Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2012 20:28:34 GMT -5
Spurs in the past has brought up a good idea, in that in leagues he has run in the past, he uses a d-league to work in with his main league.
My question is, should this be looked at for the future? Obviously finding people will be the toughest challenge, however, inactivity in a d-league is not as painful as it is in this league. It also gives managers like "blanks, mitch ect" the opportunity to come back next season through the league.
There's a number of ways to run the d-league that'll impact the main league.
Here's the format that I've come up with, feel free to debate it.
1. 8-10 teams (shorter league to increase chances of getting back into the main league, explained down below)
2. Smaller Roster, positions include: PG, G, SG, SF, PF, F, C, Utl, Utl, BNH, BNH
3. Same cats as this league (pts, reb, ast, 3pm, stl, blk, fg%, ft%, to)
4. Shorter Playoff system
5. Shorter Moves per year system
And here is the interesting part. In order to make things more competitive in the main league, the bottom two teams each season will be relegated to the d-league whilst the top 2 teams from the d-league will be promoted to the main league. This, increases competitiveness from the teams that decide to just "give up" toward the back end of the season after they know that their team is not going to compete for a title. What is worse than that of being relegated?
The other thing this system does is it gives us more options to bring up managers from the d-league if a manager goes MIA in the main league. Managers from the D-League obviously would be hand picked as care taker managers, and they can still fight with their own roster to get into the main league the season after.
What's peoples thoughts on this? Is it worth a trial? Recruitment will be held by yours truly, and it'll take a lengthy process to find the right people. Though, it could also introduce us to people who generally want to play here. I think of it as that you're bound to find "1 to 2 people" out of 10 or so competiting (or not competing) and that in itself is better than nothing.
My question is, should this be looked at for the future? Obviously finding people will be the toughest challenge, however, inactivity in a d-league is not as painful as it is in this league. It also gives managers like "blanks, mitch ect" the opportunity to come back next season through the league.
There's a number of ways to run the d-league that'll impact the main league.
Here's the format that I've come up with, feel free to debate it.
1. 8-10 teams (shorter league to increase chances of getting back into the main league, explained down below)
2. Smaller Roster, positions include: PG, G, SG, SF, PF, F, C, Utl, Utl, BNH, BNH
3. Same cats as this league (pts, reb, ast, 3pm, stl, blk, fg%, ft%, to)
4. Shorter Playoff system
5. Shorter Moves per year system
And here is the interesting part. In order to make things more competitive in the main league, the bottom two teams each season will be relegated to the d-league whilst the top 2 teams from the d-league will be promoted to the main league. This, increases competitiveness from the teams that decide to just "give up" toward the back end of the season after they know that their team is not going to compete for a title. What is worse than that of being relegated?
The other thing this system does is it gives us more options to bring up managers from the d-league if a manager goes MIA in the main league. Managers from the D-League obviously would be hand picked as care taker managers, and they can still fight with their own roster to get into the main league the season after.
What's peoples thoughts on this? Is it worth a trial? Recruitment will be held by yours truly, and it'll take a lengthy process to find the right people. Though, it could also introduce us to people who generally want to play here. I think of it as that you're bound to find "1 to 2 people" out of 10 or so competiting (or not competing) and that in itself is better than nothing.