ATD2012 rules discussion thread (see post 169 for the latest proposed rules) | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

ATD2012 rules discussion thread (see post 169 for the latest proposed rules)

TheDevilMadeMe

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,998
Brooklyn
Let's figure out the rules before we start.

Edit: Ignore the following part. We decided to have a 32 team target, but not a strict cap.

Please rank the following 6 options in order. This is the target size of the draft, obviously we still have to see how many teams sign up.

28 Teams
30 Teams
32 Teams
36 Teams
40 Teams
No target (As many teams as want to show up)

Edit: Feel free to discuss the pros and cons of different configurations here before you vote. Also, I don't see any reason why people can't vote and then change their mind as the draft gets closer. (If someone thinks this is a problem, please speak out).)[/I]
 
Last edited:
Edit: Nevermind, I wouldn't mind seeing some discussion before voting, but I'm strongly leaning towards reducing the draft size back to its traditional scope.
 
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe said:
As many teams as want to show up
Click to expand...
That's been tradition.

Of course, a TARGET number has been sought, and once reached, then the draft has begun. That's been the most common procedure, and less stress than some of the try-to-reach-a-magical-number approach drafts of late.

Whether you shoot for 36 (8 teams per division), 32 (7 teams per division) or 28 (6 teams per division), then GMs ought to be encouraged to co-GM to be as inclusive as possible of all those interested.

There's never been a 'sorry we're full' approach taken to a draft on this board.
 
VanIslander said:
That's been tradition.

Of course, a TARGET number has been sought, and once reached, then the draft has begun. That's been the most common procedure, and less stress than some of the try-to-reach-a-magical-number approach drafts of late.

Whether you shoot for 36 (8 teams per division), 32 (7 teams per division) or 28 (6 teams per division), then GMs ought to be encouraged to co-GM to be as inclusive as possible of all those interested.

There's never been a 'sorry we're full' approach taken to a draft on this board.
Click to expand...

But there was never a huge push to get to 40 teams like there was last year - in previous years, we pushed to get to 32.

IMO, the push to add too many teams caused the draft to suffer.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
But there was never a huge push to get to 40 teams like there was last year - in previous years, we pushed to get to 32.
Click to expand...
True. 32 = 8 teams in each of 4 divisions, an elegant alignment come playoff time. Hence that's why 32 teams was often the target.
 
I would go for 28 and if there's too much people encourage co-GMing , especially for rookie GMs that might quit in the middle of the draft.
 
I really like the idea of 32, but I've got no issue of going to 40 if the actual interest is there to get to 40. The last thing I want to see, though, is the amount of infighting that we saw last time to get to 40. If we can manage to get to 32 and have 2 more that want in, it's probably better to ask if a more experienced GM would mind co-GMing a rookie manager them then pushing for 2 more people that might not be ready to join if only to get to 36. At least that's my take on it, I'm still a relative newcomer to this whole thing.
 
I might co-GM myself but nothing is sure at this point.I would only be interested in co-gming with veteran GMs to step up my game.
 
Last edited:
ReenMachine said:
I would go for 28 and if there's too much people encourage co-GMing , especially for rookie GMs that might quit in the middle of the draft.
Click to expand...

I always thought that "true rookie" GMs (meaning they have never taken part in a draft at any level AND are not regulars on the HOH board) should be required to take on a co-GM.
 
If I have a top pick again there's a strong chance I might be willing to trade all my set of picks.Been there done that , want to try something differant.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
I always thought that "true rookie" GMs (meaning they have never taken part in a draft at any level AND are not regulars on the HOH board) should be required to take on a co-GM.
Click to expand...

I agree but at the same time I personally shouldn't have the right to push for it since last year I was a true rookie GM and nobody imposed it on me.
 
ReenMachine said:
I agree but at the same time I personally shouldn't have the right to push for it since last year I was a true rookie GM and nobody imposed it on me.
Click to expand...

True. At least you had several thousand posts on other boards, first though

Some GMs come in with less than 50 posts and get their own teams! Those are the guys who are most likely to abandon their teams (or be sock puppets...)

Maybe a minimum post count of something like 100 to get your own team?
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
True. At least you had several thousand posts on other boards, first though

Some GMs come in with less than 50 posts and get their own teams! Those are the guys who are most likely to abandon their teams (or be sock puppets...)

Maybe a minimum post count of something like 100 to get your own team?
Click to expand...

100 is pretty laughable , I would say 1000.

It also depends how strong you think the core of the ATD community is , if you think it's strong enough you can force co-gming for rookie GMs without putting the thing at risk.If we have a lot of teams coming in you have to force co-gm'ing because another 40 teams draft will be too much in my opinion.We absolutely have to avoid having GM that quit on their team and I will go as far as to say we should avoid getting GMs that get the majority of their picks late and doesn't participate that much , making ridiculous picks that completely screw a player position in an all-time sense.There's reach and there's major reach like the Sundin case last year.

Finally , I don't think post count is what matters , it's more what we know about the posters , the only p-lace to recruit is in the history of hockey forum and ask the regulars that aren't participant in the ATD to at least take a look at it and re-evaluate their positions on not participating.
 
At first, do not attempt to recruit anyone. See how many teams we get, and then judge it from there. If we get 38 guys with no recruiting, then go recruit 2 off the HOH board only. If we get 31, recruit one more, etc.
 
I agree with the general sentiments here.

I am 100% for having 40 teams in this draft. BUT, we should get there "organically" and should not need to push as hard as we did to make 40 happen.

If it ends up at 37 I'm fine with that. We can always make a playoff format work, no matter how many teams there are.
 
Yeah, 32-36 would be my vote. Leaning closer to 32, but I'm okay with it just about in any sort of manner. Planning on having some sort of co-GM again as per usual for me.

40 seemed a little crazy to me. I'd say just no recruitment and see what happens.
 
**** 40 , it's getting too long at the end + the playoff and people doesn't have the same kind of momentum a 32 teams draft can give.We absolutely need to avoid a 40 team draft.
 
If we do end up with a 40 team draft (and I doubt we will if we don't actively push for it), then we'd better shorten the clocks for the middle of the draft.
 
BiLLY_ShOE1721 said:
At first, do not attempt to recruit anyone. See how many teams we get, and then judge it from there. If we get 38 guys with no recruiting, then go recruit 2 off the HOH board only. If we get 31, recruit one more, etc.
Click to expand...
That is just sane! Absolute sanity.
 
If strong participation throughout the draft was a given, I would say the more teams the better. Since that's never the case, I agree that somewhere around 32 teams is probably ideal.
 
so why can't we start this at the beginning of January? Any specific reason?
February is pretty far away...
 
I'm cool with any number, to reiterate what TDMM said, if there's 40 teams.

Much shorter clocks for certain. Let's also make sure we also create a standard ruling system before we begin the draft, so there is no repercussions or confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom