How to promote parity in hockey pool leagues?

[Chunkys_Choice]

First off, I'm not sure if "Trade Talk" is the right forum for this, so admins, please move it if there's a better spot for fantasy hockey league rules/commissioner talk.

I'm a co-commissioner of the league in the signature below, which is currently in its 5th season. For the most part it's been really good, and I think our rules / overall structure are great. However, some managers have unfortunately not made good decisions, and as time has gone on, the rosters have become more and more imbalanced. My team is very strong, and so is the other commissioner's. Then there are 2 other pretty good teams, 4 mediocre teams, 1 that is diligently rebuilding with all young prospects, and 1 that is basically total crap. This team's best player was Brad Marchand but he just traded him to the other commissioner for Hoffman, JVR, and Pominville, so now his best player is Mike Hoffman. In a 10-team league, that's pretty bad. Now maybe you'll say people who make bad decisions are losers and deserve to lose and that's fine, but what happens if he quits? I can't imagine trying to find a new owner to take over that team.

Does anyone have any advice on how to deal with / prevent imbalances like this? The other commissioner and I both feel somewhat guilty for having teams that are way better than anyone else's, and while we enjoy trying our best to win, we're considering ways to encourage more league parity. These are a few ideas we've considered:

- Instead of everyone keeping 12, the first place winner only gets to keep 10 and the second place winner only gets to keep 11. Everybody else gets to keep 12.
- Allow trades to be vetoed.
- Full reset of the league with the same rules and people but make all players available in a draft (with the hope that weaker managers have learned from their mistakes and will be better after a fresh start).
- Make some elite players untradeable (I think yahoo has a function for this?? It would only make sense after a full league reset).
- Contraction to only 8 or 9 teams.

Do you like or dislike any of those ideas or have any better suggestions? What do other leagues do to promote parity?

[kevinsrangers]

there's a saying that if everyone in the world started tomorrow with the same amount of money, the same people that are rich now would be rich in ten years. not sure it's go that far but id bet that in your league, if you started over you and the other commissioner would be the top teams in no time. our league also had this problem by the way. the problem is to make it more competitive you need to penalize the best teams. the problem with that is that you generally penalizing the guys who actually pay attention more, study more, log In more, or more work in, etc. how Fair is that? you end up having guys that rarely log in, make no trades to better their team, and are barely active getting rewarded. it's like saying try harder and we'll penalize you a bit.
from what I've seen the guys that are more serious are the guys on top. especially if there's no money involved. by half season you'd get six or seven teams tanking.
if love to hear some ideas on how to fix this as well.

[kevinsrangers]

I'd also like a commissioners section added where ideas and rules,etc could be discussed as well.

[Chunkys_Choice]

I pretty much agree with all of that, but could you elaborate on "especially if there's no money involved"? Our league does have money involved but it's a very small amount ($20 each per year, all paid out in prizes). Do you think raising the price would help solve our problems? We wouldn't want people to think the commissioners, with the best rosters, are just trying to take more of people's money... but maybe after a full reset and higher fees, we'd see different behaviour?

[kevinsrangers]

with money the guy in third may trade his young superstar to get what he needs to compete. you won't get as many teams tanking as early imo.
without money it seems that at least sixty percent of teams are always rebuilding.
we've made anti tanking rules but there's plenty of ways around most rules to lose if you want to.

[kevinsrangers]

not sure if raising the price would end it but it might help a bit. maybe taking the extra money and buying a prize( jersey, trophy,etc.) to give to the most improved team by points???

[FrozenInferno]

At the bare minimum any serious league should have a trade veto system to prevent suspected collusion, and in extreme cases trades that are ridiculously awful or one-sided. You can set it up different ways depending on what your league wants to do.

[Chunkys_Choice]

---

[Chunkys_Choice]

maybe taking the extra money and buying a prize( jersey, trophy,etc.) to give to the most improved team by points???

I love the idea of a prize for most improved team!

[Mr. Guru]

I'll say this much:

A league is only as good as it's weakest GM

[Chunkys_Choice]

At the bare minimum any serious league should have a trade veto system to prevent suspected collusion, and in extreme cases trades that are ridiculously awful or one-sided. You can set it up different ways depending on what your league wants to do.

Prior to starting this league, some of us same people did one-year leagues and we had a full veto system in place on yahoo, but it was over-used and became annoying. Everyone wanted it gone so when we set up this keeper league we instituted the following: if anyone has questions about the legitimacy of a trade they can ask both trade partners for an explanation and if the commissioners don't think it's legit, we can overturn the trade. I think this is enough to get rid of any potential collusion but it isn't helping with plain old bad trading decisions.

[Mr. Guru]

I disagree.

Any serious league shouldn't have a trade veto system because any serious league wouldn't have GMs like that in their league.

[Chunkys_Choice]

I'll say this much:

A league is only as good as it's weakest GM

So then how do you make the weakest GM stronger? Wait for them to quit and recruit smarter participants? But what smart fantasy hockey player is going to want to take over a super crappy team?

[Axeman33]

I'll say this much:

A league is only as good as it's weakest GM

This is pretty much my thoughts exactly. The stronger GMs will always feast on the weaker ones. If you feel you have a weak GM who isn't as motivated, you can replace him with another one and hope for the best. Good recruiting is tough to do but can make all the difference when replacing GMs. Don't just accept the first one you talk to.

You can try and reduce the number of keepers I suppose. If you want to really make it challenging for all, drop the keepers down to four or five. Then drafting becomes the strategy and again, may the strong survive.

[The Bottlenecker]

Agree that the league is only as good as its weakest GM. Hard to argue that.

Reducing the number of keepers might help. In fact my small league with my family started as a Keep 6, but even it made parity impossible. We now have no keepers, and the league champion isn't "crowned" until the end of the season (last year it went to the wire).

A suggestion that a friend made to me once was to have periodic mandatory trades. Basically, it went something like this:
Imagine a 10 team league. If the top team is allowed to protect its top three or four keepers, but every other roster player is available to the last place team. The last place GM, whoever that is during mandatory trade period (maybe three / four times a year) can choose any one of his players and swap them for, presumably, the top team's fifth (& unprotected) best player. Team #2 must make a swap with team #9 (again team #9 decides), team #8 swaps with #3, team #7 with #4 and team #6 with #5. While this system may "punish" the best teams, it also forces the lower seeded GM to do some thinking. If his team continues to suck, well that is on him.