Warrior General Games

I believe it was put to the Gold owner collective to generate a proposal to GLB management a few seasons ago as to what Gold promotion process is fair, consistent, sustainable, and relatively simple (KISS). I surmise that the general feeling amoungst the S15 ownership group would be to set a system who's ultimate goals are to promote the most deserving and highest competitive teams and to reduce the risk of uncompetitive teams moving up from the Conference Champion field. I think it's in the best interest of the S15 PWG ownership collective to resolve the wishy washy system currently in place before another implosion of standards occurs.

A pee wee teams current and future success is defined and projected in part by a teams sustained durability and endurance season after season more so than a teams AI's and Builds on day 40 of any particular season due to each new season beginning with a clean slate. There needs to be value placed in a teams sustained success as the primary non-subjective criteria to define the promotion process.

I offer this as a basis for change to the current system. The group of Conference Champs would have first rights to take spots, when those teams are exhausted, the pool of playoff teams can be used for consideration.

**********Total of all time franchise regular season and playoff wins be used 100% to determine admittance to non-league conference champions into Pee Wee Gold. Because your admitting a franchise, which you're really doing in any circumstance, and not just a team on day 39 anyway, the subjectivity of comparison is thus eliminated. The reward of maintaining a high level team for a sustained period of time is thus garnered**************



ETA - Definition of a franchise up for discussion. Simplest and most logical definition would be same owner/same team/consecutive seasons owned. Should be a simple database query to write.

In my opinion they should just make it simple, Chamions>Conf. Champs>3rd round loss>2nd Round Loss>1st Round Loss>Regular season.

Originally posted by The Greatest DTD
In my opinion they should just make it simple, Chamions>Conf. Champs>3rd round loss>2nd Round Loss>1st Round Loss>Regular season.



You have to rank the Conference Champions - the crux of the current system is ranking the the deservability of the Conference Champs. Nobody diputes the progression you illustrated is the logical chain of generating nominees.

Originally posted by middawg
Total of all time franchise regular season and playoff wins be used 100% to determine admittance to non-league conference champions into Pee Wee Gold. Because your admitting a franchise, which you're really doing in any circumstance, and not just a team on day 39 anyway, the subjectivity of comparison is thus eliminated. The reward of maintaining a high level team for a sustained period of time is thus garnered.



Do we know if they can analyze a team's record based on current ownership time? Going back since the start of the team would be a bit counter-productive to the intent of this since it would factor in records from previous owners.

Originally posted by middawg
Originally posted by The Greatest DTD

In my opinion they should just make it simple, Chamions>Conf. Champs>3rd round loss>2nd Round Loss>1st Round Loss>Regular season.



You have to rank the Conference Champions - the crux of the current system is ranking the the deservability of the Conference Champs. Nobody diputes the progression you illustrated is the logical chain of generating nominees.



What is the current promotion? Is it posted anywhere

Originally posted by Kaerey
Originally posted by middawg

Total of all time franchise regular season and playoff wins be used 100% to determine admittance to non-league conference champions into Pee Wee Gold. Because your admitting a franchise, which you're really doing in any circumstance, and not just a team on day 39 anyway, the subjectivity of comparison is thus eliminated. The reward of maintaining a high level team for a sustained period of time is thus garnered.



Do we know if they can analyze a team's record based on current ownership time? Going back since the start of the team would be a bit counter-productive to the intent of this since it would factor in records from previous owners.


Would need to be defined - simplest and most logical solution would be to say same owner/same team/consecutive seasons owned. Should be a simple database query to write.

8 x Silver Champs then
Randomly selected from 8 x Silver Conference Champs then
Randomly selected from the 16 x Silver Conference Losers then
Randomly Selected Copper Champs because honestly if it gets this bad, it might as well be Copper.

Too bad there's not time to have an after season 1 day tournament..

Silver League winners are in 100%

If there are open spots: let them fight it out!

Just no way with the current 40 day season.. contracts expiring.. etc..etc..

TT - Random Selection fails the most deserving and highest liklihood of competitiveness tests/criteria for a PWG promotion. So you think those goals should be tossed out?

Originally posted by Time Trial
8 x Silver Champs then
Randomly selected from 8 x Silver Conference Champs then
Randomly selected from the 16 x Silver Conference Losers then
Randomly Selected Copper Champs because honestly if it gets this bad, it might as well be Copper.


Are you talking about the current promotion?

I think this is wrong since it's too much of a coincidence that 3 of the undefeated conf champions advanced for the extra spot. They had a discussion about this before but it goes by record then points scored, then point allowed, etc.

I think what they should do is go something like
35% current promotional system
35% past record and achievements (scrimmage games and tournament results as well)
30% votes from the current gold league teams (1 representative for each team)

This should be fair and square. Some people think we were hand selected (based on tournament results and scrimmage games) but we were also first in line based on current promotional system. We had the best regular season record out of the conf champions left. However I think it's flawed to just rely on regular season games for tie breaker. All due respect to hartford but if they scored more points than us, do they really deserve to move ahead of us if only one team (TO, Horde) decided to go cpu?

If you want to go by past record, you definitely have to factor scrimmage games and tournament results. No good teams take regular season games seriously in silver or below. We are like 60-1 in regular season games and I only game planned about 1% of them. I don't think this is the perfect solution but much better than the current one we are using since it can filter out some overachievers that were put in weaker leagues.

Originally posted by RaphaneKnight
Are you talking about the current promotion?

