Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Tanking Rule Suggestion.
Topic Started: Feb 17 2010, 11:26 AM (1,038 Views)
Tran

Easy rule, to discourage tanking.

Finish last, get fired (transferred to a new team).

Of course, then you'll get skilled tankers who finish 29th.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cap'n

mig174
Feb 17 2010, 09:33 PM

I wouldn't like the firing rule to be reinstated, however - newer GMs can be bested by experienced GMs quite easily while they're still learning (like me and kisle). And depending on how unreasonable board demands are, we can get fired very easily. I got fired twice in 1.5 seasons with the Leafs because the board wanted playoffs every time.
This could be a case where the commish(es) would assess the situation and allow you to stay on because of inexperience, etc.

As far as boards go, Thomas was able to escape being fired simply because he tanked so late in the season but if I recall there were several news items stating they were upset with him and he seemed on the borderline. Mordie was fired once, who else? seems like there were others?

I'm not saying the firing rule was perfect, but it did seem to hold some of the tanking at bay.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
drewst18

I don't really care about tanking and finishing w/ 10th overall...

Its the idea that now people could be aiming higher.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gavin
Member Avatar

This is one of those threads that I start reading, think I have an opinion on, then continue reading and realise that my opinion is changing.

Obviously, I'm anti-tank. I'd hope we all are. But I tend to agree with Tran and Thomas that adding a new rule with X amount of clauses is a recipe for trouble. Thomas' suggestion that Jason handles things on a case-by-case basis sounded good, but I appeciate what Drew said about the problems with that too. Plus, I'd fear that it could only add to the gossipyness and behind-the-scenes bitching that no-one wants. Especially those of us who miss the convos in question and hear about it all second-hand.

I'm thinking maybe the best solution is what Matt suggested: re-working and re-implementing some form of the old firing rule, alongside the one we currently have. (I'd suppport three strikes rather than two BTW).

Thinking outside the box, I wonder if it would be possible to somehow incentivise the mid-pack teams to do well rather than punishing them for tanking? Cause at present, the rewards are far greater for, say, finishing 10th in your conference than finishing 6th.
Edited by gavin, Feb 18 2010, 05:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jake
Big Time Faggot
I've always thought the idea of rewarding teams for failure was completely stupid. Why should the NHL waste it's most marketable young talent on the very teams that have proven that they can't be competitive? It makes a lot more sense to give the #1 pick to the team that misses the playoffs with the most points. A team that finishes 9th would do more with, say, Taylor Hall than a team that finishes last. Put Hall on, say, the Wings (who will hopefully miss the playoffs this year, but should finish right around 9th in the conference) and they are right back near the top next year. Put Hall on the Oilers and they're still going to suck ass next year. That also makes a game between the #9 and #10 teams on the last day of the season something exciting to watch.

Wouldn't work in this league though, because there would be a lot more incentive to finish 9th than 8th. And it'd be a lot easier to intentionally drop from 8th to 9th with plausible deniability.

If we're going to bring a rule back, making it three firings doesn't make any sense. It should be two firings without making the playoffs in between. There's no reason anyone should get fired twice without making the playoffs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Count Hockula
Administrator
Why does it even matter? Let people play how they wanna play.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
getzlaf15
Member Avatar
cherry77
I agree Eric.

We should change the draft pick rule. This way people who challenge for playoff spots get rewarded more than those at the bottom. :P

17th = 1st overall
18th = 2nd overall
19th = 3rd overall
20th = 4th overall
21st = 5th overall
22nd = 6th overall
23rd = 7th overall
24th = 8th overall
25th = 9th overall
26th = 10th overall
27th = 11th overall
28th = 12th overall
29th = 13th overall
30th = 14th overall
16th = 15th overall
15th = 16th overall
14th = 17th overall
13th = 18th overall
etc...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cap'n

I don't like the idea of messing with the draft order at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jake
Big Time Faggot
Yeah, I explained already why it wouldn't work in this league to change the draft order how I had laid it out. In real life though, it would work really well.

Another way it could be done in real life and maybe even the league is to enter all the non-playoff teams into a lottery with equal weight for all. That way, there's no benefit to tanking once you're out of the playoffs, and there's no reward for being the worst team in the league.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Machinae
Greedy Draft Pick Whore
I didn't tank, so I don't see what the problem is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · League Rules · Next Topic »
Add Reply