Universal Team Boxing Association

[mh2365]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

It is Elisha Cuthbert

She is in Girl Next Door, House of Wax, Old School. She looks her best in Girl Next Door. She is also on the TV show 24!

Beautiful girl, decent actress, nearly single-handedly killed 24 the first two years.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

1. I dont mind the idea of injuries as long as it isnt too hard for SAL. I think it is a realstic idea that would occur in a team sport competition.

2. The first year talent in the Free Agent Pool should be weak by design, after the first few years that talent in the free agent pool will be a little greater. I dont think it should be possible to do a draft(sort of what we did) BUT be able to pick up a free agent in the free agent pool that is better than what we already have in the first year.

I think you should drop down 1 draft position for every rating better your free agent pick up is. If you pick up a 5 to replace a 4 you drop one spot and so on.

Of course I have complete faith that Sal can handle this but if he can't I could handle the draft spots for him.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by mh2365

Beautiful girl, decent actress, nearly single-handedly killed 24 the first two years.




I think you should drop down 1 draft position for every rating better your free agent pick up is. If you pick up a 5 to replace a 4 you drop one spot and so on.

Of course I have complete faith that Sal can handle this but if he can't I could handle the draft spots for him.

I don't really understand the dropping 1 spot in the draft Mike?

1. It doesnt provide any real punishment for picking up a new boxer(In the whole scheme of things I doubt if anyone will give that(losing 1 spot) a second thought IF deciding to pick someone up)

2. It will add more complication to the draft order

3. It's basically an unfair way to reward a team based on luck of the draw. (I pick 11th, and Conn Chris picks 10th. He picks up a free agent boxer so I move up to 10 w/o doing anything, I gain an advantage but spots 12 through 14 don't gain an advantage because it is all based on pick location which is an odd way to add a rule. If you're pick got moved to a sandwich pick(pick after the 1st round is over) or lost 1 2nd round pick, I could understand a little better.

4. In Essence, The Free Agent Pool should be the worst boxers in UTBA. I guess a few times a team might be able to replace a 3 rated boxer with a 4 or 5, BUT still has to be under the point cap in order to do this. We're not having free agency so its not like one team would be losing a great boxer and need compensation.

I like your most of your idea's Mike, I just dont know what this really adds except complication

[mh2365]

I agree it's too complicated but I would not be in favor of someone dropping a guy off their roster for a better rated free agent with no penalty involved.

I guess if we do the cap that's alright though, since only teams under the cap would be able to do it.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by mh2365

I agree it's too complicated but I would not be in favor of someone dropping a guy off their roster for a better rated free agent with no penalty involved.

I guess if we do the cap that's alright though, since only teams under the cap would be able to do it.

I like the cap idea. if you exceed the cap at any time, you lose your first round pick in the next draft. So, if you were over the cap, you would loose a pick and have to release someone prior to the draft or risk losing a first rounder in the next draft as well.

With a cap set at a reasonable limit, you likely won't be able to better your team by much from the draft pool anyway. The only exception would be picking up a higher ranked fighter released by someone else for cap reasons.

We'll need to set a deadline for being cap compliant after the draft, say a week. That will likely be the time that owners with cap room will be able to upgrade a 3 or 4 to a 5 or 6. If we all have a cap to contend with no penalty for improving a slot on your roster should be necessary.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

3) Each team can have only 16 boxers plus any number of fighters on the DL (this means that when a player is injured, you have to trade for a replacement or select from the FA pool. When the injury is over, someone has to get released)
4) Trading allowed up to the mid season point
5) After mid season, only moves to and from the free agent pool can be made
6) Draft picks can be traded
7) Fighters can be released at any time

9) All released players go to the free agent pool

10) Draft pool each year is generated by having each of the bottom half teams (7 in our case) select one fighter from each division. That will make a good sized draft pool, give an advantage to the bottom and hopefully create a little parity year to year so people do not get disinterested. Or maybe we could have the bottom 4 teams select 8 fighters of their choosing (any class) and allow everyone else to select only two names for the draft pool. Whatever we do, it seems to me that we need to give a bone to the second tier (which may include me) so they stay interested. This will be no fun if people get blown out all the time and just give up.

Any thoughts on my other ill-conceived ideas?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

I like the cap idea. if you exceed the cap at any time, you lose your first round pick in the next draft. So, if you were over the cap, you would loose a pick and have to release someone prior to the draft or risk losing a first rounder in the next draft as well.

With a cap set at a reasonable limit, you likely won't be able to better your team by much from the draft pool anyway. The only exception would be picking up a higher ranked fighter released by someone else for cap reasons.

We'll need to set a deadline for being cap compliant after the draft, say a week. That will likely be the time that owners with cap room will be able to upgrade a 3 or 4 to a 5 or 6. If we all have a cap to contend with no penalty for improving a slot on your roster should be necessary.

I like your idea, athough I cant think of a situation in which you SHOULD be allowed to go over the cap.

