NOTICE: This league is using the BLEEDING EDGE game engine. For more information, click here.

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

NOTE: As of the last sim, this league was under the minimum 20% capacity. Invite your friends to join MyFootballNow to keep this league alive! Then send them to this league to become the owner of a team! The league will expire at 1/17/2025 8:00 am.

League Forums

Main - Suggestion Box

Too good for beginner leagues?

By CoachDumphool123
2/12/2018 8:50 am
This is a suggestion for the long-time expert- class GMs.

Consider creating a policy that once a GM wracks up a few championships in the open 'kiddie' leagues, they then move onto closed or expert leagues to give newbies a chance.

I have seen far too many people come in and quit lately after getting blown out 75-0 over and over again.

As a master-class chess player, for example, i wouldn't consider touring the country entering kindergarten tournaments just so i could kick the snot out of everybody to make myself feel good.

This, of course, is just a suggestion to help promote the game and keep the community growing rather than have the majority of new players quit in frustration.

Re: Too good for beginner leagues?

By Frankebasta
2/12/2018 9:06 am
Most definitely +1

Re: Too good for beginner leagues?

By Beercloud
2/12/2018 5:38 pm
I like the idea.

That would be cool to have some sort of a rating system like this.

There are a few hurdles for this to work.
This would have to be for public leagues only as we have our own rules for private leagues(user created). So there would have to be a filter put in place somehow.

We all know about the almighty knuckleheads that do the multi account deal. So an IP address would have to be figured in somehow.(automatically)

One other thing off the top of my head is, what factors would be taken into account for these ratings?
Wins and losses ya.
You'd have to add strength of field or W/L won't matter.
Can't really use seniority. Just because a guy has been here 2+ yrs doesn't mean he's good at it and just because a guys been here a month doesn't mean he's not picked it up either.
A GM can win a league championship by putting his team in cap **** then leave right after to join another league and do it all again and again. So maybe some sort of cap rating would be needed.
There's prolly stuff I'm overlooking. This game is a challenging one no doubt and the right factors in the right portions would have to be in place and tested.

But on the face it's a great idea. Most gamers love the ladder system. We all love that sense of accomplishment and the next challenge when you move up.

A good topic to kick around in more depth.

Re: Too good for beginner leagues?

By Booger926
2/12/2018 10:01 pm
CoachDumphool123 wrote:
This is a suggestion for the long-time expert- class GMs.

As a master-class chess player, for example, i wouldn't consider touring the country entering kindergarten tournaments just so i could kick the snot out of everybody to make myself feel good.


Surely......you have NEVER played me in a game of chess.

www.chess.com/ Same username - way different password

1) P-Q4
Last edited at 2/12/2018 10:01 pm

Re: Too good for beginner leagues?

By Beercloud
2/13/2018 11:04 am
Booger926 wrote:
Surely......you have NEVER played me in a game of chess.

www.chess.com/ Same username - way different password

1) P-Q4


lol. Looks like we have a challenger ladies and gents.......Game on

Re: Too good for beginner leagues?

By Booger926
2/13/2018 7:14 pm
Beercloud wrote:
Booger926 wrote:
Surely......you have NEVER played me in a game of chess.

www.chess.com/ Same username - way different password

1) P-Q4


lol. Looks like we have a challenger ladies and gents.......Game on

I do believe its your move

Re: Too good for beginner leagues?

By punisher
2/13/2018 7:44 pm
Booger926 wrote:

I do believe its your move


in that case i say you are that booger someone flicked on the wall.

if that doesnt work then i got nothing.