Changing playoff format [1/2]

[Will 4,660]

CHANGES TO THE PLAYOFF FORMAT

There has been some discussions taking place in the Board of Governors lately regarding changes to the playoff format and league alignment. This kind of change would be a pretty big deal so I wanted to have a more public discussions to get some feedback from the community before I personally commit to supporting anything.

 

There are a few different issues that these type of changes would aim to address - for one, some people complain about the playoffs being boring and overly predictable, especially in the first round. Also, the high tendency for the two conferences to be badly unbalanced is a problem for some. There is also some people to take issue with the fact that conferences aren't really reflected in the regular season (i.e. every team plays every other teams 8 times, regardless of conference). Not all of the solutions talked about solve all 3 of these problems and that's okay because some people may not agree they're all issues. 

 

The first thing that came up is crossover, something that the VHL has used before and has been talked about often since it was removed. It's a simple solution that would be easy to implement and wouldn't cause too much disturbance. The top 6 teams in the league would make playoffs, regardless of conference. The main thing here is that it would solve the conference imbalance. This season, for example, you have two NA teams that will miss playoffs despite certainly deserving to be in over Cologne and maybe even Helsinki. 

 

Next, we have more drastic change suggested by @boubabi that has the potential to really spice up playoffs. Instead of 6 teams making the playoffs, there would only be really be 4. There would be only one conference, and the top 3 teams in the league would be guaranteed a playoff slot. The 4th and 5th teams would compete in the first 'round' of playoffs that would a best 2 of 3 wildcard round. The winner would move onto the semi-finals (4/7) with the top 3 teams. This would would definitely make playoffs a little more interesting and would solve the problem of conference imbalance. That said, this is definitely a more major overhaul than crossover and some people will probably not like that. 

 

Adding 2 more teams to playoffs for 8, so that everyone plays each round, was brought up but most of us seemed to agree that isn't a great option. The 7th and 8th teams are far too weak to compete and this would just make the first round of playoffs even more predictable. 

 

As well, if we wanted to make conferences make more sense we could consider changing making more games player against the same conference. If we went with boubabi's idea, we could do the same with one conference divided into NA and EU divisions. 

 

Anyway this is my first media spot in awhile and I'm becoming strained so I will be ending it here. Let us know what you think, this type of change affects a lot so the BOG will be interested to read any and all feedback.

 

[boubabi 4,725]

I guess my opinion is clear on that subject

[boubabi 4,725]

I will try to explain my thought process behind it.

 

Having a 10 teams league, there's a pretty clear cut on who's competing and who's not. Most often then not, the 3rd team in each conference is just a ''place holder'' who seems to only favor personal stats. 

 

The first team in each conference having that sort of ''bye'' has not advantage whatsover. (it isn't proven to help the player's performance behind rested or not) and they will, anyway, play against a top team at second round. That bye week, in my mind, needs to be removed.

 

Without having that sort of competition, the regular season as little to no meaning. Finishing top of your conference gives you no advantage really, as you already have a fair idea on who you are playing in the second round. In the end, the regular season is purely for personal stats and team success comes second, which is obviously, not optimal for the league's interest. So if we try to focus more on the team success instead of going full offense during regular season, I think reducing the number of team going into the playoffs is necessary. That's why I would reduce it to 4 teams

 

However, we had some particular season where we had a bunch of competing team and maybe cutting it to 4 would be unfair, so that's why we could spice it up a bit. The 4th and 5th seed would play a wildcard game/serie to determine  who's playing against the top seed. My orginal idea was to make it 1 game only, but considering STHS is pretty bullshit at time (most of the time lets be honest) 1 game could be very, very risky. The middle ground would be a best of 3, which kinda goes against my thought of removing the ''bye'' round, but I think it's a decent compromise.

 

Team success wise, I think we now have a reason to finish 1st in the ranking, cause it will ensure you to play against the weakest seed, which benefits your team for sure.  There's more to it, but I think that was the main idea behind it.

 

 

Oh yeah, all the team out of the playoffs (don't know if we should add the losing team of the wildcard serie) would be eligible for the loto with some maybe adjusted rating, which is kinda nice as well trade pick value wise. 

[Quik 4,113]

I don't think cutting PO teams to 5 works. You're basically keeping more than half the league out of the playoffs, depending on how you feel about the WC series. At least, it wouldn't work if we're keeping 10 teams. If the league were to retract back to 8, then sure, a best of 3 WC between 4 and 5 works, as would a winner-take-all, and it makes things more interesting. But I don't think there's much appetite to retract.

