| Tanking Rule Suggestion. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 17 2010, 11:26 AM (1,038 Views) | |
| Tran | Feb 17 2010, 11:06 PM Post #31 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Cap'n | Feb 17 2010, 11:09 PM Post #32 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| drewst18 | Feb 17 2010, 11:34 PM Post #33 |
|
I don't really care about tanking and finishing w/ 10th overall... Its the idea that now people could be aiming higher. |
![]() |
|
| gavin | Feb 18 2010, 05:51 AM Post #34 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Jake | Feb 18 2010, 07:12 PM Post #35 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Count Hockula | Feb 20 2010, 02:12 PM Post #36 |
|
Administrator
|
Why does it even matter? Let people play how they wanna play. |
![]() |
|
| getzlaf15 | Feb 20 2010, 02:50 PM Post #37 |
|
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. ![]() 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... |
![]() |
|
| Cap'n | Feb 20 2010, 02:53 PM Post #38 |
|
I don't like the idea of messing with the draft order at all. |
![]() |
|
| Jake | Feb 20 2010, 03:00 PM Post #39 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Machinae | Feb 20 2010, 03:15 PM Post #40 |
|
Greedy Draft Pick Whore
|
I didn't tank, so I don't see what the problem is. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · League Rules · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
8:27 PM Jul 10
|







8:27 PM Jul 10