Question about competativness
 

If you joined a league where one team has won AT LEAST 113 games a season for 7 straight years, woudl you think there is an issue?

And that same team had 116 mil in revenue, and your team has 48 mil in revenue?

And that team is run by the commish?

His team's history....

Year Wins Losses PCT Pos Attendance Revenue Payroll Profit/Loss
1993 122 40 .753 1 4940518 $116,408,960 $104,658,172 $11,750,788
1992 120 42 .741 1 4949643 $106,509,212 $68,848,974 $37,660,238
1991 126 36 .778 1 5148571 $99,633,861 $48,736,890 $50,896,971
1990 117 45 .722 1 4420142 $94,874,737 $58,801,738 $36,072,999
1989 124 38 .765 1 4440947 $86,382,809 $57,335,502 $29,047,307
1988 113 49 .698 1 3552677 $62,538,579 $55,065,643 $7,472,936


And this year he won 127 games

If the league commissioner has the same, say, "talent" as the other GMs, he'll often end up with the strongest team in the league. Being the commissioner, you normally spend a lot more time with the league as other GMs do, giving you an edge.

I'd say there was a problem.

Having the strongest team is one thing, but 121 wins a year (avg) over 7 seasons is a whole other story.

That's a whole lot of wins!

sniff
sniff

You smell that?
Something smells fishy 'round here!

Well if it's the league I think you mean. I've been in another league with that commissioner for a number of seasons and have no reason to believe he is anything other than an honest commissioner and a very good GM.

120 wins a year is a bit much by anyones standards, league balance to the commish should be more of a concern than trying to pound the entire league for 20 extra wins on top of 100 ... with 100 wins alone you are already a great team but 120? and the revenue generated rising high enough to support over 100 million in payroll yearly to support the players may be excessive.

I'm surprised no one in that league has brought this question up previously. Who knows, maybe he is that amazing of a GM, but his supporters have got to at least wonder.

I thought something wasn't quite right with him ever since I saw the way he handled himself in this thread: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...5&pagenumber=1

Of course no matter how outlandish forum comments might be, they don't make you a cheater. But he certainly didn't sound like a commish I would want to play under.

Has he commished any other leagues?

As already stated I am in another league commished by this individual. I have played 7 seasons in this league and found him to be someone who puts a lot of care & effort into the league and most importantly I have no reason too doubt his honesty.

He is a competitive GM who wants to win and has the team with the best record but he's not unbeatable and I've done so a couple of times myself.

So far we've had nothing but inuendo and dislike of his attitude to certain aspects of the game. If anyone has any real reason to suggest he is cheating then put it up for scrutiny. If proved I'll be the 1st one out of the door.

Wow, that team has only once won fewer than 90 games...

[/tangent]

During one of the longest stints I had in an online league -- 10 seasons -- I took over a middling Milwaukee Brewers club and worked really hard to build them into a contender. I won several hard-fought Division Titles, a pair of Wild Cards, and never won a Playoff Series. I won between 88-98 games/year. I was always the weakest playoff team. Atlanta...go figure...won about 120 games per year, the Western Div. champs (Colorado) about 115.

Eventually, I realized something was wrong. I was selling my soul every year to stay at about 90 wins. The other teams raped every other GM in the league, stayed young, kept winning 120 games a year.

I learned a valuable lesson...

There are great online GMs. I've been in leagues with a few of them. Their teams don't win 120 games a year.

There are opportunistic GMs whose vision extends no further than bloating their own record at the expense of community fairness and fun. The league I spoke of above was loaded with a few of those -- and other nasty sorts, which I won't detail here.

Then...there are less than good GMs. Lets face it, they are out there. They can be the nicest people, good guys, not totally incompetent but generally not up to snuff. I've been in leagues with guys like that, too. Beyond that, I'm one of them. :) The most naive of these poor dolts are the folks who support GM #2...the opportunist.

Of these three, the opportunist (barring, of course, the cheater) is the only bad GM in Online League play. Good GMs don't take advantage of bad GMs -- to the detriment of their peers, to the detriment of league balance, to the detriment of fun.

[/tangent]

:rolleyes: OK...so that was pointless, and not meant as anything accusatory...but I think -- where it can be applied -- rank opportunism is not the same thing as being a 'Great GM'...and I'd think twice before joining a league where a team routinely -- we're not talking aberrations here -- finishes 45 games above the 2nd place team.

No fun....even if there is no cheating.

I'd delete this...it is pretty pointless...;) But since I rambled all this way, I'll just leave it up. Take it or leave it.

EDIT: And before anyone comes and snipes away...this is meant more as generalizations and not a commentary on the above posts or the above league. If it is legit and the owners like it...that is really all that matters.

