Boards league vacancies application process rethink ...

GT_TDI_150

Just a though ....

should we consider a change in the system used for appointing a manager to a new team ( say once this season ends)?

I'm asking as a some one who wont ever change teams so a change wouldnt affect me in the slightest.

Reason I ask is you could have a manager in the game since the start doing quite poorly but racking up points for the last 2-3 years now, you could also have a manager that takes over a D4 team, romps home, and gets the playoffs in D3 the follwing season and is now battleing in D2 but going be our system ( points based on longevity/performance) the person doing ****e would be ahead of the new 'mourinho' ...

Is it worth while using something like ....

you need to have managed a team for a minimum of x games (45? This would cover a best part of a season/considering cups, shields, leagues, ...) and the winning factor is the avg points attained at your current team over that period?

So what I mean it:

Using the current PSG managers stats (not implying PSG are doing poorly btw, just the first manager I found to have moved and have more than 50 games at the newer club)

He is:
at PSG for 128 games,
overall points : 223
avg pts: 1.74

Rather than using his overall ranking which is just based on overall points gained at all clubs .... I propose we use his avg pts gained at the last club (PSG only) if he applied for a move.

The deeper we go into this league the harder it will be for 'newer managers' who might be outshining ones that were here since the first season.

I have 500+ pts ... I could loose every match for the next 5 seasons and person starting today will still be behind me when it comes to applying for vacant roles.

I think if we ammend it to take the avg pts at your current club providing you have played more than X games ( so this removed the need for the did you already move this season - question), you still ensure that managers have spent some time in the game before moving on but you level the playing field a little more ... IMHO ....

GT_TDI_150

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

Can a mod turn this into a poll

Options:

Yes. implement this suggestion
No. stick with current system
I have ave another suggestion

Thanks

GT_TDI_150

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

Colemania wrote: »

I'd agree with that but not saying anyone else would. I have 140 games managed with Udinese and average points of 1.99. The way it stands I think my manager ranking is about 34 or so, so I haven't a chance with the big jobs.

Reply above was made on this post initially in our waiting list thread

Hercule Poirot

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

You make a good point GT - not having a bash at Mac but Ricky's average was a good bit higher (although I'm not sure if Chelsea were his only club) but Mac had 50 games more as a manager and get 90 points more - I do think average should be used a bit more - my only problem is that some managers (myself included) already have a hard enough time trying to get their current ranking, this would over complicate things - unless someone (definitely not me!) posts a monthly update of all managers?......

I'm starting to think out loud so I'll stop here but I think/hope you get my drift?

tonic wine

Loyalty should be rewarded is the other side of the coin.

Maybe someone here a while will have a poor Avr points because they are in a crap club, can't sign quality players to improve the situation, but are biding their time until they can get the opportunity to take over a better club with better players, as with this GW, you need good players to trade players, you can't sign them otherwise.

GLaDOS

Hmm, going by this system I'm being punished for getting promoted because unsurprisingly my points average in Div 1 is lower than in Div 2.

JamboMac

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Just a though ....



Using the current PSG managers stats (not implying PSG are doing poorly btw, just the first manager I found to have moved and have more than 50 games at the newer club)

He is:
at PSG for 128 games,
overall points : 223
avg pts: 1.74

Saw this and thought what did I do this time, then I read it.

Wilberto

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

Public poll added

Wilberto

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

I knew this came up before so I'll put forward now the same suggestion I put forward back then.

But, before I do, I just want to say that I voted to keep it the way it is as, personally, I'd prefer to reward loyalty and endurance above all else.

But anyway, I'll just carry forward my own opinion from last time (including my own suggestion).

Wilberto wrote: »

This is also something that I have looked at ever since I started doing up the tables myself. On the face of it, it does seem the fairest way to reward the more competent manager. However, if a new manager were to take charge of a team, win the first 2 or 3 games, they will have an average rating of 3.

Similar to what Hercule said, it depends on what type of managers you want to reward, i.e. the long serving solid ones, or the apparent extremely competent ones. Ideally, you'd want to incorporate both into the final decision, but that would mean using both Manager Ranking and Average Rating together which could get slightly messy.

Although, (and this is just me thinking aloud), one way of doing this is to implement a system where, the average ranking is taken into consideration where the ranking of the second/third/fourth applicant are within, say, 10 of the top applicant. That way, there is less emphasis on the manager ranking as all a manager has to have is a rank of within 10 of the top applicant to "get through to the next round", where the average rank is considered. Obviously then, of these applicants, the one with the best average rating gets the job.

Like I said above though, I voted for it not to be changed! :pac:

GT_TDI_150

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

Im not saying its is a panacea(always wanted to use that word) ...

I understand we want to reward longevity, but does that come as the cost of suppressing good managers just because they came to us 3-4 seasons later?

Like I said initially, on the current system, I could plummet down through the divisions in 3 seasons but still be better placed than a manager that starts today that gets 3 promotions in a row. soley because I found this thread 7 seasons ago ... surely if a job came up at that point ... the new managers is a better manager?


maybe we go with avg pts + 0.05(example amount) for every 100 games managed?

Comic Book Guy

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Im not saying its is a panacea(always wanted to use that word) ...

I understand we want to reward longevity, but does that come as the cost of suppressing good managers just because they came to us 3-4 seasons later?

Like I said initially, on the current system, I could plummet down through the divisions in 3 seasons but still be better placed than a manager that starts today that gets 3 promotions in a row. soley because I found this thread 7 seasons ago ... surely if a job came up at that point ... the new managers is a better manager?


maybe we go with avg pts + 0.05(example amount) for every 100 games managed?

Good idea lad, some kind of marrying of the 2 would probably he fairest all round. Bit of extra work for Wilberto if it was finalised but it's not as if there is a stampede once big clubs become available so shouldn't be too bad.

Wilberto

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

My thinking is that it's only a game anyway (I know, I know!), so the last thing you want is for longer serving managers to become disillusioned with the league when they see newer managers getting top jobs even though they've been there much longer and have partook in the league banter for a much longer period of time.


Ideally, I'd prefer if the post count in the Soccer Manager forum was also taken into account. That way it would reward the active posters. As we know, this is a Boards.ie league. Now, obviously this is a highly impractical solution, but the next best thing is to reward loyalty, which is what the current system achieves.

Comic Book Guy

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

Wilberto wrote: »

My thinking is that it's only a game anyway (I know, I know!), so the last thing you want is for longer serving managers to become disillusioned with the league when they see newer managers getting top jobs even though they've been there much longer and have partook in the league banter for a much longer period of time.


Ideally, I'd prefer if the post count in the Soccer Manager forum was also taken into account. That way it would reward the active posters. As we know, this is a Boards.ie league. Now, obviously this is a highly impractical solution, but the next best thing is to reward loyalty, which is what the current system achieves.

Good shout about the boards post count! Difficult to put into practice though.

Wilberto

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

Just to add more to that as well, personally, I couldn't give a fiddlers if the manager who takes over a top team is the "best manager". What I'd much prefer to see is someone who's active on both here and SM for a longer period of time get the job as they're the ones that make the game more interesting and more fun.

Wilberto

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

Comic Book Guy wrote: »

Good shout about the boards post count! Difficult to put into practice though.

Oh it's completely impractical though. I don't even think there is a breakdown of how many posts users have posted in particular forums. I'm just trying to stress why it's so important to reward loyalty above all else in what is only a game at the end of the day, and I think the current system is the most practical one that better achieves that.

doc holliday

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

As one of the newest managers on here the current system means it will be a long time before I ever manage a top club. However I still think loyalty should be rewarded first and foremost.

I expect to put a lot of time into this game before I even think about applying for a top job. I wouldn't see it as fair if I had a good run in my first 2 seasons, 2 promotions etc and end up with more points than someone who is on here years. I then end up getting a job that they may have wanted for a while.

Anyway Boca Juniors for life haha. I have already priced boca jerseys if I get promoted!!!😀

ctrl-alt-delete

It has taken me a while but I have come up with a formula that takes everything into consideration and one I believe in tests to reveal itself as being quite fair,

I give you;



S will give your ranking in this proposed system where:

A= Current club avg points total
k= Previous seasons points total
c= Total games managed
h= Total Manager points
G= Boards.ie soccer manager forum post count

and we will only use pi rounded to 3.14159

Hercule Poirot

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

It has taken me a while but I have come up with a formula that takes everything into consideration and one I believe in tests to reveal itself as being quite fair,

I give you;



S will give your ranking in this proposed system where:

A= Current club avg points total
k= Previous seasons points total
c= Total games managed
h= Total Manager points
G= Boards.ie soccer manager forum post count

and we will only use pi rounded to 3.14159

Meh.......

