|
Ideas for 2012
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 23-02-2011 20:32
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
As long as it's done in a completely fair and unbiased manner, then I like it
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 23-02-2011 20:32
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I think the managers should know how many managers had a tap on your riders and which riders were involved, but the managers name should be anonymous...
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 23-02-2011 20:46
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I like the idea, with possibly Mike stepping is as arbiter for any move involving 100% ME or Vesuvio. |
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 23-02-2011 20:49
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Could it not be counter produtive?
I tap up rider A, but it turns out the manager of rider A is actually willing to sell! I buy rider A, but because I tapped him up, his salary is now higher.
And there is scope say for a PT manager to top up a CT manager on the basis of a rider being good enough for PT, when they dont really want to buy the rider, more to either increase his wage, or increase the chance of that rider becoming a free agent.
Edited by SportingNonsense on 23-02-2011 20:49
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 23-02-2011 20:59
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
I like the idea, with possibly Mike stepping is as arbiter for any move involving 100% ME or Vesuvio.
I think you're overestimating my influence on the game. I'm barely a part of the organisation. Rich, however... 
Edited by CrueTrue on 23-02-2011 20:59
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 23-02-2011 21:17
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
I do agree with SN. The "tactical" managers will probably use it as a weapon on rivals while the others will use it to try and make the rider they want a FA. But unless the wage increase is 50% or so I don't think it will make the rider and FA. He will just be at a higher wage, which will evidently bite the tapping manager in his own ass...
I like the idea, but it will need to be very well though, otherwise it will get a bad standing amongst some managers (Quite like rjc says, that he would try to punish the teams getting in his way)...
|
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 24-02-2011 09:34
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
I'm not part of the Man-Game, so my opinion might not count, but what about having an additional fee for CT riders moving to PT Teams, under a certain age. For example if Rider X is at a CT Team and under the age limit, and a PT Team wishes to buy them, then the PT Team has to pay an extra fee, sort of like a development fee. It could even be used at the end of contracts, to make sure that the CT Teams have enough money to replace the rider, and strengthen their squad. It would encourage people to develop young riders as well.
Feel free to tell me 'm wrong.  |
| |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 24-02-2011 09:49
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
A good point, but luckily for us, money isn't in short demand. Nor can a team (anymore) buy a rider without the owners permission like in football where teams can poach young talents. If a young rider is sold from the CT to the PT it's at the demands and evaluation of both managers involved, so no one can really complain it's unfair. |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 24-02-2011 22:07
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I have to say that I don't really like the tapping up idea. I prefer the system already in place and it seems to be innovating for the sake of it. Plus, isn't tapping up naughty? |
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 25-02-2011 12:19
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
I have another idea, that might help solve the problem of disappearing managers. Maybe there could be some sort of monetary reward, for the Teams who do the best and most media work. Maybe we could have 3 judges, who judge every Press Release on marks out of 10, and then all the totals are added up, and the more marks, the more money. That way managers who remain active have more money to strengthen their team, which should help keep them interesting. Maybe the amount of money could be decided out of a pool. Say for example:
Team X gets 125 points.
In total all of the Teams get 500 Points.
This works out as Team X getting 25% of the Total.
There is 1 million in the pool of money.
Team X gets 250,000, which is 25%.
Just an idea.  |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 14:48
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 25-02-2011 12:29
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
the problem is that some of us are pretty shit at doing stuff like this, especially graphics stuff. |
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 25-02-2011 13:04
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
There's no need for fancy graphics. Just doing a report for every month of racing is still a good effort. |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 25-02-2011 13:48
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
then wouldn't people just do a lot of posting to get the cash. I don't see how you could judge it. Quantity won't judge enthusiasm and neither will quality. |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 25-02-2011 14:03
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's too subjective. And giving significant amounts of money for something subjective is unfair.
That's why budgets, wages etc. are calculated using set formulae, so no subjectiveness comes into it
|
| |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 25-02-2011 14:41
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Unless I'm involved. In which case I just get given money for being amazingly cool. |
| |
|
|
| p3druh |
Posted on 25-02-2011 14:56
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2667
Joined: 28-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't like the idea because it mixes up the idea of being an active manager with the concept of a proactive manager. And I don't think that you are automatically a better manager if you are proactive. Like SN said about the tapping up idea, I believe this one can also be counter productive.
