West Coast League: Movement Criteria (first of several polls)
 

I think there are at least 4 separate elements of movement criteria:

- How many seasons with your current team before you can move?

- In conference only or out of conference movement allowed. I think there is a significant argument to be made against out of conference, but I'll post that in the appropriate thread.

- How far up can a team move? Will we use overall talent level to determine that? Team Prestige? Some combo of the 2?

- How successful does someone have to be before they can move? 1 11 win season? 2 10 win seasons? Must win their bowl?


This poll is just to answer the first question.

I think 3 seasons is a good number, but wouldn't be opposed at all to a higher number. I think 1 is definitely too short and 2 is a bit short as well. We could lose the initial focus of the league quickly, particularly if we vote to allow out of conference movements. Also, movement is going to be done by the successful teams and I don't want to see this league lose the fun factor because the good players dominate even more as they have the better teams. However, above 3 and I think we may be risking people getting burnt out with a team. Of course, whatever number we set this at is dependent upon meeting the criteria that we select in the other polls that define enough success for an owner to be eligible to move.

I think you shouldn't be able to move to a "higher" prestige program. You should only move to a program of equal or lower prestige. I also think you need to have at least back-to-back bowl appearances (winning seasons as well the two previous seasons of your move.

That is something that we'll definitely hash out in the 3rd and 4th polls. Those take more thought so I might not get to them until tomorrow.

5 years. It just feels right to me.

If there has to be movement, I want the longest mandatory period possible for sticking with your initial team.

The more I think about it, the more I like 5 for at least the initial phase. I'm changing my vote to 5 and will count it as such in the final tally.

I don't except myself to move. As long as I'm a conference I enjoy (and with four out of the six conferences in play, I don't see any problems with that), I expect to build a great dynasty. :)

I agree with this. Also, there's no way players should be able to move to better teams. The rich would just get richer...

Bearing in mind that I could easily get stuck with the last pick in the lottery, and forced to take a team that a) I dislike and b) could just be a crappy situation, I'm voting for 3 years. But I fully expect 5 to win easily :)

What do you mean by those two points? The roster you start with? I think it will take at least three years to get things turnaround with the crappy programs we're taking over (the worst rosters and very few advantages in recruiting) in the BCS conferences. It will take a few classes to get a better roster. This will happen once you implement your style of systems (you may elect to take over a west coast-style team, but you want to go with long ball-style system) and your recruits are developed enough to reach that point. Playing on AA, I don't except us to be winning right away and recruiting top 35 classes filled with 5 and 4 star recruits.

Unlike my other response, I think this one is a good "ground rule" to have.

Uh....hold on...been drinking some beer after work. Mind isn't functioning properly (but good enough to post!).

Anyhow, I change my vote to a 4 year minimum. Why four years? After four years you should have "your players" on the team and hell, if you can't win with those players, maybe it's your school (it couldn't possibly be you!).

Not that I'm looking to create a bureacracy of sorts, but to me number of years is less relevant thant team rating and prestige. While I don't think our objective of the league is to "win" by becoming the first guy to takeover USC or tOSU, there's an attraction to me of being able to earn enough prestige to "climb the ladder."

I would rather see a combination of prestige and talent. We have 80 as our baseline -- I think you should have to get your team to a certain talent and successful level before you can move to the next job -- maybe 90? At that point, you'd be eligible to take a new job with a team at the same prestige level or one-star higher with a team rating below 80 -- somewhat starting at the bottom again.

EF27 didn't get into the conference movement, but while I'd like to see guys be able to move from conference to conference, I do understand that could cause issues by leaving one or two guys in a conference by themselves. Not sure how to regulate that fairly.

I think we ought to be able to fire you too -- if after five years your team is worse than when you've started, you may have to move to another team. Of course I propose that I would probably be the first guy canned. :)