 

Weighted schedules would cause just as much bitching when Riga and Helsinki are feasting on Stockholm, Cologne and Davos.

 

I think, if we're keeping 10 teams, then going with 1 "conference" and 2 divisions is the way to go. Only the division winners are guaranteed their spot, 3-6 face off in best-of-5 series, and then everyone gets re-seeded again (is that possible in STHS?) and the final two rounds are best-of-7. If you can't do it that way, then 2 WC spots would pretty much accomplish the same thing. 6 goes into the division with the better top seed, and use the same 5/7/7 playoff format, or even @boubabi's 3/7/7 format.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Quik

[boubabi 4,725]

3 minutes ago, Quik said:

Weighted schedules would cause just as much bitching when Riga and Helsinki are feasting on Stockholm, Cologne and Davos.

That's part of being in a conference, you don't play the same team. For most of the time I was here, the EU was far superior in depth then NA. I think this is a particular case. Anyhow, our current format doesn't prevent Riga putting 7 goals on toronto every games

 

 

 

[Will 4,660]

4 minutes ago, Quik said:

I don't think cutting PO teams to 5 works. You're basically keeping more than half the league out of the playoffs, depending on how you feel about the WC series.

 

That's not totally true, you're keeping half the teams out but not half the league. The bottom teams have few players and mostly inactives. Having more than 4 or 5 teams that are going to be even slightly competitive is rare. That speaks to a larger issue about rosters being spread to 10 teams but as you correctly pointed out there isn't much appetite for fixing that directly. 

[Quik 4,113]

12 minutes ago, boubabi said:

That's part of being in a conference, you don't play the same team. For most of the time I was here, the EU was far superior in depth then NA. I think this is a particular case. Anyhow, our current format doesn't prevent Riga putting 7 goals on toronto every games

 

Yeah, I'm fine with weighted schedules. Team success is cyclical, and it's usually one conference or the other that is shit. I just think that you'll get bitching from people when shit doesn't go their way. If it's Quebec bitching because Riga gets to stomp the rest of EU for the #1 seed this year, or Stockholm bitching because Toronto stomps the NA in 5 seasons, it will happen on a season-to-season basis when it means the difference between winning the Victory Cup or not.

 

11 minutes ago, Will said:

 

That's not totally true, you're keeping half the teams out but not half the league. The bottom teams have few players and mostly inactives. Having more than 4 or 5 teams that are going to be even slightly competitive is rare. That speaks to a larger issue about rosters being spread to 10 teams but as you correctly pointed out there isn't much appetite for fixing that directly. 

 

Which is a fair point. But at the same time, I don't like a league where more than half the teams don't make it (I don't count a 2/3 series as making it when nobody else plays that format). At least, not a sim league. I get that it's hard to move backward, in terms of league-size, but when we're talking about not having enough players to properly fill out half the league, it's something that needs to be discussed. It's hard enough to get new members to join, people don't want to change rules to allow more mid-level users, and they want to keep 3-4 teams of inactives. Something has to give. I don't think altering the amount of playoff teams alone is enough. You can do whatever you want with the format, but if we don't have new members coming in, a 10-team league makes no sense.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Quik

[Will 4,660]

15 minutes ago, Quik said:

Which is a fair point. But at the same time, I don't like a league where more than half the teams don't make it (I don't count a 2/3 series as making it when nobody else plays that format). At least, not a sim league. I get that it's hard to move backward, in terms of league-size, but when we're talking about not having enough players to properly fill out half the league, it's something that needs to be discussed. It's hard enough to get new members to join, people don't want to change rules to allow more mid-level users, and they want to keep 3-4 teams of inactives. Something has to give. I don't think altering the amount of playoff teams alone is enough. You can do whatever you want with the format, but if we don't have new members coming in, a 10-team league makes no sense.

 

I don't disagree, it isn't me that doesn't have an appetite for it   

 

People think contraction will give off a sign of weakness, which may true, but you can at least feel a little better about it if you think of it as a reversal of an expansion that probably wasn't necessary instead of a contraction. And then some point to the VHLM as a sign contraction is useless which I don't really agree with because I think 1) the VHL is a completely different league that would probably adjust to a contraction more easily and 2) the VHLM contractions have had some positive results. Also the VHLM going from 10 to 5 teams is less of a contraction than it is a complete overhaul of the league structure. 

 

Sadly I believe I've been in the minority on this for some time, though I do understand why people are wary of it.

