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.

@J Russell

I havent figured out a proper system yet. Allthought the idea mentioned by you seems very logical at first, there is a downside to you form of playersdistribution. The players will get all auctioned off, leading to teams in which the best players possible will play. All the not so good players will never see any action.
I want players like Heyheuhei be expensive at the beginning, so people have to rely on bad players first, seeing there games, deciding on who to keep , who to exchange.

I guess it will have to be a mixture of ideas, since i still want to see some market economy develop, like you mentioned.

Concerning your other point: Of course teams can be rearranged before new every game. You are free to with them what you want.

Oh my .... just dont read my mistakes, since there is no edit function ;)

i presumed you were going to have a mix of game types?
(1) best player 1v1 games (you'd like to buy 1 great player for this)
(2) 2v2 games (oh, here i want 2 good players)
(3) 4v4 games (here i need 4 players who are all ok)
(4) 1v1 games, in sets of eg 4 - so your 4 best 1v1 players all have to play games (the better players cannot help the weaker ones, like they can in the 4v4 games) (here, i need 4 decent players, NOT 1 great player and 3 poor ones)

the mix of game types forces the manager to do a tradeoff between buying 1 expensive player vs getting 4 or more decent squad players.

and if you are really worried that 1 good player will tell the others exactly what to do, then make the games real-time - that will reduce this effect.

i like unknonwsoldier idea

each match up best of 5 games. 1 game 1v1, 1 game 2v2, 2 games 3v3 and 1 game 4v4.
This way you will have to think through a lot, and you may have to considering weekening one team to make the other strongers. 1v1 players should be more expensive, since their ratio is 1 player/game.


Other idea, some sort of auction for better players, who are willing to pay more and stuff.

Other thing, are the managers allowed to talk/teach/combine with players about the templates outside the matches?

|> The players will get all auctioned off, leading to teams in which the best players possible will play. All the not so good players will never see any action.

I don't understand. How is this avoidable? How else is the manager going to decide who plays and who doesn't?

the way dunga described it, you meed a minimum of 10 men in a squad.
if there were eg 6 teams in the league, then that would be 60+ players :/

i would say there are about 20 top players in WL. and maybe 100 or so rather good ones. so i would say that any reasonably good player is likely to be used by a manager.

ok, really bad players will not get picked. but that was never the idea, was it?

sounds fun, i'd like to be a player if possible

maybe the player can be hired to more than one type of game so we wouldn't need that much players.

when will this start i hope i become a manager if not then player