 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Making 4 divisions out of 2
WillyD
This is where the whole post went off track.
January 08, 2011 at 10:21PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
So you aren't talking about starting a new league with 32 teams, your idea is to combine two existing leagues to form a 32 team league? That's really just word play, but fact is that for each season of play, a 32-team league generates 24 non-playoff owners and a 16-team league only generates 12. You can say it however you like, but that's the truth.
This is where the whole post went off track.
WillyD
Then after I just stated that it couldn't happen right now, Ham makes that statement.
January 08, 2011 at 10:26PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
So ... we can't sell all of the expansion and replacement teams that are available as of right now, and no new leagues are being started. Therefore, we should start leagues that have twice as many needed owners? That makes sense.
Then after I just stated that it couldn't happen right now, Ham makes that statement.
Wildcat
WillyD you might want to re-read the 7th post in this thread posted by redcep on 8-1-2011 at 05:52 PM and then we might move on with the actual discussion, because...
...actually, this is where it went off track. the original suggestion was to split the current league format of 8 teams in the AL and 8 in the NL to 2x4 in the AL and 2x4 in the NL.
the original suggestion was not about 32-team leagues or anything.
maybe we could put some more thought to that idea and move the other discussion about 32-team-leagues to another thread. thanks.
what I can see COULD change with 2 division of 4 teams instead of 1 with 8 teams:
currently the top 2 teams of each league make the playoffs. with 2 divisions, only the leader in each division would make the playoffs.
one scenario could be that the 4 best teams of the league are in one division and the 4 worst in the other. still, the 1st placed team in the 2nd division would make the playoffs, like the Seattle Seahawks...
you'd have to alter the schedule then. maybe you'd have 10 series against the teams in your division and only 6 against the 4 teams of the other division (90-72).
this wouldn't need much programming - I guess - as the basics stay the same but it would change the strategy a bit, as you only have to be better than 3 teams instead of 6 to get to the playoffs.
on the downside, the 2nd place team in the better division, with a better record than the 1st placed team in the worse division, could get mad... but if you change a league to this format, owners have to agree and be aware of that possibility, so it shouldn't have much effect.
overall, I think it is a good idea that wouldn't change the game a lot but bring some new interesting stuff and a new strategic situation.
January 08, 2011 at 11:05PM View BBCode
are you serious? half of this thread is: no I said this, no you said that, no you started it, no it was you you you, I'm the good guy, you're the bad guy...WillyD you might want to re-read the 7th post in this thread posted by redcep on 8-1-2011 at 05:52 PM and then we might move on with the actual discussion, because...
Originally posted by WillyD
I would definitely not be in favor of 4 team divisions.
I would like 2 division of 8 teams in the NL & AL though. That would be a big change however and would unlikely take place anytime soon.
Another strategy for making your league more fun would be to get better so that the same teams don't keep making it.
...actually, this is where it went off track. the original suggestion was to split the current league format of 8 teams in the AL and 8 in the NL to 2x4 in the AL and 2x4 in the NL.
the original suggestion was not about 32-team leagues or anything.
maybe we could put some more thought to that idea and move the other discussion about 32-team-leagues to another thread. thanks.
what I can see COULD change with 2 division of 4 teams instead of 1 with 8 teams:
currently the top 2 teams of each league make the playoffs. with 2 divisions, only the leader in each division would make the playoffs.
one scenario could be that the 4 best teams of the league are in one division and the 4 worst in the other. still, the 1st placed team in the 2nd division would make the playoffs, like the Seattle Seahawks...
you'd have to alter the schedule then. maybe you'd have 10 series against the teams in your division and only 6 against the 4 teams of the other division (90-72).
this wouldn't need much programming - I guess - as the basics stay the same but it would change the strategy a bit, as you only have to be better than 3 teams instead of 6 to get to the playoffs.
on the downside, the 2nd place team in the better division, with a better record than the 1st placed team in the worse division, could get mad... but if you change a league to this format, owners have to agree and be aware of that possibility, so it shouldn't have much effect.
overall, I think it is a good idea that wouldn't change the game a lot but bring some new interesting stuff and a new strategic situation.
Hamilton2
(Nice post, Wildcat, thank you.)
