|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Dec 22, 2015 14:33:06 GMT -5
yes i can but what the point in future drafts if ur going to be making us give up fighters most my fighter r woman anyways..
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Dec 22, 2015 15:09:54 GMT -5
xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club, I think you're the one being defensive here dude. I'm about to start booking 301, and if you have a better system for booking (or even any workable ideas I am not doing), I would be happy to incorporate it into what I do to make my life (and everyone else's around here) easier. I'm just looking for a good, detailed reply, whether you think you have told me before or not (I have no record or recollection of you giving me advice on how I should be booking fights). What would I have to be defensive about exactly?  I didn't once say I had a better system for booking nor did I say what you're doing for booking was bad. I really don't understand what detailed thing you're looking for here when I didn't say I had anything to offer in that area at all, unless you actually are booking based on roster size. If you're not, then I have to agree with Cannon on this one that roster size has no correlation to people losing out on fights. All that really means is that teams with larger rosters have more fights overall quantity, collectively as a team, over the course of the season... because, if you look, only 2 fighters in the entire league fought less than 3 times last season; Edson Barboza & Kaitlyn Young. That's it. Every other fighter in the league had 3+ fights. So, I honestly don't see any correlation to making the claim that anyone's roster size takes away any fights from anyone because everyone already gets an average of 3 fights, usually about 4, per season; everyone. I mean you yourself, Sandman, have more fighters on your team with over 4 fights than I do; and only 3 of those folks are current or former champions. How am I taking fights away from people when only Lesnar & Cruz have over 4 fights whereas you have Askren (4-2), Anderson (1-4), Markos (4-2), Rumble (6-1), Carano (5-2) & Aoki (7-0). I mean, I realize that half of them were champions and champions fight the most, but Askren, Anderson & Markos weren't champions this season. So please explain to me how my fighters are supposedly taking fights away from other people's fighters when all but two of them get the exact same number, individually, as everyone else does, individually. I don't get it. That doesn't make any sense. I mean, I realize that it's the easiest to point the finger at the guy with the largest roster and say that's the problem, but the reality is that when most of my fighters aren't getting any more fights, individually, than any other fighters in the league, there's no problem other than folks not liking that I have a large roster of fighters. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Dec 22, 2015 15:34:27 GMT -5
unless you actually are booking based on roster size. If you're not, then I have to agree with Cannon on this one that roster size has no correlation to people losing out on fights. All that really means is that teams with larger rosters have more fights overall quantity, collectively as a team, over the course of the season... I have booked in the past based on "who is due for a fight" combined with "who earned a slot in this upcoming tournament". Tourmanemnts come first, then once tournaments and title fights are booked, the rest of the card is filled out with "who is due for a fight". So, I honestly don't see any correlation to making the claim that anyone's roster size takes away any fights from anyone because everyone already gets an average of 3 fights, usually about 4, per season; Then you are simply not seeing it, because it is there. Once someone is due for a fight, as I outlined above, they get a fight. Historically, I have booked ManMMA primarily about the fighters, not about the team. So, again, when a FIGHTER, regardless of team, was due for a fight, they fought. For this reason, teams with more FIGHTERS get more total fights. Thus, there is not just a correlation between the two, but a direct cause-and-effect relationship. If you have more fighters, you will get more non-tournament, non-title fights in a season. You do fight history, so you know exactly why the fighters you listed have more fights than most - tournaments. If you win a tournament, you have just won 2 fights in 2 events and guaranteed yourself a fight 3 events later. So in 6 events, you are guaranteed 3 fights. When you look at roster size, larger-team rosters are filled with guys who quite frankly have no hope in hell of winning a tournament or competing for a title, my own included. Guys like Rickson, Barboza, Quarry, Herrig - these people are not winning tournaments, let's be a serious. But they all need to be booked fights to fill out the card. The more of THOSE you have (which larger teams have lots of, especially those of us with 27 fighters on our roster), the more you are directly taking slots of other people's fighters. As I said, in the past I have gone entirely based on WHO is due for a fight. Last season I started sitting people who already had 6 fights in favour of people who had 2 or 3. This season, I will probably start giving preference to smaller teams so they don;t have to have cards where none of their fighters fight but larger teams have several. As I said, if this means some larger teams miss tournaments, so be it. But a problem has been identified, and if we don't want to cut rosters, this way might be the best way for the time being. It just means that large teams might have 1-2 fights a season average for their team and smaller teams might have 4-5. I think the standings at the end of the season may reflect this change as well, for better or worse. |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Dec 22, 2015 15:51:24 GMT -5
