Quote:
Originally Posted by fhomess
There is some truth to the idea that better owners are necessary. Before you can address it, though, you really need to figure out WHY you don't have league parity, though.
Are teams at the top making so much money that they can simply continue to buy their way to more talent? - Maybe you need to tighten finances a bit so teams have to make tougher choices on who to sign
Are teams at the top the teams that are most active? - Maybe you need to replace inactive owners with ones who are active
Are teams at the bottom seeing all their high end draft picks go to waste? - Maybe you need to reduce the frequency of talent changes so that prospects drafted earlier are less likely to lose their high talents
Are teams at the top simply making smarter moves compared to teams at the bottom? - Maybe you need to get some smarter GM's for the bad teams, but maybe you need to find ways for teams to talk about strategy more so that your owners are a bit closer to each other in terms of experience.
I'm sure there are other reasons you don't have parity, as well as other solutions to the ones I posted here, but there really isn't a blanket statement "If you do this, you won't have this problem" that applies to all leagues. Utlimately, there are just too many variables in terms of league settings and GM's to say that. I think the one thing that is true in any league, however, is that inactive owners will never perform as well as active ones. If you've got a high percentage of inactive owners - it would behoove you to figure out why.
|
I don't even have a league yet. I am trying to design one, that will offer parity. It will challenge the "good" GMs and assist the bad GMs. I think a lot of what you talked about above is self-fulfilling. Bad GMs and inactive GMs run the team in the ground, lose interest and move on. New owners, unless they are really, really good, can not over come the handicap that the previous owner placed on them. Then they lose interest and become inactive. Conversely, good GMs and active GMs get less and less challenge from the new owners.
Check most online leagues, and you will see teams that are making the playoffs every year AND have a top farm system. It becomes perpetual, too easy for the GM to maintain the good team, for many reasons, some due to shortcomings in the game, some due to good things in the game.
I want to try and create parity, even if it is forced (to some degree). I think there are a few of these good GMs that would actually welcome the additional challenge. I just don't know how far to go. I don't want to just make a rule that says if you win 100 games or the world series you lose your first round pick, or something weird like that. I would rather fine tune some things to help even out "chance" of success for the league as a whole.