West Coast League: Movement Criteria - out of conference movement?

[Eaglesfan27]

Next of the 4 polls.

[Eaglesfan27]

The cons of out of conference movement are significant in my opinion. If we allow teams to move into a conference with no other human players, that could be a signficant advantage leading to further wins and further advancement. Furthermore, it defeats part of the purpose of this league which is to play against each other.

If we allow teams to move out of conference, it also creates a potential advantage for the teams that are "left behind" in their original conference as it is possible only 1 human would remain in the conference.

Also, If we get 5 or 6 in one conference and the other conferences only have 2 or 3, that could bog things down a bit and leave the people who are by themselves or in a conference with less people with more down time, but I don't think that should be a decisive factor as there are also benefits to the 2 or 3 who are in the conference with the less number of people.

The pros of conference movement are the potential to move to your favorite team over time if you can't start with them and the conferences that get selected in future polls don't include your favorite team. I know that if this league is going long enough, I'd like the chance to use USC if I slowly work my way up the ladder even if the Pac-10 isn't one of the initial conferences. That is the only significant positive I see for allowing conference moves.

I think the cons outweight the positives and I'm voting no for that reason.

Edit: The other pro is to move to compete more directly against different owners in the league.

[Sun Tzu]

I voted for the second option, with the following condition.

If you are going to move to another conference, there must be at least 2 other human owners there, and one owner from that conference would have to come to your former conference. They could trade teams, or whatever, but the number of players per conference wouldn't change, and those two guys assuming they wanted to mix things up because they are burned out would satisfy their itch to move.

[Galaxy]

I selected "other". I think if you move to another conference, you need at least one other human player to move with you. I don't mind if free movement after 5 years (or whatever we vote to require before moving teams), as long as each conference maintains two human members. However, I think no conference should have more then four members.

Or, if two members in different conferences wish to move to new teams within the selected conferences, meet the criteria, I have no problem with that.

[Kodos]

I think things are simpler with no movement.

[bhlloy]

I agree with at least 3 humans per conference for the duration of the game. In practice this will limit conference movement pretty well - I have no problem with that. Only 2 humans per conference and we are getting into being able to get away with only 1 human game all year territory (even 0 in some leagues)

Kodos is right - things would be simpler with no movement, but I really don't think if the situation comes up that I want to move into a conference and somebody else wants to move out at the same time, that it would hurt to allow that.

[Raiders Army]

Actually, I've re-thought this. I chose other since I think we should "cross that bridge when it comes to it." How many seasons is it going to take to have a player want to move conferences? I would think that a new player would come in first and then want to move conferences before an established player would want to move. I'm all for excitement and laying some ground rules, but this seems to be too far down the road to make decisions and keeping to them at this point.

[Sun Tzu]

I like Raiders Army approach to this. I agree that it's tough to decide on now. Everytime I think about this happening, my first reaction is "well what are the factors involved?" before I make a judgement call. There seem to be so many hypothetical possibilities that everything gets all foggy. I'm ok right now with saying this...

Lets allow it after you've had a team for (sounds like either 4 or 5 now) years. When/if the situation arises, then we'll weigh all of the factors inolved and then make a group decision. If that person winds up not agreeing with the decision he can either A. deal with it or B. quit, and I'm sure we'll have someone else on the waiting list who would love to have any team at all.

[kingnebwsu]

I voted no movement. If people are going to change teams then they should still be in the same conference. You'll get to know your 2 in-conference opponents very well as the seasons progress.

[Eaglesfan27]

The only problem with "crossing that bridge as it comes" is that I think it is more likely to piss people off if they don't get to move when they want to do so. Although, if that is what the majority thinks we should do, I'm fine with that. We could even made it a majority vote on whether to allow the move or not, if we wanted to.

[Sun Tzu]

I think we should leave the option open for people to move after X number of years, but it has to be a reasonable move where the majority votes in favor.