|
Post by London on Jul 26, 2015 21:50:57 GMT -6
Been a while since this question has been talked about.
Do you support expansion?
If so, how many teams, and what format/locations?
If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Indiana on Jul 27, 2015 1:08:42 GMT -6
42 teams so the fixture is fair
|
|
|
Post by Portland on Jul 27, 2015 6:30:50 GMT -6
I vote no. Where are the gms going to come from?
|
|
|
Post by London on Jul 27, 2015 6:39:55 GMT -6
I vote no. Where are the gms going to come from? Not worried about that. We have a lot of folk who check in here with frequency that don't currently have teams. Also, we can advertise in places pretty easily. Haven't had to in some time.
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 6:42:56 GMT -6
Sure, why not...I'd support adding 2 or 4 teams next season.
WHAT...DID A HUGE COMMITTEE SWING VOTE JUST CHANGE SIDES?!? I THINK HE DID.
|
|
|
Post by San Francisco on Jul 27, 2015 6:49:37 GMT -6
Still a no, still haven't heard an argument for why this would be beneficial other than you would play a few more gimmies each year...
|
|
|
Post by Mexico City on Jul 27, 2015 7:14:03 GMT -6
I could prob go either way depending.
I like the divisions right now a lot and with more teams it changes that, it also could widen the gap between the halves and have nots in which case why expand then.
I wouldnt mind seeing some new old blood back in the league for activity. Could more teams increase trade talks? Maybe.. would a drastic change doing away with divisions completely be interesting? Maybe.
I dont know maybe the more i think about it the less likely i am to vote for it.
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 7:24:21 GMT -6
I could prob go either way depending. I like the divisions right now a lot and with more teams it changes that, it also could widen the gap between the halves and have nots in which case why expand then. I wouldnt mind seeing some new old blood back in the league for activity. Could more teams increase trade talks? Maybe.. would a drastic change doing away with divisions completely be interesting? Maybe. I dont know maybe the more i think about it the less likely i am to vote for it. Honestly, with divisions not meaning as much anymore, I'm less tied to them now. If we add 4 teams, change to 6 divisions of 6, does it upset anything all that much? I'm just throwing out thoughts. I guess I just don't see the harm anymore.
|
|
|
Post by London on Jul 27, 2015 7:39:46 GMT -6
Still a no, still haven't heard an argument for why this would be beneficial other than you would play a few more gimmies each year... 3 divisions (per conference) and more people to trade with.
|
|
|
Post by Bayi on Jul 27, 2015 8:17:55 GMT -6
Of course not. I'm not ready to ditch Bayi and take over an expansion team yet.
|
|
|
Post by Madrid on Jul 27, 2015 8:39:09 GMT -6
68 teams, NCAA-style tournament with everyone involved to further dissuade tanking.
|
|
|
Post by Portland on Jul 27, 2015 9:30:55 GMT -6
I vote no. Where are the gms going to come from? Not worried about that. We have a lot of folk who check in here with frequency that don't currently have teams. Also, we can advertise in places pretty easily. Haven't had to in some time. Then I'm in favor, Mr.Commissioner.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Jul 27, 2015 10:20:33 GMT -6
I agree with what Mexico and Berlin said. There is slight benefit to expansion (more activity, new blood, more competition for limited playoff spot ratio, spread the talent around a little more sparsely etc). The only potential downside was filling GM slots and I think that's a non-issue, we have a few GM's floating around and a couple more that wait listed who never got teams.
I'm surprised 9 people have voted no with no real rationale - the Yes side has at least provided a few (albeit weak) pros to expansion.
Also I hate the current division setup (see Indiana's playoff seeding and the West division for an example - Indy shouldn't even be in the playoffs with their record)
|
|
|
Post by London on Jul 27, 2015 10:21:25 GMT -6
lol the 5 yeses might all be from the committee
|
|
|
Post by Sydney on Jul 27, 2015 10:24:20 GMT -6
I voted undecided and while i'm still undecided, I'm leaning towards Yes since the No said hasn't brought any valid argument to the table.
|
|
San Miguel
Assistant to the General Manager
Posts: 643
|
Post by San Miguel on Jul 27, 2015 10:28:42 GMT -6
I was against the notion of expansion in the past but it seems now I would almost prefer it. I agree with those that have said it will lead to more discussions in regards to trades which always helps for league activity but we already have 32 teams, will adding 4 more really help so much to trade discussions? It is debatable.
