ATD Feedback, Suggestions, and Issues

I think nows probably a god time to try and bring up some of the good and bad that GMs found with the past ATD, as well as the entire process. I'll start with a few items:

1. I'd like to hammer down a set time limit. 12 hours for a 32 team draft is definitely too long. The 6-hour limit seemed to work well, but that could be too short. I'd propose using an 8-hour time limit for Rounds 1-6 (or 4? 8?) and dropping it to 6 hours for all GMs thereafter.

2. The one-hour reduction rule should continue. I didn't enforce it at the beginning last time simply because I wasn't aware of it at first. I plan on being far more strict about it this time if we elect to continue using it.

3. Non-voting by GMs apparently has always been a big problem but I'm not sure how this could be addressed. Starting with ATD10 I plan on keeping a permanent list for each GM of missed picks and missed votes so that any repeated offenders can be addressed. Like the voting, this list wouldn't be s public entity unless the ATD consensus is that it should be. The main use of the list will be to determine who gets priority if spaces are limited in future ATDs. I've considered trying to develop a point system to reward active and participating GMs more (basically giving priority to a GM who participates in MLDs, keeps rosters and lines updated, never misses a pick or vote, etc.) but that might be making a mountain out of a mole hill so unless the consensus prefers that I don't plan on spending any time on it.

That's it off the top of my head. If anyone else has anything to add or comment on please feel free to post it up.

We should form a draft executive of 3 -5 gms.

They will take lists and make picks all gms should send lists.

I like an 8 hr clock.

A gm should be able to miss his 8 hr clock out right 2 times with no penalty.
A 3rd time the hockey executive can make a pick from the list. Or pick the BPA for the absent GM after 4 hrs. This encourages all gms to make up lists

We should form a draft executive of 3 -5 gms.

They will take lists and make picks all gms should send lists.

I like an 8 hr clock.

A gm should be able to miss his 8 hr clock out right 2 times with no penalty.
A 3rd time the hockey executive can make a pick from the list. Or pick the BPA for the absent GM after 4 hrs. This encourages all gms to make up lists

Forming a set group of people to take lists is a great idea. That certainly removes the furstration for GMs trying to figure out who to send lists to as well as eliminates any confusion.

I'm not so sure about having them pick players for a slow/absent GM however. My BPA could be widly different from another GMs BPA as if a GM misses a pick it's implied that they never sent a list for anyone to pick for them off of. I don't see why the current format of simply skipping that GMs pick can't continue and simply let them makeup the pick when they log back in.

Also curious as to your reasoning behind not penalizing people for missing their clock until the 3rd offense. Doesn't this simply encourage GMs not sending in lists until they miss the deadline twice since there is no penalty outside of the skipped pick (which would be made for them in your proposal)? Taking an example, if out of 32 GMs there are 5 of them who miss their picks twice (reasonable assumption based at the ATD9 results) that's 80 hours of waiting around for everyone without a pick being made. If you apply the -1 hour rule that would cut 5 hours off that waiting time already and that decrease increases as they miss more picks. So let's say those 3 GMs all miss a third pick. Now instead of 115 hours of wasted time (8x15 = 120 - 5 = 115) if we apply the -1 hour rule from the first offense it's only 105 hours of wasted time (8x15 = 120 - 5 - 10 = 105) which saves 10 hours. 10 hours is roughly the amount of time it takes to complete 1/2 to 1 full round if people send in lists. The main problem is that the larger the draft size, the more likely there is to be GMs who miss picks and the longer the process takes. In ATD9 I didn't start the timer reductions until the 10th or 12th round I think it was (didn't understand the rule prior to that which won't be a problem next time) and from the 10th/12th through 24th rounds there were at least 26 skipped picks (from 12 different GMs) on a 6-hour timer, meaning over 1/3 of the GMs missed their pick at least once in the 2nd half of the draft. That number is really higher since there were several missed picks before I even started the reduction (if you recall the reduction rule started because of the multitude of missed picks occuring as a way to hopefully encourage more people to send in lists). If there is just one missed pick in every hour, that's 256 hours (on an 8-hour timer) of sitting around and waiting. That's over 10.5 days. Now since most of the missed picks were from repeat offenders (16 of the 26 skipped picks were from 4 GMs) it looks like all it takes in a couple slow movers to bog down the entire process. The best way to minimize the impact of these slowbies I'd think would be to immediately apply the timer reduction so that each subsequent pick missed will be less and less of a disruption on the draft.

....You know LL didn't read that.

I think we should look at the idea of setting up a rule on trades. I know that people like to strategize quite a bit when putting together a team, but it makes the draft drag along sometime waiting for a trade to complete especially when one of the GMs involved isn't around when the pick is up (I'm guilty of it as well). It was suggested during the draft to not allow trades once the pick is on the clock but I think that may be a bit too drastic. What about only allowing trades within the first 1 or 2 hours of the clock (or more)? I know that you could make the argument that as long as you make your pick within your allotted clock it should be ok, but I think it's a bit different holding up the draft because you're waiting to make a trade and holding up the draft because you're just not around the computer.

Those who may not want to make your pick or send out an offer can always set up contingency trades before the pick comes up so that the trade is ready to go. Using a proxy to accept trades and/or announce picks worked really well in this draft.

Also, just as a general courtesy, it'd be nice if GMs could announce picks then edit their post with bios rather than waiting to announce their pick until they have completed a bio. I know GBC and EB are quite good about this. The 15 to 20 minutes it takes isn't always a big deal, but sometimes it can kill a roll the draft is on.

If we go with the straight 8-hour clock for the entire draft I'd personally think disallowing trades once the pick is on the clock is the better way to go. If we're going to allow trades during partial times in the clock I'd rather go with a straight 6-hour clock for the entire draft.

We'd also need to all agree on someone to mediate any disputes on this. If the first GM posts the trade 20 minutes before the "trade timer" is up but GM posts it 10 minutes after, and then they make a pick would that be a legit trade even though only 1 GM posted it in time? What if two GMs made a trade after the "trade timer" expired, made a pick, and the draft rolled on for 2 or 3 more picks before it was caught, do we roll the draft back since the trade was never allowed? Do we make exceptions and would that be fair? There's alot of potential headaches with a partial "trade timer" on each pick.

If you want to trade for a pick on the clock, couldn't you just work out the trade, have that GM pick the player you want, and then submit the trade after the pick is made? Instead of acquiring the pick and then selecting the player you'd just trade for the player. That might be an alternative solution if we adopt the "no trades while on the clock" rule.

On a different note, one idea I've been bouncing around in my head is eliminating the seeding system. After the regular season votes, the matchups would be posted without listing their seeds, with the home-ice team noted in the matchup thread. This might help from discouraging some GMs and also eliminate any possible "bandwagoning" or bias that might result. After the conclusion of the draft, the regular season standings would be posted.

As a totally unnecssary but potential fun addition since we already do Conn Smythe voting for playoffs, we could add in with the regular season voting some awards (Hart, Vezina, Norris for sure and more if desired) the winners of which would also be revealed at the end of the season.

We absolutely need to do something on the trade front. It's been out of hand for a while. I have no problem with giving a GM 30-60 minutes, once his time window starts, to work out a trade. After that, though, he has to make a pick. We absolutely cannot continue with the system that is in place.

The "A side and B side" idea I had for the playoffs needs to be seriously looked at. As it stands now, unless you are a 5th seed, you have ZERO chance of pulling off an upset. That makes the draft overly predictible. I wrote this up in one of the ATD threads but it is too late for me to go looking for it and I'm too lazy to type it out again at the moment. But it makes a great case, I promise you. Addresses everyone's concerns.

We should embrace positive change, not resist it.

It's hard enough to get people to show interest in the playoffs as it is. I don't think adding a, no offence intended with this term, "loser side" to the playoffs making things more interesting. I think it would clutter the process up.

Upsets CAN happen if you build a team of playoff warriors who don't get proper regular season respect but then take on a team built for the regular season. Either way I like that everyone gets a series and learns more about what worked and didn't work on their team.

I agree on the trade front. I think the one hour time limit on trades is best because you could be working on a deal and have no idea when the guy before is going to pick. Say you're 5 minutes from completing a trade and suddenly the guy before you picks... you had no way of specifically knowing what your deadline was. I think the hour is the fairest way to do it.

Incidently, the voting in later rounds thing is tough. It's easy to put the whole thing out of your mind once you're out of it and once it's gone on for months and months. I didn't vote in the finals not because I didn't care, but because I forgot. It happens a lot at the end. I don't think there should be punishment necessarily.

If we do go with a partial "trade timer" on picks, how do we resolve some of the issues I mentioned?

why not have a trade deadline

half way though the draft if u havent worked out a trade you can't make one.

