I think it will involve the hole community. Everybody want to be a part of it first, but second we all want to see the best results, with the best players (we like to see messi and djokovic playing don't we?).
Managers like Richelieu and Heyheuhei its what we are looking for: great players, and with a history of dedication to the game.
So by the end, i dont see how cannot to vote who the managers and players should be.

And should each interested person give a reason to why they should be a manager? (calling dibs will work here?)

I don't think managers should have to be voted on (weather I make it or not) but players having to be voted in )or having to take above a certain place in a tournament perhaps?) would be ok.

My reasoning is that managers would get voted out for being bad players, but they're not playing in the games, just judging how well others will play, which is entirely different.

I'm up for being a player. Funfun!

Eagle, the reason I could see manager voting being required is that not everyone gets along on this site. Consider this... how well would you play if Richelieu was your manager? Or if I were your manager? You aren't exactly a fan of either of us so would you really want to be 'employed' on our teams?

Thats half the fun Sharpe, same as in any sport, good manager/player relations is part of the game. If players are not happy then it is the managers job to address that (or trade them), and if a manager works really well with players that have low overall rankings more power to him/her

Amazing concept, love this!


I'm certainly interested: manager, player, accountant, deputy commissioner, whatever you want me for. I don't have much time at this moment, but I hope that will be better soon.

I think it would work best with up to 10 managers each with only 1 team, because there would be more movement of players possible. A lower ammount of managers makes it much more restricting and that may become boring soon.

I love the idea of player salaries, it would be great to have an open market. As in: you don't have to buy the player, you only need to be able to give him a certain salary for a fixed ammount of time (contracts of 1 game, several games, ...). An owner can only offer money that he has at that moment, so contract length is automatically limited.

This would work great in combination with the "restricted free agent" concept. Any manager can offer any currently "employed" player a higher salary for the duration of the contract, while the current owner has the right to match the offered salary (if he has enough money) or let the player go.
When the existing contract is up, any manager can offer the player a new contract.

This would also solve the end of season issue as new managers can easily gain players from old managers like this. Whenever new managers are added, new players should be added in a similar way.

Trades (mentioned by someone before) would also be great in this system as it would be a great way to shed salary if you lose a few games in a row.

The idea of The Duke to pay the winner the total salaries, makes a lot of sense, but will quickly make good teams better and bad teams worse. I'd rather say both teams get paid by "entertainment value" with the winning team getting 2/3 (rounded to the nearest integer) of the salaries involved and the losing team 1/3. Like this, the richest team can become about twice as rich as the poorest team, which makes sense. It will also allow a poor team to play with real bad players in an attempt to recover and stack some money to buy better players in the long run.


On chosing the managers: in about every existing league, the commissioner, along with the existing team owners/members, decides on this, I don't see why it would be any different here.
Having owners that are not universally loved, may make it more interesting. Players may ask to be traded if they don't like their owner or not play hard, as lobstrosity said.

@Richard - I'd be fine with it. We'd find a way to get along. In all truth, I'd probably never draft someone to my team that I don't get along with if I was manager for exactly that reason. He's the only one on this site currently that I don't necessarily get along with, and even that wouldn't be much of a problem.

So I still don't see the need for it, I think that it should be just at the coordinator's judgement if someone could handle it or not.

@Math I have no idea what sort of leagues you are talking about there......in every pro league I'm familiar with, only the Commish has the power to veto a "new" owner for a team. The teams joining themselves are what's chose by the league and the owners' votes. Second, this is not that type of league, this is the START of a league, not adding someone down the line (for the first season anyway).

There's no league in the world where ever owner is liked and respected (look up Jerry Jones) but the rest of the owners have no say over that.

@Gui in regards to salary- I think basing it solely off of a win percent is a bad idea, my 3v3 percent was around 80, but then I stopped playing 3v3 auto and started only playing in tournaments against very strong players. Point being win percent does not always indicate skill as it depends on the average skill of your opponents (and also sample size)

As to getting prizes of more money for winning games, I don't think it's the best system. Instead, point awarded should come from over-all standings at the end of the season or some sort of tournament at the end.

Eagle, apparently you aren't very familiar with the NHL.

|>The NHL Board of Governors has voted to approve Tom Gaglardi as the new owner of the Dallas Stars, according to a source.

|>The NHL Board of Governors is the ruling and governing body of the NHL. In this context, each NHL team is a member of the NHL, and each member appoints a Governor (usually the owner of the club), and two alternates to the Board

Oh, and same goes for the NFL:

|>Kahn's dream-turned-plan crossed the goal line Wednesday, when his purchase of the Jaguars from Weaver was unanimously approved by the other NFL owners.

So 2 of the 4 major American sports have owners vote to allow or deny any ownership attempts.

i think salaries should have a more deep calculation. The salary should be something like [(numbers of 2v2 or higher games played)^1/3]*win ratio.

I will pick two examples at this calculation
myhandisonfire have 2172 team games, 1690 wins, ratio of 77,8%.
so 2172^(1/3)*0,778 = 10,07 units of salary.

comparing to myself:
i have 135 team games with 100 victories, ratio of 74%.
so 135^(1/3)*0,74 = 3,79 units of salary.

I think its compatible that he is worth almost 3 times as me.

This is the base for the start, we have to add variables that changes through time.
Like STAR POINTS. After we have all players list and players can choose 3 players to vote as STAR players, that are notable great players. By the end we would formulate a calculation to distribute units of salary among the choosen players.
At this point myhandisonfire would have a yet bigger value, which is acceptable, since he is a player that generates interest to the game.

Later i think we could have MVP, and LVP for each match. The best player in the winning team gets some number of units of salary, and the worst player will loose the some number of units of salary.

I think this can be done so that SPECTATORS have a say and they help to define players salaries.


And about of the winning team getting more money i dont know if it is good for the game. Barcelona and Real Madrid love that, cause they wont stop winning for decades for how much more money they have. So the winning team would probably kept winning.
The system of the NFL seems much more interesting.

Unless the defeats would worth enough so that a manager that has a great team wouldn't have the money for the next salaries, evening things up after a defeat.

I will address some of the thoughts you expressed
starting with MathWolf

Why more than one team?

- In order to force as many desicions upon the managers, more than one team is a necessity. Its far easier to create a single team, that wins all the games, than creating two teams that maximize the win ratio for the manager. Managers will decide on whether or not to create one supreme team, with the highest win chance they can provide and one weak team that in opposition loses games more likely, or they can create two equal teams, splitting their starplayers or assigning captains to a team, that increase the chance for a better overall perfomance.

Why only 5 Managers?

- In order to have a fast first league, as a trial run, looking how it feels, be able to make adaptions, see how people like it and stick to it or not and create an established core team of managers with a slight edge, the amount of managers has to be restricted to a relatively low number. Once the first league is over, new managers can always be allowed to join.

- The other main point, salary issue, will be addressed later.

EagleBlast:

Why no restrictions of who is allowed to play?

- Managers have to decide whether or not they deem a player reliable enough to continuesly fullfill his contract. So if there are players with a high boot ratio, its is not for the leagues commision to exclude them, but for the managers to decide to employ them or not.

lobstrosity:

Your points are very valid and finding a satisfing balance to possible imbalances between the teams as time progresses, without equalizing them too much, will be something i will be pondering over in the next few days.
Also the polarizing managers is something i want too. It leads to more implications, more choices, competition, fun and popularity.

General Arun:

There is no bonus for reading a post before someone else does. Unlike the players, the Managers are far more important to this concept, so they have to be more reliable and have a certain popularity or noriety. I want Managers that are able to challenge each other, not being easily outsmarted by the other Managers and being able to improve the concept with their witiness, creativity and different approaches in achieving a better result than their competitors.

Another concept is the establishment of a second league after the first league is over. League A, League B with the option to level up or fall down. That way we have a better simulation of a real league. With time the better players will find their way to the A league, making it highly competitive and the undrafted players will get a chance to play in a lower league, eventually getting to league A by team effort.

As in a normal league, there will be different sources of income. I strongly want involvement by the spectators of some sort, so among others there will be a "fanbase" income. The team whoes games have been looked up the most (or voted upon if looking into it is technically not possible) will get the most income followed by the second etc. That would represent sponsor income and ticket salary.

This thread really took off....

Because of so much interest.

Maybe you could do two leagues of 5(+) managers and their respective players?

You could have them like conferences in the NHL/NFL/MLB/NBA. Or you could do it as I think European soccer does with different teams moving up and down depending on their performance.

You misunderstood my myhand, I meant that voting on what players could participate is useful, while you having the sole authority over what managers are allowed in the league is more sensible. In other words, voting on players yes, voting on managers no. (just IMHO)

as to Richard, I still stand by my point that this is not an already started league, it's a starting league. Who would vote on who can be a manager then?

I'd like to play, but unless I was cheap I probably wouldn't get chosen :(

Elledee, no offense intended but the point of the price was to make the bad players cheap just as they are in sports. Thus you could still have value compared to other cheap players or for a manager looking for a roster spot without much salary room left.

I may not understand the concept well enough yet, but it seems to me that the smart managers would load up with the cheapest possible players along with just one or two superstars who are both good at the game and at micromanaging the noob teammates during the games. Average players would possibly be the least desirable as their cost/value is therefore inefficient.

MyHand, this is a great idea. I would love to be a player. Should be a lot of fun.

I didn't see a definition for how buying and selling of players will work, but it seems to me the simplest solution will work best:

Once managers and a player pool is agreed upon, each manager is given equal virtual money to spend (eg. 1,000 units) and players are auctioned off until rosters are full. Throughout the season players are bought and sold at prices the participating managers agree upon. Some players may sell higher than their original price, others lower. Some managers will accrue lots of money throughout the season by buying low and selling high. Others will lose money by buying high and selling low. Bad clubs and great clubs will emerge organically. And poor and rich managers will emerge organically.

MyHand, you mentioned that managers will have reserves in case players drop out. In the same way, can their reserves act as a bench so they can substitute in and out under-performing players as they see fit from game to game? It only makes sense that they would.

Likewise, players from the original player pool who were not originally selected during the opening auction should be allowed to be bought for a pre-set price (maybe the price of the average of all originally auctioned players) to replace any drop-outs.