The only problem with the 2 divisions of 4 teams each and expanding the playoffs is that you would have 8 out of 16 teams in the playoffs, which is just too many. We all know that the playoffs are luck anyway. What sort of complaints are we going to get when a 120 win team loses in the first round to an 83 win team? That's going to be a nightmare.
Also, that is why the compromise suggestion from TR would work so well: 24 teams, 8 make the playoffs, 33%.
January 09, 2011 at 12:49AM View BBCode
I don't want to talk about the Seattle Seahawks, they are dismantling my playoff predictions as we speak.(Nice post, Wildcat, thank you.)
The only problem with the 2 divisions of 4 teams each and expanding the playoffs is that you would have 8 out of 16 teams in the playoffs, which is just too many. We all know that the playoffs are luck anyway. What sort of complaints are we going to get when a 120 win team loses in the first round to an 83 win team? That's going to be a nightmare.
Also, that is why the compromise suggestion from TR would work so well: 24 teams, 8 make the playoffs, 33%.
WillyD
Wildcat, I've read that post many times. He did NOT mean to combine two leagues. He said that hypothetically to prove to DD that the math doesn't change.
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by WillyD]
January 09, 2011 at 01:48AM View BBCode
Wildcat I understand your frustration. At least I mentioned the original post in 2 of my 3 three statements. Most of these posts should have been unecessary, but alas, we have epople who refuse to read everything said and make big assumptions and then continue to argue a bad point of view despite clearly being shown they are wrong. Then they don't have the sack to at least admit they screwed up. Hammy, man up and say you misunderstood redcped. DD, don't bother because you may contradict yourself a third time!Wildcat, I've read that post many times. He did NOT mean to combine two leagues. He said that hypothetically to prove to DD that the math doesn't change.
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by WillyD]
dirtdevil
January 09, 2011 at 03:12AM View BBCode
and since it appears we've dropped any pretense of being at all polite or respectfull, willy your idea is just flat out unworkable, and therefore rather dumb. also, you have an ugly hat.
Hamilton2
I didn't misunderstand anything. I replied, on-topic, to red's post. I have been civil, polite, and otherwise respectful to each of your posts and quite frankly you are the only one in this entire thread whose comments have been out of line.
Did you read the post in which I quoted both you and red? You refuted your position with your own words. I pointed it out.
Whether Red's post was hypothetical or not is completely irrelevant, he introduced a line of argumentation (i.e. "combining teams wouldn't result in more teams missing the playoffs") and I responded to that line of argumentation with the observation that in order to make that argument he would have to change the assumptions of the proposal namely, to address combining leagues rather than starting new leagues.
At that point, you kind of lost all semblance of rational response and went a little nuts on us.
January 09, 2011 at 03:27AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Wildcat I understand your frustration. At least I mentioned the original post in 2 of my 3 three statements. Most of these posts should have been unecessary, but alas, we have epople who refuse to read everything said and make big assumptions and then continue to argue a bad point of view despite clearly being shown they are wrong. Then they don't have the sack to at least admit they screwed up. Hammy, man up and say you misunderstood redcped. DD, don't bother because you may contradict yourself a third time!
Wildcat, I've read that post many times. He did NOT mean to combine two leagues. He said that hypothetically to prove to DD that the math doesn't change.
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by WillyD]
I didn't misunderstand anything. I replied, on-topic, to red's post. I have been civil, polite, and otherwise respectful to each of your posts and quite frankly you are the only one in this entire thread whose comments have been out of line.
Did you read the post in which I quoted both you and red? You refuted your position with your own words. I pointed it out.
Whether Red's post was hypothetical or not is completely irrelevant, he introduced a line of argumentation (i.e. "combining teams wouldn't result in more teams missing the playoffs") and I responded to that line of argumentation with the observation that in order to make that argument he would have to change the assumptions of the proposal namely, to address combining leagues rather than starting new leagues.
At that point, you kind of lost all semblance of rational response and went a little nuts on us.
Hamilton2
I'll admit that I don't understand the part about the hat. For the rest, me too.
