There's no way we'd only get 20 GMs to sign up, anyway. I'd be really surprised if we had less than 28 and we'd probably have 32. If we want to have smaller drafts, we need to do them more than once per year to give some people time to get tired of them.
I'd love a 28 team draft again (actually gives a reward for winning your division in the regular season - a bye), but we probably have too many people even for that.
I love the idea of a "no complaining draft," but I don't think a rule would work in practice. What counts as a complaint and who decides? Obviously, some are obvious, but still. Plus, drunken complaining about the draft taking too long is a tried and true tradition... I think that officially allowing trades on the clock will help with the idea that everyone's clock is his to do what he pleases with it.
I'd be up for exploring a penalty for GMs who don't PM the next guy, though. It takes about 20 seconds, maybe 60 seconds if you're on mobile.
Encouraging co-GM teams helps manage team numbers and doubles the chances that picks will be made on time, next GMs PM'd, player bios developed better, etcetera.
I know 20 is not possible, but it would be a fun draft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander
Encouraging co-GM teams helps manage team numbers and doubles the chances that picks will be made on time, next GMs PM'd, player bios developed better, etcetera.
People, for whatever reason, just often don't like co-gming.
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
People, for whatever reason, just often don't like co-gming.
You and I won a MLD championship co-GMing together. So did Hockey Outsider and I. So did several other guys. It works to have someone to bounce ideas off of in PMs, to avoid impulsive homer picks, to reflect and strategize together.
Co-GMing ought to be encouraged, not mandated (except maybe for newbies?).
You and I won a MLD championship co-GMing together. So did Hockey Outsider and I. So did several other guys. It works to have someone to bounce ideas off of in PMs, to avoid impulsive homer picks, to reflect and strategize together.
Co-GMing ought to be encouraged, not mandated (except maybe for newbies?).
I really don't know why more people don't co-GM, at least in the lower drafts. 7 of the 8 MLD winners listed in the stickied thread were by teams with co-GMs.
But anyway, this is about the main draft; I would be in favor of requiring "newbies" to co-GM.
Instead of 4 divisions of 8, what would people think of 8 divisions of 4? I really have no reason for saying this other than hey, what the hell lol.
HOLY COW! There's a-never-before-raised idea that might actually work! It is MUCH easier to assess the relative worth of teams when there are lesser per division. Of course, this would make regualr season standings less important than playoff skills, as there will be eight number one seeds. Still, it's a fantastic idea worth considering.
Instead of 4 divisions of 8, what would people think of 8 divisions of 4? I really have no reason for saying this other than hey, what the hell lol.
more divisions makes it more likely that "good" teams would go out early, if that matters to people. The 8 division winners would have to be put in a pre-set bracket for the final 3 rounds of the playoffs. With 4 divisions, only the final 4 (the last 2 rounds) are in a pre-set bracket.
I would be in favor of requiring "newbies" to co-GM.
Perhaps at least conditionally,... required unless 1) a target number of teams isn't reached (28,32); 2) the 'newbie' is a History board regular/5000+ post long time HfBoarder.
more divisions makes it more likely that "good" teams would go out early, if that matters to people. The 8 division winners would have to be put in a pre-set bracket for the final 3 rounds of the playoffs. With 4 divisions, only the final 4 (the last 2 rounds) are in a pre-set bracket.
Actualy, whichever teams won the playoff divisional title for each of the eight divisions could be re-seeded across the divisions: the eight remaining divisional champions would be voted upon by all to determine the 1st-8th seedings for match-ups for the remainder of the playoffs.
On second thought, the more divisions there will be, the more fragmented the discussion and analyses, thus the less clear picture of relative strengths and weaknesses.
Another idea I want to broach. Not everyone gets to make the playoffs.
If there are four teams per division that wouldn't happen.
But if we are going to have 7th, 8th seeds... yeah, upsets in the playoffs happen much less frequent in the ATDs than in the NHL.
Though even a lowly seed deserves a last chance to show how their squad stacks up in the postseason. After all, the playoffs is a different breed of animal than the regular season.
Plus, any team that is fully complete, with all draft picks, updated roster, captain and alternates, and a participating GM(s) in regular season seeding voting... ought to have the right to have their squad represented in the playoffs imo. Any team that does NOT have a GM vote in the regular season standings, not update their rosters and/or not finish drafting, yeah... they should not qualify for the playoffs imo!
2 teams per division sure makes for an interesting draft, I must admit!
The entire time you know exactly who you're up against, and you have to draft a team to beat them. The whole time you're debating who is doing a better job. Like a playoff series that lasts months.
Still don't like the idea , a potential scenario the top two teams are within the same division , one gets knocked out of the playoff in the first round.
How about 8 divisions of four teams for the regular season voting, to make it easier to classify teams, and when the playoffs start, we combine 2 divisions together.
How about 8 divisions of four teams for the regular season voting, to make it easier to classify teams, and when the playoffs start, we combine 2 divisions together.
I really like this idea...It makes the regular season voting easier, and makes the early playoff rounds more exciting because you get new matchups that you weren't already looking at when you were doing regular season voting. There would likely be more upsets also.
Playoff seeding is based on how many points you earned during regular season voting with the 2 division leaders automatically getting the top 2 spots.
If there are only four teams per division then GMs ought to be able to choose which division to be in. We have had voluntary divisional selection in the minor leagues before and it worked out pretty well: Divisions are posted and GMs state on the thread which division they want (with an opt-out period after it's done in case an early sign-upper wishes to switch divisions after seeing who joined them).
I really don't know why more people don't co-GM, at least in the lower drafts. 7 of the 8 MLD winners listed in the stickied thread were by teams with co-GMs.
But anyway, this is about the main draft; I would be in favor of requiring "newbies" to co-GM.
As someone who partnered their first time in the draft, I would also be in favor of it. It's SOOO helpful. I can't emphasize this enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
more divisions makes it more likely that "good" teams would go out early, if that matters to people. The 8 division winners would have to be put in a pre-set bracket for the final 3 rounds of the playoffs. With 4 divisions, only the final 4 (the last 2 rounds) are in a pre-set bracket.
I'm fine with either way.
Yeah, that would be something that might bother people I think (good teams going out early)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho
Another idea I want to broach. Not everyone gets to make the playoffs.
Wouldn't have an issue with 24 teams making the playoffs.
A possible scenario of that could be with 8 divisions, the division winners get byes into the second round, then each 2nd and 3rd place team in each division gets drafted into a big pool kind of like the way they make World Cup groupings (I could explain this better later on if anyone is interested) for first round games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour
How about 8 divisions of four teams for the regular season voting, to make it easier to classify teams, and when the playoffs start, we combine 2 divisions together.
Also not a bad idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18
I really like this idea...It makes the regular season voting easier, and makes the early playoff rounds more exciting because you get new matchups that you weren't already looking at when you were doing regular season voting. There would likely be more upsets also.
Playoff seeding is based on how many points you earned during regular season voting with the 2 division leaders automatically getting the top 2 spots.
I'd do something like this: (assuming every team makes the playoffs in this scenario) Combine two divisions together, have 1st place in the one division play 4th place in the other. 2nd Place plays 3rd, 3rd plays 2nd, and 4th plays the other first place team. Then just keep going from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander
If there are only four teams per division then GMs ought to be able to choose which division to be in. We have had voluntary divisional selection in the minor leagues before and it worked out pretty well: Divisions are posted and GMs state on the thread which division they want (with an opt-out period after it's done in case an early sign-upper wishes to switch divisions after seeing who joined them).
Don't know how I feel about that. That could be kind of weird. I think we should probably stick to keeping them random.
Wouldn't have an issue with 24 teams making the playoffs.
A possible scenario of that could be with 8 divisions, the division winners get byes into the second round, then each 2nd and 3rd place team in each division gets drafted into a big pool kind of like the way they make World Cup groupings (I could explain this better later on if anyone is interested) for first round games.
Would like to learn more about this idea, sounds perfect.
The reason why I would like teams to miss the playoffs is to bring player values in line with reality. Marcel Dionne should be a 1st line centre. Claude Lemieux should not be a second line RW. But because all teams make the playoffs, it incentivizes only judging players based on their post season play, making all time greats liabilities and average players assets.
... Claude Lemieux should not be a second line RW. But because all teams make the playoffs, it incentivizes only judging players based on their post season play,...
And yet 4th,5th,6th,7th,8th seed REGULAR SEASON standing teams never win their division in the ATD playoffs!!! This is more unrealistic than a team sacrificing regular season producers for playoff heroes.
And yet 4th,5th,6th,7th,8th seed REGULAR SEASON standing teams never win their division in the ATD playoffs!!! This is more unrealistic than a team sacrificing regular season producers for playoff heroes.
I was beaten by a 6th seed when I won the division in the regular season.
The truth is, since the ATD happens "on paper" upsets are going to be more rare than reality.
Would like to learn more about this idea, sounds perfect.
The reason why I would like teams to miss the playoffs is to bring player values in line with reality. Marcel Dionne should be a 1st line centre. Claude Lemieux should not be a second line RW. But because all teams make the playoffs, it incentivizes only judging players based on their post season play, making all time greats liabilities and average players assets.
I was not for teams missing playoffs, as I think the #1 priority of this draft should always be having fun and enjoying ourselves, but this is a very good point, and would also be interested to learn more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho
I was beaten by a 6th seed when I won the division in the regular season.
The truth is, since the ATD happens "on paper" upsets are going to be more rare than reality.
I also got beaten by a 7th seed a few drafts ago. As Nalyd wrote, we ought to understand the limit of a draft 'on paper'.
So, 8 divisions of 4 teams, 1st seed gets a bye, 2nd and 3rd are fighting each other (probably 2nd seed of one division vs. 3rd seed of another division) and 4th seed miss the playoffs. I actually would be for that.
So did Hockey Outsider and I. So did several other guys. It works to have someone to bounce ideas off of in PMs, to avoid impulsive homer picks, to reflect and strategize together.
HOLY COW! There's a-never-before-raised idea that might actually work! It is MUCH easier to assess the relative worth of teams when there are lesser per division. Of course, this would make regualr season standings less important than playoff skills, as there will be eight number one seeds. Still, it's a fantastic idea worth considering.
Perhaps at least conditionally,... required unless 1) a target number of teams isn't reached (28,32); 2) the 'newbie' is a History board regular/5000+ post long time HfBoarder.