unless you actually are booking based on roster size. If you're not, then I have to agree with Cannon on this one that roster size has no correlation to people losing out on fights. All that really means is that teams with larger rosters have more fights overall quantity, collectively as a team, over the course of the season... I have booked in the past based on "who is due for a fight" combined with "who earned a slot in this upcoming tournament". Tourmanemnts come first, then once tournaments and title fights are booked, the rest of the card is filled out with "who is due for a fight". Exactly, nothing to do with roster size at all. It's all based on the individual fighter and when they're due for a fight. That's not unfair to anyone at all. So, I honestly don't see any correlation to making the claim that anyone's roster size takes away any fights from anyone because everyone already gets an average of 3 fights, usually about 4, per season; Then you are simply not seeing it, because it is there. Once someone is due for a fight, as I outlined above, they get a fight. Historically, I have booked ManMMA primarily about the fighters, not about the team. So, again, when a FIGHTER, regardless of team, was due for a fight, they fought. For this reason, teams with more FIGHTERS get more total fights. Thus, there is not just a correlation between the two, but a direct cause-and-effect relationship. If you have more fighters, you will get more non-tournament, non-title fights in a season. You do fight history, so you know exactly why the fighters you listed have more fights than most - tournaments. If you win a tournament, you have just won 2 fights in 2 events and guaranteed yourself a fight 3 events later. So in 6 events, you are guaranteed 3 fights. When you look at roster size, larger-team rosters are filled with guys who quite frankly have no hope in hell of winning a tournament or competing for a title, my own included. Guys like Rickson, Barboza, Quarry, Herrig - these people are not winning tournaments, let's be a serious. But they all need to be booked fights to fill out the card. The more of THOSE you have (which larger teams have lots of, especially those of us with 27 fighters on our roster), the more you are directly taking slots of other people's fighters. As I said, in the past I have gone entirely based on WHO is due for a fight. Last season I started sitting people who already had 6 fights in favour of people who had 2 or 3. This season, I will probably start giving preference to smaller teams so they don;t have to have cards where none of their fighters fight but larger teams have several. As I said, if this means some larger teams miss tournaments, so be it. But a problem has been identified, and if we don't want to cut rosters, this way might be the best way for the time being. It just means that large teams might have 1-2 fights a season average for their team and smaller teams might have 4-5. I think the standings at the end of the season may reflect this change as well, for better or worse. I agree with sitting guys that have fought an excess amount of fights already. That's seems reasonable to me... so too is giving smaller rosters a bit of a preference on tournaments or fights sometimes too. I also haven't said once that I'm absolutely 100% unwilling to cut down my roster size at all. I do want to shave my roster number down, but I also have fighters on my team that I've invested in that are worth more than 1 point and I should be allowed the opportunity to get value on those fighters instead of being forced to take only 1 point on fighters that are either tiered fighters or that I've put more than just a few points into. |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Dec 22, 2015 17:49:16 GMT -5
unless you actually are booking based on roster size. If you're not, then I have to agree with Cannon on this one that roster size has no correlation to people losing out on fights. All that really means is that teams with larger rosters have more fights overall quantity, collectively as a team, over the course of the season... I have booked in the past based on "who is due for a fight" combined with "who earned a slot in this upcoming tournament". Tourmanemnts come first, then once tournaments and title fights are booked, the rest of the card is filled out with "who is due for a fight". So, I honestly don't see any correlation to making the claim that anyone's roster size takes away any fights from anyone because everyone already gets an average of 3 fights, usually about 4, per season; Then you are simply not seeing it, because it is there. Once someone is due for a fight, as I outlined above, they get a fight. Historically, I have booked ManMMA primarily about the fighters, not about the team. So, again, when a FIGHTER, regardless of team, was due for a fight, they fought. For this reason, teams with more FIGHTERS get more total fights. Thus, there is not just a correlation between the two, but a direct cause-and-effect relationship. If you have more fighters, you will get more non-tournament, non-title fights in a season. You do fight history, so you know exactly why the fighters you listed have more fights than most - tournaments. If you win a tournament, you have just won 2 fights in 2 events and guaranteed yourself a fight 3 events later. So in 6 events, you are guaranteed 3 fights. When you look at roster size, larger-team rosters are filled with guys who quite frankly have no hope in hell of winning a tournament or competing for a title, my own included. Guys like Rickson, Barboza, Quarry, Herrig - these people are not winning tournaments, let's be a serious. But they all need to be booked fights to fill out the card. The more of THOSE you have (which larger teams have lots of, especially those of us with 27 fighters on our roster), the more you are directly taking slots of other people's fighters. As I said, in the past I have gone entirely based on WHO is due for a fight. Last season I started sitting people who already had 6 fights in favour of people who had 2 or 3. This season, I will probably start giving preference to smaller teams so they don;t have to have cards where none of their fighters fight but larger teams have several. As I said, if this means some larger teams miss tournaments, so be it. But a problem has been identified, and if we don't want to cut rosters, this way might be the best way for the time being. It just means that large teams might have 1-2 fights a season average for their team and smaller teams might have 4-5. I think the standings at the end of the season may reflect this change as well, for better or worse. Felice Herrig might not be winning tourneys but she winning point and yes i have been putting points into her |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Dec 22, 2015 17:53:39 GMT -5
Naww xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club keep ya fighters im not giving up any of mine cus The Mighty Ducks want to whyne.. would you like cheese with your whyne The Mighty Ducks there 2 fixes 2 -3 fights a season per fighter or a longer season... solved. thread and discussion over.. @stevejob try drafting in the future  |
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Dec 22, 2015 18:05:57 GMT -5
I think Norm might need to take his own dick out of his mouth before he tries to participate in social conversations.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Dec 22, 2015 18:26:35 GMT -5
Forgetting all this bickering debacle, I see no reason we cannot bring in a 25-fighter cap for the time being and go from there. No one is affected, and the problem doesn't have room to grow.