January 09, 2011 at 03:32AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
and since it appears we've dropped any pretense of being at all polite or respectfull, willy your idea is just flat out unworkable, and therefore rather dumb. also, you have an ugly hat.
I'll admit that I don't understand the part about the hat. For the rest, me too.
WillyD
Ham, you jumped into a conversation without reading all the posts that led up to it. Redcped was not proposing that we combine two leagues together. If you read his and DD prior posts you'll see that was not his intent. Let's go over this again. Here is waht red said:
I think there's a logic error in here. Currently those teams would exist in two leagues, where 24 owners combined do not make the playoffs.
You put them in one league together, and still 24 owners do not make the playoffs.
You haven't increased the number of teams "failing." You've just combined them into one place instead of two.
He is talking about a 32 team league and about the number of playoffs teams vs. a standard 16 team league. Nowhere does he say that he thinks it would be cool to combine two current leagues into one. It's an example, a hypothetical example, to show that DD that he was being illogical in the prior posts. That is the key! If you look at this one post by itself I could see someone jumping to the wrong conclusion, but if you read all of the posts you'll see it ties in with his previous points. Please stop assuming that you are all-knowing for one minute, and think this over.
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by WillyD]
January 09, 2011 at 04:04AM View BBCode
Geez I know statues are hard-headed and all but this is crazy!Ham, you jumped into a conversation without reading all the posts that led up to it. Redcped was not proposing that we combine two leagues together. If you read his and DD prior posts you'll see that was not his intent. Let's go over this again. Here is waht red said:
I think there's a logic error in here. Currently those teams would exist in two leagues, where 24 owners combined do not make the playoffs.
You put them in one league together, and still 24 owners do not make the playoffs.
You haven't increased the number of teams "failing." You've just combined them into one place instead of two.
He is talking about a 32 team league and about the number of playoffs teams vs. a standard 16 team league. Nowhere does he say that he thinks it would be cool to combine two current leagues into one. It's an example, a hypothetical example, to show that DD that he was being illogical in the prior posts. That is the key! If you look at this one post by itself I could see someone jumping to the wrong conclusion, but if you read all of the posts you'll see it ties in with his previous points. Please stop assuming that you are all-knowing for one minute, and think this over.
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by WillyD]
dirtdevil
(i was trying to highlight how pointless it is to start insulting people. i had thought that if i threw in an insult that was obviously completely extraneous to the conversation that in might underline the general counterproductivity of sinking to that level in the first place. too subtle?)
[edited for clarity after the intervening post.]
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by dirtdevil]
January 09, 2011 at 04:05AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
I'll admit that I don't understand the part about the hat. For the rest, me too.
(i was trying to highlight how pointless it is to start insulting people. i had thought that if i threw in an insult that was obviously completely extraneous to the conversation that in might underline the general counterproductivity of sinking to that level in the first place. too subtle?)
[edited for clarity after the intervening post.]
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by dirtdevil]
dirtdevil
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by dirtdevil]
January 09, 2011 at 04:11AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Geez I know statues are hard-headed and all but this is crazy!
Ham, you jumped into a conversation without reading all the posts that led up to it. Redcped was not proposing that we combine two leagues together. If you read his and DD prior posts you'll see that was not his intent.
Originally posted by redcped
I think there's a logic error in here. Currently those teams would exist in two leagues, where 24 owners combined do not make the playoffs.
You put them in one league together, and still 24 owners do not make the playoffs.
You haven't increased the number of teams "failing." You've just combined them into one place instead of two.
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by dirtdevil]
WillyD
January 09, 2011 at 04:13AM View BBCode
DD read my edit. Re-read his first post and then tie it with the above quote. They are meant to tie in together.
Hamilton2
Red states a possible logical fallacy, indicating that the information that follows is intended to refute DD's claim that 24 owners NOT making the playoffs is twice as many as 12 owners NOT making the playoffs.
Red's next statement is "Currently those teams would exist in two leagues." What does he mean by "those teams?" The 24 teams who do not make the playoffs according to DD. (The same 24 which is twice as many as 12. Are you following this so far?)
Next statement: "You put them in one league together, and still 24 owners do not make the playoffs." Red's claim here is correct. 24 owners not making the playoffs equals 24 owners not making the playoffs. But wait ... he changed the parameters of the argument by introducing a new presupposition; namely, put them in one league together.
