h a l f b a k e r yThe Out-of-Focus Group.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Before a professional footbal match,
the teams should be mixed up and
the captains should take turns to
choose players, just like when you
were at school.
Worth it,
just to see which petulant overpaid
footballer with silly hair gets picked
last.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
this is so wonderful. can you just see the look on the chelsea manager's face? |
|
| |
stop that voting against yourelf hippo. |
|
| |
+, only for the sheer fun of seeing the resulting teams. |
|
| |
and they couldn't run an entire game - eh? kreuner what are u on tonite? |
|
| |
ah well you love football, you can't be that bad. |
|
| |
The players might be encouraged to play better if it was understood that being consistently picked last meant you were released from contract... |
|
| |
Think of this as two talent pools - pooled into one from which two teams are selected. Rinse and repeat in various locations. If a player is selected last, but proves his or her mettle, the next week would more than likely have that player a bit higher on the ladder. The lowest of the low, however are guaranteed one consistency - watching the all-stars get picked first, and for good reason. |
|
| |
To really mess it up make it a three team game. The team that scores second wins. If two teams score the same, the third wins. If all three score the same the last that was different wins. |
|
| |
I haven't figured out the math yet, but I think that real good players can help their club by playing real bad or real good. |
|
| |
Kreuner's right in a way, though, even though he can't spell "lose". For this to be viable, I think the notion of players being owned by teams would have to go out of the window. Instead, players would be "freelance", with a loose (not "lose", although sceptics may want to enjoy the alternative pun) affiliation to their home team. Their per-game fee would be based on individual performance, (as assessed by an independant body), paid by the team they play for, with a percentage paid directly to the home team. Automatic 50% bonus for being on the winning side. Thus each player's loyalties would be offset against gaining more money for the home team. |
|
| |
Bad (i.e. cheap) players would not get picked by the other side, thus you run the risks of losing games and facing financial ruin by not keeping good players and training them well. |
|
| |
footie would become that old-fashioned concept of being a game again rather than a money-making business. I wish I could vote for this twice. |
|
| |
For a real surprise, reveal at the last minute... "today we're playing cricket!" |
|
| |
Isn't this a little bit baked in the american MLS, where the league owns all the players and splits them up among the various teams at the start of the season? |
|
| |
Do away with the concept of team owners
altogether, have teams owned and managed by the
players themselves. Players could be paid based on
game attendance figures, with their percentage of
the day's revenue determined by the players' trading
card values... |
|
| |