I think this is wrong since it's too much of a coincidence that 3 of the undefeated conf champions advanced for the extra spot. They had a discussion about this before but it goes by record then points scored, then point allowed, etc.

I think what they should do is go something like
35% current promotional system
35% past record and achievements (scrimmage games and tournament results as well)
30% votes from the current gold league teams (1 representative for each team)

This should be fair and square. Some people think we were hand selected (based on tournament results and scrimmage games) but we were also first in line based on current promotional system. We had the best regular season record out of the conf champions left. However I think it's flawed to just rely on regular season games for tie breaker. All due respect to hartford but if they scored more points than us, do they really deserve to move ahead of us if only one team (TO, Horde) decided to go cpu?

If you want to go by past record, you definitely have to factor scrimmage games and tournament results. No good teams take regular season games seriously in silver or below. We are like 60-1 in regular season games and I only game planned about 1% of them. I don't think this is the perfect solution but much better than the current one we are using since it can filter out some overachievers that were put in weaker leagues.

+1 to what RaphaneKnight said.

While I appreciate new S16 teams voicing their opinions, lets keep the discussion to S15 team owners/coordinators who have played PWG with their teams, have a greater sense of the historical discussion, and who have little or no affilition, or horse in the race if you will, to teams promoting in S16


It was additionally stated a few seasons ago by GLB management that the process has to be simple so it it can auto-process in the offseason. This eliminates any sort of "manual voting" as a reasonable supplement to my proposal. In addition, I maintain that scrims, even ranked scrims and Tourney games, are a shallow, arbiitrary, and easily manipulated method of setting promotion criteria.


The three part promotion system listed above is nearing the complications we see in the BCS formula.

Originally posted by middawg


You have to rank the Conference Champions - the crux of the current system is ranking the the deservability of the Conference Champs. Nobody diputes the progression you illustrated is the logical chain of generating nominees.



I do dispute it, because not all leagues are created equal. Everyone knows that there is alway one or two Silver leagues that have four or five really goods teams in it. Then there are other that have one stand out team in each conference of the league. They run the table to the Championship game where those two stand out teams play each other. The winner gets automatic bid and the loser also gets in because of his 19-1 record and blow out scores from the regular season and patty cake walk to the Championship game. Those other stud leagues, 2 or 3 better, more deserving teams get the shaft.

I think it would be a bit complicated to consider the previous seasons past, even though I do agree it is somewhat valid, sometimes teams just don't field competitive teams (my own, in S13,S14 for example) and even though I agree it should be held against them, as it plays to their inconsistency, I also agree that this would still fail to bring the best teams to the Gold leagues, and this system would likely promote anyone who did good in silver who had gone 20-0 to win copper the season before, as they would be like 35-1 liftetime, which is going to look a heck of a lot better, than a heck of a lot better teams.

I think going off of conference champions is a bad idea, particularly for this season, as being in the final on one side only means you actually put in an AI, and it would be more impressive to just make the playoffs on the other side....

Using anything but the playoffs would likely bring one to two non-boosting non-custom teams a season to Gold, as you don't have to boost to go 16-0, just to win in the playoffs, and although I'd love to see it happen, having non-boost., non-custom teams in the current Gold League is just a pointless and wasted team, even though they may impact the regular season, it would really just be a chance for them to play spoiler to a team who actually plans to boost and custom to remain competitive in the league.

I know, that sounds odd coming from me, but we should not be promoting non boosters to the Gold League as is.

The current system, and all of your systems, are only flawed because of the flawed structure of the Leagues, if it wasn't for the Leagues being lopsided, we could just go off the regular season records of the conference champs, and almost always be picking the best teams.

Hartford is only in line for promotion because their conference was so weak, and they played a nonboosting team (my own) in the conference championship, if the conferences were even slightly balanced this result would not occur.

Essentially, and I've said this at least 20 times, we need less silver leagues, it makes no sense for the sake of competitive nature to have the same number of silver leagues as copper leagues, as copper teams don't ALL stay, and the only pool of people to pull Silver teams from is copper, so it just won't work.

I think that 2-3 Silver leagues being transformed into copper leagues would more than fix both the gold league promotion problem, as well as SEVERELY increase the competitiveness of Silver Leagues.

Originally posted by middawg
While I appreciate new S16 teams voicing their opinions, lets keep the discussion to S15 team owners/coordinators who have played PWG with their teams, have a greater sense of the historical discussion, and who have little or no affilition, or horse in the race if you will, to teams promoting in S16


It was additionally stated a few seasons ago by GLB management that the process has to be simple so it it can auto-process in the offseason. This eliminates any sort of "manual voting" as a reasonable supplement to my proposal. In addition, I maintain that scrims, even ranked scrims and Tourney games, are a shallow, arbiitrary, and easily manipulated method of setting promotion criteria.


The three part promotion system listed above is nearing the complications we see in the BCS forumala.

Relax, I was only suggesting an alternative and a more balanced view. No need to bring this elitist attitude to the table. Our team had no controversy and therefore there is really no need to defend ourselves in the first place. Based on the current system or even your own criteria, we would have made it go gold regardless.

I'm just trying to help and there isn't really any reason for me to do this. If you think I don't deserve to talk about this subject, fine I'll stay out but I had no agenda in mind when I wrote that. I'm in no way affiliated with Dirty Inc, Midgets, or SAS and I barely even know those owners. I think all three of those teams are equally deserving and I tried to bring a more balanced view. I never said I was right or wrong and I even stated that this wasn't the perfect solution.