Monday, March 5, 2012

Panda Watch: Wins Requirement

(Previously Announced Necessary Debate Article)

And now, a message from our commissioner:


In the last few seasons the current wins requirement rule has come under some attention, and it seems it's about time to re-examine what this group of owners wants as a whole.  Before we get into the potential options, I'd like to set a few ground rules.  Let's keep any personal arguing or bickering off the WC.  We can definitely discuss things and raise point/counterpoint on the issue at hand, but I want to keep the discussion civil.  Like I mentioned last time, if someone disagrees with your opinion, that's their right- the onus is on you to raise salient points that will change their mind, not to tell them they're wrong or stupid.  Here's some statistics on the last few seasons:

Team win totals under 60:
Season 17 - 5 (59, 54, 53, 52, 44)
Season 16 - 4 (55, 48, 37, 36)
Season 15 - 2 (57, 35)
Season 14 - 2 (50, 49)
Season 13 - None

Not all of the aforementioned teams were the same each year, but it gives us a low watermark for what the world has been like historically.  I'd like to avoid a season-long discussion of potential options, so I've drawn out 3 potential options for the world, all of which have pros and cons:

1. No wins requirement

No wins requirement is pretty self explanatory.  The pros are that it may keep us from losing owners that want to stay.  The cons are that is allows teams to tank for a number of seasons at the ML level in order to build up through the draft/IFA market.  This can result in a number of teams with 100+ loss seasons, and can ultimately lead to a very unbalanced world, which is what we're trying to avoid with this vote.

2. Wins requirement, votes required for expulsion

Our current world rules have something along this line.  The wins requirement is usually a little more aggressive than the automatic dismissal option, but it allows owners to examine how a team is attempting to rebuild or reconstruct a team before removing an owner.  The pros are that the threat of being removed may deter teams from tanking, and it allows owners to be a little bit lenient for the rebuilding process when a new owner takes over a team in horrendous condition.  The cons are that it's a bit of a gray area to what is an acceptable number of losses, and getting all teams to vote at the end of the season can many times be an exercise in futility.

Our current rules require 125 wins over 2 seasons and 195 wins over 3 seasons- if this is not met, we require 10 votes for dismissal from the world.  If we decide to go with this option, we would change it to 120 wins over 2 seasons and 180 over 3 (60 win average).  We would stick with the 10 votes required for expulsion, and the commissioner would send out a TC 'ballot' at the 140 game mark for all teams in danger of failing to meet the criteria.  If teams abstain from the vote for expulsion, that team's vote will count toward allowing the player to remain in the world.

3. Wins requirement, automatic dismissal

The wins requirement with an automatic dismissal is usually slightly lower, but obviously failing to meet the requirements is much more serious.  The pros are that there is an obvious number that must be exceeded, and that there is no debate or question to who should be removed or not.  The cons are that new owners taking over horrible rebuilding situations may have a hard time achieving the necessary win totals, and there is no room for leniency.

If we were to institute a wins requirement with automatic dismissal, 100 wins over 2 consecutive seasons seems like a historically accurate number.  Only 2 owners in the last 5 seasons would have been removed with this rule, with one of those two only missing the cutoff by 4 games.

Here's how the voting will work- I will send everyone a TC 'ballot', and everyone will have 5 days to discuss and vote.  I'll post the results on the blog after the voting is finished.  Any team has the right to abstain, but I'll be looking for a majority within the votes that were cast.  Therefore I wouldn't abstain unless you're absolutely sure you don't care about the outcome.  I'll just point out that I don't care what the world decided, just that majority rules.  If we have a tie between 2 of the options, we'll have a run-off between those two.  If you're not happy with the way the ruling goes, you're completely within your right to not come back next season.  We're doing this because we're trying to make sure the world is representative of what the owners want, so again- majority rules.  Any rule that we choose will go into effect next season (19).  To avoid complications or questions, we won't have a wins requirement this season.  Anything we choose will start fresh next season.  Think of Season 18 as a transition year.  I don't want to hear complaining from either side given the decision.  If you're not happy with the way the ruling goes, you're completely within your right to not come back next season.  We're doing this because we're trying to make sure the world is representative of what the owners want, so again- majority rules.

If you have any questions, comments, or input regarding the process please TC or sitemail me.  Thanks for your cooperation.

-Commish (bjharder)

No comments:

Post a Comment