(08-26-2020, 11:32 PM)infinitempg Wrote:(08-26-2020, 11:23 PM)speculadora Wrote: I spent like 12 seasons as a GM and I just have to say I fundamentally disagree with this idea that GMing is some incredible burden that only those select few who've been through it before could possibly understand and therefore be fit for. I'm not sure how many people were hired to GM teams during my tenure, but what I do know is a lot of them hired people who had never been GMs before and nobody batted an eye. There is no secret formula to success, and most of the skill set isn't really demonstrable. If you hire people who are dedicated to their team and are willing and able to put in the effort to scout, sim, whatever, you're going to find successful GMs. I think that they've been found either way here, but if lack of experience is a barrier to entry here there's absolutely no reason it should be
I actually agree with you here - after all I was hired as Co-GM of the Yeti with only a season or two of war room experience. Granted at the time it was because our team had no other actives but uh it’s still true. I think there is an extra level of difficulty with an expansion team though - and as such I’m more inclined to want to give teams to the most experienced and trustworthy users.
I think it's more difficult, but significantly so? I'm not sure. like expansion teams get to build from scratch, so if you scout the draft processes well enough you should be able to build a team that meshes well from day one. if the concern is long term stability in the role, I'm not sure there's any more evidence that experienced hires provide that (see Chicago, Austin). And if the absolute worst case scenario from botching a hire is Chicago pre-Bayley and Muford, we have some evidence that the fallout from that is still reconcilable within a couple of seasons. Anyway, I don't want to drag this discussion out any further and detract from what should be an exciting moment for the league. Just my two cents.