Manager ratings

If you go 70-92 your manager rating would not be ruined. In fact it would go up. That is why the rating is ridiculous.

Here is an idea I experienced at another site. The old STRAT manager ratings were based upon managers buying their way to the top. Manager ratings should be based upon a yearly Masters Tournament, where owners play one season each at 60M, 80M, 100M, 140M, and 200M in 5 different parks. To remove the luck of a crapshoot playoffs, then the 5, 10, and 20 bonus points should be eliminated. Instead, each regular season and playoff win should count as one point. Whoever has the most total wins at the end of the tournament should be ranked #1. The rating starts over the next season at ground zero, but seedings should be determined by last years tournament.

Bruce, I don't necessarily agree that the TSN "manager ratings were based upon managers buying their way to the top." Sure, part of the ratings were based on participation, but when one looks behind the ratings there is a more detailed breakdown with items such as winning percentage, total teams, playoffs made and championships. The ratings also break such info down by the card set used.

While I like your idea about a tournament, it's very similar to what the Barnstormers Tourney, by which successful managers can enhance their rating. Besides, not everyone will participate in a ratings tournament, so the ratings would be somewhat misleading if non-participants would be rated at zero. Perhaps a combination rating system would serve all well, using the ratings employed by TSN, along with a separate rating for tourney performance.

BD--total teams (total wins etc) was the most dominant statistic. It was flavored with other stats, but the main course was essentially participation. In general, those who participated a lot were more successful than average, as one would hope after such a large volume of play.

If you sorted by total teams, total wins, then by the other stats you'd see the direct relation.

Either way, those ratings are gone. The real point is SOM could provide a "hook" to players with a reasonable rating system. Of course though, they want to entice more purchases, so they would likely find a way to reward volume again, like it or not.