I am just thinking about this. Since the discussion on rating points and SL Boost, the rating of a player gets important.

Can we add something to have the Rivals section on the landings page any imporance. I was thinking about something like increased crowds at matches against rivals ->lets say at those matches the stadium is packed.

Rival teams have to be picked before the start of the season and cannot be changed during the season.

Like the way you took my fathers (Dave MOT) and my ideas and beat us to it! lol

Yes this would be a great idea, and would reflect real life.

It don't matter who it comes from The idea is a Good one I think!
Local Derbies or Rivals games almost always attract full-houses !
& it gives some meaning to nominating rivals
Obviously they would need to be in the same Division & nominated before league season kicked off!

Pick team Rivals at start of season, then lock them, and when you play a Rival team its noted somehow on schedule, or on web page Blog somehow.

The gate receipts get a boost, and if manager is clever and pick 3 Rivals from same division, they all get 6 bonus'es a seaosn, with any Cup meeting random and an added bonus.

Sounds an interesting idea to me.

SFLSL had this for a time - and it worked the same way. It is a good idea and adds spice to the forthcoming games. I think 2 rivals for each team in each division would be enough - 3 (x 2 games) might milk it a bit. Gates would be say double the normal league expectation for that day, had it been a normal match.

It's an idea that has been mooted before, along with the idea of why shouldn't a team going well get a bigger percentage of their own home gates - say 2/3rds to 1/3rd or 75% to 25%. Means a poor team attracting a good team to their ground stand to make a few bob extra because of it, instead of a straight 50-50.

Good ideas!

I think the suggestion about not picking people whom have picked you would make this idea too beneficiary to some teams. Such as the big guns like Celtic or Hearts. In order to stop this you could impose a rule whereby the team only benefits when they play their own rival team and not when somebody else has them as a rival. Alternatively teams could agree with other on who their rivals are, but this would cause some difficulty.

I think the suggestion about not picking people whom have picked you would make this idea too beneficiary to some teams. Such as the big guns like Celtic or Hearts. In order to stop this you could impose a rule whereby the team only benefits when they play their own rival team and not when somebody else has them as a rival. Alternatively teams could agree with each other on who their rivals are, but this would cause some difficulty.

I think that 2 teams from the same division can be picked and one from another division. This means two rival matches each season, and another one if you played that team during the Cup. Picking three teams in the same division add too much cash from the gates.

I like the idea that the rivals only count for the teams picked by the managers and not automaticly for the opponent, if the opponent has not stated the team a rival.

I like this idea, and think that the system should only payout if BOTH teams are listed as rivals of each other.

Perhaps if only one team is listing the rivalry then a small percentage boost could work for me and payable only to the team listing the rivalry (eg 20-40%).

GMcD

Again, I don't see the value to this addition. It simply adds resources to everyone in the game. If it potentially affects everyone equally, it only serves to continue the escalation of resources, driving SL's upward to a point beyond what the program was designed to handle.

It seems like we are discussing an option here to increase cash resources, while we are on another thread discussing limitations of SL/PU.

The "rivals" concept was added as unique "fun" bonus to the game. It was discussed as a "bonus" but what value is a bonus that impacts all practically the same?

Sorry I too am a naysayer but I agree with Phil, not sure what this will add other than a bit of extra cash now and again for everyone. I think we need less resources rather than more.

Perhaps it should work the other way, you do not get gate receipts against rivals due to the extra policing required?

James

A good idea to lend more weight to the rivals choice, however I dont think cash/resources should be the benefit/punishment.

What happens when you whip your rival team in real life ?? Morale gets a boost !!

What happens when you get whipped by your rival , Morale gets a boot in the . . . . !!

So I suggest . . .

Playing against a team which you have designated as your rival would give a small boost to morale level(say 2x the normal) if you win obviously, and a deduction(again 2x) if you lose. Your oppenent who hasn't listed you as a rival gets the normal morale adjustment.

However playing a match where both are each others rivals raises the stakes!! to possibly as much as 0.5 morale boost for the winners and a 0.5 penalty for the losers.

Picking rival teams would be done before the season starts and locked till the end of the season. It would not be enforced so you can have any number from 0 to 3 rivals from any division.

I feel this would lead to more thought on rivals picking with the risk it creates and would make the games more important as well. also it wouldn't affect the resource level in the game.

Thoughts anyone ???

Wouldn't one just list weak teams as rivals?

Would any manager actually do this though ?? in theory yes you could , but can you guarantee you will win these games . . . ??

And the other manager seeing you have him as a rival would know what to expect and respond ( 11 d ??).

And I'm sure any manager attempting this "pick on the weaker teams" would leave himself open to a bit of blog baiting as well which can't be a bad thing.

You could always arrange rivals and have managers state reasons why they have picked so and so but this would add extra work for commish , this way managers can be left to sort it out amongst themselves.