The conclusion of Red's post re-emphasizes the introduction of this new assumption (NOTE: I didn't make an assumption, red's logical argument did.). "You haven't increased the number of teams "failing." You've just combined them into one place instead of two."
THEREFORE, Red did, in fact, propose utilizing a combination of two leagues. It was the premise upon which he build his refutation of DD's statement that 24 is twice as many as 12.
I countered Red's logical refutation by asking for clarification of his position. I asked if he was proposing combining 2 different leagues instead of using this idea for the creation of new leagues (a question which he has not answered, btw). And I pointed out the legitimate business reason why that proposal--if indeed it was his proposal (he still hasn't answered that question)--was unlikely to succeed.
Where did I misunderstand something in that post?
January 09, 2011 at 04:16AM View BBCode
I cannot believe I'm actually still responding to your asinine accusations. Here is the post that you allege that I misunderstood:Originally posted by redcped
Originally posted by dirtdevil
even if the playoff teams increase in proportion, you're still going to have 24 owners 'failing' each season. right now we have 12. that's twice as many.
I think there's a logic error in here. Currently those teams would exist in two leagues, where 24 owners combined do not make the playoffs.
You put them in one league together, and still 24 owners do not make the playoffs.
You haven't increased the number of teams "failing." You've just combined them into one place instead of two.
Red states a possible logical fallacy, indicating that the information that follows is intended to refute DD's claim that 24 owners NOT making the playoffs is twice as many as 12 owners NOT making the playoffs.
Red's next statement is "Currently those teams would exist in two leagues." What does he mean by "those teams?" The 24 teams who do not make the playoffs according to DD. (The same 24 which is twice as many as 12. Are you following this so far?)
Next statement: "You put them in one league together, and still 24 owners do not make the playoffs." Red's claim here is correct. 24 owners not making the playoffs equals 24 owners not making the playoffs. But wait ... he changed the parameters of the argument by introducing a new presupposition; namely, put them in one league together.
The conclusion of Red's post re-emphasizes the introduction of this new assumption (NOTE: I didn't make an assumption, red's logical argument did.). "You haven't increased the number of teams "failing." You've just combined them into one place instead of two."
THEREFORE, Red did, in fact, propose utilizing a combination of two leagues. It was the premise upon which he build his refutation of DD's statement that 24 is twice as many as 12.
I countered Red's logical refutation by asking for clarification of his position. I asked if he was proposing combining 2 different leagues instead of using this idea for the creation of new leagues (a question which he has not answered, btw). And I pointed out the legitimate business reason why that proposal--if indeed it was his proposal (he still hasn't answered that question)--was unlikely to succeed.
Where did I misunderstand something in that post?
dirtdevil
please take your own advice.
(if that was, in fact, his intention by the way, then he completely failed to address the point i made in the first place. of course, he would only have done so once, and having some experience with him on the boards, i fell safe to say unintentionally. you've gone well into double digits now, which i have to think is either complete idiocy or wilfully deliberate. since you seem perfectly capable of stringing together coherent sentences, i can only conclude it's the latter.)
January 09, 2011 at 04:17AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Please stop assuming that you are all-knowing for one minute, and think this over.
please take your own advice.
(if that was, in fact, his intention by the way, then he completely failed to address the point i made in the first place. of course, he would only have done so once, and having some experience with him on the boards, i fell safe to say unintentionally. you've gone well into double digits now, which i have to think is either complete idiocy or wilfully deliberate. since you seem perfectly capable of stringing together coherent sentences, i can only conclude it's the latter.)
WillyD
This sound familiar? You said combine to existing leagues. This is where you and DD crashed and burned.
January 09, 2011 at 04:30AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
So you aren't talking about starting a new league with 32 teams, your idea is to combine two existing leagues to form a 32 team league? That's really just word play, but fact is that for each season of play, a 32-team league generates 24 non-playoff owners and a 16-team league only generates 12. You can say it however you like, but that's the truth.
This sound familiar? You said combine to existing leagues. This is where you and DD crashed and burned.
