Implemented 3 managers instead of 2 in team tournaments (mainly SPL)

[reyscarface]

Hello, I want to propose returning to 3 man manager cores instead of 2 for this year's SPL. Back in the day, we used to have 1 manager and 2 assistant managers per team in SPL and it worked out fine. It was removed because of the fear of "trophy inflation" and such but I will address that in this thread.

Nowadays, we have shifted to a structure in which there aren't really 1 manager and 1 assistant manager, its 2 managers full stop. This is fine and it works out well, but I think there is merit to adding one more person to the manager core and the benefits are as follows:

Benefits

* One extra assistant manager lessens the administrative burden on the two main managers. You may think managers do nothing and there is no burden on them, but in reality managers are one of the keys to a tournament success (and I don't mean just drafting wise). You need to stay active for a full season, engaging with the entire team, doing scut work like checking up on how everyone's doing week-in week-out. Sometimes you even have to do the scouting for your team, with replays and matrixes of opponents being checked and shared every week as well as self scouts. In fact, this has become so important that some teams draft players just for them to do this instead of playing. To me this is insane, better to just add an assistant manager slot and have managers add this person to the administrative roles rather than buying someone that won't play.

* Nowadays most managers are set in stone because of history manager pairings and every year we get one or two pairings of extremely established tournament players wanting to give managing a shot. This, coupled with the reluctancy to give a team to newish faces despite their potential after good exhibitions in other team tournaments, means most new faces will not get a chance to manage a team in SPL ever. Adding one more assistant slot to these pairs means some new faces will get first hand managing experience and learning from top managers, while also alleviating the workload to those two managers. A win/win for both parts.

* One of the hardest things to do in team tournaments is pre-draft planning. Especially if you dont have the history as a manager that some managers do, because now you not only have to make a plan, but you also have to initiate conversation with top tier players while trying to gauge their views in several different things like tiers to play, availability, and general interest. And again multiply this several times. Besides this, if you don't have retains, you're already at a disadvantage because you only have one person to plan your draft with: your co-manager. Having a third person be able to offer different points of view as well as do pre-draft scouting can go a long road into helping managers and may also alleviate big disparities in manager duo levels between teams.

* More people in your team chat is better overall as there is more talking, which fosters a better team environment, which motivates people. There is a reason why most succesful teams have anywhere from 2 to 5 extra people in the chat that aren't in the team and are just there for vibes.


Cons:

* The two cons one could bring up with this addition would be 1) risk of trophy inflation and 2) losing 10 people that will now become managers from the pool of players.

1) Trophy inflation nowadays is a complete meme, especially after we added alumni team tour trophies. Now basically everyone on the site can have a trophy, greyed out or not, which isn't even really a bad thing or at worst its arguable. So adding one more trophy per year to someone that will be doing work to earn it is a non-issue to me.

2) This one might hold more ground, but I think this is probably overstated for a couple reasons. First one being that some top players that might be interested in managing are already players that were probably already going to sit out the tournament. This becomes a positive if we get back one of these players into the tournament as a manager, rather than have them not be in the tournament at all. This is how I became a manager, for example.

Another thing is that, from when we have spreadsheets readily available (so SPL 7 is the earliest I could find the spreadsheets linked in the OPs of the threads), the number of players in SPL has been trending down. This is probably due to retains being more expensive due to the change in the pricing of retains from a few years back and this is despite the extra money from the change in sub rule because of the trend that top players are way more expensive now than before, and because of this teams have less to spend in extra slots. Here it is in numbers:

This is players in SPL without counting managers:

SPL 7: 174 different players - Top 3 prices: 40.5, 24, 22.5 Total: 87k
SPL 8: 184 different players - Top 3 prices: 34, 28.5, 25.5 Total: 88k
SPL 9: 176 different players - Top 3 prices: 37, 31, 28.5 Total: 96.5k
SPL 10: 160 different players - Top 3 prices: 38, 37, 35 Total: 110k
SPL 11: 175 different players - Top 3 prices: 29.5, 29, 28.5 Total: 87k
SPL 12: 156 different players - Top 3 prices: 36, 34, 31 Total: 101k (10 slots SPL)
SPL 13: 154 different players - Top 3 prices: 42.5, 32.5, 31 Total: 106k (10 slots SPL)
SPL 14: 154 different players - Top 3 prices: 38.5, 36.5, 34.5 Total: 110k
SPL 15: 158 different players - Top 3 prices: 39, 30.5, 29.5 Total: 99k

So despite there being more funds in play, the top players are way more expensive, so teams have less players in general. It is interesting to note that we have an average of about 23ish players less in SPL now than a few years ago. And hell, even a couple years back, the 10 slots SPLs had the same amount of players as the recent 12 slots SPLs.


