Reply With QuoteI'll pull some strings and see if I can't get Elliotte Friedmann on the case!Originally Posted by horrorfan
Now all we need is this idea to be suggested to someone in the media to suggest to the NHL! (wishful thinking I know)
I'll pull some strings and see if I can't get Elliotte Friedmann on the case!
I surprised that people are making points using teams turning around their franchises with 1st overall picks like PIT, EDM, CHI... ect....
Yet the people that point the other way at solid drafting haven't mentioned the absolute model example of how an franshise should opperate... Detroit... These guys use amazing scouting and development to constantly find and churn out extreamly solid prospect talent... some of the best have been late picks or undrafted players.
As much as I like the idea of the draft tourny, someone mentioned logistics of players getting paid, how for what, ect... I dont know if you notice we are in a CBA battle at the moment... for this to happen... it would need to be negociated and laid out in the CBA also with its own section to be written in... Now it can be added on quite easily and not bargined the way the current stuff is now...
Also upon reading the CBA features of the low key stuff... I notice the players have a real interest on days off, less intencity days, travel/boarding costs ect ect ect... not to mention for years we have been talking about reductions to Pre-season, Post seasons being to long and the general idea of 80 games being too long... Now you gusy are discussing adding more games for teams that got the shit kicked out of them for 7 months... Most of those players would want to be forgetting the season, and moving on to recouperate and get on with thier summers...
I just don't see the idea working no matter how well its planned out here...
But yes if it did happen, I would deffinatly be watching it!
Current Roster:
F: H Sedin, Plekanec, Perry, Cammalleri, Oshie, Stepan, Anisimov, Kunitz, Justin Williams, Little, Baertchi, Huberdeau, Eberle, Rattie, Hoffman, Holland, Horvat, Dano, Dal Colle, Kerdiles
D: Boumeester, Green, Carlson, Del Zotto, Myers, Alzner, M Staal, Pouliot, Gormley, Mueller
G: Varlamov, Mrazek, Niemi, Vasilevski, Ramo, Hellebuyck
Would it change your mind at all if I also said I'm in favour of playing a 60-game season?
Nope, your still dealing with the same issues... Players want time off, needs to be negociated into the CBA, needs to be a paid action (as the players are being forced to play more games and instead of playing to get the Stanley Cup and prize $$$ associated with it, they are playing for the owners to get a better player that may steal their jobs... Tell a 4th liner to risk his body and play hard so that the team can get McKinnon and cut the 4th liner loose, your asking for him to play himself out of a job)...
Your dropping the season from 82 to 60 games drops the value of TV contracts and advertising revenues (less games = cheaper fees) takes 11 home games away from gate income for all 30 teams... Having a tourny will add a couple games back... but only for those that play in it and go deep... and its unlikly to equal the 11 home games... and unlike the playoffs... How do you sell what is basically a playoff amoungst terrble teams for regular price...
Also what would be more valuable to franchises... playing possibly 2-3 playoff home dates as a 7-8th seed in the playoffs... or trying to win a tourny like this for the #1 pick and getting more than 4 home games in a tourny? We are back to the encouragement of tanking...
May I present you you an idea of instead of a Lottery, or a Tourny... you take the results of every non-payoff team, and throw away the points they earns against playoff teams, and calculate only the stats they compiled agaisnt non-playoff teams and work out how many points they earned per game vs non-playoff opponents... and figure out who was worst amongst the worst and rank the draft based on this formula...
This way the 80 game season is still relevent and used accordingly, and tanking is not encouraged unless it is against terrible teams anyway...
Also a fringe team on the last week of the season making it or not making it, could screw up the whole mathamatics of the rankings by eaither making it or not making it...
A few times the Leafs would have likely been the best under this formula, they would beat the best teams in the lg, but lose to the worst... lol
Current Roster:
F: H Sedin, Plekanec, Perry, Cammalleri, Oshie, Stepan, Anisimov, Kunitz, Justin Williams, Little, Baertchi, Huberdeau, Eberle, Rattie, Hoffman, Holland, Horvat, Dano, Dal Colle, Kerdiles
D: Boumeester, Green, Carlson, Del Zotto, Myers, Alzner, M Staal, Pouliot, Gormley, Mueller
G: Varlamov, Mrazek, Niemi, Vasilevski, Ramo, Hellebuyck
Shortened schedule = time off.There is a strong argument to be made that playing a shortened schedule would actually be a valuable commodity for players because of the reduced wear and tear. It would improve not just quality of life but also the longevity of the players' careers.
Now, as for the money. Local TV money is negligible for most teams so shortening the schedule wouldn't cost them a whole lot. National TV money, which also isn't much compared to other sports, could be kept intact because you would simply arrange the schedule so there are still the same number of nationally televised games. The quality of the product would improve because A) the players are healthier/better rested and B) the intensity of each game is increased because the value of each win has increased. This would serve to drive more fan interest.
You'd certainly lose a lot of money in terms of ticket revenue (the main source of money for many NHL teams) but you could recoup a good deal of those costs by saving on travel. You can save on travel not just by reducing the number of games but also by regionalizing the schedule. If you put a greater emphasis on divisional matchups teams would have to travel less distance, reducing costs greatly.
