Screening potential new owners

[Corsairs]

With openings sometimes happening in the middle of seasons and a fairly modest sized pool of candidates to choose from, it's tough for commissioners to be picky (unless perhaps you're commissioner of one of the more established leagues). Still, it's been my experience that it pays to be a little picky when looking over candidates. The right owner will make your league better for years to come, while the wrong one can do considerable damage in a relatively short tenure.

We've been refining some of the methods we use to screen applicants. I usually start by sending a "touching base" letter that includes information about the league, general expectations, and important links. From there I'm looking to see how well the applicant processes the information and how he responds. I personnally put extra emphasis on communication skills with that belief that those who can write well will have a leg up.

If the applicant seems okay, we'll invite him to post a hello thread on the forum and to write up a brief introductory article explaining his potential takeover of the team. Once he's done those things, the League Presidents and I will review everything we've seen and make a final determination. Other factors play in as well, such as whether the applicant has been active on the OOTP forums and how many other leagues he's in (with not too many being preferable).

For those of you who do screen incoming owners, what methods do you use?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

The right owner will make your league better for years to come, while the wrong one can do considerable damage in a relatively short tenure.

For those of you who do screen incoming owners, what methods do you use?

To answer your question, besides reading a selection of their posts here, I googled whatever I could find about them like their email address or AIM ID.

I'm curious what "considerable damage" someone did in a short period of time however. I mean, what's the worse someone can do, call you a cheat? If someone does that and can't at all back it up then I think pretty much everyone is going to look at the guy as just being a troublemaker. If a third party does turn on you as a result of the accusation then there was probably something else there that was a problem.

Anyway, my point for the question and getting a bit OT is I'm not sure screening is really that necessary. I mean, excessive screening could potentially turn a great GM away. I know I've reacted that way to jobs in real life. I've never done anything all that bad in my life, but I don't like people snooping into my personal life either so if someone says that's part of the process then I'll probably stay away. I could kind of see the point for you if you've somehow had a really bad experience with some GM, but have you really and if not, why do it?

There was one person that applied to the KBL that I had a bad feeling over and I didn't really want to let him into the league, but after thinking about it I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he could prove me wrong. In the end my initial feeling was right and he ended up making a somewhat nasty post later (IIRC, it was either a comment that we never got full or that we ended up folding after 7 or 8 seasons), but really, it wasn't that big of a deal and I easily let it go which can sometimes difficult for me so that should tell you it really wasn't that bad. Even with that, though, I still think I made the right decision letting him in because when you start doing that where do you draw the line? I'd rather let someone in and have them turn out bad (again, how bad can it get, really?) than risk turning away someone that might turn out fine.

What little screening I did do was more out of fear of someone taking on two teams to trade much of one team's talent to the other. I don't think that ever happened and if anything, I'd say the fear of that probably created more of a problem than had it happened. That is, I initially reviewed every trade and then if I was worried by one I would ask a committee to look it over. IIRC, I overruled a couple when looking back on it I probably shouldn't as not only do people have different trading skills, but I've learnt that sometimes you really do just want to take whatever you can get so if you're talking to someone that doesn't tick you off then why not make the deal? Anyway, I regret the backlash from overruling those trades and I most likely wouldn't do it now unless it was just so glaringly obvious and maybe not even until it happened twice between the same two GMs.

I didn't really consider their communication ability because I don't think that's a good judge of character. For instance, my wife's brother is a great nice guy, scary looking dude and can barely write a coherent phrase, but a great hard-working guy nonetheless. Why should we discriminate based on writing ability when it comes to online leagues? Sure, they probably won't contribute much in the way of forum discussions, but as long as they're taking decent care of their team and enjoying themselves, I don't care. I take discussion contribution as just a bonus.

So, before you start looking into better ways to screen, maybe you should ask yourself: do I really need or even want to screen?

(If you'd like me to split this tangent into another thread, I'll be happy too. Sorry, if it bothered you.)

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by kq76

What little screening I did do was more out of fear of someone taking on two teams to trade much of one team's talent to the other. I don't think that ever happened and if anything, I'd say the fear of that probably created more of a problem than had it happened. That is, I initially reviewed every trade and then if I was worried by one I would ask a committee to look it over. IIRC, I overruled a couple when looking back on it I probably shouldn't as not only do people have different trading skills, but I've learnt that sometimes you really do just want to take whatever you can get so if you're talking to someone that doesn't tick you off then why not make the deal? Anyway, I regret the backlash from overruling those trades and I most likely wouldn't do it now unless it was just so glaringly obvious and maybe not even until it happened twice between the same two GMs.