Hey!!! Stop running me down! :matrix:

Professor, that is some great insight to online league GM's. Good post!

lol
 

lol

I am the owner of the above-mentioned team....

Feel free to check it out - Unionville Canadians of the GMC .

Why is this team so good? Take a look at the players. Of the 1994 squad, about 10 future HOFers.... team was built up via solid trading... take a look at the history of the team - find me one (1) trade where I didnt come out a hell of a lot ahead of the other guy (FYI - i keep a trade chart which lists all team weaknesses and possiblities for trade) .... good drafting ... and modifying my stadium to suit my team...

pre-1988, the team was heavy pitching, with a pitching park

1989, team went to a hitter's park and every year it moved more and more to a LHB dream....

Team makes a ton of money because its been around for 11 seasons and wins all the time - loyalty and fan interest are very, very high...

The problem with this team, and every other team I GM, is that it/I is/am, Cursed. All told, in EBL, NABL, GMC, FBL and any of the other leagues I have been in, my teams have made the playoffs about 50 times as one of the top 3 or 4 seeds - mostly 1 or 2, and choked miserably 46 of those 50 or so times.... I put my record of futility against any other owner anywhere....


heh - yeah, I would hate to play in a league with a commish who has a wildly grotesque Curse hanging over his damn head, genuinely cares about his team and his league, and wants both to do well.... what a horrible commish i am... ;)

lol

FYI - I also commish the EBL - team is Vancouver, and the NABL - Chicago White Sox. Former has established a nice pattern of losing, while the latter relies on the singular talents of Christy Mathewson to win....

forgot to mention that Randall's joining has sparked a nice bit of fixing the league's financing.... most of the proposals will see my teamtake it hard up the ass...

Feel free to glance at the proposals here .

I don't doubt your team has a great solid core of young players... or you're a tremendous asset to your leagues...

but there is a difference between 'solid trading' and whoring GM's for the benefit of your team so you have this 10 hall of famer squad to begin with

clearly though from what you've said you are trying to rectify things so good stuff

Agree. You couldn't find a more honest and dedicated commish than Dean. As honest as him, yes; more than him, simply not possible. I know him since OOTP2 and he's been a GM in CBL for years. Those who doubt him clearly don't know what they are talking about and should be a little more cautious, moreover when there're so many wankers setting up leagues nowadays. I don't think that the commishes that have posted here would like their names doubted either, so a bit of info before posting would be appropriate next time.

well.. none of the trades were rape jobs - we have a panel that takes a look at trades that are obviously one-sided... if an owner complains, the trade is reviewed.. so, none of the trades were "whoring".... but a lot of them do involve trading a ton of solid talent for one good player though....

Take the 1991 trade that brought Blackjack McDowell over... Chris Vandevisse is a damn good owner and very smart. I offered him a whack of draft picks - 5 or 6 2nd round picks i think, plus Irod and SP Kris Carpenter - very good deal for both of us. Chris took the deal as it gave him about 8 starters. I took Mcdowell because he is a topline player and the 2nds would never play for me..

Is this whoring?

No. I dont think so. The goal is to win a championship, something, alas, that I am damn unable to do with depressing regularity...

as I told Randall, I would agree if the 120+ wins team didnt choke year in and year out... if this team was spanking other teams in the playoffs every year, then it would be a concern.

In the GMC, the regular season is like the NHL regular season - its just stats. Make the playoffs and anything can happen, as evidenced by the fact that 8 teams have won titles over the 12 seasons of GMC play...

I got nothing against what you do or how you operate but I'm just raising the obvious questions when a team wins 120 games a year because the previous guy posted about .. best of luck on all your projects

Well I created this thread just before talknig to Dean (the woner fo this team, abnd the league commish) about competativness issues. I wanted to see first if I was wrong in thinking that this league was a bit unbalanced.

After talking to Dean, I think we have a good plan in place to make the league much more competative. Obviously leagues can get out of whack with competativness, however, I think Dean is commited, NOW, to making it better...

From what I can tell Dean is a solid Commish, and I have no reason to think he is cheating, I think the revenue disparity got WAY, WAY, WAY out of hand (in his favor), and the league never really did much to stop it until one team got a new owner a few weeks ago (that would be me)....

we last took a look at financials prior to expansion (1991 season) and were committed to taking a look after we saw how v5 treated established teams...

My comment is OT, but this sentiment about the NHL has always pissed me off. It isn't just stats, it's entertainment and therefore, meaningful. If you love a sport, if you enjoy watching outstanding atheletes compete, what does it matter whether two teams qualify to play for the championship or eight, or sixteen. End of rant. :mad: