ATD 2018 Rules Discussion

[BenchBrawl]

If the general sentiment is that shortening the entire process should be a priority then the round-robin system is definitely not the way to go. It would take as much time as the 2017 ATD or even a bit more.

Bench Brawl's proposal includes 4 rounds of voting: One regular season vote and then 3 playoff rounds & votes (QF, SF, F).
With the proposals by jarek and Johnny Engine the number of rounds depends on the specific setup. If you have 4 groups of 6 teams each and the top 2 teams from each division advance, you'd get 4 rounds of voting (just as in BenchBrawl's model). If only the division winners advance, you'd cut it down to just 3 rounds of voting overall.

For comparison: The 2017 ATD had 5 rounds of voting that stretched out from early April to late June 2017. Assuming a schedule of 2 weeks per playoff round, a 4-round-draft could be expected to end in the second half of May and a 3-round-draft in early May.

It's actually 5 rounds of voting, but only 4 playoffs rounds.The first vote is made after the assassinations, and you just rank the conferences.Then QF, SF and F of each conference, and finally the ATD Final.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Another way of making the draft end earlier would be to start the draft earlier.This isn't possible this year but I'm throwing it out there to see what people think.Why not start the draft in fall, and have a "clock break" between December 22th and January 2nd or something like that?

 

[Theokritos]

It's actually 5 rounds of voting, but only 4 playoffs rounds.The first vote is made after the assassinations, and you just rank the conferences.Then QF, SF and F of each conference, and finally the ATD Final.

Sorry, I missed the Conferences part.

 

[BenchBrawl]

By the way Theo, why don't you participate? Would be nice if you did.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I second that notion! Theo you'd be a very welcome addition to the ATD.

1. Trading should be allowed. I'm almost certain that mindset is the majority. Picks during the draft (just have to decide if we cap the # of trades a GM can make) and then to compromise on the players, I like what TDMM suggested and not allow any players to be dealt until post draft with a strict limit on number of players you can deal.

2. Playoffs. Honestly I don't think there is a "perfect" solution but the one aspect that can be drastically improved is the amount of time the assassination and subsequent rounds of postseason play take. Even if we keep the status quo, we need to shrink the amount of time we allow/spend on each phase. And again, I think we should allow the most prominent HoH members to be voters in our ATD. This adds an "outside" perspective without losing quality that you would get by having any bloke from the main boards participate. Voting has waned over the years. We should strive to have as many qualified people voting as possible.

 

[rmartin65]

Another way of making the draft end earlier would be to start the draft earlier.This isn't possible this year but I'm throwing it out there to see what people think.Why not start the draft in fall, and have a "clock break" between December 22th and January 2nd or something like that?

No, I think the way it is now works, as it allows current players to have more of their season. They are at enough of a disadvantage in this endeavor, no sense in taking away a season.

By the way Theo, why don't you participate? Would be nice if you did.

I absolutely agree with BB; I think you would make a great addition.

I second that notion! Theo you'd be a very welcome addition to the ATD.

1. Trading should be allowed. I'm almost certain that mindset is the majority. Picks during the draft (just have to decide if we cap the # of trades a GM can make) and then to compromise on the players, I like what TDMM suggested and not allow any players to be dealt until post draft with a strict limit on number of players you can deal.

2. Playoffs. Honestly I don't think there is a "perfect" solution but the one aspect that can be drastically improved is the amount of time the assassination and subsequent rounds of postseason play take. Even if we keep the status quo, we need to shrink the amount of time we allow/spend on each phase. And again, I think we should allow the most prominent HoH members to be voters in our ATD. This adds an "outside" perspective without losing quality that you would get by having any bloke from the main boards participate. Voting has waned over the years. We should strive to have as many qualified people voting as possible.

1) I agree with you, but I think there should probably a vote. Or rather, 2 votes- trading aye/nay, then what kind of limitations we want to impose on trading.

2) Yes... unless we do the hybrid round robin suggested by JE. I think that initial round should be 2-3 weeks, depending on activity level. Since there would be multiple opponents, I think time is necessary. Other than that, sure.

 

[Theokritos]

By the way Theo, why don't you participate? Would be nice if you did.

