GM a Team: New Rankings System?

[-Kees-]

I have talked with a few people who usually play this game, and they (along with me) are looking to change the rankings system a bit. A few people think it is too much based around how much you bring in, instead of how well you do in terms of your goals, and also to consider things like chemistry and depth more. I'm very open to changing that for this game. So this thread is about ways to try and change the system, or if you guys want to keep it the same, we can do that.

[Warriorfan]

I think any new system needs to be more quantifiable.
On a 1-10 rating system. My exp is that it is hard enough to get rankings in after the first few weeks of trading.

[roc]

check out the optional one I used in last game I commished. I should have made it mandatory but it was not discussed beforehand at that time so didn't feel right to impose it on such short notice.

[babyjax13]

check out the optional one I used in last game I commished. I should have made it mandatory but it was not discussed beforehand at that time so didn't feel right to impose it on such short notice.

Yup, that one was really good.

[-Kees-]

Yeah we could have everyone rank people 1-10 on each of these.

Present Improvement
Future Improvement
Now Title chances
Future Title chances
Draft Picks
Team Balance
Bench
Chemistry
Now Salary(is the team good enough for the salary should also be considered here)
Future Salary(see above)
Salary for city/owner, including cash spent/received.

[Karmaloop]

Yeah we could have everyone rank people 1-10 on each of these.

Too many things to rank. Needs to be as easy and painless to judge teams. I'd say Best Contending job and Best Rebuilding job that go to a team for the direction they chose to go.

[Heats_Finest]

I'd just like it to be known, for the now salary I am going to buy out Maggette and amnesty Brand, that's 30m off my payroll right there.

[-Kees-]

Yeah we could have everyone rank people 1-10 on each of these.

Too many things to rank. Needs to be as easy and painless to judge teams. I'd say Best Contending job and Best Rebuilding job that go to a team for the direction they chose to go.

Yeah, you may be right. We could do that I guess, but it really hurts teams that just try and win some games while staying young (IE RL Bucks, 76ers, who arent young, but dont really have title chances).

[Warriorfan]

At this pt we can't do something too different. I would do to categories 1-10 scale. Best Rebuild Best Contender. Then Highest overall score wins