WillyD
January 09, 2011 at 04:34AM View BBCode
And how are you any different? Hypocrisy. And I love Hammy's attempt to appear intelligent. Hammy when you gain some wisdom, that intelligence will actually be worth something.
Hamilton2
I realize that, to a third grader, the 5 question words are who, what, when, where, and how. And I realize that instead of using any of those I used a less obvious "So ... ?" construction. But really, is it that censored hard to figure out that I'm asking Red to clarify his argument and that I am then presenting a counter argument based on what he previously posted? (Just in case you didn't notice, that last sentence is a question.)
January 09, 2011 at 04:38AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Originally posted by Hamilton2
So you aren't talking about starting a new league with 32 teams, your idea is to combine two existing leagues to form a 32 team league? That's really just word play, but fact is that for each season of play, a 32-team league generates 24 non-playoff owners and a 16-team league only generates 12. You can say it however you like, but that's the truth.
This sound familiar? You said combine to existing leagues. This is where you and DD crashed and burned.
I realize that, to a third grader, the 5 question words are who, what, when, where, and how. And I realize that instead of using any of those I used a less obvious "So ... ?" construction. But really, is it that censored hard to figure out that I'm asking Red to clarify his argument and that I am then presenting a counter argument based on what he previously posted? (Just in case you didn't notice, that last sentence is a question.)
Hamilton2
The possible merit to this is that I am still continuing to respond to you. I ought to know better and "leave a fool to his own folly."
January 09, 2011 at 04:39AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
And how are you any different? Hypocrisy. And I love Hammy's attempt to appear intelligent. Hammy when you gain some wisdom, that intelligence will actually be worth something.
The possible merit to this is that I am still continuing to respond to you. I ought to know better and "leave a fool to his own folly."
WillyD
January 09, 2011 at 04:57AM View BBCode
The fact that you thought that shows that you failed to read all the posts. Your supposedly brilliant mind shouldn't have needed clarifiction. And your buddy Dirt took that mistaken assumption and ran with it of course. :lol:
dirtdevil
January 09, 2011 at 05:01AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by WillyD
Geez I know statues are hard-headed and all but this is crazy!
Ham, you jumped into a conversation without reading all the posts that led up to it. Redcped was not proposing that we combine two leagues together. If you read his and DD prior posts you'll see that was not his intent.
Originally posted by redcped
I think there's a logic error in here. Currently those teams would exist in two leagues, where 24 owners combined do not make the playoffs.
You put them in one league together, and still 24 owners do not make the playoffs.
You haven't increased the number of teams "failing." You've just combined them into one place instead of two.
dirtdevil
can we agree that in order to make a 32-team league we would have to do one of: (a) start it from scratch with 32 'new' owners; (b) combine two currently existing 16-team leagues; or, i supppose if you wanted to get really complicated (c) add 16 new owners to an existing 16-team league to make 32? i think that those are the only options, are they not?
ok, assuming that we can agree on that, then here are the potential issues that i can see with each approach.
let's start with (a) creating a new 32-team league from scratch. (for the sake of argument and since this is a hypothetical anyway, we'll assume for the time being that tyson will allow it) the first issue here, and the one i was trying to communicate way back at the begining of all this, is simple numbers. if you have 32 teams in a league and only 8 make the playoffs, you now have potentially twice as many disatisfied/unhappy/frustrated owners (24) as you would in a regular 16-team league (12). this produces (generally, obviously not all non-playoff teams are upset with their lot and every once in a while a playoff team leaves a league for non-game related reasons, but most often the teams leaving a league are the non-competitive ones, yes?) twice as many potential replacement teams. how are you going to minimize the likelihood that this larger league is constantly stalled waiting for replacement owners to take over abandoned teams? because although the percentage of playoff teams remains the same, the simple math is that the number of non-playoff teams has now doubled. ignoring that issue won't make it go away. doubling the size of the league will also mean it will potentially take longer to fill. how are you going to make sure the league isn't hanging in limbo waiting to be filled. twice as many teams need twice as many players. how are you going to populate the entry draft? cloning an existing league twice will result in every player having a twin somehwere in the league but cloning two existing leagues could result in wildly different talent levels in the league. is that ok? is ABE capable of populating an ammy draft big enough for 32 teams? if not are you prepared to see the league talent level drop as teams are required to draft in the first round players who would now go in the 2nd and to draft players in the 2nd that would now be drafted in the 4th? (that would mean the ammy draft could only be 2 rounds, by the way) if that's the way things have to go, how does it affect trading, and is that ok?
