|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 4:03:34 GMT -5
Vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 11:25:44 GMT -5
lol, everyone wants the extra year!
|
|
Tigertecz
Senior Member
Ex-GM
TANGO SUCKAA!!! BAMBI!!
Posts: 7,775
|
Post by Tigertecz on Nov 26, 2009 11:26:11 GMT -5
You asked the people what they wanted, and they responded!
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 11:27:05 GMT -5
Thats fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pig on Nov 26, 2009 12:09:40 GMT -5
The extra year really strengthens league parity IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 12:10:34 GMT -5
Allows you to rebuild correctly. I kinda wanna switch it to 42 wins though. Over 500.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 12:11:09 GMT -5
The CY year cycle can be deadly. Just go from 1 CY to the next cause you cant rebuild properly. I think with the extra year going to 42 wins would be fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pig on Nov 26, 2009 12:11:41 GMT -5
The CY year cycle can be deadly. Just go from 1 CY to the next cause you cant rebuild properly. I think with the extra year going to 42 wins would be fair. As do I. |
|
Tigertecz
Senior Member
Ex-GM
TANGO SUCKAA!!! BAMBI!!
Posts: 7,775
|
Post by Tigertecz on Nov 26, 2009 12:15:37 GMT -5
Yup I like the sound of that. 4 years, 42 wins or Playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haberino on Nov 26, 2009 12:18:22 GMT -5
WOAH, wait, no fucking way should we allow teams 4 years to tank. Jesus, that is so awful. I thought you meant should it be the fourth year or third year. 4 years of below 40 is pathetic and there's no way that's gonna help anything out. The CY in the last BBS was perfect. Only shitty GMs had a hard time staying in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Nov 26, 2009 12:19:14 GMT -5
WOAH, wait, no fucking way should we allow teams 4 years to tank. Jesus, that is so awful. I thought you meant should it be the fourth year or third year. 4 years of below 40 is pathetic and there's no way that's gonna help anything out. The CY in the last BBS was perfect. Only shitty GMs had a hard time staying in. I think its cyclical. I think not allowing teams to rebuild properly forced them to constantly struggle to stay competitive. |
|
|
|
Post by Haberino on Nov 26, 2009 12:19:18 GMT -5
Ugh, that's fucking awful. Who the hell needs 4 years to rebuild? Letting guys tank for four seasons doesn't help parity at all. It'll make it easier to build a great team and it'll make the swings in parity way too drastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haberino on Nov 26, 2009 12:21:02 GMT -5
WOAH, wait, no fucking way should we allow teams 4 years to tank. Jesus, that is so awful. I thought you meant should it be the fourth year or third year. 4 years of below 40 is pathetic and there's no way that's gonna help anything out. The CY in the last BBS was perfect. Only shitty GMs had a hard time staying in. I think its cyclical. I think not allowing teams to rebuild properly forced them to constantly struggle to stay competitive. Who couldn't rebuild properly? If it takes you more than three seasons to build properly, that's pathetic. All this is gonna do is let inactive/mediocre guys like Galo was in the last BBS hang around and suck for longer. Or, it'll let teams tank for four years and build ridiculous teams just by having their own picks, which is dumb and unfair. This is terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Pig on Nov 26, 2009 12:21:06 GMT -5
WOAH, wait, no fucking way should we allow teams 4 years to tank. Jesus, that is so awful. I thought you meant should it be the fourth year or third year. 4 years of below 40 is pathetic and there's no way that's gonna help anything out. The CY in the last BBS was perfect. Only shitty GMs had a hard time staying in. What about something if we had an "Emergency Year" or something like that. 4 years below 40 and you have to win 45-50 to stay around. |
|
|
|
Post by Haberino on Nov 26, 2009 12:22:12 GMT -5
How nine guys think allowing 4 years of below 40 is a good move is beyond me. It'll hurt the league.
|
|