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Dec 22, 2015 18:28:57 GMT -5
Forgetting all this bickering debacle, I see no reason we cannot bring in a 25-fighter cap for the time being and go from there. No one is affected, and the problem doesn't have room to grow. Well now no one's affected.  I still wouldn't mind making atleast one more move, to get another FW, but atleast I've made the effort here. |
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Dec 22, 2015 18:29:14 GMT -5
If no one is affected, I say push it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by The West Coast Knockouts on Dec 22, 2015 20:39:14 GMT -5
Im just still trying to process how i was bitching by agreeing with ducks . lmao XD. Phx is one interesting man.
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Dec 22, 2015 20:47:32 GMT -5
Im just still trying to process how i was bitching by agreeing with ducks . lmao XD. Phx is one interesting man. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one bub... Ducks was bitching about roster sizes; you agreed with him. Therefore you were bitching by association. Pretty simple stuff. Again, not rocket science. |
|
|
|
Post by The West Coast Knockouts on Dec 22, 2015 20:50:01 GMT -5
suggestion to fix this mess leave things as is til half way point, at half way point drop to 25 cap by end of season make it 23 cap by start of next season make it 20 cap. gives anyone over lots of time to figure their team and keep the guys tht belong or make trades or whatever. lots of time If given time to do it, I'm currently willing to drop down to 22, at most, provided I can find trade partners and homes for some of these guys/gals. I like how phx pisses off people by attacking them and then likes playing the role of the victim. It never gets old hahaha If you think I was the one doing the attacking, you're seriously mistaken bub. You don't have to deal with this every off-season, I do. The moment it was suggested that I be the only one to cut fighters from my team, it was a targeted attack on me. No one else was being suggested to cut from their teams until it became a threat by Sandman because I will only trade down and refuse to drop many of them at 1 point apiece because of the time and investment I've put into them. And being that I'm even willing to do that, you and your little pygmy roster should be ecstatic. Phx i dont know if you've noticed but you tend to give the first shove most of the time. I was minding my own busniess and my opinion was wanted so i gave it in a peaceful manner. Next time park your ego and shove it in your pocket as torts would say. Like i said before i have won the gp you havent. So you should know your role and go back to hoarding C level mma fighters.Only reason you beat me this gp was because cyborg was out.Lesnar has Overeems number yes ,but you wouldnt have him if you didnt put on a pair of kneepads now would you ? |
|
|
|
Post by The West Coast Knockouts on Dec 22, 2015 20:52:41 GMT -5
Im just still trying to process how i was bitching by agreeing with ducks . lmao XD. Phx is one interesting man. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one bub... Ducks was bitching about roster sizes; you agreed with him. Therefore you were bitching by association. Pretty simple stuff. Again, not rocket science. Thats a pretty stupid analogy. Ducks wasnt even bitching till you got under his skin |
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Dec 22, 2015 20:58:30 GMT -5
Im just still trying to process how i was bitching by agreeing with ducks . lmao XD. Phx is one interesting man. Doesn't take a rocket scientist That's right. It takes a...
ROCKETMAN!
|
|
x8 
I didn't once say I had a better system for booking nor did I say what you're doing for booking was bad. I really don't understand what detailed thing you're looking for here when I didn't say I had anything to offer in that area at all, unless you actually are booking based on roster size. If you're not, then I have to agree with Cannon on this one that roster size has no correlation to people losing out on fights. All that really means is that teams with larger rosters have more fights overall quantity, collectively as a team, over the course of the season... because, if you look, only 2 fighters in the entire league fought less than 3 times last season; Edson Barboza & Kaitlyn Young. That's it. Every other fighter in the league had 3+ fights. 
I still wouldn't mind making atleast one more move, to get another FW, but atleast I've made the effort here. 
Have 9 points in celebration of this monumental achievement!
Jan 21, 2021 13:09:55 GMT -5
*
Have 9 points in celebration of this monumental achievement!
Jan 21, 2021 13:09:55 GMT -5
*
