Anything intriguing enough to copy from the PWHL?

[qcal1427]

Or the Calgary fans would hope for a win and chance to make a run in the playoffs, I think you drastically undervalue the competitive nature of the players if you think they will choose to forgo a chance at the cup just so they have a better draft pick to come in and potentially take their roles.

Of course players would but fans and management absolutely would not. The Mavs did this three years ago in the NBA (just to ensure a top 10 pick, let alone 1st OA) and the league rightfully gave them a massive fine for doing so Dallas Mavericks hit with $750k fine for sitting players with playoff hopes alive.

You should never create a scenario in which a fanbase would be disappointed they made the playoffs which is exactly what this proposal does.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I’m not sure what is confusing about that, the PWHL is trying out a draft order that rewards better picks to the team with the most points after being mathematically eliminated. I think it makes more sense to be least points after elimination because I don’t like rewarding teams for playing meaningless games due to poor roster construction.

The players are not going to intentionally tank the last game of the season that could get them into the playoffs and a shot at the cup. In my scenario this conflict of interest is only possibly in play for one game of the season vs the current way where the bottom 10 teams are routinely hoping for losses from December on making half the games in the second half a mockery of competitiveness.

Ya the PWHL system is way better than your proposal. The NHL teams would never vote for your change, rewarding the best teams of the worst 16.

 

[Obvious Fabertism]

Of course players would but fans and management absolutely would not. The Mavs did this three years ago in the NBA (just to ensure a top 10 pick, let alone 1st OA) and the league rightfully gave them a massive fine for doing so Dallas Mavericks hit with $750k fine for sitting players with playoff hopes alive.

You should never create a scenario in which a fanbase would be disappointed they made the playoffs which is exactly what this proposal does.

It’s the same level of disappointment as now, the last team eliminated still has to win the lottery and the last team in still has a very tough road in front of them. The teams that just barely snuck in are then more likely to be borderline next season and have a better chance at a top pick then if they are slightly jumped. Much healthier way for teams to advance than going from intentionally abysmal to trying to win with young talent. Lots of top picks end up underperforming their potentials due to awful managers around them.

 

[Obvious Fabertism]

Ya the PWHL system is way better than your proposal. The NHL teams would never vote for your change, rewarding the best teams of the worst 16.

Rewarding the best team of the worst 16 is the goal yes. I personally don’t understand why a league that stresses the importance of everything being earned goes out of the way to reward blatant incompetence. Managers that aren’t good enough to even get their team to the median should be fired rather than rewarded with the leagues most marketable players.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Rewarding the best team of the worst 16 is the goal yes. I personally don’t understand why a league that stresses the importance of everything being earned goes out of the way to reward blatant incompetence. Managers that aren’t good enough to even get their team to the median should be fired rather than rewarded with the leagues most marketable players.

Then I wonder why MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL all use the inverse order system, with all but NFL using some kind of a lottery.

 

[PistolPete]

Then I wonder why MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL all use the inverse order system, with all but NFL using some kind of a lottery.

The entire draft system was created to control salaries.

They figured, might as well go worst to first

 

[brentashton]

Having only 8 teams would be fun. Imagine the level of play!

Hockey related revenue would be smaller. Gary’s head would explode.

 

[PistolPete]

Hockey related revenue would be smaller. Gary’s head would explode.

I'm not seeing a drawback here.

 

[the valiant effort]

Having only 8 teams would be fun. Imagine the level of play!

 

[SladeWilson23]

321 point system easily.

 

[lawrence]

shut the league down. I'm gonna get banned for stating the obvious reasons but I won't.

 

[Channelcat]

Only one for me a 3-2-1 hybrid of
2 - 1.5 - 0.5
Keeps the standings, closer to now or before, than 3-2-1.

I prefer when math makes sense. 3-2-1 makes sense

 

[Golden_Jet]

I prefer when math makes sense. 3-2-1 makes sense

Sorry you find fractions are hard
0.5 + 1.5 = 2, with this you don’t end up with the last place team to make the playoffs, with 125 points and the division winner with 158 points.

 

[Channelcat]

Sorry you find fractions are hard
0.5 + 1.5 = 2, with this you don’t end up with the last place team to make the playoffs, with 125 points and the division winner with 158 points.