The "A side and B side" idea I had for the playoffs needs to be seriously looked at. As it stands now, unless you are a 5th seed, you have ZERO chance of pulling off an upset. That makes the draft overly predictible. I wrote this up in one of the ATD threads but it is too late for me to go looking for it and I'm too lazy to type it out again at the moment. But it makes a great case, I promise you. Addresses everyone's concerns.

We should embrace positive change, not resist it.
I would care less about the A side and the B side for the playoff format. Once I get eliminated, a B side of the playoffs would mean absolutely nothing to me.

If we do go with a partial "trade timer" on picks, how do we resolve some of the issues I mentioned?

Well we're essentially counting on peopel to be truthful. Technically you're right, we could outright say no trades once your window starts and they could work one out based on who they pick anyway.

You can't eliminate that possibility, but we'll just have to ask for people to try to live up to the spirit of the rul.e

I would care less about the A side and the B side for the playoff format. Once I get eliminated, a B side of the playoffs would mean absolutely nothing to me.

I think you're misunderstanding... it isn't a weekend mini-novice tournament. We would completely forego the 1/8, 2/7, 3/6 and 4/5 and just slice each division down the middle. The A-side features 1/4 and 2/3 matchups, and the B-side features 5/8 and 6/7 matchups. The exact same amount of series would get played by the end.... minus one, that is, because the A-side champ would have nothing to prove to the B-side champ.

It's better from all perspectives - if you're a 7th or 8th seed you have a legitimate shot at a first round upset. Normally you don't. If you're a 5th or 6th seed, instead of facing a 3/4 with little chance of winning and the reward for winning being a date with a powerhouse, you play a 7th or 8th seed that you can still expect to beat but not without trying.

If you're a 3rd or 4th seed you end up facing a better team than you otherwise would have - the 1st and 2nd seeds - but you actually have a legitimate chance of winning, something the 7th and 8th seeded teams would not have been able to say.

Think of all the completely uninteresting matchups that would have been avoided. I admit, my series with VCL may have been the closest (and best) of the first round and would have never happened. I'd have been "relegated" to the B-side but I had no chance of winning my division but - be honest with yourselves - NO 5th seed does or ever has.

All you experienced GMs who are accustomed to finishing 1st or 2nd - you're here for a challenge, right? Is it going to be a challenge if you have to face Donair City? A reward? More like a waste of time.

The only problem I have with this idea is that the finals will be worthless. I'm sorry, but the team that goes through in the 1-4 division will beat the team going through the 5-8 division every single time. The fact that we can't play this game for real limit us in that area.

The finals in the 1-4 division would be every bit as meaningful. The finals of the 5-8 division would be very meaningful, but would be seen as a B-side championship, and any team that made the A-side at all would rightfully feel like a better team than the one that won the B-side. It's still something I'd have strove for, kind of a way of making the best of a bad situation, being that I finished 5th in my division.

As for the A-side champ playing the B-side champ, it would never happen. The Stanley Cup winner doesn't have to play the Calder Cup winner to prove they're the best... it's a very safe assumption that they are.

I'm with seventies on the A-side/B-side thing. While there are a lot of tight series with not a lot separating #4 and #5, it's not often that a lower seeded team will beat out the #1 team that early in the playoffs. Occasionally we'll get a team like Lada this last time around, but I think making a more meaningful playoff situation for most teams outweighs the benefits of the current situation.

I also like the idea of not giving the actual seeding numbers. There are some cases where the #1 team might be fairly obvious, but I would have had a hard time picking out the rankings of the Lecavalier division this time around. I'd like to think that I'm unaffected by the seeding numbers, but I think it does have an effect subconsciously at least.

Agreed that subconciously season rankings do come into consideration. I'd like to have that possibly hidden until the end.

As for A-side/B-side, it's not my favourite thing to have, but it would be interesting, kind of a "consolation prize" I guess.

I say absolutely no to the a-side b-side thing, but I'm fine with excluding the seeding numbers. Just say who is home and who is away. That's fine.

It'll leave us with the regular season standings to look forward to after the draft is all done.

i think whatever gm has been in the most main drafts should pick #1 overall plus get a bonus pick every 100 picks;)

Not really a suggestion, but I just noticed that Cup 2008 Sens Rule hasn't been back online since the draft. I know he was sick at the time, hopefully everything is alright with him.

Would anybody in the ATD want to be part of the next MLD as a co GM with me? P.M me if you have any interest