Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by jbleich
Wrong. And if I have to explain why you wont understand it anyways.
When you decided to post this, what reaction were you going for? It's mind-boggling that people continue to provoke me, then cry about it when I fire back.
Again, Alpine isn't split among multiple seasons the way that chronoaug claimed. In fact, I don't know anyone who is. You're not going to be 25% S3, 25% S4, 25% S5, and 25% S6, then replace each 25% as they hit the second season of decline. You don't do that because that roster isn't going to be good enough to compete against teams that are mostly at plateau. So yes, you would be able to weather decline better than those others teams, but it just means you'll stay mediocre for a long time. To be realistically competitive, you need a high percentage of dots from the same season, which means a down period once those dots hit the end of their careers.
We'll probably replace most the season 3-4 dots with season 6-7 dots this coming season. Then the next season we will try to replace the season 4-5 dots with 7-8 and so on. My point was that a lot of teams start with a core group of players or get a lot of guys 1season and then ride them into the ground and then are overwhelmed by having to recruit an entire team from scratch and then just gut. It's easier when you do it bit by bit. Is it still a lot of work? Hell yea. Because not only do you have to replace the older guys but also younger guys who jump to another team, guys who retire early to start on a slowbuild team, guys who go inactive,etc... If it wasn't for that second set of dot losses it probably would be a steady 30% a season because we've been planning on decline since it was announced season 9 (have had a season 3 hb starting since season 8). Won usapl gold, had an off year in WL (also was in the toughest conference in GLB history with 5 unbeatbable teams) and now are in line for the 2seed in usapl again. It can work
Is a team at it's best if they have all 1season of players and then all 55 peak? Yea, of course but they'll be in big trouble if they don't have a farm team of other dots in their 68-72peak coming in. Most teams (including alpine) have mostly season 3-4 guys peaking (don't forget that 1st season decline is pretty overrated) at key positions. Then we have season 4-6 guys who will still be on the team next season.
Pretty sure that's what bort envisioned when he started the decline system. I do think that we need another season of plateau so teams don't have to recruit the sheer volume every offseason because there honestly aren't enough pro dots for everyone to do that. I think 2seasons plateau instead of 1 would enable teams to battle decline a bit better and essentially have 3 seasons to recruit an entirely new roster instead of the 1-2 now. Recruiting was supposed to be part of the "football experience".
Originally posted by jbleich
Wrong. And if I have to explain why you wont understand it anyways.
When you decided to post this, what reaction were you going for? It's mind-boggling that people continue to provoke me, then cry about it when I fire back.
Again, Alpine isn't split among multiple seasons the way that chronoaug claimed. In fact, I don't know anyone who is. You're not going to be 25% S3, 25% S4, 25% S5, and 25% S6, then replace each 25% as they hit the second season of decline. You don't do that because that roster isn't going to be good enough to compete against teams that are mostly at plateau. So yes, you would be able to weather decline better than those others teams, but it just means you'll stay mediocre for a long time. To be realistically competitive, you need a high percentage of dots from the same season, which means a down period once those dots hit the end of their careers.
We'll probably replace most the season 3-4 dots with season 6-7 dots this coming season. Then the next season we will try to replace the season 4-5 dots with 7-8 and so on. My point was that a lot of teams start with a core group of players or get a lot of guys 1season and then ride them into the ground and then are overwhelmed by having to recruit an entire team from scratch and then just gut. It's easier when you do it bit by bit. Is it still a lot of work? Hell yea. Because not only do you have to replace the older guys but also younger guys who jump to another team, guys who retire early to start on a slowbuild team, guys who go inactive,etc... If it wasn't for that second set of dot losses it probably would be a steady 30% a season because we've been planning on decline since it was announced season 9 (have had a season 3 hb starting since season 8). Won usapl gold, had an off year in WL (also was in the toughest conference in GLB history with 5 unbeatbable teams) and now are in line for the 2seed in usapl again. It can work
Is a team at it's best if they have all 1season of players and then all 55 peak? Yea, of course but they'll be in big trouble if they don't have a farm team of other dots in their 68-72peak coming in. Most teams (including alpine) have mostly season 3-4 guys peaking (don't forget that 1st season decline is pretty overrated) at key positions. Then we have season 4-6 guys who will still be on the team next season.
Pretty sure that's what bort envisioned when he started the decline system. I do think that we need another season of plateau so teams don't have to recruit the sheer volume every offseason because there honestly aren't enough pro dots for everyone to do that. I think 2seasons plateau instead of 1 would enable teams to battle decline a bit better and essentially have 3 seasons to recruit an entirely new roster instead of the 1-2 now. Recruiting was supposed to be part of the "football experience".
Edited by chronoaug on Feb 24, 2010 10:21:54