|
Post by New York on Aug 8, 2016 19:41:12 GMT
So few questions from this post: 1) Why don't you think contraction would be a positive?
I don't think anyone is saying that we contract by 6 teams and then the following day we see a boost in activity but as Boston said we've already got multiple vacancies (and honestly always do) which are obviously inactive teams which leads to players that are inaccessible to the rest of the league and also just clog things up overall. Then that's not to mention the team's that aren't vacant but basically serve the same role. So basically why is having 36 teams a positive rather than 30 is what I'm asking? 2) Are you saying that people would be more active if it was easier to earn PP? ultimateabca.proboards.com/thread/1858/double-pp-articles-tuesday-extendedultimateabca.proboards.com/thread/1858/double-pp-articles-tuesday-extendedI direct you to the last two double PP offers during one of the easiest times to come up with articles (early off-season near the draft) and guess how many articles were written? One. People aren't earning PP because they choose not to, not because it's hard to earn. I think again this is a case of the focus being put on the wrong thing. More articles would be nice obviously but it's not what I look at when I think about activity or the lack thereof, I look more at general involvement with stuff as simple as posting around the forums besides the 12 "same" post a GM is required to do. Just my take on things though. 1) There are 18-24 active GMs, according to this article . Removing 6 positions will not increase the number of active players. Sim Leagues move in cycles. The summer ALWAYS has less activity. I don't want to kill 4-6 spots and then have people on the waiting list where we can't fill the teams. What is the real negative of having 36 teams? I don't see it. There are very few people who I can't reach via PM or slack if I want to talk trade. I don't think removing them makes the league any better. I am fine with Istanbul and Tel Aviv levels of activity. 2) Those were not successful but consider that they were for a finite time period and often during weekends when people are outside and attending events, again, during the summer time. I am not talking about a promotional period. I think across the board PP have far little impact to be worth it for most people. We have yet to see PP drastically change much at all. I think we should try out a longer term PP raise if you want to properly judge it. Again I am not speaking toward recent inactivity as I have stated many times in this thread and on slack. I don't know why some are assuming (not most but a few) that I or anyone else is being short sighted about this when we've all been in these leagues for years and understand that league activity goes up and down. "I don't want to kill 4-6 spots and then have people on the waiting list" . An issue is there are very rarely people on the waiting list, it's easy to say oh when these teams become vacant then we'll just fill them when it's not your responsibility to fill those teams. The committee has to more often then not go out and dig through names to get to 36 GMs and then when we do that, about a week or two later we lose a couple of GMs and the cycle starts over again. We've seen the positives of a smaller number of GMs in the past so I don't think that's something that really needs to be argued and as for the negatives of 36 teams, I just mentioned one and if you need to see others refer to Boston's post above. As for the PP thing, I really don't see a change happening and again just personally it's not what I'm discussing when I talk about activity. But to touch on it before moving on from this personally, I disagree that the camps don't have a large enough impact. Maybe people aren't using the right camps (and revamping the camps available could be a separate discussion) but it's not hard to send a player to 2-3 camps and see a respectable change in their performance. If we do any of the following: 1) lower cost of camps 2) increase amount of PP given 3) increase amount of points camp give it won't be long before everyone has multiple purple and high blue players on their roster. People already claim that the talent level is a bit too high in the league so why would it make sense to make it easier to boost players which in turn increases the talent level even further. I still believe people aren't writing articles because they don't want to not because it doesn't give enough to them. We've never seen the camps or PP have any negative effect on activity so I just personally can't agree with that having anything to do with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 19:47:25 GMT
So few questions from this post: 1) Why don't you think contraction would be a positive?
