Natural team rating maximum

[NightDragon]

Yeah but American football is the exception to the rule. Its the only major sport that I know of that has a salary cap and a draft, deliberately put in place to stop teams dominating. What was it like before they were brought in? A shame no other sport has followed this example. Hell West Ham could be champions of Europe! To go back to BB this is why a TR cap should be introduced, maybe set differently as some teams are a lot cheaper than others.

[neoliminal]

Yeah but American football is the exception to the rule. Its the only major sport that I know of that has a salary cap and a draft, deliberately put in place to stop teams dominating. What was it like before they were brought in? A shame no other sport has followed this example. Hell West Ham could be champions of Europe! To go back to BB this is why a TR cap should be introduced, maybe set differently as some teams are a lot cheaper than others.

I would love to see a TR cap. It's nicely variable so that every league can set their own limits.

[NightDragon]

Go for it Neo, you would become a God to me!

[Darkson]

C'monn then, sell me on a TR cap, as I'm not sure how you'd implement it. Go for a TR 200 as an example.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

I think the only fair way to do it would be to just have the teams stop gaining spp's when they reach a ceratain point. The problem is if you set it too low you have teams hitting an artificial and unfair ceiling. And if all teams end at the same point why even play the game?

On the other side if you set it too high what it the point?

[rwould]

I'm sorry but what are all you football fans talking about?????

Neo is right for footie too. The best teams do not keep getting better; they struggle to stay at the top. Best team of the early 80's? Liverpool. Since 89 they have not been one of the best two teams in England, never mind Europe.

And Ajax. Dominant in European Football in the early nineties. Couldn't continue to be the best. Rapidly dropped off, as other more financially stable teams bought their players.

And Man U. One lucky win determined them the best team in Europe in 99. And have they maintained this status? No. However the pathetic level of competition in England has gifted them a high number of premiership titles. Bit like in Scotland really.......

I could go on with a lot of examples, the most obvious being the rise/fall/rise of Italian clubs.

Football is no different. Teams have to stay competitive to stay at the top, they do not keep improving. As some players get better, others drop off in ability as they age or get injured (or even just lose form).


DeputyDawg: The draft has not stopped teams dominating in the NFL. Look at each decade and you can identify a powerhouse team. The salary cap is a much stronger argument, however this has led to more mediocre teams winning the championship (sorry New England and Baltimore fans......) than occured in previous years.

'Dook: The texans may not have set the league alight but they did defeat the Steelers in their first season, who were one of the top two rated teams in the league. Hence supporting an argument for a realistic chance of beating much better teams on paper. And you argue about a big Arsenal win. How many of their stars did they play? This is what the handicap table should represent. The team is not going to field Henry, Ljunberg, Viera, etc against a pants team. That is where Jeffers etc come into play. And this (combined with sloping pitch, bad weather, biased ref, etc) come into play for the handicap table. As the rules stand the likelihood of winning a game with a big TR difference (say 100, with one team being say 150 or less) is very low, far lower than the odds in a footie match of, say, a 2nd div. side beating a prem. side. Yes it happens, but not often enough.

In addition you need to consider whether you want to grow your league. Who would want to start a new team in a league full of TR 200+ teams? Realistically they would have to taken a high AV team to pray they can build their team up to a survivable level.

I would say teams should be building up to TR 200, with more problems occuring after that.

Real leagues have some ability to sign players from other teams which BB does not have. Without this you have to set artificial measures to restrict team growth. No team (Other than Chelsea and maybe Real!) can afford to have a lot of the best players, but BB does not represent this.

How about having a league modifier, whereby if a team is a noticeably higher TR than the average then their players are more likely to get poached? This would restrict team growth somewhat!

Cheers

Richard

[NightDragon]

But teams are not dominating the NFL. How many teams have won back to back Super Bowls in recent years? Now compare that to the no of championship winners in England Italy Spain. No comparison.
TR cap is simple. You want teams to be competing evenly with one another. Get them at the same point, hence use the TR-that is what it is devised for. Once TR max is reached coaches decide whether to cut re-rolls or players, keep their best players or go for a breadth. If their is a big league divide it in to divisions so competition is still there, if not then you are no worse off. Tried it this year in my League and for the first time the same teams did not dominate.

[Grumbledook]

yer but a lot of coaches don't like that idea, me included

i don't want to hit a point of no return

i want a system that is flexable to let me hit the higher points but then fall back down again after a few games

[NightDragon]

Then up the TR limit in your League to suit it. Nothing wrong with house rules. Why I liked 3rd ed. Just thought I better move with the times. TR 300-350 should suit all.

[GalakStarscraper]

yer but a lot of coaches don't like that idea, me included

i don't want to hit a point of no return

i want a system that is flexable to let me hit the higher points but then fall back down again after a few games

Grumble and I have been in lock step on balancing overall growth. No thank you to an artificial ceiling.

Okay ... step back for me here Neo.

1) FUMBBL and MBBL data shows that the growth curve is a nice steady pattern

2) FUMBBL data shows that teams already sput around 250 but can in weird circumstance break that barrier if they are wiling to have a team full of niggles and such.

3) Poll on TR size show that the fans want 200 to slow it down 250 to be the break point with rare chances above 300.

