That's why new players start out in lower-leagues, so that they can get a chance to develop before getting promoted.
That's why new players start out in lower-leagues, so that they can get a chance to develop before getting promoted.Actually quite a major part of the said development takes place after promotion with the help of the promotion bonus money.
But these "unbeatable teams with high chemistry" you speak of would also have been promoted to a higher division. The fact of the matter is, chemistry will be a choice that not every manager, new or old, is going to emphasize.
On the other hand, promoting teams will be disadvantaged because they will have to restructure in order to meet the demands of a stronger division. So it makes very little sense to implement a measure that will hurt teams that are already supposedly weaker than the competition..actually trying to meet those demands of a stronger division is the beauty of the challenge, the drama of the competition. being newly promoted makes it more difficult for that team at the start to compete on a higher division which makes it sweeter. especially now with all this legal holdup we are recieving! all in all, we need to improve our team every season but as our australian gm said never under-estimate the game itself. i dont have the powerful center and power forwards other teams has but what makes my offense tick is not because my guards are all powerful ( imagine highest i have is 14k agaisnt other more higher) but my big men possess skills such as passing. im not saying im all knowing, but adding another dimension such as this would make the course of how we play again change. we would see players that are selfish, entertaining, coach potato, bully, normal etc
On the other hand, promoting teams will be disadvantaged because they will have to restructure in order to meet the demands of a stronger division. So it makes very little sense to implement a measure that will hurt teams that are already supposedly weaker than the competition..
Actually it's almost universally true that lower-league teams, if managed correctly, will revamp their roster exponentially more often than a well-established DI team.
Actually it's almost universally true that lower-league teams, if managed correctly, will revamp their roster exponentially more often than a well-established DI team. I don't know whether this is wrong or right but a statement as smug as this one needs proof.
While perhaps this is true in some huge countries I find that playing in my small little country I could change my roster weekly if I chose to.Smug is using words like 'universally' and 'exponentially', and phrases like 'if managed correctly' as if you were privy to the 'correct' way to manage a team and others weren't.Elaborate proof is not necessary. Something more than an opinion would be nice if you are going to make grandiose statements as if they were facts.