MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Wednesday, October 17th, 2018 - 01:44:20 AM (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
4 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
 
Team Reset
Posted by Allan Sellers on Wednesday, Nov. 25th, 2009 at 1:11 AM

All,

Once a team falls to a certain threshold...do we need a 'template' ready for a team to get 'new players' if it looks like it could be many seasons before a team can compete in the 3rd division?  Just talking out loud...

Al 

Readers Comments

Looking at the Carlisle roster I would say YES definitely!

Dave Dowson on Wednesday, Nov. 25th, 2009 at 2:15 AM
 

I don't necessarily think so... Taking the Carlisle team as an example as Dave brought up, If Derek were to break the bank on the pre-season roster an go with a full-court press on SBYs this season, there's no reason to think that Carlisle wouldn't be in a position to fight for promotion after just 2 seasons.

The team has almost 2000k in the bank. So there's no reason to think that some of the lesser SL Age I/II players couldn't be acquired, which would be an instant boost for the team. The trick there would be not to break the back on just 1 superstar, because that's not going to cut it. The team would need 4-5 players to spread around the various positions. 

From the management standpoint, the manager would need to pick just a couple players to concentrate on from each position, and pump them full of CP. Since CP will be very few and far between as the team rebuilds, concentrating on just a couple players to build them up as much as possible would be ideal. It also may be that the team needs to forgo having a full compliment of BBs for a couple seasons. Have a Coach and a Youth Coach, but perhaps that's it. 

Basically, I don't think that any team in MSWL United is ever more than 2, 3 seasons tops, from competing for a title. That's my .02.

Rob Peterson on Thursday, Nov. 26th, 2009 at 6:30 AM
 

The only time I can see a re-set being worthy is when a team has been completely "let go" by an absent manager.  If we are good about watching for absentee behavior, we should be able to avoid re-sets, I would think. 

New managers also seem more than willing to take on the challenge of a neglected team (I bet MarkC will have WES competitive in no time), so that's further argument for quick action on absentee behavior and getting the team to new manager, if necc, in lieu of a re-set.

C-Ball

Mike Cabral on Thursday, Nov. 26th, 2009 at 7:14 PM
 

No - I'm with Rob on this one. 

Dan Fitzgerald on Thursday, Nov. 26th, 2009 at 10:13 PM
 
In this league, severe neglect can have a very negative impact with regard to the number of available position players. If a team does not bring up enough youth players over the course of two seasons, then the old players will age out and no one will be there to replace them.

Even if you sign a full 6 Sbys, they can only play in one match each per session. Apprentices can handle more spots (2 each). In a three-game session, a team needs 33 available slots. Between Apps and Sbys, that's a max of 18.

So that leaves a team needing 15 spots out of the rest of the roster. Depending on where the youth are clustered, you may need up to 8 or 9 players to fill those 15 holes without suffering out-of-position penalties. While a minimum of 5 are theoretically needed, 8 is more realistic and can also account for suspensions and/or injuries.

So what happens when a team has three straight years of just getting one or two players to SL 5 to survive the aging from App to age I? It is very possible that a team will not have enough players to fill out roster spots. A team will lose 3-4 players each season due to aging. If they've only brought up 2 to replace those, suddenly we're faced with the real prospect of a team that has to spend 60-70 CP just to keep their players above the mandatory retirement at aging (SL 2 post-aging minimum). And even that would be just a one-season patch leaving them in worse condition next year. That leaves next to nothing left of CP for team development of the few young players as this roster is also likely losing every single match and getting nothing from bonus CP.

This could create a cycle of 'survival mode' that would take three+ seasons to get out of. If I'm losing every match, do I want to commit my recreation time for the next year to guaranteed losses? That's how we lose managers or at least get them disinterested enough that they never post on the blogs/forums/etc. and give us a few NMR sessions each year which only makes the lack of team development worse.

If a team is staring this worst-case scenario straight in the face, where is the harm in allowing the commish to do a roster reset? It's not like Al would give them a roster full of SL 10-13 players and upset the entire 3rd Division balance. Providing a manager a fresh start with some players who can actually survive aging (age I-III, SL 6-8) and three or four Apps with a prayer of usefulness in the coming years (Age App, SL 4, maybe one or two at SL 5) wouldn't allow a team to win many matches anyway. What it would do is guarantee that the Commish won't have to step in at mid-season and dictate roster lineups and CP decisions to a manager just so a team can field 11 players next season.