4) The Bugman's poll shows that folks were in favor of Negative Cash mods which would stop the teams that went over TR 300.

Remind me again why we need to do something drastic here???

Galak

[Grumbledook]

I really think what would help the most here is if at the rules review some sort of proper handicap table was introduced so ski would code it into javabowl

then with fumbbl there would be a massive amount of data to work from (we passed 50,000 games played this week) added in with negative winnings i really think the current ruleset would work properly with the changes and clear ups off the list on galaks site

a change to piling on would mean less coaches refusing to play bashing maiming teams (this happens a fair bit)

and fielding 11 players or as many as possable on each drive rather than just the 2 minimum (this should help stop 1 turners dominating which is another problem)

as the BBB rules are a long way off ever coming real (i doubt they ever will) this testing could be achieved by next years review

I would even be more than happy with negative winnings being offical this year as i doubt they would cause much problems to cause removing them next year.

[NightDragon]

I don't see it as drastic at all. The impression I'm getting is that Galak youre happy with teams peaking at low TR's such as 200-250. Thats artificial. 300-350 allows plenty of scope for growth. Put it lower if you want but the effect is the same as your pereferences but more challenges for the Head Coach.

[MistWraith]

If you put in negative winnings, only have it effect teams with a TR of over 300. The last thing I want is another team I can not grow because I roll badly on gate and for winnings. The new winnings chart is very brutal in this respect.

With it, most teams start to cap out at the 250 TR level and very few make it to the 300 TR level. So I fail to see what big changes need to be made to limit team growth. The most I would do is make the TR300+ teams earn next to no money. If they have zero earnings (or close to it) over a series of say 4-6 games, the odds are they will lose a player and not be able to replace them. This in its self will lower the TR of the team drastically. Especially if it was a star that died.

[GalakStarscraper]

Actually MistWraith it become one more part of team management. If you skimp on FF when you build your team, you are going to have a chance of management trouble earlier rather than later.

These are the type of changes that I love to the game. I'm really very tired of seeing all the FF 2 and 4 teams that have joined the MBBL and PBeMBBL as of late. A negative cash mod rule would reintroduce the value of Fan Factor again in team creation.

Okay let us an example to show you. Let's try this. You start your TR 100 team at FF 9. You roll only 2s for Gold and Gate rolls. You always lose, lose a point of FF every other game, and get 15 SPPs per a game. The plus side no one has ever managed to actually kill anyone on your team. You always play opponents with FFs of 5 who roll 17 for their gate rolls. That's pretty crappy ... let's see how quick a negative cash modifier would get you.

Game 1: TR 100 ... FF 9 ... Gate 35 ... Gold 30k ... new TR 106
Game 2: TR 106 ... FF 9 ... Gate 35 ... Gold 30k ... new TR 112
Game 3: TR 112 ... FF 8 ... Gate 33 ... Gold 30k ... new TR 118
Game 4: TR 118 ... FF 8 ... Gate 33 ... Gold 30k ... new TR 124
Game 5: TR 124 ... FF 7 ... Gate 31 ... Gold 30k ... new TR 130
Game 6: TR 130 ... FF 7 ... Gate 31 ... Gold 20k ... new TR 135
Game 7: TR 135 ... FF 6 ... Gate 29 ... Gold 20k ... new TR 140
Game 8: TR 140 ... FF 6 ... Gate 29 ... Gold 20k ... new TR 145
Game 9: TR 145 ... FF 5 ... Gate 27 ... Gold 20k ... new TR 150
Game 10: TR 150 ... FF 5 ... Gate 27 ... Gold 20k ... new TR 155
Game 11: TR 155 ... FF 4 ... Gate 25 ... Gold 10k ... new TR 159
Game 12: TR 159 ... FF 4 ... Gate 25 ... Gold 10k ... new TR 163
Game 13: TR 163 ... FF 3 ... Gate 23 ... Gold 10k ... new TR 167
Game 14: TR 167 ... FF 3 ... Gate 23 ... Gold 10k ... new TR 171
Game 15: TR 171 ... FF 2 ... Gate 21 ... Gold 10k ... new TR 175
Game 16: TR 175 ... FF 2 ... Gate 21 ... Gold 10k ... new TR 179
Game 17: TR 179 ... FF 1 ... Gate 19 ... Gold -10k

Okay so I'm waiting to hear how a Negative Cash Rule is going to severally impact starting teams. I just painted a pretty bad scenario for a team and I didn't get into have negative cash until Game 17/TR 179 and that was because my example allowed the team to go to an FF of 1.

I posted this because of this comment by MistWraith:

The last thing I want is another team I can not grow because I roll badly on gate and for winnings.

A negative cash winnings rule is not going to effect teams until they've grown to a TR level where team management should start to become a factor. I realize that not everyone crunches numbers like I do on this stuff ... but a negative winnings rule is really a rule that only effects higher TR teams who should be needed management anyway.

I'll state again. The current system works well except for needed a rule to cap at the higher TR. Create a better handicap table (either MBBL or CHUBB) and a negative cash modifier, and leave everything else alone, and I'll bet good money that the system works.

Galak

[Grumbledook]

galak hit the nail on the head imho