Strengthening team identity in SPL via a relegation system

[Stratos]

I wasn't in time to beat the SPLXI captain signups (that's what reminded me to post this), but it's fine as it wouldn't make sense to implement this for SPLXI anyway.

I think SPL teams have a bit of an identity crisis. I've been following this tour closely since SPL 5 but I honestly can only think of one current team that has a consistent "character," that being the Sharks. Teams have a character for a season, sure, but it changes so vastly from season to season that nothing really seems to stick. I think this is partly because of our manager selection process. The manager is mostly who sets the team culture, and long managerial dynasties in SPL are so rare.

The system I'm proposing we move toward is basically exactly what is used in NPA, for those familiar with that. We set relegation thresholds—for example, getting 4 or fewer points in one season, or averaging 7 or fewer points across three seasons. Teams which meet these thresholds are removed from the league. If a team is not relegated, however, the current manager has full control over who gets to captain that team the following season, be it themselves or someone else (of course, with some veto power given to TDs so they don't make sogeking the new manager or something, but the idea is that it's the manager's choice). I'm assuming based on what I've seen that there's already a legacy bias in selecting managers, so this mostly just codifies that, but with the important addition that if a manager does not want to return, they get to choose who will carry the torch forward, with the idea that managers will usually choose someone who is similar to themselves.

Enough new managers are chosen to fill the slots vacated by relegated teams, which is ideally about 1-2 per season. Each of these managers makes a brand new "expansion" team instead of assuming the identity of the relegated team.

---

I think there are three main benefits to adopting a system like this:

1. Improves the continuity of team identities

As I mentioned, NPA uses a system like this, and frankly a lot more of its teams have a distinct identity. Even though I'm more involved in Smogon than the VGC community, I can think of way more notable "character traits" about more NPA teams that have persisted across years and management teams, than I can for SPL.

Retiring team names when their management has been ousted is also an important part of achieving this effect. For an example that Smogon players will get, look at the Frogs. Six years later and we all (well, those of us who were around for it) have a distinct image of the team culture of the Frogs. If we'd kept having teams that called themselves the Frogs this whole time, that wouldn't be the case.

2. Gives something to play for, even after playoffs are decided

With the current structure of the league, as soon as you're too far behind to hit 10 points, there's really no reason to keep playing. This is obviously not very fun for the people it happens to. On the flipside, once you have locked playoffs, you're only playing to gatekeep, and at times it can even be beneficial to intentionally throw. Either situation is detrimental to the league because it means that the order of your schedule matters in a completely luck-based way. For example, my own Lindworms would probably have been eliminated in week 8 of Snake except we had the good fortune of playing the Taipans after they'd already locked playoffs and they swapped ABR and Ezrael's positions in the lineup for giggles. Instead we almost snuck into playoffs and we frankly didn't deserve to. Relegation conditions obviously give failing teams something to play for, but they also give teams that have locked playoffs incentive to keep racking up points to keep their average high, assuming you have an x average over y years relegation condition. This prevents bullshit like that from happening—and it's a pretty regular occurrence so I think this is a big win!

3. Improves the fairness of the retain system for new managers

This is the way NPA handles retains for expansion teams: after all returning teams name their retains, the expansion teams get to bid pre-draft on the retain rights of unretained players. So the expansion teams might be at a very slight disadvantage compared to returning teams, but it's definitely fairer than the current system where a new manager can just get majorly blessed or cursed by which retains they get.

---

Of course, this system isn't completely perfect. One issue is that we'll have to produce 1-2 new high quality logos per year. All I can really say to that is: yeah, but I think it's worth it. There's also the risk of a player hating their manager so much that they decide to throw so that the manager will be relegated. I think that one can be handled just by making it clear that whether a manager returns is ultimately subject to TD discretion, so you don't have to throw to get someone removed if you really hate them. I'm not too worried about it actually happening, though, because I've seen some truly awful and hated managers in NPA and none of them have ever had players throw out of spite. If you have any other concerns, please post them below, I'd love to get this idea ironed out so it can be implemented and improve the spectator storylines for the biggest spectator tour on this site!

 

[Stratos]

Now that the excitement of SPLXI manager picks is over, I'm going to ask to call attention back to this thread. I would hate for it to die with no responses (from the TDs or anybody). Thanks.

 

[Eo Ut Mortus]

You correctly pinpointed one of the main issues: long-lived manager dynasties are few and far between in SPL. It's worth trying to identify factors that allow dynasties to flourish in NPA and seeing how they can be applied here, but from what you've posted, the distinguishing factor is not a formal relegation system. As you said, even if not codified, the primary components of this proposed system are already loosely applied. Non-incumbent managers are generally a team's former players, and until we started freezing the ten teams in the past few SPLs, people would regularly take over failed and abandoned teams and rebrand them, effectively relegating their predecessors (as was the case with the aforementioned Frogs, the Falcons, and the Tyrants prior to their revival).

Before delving further into solutions, we should address the reason behind frequent manager turnover. As someone who managed for the first time last SPL and has returned as a player this year, I can provide one perspective: Sitting out SPL is a huge opportunity cost if you want to establish your presence in all the tournament scene narratives. SPL is performing double-duty here; it's not only notable just because it's a team tournament, but also because for most tiers, it's the only tournament where you can assemble all the top players in a single place and have them all play each other. People put a lot of stock in these records, much more so than deep individual runs in the single-elimination tournaments that comprise our circuits. For this reason, you'll tend to see players, myself included, sit out for a season only to come back for the next. More recently have we seen people buck the trend (e.g. M Dragon has sat out quite a few SPLs by now), but players who no longer have the time to invest as players in these tournaments usually end up leaving the site rather than sticking around and assuming consistent managerial/coaching roles, as tends to be the case in other games.

I don't necessarily have any solutions less nebulous than "give more incentives to establishing oneself as a manager," but I think this is the avenue we should be pursuing if your goal is establishing more team identity. The other two points you brought up don't seem as compelling, especially taking into account the overhead you already acknowledged.

 

[Earthworm]

If this is implemented, would it then be an idea worthy of consideration to have a "B league" more serious than previous farm leagues comprised of these teams that are relegated + teams led by other aspiring hopeful managers? Do we have the player base to do that, and if not, would this perhaps inspire more people to play if the idea is promoted in a serious manner?

Another idea that may help would be to standardise the structure of each team's Discord servers with roles for current and ex-players, ex-player channels by year, etc. Something else that might help is to grant banners or something similar for postbits/profiles that increase the exposure and awareness of who "belongs" to which team's management. These ideas would help perpetuate the idea that SPL teams are something more permanent rather than something that changes each year.