Final consideration for this 'mercy reset' from me:
Based on current T11 players, some teams have less than a 1% probability of winning, even against other 3rd Division teams. Their Gk would have to stop every shot and the other team gives up a PK goal. That's the reality of what we could be looking at, and indeed we are with at least one team this season. In any game, I believe we should care more about the opponent than about personal victory and display even self-harming sportsmanship, especially in an imaginary league where many of us call each other friends. I really see this as a drastic measure that may only come up once every four to five seasons if we're doing at least a decent job of helping our fellow managers understand the game better. Even after a reset, a manager will still have to build a good squad and develop youth or they won't go anywhere. It'll just give them a hope of some draws for the first two seasons and add intrigue with some upsets along the way. For the sake of giving someone else a little more 'fun' in their life instead of making them suffer through three losing seasons, I'm in favor of a reset limit if the Commish believes it is necessary for continued team operation or a more balanced league where HOW we play still matters more than WHO we lucked into on the schedule.

P.S. This would also give Al an out if Ian threatens to win the league. He can just do an 'Oops' and click the reset for PNE so they start over in Div 3. Then accidentally also delete the backup database 'while trying to restore it' and refer to the "no replays" rule for all complaints.

Kevin Martin on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 8:48 PM
 

I'd be in favor of creating an "expansion team" at the commissioner's discretion, if that makes sense - for instance, a neglected team is expunged from the league and a non-league team is "voted on" to take their place.

John Holden on Tuesday, Dec. 1st, 2009 at 7:55 PM
 

 

For the "worst-case" scenario like Kevin describes, I say yes to an emergency reset. In such a case, I would recommend that the team be retired from the game and a new, expansion team be brought in like John describes. This way, the historic records are all intact.

The next question becomes, what makes up an expansion team? Something like this perhaps?

  • 2 GK
  • 1 SW
  • 7 DF
  • 7 MF
  • 6 FW

That's a total of 23 players. Seems like a good "starter kit" to me. What about Age & SL distribution? Options include offering a set group of Age/SL that the manager can spread out as he sees fit, or alternatively, coming up with a set list of Age/SL that we agree is 'fair and reasonable' and not allow the manager to have any say in how the players are spread out. I advocate for the former, but the latter would place less work on the commissioner as it could be automated.

Here's what I see as a 'fair' set of Ages/SLs for the 23 players:

Age SL SL SL SL
SBY 2 2 2
APP 4 4 4
I 8 8 7 7
II 12 12 11 11
III 15 13 13
IV 10 9 9
V 9 8 8

A quick glance seems that this expansion team may be a bit too strong...

Rob Peterson on Wednesday, Dec. 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 AM
 

A counter-proposal for Rob's expansion team listing which could easily win the 3rd division and possibly the 2nd the following year... ;-)

22 players:

4 Apps: 5, 4, 4, 3

4 Age I: 9, 8,7,6

4 Age II: 10,9,8,5

4 Age III: 10,8,7,5

3 Age IV: 8,7,4

3 Age V: 6,4,2

1 BRB: Age I Youth Coach

My reasoning for the ages and SL's:

22 players leaves it open for a manager to pick their own Schoolboys, and at whatever positions they prefer.  You could also sign the 2 unused Apps and play them up for an "all youth" approach if desired, which would be 30 players.  You have just one player on the whole roster who is at max potential (the SL 5 Apprentice).  Everyone else is at least 1 SL off, notably the next 2 Apps and the best Age I player.  All those are worth keeping and developing as they stand.  Most of the T11 are 2-3 SL off peak levels.  The top two Age II and best Age III could be CP'd up to build a core of younger guys around very easily, without being an instant one-year transformation to league power.  This means that an expansion team will not be able to compete with a strong existing T11 club in the first season, as it should be.  On the flip side, having a core group within reaching distance of established teams gives the reset club opportunity for a few wins along with several draws as the season progresses.  The 2-3 players worth saving can be coached up while the youth develop.  The team has an asset or two to trade or sell if needed, and has some players that could be turned to a BRB as well.  This team can easily survive as a mid-table club for a season and possibly challenge for promotion the following year.

Mostly, my team makeup is based on the average T11 and T16 ratings for the 3rd division this season.  I took the T11 and T16 for the 3rd Division, threw out the highest and lowest of each, and averaged the remaining 8 teams.  The average to start this year (Season 4) were:  T11: 8.27 and T16: 7.34.

My proposed team above has a T11 of 8.27 exactly and a T16 of 7.37.

I think it has balance in terms of young to old and enough depth to cover each position to a 3rd Division standard of one decent (SL 8+) Gk, one Sw, and 2 each at Df, Mf, Fw.  SL 7's as #3 guys at each slot if wanted, or anyone could shift things around to a Fw-heavy team, or deep-Df club for more draws, or Mf-heavy OST play.  At the same time, this team can easily be overpowered as they will also have to be playing youth players to keep development going.  If neglected, this team will dissolve in two seasons to needing to be reset again.  That will force a manager to think long-term and start developing appropriately.

