Quote Originally Posted by JazMerkin View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Galaxy View Post
Quote Originally Posted by killersheep View Post

I still think the demotion idea should stay, I have a feeling it won't be used often (that's at least my hope). I think it should only be used in more extreme cases where there is a deep pool and the rankings are getting really crowded with guys taking it easy.

I really want to emphasize this, if we continue with the demotion rule, managers should go in with the mindset of opposing the motion by default they must be convinced that it will benefit the rankings as a whole to agree with it. I personally have voted complacently and made mistakes. I will be paying much closer attention in the future.
I agree, both rules: the demotion & removal after 2 loses rules should be used at a minimum
I think the demotion idea is a good one. Guys keeping spots by beating weak opposition should get demoted over guys beating better opposition. Guys like Collazo & Bika should have to beat decent opposition to hold their spots, not lose to good opposition & then beat journeymen in the interim between those fights. Don't know about the 2 losses thing, it sounds good, but someone could easily lose 2 close fights in a row (let's say Cotto faces Pac twice & loses contentious decisions each time) & then being dropped to the pool because of that would be wrong IMO. I think it should always be put to the vote rather than be automatic.
I think you misunderstood mate when a fight loses twice in a row it triggers a vote, not automatic poolage (new word I guess)