(b) merge two existing 16-team leagues. you'll have to combine leagues that don't have duplication of owners, for obvious reasons, and you'll have to combine leagues with identical formats. that will limit your options. you're probably going to need a unaminous vote in both leagues to approve that kind of a merger, which is probably going to be difficult. i don't know thing-one about coding, but by combining leagues ABE is going to have to sim 16 games at a time instead of 8, which is going to take twice as long. the OS, draft and (potentially) free agency will all take twice as long to run as well. the only way i can see to do all that without changing the times for every other league behind the new larger one in the schedule, is to combine two leagues that run back-to-back in order to give you the full time block without affecting everyone else. that's going to be difficult to arrange, i would imagine. how do you make sure that the teams from league 1 aren't significantly better or worse than the teams from league 2 or do youn even try? how would you propose to deal with these roadblocks? and, of course, you still have the same issues as in (a) above.
(c) add 16 new owners to an existing 16-team league. this is kind of a hybrid solution, and maybe the most viable, should tyson ever wish to have a 32-team league. but it has it's own unique issues. for starters, where do the new players needed to populate the 16 new teams come from? do you put all the new teams on one side and all of the old teams on the other? leave the old teams in their current AL/NL setup and add the new ones as they come? how then do you ensure that the new teams have rosters neither too inferior nor too superior to the existing teams? how do you assign draft positions that first year? plus you still have all of the original issues in (a) and all of the process issues in (b) above.
so if you would be so kind as to address how your new league idea would deal with these obstacles, that might be more productive than what is currently going on.
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by dirtdevil]
January 09, 2011 at 05:58AM View BBCode
i'll tell you what willy, how about we set to one side all the nonsense about who said what when and we'll just address your idea for a second?can we agree that in order to make a 32-team league we would have to do one of: (a) start it from scratch with 32 'new' owners; (b) combine two currently existing 16-team leagues; or, i supppose if you wanted to get really complicated (c) add 16 new owners to an existing 16-team league to make 32? i think that those are the only options, are they not?
ok, assuming that we can agree on that, then here are the potential issues that i can see with each approach.
let's start with (a) creating a new 32-team league from scratch. (for the sake of argument and since this is a hypothetical anyway, we'll assume for the time being that tyson will allow it) the first issue here, and the one i was trying to communicate way back at the begining of all this, is simple numbers. if you have 32 teams in a league and only 8 make the playoffs, you now have potentially twice as many disatisfied/unhappy/frustrated owners (24) as you would in a regular 16-team league (12). this produces (generally, obviously not all non-playoff teams are upset with their lot and every once in a while a playoff team leaves a league for non-game related reasons, but most often the teams leaving a league are the non-competitive ones, yes?) twice as many potential replacement teams. how are you going to minimize the likelihood that this larger league is constantly stalled waiting for replacement owners to take over abandoned teams? because although the percentage of playoff teams remains the same, the simple math is that the number of non-playoff teams has now doubled. ignoring that issue won't make it go away. doubling the size of the league will also mean it will potentially take longer to fill. how are you going to make sure the league isn't hanging in limbo waiting to be filled. twice as many teams need twice as many players. how are you going to populate the entry draft? cloning an existing league twice will result in every player having a twin somehwere in the league but cloning two existing leagues could result in wildly different talent levels in the league. is that ok? is ABE capable of populating an ammy draft big enough for 32 teams? if not are you prepared to see the league talent level drop as teams are required to draft in the first round players who would now go in the 2nd and to draft players in the 2nd that would now be drafted in the 4th? (that would mean the ammy draft could only be 2 rounds, by the way) if that's the way things have to go, how does it affect trading, and is that ok?
