Stronger penalties for non-submisions

[Mister Wright]

There needs to be a stronger penalties for non-sumbissions of teams.

One strategy I suggest is to penalise mangers position in the draft pick.

For example:

If you have first draft pick and you don't sumbit a team once during the season you move to last on the list. Then any non-submitting managers thereafter fall to last place and if you non-submit twice etc. you move again to last.

I think this would aid as a penalty for managers especially those in lower divisions who may rely on improving their teams through the draft.

 

[The Argonaut]

It's an interesting idea. What happens to the top sides when they forget. It's not much of a penalty for them going from 28th pick to 30th pick whereby the bad sides go from 1st to 30th.

 

[Mister Wright]

It's an interesting idea. What happens to the top sides when they forget. It's not much of a penalty for them going from 28th pick to 30th pick whereby the bad sides go from 1st to 30th.

Perhaps they could go to last on the pick list and also lose their first round draft pick. Meaning they would have to keep an extra player in their squad that they would have wanted to get rid of.

 

[Jamee999]

But where do you draw the line ?

 

[bugssy]

Perhaps they could go to last on the pick list and also lose their first round draft pick. Meaning they would have to keep an extra player in their squad that they would have wanted to get rid of.

that would be ok with a good side anyway so they get to keep an extra player that is allready good otherwise they wouldnt be in there side to start with.

i like the idea but there needs to be in it for the stronger teams.

maybe they loose the first draft pick for them selves to pick but it just gets automatically picked for them.

 

[Mister Wright]

that would be ok with a good side anyway so they get to keep an extra player that is allready good otherwise they wouldnt be in there side to start with.

i like the idea but there needs to be in it for the stronger teams.

maybe they loose the first draft pick for them selves to pick but it just gets automatically picked for them.

Perhaps something like, they will be forced to swap with the first pickers' choice. For example, Team A finishes last in OD & 4D in Division 5 and they submit their teams every week. Team B finishes 2nd in both OD & 4D in Division 1 but don't submit their team for one week during the season. Team B not only go to 30th in the pick list, but they have to trade a player of Team A's choice and Team A still get first round pick.

This would certainly discourage top teams from non-submission as they have the potential to lose top players. It will also give a chance for the lower teams who submit every week the chance to develop a good team.

 

[Andre]

Alternatively, 2 or 3 non-submissions and you don't get any draft picks....

Like in the AFL when a team goes over the salary cap.

 

[marc71178]

Changing Draft position on the manager who defaults is unfair on anyone new coming in halfway through the season though.

 

[Blewy]

Changing Draft position on the manager who defaults is unfair on anyone new coming in halfway through the season though.

I agree that there should be some sort of punishment but as marc had said, the only person who will suffer from this idea is if a new manager comes into the fore to take over the side...

 

[Mister Wright]

Well I thought of the Idea to punish those that don't submit and reward those that do. Perhaps this suggestion might be better:

Proposal:

1st Non-Submission: Position in the draft order automatically goes to last.

2nd Non-submission: If poition in the draft order has changed due to other non-submission they return to last in the draft pick order. Also Automatic trade with weaker team - weaker team get choice of player.

3rd Non-Submissoin: Manager banned from WCC and new manager takes control of team with no penalties incurred.

This proposal would not hurt new managers coming in mid-season as they would have no penalty hanging over their head. Because the penalties wouldn't come into affect until the end of the season, so all matters can be resolved before trading period.

 

[Rik]

Changing Draft position on the manager who defaults is unfair on anyone new coming in halfway through the season though.

Why don't you spend a little time working out why it's fair for the teams who were bothered to submit, when they keep looking at other teams who don't and seem to be getting away with it?

 

[marc71178]

Why don't you spend a little time working out why it's fair for the teams who were bothered to submit, when they keep looking at other teams who don't and seem to be getting away with it?

Why don't you think about the future of the game.

If people leave through non-submission, anyone who comes in will not stick it long if they've had big penalties on their team through no fault of their own - less and less people stay interested, and the game then begins to decline.

 

[Rik]

Why don't you think about the future of the game.

If people leave through non-submission, anyone who comes in will not stick it long if they've had big penalties on their team through no fault of their own - less and less people stay interested, and the game then begins to decline.

