I think this sound very cool, but I completely agree with Blibbity - there are a LOT of issues that NEED to be worked out first. In addition to everything he asked/suggested, here are some thoughts of my own:
1. This is a very complex league and it's going to take a long time to complete. Rather than a relatively small $10 entry (2 buy ins) and winner take all, I'd prefer to see it $20, with the winner taking 60% of the prizepool (this is actually MORE $ than you would have had them winning), 2nd place getting a runner up 20% of the prizepool, third place getting 10% of the prize pool, leaving 10% of the prizepool for one or more random awards along the way. You know how on the show they give away a car after a certain challenge - well, this could be like that. It could be for anything... This way, more people have a shot at money in the end, which will make the alliances and all that much more interesting.
2. Who is Josh Probst? Is that a play on words - do you have a Josh lined up for the job? I agree that it is crucial that someone who isn't playing host this if you want it to be complicated with twists along the way. If you simplify it and spell everything out ahead of time (which I think is a MUCH better idea, personally), including when the merges will happen, etc, then we wouldn't need an official, non-playing host, other than having someone be in charge of the votes.
3. Say there are 4 teams. How do you plan to balance the players? Also, do you want to have the single winner of the event's team get immunity, or would you rather add up each team's finishing places (with 20 people 1st = 20 points, 2nd = 19, and so on) and have the best TEAM finish get immunity? I think the latter is more fair and would make for better voting.
4. However #3 is determined, say Team TP wins immunity. Do all three of the other teams have to vote someone off... If you score by team points like I suggested, you could actually just have the WORST team vote someone off and that would be it. That would make for a longer league, but I think it's a better way to go with multiple teams.
Either way, after the first week, the teams won't be balanced... so if you go with the team score method, each team with extra players will have to drop their X number of lowest scores (that's WAY better than having people sit out). That would be a really good way to do it, if you think about it.
5. General question - what exact time do you have in mind for this? My suggestion is to have it after Survivor airs (whenever that is), with maybe a small buffer in between. So if Survivor is from 8-9, do it at 9:30 (our usual league time, which works out well).
6. How will things work when you get down to the final 3? Basically, they will play a 3 person tourney and the winner will decide who they want to take to the final 2 with them, right? (This is a very good reason for the adjusted Top 3 payout structure I suggested). Then, instead of playing HU, that will be the end and the jury will vote. I personally don't think sharing the past votes with the jury is necessary, and once again, I think that's just overcomplicating things and will once again lead to hard feelings.
7. Who is going to hold the money? I trust you and I'm sure most people here do too, but I will volunteer my "TalkingPoker" Stars account for this if you want. We've run a LOT of leagues and events and everything else where I've needed to hold money for people, with no problems ever. I just think people might be more likely to join if they KNOW that a trusted source is holding the money than if they HOPE a trusted source is, you know? The TP Stars account is for exactly this - it's not even enabled for playing.
8. Passwords. You are going to have to either make private tourneys every single week and be very careful about how you distribute the passwords (remember, people can't play any more once they are voted out), OR you can let anyone play, but just not count the finishes from the people voted out. The problem with the latter is potential collusion, which again - if it happens or not, I can almost guarantee there will be hard feelings. It would be much better to ONLY allow the paid members who haven't been voted out to play, and that's going to be a pain in the ass as far as password distribution is concerned.
Hmmm... I think that's it for right now. Like I said though, it is imperitive that all the kinks be worked out ahead of time, and I highly recommend spelling everything out. If people start winning things without anyone knowing how or why they won them, I guarantee there will be hard feelings somewhere. Just spell it all out ahead of time - everything - and there will be no problems. Like, once down to a single team (with alliances that I suspect will run along forum lines), obviously the event winner will get immunity, but if you wat to have a hidden immunity too, you should state AHEAD of time what needs to happen to "find" it - ie, win a hand with 72o and show it to the table... something like that.
Very cool idea for a league. Work out the kinks and I'm fully supportive.
|