You could also argue that divisional matchups would serve to further drive up the intensity of games and improve the product.
I'd also add that if you don't think you'd be able to coax a good enough effort out of players in a loser's tournament then you haven't considered that the loser's tournament would offer the perfect testing ground for players in elimination/playoff scenarios. Players would want to prove their worth because regardless of where their team ends up picking, they will be trying to replace these guys if they don't put in the effort.
And how do you sell it? Did I mention that 1.8 million people tuned in to watch the NHL draft lottery? I mentioned that right?
Your last point is interesting. You're suggesting that a team would intentionally drop from 8th to 9th so they could have a better shot at winning the loser's tournament and the number one pick than taking their chances in the Stanley Cup playoffs. I'll admit, I wouldn't put it past some of these managers but I suspect that would be the single toughest thing to pull off from a motivational standpoint.
You'd either have to convince your players not to try down the stretch or you'd have to intentionally keep them out of games only to ask them to play their asses off in the loser's tournament. I think you can ask guys to play in the loser's tournament and they'll do it willingly or you can tell them to sit out and rest knowing they could be helping their team in a playoff push but there's no way you can do both.
You didn't do much to justify flushing 25% of ticket revenues down the toilet. I like the idea of the tournament, but it makes no sense from the owners' perspective to lose 330 regular season games per season. Since the players' salaries are tied to HRR, they wouldn't want that either. Travel savings would recoup a negligible amount compared to what's lost, not only in ticket sales but also TV revenue which for many markets, is pretty big. Regionalizing the schedule is a separate issue so any savings on that front have nothing to do with a shortened season.
I think a more reasonable option to reimburse the players for the additional games they'd have to play would be to give them a cut of the ticket revenue from those games. Makes a lot more sense to give up partial revenue to a handful of games than 100% of revenue from 25% of games. I think it's all moot because these two groups can't even agree on the basic stuff, so throwing this wrench into it would screw things up even more.
Well the tournament and shortened schedule are two separate issues and more importantly it's not like this tournament is even on the table. We know the owners would never do anything like this because as I keep saying they'd have to remove their own heads from each other's asses so as a fan I'd want to see a 60-game season with a loser's tournament to determine the first overall pick. In my opinion this is the best way to improve the quality of the hockey being played and if you improve the quality of the hockey you will encourage viewers and increase revenue.
And you do make some great points regarding giving the players a cut of playoff ticket revenue for the loser's tournament but the owner's don't even give players a cut for the Stanley Cup playoffs so that would be the first hurdle to climb. Should it be climbed? Yes. I actually think that performance based incentives should be much more substantive in all professional sports because it would help to eliminate the case of a guy getting paid way too much or a rookie out-performing his contract by way too much and I'd say performance based bonuses with regard to team standards would ultimately be the best way to go. But these are separate issues as well.
The biggest thing for me is whether people would watch the loser's tournament or not. I think they would so at some point the owners, players and league should find a way to make it work. But as we keep circling back to, the NHL can't even get it's product on the ice for a normal season.
In any case, my original sentiments are that the NHL's proposed altered draft lottery would not help matters any because as we've seen in the NBA it only exacerbates tanking.
The idea that teams are throwing games on purpose and tanking to get draft picks is way overblown. The league is trying to fix something that isn't broken and is just going to make it worse. The less they do the better.
If a fellow Oiler fan doesn't think there's tanking I don't know what to think!?!?!?!
The Oilers were just a really bad hockey team. I should know, I forced myself to watch that crap for three straight seasons.
I know but they didn't try to get better, which is tanking in my books but I guess if I say poTAtoe you'll say POtaTOE.
i say beer
oilers are a bunch of tankers and STILL stink. bunch of AHL allstars. I dont expect much from them moving forward. glamour team on paper BUT the tough NHLers can put them in their place pretty fast. What makes a great fantasy roster doesent always translate to the 'show'.
im siding w metaldude on this one. Tanking IS a problem and needs to be fixed so that tankers are not guaranteed the big prize.
LOL.
Malkin had exactly 3 points against teams who were eliminated when they played Pittsburgh over the last 2 months of the season. 3 assists over 2 games against the Islanders.
Keep trying, moron.
10 Teams, Keep 15
H2H Categories: G, A, PPP, Hits, Blks, SOG -- W, GAA, SV%, SVs
3C - MacKinnon, Barkov, Vilardi (RW), Bennett, W Johnston
3LW - Fiala, Jenner, Byfield, Raymond
3RW - Miller, Jarvis, Kyrou, Debrusk
5D - Fox, Q Hughes, Matheson, Letang
2F
2G (max 4) - Vasilevskiy, Woll, Samsonov
8 Farm - L Hughes, M Knies, M Michkov, Z Benson, F Nazar, M Savoie, Annunen (G)
keep trying for what? MalKING was an example. I didnt actually do the research?
why the name calling?
i know you wear a cindy crosby jersey. LMAO
Posting Permissions