Not to take your thread off topic Corsairs, but I just wanted to touch on what kq76 said here. A number of years ago when I was commishing a league I overruled a trade. That was about the biggest mistake I ever made as a Commish. There was no backlash other than a couple of "Why's", but at the end of the season, both owners politely stepped down from the league. I soon realized what I'd done, it cost me two very good owners. I actually emailed both later on and apologized, explaining how I felt and admitting I was wrong. I told them how I'd learned my lesson from that. Neither responded or came back to the league, but I felt better about myself after sending the emails.

Like you kq76, unless it was blatantly obvious, I will never over rule a trade again should I ever decide to run a league again.



Just one comment for Corsairs. On the subject of activity on these forums, I don't understand that. Some of the best posters here have been members for a number of years and have only made a handful of posts. I don't see how you can use activity on this forum as a criteria for rating a potential owner.

[Corsairs]

I think I'm being a bit misconstrued. No one would ever be turned away from our league, for instance, because they have a low post count at the OOTP forums. On the other hand, if a poster has a body of posts that I can review and which allow me to get a feel for the fact that he seems like a reasonable guy, that of course is a plus. It's not a criteria for disqualification; rather, it's an opportunity for a boost over a candidate that would otherwise be viewed neutrally.

In terms of communication skills, at least for me I'm always looking for someone who will add to the league in as many ways as possible. That doesn't mean I'll exclude someone who doesn't write well, but it does mean that someone who seems like they'd contribute something to the discourse on our forums (and would enjoy doing so) is going to be viewed more favorably than a candidate who can't (and wouldn't) do that. Again, it's an opportunity for a boost.

In answer to your question about what kind of damage the wrong owner can do in a short period of time, kq76, I'm not at all concerned about nasty comments or anything like that. Sure, you'll get that from a bad owner, but hopefully we're all thick-skinned enough to take a few slings and arrows. I'm more referring to damage done to the team.

For instance, we took on an (unscreened) owner for part of a season who developed a penchant for signing and then immediately releasing personnel (and, of course, paying the full value of their long-term contracts). I tried to explain why that would be bad for the team's long-term finances, and every time I did he seemed to express that he understood, yet he kept on doing it. Why? I have no idea to this day, but ultimately it got to a point where we had make the call to let him go. In the aftermath we were left to figure out what to do with a team in needless financial disarray. The situation was eventually resolved satisfactorily, but I could have done without the hassle.

In retrospect, there were some signs that the owner might be a little... off. Of course you never want to needlessly exclude people, so those warning signs were ignored and, at least in that case, that was a mistake. By the same token, yes, we've had a couple people who were perhaps question marks that ultimately panned out just fine. I don't view the process of screening as a means to exclude people; I view it as an opportunity to get to know the applicant better and maximize your chances of finding someone who would be a good fit for your league.

Basically my philosophy is, "Roll with it as much as possible." That applies to taking on new owner candidates; unless I'm exceedingly sure that he won't be a fit (and that's only happened once for me), I'm going to take the owner on and give him a chance. The same mantra applies to trades. I agree with the, "Hands off!" idea and roll that way most every time. That said, I have undone one trade - pulled off by that same "trouble" owner I mentioned earlier - that simply was too much to roll with (for me, at least).

I suppose you never want to feel like you're being "elitist" and I definitely accept, "We don't screen under any circumstance," as a legitimate response here. In general I've gotten the impression that a number of the more active commishes posting here are pretty liberal and permissive in most cases, and I think that's admirable. That said, I still think there's something to be gained from being at least somewhat selective when deciding who to bring on board, and I remain curious as to what methods any other commishes here employ to try to maximize the chances that the new owner they're bringing on board will be a positive addition.