San Miguel
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 10:51:26 GMT -6
Also I hate the current division setup (see Indiana's playoff seeding and the West division for an example - Indy shouldn't even be in the playoffs with their record) I don't even worry about this...even if we don't expand, I think we can have a discussion about realignment or the format of divisions...I don't think those issues have to be tied together. My bigger concern was always that we wouldn't have enough warm bodies to fill the seats. We have proven that staying at 32 has been no problem, and guys like Xeniese (I'm not calling him anything else) and Derek (I'm not writing off a 7th comeback) are always circling if we expand. As you said, I've yet to see an argument against expansion that makes me think the league can't sustain it.
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 10:54:49 GMT -6
I was against the notion of expansion in the past but it seems now I would almost prefer it. I agree with those that have said it will lead to more discussions in regards to trades which always helps for league activity but we already have 32 teams, will adding 4 more really help so much to trade discussions? It is debatable. San Miguel
This part I do partially agree with. We have switched over to slack, which Corey promised would be the new hotness when it came to league activity. It hasn't really done anything in the way of promoting more trade talks. League activity on the boards is waning as well. While I think there are arguments to be made that time of year and other factors are contributing, I think San Miguel is also correct that saying something as simple as more teams = more activity isn't necessarily true. I think expansion would benefit the league long term...but lets make sure to have proper expectations as to what it will actually do.
|
|
|
Post by San Francisco on Jul 27, 2015 11:03:53 GMT -6
I agree with what Mexico and Berlin said. There is slight benefit to expansion (more activity, new blood, more competition for limited playoff spot ratio, spread the talent around a little more sparsely etc). The only potential downside was filling GM slots and I think that's a non-issue, we have a few GM's floating around and a couple more that wait listed who never got teams. I'm surprised 9 people have voted no with no real rationale - the Yes side has at least provided a few (albeit weak) pros to expansion. Also I hate the current division setup (see Indiana's playoff seeding and the West division for an example - Indy shouldn't even be in the playoffs with their record) I think we have shown that having 32 good and active GM's is often times hard to do. Often times some of the guys on the waiting don't appeal to me at all/seem like screw up a situation and bail guys. I guess in general I look more at trying to add quality over quantity. In other words, just because you've been asked out doesn't mean you need to go on the date... We already have over half the league that is not actively competitive/"rebuilding" so we want to add more teams to balance out divisions but add more teams that by definition will be rebuilding for at least a few years? How many expansion teams have consistently been turned into winners? Just curious if people really want expansion or really want some new blood solely for trading and winning some gimmies purposes? Legit questions and in my mind new blood and activity aren't reasons that resonate with me. We have plenty of activity. I am the biggest fan of bigger divisions out there, but if the way it happens is adding more teams than until I see a really good rationale for doing so, with really strong candidates to run the teams I am hesitant to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 11:18:56 GMT -6
I agree with what Mexico and Berlin said. There is slight benefit to expansion (more activity, new blood, more competition for limited playoff spot ratio, spread the talent around a little more sparsely etc). The only potential downside was filling GM slots and I think that's a non-issue, we have a few GM's floating around and a couple more that wait listed who never got teams. I'm surprised 9 people have voted no with no real rationale - the Yes side has at least provided a few (albeit weak) pros to expansion. Also I hate the current division setup (see Indiana's playoff seeding and the West division for an example - Indy shouldn't even be in the playoffs with their record) I think we have shown that having 32 good and active GM's is often times hard to do. Often times some of the guys on the waiting don't appeal to me at all/seem like screw up a situation and bail guys. I guess in general I look more at trying to add quality over quantity. In other words, just because you've been asked out doesn't mean you need to go on the date... We already have over half the league that is not actively competitive/"rebuilding" so we want to add more teams to balance out divisions but add more teams that by definition will be rebuilding for at least a few years? How many expansion teams have consistently been turned into winners? Just curious if people really want expansion or really want some new blood solely for trading and winning some gimmies purposes? Legit questions and in my mind new blood and activity aren't reasons that resonate with me. We have plenty of activity. I am the biggest fan of bigger divisions out there, but if the way it happens is adding more teams than until I see a really good rationale for doing so, with really strong candidates to run the teams I am hesitant to say the least. We have had 6 expansion teams...BC (won, then rebuilt, now winning again), San Francisco (title winner), Harlem (title winner) San Miguel (pretty damn good), Indiana (up and down but I blame Dave) and Bayi (JESUS CHRIST WIN SOME GAMES COREY). Seriously SF, when I think expansion, "gimmie" games doesn't even cross my mind...not even something I thought of until you mentioned it in two different posts. Maybe that's more on you than on others. Do some people want the league to expand JUST for trading? That I can buy...and it's not a good reason for expansion. But the idea that people think of expansion as adding a bunch of jobbers? No clue who even thinks that way...especially with how well our expansion teams have done in their histories to date.
