Manager records

How about some follow-up on your own, still-posted, promise:

NOTE: We've finished a basic import of your old teams from the 1969, and 2001-2005 season sets. Your teams' stat totals, W/L records, league standings, rosters and player stat totals are accounted for. We'll be proceeding to import the rest of the older sets (2006) to complete our records, after which we'll be able to restore our Manager Rating system. Thank you for your patience while we work through this extremely intricate process.

Many of us don't even care if you use the old rating system, the new one, or just an alphabetical, sortable listing of managers and their all time records by season. Do something!

Many of us don't even care if you use the old rating system, the new one, or just an alphabetical, sortable listing of managers and their all time records by season. Do something!

Yes! Yes! Yes!

SOM has done so many good things since taking over. However, this failing puts a shadow over all of the good. At the very least, give us win-loss records for each season you do have.

Frankly, manager ratings would be the best marketing tool SOM has since it rewards those who play more. So, it's puzzling they are dragging their feet on this. But as keyzick said, at least give us our all-time records by season.

Another way SOM could use manager ratings to sell more product would be to have annual Manager Races. In addition to keeping track of total manager ratings, they could keep track of your rating for the current season. They could offer a free credit for the winners, but the real motivation would be for the title ATG [or 2014, 90s, etc.] Manager of the Year.

Based on my experience with duplicate bridge (which uses a rating system similar to SOM Online), I promise you it's a motivation to play more when you find yourself in the Top 10 (or in a position to break into the Top 10).

Also, how motivating would it be for a new player to have a Rookie of the Year award race?

they could keep track of your rating for the current season.

Sorry if I totally misread but were you actually referring to current year? Otherwise, it wouldn't seem to make much sense because the team who wins the championship in current season already gets credits.

Sorry if I totally misread but were you actually referring to current year? Otherwise, it wouldn't seem to make much sense because the team who wins the championship in current season already gets credits.

Calendar year, as in the entire calendar year--not just one team. (or perhaps the year could be adjusted to coincide with the release of the current 201x season)

Each calendar year, there would be a "race" for the highest manager rating in the following eight categories:

ATG
201x
90s
80s
70s
60s
86
Total (of the above)

Any team started in the calendar year would count. It could stimulate interest in some of the lesser played sets since it would be easier to compete in them. It would also stimulate participation in the (normally slow) winter as the races come to a close. It would give everyone a chance to compete on a level playing field against some of the old-time veterans since the races start fresh each year. (Total points are, of course, still maintained.)

SOM sells more product; leagues fill faster; more excitement and reward for those who play a lot. Everybody wins.

And if it's really too hard to import all the old seasons, then start fresh.

This begs the question, why wouldn't SOM want to do this?

Another way SOM could use manager ratings to sell more product would be to have annual Manager Races. In addition to keeping track of total manager ratings, they could keep track of your rating for the current season. They could offer a free credit for the winners, but the real motivation would be for the title ATG [or 2014, 90s, etc.] Manager of the Year.

This would be great if they could come up with manager ratings most--if not everybody--would like. Obviously, the old system wouldn't work, since the players who play 8-10 teams at a time would dominate those who play 1-4. The system would have to emphasize winning pct., playoffs, and championships, while taking into lesser account the number of leagues played. Also, the system should give corresponding points to the level of competition each manager plays. Those playing against the most successful managers should get more credit than those mostly playing the newbies.

If they could pull that off, they could add a lot of excitement to the season.

ls has missed the point. The old system would work for the same reason that the flawed but successful master point system works in duplicate bridge. Both systems encourage people to play more. Sure, some won't care, but you'd be surprised how many do.

I agree that having a true rating system would be nice for us managers. However, it does not encourage people to play more--only to play better. Thus, the game company has little incentive to implement such a plan.

I was trying to spell out for SOM why they should want to restore (or start fresh) a manager rating system similar to the old one since it's in the company's best interest to do so.

I didn't miss the point; I just don't agree with Coyote's erroneous one. The point of having manager ratings isn't just to encourage managers to play more. It's also to rate the managers in a way that legitimately shows who the better managers are. Most managers want a ratings system that actually tells them who the better managers are and how they compare to them. They don't want a useless one that doesn't.

Also, managers aren't going to play more just so they can be better rated by a ratings system they know to be illegitimate. So, Coyote misses the point entirely. If we want people to play more, we need them to know the ratings system actually legitimately rates managers. That's quite an incentive for SOM to give us that system and not stick us with the fraudulent old system he mistakenly wants.

I have no idea what "someone" just said because this time I am swearing off his posts 100 percent. However, I'm sure it's something like "Good point. I hadn't thought of that." Or at least it might have been if he wasn't so like he is.

It's annoying having my ideas instantly "discredited" by this person, but I'm confident the community will consider the source.

Of course, I'm going to look silly if he did in fact agree with me; however, I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that didn't happen!

I have no idea what "someone" just said because this time I am swearing off his posts 100 percent.

It's adorable how Coyote lamely says this after responding to three of my posts today...

And I'm sorry he is so upset about his discredited posts. Maybe if he stopped trying to erroneously discredit mine he wouldn't end up so bummed out.