I think everyone will agree that bigger roster sizes is way more enjoyable and makes the team tournament really feel like a big experience for each team. This, added to that we are already having 20 less people in the tournament than before, makes adding 10 extra people as managers completely bearable, without a big con but with a lot of pros.

Also: Goes without saying but if any manager wants to go solo or duo instead of 3 they should still be able to if they so desire.

 

[RADU]

One of the biggest points in favor of a third manager slot imo is the emphasis on team prep and the different knowledge required for each tier. While players should ideally be self sufficient and it's often expected for a player to help people in other slots too, this is not always the case, and managers always shoulder the responsibility of overseeing prep in every slot, doing tests, making scouts, checking teams etc.
While this is not impossible, it can be a bit of an unbearable task when you have multiple CG slots and one slot from each generation that you have to help with prep all within the span of one week; the insurmountable amount of metagame knowledge and available time required to check over every slot is pretty absurd, with only a select few who would be able to bear this task for a full season. While a third manager slot does not make this process easy, it certainly makes it more bearable, and also reduces the gap between teams with few/no outsiders for help and teams that have their dedicated builders who will do a full season of prep work despite not being on the team.

 

[Tony]

Please implement this. I've experienced everything Rey listed in his post many times and fully support his proposal

 

[obii]

Also supporting this and everything else Rey said in his post.

I'm wondering if it's worth looking into decreasing the required subs by 1 to account for the extra manager which would also address trophy inflation (which isn't that big of an issue to begin with imo).

e: Most of you remember snake 2 when Mounts dipped during the pre-drafting phase and I essentially had to be the sole manager for the rest of the tournament. This was ridiculously hard and I think 3 managers is an additional safeguard against things like that, where a manager gets banned / has to stop participating and a player then has to step up and take the role of manager. This isn't any easier on the player as they now have additional duties on top of what they do as a player. 3 managers severely lightens the load. Don't really see any downsides.

 

[MANNAT]

I'm wondering if it's worth looking into decreasing the required subs by 1 to account for the extra manager which would also address trophy inflation (which isn't that big of an issue to begin with imo).

I agree with rey’s proposal but just wanted to post to oppose this. There’s already enough slots to cover from a substitute capacity as is, reducing the number of subs would just exacerbate the issue.

 

[lax]

Unlike the 4 above members of the Jerk eager to respond and show their support, I would also like to express support as an unbiased member

Trophy inflation is fake as this site has been alive for many many years and most people playing for a long time have rings anyways

Unless a manager has a negative presence, team tours have always been about “the more, the merrier” to me. Just having another person to kick the shit with and keep chat engaged is always welcome

“Top players managing” also shouldn’t be an issue, bc it’s much better to have a top player that is passionate about managing in that actual role rather than being drafted at 20+ or whatever and not wanting to put in the effort/passion as a player (accumulating many wins) + support/presence (testing and deciding teams) that would warrant their hefty price tag in the first place

If a player opts out of playing to manage, I don’t think it would be to grab a free trophy, something unsportsmanlike, or against “the spirit of the game” (loll). These would be other cons. There is no trophy guarantee from managing ever if you look through this site’s history and how volatile drafts + actual seasons can be ( :pensive: ). It would be because managing is how they feel they can contribute the most to a team positively and/or would simply be the most enjoyable for them, something this site should promote. Losing top players is something that the tournament will have to adjust to and rewards scouting strong talents more anyways

Anyways, idk if I was meant to be allowed to PR post again #SelfSnitch, but this is the one recent proposal that actually seems very interesting and a positive change

 

[Star]

Personally speaking I’m fine with the proposal but also wonder if we should formally remove allowing people to sign up as a solo manager along with this change.

I think pretty much everybody would agree that managing well takes a lot of work and realistically it’s not a burden that one person can be expected to take. It’s also just not a thing that happens anyway given it hasn’t been relevant at all at least as long as I’ve been involved in tours.

I imagine if this change happens the vast majority of teams would have 3 managers because it just seems disadvantageous to go in with a smaller number of people helping. That being said it also certainly shouldn’t be viewed as a free tag-along slot and a “bad” third could definitely get a “good” first two rejected imo (depending on circumstances obviously).

