I don't see the relevance of promotion/demotion figures. There are clearly several situations (especially pro leagues, but some stronger IIs) where a team has no realistic chance of staying up, but gets penalized for even trying. This also doesn't address the upstart team who promotes and barely stays alive as a #5 or #6 seed, which should be considered a great success but is considered a failure by the fans. These situations get blanketed by majority success in your numbers, but they exist.
Did you fully consider all of these situations before implementing the change? Because I see a lot of managers realizing they're suddenly screwed, despite being extremely successful, because of this change. The fan survey, as it stands, is irrational and unrealistic if it doesn't consider league strength. (It considers a manager's "effort to improve the team," so the competitiveness variable exists already!) It seems as if this discussion is exposing the fact that the fan survey isn't nearly comprehensive enough to reflect reality. I'm not sure how much you looked into this, or how many theoretical situations you looked at (case-by-case, not with general percentage stats like those you provided). But the floor probably needed an altered fan survey as a companion.
As it stands, maybe it's only 5%-10% of managers who are screwed by this change, but that's still a large number.
Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/26/2011 10:52:42 PM