Division Resizing

[flockmastoR]

Now with the cleaned up divisions, proper relegation and the ability to resize, I also think that there doesn't need to be auto-relegation. However, I would go for slightly higher number of promotions and relegations, as those two go practically hand in hand: automatic relegation of inactive practically increases teams being promoted, so if we take away the relegation due to inactivity, we should raise the regular promotions / relegations a little, e.g. 4-5-6-7-8.

But this auto-relegation for inactive teams is "just" by one division?! Or directly to "The Rest" as the Donkey post indicates?

Directly to "The Rest" currently. The cleanup would have taken quite long otherwise.

Maybe we can talk about this topic again. As far as I remember, the main reason to introdcue it was to get rid of the inactive teams that didn't relegate to division 6. Those teams where inactive for many many months, the lack of active teams that replace them and push them on relegation spots was the reason why they stayed there so long. With the resized divisions and more importantly more active teams, this problem is no longer a problem and I think this auto-relegation should be suspended.

Currently, a team from Division 1 that is inactive for 6 months will be in division 6 after that period (after the old regime) but now lands into division 6 after just one month. As the donkey already rode, this well earned spot in division 1 shouldn't be thrown away by only one month of inacticity. The impact imo is too high (mainly transfer market and reset possibility). So while it helps teams that have ruined their finances or got high fines that ruined the teams finances by allowing them earlier resets, it punishes teams that want to make a complett restart of the team by cutting them the access to the good youth transfer market.

I can tell from my own experience of the total cut, that without bug using (still waiting for the FPC, thought Hansa opens one), my team would be relegated into division 6 in June and that after being in Division 1 for nearly 3 years just by the totall team rebuild idea. Luckily, I could ride the TTT with 5 riders already over 20 in May.

I know that some teams did regularly take some months off (after the season) to come back with a new team in the next season (Quick, CircleCycle for sure teams that I don't know that good). I think we should continue to allow different ways how to play the game (instead of just ride a race every day and grow to 20 riders) and not punish managers for taking 3 months pause.

[Chemnitz Pro Cycling Team]

I support this point made by the Friedhof, but got other reasons. I'm not a fan of giving teams, which rode very long much too expensive a too easy way to recover. Zizou is an example (it was not unfair, I just don't like that he just recovered after riding far too long much too expensive, which was unfair to other teams).

[Hansa]

I support this point made by the Friedhof, but got other reasons. I'm not a fan of giving teams, which rode very long much too expensive a too easy way to recover. Zizou is an example (it was not unfair, I just don't like that he just recovered after riding far too long much too expensive, which was unfair to other teams).

+1

Dont give these teams an easy path to resetting.