 

[z0mOG]

My biggest reason to support this change is the point regarding wanting new, fresh managers to be able to take a shot while not disrupting the ebb and flow of historical/established managers. Upping the raw number from 20 to 30 here can help keep the number of fresh, tournament playing faces high without it being at the cost of excluding legacy, veteran signups. This reason alone gives me confidence that upping managers to 3 would do more good than harm.

 

[Dave]

It's very easy for people like Tony, Star, and Rey to have users funneling to them without much effort and putting together a quality 3some is no problem.

However, when I was a BIGS main, it was often pulling teeth to have quality co-manager options and the thought of bringing in a third seems like it could have been a daunting task. This could be an issue for newer manager signups as well.

I do like that it does allow more strategy in recruiting and a tier specialist in that 3rd manager slot seems attractive without having to spend money on a random support slot.

Can this create an unfair advantage for super manager teams? Or is this being overthought?

Additionally, as a host and TD, my major concern is signups. I'd like to see if there's a noticeable difference in quality of signups or if quality may even improve with this change.

Instead of saying "yes" and hard committing to this idea without a full understanding of the potential repercussions, I personally would like to post signups 2-weeks in advance with the caveat that if we don't get the turnout we expect, we should revert back to the 2-manager signups.

Change can be exciting for the community, but I also don't want there to be a lack of foresight for how this could change the tournament dynamics. Posting a preemptive signup is a way for the TD team to make a real decision on this without being tied to a disastrous result if it doesn't work out.

 

[a fairy]

me, not as a td:
Managing SPL is something that motivates me (if you think SPL3 counted, it didn't), but I've never felt particularly confident asking people if they wanted to team up, because being 50% of the opening volley with an already-low sense of self-worth feels incredibly daunting. However, if I knew I could be one of three, I know for myself I'd be more willing to give it a shot and message friends or other accomplished managers to see if folks would be up for it. But being half of it all at the start, even accounting for the prep help that retains can provide, is a huge mental mountain. I dunno. I think this is a good idea personally, and I'd like to see it given a try.

 

[Sabella]

Personally speaking I am a fan of this idea. Last year was my first time managing SPL and first time managing since 2019. I picked a co who unfortunately became extremely busy about 3 weeks into the tournament and boy could I have used a 3rd person. As far as benefits I feel like Rey really hit the main benefits and imo it also really can help balance out a manager pair that might be lacking on experience in certain tiers. I do have similar concerns with Dave regarding tournament signup turnout but I don't envision a significant drop off in signups. It seems like a pretty low risk change with a high reward. I agree with Rey about the trophy inflation. That's a meme at this point, so many users have a trophy and it shouldn't be a deterrent

 

[Excal]

couple pros and cons in a vacuum:

pros:
- should reduce manager burnout/workload post-draft, which is great. esp with 12 slots, that's a lot of ground to cover with just two managers responsible for upholding and fostering the team environment for 9+ weeks
- facilitates game completion and easier to remedy "emergency situations" of needing to sub players out/in, etc
- allows for more manager prospects to get managing experience to serve our growing tournaments community demands

cons:
- mannat's esteemed "social capital" could be exacerbated unpleasantly by "super teams" in the form of three top players managing together. can give lopsided advantages to trios with more clout bc at that point you're essentially getting three top players free of charge. it may be less balanced overall than the status quo
- could lead to more infighting -- more managers, more conflicts

neither pro nor con:
- probably makes it easier to draft as you can use the third manager slot to cover more roles

overall, i think the pros outweigh the potential cons and i think it's worth a try. this proposal could have some unanticipated consequences tho so if there's sufficient support to try this for spl 16, we should have another thread to rediscuss after the tour is over

 

[dex]

Speaking as someone who has basically solo managed a couple team tours, the extra manager slot would actually be pretty appreciated not only to cover more slots but also in case someone turns out to be a dud (or just not that active). It also provides a semi-safer training ground for newer managers in big tours, as it is much easier to justify having someone newer to managing alongside two experienced managers than one. Big fan of this proposal as well as the suggestion to abolish solo managing in large tours. The option for solo and duo managing should always be available for smaller team tournaments where communities may struggle to come up with that many qualified managerial candidates, but big ‘uns like SPL should be held to a higher standard which is easily achievable for them.

 

[Dave]

We are going to give 3 managers a try with the caveat that the TD team can walk back the decision if the turnout isn't competitive or there is an inability to meet the manager quota for 10 teams.

These signups will go up earlier than usual in order to make a proper determination. The current plan is early December, with a specific date to be announced later.

Thanks to Rey for the suggestion and everyone for their feedback.