SFFHL -> Quoting a Post in OWNERS WITH MULTIPLE TEAMS

Last 10 Posts [ In reverse order ]

Aaron17	Posted on Oct 12 2010, 19:05:35
	Yeah. If we can get more dedicated owners, that is the by far the best way to go.
lfchockey	Posted on Oct 12 2010, 16:32:55
	Great responses guys. Put the word out and forward names of prospective owners to me.
BSSmith	Posted on Oct 12 2010, 15:27:57
	I think in order of preference, I would like to continue having new owners come in (I have enjoyed my time in the past year as a new owner). However, if there was a decline in interest or no new owners to take over, I'd rather have contraction in the number of teams in the league and a dispersal draft of owned players among the remaining owners. I think even with an attempt to regulate the competitiveness of two teams being owned by one person, through trades, etc. there might be ways an owner might manipulate the system (e.g. build one team up, sink the other). Above all, it takes away from the fun.
jcouturier68	Posted on Oct 12 2010, 09:51:42
	i think untill there is no one strepping up to own the other teams every one should have only one team, i know when i picked up dallas a fellow co-worker really wanted in as well.
jayfern9	Posted on Oct 12 2010, 06:27:04
	i have emails out and awaitng replys.
Jason Lamb	Posted on Oct 11 2010, 20:31:47
	Vancouver aside we only have a few teams that don't participate (Detroit and Ottawa off the top of my head) all pretty good teams. I think we need to keep on trying to find owners and only as a last resort go to multiple team ownership. Columbus mentioned he knew one or two that would be well suited for a pool of this intensity...anyone else? GO BLUES
jayfern9	Posted on Oct 11 2010, 19:29:30
	I voted against owning two teams. I feel it takes away from the competitive aspects of this league. This is they best fantasy league I have ever been involved with and feel this would jeoporized that. I would argue that it would be nearly impossible for a person to be 100% neutral when it comes to managing two teams. I would equate it two playing chess or checkers with yourself. Despite running both sides you still want one side to win. If we need to fill some teams, lets get the word out there! Keep improving the league but I dont think one owner for multiple teams is. Regards, Jason
coyoteugly	Posted on Oct 11 2010, 16:57:54
	I would bid on a team but I'm having enough trouble running my own team as my 24th place ranking proves
coyoteugly	Posted on Oct 11 2010, 16:51:49
	I like it with rules you have put in place. We know that most of the owners we have are serious poolies & with the right guidelines it can work.
lfchockey	Posted on Oct 11 2010, 16:06:44
	Obvioiusly, the league is better with more serious/interactive GMs. Is it a good idea to allow an owner to own multiple teams? And, if so, what guidelines must be implemented? Obviously, no trading in between teams. I'd also go as far as saying that any player on one team that is moved must not be allowed through trade of friend to be on the other roster for at least two years.

Review the complete topic (launches new window)