As the stereotype would figure, Americans seem much more likely to just let the game play out with as little intervention and changes by the designers as possible. Europeans seem much more likely to want changes because of the possibility that collusion could undermine the game.
hm, let me protest here.
Mostly I disagree of changes sugested by managers, unless I find it truly worthy of putting programming time into the idea... You can check the sugestions forums for my posts. ;)
But maybe, averaged out, this might be the case, don't know, didn't notice it yet.
Do not get me wrong, I stick to my thought that mutual TIe agreements are not wrong. I simply look further into the future. Be aware of the creativity-ness of a human brain.
My example is not so imaginary, it is perfectly possible, and I think even rather easy for a group of exact 8 people to make an agreement like that. There is also no problem of the group becomming bigger and concurention greater, since they agree to not let anyone else in. As the play-offs start they can start playing a real competition among each other to see who becomes champion, and might or might not agree that every other year someone else gets homecourt...
Should 1 person fail to follow the group-rules for own gain, he might be pushed out of the group...
This said, again, I still think, even if we wanted too, that not much could be done if a group decided to melt together. Who is going to judge that it is not in a teams' managers best insight the things that he does on tactical choices?
They are not your friends; they dispise you. I am the only one you can count on. Trust me.