An OOTP Online League
https://greatlakesootp.com/forum/
Hell, it only takes 2/3 to override a Presidential veto or to amend the Constitution.TristramsDad wrote:Also, I don't think requiring 75 percent of teams to vote yes to pass this is legit. Two-thirds seems sufficient to me...one more vote than a simple majority. Anyway, we will have to wait 'til next year, I reckon.
If 2/3 of your PCL GM's wanted the DH, would you institute it? The question is rhetorical because I know the answer (not that it would even reach the voting stage). Just like the PCL will never have a DH the GLBL will be very conservative in regard to changing the foundation of the league. Many of these GM's signed up with the expectation that there would be no DH, no inter-league play, etc. so I will always be very cautious in regard to what we change. Of course, we have already instituted some changes like contracts, temporary age limits, etc., and will continue to when the situation calls for it. I mean, sometimes, we even all agree on the changeAl B wrote:Hell, it only takes 2/3 override a Presidential veto or to amend the Constitution.TristramsDad wrote:Also, I don't think requiring 75 percent of teams to vote yes to pass this is legit. Two-thirds seems sufficient to me...one more vote than a simple majority. Anyway, we will have to wait 'til next year, I reckon.
which makes for an easy transition. Right, some things are just not on the table. And if you had said "I know there's some support for interleague play, but I'm sorry, it's just not going to be considered at this time," I would have accepted that and not pursued it further (opting instead to pursue some other fruitless quest, as is my wont). But you put it on the table. That act alone constitutes a willingness to let the GMs decide. In a 12-team league, 3/4 is only one vote more than 2/3, so I guess that's not a huge difference. But it does mean that four people can keep us from doing what eight others want to do.commish wrote:If 2/3 of your PCL GM's wanted the DH, would you institute it? The question is rhetorical because I know the answer (not that it would even reach the voting stage).
Perfectly reasonable.commish wrote:the GLBL will be very conservative in regard to changing the foundation of the league. Many of these GM's signed up with the expectation that there would be no DH, no inter-league play, etc. so I will always be very cautious in regard to what we change.
Well, we already know that the way it was written caused one GM who is in favor of interleague play to vote no. That would be a pretty big deal if his was the deciding vote, which it doesn't appear to be. I suppose if the other GMs who voted no feel the way Martin does it's incumbent upon them to speak up, and if they don't, we're probably safe in assuming they're just against interleague play in any form.commish wrote:I do understand 'how the rule change was written' had an impact. At the same time it might be that no matter how it was written it may not have been fully supported for a variety of reasons that are unique to each GM.
No problem, thanks for listening.commish wrote:In the end I appreciate your effort, and the efforts of a few others that are engaged enough to care, in making suggestions to improve the league. Thank you.
You're right. I think that my brain blotted out the current schedule because I consider it a sin against nature.Al B wrote:I don't like it either, but it actually isn't unrealistic. It is, in fact, exactly what happens in real life. Since 2013 (when the Astros moved to the American League), all MLB teams play 19 games against all their division opponents, 6 OR 7 games against their intra-league, extra-division opponents and 3 OR 4 games against whatever inter-league opponents they take on. So there's home/road inequities all over the place, although I suppose they feel it all evens out in the end. All teams still, of course, play 81 games at home and 81 on the road.
- Alex W.