11-17-2021, 03:28 PMThatguy91 Wrote:

11-17-2021, 02:23 PMPremierBromanov Wrote: isnt that what the co-GM is for?

it feels like there are seasons for testing and seasons for being an "active" GM. TBB is far from a true example of success, but trella and dwight and MCP spent a ton of time scouting and making trades to make the best roster they could. In those days, we didn't test a whole ton because we had barely any TPE on the roster. Now that we have one of the higher averages in the league, we spend way more time testing and gathering FHM info than we do fielding trades and scouting. We have not only GMs testing, but we put somewhat of a priority on FHM knowledgeable players in our drafting process, and not to toot my own horn but I spend a lot of time automating as many processes as possible. And, guys like Canadice make the entire league better if you are savvy enough to follow.

Teams like BUF and HAM are likely similar in their breakdown, whereas WPG and MAN are likely going to spend way more time scouting and trading.

I think I'm rambling, but i guess my point is that maybe a testing time investment is a good thing. Maybe my POV is skewed because things have always been busy for us, but what are GMs supposed to do outside of draft and trade if not test and deploy?

While I don't directly disagree with what you are saying, I think we need to consider as a community what level of commitment we expect from our GMs. I think we can all agree that in recent years, Buffalo and Hamilton has set the golden standard for what successful management looks like, but should we really expect the whole league to follow an example that currently only 20% of the league is able to attain at this moment? If yes, then I think we'd need to see a pretty radical turn-around of GMs and GM culture and I'm not sure thats even realistic. And if we are already experiencing a lack of GM applications, what will that look like after we effectively ask even more of a GM in terms of a very niche part of the GMing experience? Additionally, if we continue on this heading the teams that are already ahead will continue to build on their already superior knowledge and testing systems, making it even more difficult for new GMs to break in and be successful.

Expecting teams to not only have knowledge regarding automation but also have an active group of a handful of testers isn't something we should be striving for imo, I think thats setting the bar too high and I don't see that as a sustainable system for 20 teams. That would require what, upwards of 20-25% of the total league population to take active part in testing and that seems way too high.

Maybe I'm just overthinking things, and obviously everyone has different ideas of what is reasonable and what they want to experience in the league but I tend to lean towards simplifying things rather than making the system more complex.

I also realise that a lot of these points are probably making me sound like a whiney GM that wants easy success, but in all honesty I think that if we continue this 'arms race' its only going to lead to greater stratification in this league. I don't like the idea of making changes that punishes the success of teams that have set up proven systems, but I do think we should seriously consider and discuss (just like we are doing at the moment!) what level of commitment we expect from our GMs, if that is sustainable and/or realistic and what effect it has on the overall health of the league.

i think everything you said is reasonable, i guess I would just say that the competition is good, no? There are folks who will invest as much time as possible before there are diminishing returns and I'm glad those people are around. I think its all well and good that there are gms who put in less work and are rewarded less and the same goes for players as well. But people play for all different reasons, so I would hate to punish more invested users to reward more casual users in the name of...something, i dont know. Not every user is here to win, and that's fine. We shouldn't expect the level of parity in the NHL, for example, since we're not getting paid and our victories are less meaningful.

I would also echo @LordBirdman 's sentiment: I don't want to GM either. I'm glad there are folks who have the time to manage a team, even if they don't have the time to run hours of sims every season.

That said, I don't really know what an alternative would look like, but a PT pass certainly frees up more time for managerial duties.