I think that whenever we talk about any rules changes we have to consider first and foremost "is this within the realm of administration possibilities?" which is a huge concern when it comes to implementing new things into the league or changing the way it all works.
Every new wrinkle and layer requires someone to take care of it. We just don't want to add in too much extra work because the league will become bogged down in constant administration duty that may not get done if at any time life takes over for the folks in the admin team.
Like the HFAHL that was tried before, and making sweeping changes to the rules and systems as some are offering, is that it can become a nightmare and take away from the fundamental duty of the league - which is to provide entertainment and fantasy fulfilment.
Obviously admin isn't always fun - but it can be if done right. For example I'm really enjoying the simming duties - its given me a way better insight and connection with some GM's - allowed me to be far more aware of what other teams are all about - and therefore increased my knowledge of the league and its players - and has been very rewarding so far.
Anyway - my main point here is that IT ISN'T BROKEN - the whole HF is a huge success and let's make changes conservatively right now because it just ain't broke.
I think the HF is in a very strong position because it is a league with very strong GM's, and TWO very strong Executive teams - those who have been carrying this league and those of us stepping up now - but we must always make choices that increase the strength of that league and not weaken it just for the sake of making us more NHL like or for appeasing a few GM's who are struggling financially or GM's who are unhappy with their ratings.
With that said I know we have discussions every year about the financial situation and the ratings - and all I can say about that is - GOOD. It shows how passionate GM's are and promotes the health of the league.
Here is my take on the issues:
RATINGS:
I think the system we have now is the best pitch out there. We use the basics of the DVHL ratings with a small team that addresses the weaknesses of the those ratings and then we allow GM's to challenge. I also disagree with a stats based ratings system.
WHY?: Time & Effort and consistency. This is by far the biggest single chunk of work and even if we have the GM's who insist they will do the work, the reality is that if something happens and life intervenes for those GM's we are screwed (and trust me, even if we have a handful of GM's do our ratings, every one of the other GM's will have an issue with the ratings of their teams!).
While I know that DF ratings were an issue this year, they affected EVERYONE, so in effect they affected nobody adversely. The playing field was level. What we need to fix is the timing, and with the new bodies we can do that. Once we get ratings done earlier, then we have more time to do more challenges and challenges are really the way for GM's to fix the inequities they feel that they may have.
I am against a stats based system because of the injury factor and because often a team will have a bad year, while an individual player will have a good one. Should that player be penalized his DF stat because he was a minus player, which really wasn't his fault since he actually made the all-star team?
FINANCES:
The finances of the league are still a bit off. I still maintain that every year, even with all the extra revenue, the playoff revenue, endorsements, that the amount of $$ within the league is actually less every year. That said, I've managed to stabilize my finances and many GM's have before. I was pretty hot under the collar last year when I was struggling and having to trade away prospects for $$, but I was lucky enough that the plan I put in place worked.
SOLUTIONS: I would look at the proposals for new GM's of cash strapped teams to get a $$ infusion when they take over, but at no more than a small amount to keep the franchise viable for the very short term, and only on teams really in trouble because of bad financial management in the past. If the team has a 44 million dollar player budget etc I would lean more towards insisting the GM deal with the problem.
I also think the present track of TV revenue in the off-season needs to be addressed again because it keeps the amount of money within the league the same.
What I would propose is to set that $$ figure in the following way: establish the amount of money needed in the league. Perhaps even set it at the total amount in all the bank accounts at the end of 06/07. At the end of 07/08 - we look at how much money the league 'lost'. Total that up - and divide by 30. What you get is the same amount of money in the league. We'll never go bankrupt as a league, but that doesn't stop individual teams from suffering if GM's make bad choices.
EXAMPLE:
End of 06/07 - Total League $$ = 600 million.
End of 07/08 - Total Leauge $$ = 480 million.
Difference: 120 million.
Each team gets 4 million.
That is just an example - and I've not thought out the probabilities this will work or how it may fail us - lol - so maybe someone can shoot holes in it.
I also think the endorsements needs to have a serious discussion about an over-haul of both its system and structure and viability as I'm not convinced its working in its attended manner, but I think this is a discussion for the next off-season.
In the end the financial part of the HFNHL is actually one of the major features that makes being a GM a challenge and therefore adds to its interest. It keeps the league competitive and ensures responsibility on behalf of the GM's - believe it or not - and it was when this was pointed out to me last year that realized I was the one who needed to change my attitude about the finances.
Add to that fact that the Sim software just doesn't have very much flexibility and we have to work within that and within keeping admin down and keeping things competitive.
FREE AGENCY:
Group IV and V are basicly non-existent today as the UFA age has been lowered, so I think we can scratch those as.
As for Group VI, it's actually the one free agent group that you can control as a GM. You have to play your +25 year old forwards for 80 HFNHL games or goalies for 28 games or they become UFA instead of RFA.
This also means that Group I FA's (aka prospects) become UFA's at the age of 25 if they are unsigned, as Group I is limited to players under 25 years old. Just like the current rules say.
We need to look into the free agency situation (as far as the rulebook is concerned - since we are not implementing it to its fullest detail as it is and maybe we just remove certain Groups if we don't use them)
I have to admit the more I think about it - the more Ville has a good point on the Group I. It would take very little admin.
I'm not sure about the others because I think the admin of it would be a tough slog.
What I like about Ville's suggestion in the post above is that it will allow rebuilding teams a little more opportunity but not really hurt established teams - and not re-address it so much that rebuilding becomes a breeze and everyones doing it.
It would be easy to implement and administer as well. One of the things I think is key is to keep rosters down, keep minor signings down (I know I've been guilty) and keep control of the admin time for the agents, sim manager, DOPP etc when it comes to constant signings of players who have little change of being NHL regulars.