|
|
|
Post by San Francisco on Jul 27, 2015 11:32:05 GMT -6
Gimmies and trades come from unofficially mentoring several newer gms currently and in the past. I see the offers that are made/pushed.I'm not worried about winning games, I am decent at that.
I could care less as long as we have quality GMs for the spots but not sure we will.
Appreciate the responses people said they wanted why against and those are the nutshell reasons. It isn't personal for me I just don't see the benefits outweighing the cons
|
|
|
Post by Bayi on Jul 27, 2015 11:44:18 GMT -6
I'm surprised 9 people have voted no with no real rationale - the Yes side has at least provided a few (albeit weak) pros to expansion. I was one of them, becuase I made a jokey. (I didn't think this was a serious discussion.) I have changed mine to my actual answer: "I don't really care." This part I do partially agree with. We have switched over to slack, which Corey promised would be the new hotness when it came to league activity. It hasn't really done anything in the way of promoting more trade talks. Did I really promise that? I just remember promoting the functionality of Slack as being a major improvement over the "single room non-stop stream" that Skype provided, in addition to the fact that I can actually check the league on mobile without stabbing my eyes out.
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 11:47:46 GMT -6
Gimmies and trades come from unofficially mentoring several newer gms currently and in the past. I see the offers that are made/pushed.I'm not worried about winning games, I am decent at that. I could care less as long as we have quality GMs for the spots but not sure we will. Appreciate the responses people said they wanted why against and those are the nutshell reasons. It isn't personal for me I just don't see the benefits outweighing the cons So here seems to be the concern...if we expand, we will have four new GMs, all of who will be taken advantage of/will make terrible decisions/will set the league back. Not that it isn't a possibility that this happens, but we 1. have old GMs who might want back in by then, 2. have a mentoring program to avoid just this situation and 3. that's not exclusive to expansion, it applies to all new hirings. I'm not going after your reasoning or anything, but you seem to have a bleak outlook on every new GM entering the league, that they will be terrible or at the very least people will try to take advantage of them. We've put failsafes in place to try to avoid this. So, new GMs coming into the league...they do that if we replace somebody...that's not an expansion issue. What is a problem that GMs have with expansion itself?
|
|
|
Post by Bayi on Jul 27, 2015 11:49:46 GMT -6
Here are the pros/cons I've seen mentioned, now.
NO: We don't want to water things down, and we aren't confident about the GMs we might bring in. YES: More trade activity/league activity; realignment of divisions.
If you look at it this way, No outweighs Yes, easily, because both Yes reasons are either taken on faith or can be done without expansion. However, let's add an actual quality reason to the Yes column...
Expansion. Is. Fun.
The votes for and against are, so far, super lame. Let's look at it that way: is expansion fun? Yes. Always. It allows for some difference in the offseason. It adds a weird level of complexity. It allows me to expose Eddie Johnson in the expansion draft.
I'm still voting "I don't care," but let's not forget the reason we play the game: because it's fun.
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Jul 27, 2015 11:50:54 GMT -6
I'm surprised 9 people have voted no with no real rationale - the Yes side has at least provided a few (albeit weak) pros to expansion. I was one of them, becuase I made a jokey. (I didn't think this was a serious discussion.) I have changed mine to my actual answer: "I don't really care." This part I do partially agree with. We have switched over to slack, which Corey promised would be the new hotness when it came to league activity. It hasn't really done anything in the way of promoting more trade talks. Did I really promise that? I just remember promoting the functionality of Slack as being a major improvement over the "single room non-stop stream" that Skype provided, in addition to the fact that I can actually check the league on mobile without stabbing my eyes out. I'll look it over, but I'm fairly certain I saw "Slack", "new hotness" and "best thing for ABCA since expansion" in your explanation. Of course, I believe at the same time you said "Hulk Hogan is not a racist, I'd bet my life on it!"...so I'm not sure how trustyworthy you really are.
|
|