[RoryN]

I think many times in a league, screening a potential owner is necessary. For example, in some of the longer running leagues (and even in some newer ones), there are teams that have gone through so much owner turnover, that they are consistently in the bottom of the rankings. I feel you really need to do a little extra work to find someone willing to come into a "rebuild" project, and screening a potential owner's past OOTP experience and leagues is a very good start. If someone has a proven track record of sticking with a team through thick and thin, I believe that says a lot about what they'll bring to a league. Unless I know the person from another league I'm in, I always take a look at their experience and past leagues to get a better idea about them. I've even asked their previous commish's about them and used that info with anything else I have available to make a decision. I'ld rather take the time and get someone who's going to stay on rather than just say "yes: to everyone applying and see them drop out after a season because they can't "win now".

I've taken over the full time commish position in the SSBL (cheap plug!), and we are a season away from our 25th as a league. A little screening of new ownership just might allow us another 25 seasons of OOTP enjoyment.

[Pommpie]

Note: I've never been <i>in</i> an OOTP league simply because I can't find one that fits me. But I've run a modestly successful Eastside Hockey Manager league and been part of many others, so I think my opinion does have some value. And when I saw this topic, it was a topic near and dear to my heart. So I <i>had</i> to pipe up.

Corsairs said "I suppose you never want to feel like you're being 'elitist'." Well, speak for yourself. :P Personally, I've found a little elitism goes a long way towards creating a fun and stable environment: I'd rather have a league with sixteen first-class managers than a league with twenty first-class managers and twelve guys that aren't sure why they're there and who quit every month or so. This isn't to say "never take a manager without a track record in other leagues" but it does mean that if, say, I were to e-mail one of you guys and ask to join your league, I'd expect you to have some questions for me just to make sure I am a fit for your league. And if a guy's been in a few leagues but has bailed pretty quickly on all of them or done a shaky job managing, don't be afraid to take that into account.

And yes, language skills should count. This is a text-based game. Players chat to each other by text-based forums and in text-based chat rooms. If you can't write decently, you're going to reduce the fun level of your other managers, and that's the <i>last</i> thing a commissioner should want. Not everybody has to be Hemingway, of course, and I'm quite tolerant of the English-as-a-second-language types who make mistakes here and there but seem to be putting in a genuine effort. But "lol ya i want 2 join ur league bc i luv teh blue jays"? I wouldn't even finish reading that e-mail before putting it in the bin.

[Corsairs]

I guess it's obvious I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed by RoryN and Pommpie. No, I still don't want to feel like an elitist ... but yes, I do believe there's value in being careful about whom you take on board. I've already given my "horror story" involving a problem owner and I think that illustarates pretty well what can potentially go wrong if you're not careful. And as Pommpie said, you really do want to bring people on who will contribute something to the league other than just going through the motions of running their team. If I get the sense that the person wanting to join has zero interest in ever talking on the forums, writing an article, or enriching our league history in general... is that a person worth bringing on board even if he does fill a vacancy?

RoryN mentioned that he ocassionally speaks to other commissioners about potential new owner candidates. That's the kind of thing I would really like to be able to do sometimes when I'm not 100% sure about someone I may be taking on board. It would be wonderful to have a private place where commissioners could share their honest thoughts on owners they've worked with. This would work both ways; I know I'd put in great words for an owner in my league who wants to join up with another league. As it stands now, it can be difficult to touch base via PM with former commissioners who may not even be checking these forums anymore.

[bp_]

I didn't read through this all but another way to "screen" is to have your current owners pull in good owners from other leagues they are in. I think that is usually the best way to build strong ownership across a league when you already have a solid core.

[frankduffy]

Only takes one GM to fill your message board with rants and backroom deals where he says he'll deal all his good players to one team just to get back at another. (Trust me...It happened.)

It's not elitist to want to play games with people who are fun to play with. I know our teachers wanted us to play with everybody. But, they could step in and say, "Now Jerry, be nice..." When playing online, there's no overriding authority. No one to police a jerk. And, when you add the annonymity...you should screen for posts in the other leagues the player's in and anything on this board.

Also, you can always "probation" a guy and have trades go through a small mentor group of GMs. It usually only takes a season to know if a player's a reasonable human being.

[Corsairs]

Good suggestions. In our league's case we have two League Presidents assisting the commissioner, so there's sort of a built-in panel ready to handle this kind of thing. They lean towards the permissive side, which is great because they serve as a check on my more critical impulses.

My only thought is that in many cases placing an owner on probation would probably be tantamount to ejecting him since most owners would likely say, "The heck with your probation... I quit!" But then I suppose if that happens he probably wasn't right for the league, anyway.