There were three teams that had perfect league participation -- meaning that they actively managed their teams with every sim. Those three teams are River Cities, Seattle and Saskatoon. Here are the final tallies:
| Team | Total |
| River Cities | 14 |
| Saskatoon | 14 |
| Seattle | 14 |
| South Bay | 12 |
| Houston | 10 |
| Hickory | 9 |
| New York | 9 |
| Danville | 2 |
| Walla Walla | 2 |
| Covington | 0 |
| Denver | 0 |
If anyone has any ideas on how to get the lesser-participating owners more active, I'd love to hear them. In the meantime, I'm going to contact them and see if they are still interested in participating in general.
Zev
Well, the obvious incentive is look for replacement. Otherwise you could offer incentives (FA money or picks or something) for those doing hte best in participation.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of FA money. Something like an extra $500k for each upload over 5, over the course of the season. That's $4.5m for the teams that upload each sim.
ReplyDeleteNot a bad idea. I'd favor 2nd round picks over it but wouldn't know how to execute it.
ReplyDeleteOr, of course, there's always the initial concept of replacing them.
I'm a little wary of anything that smacks of "the rich get richer". I don't think I need any extra money for instance. I don't have the built-in advantage Michael does in his merchandising dollars, but my fan interest is high enough due to my recent success that giving me a couple extra million dollars seems a little unfair on some level.
ReplyDeleteThose of us at the top don't need an incentive to participate. Winning is its own reward. It's no accident that the three teams with perfect participation were the three teams who were in the playoff race all the way until the last sim. So, I think any incentive should be directed to ensuring that less competitive teams participate regularly.
Although I think replacement unfortunately may be the only real answer if an owner just isn't participating, let me throw out something else. For teams below .500, increase their fan interest by, for example, 1 point for each upload or email over 5. Increased fan interest has a direct effect on revenue and on a much longer-term basis than just one year. It also just makes sense to me that a fanbase is going to be more excited about a team being run by an active and visible owner than one being run in absentia.
In the end, I guess my two cents are: (1) direct the participation bonuses at teams below .500 and (2) replacement may be the real answer.
Well, replacement is always an option, although I'd like to see it as a last option. I don't think it's a coincidence that the same franchises need constant replacement owners - it's hard to keep someone committed to a franchise that'll take at least two to three years to make competitive.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd like to do is find a way to make these teams more competitive now. I know that that's a tall order, but if we can reduce the time needed to build a franchise from three years to one, I think we'll see more participation from the bottom of the standings.
I had a thought on the matter, but I would like the feedback of some of the owners on this. Specifically, how hard is it for teams on the bottom of the pile to sign available free-agents. Do they get a lot of "I want to play for a winning team only" responses? If we changed the motivation of some of the high-end free agents to the point where they just want to play, perhaps that could give these teams a boost in franchise-building.
Zev:
ReplyDeleteA couple of initial thoughts.
First, I sympathize with your desire to make the league more competitive and, not coincidentally, boost participation. That's why I have generally spoken up about proposals that seem to me to widen the gap between the franchises, even if it would only happen unintentionally.
Second, I don't know that there's enough available in free agency to make that big a difference in teams' futures. Especially this coming year where my sense is that there is going to be far more free agent money available than free agent talent.
Third, many of the more successful teams have a lot of money available to spend. I don't have much (almost none), but you have $34M, New York has $39M, River Cities has $44M, and Los Angeles has an astonishing $65M to spend. I don't see how giving Covington or Denver more money or making free agents more likely to play for them is really going to help.
I don't think that there are any good short cuts from the bottom of the league to the top. Paul has done perhaps the best job of it, and it's only now, seven years after expansion, that New York is getting ready to seriously challenge for a playoff berth.
One idea that may help teams as they rise is to give losing teams some kind of discount on a player's first post-arbitration contract. That may help teams build up a talent base until the revenue needed to pay for it comes along. I'm not really sure that's a good solution though.
I guess I still think that finding ways to help their fan interest is the best way to help them improve. Fan interest = cash and cash, if applied intelligently, eventually = success.
By the way, I'm not saying we should start kicking people out. I am only saying that replacing owners who, for whatever reason, won't be able to commit to participating in the league may be the only effective solution.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to make that clear, if I did so at all.
Mack,
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a money issue. After all, we gave the expansion teams an influx of cash a few years ago. Furthermore, the four teams in question (one of which is not an expansion team) all have plenty of cash available anyway.
I seem to remember some complaints in the past that the less successful franchises couldn't get FA to even listen to their offers. My thought was that in changing the motivation of the players, they would at least be able to enter the bidding.
Zev
I see your point. I admit that I don't know how common it is for teams with losing records to get spurned by free agents.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, Mack, Walla Walla has nearly as much money as I do to spend.
ReplyDeleteAnd, fan interest is a fickle beast. Mine hovered around 99% this season, dropped mysteriously to 98% at one point, and then fell to 87% at the end of the season. While I know I took a small hit by dropping Willie Klopp, I can't believe my fans are that fickle and can't accept a 2nd place finish.