[hedgehog337 3,483]

12 minutes ago, Will said:

 

I don't disagree, it isn't me that doesn't have an appetite for it   

 

People think contraction will give off a sign of weakness, which may true, but you can at least feel a little better about it if you think of it as a reversal of an expansion that probably wasn't necessary instead of a contraction. And then some point to the VHLM as a sign contraction is useless which I don't really agree with because I think 1) the VHL is a completely different league that would probably adjust to a contraction more easily and 2) the VHLM contractions have had some positive results. Also the VHLM going from 10 to 5 teams is less of a contraction than it is a complete overhaul of the league structure. 

 

Sadly I believe I've been in the minority on this for some time, though I do understand why people are wary of it.

 

Good luck to find a GM who is ready to step down in case of contraction. 

[Quik 4,113]

57 minutes ago, Will said:

 

I don't disagree, it isn't me that doesn't have an appetite for it   

 

People think contraction will give off a sign of weakness, which may true, but you can at least feel a little better about it if you think of it as a reversal of an expansion that probably wasn't necessary instead of a contraction. And then some point to the VHLM as a sign contraction is useless which I don't really agree with because I think 1) the VHL is a completely different league that would probably adjust to a contraction more easily and 2) the VHLM contractions have had some positive results. Also the VHLM going from 10 to 5 teams is less of a contraction than it is a complete overhaul of the league structure. 

 

Sadly I believe I've been in the minority on this for some time, though I do understand why people are wary of it.

 

Haha, nah, I wasn't saying it's you. I'm more saying the league in general. I know there's some who are strongly opposed to it, as well as some who are for it. I definitely look at it as a way of cleaning the league up a bit. What is the point of having 10 teams when 3-4 of them share a max of 6 or 7 active players, and half of those are P2s? Admit that the league shouldn't have expanded (again, not directed at you @Will :P), get back to a format that increases competition and gives more people a chance to be on teams with multiple actives. That's the easiest way to partly fix the league. There's still a bunch of other stuff that could/should be done, but this should be the easiest way of getting it started.

 

44 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

 

Good luck to find a GM who is ready to step down in case of contraction. 

 

Relegation. Set a season for when the league will contract. If we're making it official by the end of this season, then give it 2 seasons, so after S59. After the Trade Deadline in S59, nobody can make any trades until after the Expansion Draft takes place. Once the season is over, the bottom 2 teams in the league are contracted. If they're from the same division, the bottom team from the other division needs to re-locate. Expansion draft takes place after the draft lotto, but before the entry draft, and teams can use their expansion selections on any picks or players the retracted teams hold (During S59, no S61 Picks can be moved).

 

If a GM wants to step-down willingly, they can do so before S59, and any trades they make must be approved by a vote from either the BOG, or other GMs - I'd say BOG, so there's less chance at bias of teams blocking a trade that is fair but strengthens a rival. That way, you keep teams honest and if they want to move their active players for picks, they go back into the expansion draft anyways. No matter what, it leads to a stronger league.

 

If you really want to push for balance and activity, do this and go with my welfare proposal (along with new update scale), and maybe things start to heat up again around here. Maybe even enough to push for an expansion that might work better than this one has.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Quik

[hedgehog337 3,483]

21 minutes ago, Quik said:

Once the season is over, the bottom 2 teams in the league are contracted.

 

24 minutes ago, Quik said:

Relegation

 

So contracted, not relegated to somewhere? 

 

22 minutes ago, Quik said:

If they're from the same division, the bottom team from the other division needs to re-locate.

 

I'll never re-locate my team even of I'm finishing in bottom btw.

[Quik 4,113]

8 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

So contracted, not relegated to somewhere? 

Relegated into contraction. 

 

8 minutes ago, hedgehog337 said:

I'll never re-locate my team even of I'm finishing in bottom btw.

Simple. Don’t finish last

[Kesler 1,514]

Why not just have top 2 from each conference make the playoffs and then 2 wild card spots? 

[boubabi 4,725]

10 minutes ago, Kesler said:

Why not just have top 2 from each conference make the playoffs and then 2 wild card spots? 

Because it doesnt fix the problem lmao

[Kesler 1,514]

32 minutes ago, boubabi said:

Because it doesnt fix the problem lmao

 

heres an x and y to solve the problem

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

uReview:

damn Will taking advantage of this for some sweet TPE the lazy bastard. I think with contraction happening that this was a sign of things to come. So we should be wary of whatever Will posts. Anywho, this was just a standard announcement which was turned into a MS