IBC

I personally would like to hear some suggestions about competitive balance that are 'outside the box'. We've discussed moving teams, we've discussed a Rule V draft. Does anyone have any other ideas? No idea is too crazy, just bear in mind that targeting a specific team or a couple specific teams is not an appropriate method of addressing competitive balance.

Change the schedule so it's not the MLB schedule which is imbalanced. I.e., you don't play in division for half your schedule+.


That said, it would be semi lame to not follow the MLB schedule. but i dont really care.

Start over from scratch......haha!

Maybe it's just me...but is the competitive balance really that big of a problem? Yeah, there are some teams losing a lot of games, but some of those teams have really dedicated GMs who are in the process of rebuilding. I mean if you count quality GMs by division, I see 4 in the ALE, 4 in the ALC, everybody in the ALW, 4 in the NLE, 4 in the NLC (or 3 depending on what you think of me), and 4 in the NLW. And the only reason I discounted some of these guys is only because I don't know them. They could be great.

I think what would benefit the league most would be bringing in some GMs with personality and a game plan. To me, never talking, never posting, but sending in your lineup is not enough to be in this league. You should be vocal, you should paricipate, you should be a presence. I mean hell, like me or not, I'll always speak up and tell you what I think. And I think we just need to fill out remaining GM spots with some guys who will become a part of the group.

There might be a few teams who will be powerhouses year in and year out, but overall it changes season to season. With the exception of JB, every single GM who's won a championship has had a down season (or more) with their team. Competitive balance isn't the issue. Get guys who are going to have fun become a real part of the IBC, and the league has a whole will become a lot more interesting.

Just wanted to add that I know there are no slots open right now. I'm referring to those franchises who have GMs that are like ghosts. They make a little noise here and there, but you never really see them.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying about bringing in new GM's who will chime in. I know I'm disappointed to not have seen anything from any of the new GM's on any of these issues yet.

Astros wrote:Change the schedule so it's not the MLB schedule which is imbalanced. I.e., you don't play in division for half your schedule+.


That said, it would be semi lame to not follow the MLB schedule. but i dont really care.

Quoted for a great idea.

I mean if you count quality GMs by division, I see 4 in the ALE

Come on, I don't think the Red Sox are that poorly run...

DevilRays wrote:

I mean if you count quality GMs by division, I see 4 in the ALE

Come on, I don't think the Red Sox are that poorly run...

Now that was funny...

I'm absolutely w/ Gabe on this one - we clearly need to do a better job in bringing in new GM's. The turnover in GM's seems to be just about the same teams year in and year out - I'm not asking for people to submit to a personality test, but I'd really like to see people who will be invested in this league.

I think there's a group of 15-18 GM's in this league that make me want to remain in the league year on year - and I truly think that, for a group of people who largely has no idea who each other is, there is a true sense of community in this league. I also think, over the past few years, that we have made some outstanding additions to this league - and that the quality of GM in the league is higher then it's ever been - but those GM's shouldn't be the exception, they should be the bar we aim to hit with each new addition.

I will step down from my soap box.

[quote="Cubs"]I think what would benefit the league most would be bringing in some GMs with personality and a game plan. To me, never talking, never posting, but sending in your lineup is not enough to be in this league. You should be vocal, you should paricipate, you should be a presence. I mean hell, like me or not, I'll always speak up and tell you what I think. And I think we just need to fill out remaining GM spots with some guys who will become a part of the group.[quote]

Being a new GM not all that long ago myself I would encourage the established GMs to ease up on these new GMs. They have not been in the league very long and I know from experience it takes a bit of time to get a feel for this ... I am confident that the new GMs will add to this league in their time at their pace.

(Duplicate post from "Rule 5", more appropriate here.)

To further the point, when talking about "bad teams", who exactly are we talking about? Let's go by records.

L.A.a - 45 Wins - Dave Taylor, got some crap for trading Schilling, but is actively trying to improve his team.
T.B. - 46 Wins - Patrick Tullar, has came in and sign some of the best free agent prospects, that more vet GM's should have beaten him too.
Mil - 47 Wins - Jake Levine, very active, will have more "TOP-100" prospects than anyone.
Ari- 52 Wins - ME, active.
Was- 52 Wins - New GM, time will tell.
N.Y.n - 55 Wins - Jim Berger, very-very-very active.
Hou - 58 Wins - John Paul Starkey - nuff said!
Det - 58 Wins - Brett Perryman - The Man!
Cle - 61 Wins - Kelly Burke, mark my words, the Central better be scared!
K.C. - 61 Wins - Brett Zalaski, I dare ya, tell him he's "Bad".
S.F. - 64 Wins - Nils Erickson, once he was below .500, Nils went to work on the free agents market, and has quietly been replenishing his minor league system.

So, who in the hell are we talking about when we talk about "BAD TEAMS" that NEED our help, I JUST DON'T SEE IT!

