Was a lot of chatter last week regarding the penalty for failing to get 50 wins. After thinking and talking about it a bit more I'll write a formal suggestion:
Proposal: Modify the tanking penalty for not achieving 50 wins.
Solution: Move the offending team's draft pick from #1 to #10, removing WB ban and cash wipe.
Benefits:
Cons:
The system really isn't broken now. but I think this is better.
Proposal: Modify the tanking penalty for not achieving 50 wins.
Solution: Move the offending team's draft pick from #1 to #10, removing WB ban and cash wipe.
Benefits:
- More consistent punishment
- Today, a cash wipe is of varying significance. PR lost ~$95 million with the latest punishment. There’s a multitude of factors that could lead the next person to losing $0 or $200 million in mogul dollars. There is also plenty of room for shenanigans (ie – I know I wont hit 50 wins so take on bad contracts, trade my cash for picks, etc). Removing the cash penalty standardizes the severity across the board.
- Today, a cash wipe is of varying significance. PR lost ~$95 million with the latest punishment. There’s a multitude of factors that could lead the next person to losing $0 or $200 million in mogul dollars. There is also plenty of room for shenanigans (ie – I know I wont hit 50 wins so take on bad contracts, trade my cash for picks, etc). Removing the cash penalty standardizes the severity across the board.
- Removes ambiguity
- Similar to the last line above – removes all ambiguity. PR stopped paying attention last season. Hick/Rhen tried their hardest and only hit 50 with the help of a re-sim. Setting a consistent measurement takes any sort of headache away from Andy in deciding who tried and who didn’t.
- Similar to the last line above – removes all ambiguity. PR stopped paying attention last season. Hick/Rhen tried their hardest and only hit 50 with the help of a re-sim. Setting a consistent measurement takes any sort of headache away from Andy in deciding who tried and who didn’t.
- One year punishment
- The ambiguity was helpful for those that truly didn’t intend to hit sub-50. Making it a 1 year penalty lessens the blow for those that weren’t true scumbags.
- Andy doesn’t have to track winterball bans. It’s a one-and-done penalty.
- The ambiguity was helpful for those that truly didn’t intend to hit sub-50. Making it a 1 year penalty lessens the blow for those that weren’t true scumbags.
- Removes the incentive to tank that hard entirely
- If you don’t get the first pick, teams will be more incentivized to not tank as hard
- If you don’t get the first pick, teams will be more incentivized to not tank as hard
- More fair to the people with the 2nd-10th picks
- Arizona, Baltimore, etc don’t see any tangible benefit from PR losing his cash or being banned from WB. All that happened is they got a worse pick. This will equalize things for the group behind the tanker.
- Arizona, Baltimore, etc don’t see any tangible benefit from PR losing his cash or being banned from WB. All that happened is they got a worse pick. This will equalize things for the group behind the tanker.
Cons:
The system really isn't broken now. but I think this is better.