| Forum » Foro Liga Shadow Masters » Qualifications for PL in Season 5 | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
116 msgs.
Substitute
|
Hi all, Forgive me for a bit of verbal vomit . . . I was thinking about having qualifications for next season's Shadow Master's private league. The main purpose is to incentivize competition at all levels for SM. I'm thinking that we can ensure the quality of the league if we have minimum qualifications in order to stay in the league, as well as minimums for new teams. I think they should be based on all competitions. For example, we should have automatic qualification for the team that goes furthest into the Striker Cup We could also have promotion to the next division be a minimum qualification Maybe winning your group in Div 3 would be an automatic qualification Maybe the two or three teams at the bottom of the PL should be disqualified (I write this realizing that at this point in time, I am writing my own disqualification) Maybe have a minimum team / manager ranking Maybe further to that we talk to the pirates about a potential "superleague" the top 7 teams from each PL form a supergroup and work a promotion / relegation scheme from there. Again, this is just a bit of verbal vomit, but I thought it could be an interesting discussion. |
07/10/2011 20:58 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3756 msgs.
Best scorer
|
If everyone in the PL are improving constantly we need not disqualify anyone. If by any chance someone is planning to leave and join another PL or plans to retire from SM, we would like to know atleast 15-20 days before the season ends, so as to find a manager who can replace them. | 08/10/2011 09:46 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2737 msgs.
Best scorer
|
i was thinking about that too. The only i dont want though is replacing half the managers in the league. I mean, i would rather have a team leave only if they are really that bad...otherwise most of us wont be in this league in 2-3 seasons which will take the fun out of it. Im sort of in the favour of keeping most people who started in the league...unless they fall behind by a lot. I think the criteria should be towards having more active players, its not too interesting having someone who has a great team but rarely joins our discussions in the PL forum. I'd rather have medium average teams (like us) with most joining discussions, it promotes a better gaming environment in my opinion. As for new managers, the way i went by assessing most of you who are here is by looking how active you are in forums, that was the number 1 criteria for me. And so far, i can see over half of us still show up in most discussions so its a good portion. Having all 14 teams like this would be even better. I think there a couple managers out there who i see constantly in public forums that have good teams and can make good replacements to teams who wont be continuing with us next season. Also, i was thinking of removing the upper average limit and possibly by end of season include any team over 60 average that matches other criteria...i can easily see most of us being over 60 by end of season anyways. (we already have a couple over 60, including me) |
08/10/2011 12:14 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2108 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I agree to the removal of the upper limit. If we have a cutoff we need to decide it before the halfway point. Frankly I've made friends with everyone here, I don't think I'd want to have to say "You're not good enough anymore, get out." As long as there is visible improvement almost all the time, I don't see any reason to kick anyone out. Now as to the people who rarely join in conversation on the forums, there's only one guy I can think of and that's sonymose, we exchange hello's on chat but in all honesty I'm not sure he speaks much English, it'd be unfair to kick him out for that. But I guess it depends how it all plays out. I mean, there was only two people who didn't express interest in returning to International 55, and those two both quit. Even St. James Gate came in on the last PL game and said he didn't want to rejoin for a second season, I was watching. But like I said, we'll have to see how it pans out, I think a minimum of 60 is fair, winning promotion being a minimum requirement might be a bit unfair to the two of us in division 3, especially if they're working hard against us as well. I think it should be judged mainly on improvement, it might be a good idea to set 10 goals and make everyone accomplish at least 8 for reentry. What these are is up to all of us to decide soon, the faster we can the better. Edited by hewhoamareismyself 12-10-2011 03:08 |
12/10/2011 03:03 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2737 msgs.
Best scorer
|
alright, lets decide criteria for teams that wont be continuing before deciding criteria for those we would be looking for, i think it makes more sense this way. Im thinking something along the lines of anyone in positions 1-10 should not be relegated, unless there is serious inactivity issues. Until now i see that all 14 managers log in almost everyday so no problems with inactivity for anyone. (we can be more strict with the inactivity rule in later seasons and make it a must to join discussions or something, but for now i dont think that necessary). Then, for positions 11-14...we can set some relegation criteria, such as if the team did not achieve promotion in div 4/5...or was not able to stay in div 3 then he's relegated. Or, we can have something like, out of these 4 teams, the one that is lowest on our ELO ranking is relegated. We can infact set the promotion/relegation according to ELO rankings rather than board rankings. I dont think the relegation criteria i suggested for 11-14 position are that much of a good idea, they would probably need refining or setting different criteria instead of them. Thoughts? (can people please join the discussion?  ) |
12/10/2011 14:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
312 msgs.
First-team player
|
I say we kick out any team that finishes above me, it will make sure people don't get too good  |
12/10/2011 15:09 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3756 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I completely agree with you stowgood. I say we must remove everyone above us. |
12/10/2011 17:10 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2737 msgs.
Best scorer
|
i agree too, remove everyone above me. oh wait, i forgot that im at the top |
12/10/2011 18:03 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
I have to say I disagree on the criteria so far, most of use will have decent teams at the season end. I think the criteria should be based almost completely on activity. The is no point having people in the league who just can't even be bothered to post. I'm looking at a couple of managers already in this league who would fall foul of this. However if someone falls way behind on AV (like 15 points or so and they are in the bottom 2 or 3) then we should consider them also. If we allow good teams who don't join in to stay, then we'll end up like the majority of PL's around here, soulless places. I'll even go as far to add some numbers. Just to stir people up. <10 posts = automatic removal. <20 posts = we all vote on the people concerned. (bump does not count as a post) Flame away. |
12/10/2011 18:13 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3756 msgs.
Best scorer
|
A better solution. Since the PL was supposedly for teams between average 48-53, we simply increase it to 54-58. Those who fall behind get removed automatically (unless the team is in Div 5 or 6, since money earned isnt sufficient to buy 55+ players), but I doubt anyone will fall short of the required average since everyone is competing alot in the PL (with a few exceptions). | 12/10/2011 18:19 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
1
