Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Double the number of seasons by skkipping return matches
- 1
Pastimer to
All
Over the last few seasons we have experienced the new model. Personally, I do not find it an improvement. Here's why.
- Everything lasts longer, progress of your youth, aging, everything.
- The transfer market has stalled because players are much longer fit to play.
- A season lasts long while it is already evident in the early stages who is (are) going to win.
So I suggest we keep the competition structure as it is now (it is better then before) but we skip return matches, effectively doubling the number of seasons played in a fysical year. Young players improve at double speed. Aging would be at double speed. All in all it would be much more dynamic and entertaining!
What do you think, please rspond!
(edited)
- Everything lasts longer, progress of your youth, aging, everything.
- The transfer market has stalled because players are much longer fit to play.
- A season lasts long while it is already evident in the early stages who is (are) going to win.
So I suggest we keep the competition structure as it is now (it is better then before) but we skip return matches, effectively doubling the number of seasons played in a fysical year. Young players improve at double speed. Aging would be at double speed. All in all it would be much more dynamic and entertaining!
What do you think, please rspond!
(edited)
Another option would be to decouple the aging of players from seasons. So, give players a youth school 'birth date' (the date they appeared in a youth school). That would be much smoother and better then all players aging at the same day as it now is.
(edited)
(edited)
To eleborate: Now there are 22 competition matches relative to 8 (Netherlands) cup matches. 22:8. If the number of seasons is doubled it would be 11:8 in each season
Yes it would limit the number of participants in the cup to 2^11 = 2048.
:D :D :D
Saturday 23:00~ rant about sokker. We've all been there
(edited)
Saturday 23:00~ rant about sokker. We've all been there
(edited)
I did not find league reform as an improvement but sort of got used to it.
I completely (or almost completely) disagree.
- I don't believe anything lasts longer. It's all approximately as it was. Have no youth school though.
- If the market has stalled (I hardly use it at all) it would be probably because of the training reform, not the league one. Older players might be fit somewhat longer but that also would be because training reform. League reform forces more depth in squad. More games increases the importance of backup players. So I'd argue that it would increase player demand. Assuming teams can afford it.
- It may feel longer but it isn't (not to me at least). Whether it is or is not evident who is going to win depends on teams strength. Shorter seasons are not going to change that. It will be the same, just in 'two parts'. If your team doesn't have what it takes, it just doesn't.
As for the proposed solution. Skipping return matches will disturb the tickets revenue. That would at the very least require a 50:50 split of the money. Otherwise how do you decide who gets the money and who doesn't?
I can't see how faster aging would double the speed of young players improvement. I'd say it would half it. No change in training speed and faster aging results in weaker players in given time frame. Same time to train but less training because of aging. Players having birth day would just shift things. It wouldn't make things faster or slower.
Maybe it would be more dynamic but entertainment is a matter of opinion/taste. My personal entertainment would either stay the same or drop. As for dynamic I'd have to replace players more often which I don't think I would have enjoyed.
Here are the thoughts from my arguably limited SK universe and experience.
(edited)
I completely (or almost completely) disagree.
- I don't believe anything lasts longer. It's all approximately as it was. Have no youth school though.
- If the market has stalled (I hardly use it at all) it would be probably because of the training reform, not the league one. Older players might be fit somewhat longer but that also would be because training reform. League reform forces more depth in squad. More games increases the importance of backup players. So I'd argue that it would increase player demand. Assuming teams can afford it.
- It may feel longer but it isn't (not to me at least). Whether it is or is not evident who is going to win depends on teams strength. Shorter seasons are not going to change that. It will be the same, just in 'two parts'. If your team doesn't have what it takes, it just doesn't.
As for the proposed solution. Skipping return matches will disturb the tickets revenue. That would at the very least require a 50:50 split of the money. Otherwise how do you decide who gets the money and who doesn't?
I can't see how faster aging would double the speed of young players improvement. I'd say it would half it. No change in training speed and faster aging results in weaker players in given time frame. Same time to train but less training because of aging. Players having birth day would just shift things. It wouldn't make things faster or slower.
Maybe it would be more dynamic but entertainment is a matter of opinion/taste. My personal entertainment would either stay the same or drop. As for dynamic I'd have to replace players more often which I don't think I would have enjoyed.
Here are the thoughts from my arguably limited SK universe and experience.
(edited)
- 1