A Couple of Suggestions

[AndyP]

as far as the 60 wins, i think it could be a bit unfair if one team is in a division with say 3 90 win teams or something, but yet their team is better overall but has say 58 wins and another team is in a division with the winner of division that only has say 85 wins, but they squeak by with 60 wins and not punished at all. i think it would be fair to do a judgment call and deem that 58 win team looks better than their record shows and not get punished.

I would consider all of these negotiable depending upon the actions of the general manager.

In retrospect, 50M may be a bit harsh, but some sort of penalty even for 60 wins seems like at least a push in the right direction.

I don't want some half-ass 51 win teams either that try to just skate by and then petition themselves away from the hard 50 win penalty. That's what I was trying to avoid.

[texas_tornado]

as far as the 60 wins, i think it could be a bit unfair if one team is in a division with say 3 90 win teams or something, but yet their team is better overall but has say 58 wins and another team is in a division with the winner of division that only has say 85 wins, but they squeak by with 60 wins and not punished at all. i think it would be fair to do a judgment call and deem that 58 win team looks better than their record shows and not get punished.

I would consider all of these negotiable depending upon the actions of the general manager.

In retrospect, 50M may be a bit harsh, but some sort of penalty even for 60 wins seems like at least a push in the right direction.

I don't want some half-ass 51 win teams either that try to just skate by and then petition themselves away from the hard 50 win penalty. That's what I was trying to avoid.

I know I'm new and still learning the ins and outs of mogul, but maybe 0 penalty for 60 wins, 50M for 50 or less, and deduct 5M from the penalty for each win over 50. So, 51 wins would still be 45M penalty, 55 wins would be 25M penalty, 59 wins is 5M penalty, etc. That way even just edging out 51 wins is still a penalty, but still less severe than 50.

[Geaux Blue]

I really do think the WB penalty is a good deterrent as well. The 50 game penalties makes sense to me and I agree with most the others that something a little less harsh for the next tier would be a good start.

[AndyP]

as far as the 60 wins, i think it could be a bit unfair if one team is in a division with say 3 90 win teams or something, but yet their team is better overall but has say 58 wins and another team is in a division with the winner of division that only has say 85 wins, but they squeak by with 60 wins and not punished at all. i think it would be fair to do a judgment call and deem that 58 win team looks better than their record shows and not get punished.

I would consider all of these negotiable depending upon the actions of the general manager.

In retrospect, 50M may be a bit harsh, but some sort of penalty even for 60 wins seems like at least a push in the right direction.

I don't want some half-ass 51 win teams either that try to just skate by and then petition themselves away from the hard 50 win penalty. That's what I was trying to avoid.

I know I'm new and still learning the ins and outs of mogul, but maybe 0 penalty for 60 wins, 50M for 50 or less, and deduct 5M from the penalty for each win over 50. So, 51 wins would still be 45M penalty, 55 wins would be 25M penalty, 59 wins is 5M penalty, etc. That way even just edging out 51 wins is still a penalty, but still less severe than 50.

I'd be open to that as well.

[mattynokes]

The wins thing for tanking is something I suggested before, but it can't be just straight wins. First, it allows a team to count wins and then stop trying to win, if that's what they want to do. Second, divisional strength is a big part of just how many wins a team gets.

With different strengths of divisions win totals can't be looked at as the same from team to team. If you're rebuilding in a division that has three 100 win teams then naturally your win total will be lower. But that same team should win more games if the rest of the division only has one team above 90 wins. Thus I think the following formula works well:

Your Wins - ( [81 - A] / 5) = Real Wins

A = Average wins of the other 4 teams in division

81 wins would make a .500 Win%, so this looks at your division strength. It looks at on average how many games are the other teams in the division above or under 81 wins. The end result is giving you your real wins after strength of division.

Personally I think 54 wins is good tanking point. It's arbitrary or trying to nitpick. 54 wins is exactly one-third of 162. 50 wins seems like it's too low and 60 wins seems too high. Since if there's gonna be 100 win teams there should naturally be some 100 loss teams as total MLB wins have to match total MLB losses.

[AndyP]

I'm fine with implementing a 54 real win rule for next season. If you can't meet that win total than your cash is wiped out and you lose 5 years of WB access.

[sxr007]

I think tanking should be against the rules. I don't care if the win 31, 51 or 61 games. You can tell. Plain and simple.

I think we all trust Andy's judgement. It's his league. If he deems your team as a tanker then he deals the set punishment.

[mattynokes]

Here's my shot at writing up the rule:

Tanking Rule
If a team falls below 55 "real" wins, they are subject to fines. "Real" wins are defined by the formula below:

Your Wins - ( [81 - A] / 5) = Real Wins
A = Average wins of the other 4 teams in division

Fines
54-50 Wins = Loss of 10-50M and ALL WB Slots, both for 1 Year
Under 50 Wins = Loss of ALL Cash (In-Game and Bank) and ALL WB Slots, both for 5 Years

[gillyd]

I trust Andy's judgement - I'm not sure I'm in total agreement with a prescribed win total but I will defer to Andy's leadership on it.

[AndyP]

Ideally this never comes in to play, so please guys - aim higher than some of the ugly efforts this year.