I realize the cap will need to increase every year, with better boxers coming into the universe. I was thinking that cap could be set ever year AFTER the draft, and the cap for that year gets set at whatever the team with the highest points(ratings of all fighters on your team) is at. This way the team with the worst record can still get the boxer he wants even if its 15 rated Muhammed Ali and cut his 3 rated heavyweight without having to worry about the cap and that point. This person is also punished in a way because he sets the cap bar so he can only pick up worse or equal fighters if an injury should occur. This would also mean AT NO TIME can ANYONE exceed the cap that was set for that year.

When teams are allowed to go over caps and start losing draft choices things get complicated. I'm not against adding some of this stuff at a later date but I think while we work out other things simple is the best approach.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

Any thoughts on my other ill-conceived ideas?

I like 3 through 9. Not sure on 10 yet. I can see some potential flaws.

I think it may be too easy for the lower ranked teams to manipulate the draft pool towards thier liking. And I worry that each of the bottom teams will throw out the 7 greatest boxers of all time, making the universe very un balanced and short term.

I like the idea of an unbias party(Sal) creating the draft pool.

FOR EXAMPLE: (I love examples) If I have one of the top 7 picks, I am going to nominate the best fighter at my weakest division and hope he is there when I pick, and I assume the other 6 would follow suit(Why wouldnt they?). And after that I will stock the rest of my nominations with poor fighters, basically screwing over the 7 lower picks. Some of you may say its BUSH league or bad, I myself would consider it brilliant strategy IF we were using these rules. That is my best example about why I dont like it.

[mh2365]

With all of us at 97 I think the cap should be 102 ... that gives us some flexibility. I also think expansion teams cap should be 97 (following the same guidelines as we had) and they can pick their team after the draft is all said and done, that way most of the time the expansion team will struggle the first year.

I like almost all of your other ideas. How about for the draft pool the bottom 7 teams pick their fighters each with a cap total for their 8 picks.

The team with the worst would get let's just say 56 points to pick their fighters for the pool. That's an average rating of 7. then drop it by 4 points for each position. 52 (6.5avg), 48 (6 avg), 44 (5.5), 40 (5), 36 (4.5) and last one only gets 32 (4 avg) ..... That kind of assures that everyone of them can't pick a really high rated fighter. Or 7 really good fighters would join and a bunch of crappy ones. Either way the bottom would have first crack at the top guy they picked.

just brainstorming on the draft pool

[vistaman44]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

Any thoughts on my other ill-conceived ideas?

... all your ideas except the injury thing. I just don't like leagues where the best team doesn't win because of an injury or two.

Anyway, all the rest of the ideas seem well thought-out and fair. Once again, just my two cents.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by vistaman44

... all your ideas except the injury thing. I just don't like leagues where the best team doesn't win because of an injury or two.

Anyway, all the rest of the ideas seem well thought-out and fair. Once again, just my two cents.

I can easily live without the injuries.

Originally Posted by mh2365

The team with the worst would get let's just say 56 points to pick their fighters for the pool. That's an average rating of 7. then drop it by 4 points for each position. 52 (6.5avg), 48 (6 avg), 44 (5.5), 40 (5), 36 (4.5) and last one only gets 32 (4 avg) ..... That kind of assures that everyone of them can't pick a really high rated fighter. Or 7 really good fighters would join and a bunch of crappy ones. Either way the bottom would have first crack at the top guy they picked.

That is a great idea Mike, not sure what the caps should be but that would work. Personaly, I would like lower numbers so there are only 3 or 4 rounds per year tops. I favor continuity over wholesale changes to rosters.

[Romultiltus]

Everything sounds good, except I don't agree with an escalating cap after each season. This will in effect slowly whittle out the lower rated fighters and clog the league w/ just the top guys. After a few seasons, most the 3's and 4's will have will have no place as each team will use the higher cap figure to stockpile better rated fighters. This defeats the purpose and realistically limits the overall number of fighters available.

The cap figure of 102 should work fine. With everyone at 96 or 97 right now, that gives each team 5-6 points for improvement w/o having to dump the 3's and 4's. If a "15" becomes available after a couple of seasons and a team manages to get him, the odds are that he will stampede through the season and there will be no competative balance. To make this fair, a hard cap will force the managers fortunate enough to get a "15" to carry lower guys on the roster and therefore expect to lose a large number of matches with them (and pray for the surprise upset)

Basically, by carrying a "15" a manager would expect to dominate one division at the expense of another - this should allow other teams to remain competitive in the overall standings.

Also, I feel that each manager should not be allowed to nominate fighters above a 10 or 11. Our unbiased watchdog/commissioner (SAL) may want to set up some sort of system where he is allowed to introduce say 5 or 6 "wildcard" entries into the draft pool. A simple randomized dice roll could choose the rating of the "wildcard". This would make the availability of a superstar in the draft pool a surprise to all. Based on the randomization method chosen, there may be drafts without any fighters higher than 10-11 and make each new season more interesting. (A Michael Jordan / T.O. / Albert Pujolis / Wayne Gretzsky - type franchise player doesn't fall off the tree every year)

[mh2365]

Originally Posted by Romultiltus

Everything sounds good, except I don't agree with an escalating cap after each season. This will in effect slowly whittle out the lower rated fighters and clog the league w/ just the top guys. After a few seasons, most the 3's and 4's will have will have no place as each team will use the higher cap figure to stockpile better rated fighters. This defeats the purpose and realistically limits the overall number of fighters available.