I believe that there are many cases like mine. I try to be an active manager and I put effort into it but if I don't do regular "press releases", it isn't because I don't want to bother with the work it involves, it's because I simply don't have the time do regular updates that have a high level of quality. I do, however, keep my post thread in the Team's HQ updated.
|
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 25-02-2011 15:39
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6479
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
jph: Just be careful about subjective situtations, take a quick look at the World Championship/omg you F****s left out Ricco thread some time (sorry Kami - I think it sucked for you that one, but still had to get that in!)
***WARNING: YET ANOTHER CRAZY SMOWZ IDEA***
I was pondering suggesting something after I posted the Canadian Classics. This is related to the CTour - there has been some chatter about PTour teams in CTour races, also I think I or someone talked about having the presence of a national U23 team in there - similar to what we had in the Tour de L'Avenir.
An idea of mine was based on seeing some teams enter Quebec (because of the hilly parcours) but not Montreal (I think most assumed it would either end in a sprint or was unpredictable) or vice versa. It was also part of my guilt for missing out the Dome2Dome and the Down Under Classic, despite entering the other South African and Australian races.
Anyway onto the idea: How about grouping some races together like Montreal/Quebec - meaning that if teams chose one race they would have to choose another?
It could even be extended to three or four races together, like Tour of America/Air Force Cycling Classic/Mt Hood Cycling Classic.
Now I am not saying that the teams would have to choose the same team for all the races - just that they would have to be part of their schedule.
Anyway here are some other examples of possible groupings:
Capo/Cape Argus/Dome2Dome
GP Herning/Ringerinke/Fyen Rundt/Scandenavian Race Uppsala
Okay I could go on but I hope you get the idea. I would leave some races as "card-fillers" - i.e. not group all of them!
Anyway, it is probably a bit artificial - my reasoning for this is to add a bit more flavour and a layer of strategy to the race planning.
There seems to be a bit too much of right I have uber cobbler right entry into all cobbled ones sod any of the other races in the area - now then moving on my uber climber yes Trentino, Slovenia, Urkola and Trans GP, again no need for any more races in those areas etc.
|
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 25-02-2011 15:47
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
I'll avoid subjective ideas. I do like your crazy ideas though. |
| |
|
|
| rjc_43 |
Posted on 25-02-2011 15:56
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6716
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I could see the logic in making the two Canadian races dual entry (you enter one, you've entered the other) as that's realistic, but I don't really (personally) like the idea of forcing teams to enter races that aren't potentially suited to them by grouping lots of races together.
As we see throughout the season, some races have 5 teams, and those teams tend to do very well in those races, if you group races together you'd not only avoid that situation for some races, but you'd cause it in mass scale for others! Instead of the occasional race having only 5, you'd get a group of only 5. That'd be odd.
And plus, you often see teams entering races like Het Volk, but not getting entry into a similar level cobble race due to the organisers inviting the other Belgian team instead, so I don't see the need to have to do every race in a region just because you've done one.
EDIT:
Not to mention the reason that my team is so successful (Auber more here) is that I intricately planned my season based purely on the TTTs, playing to my strengths, I did the same with Wiggle of course, but that was easier - hills. If you made teams sign up for races that don't suit them, it takes away some of that planning that is a delicate skill that some master, and some just don't.
Edited by rjc_43 on 25-02-2011 15:58
|
| |
|
|
| Smowz |
Posted on 25-02-2011 17:23
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6479
Joined: 09-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
rjc:
I think Wiggle have done well this season because they are a well rounded squad. With the Protour I guess you could call that a mass grouping really - every team is there in every race! You can of course still specialise as you have done with Auber (I think that may be why Sony have done well too!)
Perhaps on a small scale though it might be nice - I think it would be good for the community feel. Plus it does bother me to see certain uber squads drop in on one race in an area I dunno like GP of Wales and then not race in Britain for the rest of the season.
I was wondering whether it could be done to increase the appeal of less appealing races - but it would probably result in what you suggest rjc more races with fewer teams - a better suggestion there is to increase the race days per team probably.
Btw - I noticed before this year there were seperate area rankings, what was that about?
|
| |
|