I don't think anyone is saying that we contract by 6 teams and then the following day we see a boost in activity but as Boston said we've already got multiple vacancies (and honestly always do) which are obviously inactive teams which leads to players that are inaccessible to the rest of the league and also just clog things up overall. Then that's not to mention the team's that aren't vacant but basically serve the same role. So basically why is having 36 teams a positive rather than 30 is what I'm asking? 2) Are you saying that people would be more active if it was easier to earn PP? ultimateabca.proboards.com/thread/1858/double-pp-articles-tuesday-extendedultimateabca.proboards.com/thread/1858/double-pp-articles-tuesday-extendedI direct you to the last two double PP offers during one of the easiest times to come up with articles (early off-season near the draft) and guess how many articles were written? One. People aren't earning PP because they choose not to, not because it's hard to earn. I think again this is a case of the focus being put on the wrong thing. More articles would be nice obviously but it's not what I look at when I think about activity or the lack thereof, I look more at general involvement with stuff as simple as posting around the forums besides the 12 "same" post a GM is required to do. Just my take on things though. 1) There are 18-24 active GMs, according to this article . Removing 6 positions will not increase the number of active players. Sim Leagues move in cycles. The summer ALWAYS has less activity. I don't want to kill 4-6 spots and then have people on the waiting list where we can't fill the teams. As a few people have mentioned, for starters - less teams means a higher % shot at the playoffs, which to some teams is the difference between making a playoff run a shot vs waiting out another season posting "same". The more teams engaged in playoff races COULD help activity . Again I don't think anyone is saying contraction automatically helps engagement, but we're sitting at 3 vacancies and realistically another 2-3 that have no point here other than taking up space in the lotto or playoffs. Also again for 10 years ABCA has run at 28-32 teams and never had a problem with a pile of great candidates sitting in the waiting list. Why does Ultimate ABCA have to be different? I'm asking not to be rhetorical but to actually ask why we can't consider that 36 is an UltimateABCA mistake and revert to what has always worked historically?
|
|
|
Post by Piraeus on Aug 8, 2016 19:48:59 GMT
Is the positive you mentioned for having less teams not having to fill open spots? That is not a benefit relevant to the entire league. If you want to reduce the burden on the committee, then raise the referral PP.
I disagree with Boston regarding playoff competition. 24 teams won 38 or more games last year. Those teams were in playoff contention for most or all of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Piraeus on Aug 8, 2016 19:50:27 GMT
1) There are 18-24 active GMs, according to this article . Removing 6 positions will not increase the number of active players. Sim Leagues move in cycles. The summer ALWAYS has less activity. I don't want to kill 4-6 spots and then have people on the waiting list where we can't fill the teams. As a few people have mentioned, for starters - less teams means a higher % shot at the playoffs, which to some teams is the difference between making a playoff run a shot vs waiting out another season posting "same". The more teams engaged in playoff races COULD help activity . Again I don't think anyone is saying contraction automatically helps engagement, but we're sitting at 3 vacancies and realistically another 2-3 that have no point here other than taking up space in the lotto or playoffs. Also again for 10 years ABCA has run at 28-32 teams and never had a problem with a pile of great candidates sitting in the waiting list. Why does Ultimate ABCA have to be different? I'm asking not to be rhetorical but to actually ask why we can't consider that 36 is an UltimateABCA mistake and revert to what has always worked historically? For your first paragraph, see my reply above this one. For your second, it is very hard to "undo" contraction. If we want to grow again it is complicated to expand once we have removed those teams. I am not a fan of dispersal drafts increasing the talent on less rosters. I think that has a bigger impact than an PP upgrades in terms of inflating talent levels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 19:53:36 GMT
I disagree with Boston regarding playoff competition. Just to be clear this isn't a "Boston" sentiment - several people in this thread and on Slack have agreed. Not saying that it makes it right or wrong - just that it's a position several people share.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 19:55:03 GMT
As a few people have mentioned, for starters - less teams means a higher % shot at the playoffs, which to some teams is the difference between making a playoff run a shot vs waiting out another season posting "same". The more teams engaged in playoff races COULD help activity . Again I don't think anyone is saying contraction automatically helps engagement, but we're sitting at 3 vacancies and realistically another 2-3 that have no point here other than taking up space in the lotto or playoffs. Also again for 10 years ABCA has run at 28-32 teams and never had a problem with a pile of great candidates sitting in the waiting list. Why does Ultimate ABCA have to be different? I'm asking not to be rhetorical but to actually ask why we can't consider that 36 is an UltimateABCA mistake and revert to what has always worked historically? For your second, it is very hard to "undo" contraction. If we want to grow again it is complicated to expand once we have removed those teams. I am not a fan of dispersal drafts increasing the talent on less rosters. I think that has a bigger impact than an PP upgrades in terms of inflating talent levels. Why would we undo it? Why wouldn't we just continue at the preferred number of teams indefinitely as we always have? And we have contracted and expanded in the past quite easily - not sure it would be "very hard" - but again I can't imagine we would re-expand.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota on Aug 8, 2016 20:12:39 GMT
Referral bonus going up 100pp would do absolutely nothing to get me to try and get people, I just don't know anyone who wants in
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 20:28:17 GMT
Referral bonus going up 100pp would do absolutely nothing to get me to try and get people, I just don't know anyone who wants in This. The last time I did anything for PP specifically was like 2-3 leagues ago lol. Also the only two people I know weird enough to be here are already here. The others we've tried only last a season or two.