The cap figure of 102 should work fine. With everyone at 96 or 97 right now, that gives each team 5-6 points for improvement w/o having to dump the 3's and 4's. If a "15" becomes available after a couple of seasons and a team manages to get him, the odds are that he will stampede through the season and there will be no competative balance. To make this fair, a hard cap will force the managers fortunate enough to get a "15" to carry lower guys on the roster and therefore expect to lose a large number of matches with them (and pray for the surprise upset)

Basically, by carrying a "15" a manager would expect to dominate one division at the expense of another - this should allow other teams to remain competitive in the overall standings.

Also, I feel that each manager should not be allowed to nominate fighters above a 10 or 11. Our unbiased watchdog/commissioner (SAL) may want to set up some sort of system where he is allowed to introduce say 5 or 6 "wildcard" entries into the draft pool. A simple randomized dice roll could choose the rating of the "wildcard". This would make the availability of a superstar in the draft pool a surprise to all. Based on the randomization method chosen, there may be drafts without any fighters higher than 10-11 and make each new season more interesting. (A Michael Jordan / T.O. / Albert Pujolis / Wayne Gretzsky - type franchise player doesn't fall off the tree every year)

I agree with all of this

[CONN CHRIS]

Well thought out Romultiltus (please get a nickname for us to use )

You should draft the rules - you seem to have a good handle on keeping it fair and interesting.

[bigMatt]

Wow, you guys have made lots of progress in my absence. Sounds like things are shaping up nicely.

I resubmitted my replacement list to SAL a little while ago. Sorry to hold things up, but a weekend on Beaver Lake was just too good to pass up.

Oh, and for you CW fans, an afternoon at Pea Ridge as well.

Anyway, I'll await SAL's verdict on my updated list.

Matt

[SAL]

All 14 roster replacement picks that have been turned in

mh2365 - MexiVilles
romdawg88 - Muckboys
jbergey22 - Undisputed Champions
Romultiltus - Tomato City
ConnChris - Hebron Haymakers
vistaman - Brazilian Barbarians
Claybor - Juggernaut
umk - The Nobodies
Ian Lord - Tile Hill Top Team
Tosti - Cawkney Crusaders
Catalion - Punching Gatitos
IceTea - Iceteaboxing
Shane - Boxing Kangaroos
bigMatt - Bonner Springs Bald Beavers

The manager listed in bold had one fighter scratched due to duplications. I sent a PM to him. As soon as I receive his replacement pick, all rosters will be full.

Just some information, (FW's) Wilfredo Gomez and Hogan Bassey were cut from the UTBA for the first year. They both were selected two times which caused their removal from the UTBA's first year.

[SAL]

Proposed amendments for the UTBA Rules:

Moved to the next page................

[Romultiltus]

[quote=CONN CHRIS]Well thought out Romultiltus (please get a nickname for us to use )

For those who are sick of typing out Romultiltus...

no nickname necessary ...

just Dave ...

[Romultiltus]

[quote=SAL]Proposed amendments for the UTBA Rules:

DRAFT POOL
The draft pool will be stocked each year with 16-50 new fighters. (50 the first year)
The rating of these fighters will range from 3-9 with a chance every year of 5 to 6 fighters rated 10+ being added to the draft pool.

(I encourage all managers to nominate fighters they would like to see added to the draft. If the nominated fighter falls within the draft pool guidelines, they will be added).


Glad this idea will find its way in. If it is decided that 5-6 wildcard entries will make it into the draft pool each year, the chance of all being 10+ should be low. In the event that only 2 or 3 are put in, it would be cool if the other wildcards were random mid-range (5-8) rated fighters. I'm sure each of us has favorites fitting that range which would be a nice surprise to see.

[SAL]

[QUOTE=Romultiltus]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

Well thought out Romultiltus (please get a nickname for us to use )

For those who are sick of typing out Romultiltus...

no nickname necessary ...

just Dave ...

Dave, I just got the hang of typing Romultiltus

[mh2365]

[QUOTE=Romultiltus]

Originally Posted by SAL

Proposed amendments for the UTBA Rules:

DRAFT POOL
The draft pool will be stocked each year with 16-50 new fighters. (50 the first year)
The rating of these fighters will range from 3-9 with a chance every year of 5 to 6 fighters rated 10+ being added to the draft pool.

(I encourage all managers to nominate fighters they would like to see added to the draft. If the nominated fighter falls within the draft pool guidelines, they will be added).


Glad this idea will find its way in. If it is decided that 5-6 wildcard entries will make it into the draft pool each year, the chance of all being 10+ should be low. In the event that only 2 or 3 are put in, it would be cool if the other wildcards were random mid-range (5-8) rated fighters. I'm sure each of us has favorites fitting that range which would be a nice surprise to see.

Yeah I agree I think 5-6 wild cards from 6 up should be added that way to reduce the number of 10+ fighters