Any thoughts or suggestions to make it better?

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 1:48 AM
 

Here's the thing - I like Kev's outline, but -

I took over at Vale because I thought it would allow me to best learn how to manage in MSWL-United after my horrendous stint at Brighton, and it has - I think I'm an okay MSWLU manager now, certainly better than in SESL or ODFL.

The thing is, done correctly, you can have a competitive team in only a season and a half. You'll still be in the 3rd division, but that's fine. If an expansion team happens, they shouldn't be competing for promotion in their first year.

The trick is the youth investment - what got Vale up and running so quickly is that the previous manager didn't invest in youth at all, so I could play 6 SBYs and 6 crappy APPs every session and get 13 points in the league (oddly, good enough for 7th).

If a team is so bad a reset is needed, all you have to do is give them the gift of youth - the commissioner can appoint them several APP/2 schoolboys at the start of the next season. The trick is then developing the youth to the best of their ability - even the crappy apprentices, because they will make up the backup players for Season 2. They'll be out of the game faster, but on a long-term scale - and they can help you generate CPs and fill bodies you need after that first season, where CPs are literally just a bonus. With a couple good auction buys, the 6 SBYs should be level 9 going in to the third season and as they progress given their high EL level you will have 6-8 players with an in-game SL over 10 each game toward the end of your second season - not awesome, but still pretty good.

John Holden on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 10:11 AM
 

In my mind, the "reset button" is less about getting a team competitive again than it is about making sure that a team is capable of filling out a full roster sheet for a three-game session with at least one or two players built in for buffer room in case of injury/severe suspensions.  The outline I threw out can easily be dropped to a lower power by taking each SL down 1 from everybody age I and older.  That would still allow a team to have 14 players to survive aging (if the Apps get to at least SL 5) and have one age IV pass off-season muster to become a BRB next season.  That's plenty to fill out roster spots until the youth get older.  As long as at least 5 Sbys are brought up, this team can survive and has the potential to build back into competitive shape.

If you drop the SL 2 each though, you'd lose another player and the BRB without sinking CP into them the first year.  You'd also drop the T11 to below non-league team levels and leave this squad

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 6:20 PM
 

In my mind, the "reset button" is less about getting a team competitive again than it is about making sure that a team is capable of filling out a full roster sheet for a three-game session with at least one or two players built in for buffer room in case of injury/severe suspensions.  The outline I threw out can easily be dropped to a lower power by taking each SL down 1 from everybody age I and older.  That would still allow a team to have 14 players to survive aging (if the Apps get to at least SL 5) and have one age IV pass off-season muster to become a BRB next season.  That's plenty to fill out roster spots until the youth get older.  As long as at least 5 Sbys are brought up, this team can survive and has the potential to build back into competitive shape.

If you drop the SL 2 each though, you'd lose another player and the BRB without sinking CP into them the first year.  You'd also drop the T11 to below non-league team levels and leave this squad with

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 6:20 PM
 

In my mind, the "reset button" is less about getting a team competitive again than it is about making sure that a team is capable of filling out a full roster sheet for a three-game session with at least one or two players built in for buffer room in case of injury/severe suspensions.  The outline I threw out can easily be dropped to a lower power by taking each SL down 1 from everybody age I and older.  That would still allow a team to have 14 players to survive aging (if the Apps get to at least SL 5) and have one age IV pass off-season muster to become a BRB next season.  That's plenty to fill out roster spots until the youth get older.  As long as at least 5 Sbys are brought up, this team can survive and has the potential to build back into competitive shape.

If you drop the SL 2 each though, you'd lose another player and the BRB without sinking CP into them the first year.  You'd also drop the T11 to below non-league team levels and leave this squad with almost

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 6:20 PM
 

In my mind, the "reset button" is less about getting a team competitive again than it is about making sure that a team is capable of filling out a full roster sheet for a three-game session with at least one or two players built in for buffer room in case of injury/severe suspensions.  The outline I threw out can easily be dropped to a lower power by taking each SL down 1 from everybody age I and older.  That would still allow a team to have 14 players to survive aging (if the Apps get to at least SL 5) and have one age IV pass off-season muster to become a BRB next season.  That's plenty to fill out roster spots until the youth get older.  As long as at least 5 Sbys are brought up, this team can survive and has the potential to build back into competitive shape.