|
|
|
Post by Piraeus on Aug 8, 2016 20:33:07 GMT
Referral bonus going up 100pp would do absolutely nothing to get me to try and get people, I just don't know anyone who wants in If it was 500, or 1000, would that incentivize you? I think we'd get the spots filled.
|
|
|
Post by Piraeus on Aug 8, 2016 20:33:34 GMT
I disagree with Boston regarding playoff competition. Just to be clear this isn't a "Boston" sentiment - several people in this thread and on Slack have agreed. Not saying that it makes it right or wrong - just that it's a position several people share. Sure. I said Boston because NY attributed it to you. I still disagree with it. I've said my piece, if the league wants to contract, the committee will decide or the league will vote. I'll be fine either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 20:47:49 GMT
Referral bonus going up 100pp would do absolutely nothing to get me to try and get people, I just don't know anyone who wants in If it was 500, or 1000, would that incentivize you? I think we'd get the spots filled. No because if I knew someone who would want to be in the league I would have invited them already to fill a vacant spot. Filling up the league is incentive enough. After ten years in ABCA I'm quite sure I've told as many of my friends that would do it as possible. It's not like I know people that would be a good fit but I've waited on telling them about the league until the PP incentive went up lol
|
|
|
Post by New Orleans on Aug 8, 2016 20:50:35 GMT
Yeah... PP incentive would lead to some crappy GM who wouldn't be here long enough to do anything. Pointless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 20:54:18 GMT
Yeah... PP incentive would lead to some crappy GM who wouldn't be here long enough to do anything. Pointless. Yeah I just think a PP incentive implies that we know people who would want to be in the league but we haven't told them yet because we've been waiting for the PP? It's an odd solution - I assume any GM that knows of someone who would want in the league would just send them a link and tell them to sign up..
|
|
|
Post by New Orleans on Aug 8, 2016 20:57:28 GMT
Yeah... PP incentive would lead to some crappy GM who wouldn't be here long enough to do anything. Pointless. Yeah I just think a PP incentive implies that we know people who would want to be in the league but we haven't told them yet because we've been waiting for the PP? It's an odd solution - I assume any GM that knows of someone who would want in the league would just send them a link and tell them to sign up.. Exactly. I've told people who I think would be interested. As we age it's difficult and these younger dudes can't commit to anything long term anyway. Lol
|
|
|
Post by Swoosh on Aug 9, 2016 22:30:26 GMT
Yeah I just think a PP incentive implies that we know people who would want to be in the league but we haven't told them yet because we've been waiting for the PP? It's an odd solution - I assume any GM that knows of someone who would want in the league would just send them a link and tell them to sign up.. Exactly. I've told people who I think would be interested. As we age it's difficult and these younger dudes can't commit to anything long term anyway. Lol What these guys have said...who here knows people that would be interested in the league for 500PP that they didn't know for 100PP? Who is backlogging people for all these seasons just waiting for the PP increase? I don't understand the concept and I discard it out of hand. Anyone I know who would be interested in this league is already here...and that's because they are from one of the previous ABCAs.
|
|
|
Post by Sarawak on Aug 18, 2016 20:28:18 GMT
125 PP
PP Credited
|
|