there is going to be a mass migration to withholding youth players, especially not by the high SL teams.] Gamblers may very well have an advantage by choosing to withhold youth players from their lineups however it seems as though some are not trusting the random number generators.  What about the possibility of "not getting away with it"?  They are in essence deciding to leave something to chance that they can already control on their own (sans injuries).  My vote was "yes" even though I do agree with Kevin's assessment about there being no penalty (I'm reading that as 'no offsetting consequence').  
What might be able to be done, since the vote would be currently 10-6 even with two changing their votes to 'No', is that it only applies to teams with lower youth SLs rather than the ANY.  This could take care of those who were a victim of bad luck (or a victim of Bristol or Southend) to recoup some youth SL.  Maybe only 1 player per team "enters the SL increase lottery"?  Or just teams with low overall SL?

Rob Baptiste on Tuesday, Aug. 7th, 2012 at 2:01 AM
 

I voted YES but with the result that someone who plays a SBY/APP every session will have an extra QNL - I do not want this player to start as a I/11.

If you have a SL of 9 or less I like the idea.

John Holden on Thursday, Aug. 30th, 2012 at 7:32 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions