MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Wednesday, December 19th, 2018 - 12:25:24 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
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
 
Poll: Does the BRB Length of Service Need a Tweak?
Posted by Allan Sellers on Sunday, May. 16th, 2010 at 11:30 PM

It seems like Backroom Boys are becoming more prevalent.  I won't say they are 'completely easy' to get, but we seem to have a glut of them.

Should we (in a future season) modify the Backroom Boy length of service from two seasons to one season to add more value back into this category?

Readers Comments

No, I do not like the idea of reducing their service to one year.


If there appears to be a surplus of BRB's in the league, then perhaps a rules change is a better option: no longer include BRB's in any auctions.  Maybe only include a couple in the pre-season auction.  Just a thought.

Brian Beerman on Monday, May. 17th, 2010 at 3:21 AM
 

No, I agree with Brian although he has not voted per say?

I would suggest a reduction in the amount offered via auctions.


 

Simon Compton on Monday, May. 17th, 2010 at 7:59 AM
 

In order to never have to buy any BRB, ever, under the current system you have to bring up 3 players per season along the SL track.  For example, you bring up 5 Apps to SL 10 one season, who then get to SL 15 the following season at age I, and finally reach SL 14+ as age II players.  That's all it takes.  Once a player hits age II, SL 14+ they will become a BRB in their future unless sold off or traded away (age II, SL 14 becomes a III/11, then IV/7, then V/2 and BRB fodder).  If you are following the pattern of bringing up 4 players per season due to needing 8 youth (4 Sbys/4 Apps), then you can ignore or trade off a player each season and two players every other season and still never have to buy a BRB.

In other words, within four seasons (if teams are managed appropriately) then no team should ever have to buy BRBs at auction.  There will be plenty of internal players aging up, or else a surplus of them being sold by other teams for far cheaper than auction prices (going for 150k or so instead of 250+).

If we want to make BRBs something other than a 'gimme' in the league for every team to have a full component of them if desired, then some change must be made.  Al's suggestion of having just one season of service would be one way.  Most teams could have 3-4 internal and rarely a 5th.  In that event I just see the the Groundskeeper going away entirely as 2 area points in just 9 guaranteed games is worth far, far less than a Youth Coach who can keep a Sby Gk from ever having to actually face a shot, or keeps an injured Apprentice on the max SL track.

Another alternative would be to cut down on the internally generated players by upping the required SL to make your own, or the age needed.

If you upped the needed SL from just being alive (age V, SL 2) to Age V, SL 5, then a player would have to be at least Age III, SL 14+ in order to be ensured to age down to BRB material.  That's a full season of max attention more than currently required, and means a player was T11 material for three seasons instead of just two.  That's harder to maintain.

Or you could up the age from V to VI to make your own.  That would require a player to be age V, SL 8+, which translates to age IV, SL 13+.  That means precious few auction-only players who can peak at age III, SL 17 would be able to coast out to BRB status, while the rest of us would have to invest at least one more SL into a once-max age III, SL 16 player at some point as an age IV or V player in order to get him past age V post-season aging.  While there are a considerable number of age II, SL 16 players in the league each season, that drops off sharply as the age III players typically get less max effort because it starts fading immediately after the current season.

Either change (up the SL to 5 or up the required age to VI) would bring about what I think to be around a 50% reduction in BRBs created internally.  That would greatly increase the auction interest and subsequent bids.

Kevin Martin on Monday, May. 17th, 2010 at 4:54 PM
 

I know I post too long, so I'll keep this one short.

There is a downside to making any such changes.  The best teams in the league currently are the ones with multiple high-SL age II and III players.  Those are the teams that will be able to bring about 3 to 4 BRBs each season from their own rosters.  So those teams won't have to spend any money on BRBs at auction, which leaves more money to continue to buy the highest SL players and the cycle continues.

Right now, any team can realistically be self-sustaining on BRBs within 3 seasons.  This helps all teams equally in terms of support with regard to youth, CPs and injuries.  If we make any changes (1 season only, higher SL, older age) then the teams capable of making more BRBs will be the teams that are already better off in the league.  The rest of them will only be able to bring up one to two BRBs at most, so they will either be at a significant disadvantage in terms of cash allocation or support players (youth coach especially) while trying to overtake the top teams.  If we're OK with the notion of a 3-tiered league with little movement in the top 6 teams overall, then changes here are fine.  If we like the idea of any team being able to compete for a title within 3-4 seasons, then keeping the 2 season term of duty makes more sense to me.

Kevin Martin on Monday, May. 17th, 2010 at 5:00 PM
 

Final thought for now, I promise.

Also for considering: if a BRB is going to go away at the end of the season, why would I ever want to pay full price for the BRB in an auction from session 5 on?  You pay the same as in the pre-season auctions, for half the use?  A youth coach could be worth it.  I might, might, consider doing that for a Coach.  No way ever for groundskeeper, and likely the same for a Physio.  From session 5 on, the only ones bidding on BRBs at auction will be teams with tons of cash to burn (i.e. the teams already on top) or the managers that really shouldn't be bidding on a role player when they have more important holes to fill yet haven't figured that out yet...

Kevin Martin on Monday, May. 17th, 2010 at 5:08 PM
 

when I started out I could just about manage to get 3 BRBs then as Kevin said 2-3 seasons in you can get all 5 BRBs, but I still needed to purchase players/BRBs from other teams at discount prices. (I could have got them in Auctions as they go for about the same price but I save £$50 on the sale) so I'm content with the current system.

So is the argument about making it more of a challenge/competitive? If so make it even harder to challenge those teams with more resources to use them better - up the price to £$500 per BRB and go with the one season useage as well - it'll make it a lot harder for teams with less resources, but the Olmec leagues are designed to mimic reality.  

Roy Rolsten on Monday, May. 17th, 2010 at 10:04 PM
 

Somewhere in Kevin's voluminous article, he notes the possibility that such change(s) could result in little movement amongst the top 20% of the [D1] teams.  I cannot speak for anyone else, but I do not imagine anyone in this league would be comfortable with that set up.

One of the aspects of this game I have found most enjoyable is the ability to legitimately compete against better teams, depending on the circumstances.  I am sure Alon enjoys being the king of the mountain and answering only to Olmec Head (on occasion), but I bet a month's salary he would be bored with this game if he regularly had little compeition and continued to be #1 for the next five to six seasons.

I think the BRB system should allow for all teams to be able to realistically have five per season, though it should not be a "gimmie" by any means.  Perhaps there is a happy medium between the current parameters (i.e. V/SL2) and the one suggested by Dr Martin (i.e. V/SL5).  Maybe V/SL3 or SL4?

Brian Beerman on Wednesday, May. 19th, 2010 at 9:56 AM
 

I was going to write something here but Kevin Martins post has sent me to sleep

Dave Dowson on Wednesday, May. 19th, 2010 at 9:59 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions