BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,890
- 13,687
Finding revelations is not a matter of efforts, but of luck + efforts (and also, material available to you).You said trading made GMs lazy, which is complete nonesense.
Last edited:
Finding revelations is not a matter of efforts, but of luck + efforts (and also, material available to you).You said trading made GMs lazy, which is complete nonesense.
Yeah, I don't like that trades can be used to create competitive imbalance - like they very clearly did last year - but that's secondary.
You, me, everyone.
If we go forward with yet another format where every team makes the playoffs, count me out.
I really wish people wouldn't draw lines in the sand where if the majority chooses one way, they are so far against it that they'll just drop out.
You really think positive change comes from people saying "it has to be this way or I quit"?People drawing lines in the sand is what causes the status quo to shift.
The consolation tournament like we had attempted last year had even more apathy than a 1 seed v 8 seed matchup
It really is a waste of time debating 1 seeds vs a 6 or 8.
The consolation tournament like we had attempted last year had even more apathy than a 1 seed v 8 seed matchup
Absolutely true.GMs in the consolation tournament are out of the competition they primarily signed up for. It's understandable many of them consider it rather meaningless.
I remember bringing this up several years ago, and to my knowledge it was the first time anyone brought up the element of chance in the ATD. It wasn't meant to be an actual suggestion to implement, but rather to make a point about the difference between a real-life playoff series (where one team is clearly better, but that team doesn't always win; and a voted-upon ATD series. Some GMs were complaining that voters didn't just choose upsets, but how in the world would you institute that? Especially when the seedings were already chosen by the same pool of voters - in order for most voters to choose upsets, an appreciable number have to change their minds about which teams are better.#6/7/8 seeds participating in the playoffs are still in the competition, but they know their chance to win is negligible. The only way to effectively improve their odds would involve randomness, which – also understandably – is a no-go for many GMs.
I agree with all this, and I'd submit this for consideration: Since we're looking to speed up what's kind of a slogging playoff process, how about have divisions of 4, and we treat the round robin as a single, quick process where GMs vote on all games at once?The main benefit of the round-robin system is that it offers every GM several meaningful series (=in the main competition) against other teams.
Sure, some details would have to be ironed out – as is always the case with every system. I will try to outline the scenario of an round-robin ATD later today (or tomorrow) so that we can look into those details and the potential issues that need to be addressed in advance.
Absolutely true.
I remember bringing this up several years ago, and to my knowledge it was the first time anyone brought up the element of chance in the ATD. It wasn't meant to be an actual suggestion to implement, but rather to make a point about the difference between a real-life playoff series (where one team is clearly better, but that team doesn't always win; and a voted-upon ATD series. Some GMs were complaining that voters didn't just choose upsets, but how in the world would you institute that? Especially when the seedings were already chosen by the same pool of voters - in order for most voters to choose upsets, an appreciable number have to change their minds about which teams are better.
I agree with all this, and I'd submit this for consideration: Since we're looking to speed up what's kind of a slogging playoff process, how about have divisions of 4, and we treat the round robin as a single, quick process where GMs vote on all games at once?
So let's say division A has the Penguins, the Senators, the Predators, and the Ducks. The volunteer in charge of creating the series thread would post all 4 rosters and specifically direct voters to vote on the following, and provide game scores:
Penguins vs. Senators
Predators vs. Ducks
Penguins vs. Predators
Senators vs. Ducks
Senators vs. Predators
Ducks vs. Penguins
And then perhaps a top-5 stars of the round robin, from all 4 teams, taking into account the six games played. Only one winner moves on.
That takes care of 2 playoff rounds in 1. Wild card rules or divisions of 5 or 6 teams could be considered based on league size.
I think this would be a superior, simpler solution to having copious numbers of threads for all possible matchups.
For a 7th/8th seed to cause an upset, the GM needs to make a very strong case in the series, either by revealing new information about his players or by making a really compelling case that the regular season votings were off.Does this happen often?
I know that if I was the 8th seed I would like an opportunity to argue my case, but I'm competitive by nature.
Edit: I'm against having only one team per division make the playoffs, due to the possibility of having two powerhouses in the same division.It's unacceptable that a powerhouse would have no opportunity to play one series.
I agree with all this, and I'd submit this for consideration: Since we're looking to speed up what's kind of a slogging playoff process, how about have divisions of 4, and we treat the round robin as a single, quick process where GMs vote on all games at once?
So let's say division A has the Penguins, the Senators, the Predators, and the Ducks. The volunteer in charge of creating the series thread would post all 4 rosters and specifically direct voters to vote on the following, and provide game scores:
Penguins vs. Senators
Predators vs. Ducks
Penguins vs. Predators
Senators vs. Ducks
Senators vs. Predators
Ducks vs. Penguins
And then perhaps a top-5 stars of the round robin, from all 4 teams, taking into account the six games played. Only one winner moves on.
That takes care of 2 playoff rounds in 1. Wild card rules or divisions of 5 or 6 teams could be considered based on league size.
I think this would be a superior, simpler solution to having copious numbers of threads for all possible matchups.