Using Pi to only 5 decimal places.....

Loooooser!!

baza Rakus

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

For the record I'd like to say the current system is random and unfair*.

I would also like to add that I don't understand the current system or any of the new ones being proposed.

Maybe something simple like current season performance could be gauged as a way to rank applicants. Someting easy to grasp.

*The current "game world ranking" is a loada me bolx. I just beat united and my ranking went from 25 to 28. Outrageous!+

+I do reserve the rite to retract the above if someone finally explains this to me in a manner which I can understand.

GT_TDI_150

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

Not sure if baz is being facetious or not ...

Current system ... your ranking on the totem pole ( no matter how its calculated) decides if you are good enough for the job

My first suggestion, take a players average rating (total points / games played) at his current club (provided he has managed x games or more at that club, x to be decided) ... best average rating at current job gets the job.

Second suggestion, take the first suggestion but add 0.05 for every 100 games a manager has managed in our gameworld ... best 'average + loyalty' rating gets the job.

ctrl-alt-delete's suggestion, hire a mathematician .... :P

baza Rakus

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Not sure if baz is being facetious or not ...

Current system ... your ranking on the totem pole ( no matter how its calculated) decides if you are good enough for the job

My first suggestion, take a players average rating (total points / games played) at his current club (provided he has managed x games or more at that club, x to be decided) ... best average rating at current job gets the job.

Second suggestion, take the first suggestion but add 0.05 for every 100 games a manager has managed in our gameworld ... best 'average + loyalty' rating gets the job.

ctrl-alt-delete's suggestion, hire a mathematician .... :P

I'm not being fuzzywotsit. I jus don get how the manager rating is calculated. How can you win a game and lose three points. It's madness.

GT_TDI_150

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

baza Rakus wrote: »

I'm not being fuzzywotsit. I jus don get how the manager rating is calculated. How can you win a game and lose three points. It's madness.

Did the managers rated 26, 27 and 28 beat stronger opposition than themselves, ie get more mgr points for the win? What were the pts gaps prior to the games?

baza Rakus

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Did the managers rated 26, 27 and 28 beat stronger opposition than themselves, ie get more mgr points for the win? What were the pts gaps prior to the games?

Oh. Rite.

Wilberto

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Not sure if baz is being facetious or not ...

Current system ... your ranking on the totem pole ( no matter how its calculated) decides if you are good enough for the job

My first suggestion, take a players average rating (total points / games played) at his current club (provided he has managed x games or more at that club, x to be decided) ... best average rating at current job gets the job.

Second suggestion, take the first suggestion but add 0.05 for every 100 games a manager has managed in our gameworld ... best 'average + loyalty' rating gets the job.

ctrl-alt-delete's suggestion, hire a mathematician .... :P

There was a fourth suggestion.

baza Rakus

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

Wilberto wrote: »

There was a fourth suggestion.

Ah yes, the fabled fourth way ...

GT_TDI_150

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

The fourth way ... labelled by its inventor as "completely impractical"

Wilberto

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

The fourth way ... labelled by its inventor as "completely impractical"

Nope, that would have been the fifth suggestion had I not already discounted it. You need to look further back in the thread. In particular, my very first post!

GT_TDI_150

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

Wilberto wrote: »

Public poll added

This one?!

Wilberto

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

This one?!

That doesn't count as I wasn't posting as a regular user. :P :cool:

GT_TDI_150

No, the current system is fine so why change it?

Wilberto wrote: »

That doesn't count as I wasn't posting as a regular user. :P :cool:

The next post made my head hurt tho ...

Wilberto

No, I have my own suggestion which I want to put forward.

It's actually incredibly simple.

You'll have two rounds before the selection of a manager

Round 1: Ranked on the traditional Manager Ranking (current system)
If the top rated manager applying for a position has a rating of 10 (this figure can be altered), then in order to make it through to the second round, managers ranked below that would have to have a ranking of 20 or better.

Round 2: Highest average points wins
Of the selected candidates, the one with the highest average points wins.


This way, people complaining that their manager ranking is too low to apply for a better job, would now only have to be within ten of the leading applicant.


Personally, I think it's probably the simplest alternative suggested in this thread, and with no extra work as all the information needed is already being displayed under the current system.