I second that notion! Theo you'd be a very welcome addition to the ATD.

I absolutely agree with BB; I think you would make a great addition.

Thanks, but for me it has never been very tempting to participate myself. I'm more of a research guy than a fantasy or game playing guy and I'm not really interested in the competitive aspect. But you can expect me to continue dig up material from the Russian sources I have available in the upcoming months.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Honestly, anything that even presents a chance at prolonging the post draft process (which is dragged out to begin with) is a non starter for me. I get the idea behind the round robin style tournament but most people frankly won't invest that much time into it. I can 99% guarantee it.

People are going to determine the "best" teams once final rosters are presented. How many times have people's minds REALLY been changed on a message board?

To be quite frank, if I drafted a team and nothing else happened I wouldn't be disappointed. But I'll go along with whatever is decided and be active regardless. I simply urge people to break away from the drawn out style of playoffs we have now. If that means some teams don't make the playoffs, so be it.

Completely agree. Sure, if we could guarantee every GM had unlimited interest, the Round Robin might be the best way to get the "right" winner. But after looking at what theo meant by the round robin, it just adds too much complications.

I never minded every team making the playoffs before, but if GMs want to try something quicker and simpler, how about (I think this is a variation of what others have said):

1) Replace lineup assassinations with division battle threads or something like that. GMs will be encouraged to talk about how their teams match up against every other team in their division, without needing separate threads, more time, etc. Afterwards, GMs rank every team in the division.

2) Top 2 teams from each division faceoff in the playoffs (So with 4 divisions, 8 teams make the playoffs).

 

[BenchBrawl]

Completely agree. Sure, if we could guarantee every GM had unlimited interest, the Round Robin might be the best way to get the "right" winner. But after looking at what theo meant by the round robin, it just adds too much complications.

I never minded every team making the playoffs before, but if GMs want to try something quicker and simpler, how about (I think this is a variation of what others have said):

1) Replace lineup assassinations with division battle threads or something like that. GMs will be encouraged to talk about how their teams match up against every other team in their division, without needing separate threads, more time, etc. Afterwards, GMs rank every team in the division.

2) Top 2 teams from each division faceoff in the playoffs (So with 4 divisions, 8 teams make the playoffs).

I'm only fine with 2) if we guarantee there's no division of death.That structure would have been unfair in our division last year, where 4 teams were serious contenders, and the other two teams were good too.

 

[jarek]

Completely agree. Sure, if we could guarantee every GM had unlimited interest, the Round Robin might be the best way to get the "right" winner. But after looking at what theo meant by the round robin, it just adds too much complications.

I never minded every team making the playoffs before, but if GMs want to try something quicker and simpler, how about (I think this is a variation of what others have said):

1) Replace lineup assassinations with division battle threads or something like that. GMs will be encouraged to talk about how their teams match up against every other team in their division, without needing separate threads, more time, etc. Afterwards, GMs rank every team in the division.

2) Top 2 teams from each division faceoff in the playoffs (So with 4 divisions, 8 teams make the playoffs).

Sounds pretty much exactly the same as what I suggested. Let's do it.

I'm only fine with 2) if we guarantee there's no division of death.That structure would have been unfair in our division last year, where 4 teams were serious contenders, and the other two teams were good too.

That's a fair compromise. The only issue is, how do you determine what a division of death would look like?

 

[rmartin65]

I think the whole "no division of death" thing is garbage. All you do is place some GMs over others, however subtly/subconsciously. I already suspect that their is some bias in favor of GMs with a long track record of success, I dont see this helping. Sometimes, good teams end up playing other good teams. For example, I think it was "unfair" that the Blue Jackets had to play the Pens in the first round last year, but, thats life. Stuff happens and you move on.

 

[jarek]

I think the whole "no division of death" thing is garbage. All you do is place some GMs over others, however subtly/subconsciously. I already suspect that their is some bias in favor of GMs with a long track record of success, I dont see this helping. Sometimes, good teams end up playing other good teams. For example, I think it was "unfair" that the Blue Jackets had to play the Pens in the first round last year, but, thats life. Stuff happens and you move on.

