2013 RULES: GM Accountability

[JonC]

You can't stand on both sides of the river in this argument, IMO. Either you want to mimic reality (people get fired for not doing their job well) or you don't (we need to give incentives to win games).

[JonC]

And truthfully, I don't mean that previous post to sound snarky. After re-reading it, I felt like it may come across that way. It's obviously okay to have an opinion on either side, I just find it strange that anyone would harbor both sides of the aisle.

[sportznut]

And truthfully, I don't mean that previous post to sound snarky. After re-reading it, I felt like it may come across that way. It's obviously okay to have an opinion on either side, I just find it strange that anyone would harbor both sides of the aisle.

Are you talking to me, Jon? If so, how do you think I'm on both sides? If not, you might want to clarify exactly what you're talking about.

I'm confused.

[JonC]

I'm speaking to Onyxgem more than anyone at this point. He's making the point that this is a fun activity and we shouldn't be kicking people out who are being active (an opinion which I respect and can see some merit to), but at the same time is saying that a draft lottery isn't realistic (which is true but stands in contrast to his previous statement that we shouldn't fire active GM's for not getting results; that happens in the NFL.).

[sportznut]

I'm speaking to Onyxgem more than anyone at this point. He's making the point that this is a fun activity and we shouldn't be kicking people out who are being active (an opinion which I respect and can see some merit to), but at the same time is saying that a draft lottery isn't realistic (which is true but stands in contrast to his previous statement that we shouldn't fire active GM's for not getting results; that happens in the NFL.).

Ok. I wasn't sure what you meant. Thanks.

[Ulrich82]

This is for fun, which is why I am not exactly in favor of imposing the requirement across all leagues. I don't know what the wait list looks like but it sounds like Troy does a pretty good job getting new guys into openings. I'd hate to see us kick out a GM and then have a problem filling that spot.

However, I think AFFL is a different story. It is supposed to be an elite league for veteran owners and there are only 32 spots. If you can't meet a standard which would keep you employed, then you get fired and another GM gets a shot in the league. And if you get fired from AFFL, you can join the pool to try to get another chance.

[Royce R]

This is for fun, which is why I am not exactly in favor of imposing the requirement across all leagues. I don't know what the wait list looks like but it sounds like Troy does a pretty good job getting new guys into openings. I'd hate to see us kick out a GM and then have a problem filling that spot.

However, I think AFFL is a different story. It is supposed to be an elite league for veteran owners and there are only 32 spots. If you can't meet a standard which would keep you employed, then you get fired and another GM gets a shot in the league. And if you get fired from AFFL, you can join the pool to try to get another chance.

I disagree just a touch, I think anyone fired should automatically get a new team in another league.

[lucky7jc]

It's split vote for AFFL only options or all. We'll be more cautious with that change here and discuss further amongst AFFL members further if the majority there want to add that and to what specific levels.

New GMs who take over awful teams are exactly why I think it is unfair to hold this rule in the DFFL and CFFL. The GM of the CFFL Buccaneers and DFFL Titans are perfect examples of franchises that were completely run into the ground and will need some work.

i'll throw the KC team I inherited in there. They have been and are terrible in RL. it isn't easy making sand castles out of dry sand. it is definitely dry of talent in KC

[lucky7jc]

To me you have to try to do that bad 3 seasons in a row but that is just my opinion.

Is there anyone that can say right now for a fact they haven't gotten 10 wins in a 3 year period?

Shagg's Detroit only had 5 wins from 2007-2009. He went 2-14 in 2007, 1-15 in 2008, and 2-14 in 2009.

Kansas City only had 7 wins from 2007-2009: 3-13 in 2007, 2-13-1 in 2008, 2-14 in 2009. I'm not sure when lucky took over, though.

Paulco's first 3 seasons with Jacksonville only saw 7 wins: 3-13 in 2008, 0-16 in 2009, 4-12 in 2010.

More recently, TylerW's Giants are in serious danger of not reaching 10 wins over his first 3 seasons. The team has gone 0-16 the last 2 years.

However, I do believe that having this rule will make the league more competitive. I first mentioned this rule after the 2010 season, and it doesn't seem like a coincidence that even just the thought of it has improved Detroit, Kansas City, and Jacksonville:

Detroit was 12-4 in 2011, 6-10 in 2012.
Kansas City was 5-11 in 2011, 5-11 in 2012.
Jacksonville was 5-11 in 2011, 9-7 in 2012.

I think they've all worked harder at making sure a competitive team is on the "field."

I also think the year in which I inherited my team that KC was coming off of a Super Bowl win. They were emptied and gutted no matter the case. It has honestly been tough just getting to 5 wins honestly.

On the rule of 10 wins, here is my thoughts. If like in the case I inherited a team that was gutted after winning, or another GM tanking a team and abandoning the league for someone else to recover. The roster I got was somewhere around 35-40 players and a loss of FA's left and right w/ few picks b/c they dealt them in order to get that trade deadline push to get to the SB. When you put all those factors together then it was almost impossible for me to get to 10 wins even in 3 years. It's taken me 4 years (as I think I joined at the end of 08) just to get to 5 wins. Now that I'm here I'm not going back, but it's still been really difficult and slow developing.

[Strategist]

Well the more I hear stories about how difficult it is. I would definitely say it can't be a hard fast rule. It just has to be if they don't get 10 wins then we take a look at the circumstances.