2024 Players' Championship needs a commissioner

I appreciate that this thread has picked up and people are commenting. Sorry teamnasty for suggesting "mediocre" but you only played in four events and one of them was a losing season. While the #1 player had * 2 * Championship seasons and won more than 90 games three times. The #2 player also won 2 rings. The inequity of having the top seeds relegated to playing in semi-finals seems unfair to me.

Again, based on participation - Top 9 straight to the finals seem fair to me.

I see the discussion on the salary caps. The 120/140 thing I will look at when the cards come out and assemble a team and see what can be done with the 140 cap. If it looks like a troublesome cap, I'll look to other options. Perhaps in the 20xx cards, 80 mil twice (since that's considered the standard cap) one being DH and the other being non DH might be more appropriate ?? Even having the "choice" event limited to 60/80/100 ? If that was 60/80 (dh and non dh) 100 would I be able to get both 80's filled ? - I'm just throwing out options here to get more comments on them. You guys PLAY this format, I don't.

I want what YOU want, I don't want to look back and say - well 140 was a bad idea. I think I can twist SOM's arm and get them to make 120 a "standard" cap so it will appear in the dropdowns. They told me once they COULD do it if I pressed for it. My leverage in Barnstormers have brought many improvements in the ATG format.

Again, I am encouraging YOUR viewpoints here as ones who play this format. We have some time before we need to get the rules and events finalized.

Thanks for the encouraging words.

Moose

I doubt there is sufficient high salary cards to support leagues above $100M. While not popular, using a unleashed league at $100M may be a good option in lieu of higher cap.

Being a relative newbie, I ran the 2023 tournament pretty much according to the format used in prior tournaments, but I recognized that several things should change. I agree that the top performers in the regular events don't get enough of a reward (plus I hated the 3-round forum draft for the semis and finals). If I had continued as commissioner I would have changed to Barnstormer's or Mystery Tournament style semis. I probably favor Mystery Tournament style a little as it keeps all participants playing.

When I was considering a salary cap for event 5 I looked at going higher than 100, but really couldn't find many examples of caps that high for single season card sets. The exceptions were specialized leagues (keeper maybe?).

We use a $110M cap in a league that drafts two whole teams plus two players from the 6 remaining teams. The $110M is sufficient to support those rosters. Not a whole lot left over. Can't see over $100M being a viable option.

My 2 cents...I would support 8 auto bids and then 2 leagues where the finalists make the Finals. The playoffs are so random that a very good owner who comes in 9th and then gets knocked in the semis would not make it. I would at least give the finalists a berth. And this would result in 32 owners moving on from the original tourney. Seems like enough to me.

I think $100MM is plenty. Even in those leagues, there is more luck of the autodraft as to who scores the top priced players. The lower the cap, the more skill involved IMHO.

That said, will be happy to play in any format that is decided upon.

from my experience playing the CHAMPIONSHIP TWICE...

i'ts better the 100M$ cap...

we have to use DH... even in 60M$ cap cuz to many pitchers don't hit...

I agree with many of the comments -

1. No salary cap over $100m. I prefer the $80m and like the one variation of the $60m. I wouldn't suggest going higher than $100m (and only for one event). You end up with leftover cap and high dollar reserve players, and it opens up drop/add of players where the penalty doesn't seem to matter as much. The $80m/$60m always seems like a good fit for the 20xx sets...more realistic.
2. I haven't been a fan of the one 'variable' cap event with various cap options - I think each event should be the same across all leagues within the event.
3. I like the suggestion of the 8 top managers advancing directly to the finals and then having the finalists from two semi final leagues advancing as well. It gives the top 32 a shot to get there after the full 5 events are completed.
4. I'm not familiar with the Barnstormers tournament, but for filling leagues, I do like the Mystery format where the full set of managers are randomly assigned to each league in advance of each event, and you have deadlines for managers to fill each league. If this is how Barnstormers is, that sounds good to me.
5. One event with 'unleashed' may be good as a variation, with the $100m cap event.
6. Would there be any changes to the point totalling? How does it work for Barnstormers? In the PC Tour now its one point per win....no extra points for championships, etc. Just curious how it may be if rules are being reviewed.

I agree with many of the comments -
6. Would there be any changes to the point totalling? How does it work for Barnstormers? In the PC Tour now its one point per win....no extra points for championships, etc. Just curious how it may be if rules are being reviewed.

Actually, I did see bonus points awarded for those making the playoffs last year. 1 point per win in the regular season and 1 point per playoff win. So those winning the ring got 8 extra points.

In Barnstormers, we changed to a system that awards more points.

- 1 point for each regular season win
- 1 point for each postseason win
- 2 points for winning a regular season division title
- 1 point for winning the wild card position
- 5 points for winning a league championship

But I'm open to whatever you want.

MM

I see the cards come out and I see that Ohtani can only bat in a DH league. Right now, SOM and I are talking about what CAPS we are both leaning towards. I see the comments about no cap over 100 (I got to get this in my head that this is NOT ATG) so at the moment, I am at CHOICE, 60, 80 and 100. But due to the Ohtani card, I am thinking about 100 TWICE and one being DH, the other NON-DH. 60 and 80 should also be DH as Chamberlal pointed out.

Board members. We have this in ATG and the board members and I discuss rules and rule changes. If we have something to discuss and we come to a vote, 3 votes wins. If a 2-2 tie, I vote only to break a tie. I want veteran players and/or past commish's of this tour to volunteer and we communicate by email. All board members know the emails of the others. Let me know - don't post your email here but mine is sirmightymoose at comcast.net - Eventually when we come out with a signup page, everyone who plays will need to send me a valid e-mail. That's how I roll and I said that in the beginning.

We are getting a committment from SOM to give a credit for all those making the semi's and finals, as long as we reach 120 players for the first event. I think that's doable, but I am ALSO planning for the Top 9 to go the finals and the 10-45 go into 3 12-team semifinals and the winner of each of those to take the final three spots.

If that looks familiar, thats the way we do it in Barnstormers. You kinda figure that I would lean this way. I don't want a mediocre (no offense to anyone) to become Champion. SOM and I have been discussing all of what I have said above IN DEPTH, so this is a combination of YOUR COMMENTS and trusted people at SOM. I am merely being the mediary.

Kick this around for a while.

Moose

Does anyone have any thoughts on the UNLEASHED set ? Instead of having 100 DH and 100 NON DH, I would consider, 100 DH and 100 DH unleashed ? I don't know what the opinions are of unleashed so I am just throwing that out there.

Moose

...We are getting a committment from SOM to give a credit for all those making the semi's and finals, as long as we reach 120 players for the first event.... [/b]

Barring another pandemic, I doubt this happens. # of entrants for the past few years:

2023 - 88
2022 - 96
2021 - 121
2020 - 145
2019 - 88
2018 - 92