I like the name Smogon Champions League for reasons already stated, but I just wanna talk about the draft/playoff format a bit. I think the idea of an IPL based auction/playoff format is interesting. For context, here's how both of them work:
Auction Structure:
IPL is an Indian Cricket League, which works very similarly to the current Snake/SPL, with only the number of teams being different (8 Team league, Top 4 make playoffs, Round Robin Format). IPL auctions happen yearly, but what makes them interesting is that roughly every 3 years there's a "mega" auction, where teams can only retain a maximum of 5 players.
These 5 retentions are split into 2 categories, Regular Retentions, and Right to Match retentions. Each team is allowed a maximum of 3 "Regular Retentions", and a maximum of 2 "Right to Match" retentions. The Right to Match retention is essentially a price match card, which allows you to retain a former player for the price they end up going for in the mega auction. Regular Retentions happen pre-auction, and the salary is negotiated by the players, whereas the funds deducted happens via a pre-determined value for each player retained. Negotiation happening in Pokemon is obviously flawed due to the lack of salaries, so top players could hypothetically agree to play for 3k if they like the manager, and deflate their actual value (i.e: The value of funds deducted is less than their actual price), so this system would probably need a rework, which I briefly touch on later.
In between these mega auctions, there are "regular" auctions, where teams have an unlimited limit on retains. Retentions that occur are the same price as what the player went for in the previous auction. A player who went for 10k in the first auction would go for 10k if you decided to retain them the next season, for example. These funds will be then (obviously) deducted from your auction total. This allows teams to build some identity.
Trades are allowed to occur before the tournament starts. The IPL format also allows for midseason trades, but in order to be eligible, the player would have had to play less than 3 games. There's no mid-season auction, and traded players are eligible to be retained.
And for what it's worth, this format does happen to be pretty balanced in comparison to most sports leagues I've watched. There are a few favourites on paper, but quite often, that comes down to the importance of scouting.
Pros:
- Easily the biggest one is team identity. Being able to retain players for a long period of time allows a strong team identity to be formed throughout the years.
- It heavily rewards good scouting. The fact that retention price will stay the same in between the regular auctions will incentivise managers to pick up cheap steals which they can retain across seasons.
- Allows teams to rebuild if necessary, whilst still retaining identity. I think the main issue with allowing full retains for an indefinite amount of time is that majority of the good players won't leave specific teams, and some teams with "out of form" players will start struggling and not find it easy to build up. The mega auction would allow teams to rebuild if their player cores in previous seasons flop, whilst still having access to a high caliber pool. It also allows teams to still retain quite a few of their better players, and retain identities.
- Right to match adds another layer to retentions, and makes managers question whether a player would be cheaper if retained, or cheaper in the auction.
Cons:
- 3 years in between mega auctions is a long time. This is Pokemon, a hobby, not a full-time career like a sport. Both players/managers could possibly quit in this time frame, so managers who invest and go all in on big players, in hopes of retaining them for the next few years, may get screwed over. Or alternatively, managers leaving and having replacement managers come in before a mega auction, means they have to pick players from an objectively weaker pool of players if their original players refuse retention, since a majority of the good ones will already have been retained. The solution is probably changing it to a 2-year gap, but my main concern with that, is it enough to build a strong identity if we're back to a limited amount of retains? Maybe. I think some sort of an "inverse tax" system would help (which I touch on briefly later), it allows the more iconic players to be retained for a not-too expensive price. Couple that with the right to matches, I feel like identity can still be formed pretty well since core players feel more accessible.
- Since salaries don't exist in Pokemon, how would we go about the mega auction retentions? I was initially thinking of just sticking to the SPL system, but there are a few cons that come with that. One of them being if you pick a 3k average at the time player in the regular auction, and they evolve into a top player in 2-3 years, then you'd be retaining them for 10k until the next mega auction, where they still only become 16k. However, at the same time, you could see this as just rewarding scouting, which I do feel is one of the main benefits of this system. The other main con is the fact that this system wouldn't really distinguish itself from SPL's system, and could end up resetting "Team Identity".
Playoff Structure:
The IPL also follows a slightly different playoffs structure. Essentially, the Top 2 teams will have 2 chances at reaching the finals, whereas the teams ranked #3 and #4 will have to win twice. The format works by splitting the Top 2 teams into something called "Qualifier 1" and teams #3 and #4 into an "Eliminator". The winner of Qualifier 1 goes directly into the finals, whereas the loser has a second chance, and is placed into "Qualifier 2". The winner of the Eliminator is also moved into Qualifier 2, whereas the loser is well, eliminated. And finally, the winner of Qualifier 2 proceeds to the finals, whereas the loser is also out. I really feel like this system because it heavily rewards teams who dominated/performed consistently during the regular season by giving them two opportunities, whilst still making things interesting as a spectator, seeing if the "Eliminator" teams can pull through, and also provides more high-stakes matches. It also gives incentive for teams that have also secured a playoffs spot to carry on playing as competitively as they can, to lock the Top 2 spot.
Thoughts:
I do think, on paper, the auction system
could work. It creates team identity, and rewards scouting and good managerial skills, whilst also allowing teams to completely (or partially) rebuild semi-frequently. The right to match ability, in conjunction with regular retentions, adds another element when it comes to deciding retentions: will the player be cheaper in the auction? Or should I just stick with regularly retaining him? This system has actually worked very well in the IPL, and as I touched on before, the league happens to be very balanced. The teams that do perform consistently across seasons are the ones that have good scouts. However, with that being said, I'm not sure how well it would work in terms of Pokemon, particularly because Pokemon is not a commitment, so it's much more likely that players end up getting burned out between seasons, and ultimately quitting, which could hurt team balance.
The mega auctions may make it seem a bit more similar to SPL, almost resetting some of identity formed, but I really think the ability to retain 5 players does help quite a bit, since these will mostly be your "core". This in conjunction with unlimited retains in between the mega auctions, rewards scouting and could help build legacies.
The main thing is I don't know is how we'd handle retentions during the mega auctions to make them fair. I do think using the SPL system is interesting since again, it incentivises managers to scout for players that can become big steals in the future (since price only increases every 2-3 years). However, some people may find it unbalanced. For example, retaining someone who is 10k for someone who is easily valued at 20-25k for the next 2-3 years (only for it to go to 13k next year). I think perhaps some of sort "inverse tax" system could be interesting. For example: If I were to retain a 30k, 15k and 3k player, perhaps have the value of the cheapest player go up by original auction price of the 3k player + X% of the most valuable retain, then the value of the 15k player would go by original auction price + 0.5X% of the most valuable retain, etc. Perhaps this could incentivise teams to retain their star players to keep their identity, whilst also retaining their up-and-coming players for a justifiable value. It's not too cheap to the point where it's "unfair", nor too expensive to the point where their investment isn't rewarded.
I'm more so a huge fan of the playoff structure, the only "real" downside is that the tournament will take an extra week, if length is an issue, as there are 3 weeks of knock-out games (Eliminator + Qualifier 1, Qualifier 2, Finals) as opposed to 2.
I know a lot of this is probably impractical and that there also probably technicality issues, but I thought it could be quite interesting, particularly the playoffs structure.