Agreed, that also works. I was referring to the current NHL system where some games distribute 3 points and some 2.

 

[Machinehead]

I've followed this league a bit and actually, the 3-2-1 point system is my least favorite thing about it.

It is migraine-inducing looking at the standings and trying to get a feel for what's going on. Way too many variables.

It also makes the overtimes a lot less exciting when you go in knowing you're getting fewer points.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Agreed, that also works. I was referring to the current NHL system where some games distribute 3 points and some 2.

Ok Thanks

 

[Rodgerwilco]

No substituting at atart of a PK?

First overall chooses it's first round opponent fir the playoffs?

A SHG negates the PK?

3-2-1 point system?

Golden Plan Draft format (first oick gies to team with most points after being mathematically eliminated)?

No substituting at start of a PK?
- No thanks. Would take away a lot of the appeal of having players who excel at the PK. Also, if the Center on the ice at the time takes the penalty, then the team doesn't have a center to take the draw.

First overall chooses it's first round opponent for the playoffs?
- Absolutely no. I prefer things like playoff match-ups to be decided by a formal system, not just the team's feelings at the time.

A SHG negates the PK?
- No, scoring a SHG is good enough. The team that committed the foul should have to serve the entirety of the penalty regardless.

3-2-1 point system?
- Could be alright, but I don't necessarily think there's a huge problem with how the system is right now.

Golden Plan Draft format (first pick goes to team with most points after being mathematically eliminated)?
- Easily the worst one. Can't state how bad this would be. Giving the 1st pick to the 17th best team in the league would be absurd. The worst teams having a higher chance to get good talent is the best system. Of course, this can sometimes reward bad ownership by squandering good talent, it's the most fair system IMO.

I think people HIGHLY over-estimate how often true tanking happens.

 

[PistolPete]

No substituting at start of a PK?
- No thanks. Would take away a lot of the appeal of having players who excel at the PK. Also, if the Center on the ice at the time takes the penalty, then the team doesn't have a center to take the draw.

Very few people watch hockey to watch PKers. Lol

Never thought of the centre and FO issue; that makes me like the idea even more.

First overall chooses it's first round opponent for the playoffs?
- Absolutely no. I prefer things like playoff match-ups to be decided by a formal system, not just the team's feelings at the time.

It would be a formal system- by definition lol

To me, it just adds a bit of spice to matches that may otherwise nit have that ore-hyoe such as between rivals or teams that have already faced each other in the PO recently

A SHG negates the PK?
- No, scoring a SHG is good enough. The team that committed the foul should have to serve the entirety of the penalty regardless.

I'm ambivalent myself about this one. Theoretically it could encourage PK teams to be more aggressive but given how conservative coaches are, highly unlikely

3-2-1 point system?
- Could be alright, but I don't necessarily think there's a huge problem with how the system is right now.

I hate both actually. I want just wins and losses. If a game is tied, award no points at all. Some look at ties as neither team lost but I look at it as neither team was good enough to win, ergo, neither deserves to be rewarded with a point

Golden Plan Draft format (first pick goes to team with most points after being mathematically eliminated)?
- Easily the worst one. Can't state how bad this would be. Giving the 1st pick to the 17th best team in the league would be absurd. The worst teams having a higher chance to get good talent is the best system. Of course, this can sometimes reward bad ownership by squandering good talent, it's the most fair system IMO.

I think people HIGHLY over-estimate how often true tanking happens.

I would like to see them do away with thr draft altogether

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Very few people watch hockey to watch PKers. Lol

Never thought of the centre and FO issue; that makes me like the idea even more.

It would be a formal system- by definition lol

To me, it just adds a bit of spice to matches that may otherwise nit have that ore-hyoe such as between rivals or teams that have already faced each other in the PO recently

I'm ambivalent myself about this one. Theoretically it could encourage PK teams to be more aggressive but given how conservative coaches are, highly unlikely

I hate both actually. I want just wins and losses. If a game is tied, award no points at all. Some look at ties as neither team lost but I look at it as neither team was good enough to win, ergo, neither deserves to be rewarded with a point


I would like to see them do away with thr draft altogether

- It's not that people watch specifically FOR the PKers, but it's a part of the game and strategy of roster building. Don't see why removing a team's ability to ice a proper line would be beneficial.

- By 'formal system' I mean that the way that the way the numbers and standings align is who plays who. Not just someone's feelings deciding they want one team or the other.

- I'm not sold it would make a big difference in philosophy. Especially if you're adding in the other rule that handicaps PK units by design.

-Wouldn't disagree with just straight wins and losses, but can't imagine it would ever work this way.

- Very curious what system you'd suggest rather than a draft.


Basically my philosophy, in most sports and otherwise, is that most rule changes should address an actual problem. None of these proposals (except for maybe the point system for some folks) would actually be fixing an issue. They're just adding gimmicky changes for the sake of it.

 

[PistolPete]

- It's not that people watch specifically FOR the PKers, but it's a part of the game and strategy of roster building. Don't see why removing a team's ability to ice a proper line would be beneficial.

I have always thought this rule should be the case since the team did commit a penalty and is being penalized. Why allow it to make substitutions? They finally, after decades, started having the FO in the defensive zone in recognition of this.

- By 'formal system' I mean that the way that the way the numbers and standings align is who plays who. Not just someone's feelings deciding they want one team or the other.

- I'm not sold it would make a big difference in philosophy. Especially if you're adding in the other rule that handicaps PK units by design.

-Wouldn't disagree with just straight wins and losses, but can't imagine it would ever work this way.

- Very curious what system you'd suggest rather than a draft.

Recruitment.

1. With both the eefular cap and rookie cap, large markets can't just gobble up prospects.

2. Prospects- since no team can offer huge amounts more than another team- unless a team has a ton of cap space- they will have other considerations at play- playing time right away; reputation of thr coaches, the team, the market etc

Any concerns can be addressed with tweaks to incentive players to sign with smaller markets, Canadian markets etc

Basically my philosophy, in most sports and otherwise, is that most rule changes should address an actual problem. None of these proposals (except for maybe the point system for some folks) would actually be fixing an issue. They're just adding gimmicky changes for the sake of it.

My approach is how can it be made more entertaining? More exciting?

This will put a dagger in your heart probably but one rule xhange I would live to see if a delay of game penalty for freezing the puck. Why? There are about 60 stoppages per game, 20 or so are freezing the puck. A huge issue? Not really. But one of thr most enjoyable stretches of a game are when thr play continues for an extended time AND freezing the puck kills the play st one of the most exciting times of the game- offensive pressure around the net.

 

[Machinehead]

In my personal opinion, when it comes to making the game more entertaining, I don't think the problems with hockey are rule-based. At least not on-ice.

The cap system, as it stands, is a bit stifling, and the NHL really doesn't have the salacious off-seasons and deadlines that you see elsewhere. There are also no truly great teams like you used to see. I'm not advocating for getting rid of the cap entirely but they wanted a parity league and they got it.

And in doing so...I don't know, the same teams win over and over again anyway, but they're just a little bit better than the rest of the teams instead of being powerhouses.

There's also just way too many goobers in this league, and too much ice time given to relatively untalented players. In every other sport, you have to do something measurable to justify your place. Hockey still has a lot of guys running around that are just a vibe and it's hard to watch them play.

As far as on-ice rules go, I don't think anything addresses my concerns. A 3-2-1 system or a jailbreak rule aren't fundamentally changing the 60 minutes of hockey you're watching every night.

 

[PistolPete]

In my personal opinion, when it comes to making the game more entertaining, I don't think the problems with hockey are rule-based. At least not on-ice.

The cap system, as it stands, is a bit stifling, and the NHL really doesn't have the salacious off-seasons and deadlines that you see elsewhere. There are also no truly great teams like you used to see. I'm not advocating for getting rid of the cap entirely but they wanted a parity league and they got it.

And in doing so...I don't know, the same teams win over and over again anyway, but they're just a little bit better than the rest of the teams instead of being powerhouses.

There's also just way too many goobers in this league, and too much ice time given to relatively untalented players. In every other sport, you have to do something measurable to justify your place. Hockey still has a lot of guys running around that are just a vibe and it's hard to watch them play.

As far as on-ice rules go, I don't think anything addresses my concerns. A 3-2-1 system or a jailbreak rule aren't fundamentally changing the 60 minutes of hockey you're watching every night.

Wow. GMTA lol

I've always found it annoying that when watching a game I'm watching players that will have little impact on the outcome of games.

I''m not advocating NBA but it'd be great if the top 9 forwarda played 20 minutes a game at least and the defenceman were cut back to 5 ans played 24 minutes.

This also makes sense from an entertainment perspective. No one pays $100 to watch Mark Kastelic or Austin Watson play.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I have always thought this rule should be the case since the team did commit a penalty and is being penalized. Why allow it to make substitutions? They finally, after decades, started having the FO in the defensive zone in recognition of this.

Recruitment.

1. With both the eefular cap and rookie cap, large markets can't just gobble up prospects.

2. Prospects- since no team can offer huge amounts more than another team- unless a team has a ton of cap space- they will have other considerations at play- playing time right away; reputation of thr coaches, the team, the market etc

Any concerns can be addressed with tweaks to incentive players to sign with smaller markets, Canadian markets etc

My approach is how can it be made more entertaining? More exciting?

This will put a dagger in your heart probably but one rule xhange I would live to see if a delay of game penalty for freezing the puck. Why? There are about 60 stoppages per game, 20 or so are freezing the puck. A huge issue? Not really. But one of thr most enjoyable stretches of a game are when thr play continues for an extended time AND freezing the puck kills the play st one of the most exciting times of the game- offensive pressure around the net.

They're already being penalized with the opposing team's Powerplay. I don't see the need to add more punishment to a penalty.

Recruitment sounds like it was be an incredibly chaotic system. I'm not sure teams would even want to have to add an entire 'recruitment' or what benefit it would have over the current system.

I guess if someone's intention is to create an EA Sports arcade-style system for the sake of quirkiness then some of this stuff could work. From a practical sense it just don't make a lot of sense or improve the game from a competitive standpoint, in my opinion.


Your final rule change there is quite literally something my friends and I used to do in EA NHL video games. When your goalie freezes the puck the rule was that you had to pass it out, but the opposing team wasn't allowed to steal the puck, they had to let the goalie's team get the puck and start their possession from behind the net. Quite literally a video game rule lol. Unless you're also implementing something like this, I'm not sure why opposing teams would just allow a goalie to pass the puck out freely. Or how a goalie could play the puck out in a reasonable time if they have to dive or fall down during a save.

 

[PistolPete]

They're already being penalized with the opposing team's Powerplay. I don't see the need to add more punishment to a penalty.

Here's another one for you:

I'd love to see them stop allowing icing on the PK AND a PP continues even if a goal is scored. I'm OK with an average success rate of 30%.lol

Recruitment sounds like it was be an incredibly chaotic system. I'm not sure teams would even want to have to add an entire 'recruitment' or what benefit it would have over the current system.

I guess if someone's intention is to create an EA Sports arcade-style system for the sake of quirkiness then some of this stuff could work. From a practical sense it just don't make a lot of sense or improve the game from a competitive standpoint, in my opinion.

Part of it is personal bias. I detest the draft system and thr fact that who knows how many careers were affected badly because a player got stuck going to a ahitty organization (shitty with respect to team culture, ability to develop talent etc)

Your final rule change there is quite literally something my friends and I used to do in EA NHL video games. When your goalie freezes the puck the rule was that you had to pass it out, but the opposing team wasn't allowed to steal the puck, they had to let the goalie's team get the puck and start their possession from behind the net. Quite literally a video game rule lol. Unless you're also implementing something like this, I'm not sure why opposing teams would just allow a goalie to pass the puck out freely. Or how a goalie could play the puck out in a reasonable time if they have to dive or fall down during a save.

That is something the goalie would have to figure out and makes it all the more entertaining and intriguing.

Vast majority of freezing are intentional- as in the goalie used his glove to cover thr puck or fell on jt deliberately.

The fact that goalies were ever allowed to stop play this way baffled me since it ends the most entertaining time of the game.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I’m a no to all these,
One I would consider is, if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty call, you still get the PP.