(b) merge two existing 16-team leagues. you'll have to combine leagues that don't have duplication of owners, for obvious reasons, and you'll have to combine leagues with identical formats. that will limit your options. you're probably going to need a unaminous vote in both leagues to approve that kind of a merger, which is probably going to be difficult. i don't know thing-one about coding, but by combining leagues ABE is going to have to sim 16 games at a time instead of 8, which is going to take twice as long. the OS, draft and (potentially) free agency will all take twice as long to run as well. the only way i can see to do all that without changing the times for every other league behind the new larger one in the schedule, is to combine two leagues that run back-to-back in order to give you the full time block without affecting everyone else. that's going to be difficult to arrange, i would imagine. how do you make sure that the teams from league 1 aren't significantly better or worse than the teams from league 2 or do youn even try? how would you propose to deal with these roadblocks? and, of course, you still have the same issues as in (a) above.
(c) add 16 new owners to an existing 16-team league. this is kind of a hybrid solution, and maybe the most viable, should tyson ever wish to have a 32-team league. but it has it's own unique issues. for starters, where do the new players needed to populate the 16 new teams come from? do you put all the new teams on one side and all of the old teams on the other? leave the old teams in their current AL/NL setup and add the new ones as they come? how then do you ensure that the new teams have rosters neither too inferior nor too superior to the existing teams? how do you assign draft positions that first year? plus you still have all of the original issues in (a) and all of the process issues in (b) above.
so if you would be so kind as to address how your new league idea would deal with these obstacles, that might be more productive than what is currently going on.
[Edited on 1-9-2011 by dirtdevil]
redcped
I felt that there was a lapse in logic and wanted to correct it. My point was not literally combining leagues, just combining owners who currently either do or do not make the playoffs.
The total number of owners making the playoffs in the 32-team scenario would be the same number as currently make it in any two leagues combined. That was all I was trying to point out, that you aren't changing the odds of making the postseason.
January 09, 2011 at 07:10AM View BBCode
I was gone all day and did not read this whole thread after it started to get heated, but I feel I should make a clarification.I felt that there was a lapse in logic and wanted to correct it. My point was not literally combining leagues, just combining owners who currently either do or do not make the playoffs.
The total number of owners making the playoffs in the 32-team scenario would be the same number as currently make it in any two leagues combined. That was all I was trying to point out, that you aren't changing the odds of making the postseason.
Wildcat
24-team leagues sound great. 6-team divisions... compared to now, you only have to beat 4 instead of 6 teams to make the playoffs. this sounds like actually increasing the fun of SD. however, big changes again for Tyson to program, this would take him some time to do, without doing anything else. I'd vote for it though.
16-team leagues with 2 division per league, original topic... 2 teams per league make the playoffs but 1 out of every divsion and not the top 2 overall, everything else stays the same, no big programming changes. sounds to be a thing that could be started within days and private leagues could change to it or not. as said before, it brings a new strategic factor to the game. I would try it out, even if I'm going to miss the playoffs as 2nd best team of the league...
another thing could be: division winners make the playoffs. the division winner with more wins gets a by while the other one has to face a WC team, best 2nd placed team, in a first playoff round. this, however, would change playoff schedule, need programming and all...
January 09, 2011 at 11:08AM View BBCode
yeah yeah, creating new, merging, cloning, whatsoever... 32-team-leagues won't happen. there's a long list of big changes to get to that and honestly, I doubt that a lot of people would really like it. same playoff chances but more owners that you have to beat? doesn't sound like a good plan to me.24-team leagues sound great. 6-team divisions... compared to now, you only have to beat 4 instead of 6 teams to make the playoffs. this sounds like actually increasing the fun of SD. however, big changes again for Tyson to program, this would take him some time to do, without doing anything else. I'd vote for it though.
16-team leagues with 2 division per league, original topic... 2 teams per league make the playoffs but 1 out of every divsion and not the top 2 overall, everything else stays the same, no big programming changes. sounds to be a thing that could be started within days and private leagues could change to it or not. as said before, it brings a new strategic factor to the game. I would try it out, even if I'm going to miss the playoffs as 2nd best team of the league...
another thing could be: division winners make the playoffs. the division winner with more wins gets a by while the other one has to face a WC team, best 2nd placed team, in a first playoff round. this, however, would change playoff schedule, need programming and all...