Yeah. I could also see some jealousy/spite/w/e coming up. Don't really need that drama.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I kindda agree.Obviously, if this were to be done, it would be done by a non-GM, say Sturminator or seventieslord, and no one would officially know who the "top GMs" who were separated were.But I agree it will be quite obvious for most of them, and this will just be an unnecessary demarcation.

OTOH, if you don't want to control the divisions, then don't eliminate 4 GMs out of 6 right off the bat.That you have to face a stronger-than-average opponent in the 1st round is one thing, than you have no opportunity except in a free-for-all thread is another.

I know I'd be very pissed if I thought of my team as a contender, only to get eliminated before playing any series.

 

[jarek]

To be honest, I don't even really care if a "division of death" forms. Mainly because I just don't really care anymore for all the "in-between" rounds we have. Eventually, the best team is going to win, and as far as I'm concerned when it comes to the playoffs, that's all that really matters.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I never saw the point in balancing divisions myself...

If it were to happen, it should be based on actual past results, not a GM's arbitrary reputation.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I never saw the point in balancing divisions myself...

If it were to happen, it should be based on actual past results, not a GM's arbitrary reputation.

Of course.But anyway, I agree it's not a good thing to do in general.This is why I want to rank by conferences.

 

[BenchBrawl]

We should start putting all of this (format, trading, etc...) to a vote soon.

We should first put a vote on the playoffs format and trading, then on whether we want to hide the seedings, and on whether we want a trade limit if trading wins.Anything else we should vote on?

Is there any other playoffs format anyone want to suggest so we can include it in the poll?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We should start putting all of this (format, trading, etc...) to a vote soon.

We should first put a vote on the playoffs format and trading, then on whether we want to hide the seedings, and on whether we want a trade limit if trading wins.Anything else we should vote on?

Is there any other playoffs format anyone want to suggest so we can include it in the poll?

Shouldn't we wait until January when more people check this forum? Or do we assume that people are checking it regularly now because it's part of HOH?

Anyway, I agree that the major issues (trades and playoff format) should be put to a vote.

And hiding seedings is pointless in general, but especially if only 2 teams per division make the playoffs.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Shouldn't we wait until January when more people check this forum? Or do we assume that people are checking it regularly now because it's part of HOH?

Anyway, I agree that the major issues (trades and playoff format) should be point to a vote.

And hiding seedings is pointless in general, but especially if only 2 teams per division make the playoffs.

We can wait, but in any case I was thinking of letting the polls open until mid-January.

I only suggested it because we did the polls in mid-december last year.

As for hiding seedings, many people spoke in favor of doing it again.I'm indifferent to it.

 

[BenchBrawl]

If anyone else has a playoffs format they want to include in the upcoming poll, they should speak up soon.We should start putting all of this to vote around January 1st.

 

[VanIslander]

Have MORE divisions and only the top-2 in each make the playoffs:

8 divisions of 4 teams.

It results in 16 playoff teams and a very interesting 2nd round, as teams will not have been ranked relative to each other, and addresses the fact that a third or fourth seed has a snowball's chance in hell, based on our history of the playoffs on this board. Win, win, win. (Oh, and it's also easier to rank four teams relative to each other than six or eight.)

 

[BenchBrawl]

^I like this structure per say, but if we end up having around 21 teams, is there really a big enough difference between this and every team making the playoffs, and does a 16 teams playoffs really address the problem of top seeds always winning against low seeds? Also, if only 3-5 teams are missing the playoffs, I feel like those teams will be singled out in a more negative way than if more teams are missing the playoffs.

This might be fixed if more GMs sign up though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Have MORE divisions and only the top-2 in each make the playoffs:

8 divisions of 4 teams.

It results in 16 playoff teams and a very interesting 2nd round, as teams will not have been ranked relative to each other, and addresses the fact that a third or fourth seed has a snowball's chance in hell, based on our history of the playoffs on this board. Win, win, win. (Oh, and it's also easier to rank four teams relative to each other than six or eight.)

I really like this format. As BB said, it really depends on getting close to 32 teams (or even more), but if we can get enough teams, this is my first choice.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Agreed. Count me in the camp that thinks more divisions with fewer teams is the best compromise seen so far. We already have 21 people signed up. Another 9 or so and we should be good to go with that format.