So why should losses after playoff elimination hurt more than losses before playoff elimination when it comes to draft position?
The paying customer funds the NHL. The paying customer should expect a competitive game from 1st to last. With the draft lottery, losing at the tail end of the season inhibits walk-up customers from buying a ticket, reducing team revenue. Other fans root for his or her home team to lose in order to acquire greater chances of winning the draft lottery, but in 10 of the last 16 draft lotteries (excluding the 2005 draft), the worst team has lost the number one pick. So fans rooting for losing to win the lottery are disappointed 10 out of 16 times.
Draft positions should be based on a system in which teams are rewarded with higher picks by winning games. Allow the paying customer to root for his or her team to win.
The paying customer funds the NHL. The paying customer should expect a competitive game from 1st to last. With the draft lottery, losing at the tail end of the season inhibits walk-up customers from buying a ticket, reducing team revenue. Other fans root for his or her home team to lose in order to acquire greater chances of winning the draft lottery, but in 10 of the last 16 draft lotteries (excluding the 2005 draft), the worst team has lost the number one pick. So fans rooting for losing to win the lottery are disappointed 10 out of 16 times.
Draft positions should be based on a system in which teams are rewarded with higher picks by winning games. Allow the paying customer to root for his or her team to win.
I mean for all the teams that tank (Oilers) there are teams that just suck and can't get it together (Columbus).
Not right to punish those teams who actually attempted to compete but failed at it.
A better system is equal lottery across the board for the top 3 picks for all nonplayoff teams...after those top 3 picks have been assigned than go in sequintial order of worst team to better according to standings/points.
You wouldn't see teans like the Oilers field an incompetent team on purpose year after year just to claim high picks.
Oilers aren't tanking on purpose they suck 5 on 5. How can we (Oiler Fans)be accused of cheering for the Oilers to lose if last nights lost to the Habs really pissed me off. If the Oiler brass doesn't fires their inept coaching staff at the end of the season for another lottery year then maybe management can be accused of tanking.
[COLOR="red"]
Eliminate the paradox of "losing is wining".
The only place that paradox exists is in the minds of HFers like yourself. If you get a top pick it means you're a horrible team!!!! Seriously why is this so hard to understand? Yes it's a fun consolation to get a new toy to play with when your team sucks HARD, but the guarantees stop there. End of story.
The only place that paradox exists is in the minds of HFers like yourself. If you get a top pick it means you're a horrible team!!!! Seriously why is this so hard to understand? Yes it's a fun consolation to get a new toy to play with when your team sucks HARD, but the guarantees stop there. End of story.
The paradox does exist when teams tank for a higher pick. The paradox is that in order to win the greatest odds of getting the first pick, a team must lose as many games as the team can. It is the incentive of losing games to win a top pick. The incentive is losing to win.
The goal of a professional franchise when playing a schedule of games is to win. When it becomes clear to the franchise that it no longer can compete for a playoff position, the team is best served by playing to win a high draft pick. Thus, the new goal of the team is to lose. When the team loses more that any other team, they have achieved the goal of losing. Losing becomes winning.
If there is no draft lottery, there is no incentive to lose unless draft order is determined by reverse standings. In this case, the incentive of a high draft pick causes the team to change the goal of winning to the goal of losing. The goal is the same as that developed by a draft lottery. Losing games is winning a higher pick.
Under the draft lottery, it is in the best interest of the organization’s future acquisition of talented young players to lose when no longer eligible to reach the Cup playoffs. Hence, tanking becomes the goal, lose to improve for subsequent seasons.
Under mathematical elimination, the objective of winning remains.
I see. The team's salary floor and cap are determined by advertising revenue alone. And the player revenue sharing is based on advertising alone.
And the 18 to 20 million customers of the NHL in a given season receive tickets, concessions, and parking with no revenue going to the team?
Is it true tickets to a Montreal home game average about $150.00? Do the Montreal Canadians know this? I thought the Canadians set the ticket prices, and sell the tickets, and collect the money, and put the money in a bank account to pay expenses! But they must not know about this stream of cash flow since advertising funds the organization.
edit: After further review, I think you are being flippant.
I'm jealous that teams I don't have to watch or care about that are disgustingly bad get higher picks than mine do.
gimme gimme gimme.
Right! Require the teams that do not make the playoffs to win and acquire the most points to earn the first pick, or a higher pick. Give you and other fans competitive games. Let players decide the outcome of draft order.
It must be hard for you to watch worse teams unload talented players to increase the odds of winning the first pick, or to cut salary. In either case, the tanking team trading key players will likely be worse next year - not something you will look forward to.
Basically every draft reform thread boils down to fans being selfish and not wanting the terrible teams to improve. Sometimes parity is more important than the wishes of selfish fans.
I like it. It still gives advantage to the worst teams because they would be eliminated from the playoffs first and get a "head start", and it gives excitement right to the end of the season for all franchises eliminating "meaningless games. Yea great idea I would definitely be on board.
I like it. It still gives advantage to the worst teams because they would be eliminated from the playoffs first and get a "head start", and it gives excitement right to the end of the season for all franchises eliminating "meaningless games. Yea great idea I would definitely be on board.
Basically every draft reform thread boils down to fans being selfish and not wanting the terrible teams to improve. Sometimes parity is more important than the wishes of selfish fans.
That's right - competition... trying to win... fans getting money's worth.
The daily terrible alternative to the draft lottery thread!!!! If getting high picks was so great why has Florida sucked? Why does New York suck? Why does Collumbus suck? Ottawa has picked first a couple times the best player they managed to get was Chris Phillips. Picks don't guarantee anything. Not too mention if bubble teams could get high picks it would be more advantageous to just miss the playoffs and have a chance at a superstar then squeeze in 8th where no team has ever won a cup from. Your still encouraging losing.
The Leafs are one of only a dozen NHL teams that is making any money. And all but a handful of those clubs are making a marginal profit, at best. The three richest teams in the league — Toronto, Montreal and the New York Rangers — make more than the other nine profitable clubs combined.
Quote:
Across the NHL, revenue has grown by 5% over the last year, and so has the value of the average franchise. That’s the good news.
Despite the growing revenue, however, profits are stagnant. That’s because although the owners got the salary cap they fought for during the 2004-05 lockout, Forbes concludes the players’ 57% share of league revenue is way too high, especially when compared to the NFL’s revenue-sharing formula of 48% or the NBA’s recent agreement at 50%.
When watching an NHL game one of the things that stand out most, especially if you get there early and the players aren’t on the ice yet, is the abundance of advertisements along the inside walls of the rink. These board advertisements have been around for years now but as in the evolving world of advertising NHL executives and advertisers have worked together to also utilize other potential advertising spaces in new and creative ways.
Quote:
One new way advertisements are being used in rinks is the classic style of ads on the inside of the boards however the Columbus Blue Jackets in the past year have installed a dasher board into their wall. The dasher board rotates different advertisements as well as interactive content for fans making it something the fans are continually looking at making it an advantage for businesses to have their ads on the dasher board instead of another spot on the wall.
Quote:
One new form of NHL advertising that began this year is virtual advertising on the glass behind the nets on each end of the rink. These ads can change at any time and are only seen by people watching on television
Quote:
“Sponsorships for the same elements between NHL organizations will vary from market to market. A dasherboard partnership with the Minnesota Wild means the corporate partner is spending a minimum of 300k per year. However, a dasherboard partnership in Tampa Bay or Phoenix will not go nearly as high as that. On the flip side, a dasherboard partnership with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the New York Rangers will more than likely be much more than 300k per year.
Do you really think a few thousand dollars lost in walk-up tickets the last few games of a bad year really matters all that much when the franchise has already secured money from season ticket holders and season-long advertising?
Advertising is so important they're installing dasher boards that rotate ads so they can sell more ad space. Advertising is so important that they're superimposing ads on the glass behind the goals. Advertising lead to the 2 billion dollar 10-year television contract deal.
Your job, as far as the NHL is concerned, is to go to the games or watch at home and buy whatever is being sold. And hey, if you purchase a jersey or two along the way that's nice too.
We're talking about the NHL as a whole, not an individual team.
So why should losses after playoff elimination hurt more than losses before playoff elimination when it comes to draft position?
Because:
- under the current system, teams get "rewarded" for losses and "punished" for wins
- what makes the playoffs so exciting for all involved is that each loss is far more important. This idea would give teams (& most importantly, their paying fanbase) a similar increase in excitement for late season games, providing a final rush of excitement before the long layoff of the offseason
- no system is "fair" to everyone, but the current system is especially "unfair" to fans of the weakest teams, as it forcibly puts them in a situation where they have more to cheer about for losses than for wins.
All this "fairness" talk is a little silly. Even with the cap system, the league's competitive set up is patently "unfair". Some teams spend 60+M$ on their roster, while others spend under 45M$... and that speaks nothing to the other advantages wealthy teams offer players (facilities, support staff, "perks" in terms of quality of the off-ice infrastructure)...
Changing the draft system so that teams have to compete for their draft ranking isn't "fair" in an objective sense for the teams (as competitive entities).
But it is far more value for the paying customers (which indirectly could/should lead to greater benefits for all of the teams in terms of marketing/merchandizing/ticket sales), and would generate a whole additional layer of excitement to every end of season.
considering that late march = March madeness, spring training, NFL draft... you'd think that it would be a no-brainer for the NHL to add an element that would provide the fan bases of its weakest teams with added incentive/reason to continue following the team (and spending money on it/providing advertiser value).
Can you explain why a team that goes 0 and 41 in the first half of the season and then finishes 41 and 0 deserves a top pick more than a team that goes 41 and 0 in the first half and 0 and 41 in the 2nd half?
Can you explain why a team that goes 0 and 41 in the first half of the season and then finishes 41 and 0 deserves a top pick more than a team that goes 41 and 0 in the first half and 0 and 41 in the 2nd half?
It would take more than going 0 and 41 to technically be considered eliminated from the playoffs. Going off this season alone the earliest a team would have technically been eliminated from the playoffs would be after going 0-52 http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm...ate=02/06/2012
30 Games remaining, 60 available points. But realistically even this is never going to happen, we are currently sitting with 14/15 games to go for most teams and no team has been eliminated yet.