I am thinking about the future of the game. I just don't see why we should be making it easier for newer managers at the expense of regular, committed, managers. If you come in with your team in deep trouble, then it's your job to make it better. If you want to start from stratch, do what I did and wait until a few new teams can be entered and your name is on the list. I don't see the reasoning that it's more fair for a new manager to come in when his team is top of the division despite the previous manager not submitting several times and getting booted, when the new manager has had nothing to do with the team's position. Certianly new managers see a team such as Somerset as a challange, but if your good enough you should be able to turn any team around, after playing half a season, with good draft picks and good trades. All I see with the new ruling is a bias towards new managers, ie making it easier for them, and also taking a lot of the skill out of the WCC. Seriously ask the managers weather they would like to take over a team in mid-table due to previous manager not submitting, and turning their fortunes around, or picking up a side in the lead despite it being nothing to do with you. I'm pretty sure the majority would prefer the challange, everyone likes to prove they can do better than the previous manager did. If I left Mashonland now and took over a struggling side, I'd enjoy myself much more if I started seeing improvements in my team just because I had made changes, than if I had it all handed on a plate. The rule makes it seem like you think all new managers are only interisted in glory. Well if you want to look for managers who are going to stay, I wouldn't worry about the glory minded managers leaving if things arn't going their way. A manager who is prepared to stick by their team is more likely to be found with the old ruling, even if it takes a few extra managers to get the right one in the end.

 

[age_master]

I am thinking about the future of the game. I just don't see why we should be making it easier for newer managers at the expense of regular, committed, managers. If you come in with your team in deep trouble, then it's your job to make it better. If you want to start from stratch, do what I did and wait until a few new teams can be entered and your name is on the list. I don't see the reasoning that it's more fair for a new manager to come in when his team is top of the division despite the previous manager not submitting several times and getting booted, when the new manager has had nothing to do with the team's position. Certianly new managers see a team such as Somerset as a challange, but if your good enough you should be able to turn any team around, after playing half a season, with good draft picks and good trades. All I see with the new ruling is a bias towards new managers, ie making it easier for them, and also taking a lot of the skill out of the WCC. Seriously ask the managers weather they would like to take over a team in mid-table due to previous manager not submitting, and turning their fortunes around, or picking up a side in the lead despite it being nothing to do with you. I'm pretty sure the majority would prefer the challange, everyone likes to prove they can do better than the previous manager did. If I left Mashonland now and took over a struggling side, I'd enjoy myself much more if I started seeing improvements in my team just because I had made changes, than if I had it all handed on a plate. The rule makes it seem like you think all new managers are only interisted in glory. Well if you want to look for managers who are going to stay, I wouldn't worry about the glory minded managers leaving if things arn't going their way. A manager who is prepared to stick by their team is more likely to be found with the old ruling, even if it takes a few extra managers to get the right one in the end.

i have to agree with this, and i think most managers would - looking around at some of the best sides now, they weren't the best sides at the start - SA, Kent, Colts, WP, TN etc all started off weaker or have had weak periods but are now great sides

 

[age_master]

maybe last is taking it too far, it would also than be better to not submit early in the season, maybe losing 5 or so places in the draft order for non submission 1 and 10 for non submission 2 followed by going back 15 for a 3rd non submission.

 

[The Argonaut]

How about this. Everything hets linked to the draft.

Managers get bonus points for posting reports, say 10. Over a full season that's 200 if you submit reports for all games.

For non-submission of a team you lose 50 points.

Then for the draft the teams are ranked as usual with the weakest side getting 300 points and the strongest 10 points and all the other points in between separated by 10 points.

If everyone submits there side but one team that team drops 5 places on the draft order.

This system would encourage more participation in this part of the forum and discourage non-submission. New managers would start at the average no. of bonus points of all managers at the time of entry therefore not too many and not too little.

 

[Cloete]

How about this. Everything hets linked to the draft.

Managers get bonus points for posting reports, say 10. Over a full season that's 200 if you submit reports for all games.

For non-submission of a team you lose 50 points.

Then for the draft the teams are ranked as usual with the weakest side getting 300 points and the strongest 10 points and all the other points in between separated by 10 points.

If everyone submits there side but one team that team drops 5 places on the draft order.

This system would encourage more participation in this part of the forum and discourage non-submission. New managers would start at the average no. of bonus points of all managers at the time of entry therefore not too many and not too little.

Brilliant idea!! Should work really well and it guves people a chance of a reward, as well as a penalty if they don't submit their team.

 

[Mister Wright]

Brilliant idea!! Should work really well and it guves people a chance of a reward, as well as a penalty if they don't submit their team.

I agree, I like it too.

Because it doesn't disadvantage the new managers like my idea did by top teams losing an automatic trade. As Cloete said it guves (gives) appropriate rewards and penalties. And as Rik said too, it is much more fun taking a struggling side and trying to improve them, it gives you satisfaction when players you have traded and picked perform well, and it is a reason why I took Guyana instead of other stronger teams.

 

[marc71178]

I don't see how forcing people to make a report will improve anything to be honest - if people aren't interested in doing that they could just put 2 words and claim that as a report.

 

[The Argonaut]

I don't see how forcing people to make a report will improve anything to be honest - if people aren't interested in doing that they could just put 2 words and claim that as a report.

That's true and I don't really care if that's what they do. It will still promote a greater response from everyone. They don't have to do it but if they want extra points come draft time they will. There needs to be a way to give bonus point to counter any punishment given out to non-submitters.