My thoughts on this are in kind of a different direction, and I think I should have clarified that to begin with in this thread. There are many ways to think about competitive balance. Right now, my thinking is how do we make sure good/great teams don't get too good. JB's team arguably falls under that category, but Pat and I are both in the division as well and kind of temper him, such that he's not always going to win the division (or even necessarily make the playoffs).
I guess the big question is, should we find some way to make sure teams don't get so good that it's unhealthy for the league?

RedSox wrote: I guess the big question is, should we find some way to make sure teams don't get so good that it's unhealthy for the league?

If that is the real question, then I don't think a Rule 5 draft addresses it in any way.

I think the only way you truly address that issue is through a simple salary cap structure where a top team isn't able to pile up 20 All Stars on their roster.

Outside of that, I think we all just have to live with the consequences of trading All Star players to JB. That dirty bastard!

Mariners wrote:

RedSox wrote: I guess the big question is, should we find some way to make sure teams don't get so good that it's unhealthy for the league?

If that is the real question, then I don't think a Rule 5 draft addresses it in any way.

I think the only way you truly address that issue is through a simple salary cap structure where a top team isn't able to pile up 20 All Stars on their roster.

Outside of that, I think we all just have to live with the consequences of trading All Star players to JB. That dirty bastard!

A salary cap will enver happen, there's simply too much league-wide opposition.
This is the "outside the box" thread. You should bitchslap yourself for rehashing old and tired ideas.

If asked what has been the most powerful franchise in IBC history, almost everyone who's been here since year one would say JB's Yankees. But, his great roster and solid franchise year in and year out has only resulted in one IBC Championship. So, even though his roster is stacked from top to bottom, it hasn't resulted in any form of dominance. In fact, there's a very real chance he could miss the postseason this year.

His team is always good and that's too his credit, but I don't think it's to the point that we need to come up with ways to limit how good his, or anybody else's team, can get. Winning in the sim, somehow, someway, is very similar to the MLB in that it's not all about allstars. its about the right mix of guys, smart managing of your roster, and a little bit of luck.

A salary cap will enver happen, there's simply too much league-wide opposition.
This is the "outside the box" thread. You should bitchslap yourself for rehashing old and tired ideas.

For outside the box thinking, the league should just contract the Yankees. You could have a contraction draft with the bottom 5 teams in the league and it would immediately improve their competitiveness while also ellminating one of the three remaining "axis of evil".

What's that you say? George Bush didn't identify the Yankees as one of the three "axis of evil"? Bullshit, we all know the guy can't count....he meant to say four.

Take that Gotham City!

Cubs wrote:If asked what has been the most powerful franchise in IBC history, almost everyone who's been here since year one would say JB's Yankees. But, his great roster and solid franchise year in and year out has only resulted in one IBC Championship. So, even though his roster is stacked from top to bottom, it hasn't resulted in any form of dominance. In fact, there's a very real chance he could miss the postseason this year.

His team is always good and that's too his credit, but I don't think it's to the point that we need to come up with ways to limit how good his, or anybody else's team, can get. Winning in the sim, somehow, someway, is very similar to the MLB in that it's not all about allstars. its about the right mix of guys, smart managing of your roster, and a little bit of luck.

In terms of IBC championships, no.

In terms of teams making the postseason, you do have the same teams going again and again and again. This is the first year Nils will have missed and I think only the second year Brennan will have. That's a result of good GMs being thrown into the NL West finally and the AL West to an extent as well with Jake improving rapidly and Brennan getting shot down by injury.

Brandon, Shawn and Jake look to be first time playoff teams this year. Other than them you seemingly have the same teams going back every year. I believe this will the first time since 2004 you've missed the playoffs yourself and that's partially a result of coming back to the NLC. You'd have fared better in the NLE (see..................moving teams does alter balance short term and longterm!)

Anyway for awhile we basically had Bren/JB/Pat in the playoffs from the East (2/3), Andrew in the central the past two years (though Perryman and Zalaski will obviously challenge next year), Ropers in the West except when I believe Geiss beat him out with Oakland 2005, the NLE had you on lockdown last year, Josh/Aaron/Nate have cycled the NLC and Nils has had a chokehold on the West.

In terms of that, I think things may be changing.

Mariners wrote:

A salary cap will enver happen, there's simply too much league-wide opposition.
This is the "outside the box" thread. You should bitchslap yourself for rehashing old and tired ideas.

For outside the box thinking, the league should just contract the Yankees. You could have a contraction draft with the bottom 5 teams in the league and it would immediately improve their competitiveness while also ellminating one of the three remaining "axis of evil".

What's that you say? George Bush didn't identify the Yankees as one of the three "axis of evil"? Bullshit, we all know the guy can't count....he meant to say four.

Take that Gotham City!

Hell yea, then we won't have to deal with that prick ever again! Bastard steals all the sick Yankee prospects.