If you drop the SL 2 each though, you'd lose another player and the BRB without sinking CP into them the first year.  You'd also drop the T11 to below non-league team levels and leave this squad with almost no

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 6:20 PM
 

In my mind, the "reset button" is less about getting a team competitive again than it is about making sure that a team is capable of filling out a full roster sheet for a three-game session with at least one or two players built in for buffer room in case of injury/severe suspensions.  The outline I threw out can easily be dropped to a lower power by taking each SL down 1 from everybody age I and older.  That would still allow a team to have 14 players to survive aging (if the Apps get to at least SL 5) and have one age IV pass off-season muster to become a BRB next season.  That's plenty to fill out roster spots until the youth get older.  As long as at least 5 Sbys are brought up, this team can survive and has the potential to build back into competitive shape.

If you drop the SL 2 each though, you'd lose another player and the BRB without sinking CP into them the first year.  You'd also drop the T11 to below non-league team levels and leave this squad with almost no chance

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 6:20 PM
 

In my mind, the "reset button" is less about getting a team competitive again than it is about making sure that a team is capable of filling out a full roster sheet for a three-game session with at least one or two players built in for buffer room in case of injury/severe suspensions.  The outline I threw out can easily be dropped to a lower power by taking each SL down 1 from everybody age I and older.  That would still allow a team to have 14 players to survive aging (if the Apps get to at least SL 5) and have one age IV pass off-season muster to become a BRB next season.  That's plenty to fill out roster spots until the youth get older.  As long as at least 5 Sbys are brought up, this team can survive and has the potential to build back into competitive shape.

If you drop the SL 2 each though, you'd lose another player and the BRB without sinking CP into them the first year.  You'd also drop the T11 to below non-league team levels and leave this squad with almost no chance of

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 6:20 PM
 

In my mind, the "reset button" is less about getting a team competitive again than it is about making sure that a team is capable of filling out a full roster sheet for a three-game session with at least one or two players built in for buffer room in case of injury/severe suspensions.  The outline I threw out can easily be dropped to a lower power by taking each SL down 1 from everybody age I and older.  That would still allow a team to have 14 players to survive aging (if the Apps get to at least SL 5) and have one age IV pass off-season muster to become a BRB next season.  That's plenty to fill out roster spots until the youth get older.  As long as at least 5 Sbys are brought up, this team can survive and has the potential to build back into competitive shape.

If you drop the SL 2 each though, you'd lose another player and the BRB without sinking CP into them the first year.  You'd also drop the T11 to below non-league team levels and leave this squad with almost no chance of victory in most matches.  That's not much fun for most people.

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 6:23 PM
 

Wow.  No idea what happened with the multiple postings there.  Hopefully Al can delete all of those except the last one.  Sorry.

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 29th, 2009 at 6:24 PM
 

Re-visit of possible age/SL numbers for a reset if it were to happen (voluntarily or forced):

21 players (w/o Sbys), No BRBs, 500k, 20 CP.

Apps, SL 5, 4, 4, 3 (2 at SL 2 could be added still if a manager wished)

Age I: 8, 7, 5, 5

Age II: 9, 8, 6, 4

Age III: 9, 7, 5, 3

Age IV: 7, 5, 3, 2

Age V: 4 (keep or convert to BRB at manager's discretion)

Sbys: none (6 available to be added at manager's discretion, same as all other teams)

That gives a T11 average of 6.82 and a T16 average of 6.13, both of which are just a bit over the non-league team levels.  Player value is 3400.  All three of those (t11, t16, PV) are within just a few percentage points of the averages for the weakest 5 teams in the league to start seasons 4 & 5.  So the 'expansion' or 'reset' team would be about the same as a non-league team in terms of strength and on track with the purely rebuilding teams in terms of development and potential.  Competitive with the bottom 5, fodder for the rest as the buidling project starts up.

I've given thoughts to starting over from scratch just for the fun of it.  We'll see how this season goes and may have to put ourselves in the Hot Seat (see different prior forum discussion) for next season if management is not happy...

Kevin Martin on Thursday, May. 27th, 2010 at 10:40 PM
 

I did it with Forest. One season of losing virtually every game then next season competing for the bottom division title.

Roy Rolsten on Friday, May. 28th, 2010 at 11:27 PM
 

My only question with Kevin's suggestion is that there are 2 players who are guaranteed to be auto-retired at the end of the first season. The IV/3 and IV/2 players have no chance, even with max coaching, of making it past the auto-retirement phase at the end of the season. 

Rob Peterson on Monday, May. 31st, 2010 at 8:43 PM
 

Yep.  One season fillers.  Being high enough to survive aging would make them a T11 player.  The idea is that the team is going youth heavy, so losing those two CP-earning slots won't hurt too much because you will be filling them with youth the next season.  Don't most expansion teams find an all-but washed up old vet or two that are just around the first year as the farm system finds some legs?

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Jun. 1st, 2010 at 5:43 PM
 

Just as long as that is an intended consequence, not an oversight.

Rob Peterson on Wednesday, Jun. 2nd, 2010 at 9:12 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions