 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball League Forums » Dynasty Leagues » George Van Haltren League » Privatizing
ScooterPie
Tyson did identify two downsides from our point of view: 1) you have to pay for a "session" up front. The amount depends on the number of games per day; I think the list on this page is definitive: http://www.simdynasty.com/payleagues.jsp 2) Dynasty leagues don't ever fold -- they just keep adding newcomers with cheap introductory prices -- but a private league with fewer than like 10 people who renew might be disbanded.
So, I guess we all need to figure out whether we a) are okay with the different price structure and b) actually want to do this. Part b) might hinge to some extent on how many games per day we'll do, or whether we'll do any special rules, or whatever. Does it make sense to talk about possible rules first? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. Probably the money stuff first.
scooter
Privatizing
August 12, 2008 at 06:22PM View BBCode
So, in that other thread, there was some random speculation about taking our dynasty league private. I thought it was worth looking into, so I ran the idea past Tyson. They'd have no problem with us doing it, but we would need unanimous consent: "In the 2 previous cases, all owners either agreed or agreed to step aside so the league could be converted." (Me, I'm not really looking for anyone to step aside; there's nobody here, except Jayme, with whom I don't want to continue playing.)Tyson did identify two downsides from our point of view: 1) you have to pay for a "session" up front. The amount depends on the number of games per day; I think the list on this page is definitive: http://www.simdynasty.com/payleagues.jsp 2) Dynasty leagues don't ever fold -- they just keep adding newcomers with cheap introductory prices -- but a private league with fewer than like 10 people who renew might be disbanded.
So, I guess we all need to figure out whether we a) are okay with the different price structure and b) actually want to do this. Part b) might hinge to some extent on how many games per day we'll do, or whether we'll do any special rules, or whatever. Does it make sense to talk about possible rules first? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. Probably the money stuff first.
scooter
jlyke1
I know that you are paid until year 2060 but I only have 5 seasons paid after this one. Do those credits convert or do I have to use them on another dynasty team?
I would vote for stepping up the pace. Maybe 5-6 games a day. I am not sure what other rules we could add that aren't already in place to keep the game somewhat realistic.
Jayme
August 12, 2008 at 07:55PM View BBCode
I would be in. Just to harass scooter if for no other reason. We are in season 24 - if my math is right that is about 6 years of actual time - is that right?. It seems like we have quite a few originals for such a long time.I know that you are paid until year 2060 but I only have 5 seasons paid after this one. Do those credits convert or do I have to use them on another dynasty team?
I would vote for stepping up the pace. Maybe 5-6 games a day. I am not sure what other rules we could add that aren't already in place to keep the game somewhat realistic.
Jayme
rich45
I, of course, am in no matter what we all decide. Six games are great by me!
Rich
August 12, 2008 at 09:31PM View BBCode
I think we should play 162 games per day. That way my misery each year would be ever so short. It would be daily, but short.I, of course, am in no matter what we all decide. Six games are great by me!
Rich
wktam
This was my first dynasty league and still the one I check first after all these years. I've stuck around because of the owners in this league.
August 12, 2008 at 11:36PM View BBCode
I'm in.This was my first dynasty league and still the one I check first after all these years. I've stuck around because of the owners in this league.
Kalifornia
Kal
August 13, 2008 at 02:06AM View BBCode
Let's do it. 6 games works for me. I recently renewed for another 5 seasons. I would hope that I can convert what I paid.Kal
Roaddog
August 13, 2008 at 02:23AM View BBCode
I would love to play in a league with the improvement system having no CP, and can deal with any priceing structure. However, I am not crazy about 6 games per day. Not sure if I could keep up with my job the way it is. But, if 6 games a day is what everyone wants, I will agree to leave the league with no hard feelings.
Bobo_Brayton
The improvement system sounds cool. 3rd, 4th, and 5th round picks shouldn't be mostly useless.
I don't see the need to speed things up. I'm happy with the pace. I like to be able to keep up on the substitutions and tweak things between games when I get the chance. But it's certainly not such a hang up that I'd step aside. I'll go with what appears to be the majority on that one.
luke
August 13, 2008 at 04:56AM View BBCode
My vote goes to keeping the league together in whatever form. GVHL forever, baby.The improvement system sounds cool. 3rd, 4th, and 5th round picks shouldn't be mostly useless.
I don't see the need to speed things up. I'm happy with the pace. I like to be able to keep up on the substitutions and tweak things between games when I get the chance. But it's certainly not such a hang up that I'd step aside. I'll go with what appears to be the majority on that one.
luke
wktam
We have six original owners and three more that came on board in 1954. Turnover is so low that 14 of the 16 owners have been around for more than half the GHVL's history and I stick around for the owners in the league. (As an aside, I wonder if any dynasty leagues have a lower turnover rate than the GVHL).
Personally, I would prefer 3 games a day. I like to tinker with my lineups as well but that only works for me if there are not too many games played during the afternoon (Eastern time).
August 13, 2008 at 05:57AM View BBCode
I'm with Luke in that I think our first priority should be to retain the league as it stands.We have six original owners and three more that came on board in 1954. Turnover is so low that 14 of the 16 owners have been around for more than half the GHVL's history and I stick around for the owners in the league. (As an aside, I wonder if any dynasty leagues have a lower turnover rate than the GVHL).
Personally, I would prefer 3 games a day. I like to tinker with my lineups as well but that only works for me if there are not too many games played during the afternoon (Eastern time).
ScooterPie
As to folks who've already paid for a few seasons: there's now a thingie that lets you convert dynasty dollars to real dollars, and I'm sure Tyson would work out some way of prorating the cost, or something.
A few more people to hear from ...
scooter
August 13, 2008 at 12:23PM View BBCode
I love 3 games per day myself, but I bet I could adapt just fine to playing 6, if that's what the masses want. (Like Kansas City Dave, I'm more interested in special rules than a faster pace, but hey, I'm easy.) Dave, are you saying you're definitely out if we up the number of games?As to folks who've already paid for a few seasons: there's now a thingie that lets you convert dynasty dollars to real dollars, and I'm sure Tyson would work out some way of prorating the cost, or something.
A few more people to hear from ...
scooter
steveo525
If I had to choose, I would opt for 6 games per day, but again, it's not a major factor for me.
August 13, 2008 at 01:09PM View BBCode
I am in, no matter what the decision is on rules/speed. This is my first Dynasty League, and as wk stated, it is the first one I check, regardless of how painful it may be.If I had to choose, I would opt for 6 games per day, but again, it's not a major factor for me.
scitel
I like the 3 game a day format but have been looking to maybe get into another 6 day one and if this league prefers to go that route, I will not complain.
St. Louis
August 13, 2008 at 01:22PM View BBCode
I am not in any leagues with special or different rules, so I would be interested in giving that a shot.I like the 3 game a day format but have been looking to maybe get into another 6 day one and if this league prefers to go that route, I will not complain.
St. Louis
cdunn3
This is an outstanding group of owners, one of the best.
I belong to 4 other leagues.
One is the JLL, the 18 gpd league with injury system 4
I joined that league because of the rules (no CP trades,
no renaming after rookie year among others) and the
injury challenge. I do not contemplate renewing it.
In the BBL now in 1975 I was a founding member and
it was my first pay league - It would be the team I
would keep if I could only have 1.
I am a founding member of the JBL and its HOF Coordinater.
I am a founding member of the Greg Maddux league a 6 gpd
speed league and am its Commissioner and Stats guy.
My point here is that I am undecided about going if a
private league, but I would not stand in the way of
privatization.
Games per day.
If 3 gpd, the cost is $50 per 10 months, but only 5 seasons.
6 gpd, the cost is $45 for 8 months, but 8 seasons.
A 6 gpd league allows for micro managing provided you
have the time during the day.
Rules
Specifically the 6 IC with no CPs.
i like the 20 CP system being tested (5-5-5-3-2) and think this
will be satisfactory for developing enough minor leaguers.
The 6 IC with no CP system takes away any judgment on the part
of the owners - just keep your youngest players and see what
happens.
In our league right now, there are 93 players age 22 or under on
the minor leagues and there are 66 on the waiver wire most of
whom are 22 year old C hitters. If they are all on minor league
rosters that would average 10 per team age 22 or under..
I dont know what such a system would produce, but it probably
would end up with all 25 major leaguers at B or higher.
IMO the new 20 CP system, which I believe is coming soon,
is an improvement and the 6 IC no CP system is untested and
its consequences remain to be seen.
August 13, 2008 at 03:09PM View BBCode
This will be a long postThis is an outstanding group of owners, one of the best.
I belong to 4 other leagues.
One is the JLL, the 18 gpd league with injury system 4
I joined that league because of the rules (no CP trades,
no renaming after rookie year among others) and the
injury challenge. I do not contemplate renewing it.
In the BBL now in 1975 I was a founding member and
it was my first pay league - It would be the team I
would keep if I could only have 1.
I am a founding member of the JBL and its HOF Coordinater.
I am a founding member of the Greg Maddux league a 6 gpd
speed league and am its Commissioner and Stats guy.
My point here is that I am undecided about going if a
private league, but I would not stand in the way of
privatization.
Games per day.
If 3 gpd, the cost is $50 per 10 months, but only 5 seasons.
6 gpd, the cost is $45 for 8 months, but 8 seasons.
A 6 gpd league allows for micro managing provided you
have the time during the day.
Rules
Specifically the 6 IC with no CPs.
i like the 20 CP system being tested (5-5-5-3-2) and think this
will be satisfactory for developing enough minor leaguers.
The 6 IC with no CP system takes away any judgment on the part
of the owners - just keep your youngest players and see what
happens.
In our league right now, there are 93 players age 22 or under on
the minor leagues and there are 66 on the waiver wire most of
whom are 22 year old C hitters. If they are all on minor league
rosters that would average 10 per team age 22 or under..
I dont know what such a system would produce, but it probably
would end up with all 25 major leaguers at B or higher.
IMO the new 20 CP system, which I believe is coming soon,
is an improvement and the 6 IC no CP system is untested and
its consequences remain to be seen.
putney96
I'm here at least until Detroit win a WS....and that could be a long long time.
Tony
Detroit Thunderbirds
August 13, 2008 at 06:54PM View BBCode
I'll go with the flow.I'm here at least until Detroit win a WS....and that could be a long long time.
Tony
Detroit Thunderbirds
B0S0xR0x
August 13, 2008 at 09:02PM View BBCode
Ok, so of course everyone seems pretty content on the idea of privatizing. I am kinda surprised, as this conversation has been dead quickly in other leagues. Most of you are good with 6 games a day, though not the majority. Pretty much the #1 reason that i like the idea of private, is because 3 games a day is so frickin slow. The benefit of dynasty is, when you win, you earn credits to continue playing. Remember, you lose that in private. I am cool with private, but am just fine with leaving it public if we dont up the number of games. Also, i really like the idea of minor leaguers actually playing games, but i dont know if that is on the horizon ;)
spyboy1306
I have a 6-per-day league, and it's not too fast for me. Would not complain if people wanted to play 3.
I'd be in for either of the proposed minor league systems, bwith a slight preference for the 5-5-5-3-2 to the 6 IC-0 CP system.
August 14, 2008 at 02:00AM View BBCode
i'm fine with privatization.I have a 6-per-day league, and it's not too fast for me. Would not complain if people wanted to play 3.
I'd be in for either of the proposed minor league systems, bwith a slight preference for the 5-5-5-3-2 to the 6 IC-0 CP system.
baseballpurist
August 14, 2008 at 02:54AM View BBCode
I'm all for it, though considering I made a cp trade for next year I would like to wait. I prefer 9gpd, but realize that isn't going to happen. So 6 gpd would be my vote.
Roaddog
I won't say definitely, not yet anyway. I am paid up for 4 seasons or so. I might give it a try for a week or two, but I really don't think it is something I want to do for long.
Any one have any idea of game times in a 6 game per day format?
August 14, 2008 at 03:01AM View BBCode
Originally posted by ScooterPie
Dave, are you saying you're definitely out if we up the number of games?
scooter
I won't say definitely, not yet anyway. I am paid up for 4 seasons or so. I might give it a try for a week or two, but I really don't think it is something I want to do for long.
Any one have any idea of game times in a 6 game per day format?
Bretticus
I feel that the game is paced well at 3 games a day, and I don?t think that I would enjoy a quicker schedule with less control. This is of course from point of view of someone who can?t access the site from work.
Besides a quicker schedule I don?t really see an advantage to going private. So I vote no.
That being said I do not want to interfere with the other gentlemen owners who do want to privatize. The thing that makes the GVHL a special league is the active owners whom have been involved for so long. So if they want to take the league in a new direction then they have my support in doing so and I will step down from the Cincinnati franchise. I would be ok with that decision because there are a few areas in sim dynasty that I am disappointed in and I probably would not get another team.
So I feel that it?s up the veteran ownership to decide the fate of the league. I?m just along for the ride. I do ask that the decision to be given a bit more thought by my fellow owners.
The way I see it, The GVHL is great because it?s a dynasty league with longtime owners which is rare in the sim dynasty world. In going private the league becomes just another private league. How can the GVHL be the best dynasty league if it?s not a dynasty league anymore?
Brett
August 14, 2008 at 03:06AM View BBCode
I guess that I will have to be another black sheep of the group and vote no to privatizing the league. The number 1 factor is being the money issue and not being able to manage the team for 5-6 game stretch at a time.I feel that the game is paced well at 3 games a day, and I don?t think that I would enjoy a quicker schedule with less control. This is of course from point of view of someone who can?t access the site from work.
Besides a quicker schedule I don?t really see an advantage to going private. So I vote no.
That being said I do not want to interfere with the other gentlemen owners who do want to privatize. The thing that makes the GVHL a special league is the active owners whom have been involved for so long. So if they want to take the league in a new direction then they have my support in doing so and I will step down from the Cincinnati franchise. I would be ok with that decision because there are a few areas in sim dynasty that I am disappointed in and I probably would not get another team.
So I feel that it?s up the veteran ownership to decide the fate of the league. I?m just along for the ride. I do ask that the decision to be given a bit more thought by my fellow owners.
The way I see it, The GVHL is great because it?s a dynasty league with longtime owners which is rare in the sim dynasty world. In going private the league becomes just another private league. How can the GVHL be the best dynasty league if it?s not a dynasty league anymore?
Brett
Kalifornia
Kal :cool:
August 15, 2008 at 04:13AM View BBCode
I'm for going private and all, but if we're going to lose players because of it then I'd rather just keep things as is. It's not a big deal to me. I'm in either way. This is a great league, and I want to keep it that way. Like Scooter mentioned in the original post, we would need unanimous consent. Doesn't look like we'll get that.Kal :cool:
ScooterPie
scooter
PS You know what I really want to try? A blind league. You know, where you don't see the + or - on guys' ratings, and the improvements are hidden? Players have to prove themselves on the field. I think my ideal private league would have hidden +/-, lots of injuries, and maybe even a loss penalty or something, to keep teams from getting too bad. Just a big ol' muddle in the standings every year. Beautiful.
PPS I am all about having actual minor-league games, but Tyson's said it's way too much work for him. Party pooper.
August 15, 2008 at 11:29AM View BBCode
I'm not hearing any strong objections to going private, but neither am I hearing that guys have a burning desire to do it. WK said it best, I think:Originally posted by wktamThere's not a lot to gain, and something to lose, if we switch over. Things are working the way we are, so I don't see a need to mess with it.
I'm with Luke in that I think our first priority should be to retain the league as it stands.
scooter
PS You know what I really want to try? A blind league. You know, where you don't see the + or - on guys' ratings, and the improvements are hidden? Players have to prove themselves on the field. I think my ideal private league would have hidden +/-, lots of injuries, and maybe even a loss penalty or something, to keep teams from getting too bad. Just a big ol' muddle in the standings every year. Beautiful.
PPS I am all about having actual minor-league games, but Tyson's said it's way too much work for him. Party pooper.
Bobo_Brayton
I couldn't have said it better myself. Scooter, that may be the nicest thing you ever indirectly said about me.
:P
Luke
August 15, 2008 at 04:08PM View BBCode
WK said it best, I think:
Originally posted by wktam
I'm with Luke
I couldn't have said it better myself. Scooter, that may be the nicest thing you ever indirectly said about me.
:P
Luke
ScooterPie
My retraction will take the form of the 3-game pounding my boys give your boys in Sunday's games.
The iron fist remains in the silken glove ... for now. Look on my works, ye mighty, and tremble.
That is all.
scooter
August 15, 2008 at 11:49PM View BBCode
Damn right it is, and I'm already regretting it.My retraction will take the form of the 3-game pounding my boys give your boys in Sunday's games.
The iron fist remains in the silken glove ... for now. Look on my works, ye mighty, and tremble.
That is all.
scooter
Pages: 1