Potential Future Rule Change

[dinkatoid]

A winning requirement or avoid being "fired" would be pretty fun imo. It keeps you trying to improve to keep your team. Obviously, it all depends on the state of the team too. For instance, I know several people (myself included) have taken on teams where they had almost no talent left and very few draft picks and had to make the best of it. As long as those guys get the time needed (say 3-4 seasons) to turn the team around and get competitive, then all is good in my book. However, there will always be some left up to discretion, such as missing the mark because of losing too many starters etc. I know some GMs lose their real job cause of stupid things like that, but since this is a sim league, we don't have Al Davis as an owner to make life tough on us.

To make it more like the NFL, you can throw the "fired" gms back into a queue to get "hired" back for other teams, maybe after a season or so.

[Ben C.]

A couple more points about this idea.

- I do not think this should be put in effect immediately to the detriment of some GMs. I think if the rule is adopted, we should count the 2010 season and have the first year that a GM could get fired be 2012. As a result, the first 3 year period would be 2010-2012.

- I truly believe that any GM who is actively trying to win games can manage to average at least 4 wins a year. The rule as suggested would fire any GM that averages 3 wins or less over a 3 year period.

- If we are trying to strive towards realism, this is an important part to incorporate. GMs in the NFL get fired and must understand that is a possibility if the team does not achieve the results the owner expects. I doubt any owner would be happy with less than 10 wins over 3 years.

- I do think that in order for this to be fair it must be an objective results-based figure that is the same for all teams. Yes, some teams are more of a challenge to get to win, but the minute you allow some subjectivity into the firing determination is the minute you turn it all subjective. It would not be in the interest of the league to have it be possible for GMs to gang up on another purely because the GM didn't perform. We must have a set figure that people know if they can reach it they are safe.

- As for some teams being more challenging, it doesn't mean it is impossible for a team to succeed even when the GM takes over in a state of disarray. For example, in the CFFL, sportznut controls Detroit. He took over in 2008 with a squad that went on to go winless in the NFL. In his third year with the team, they are 14-2, division champions, and contenders for the league title.

- Regarding the comment about how hard it is to get a QB in this league - I flat out disagree. If you want a QB you go out and get one. Either pay the price in free agency or put up an offer that people won't pass up in a trade. I have seen quite a few QBs cut from teams for no apparent reason. For example, in the CFFL I was able to sign Jason Campbell in the middle of the season after someone dropped him. My Atlanta team there now has 3 QBs that will likely be starters for their real teams in 2011 (I may or may not be trading 1 of them in the offseason - stay tuned).
- It is also possible to win without a star QB. If you have a solid team it can make up for the lack of a QB. I can even guarantee that a solid team led by a non-NFL starting QB would win the requisite 10 games over 3 years.

[Ben C.]

To see how this would have applied if we had the rule from the beginning, I looked back at the last 4 years of the AFFL (thanks to John W's great almanac).

2010
- Detroit would have seen a new GM for the 2010 season after going 2-14 in 2007, 1-15 in 2008, and 2-14 in 2009. That said, I have a feeling Shagg's teams wouldn't have fared so poorly if he had the possibility of losing the team looming over his head.
- Jacksonville did not have enough wins from 2007-2009 to retain a GM, but I think paulco actually took over in 2008, so he could not have been fired.
- Kansas City would have seen a new GM for the 2010 season after going 3-13 in 2007, 2-13-1 in 2008, and 2-14 in 2009.

2011
- Jacksonville would then see a new GM for the 2011 season after going 3-13 in 2008, 0-16 in 2009, and 4-12 in 2010 (paulco's first 3 seasons).
- The following teams would be on the hotseat: Carolina (would need 2 wins in 2011 season to stay another year), Denver (1), Detroit (6 but not if Shagg had been replaced in 2010), Kansas City (2 but not if lucky7jc had been replaced in 2010), Miami (1), San Francisco (3), Tampa Bay (5).
- The following teams would have already guaranteed the GM would be around until at least 2013 even if they go winless in 2011 and 2012 (by virtue of winning more than 10 games in 2010): Arizona, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Dallas, Houston, Minnesota, New England, New Orleans, NY Giants, NY Jets, Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle, Tennessee.

Other tidbits
- Over 3 seasons, the average team wins 24 games (because 8-8 is the average record).
- Approximately 68% of teams win between 14 and 34 games over a 3 year period.
- Approximately 84% of teams win at least 14 games over a 3 year period.
- Nearly 90% of teams win at least 10 games over a 3 year period.

[redsoxfan31x21]

Other tidbits
- Over 3 seasons, the average team wins 24 games (because 8-8 is the average record).
- Approximately 68% of teams win between 14 and 34 games over a 3 year period.
- Approximately 84% of teams win at least 14 games over a 3 year period.
- Nearly 90% of teams win at least 10 games over a 3 year period.

Somebody a stats major???? hahaha, but yea, with this being said, if we do the 10 wins in 3 yrs idea, 1 of every 10 owners would be replaced at most i would think if we made it more competitive, so why not? that would majorly help gain a better group of owners in my opinion.

[Ben C.]

Somebody a stats major????

Actually I'm a law student. Haven't taken a stats class since high school.

And I think there was an error in there. I think it should be 95% of teams win more than 10 games, but since I am unsure I'll just leave the original post as is.

[TylerW]

Somebody a stats major????

Actually I'm a law student. Haven't taken a stats class since high school.

And I think there was an error in there. I think it should be 95% of teams win more than 10 games, but since I am unsure I'll just leave the original post as is.

You should have taken a stats class in college b/c its the easiest thing out there. Im in the lowest 100 class right now (want to get a certificate in stats since IU doesn't have it as a minor) and it is seriously stuff i learned in the 6th grade.

On the note about putting in a rule based on wins and such I wouldn't mind something along those lines but at the same time in a sim league I think it is more important to have guys around here that are active and taking part in discussions like this than someone who gets their team to go 16-0 and doesn't show up much. My DFFL Rams have 2 wins in the last 2 seasons given the bad shape + a few bad moves (trading for andre johnson when i had no QB to throw to him) so I would have to win 8 games next season. I have some picks to work with and a pretty sound D to go along with a lot of cap space so I think my team should be able to get close to that number.

If we do settle on a number to "fire" a GM, I like the idea of putting the GMs back into a pool to pick up another team in the league if the GM has proven to be an active member around here.

[Dustin S.]

all this talk is well and good, and i do agree its an interesting thing, but it comes down to what if you have some bad luck for 3 straight seasons? are we really going to eliminate people from this,who may be great people, good friends, because they couldn't win enough games for 3 seasons?

[Jared A]

I'm starting to side with Dustin on this. I think the vote would need to be unanimous, because this rule is pointed directly at a small handful of teams. Also, a couple mistakes can be the ruin of a team for more than 3 years.


That said, does it really better the league forcing teams to be competitive earlier than they're ready.

EX: I'm on the hot seat, but I've got a ton of picks built up. I can't draft, because I MUST win games this year. So, I trade all my picks away in order to go 8-8 so I keep my team.

[Jared A]

Also, I can't see a chance in the world that the rule could include 2010 stats. The rule wasn't in place, so there was no motivation to go 2-14 instead of 0-16.

[soonertf]

I'm leaning against this, only because I can see it creating a rift in the league. Although I think you're a bit of a moron, if you can't win 10 games over a 3 year period. To be honest, I'd rather see a trade committee to veto some of these trades. I would also suggest a cap on the number of 1st rd picks a team can have in a given year.