Jaded-Fan said:
Why?
Given that it usually takes multiple years to hit bottom and get up from there, and the fact that the teams who are at the top have the converse be true, whether they got there by deep pockets or years of drafting, it is unlikely that they will rise or fall that dramatically in one year . . . I ask again . . .
Why should those teams already loaded have an equal chance with rebuilding teams? The usual reason for such an opinion is because someone supports a team who is at or near the top . . . I admit an assumption here, but a logical one. I see no fairness there. True, no system will be entirely fair, but we have to choose between bad and worse if there is no year. Your option is much worse as it will very likely reward a team who is loaded and penalize teams who are not.
That says a lot about the NHL though doesn't it, fans of teams used to having their thumbs on the scale just can not understand when they do not get every trip to the pig feeding slop go their way.
Well, your assumption is wrong, as I support no team. That sucks, eh? I could just as well reverse the argument and tell you there is a great number of fans of disgraceful, pathetic franchises who have been bottom feeding the last few years with a huge, stupid smile on their face who are right now crying that they deserve the pick for the same selfish motive. But you probably already know that.
The fact of the matter is, there are three kinds of people:
1-Those who are extremely biased and are looking for a system which favors their team (and it's funny that you think I amk in that category, as I think you are the one who fits the profile to a T)
2-Those who think they are clever enough to figure out a loaded formula that will be flawless, and they are wrong
3-Those who are properly acknowledging the situation, and invariably come to the same conclusion I did.
A second assumption you make is that this will very likely mean a "loaded team" will win the lottery. An equal chance for all means just that: an equal chance for all.
Please define the term loaded and tell me who are the loaded teams in the NHL. Although I am saddened to agree with Carl'O-Holix-Whatsmynamethisweek, he does have a point. Are the Bruins, for instance, more loaded than Florida? Or the Penguins? I mean, the Hurricanes are in super pathetic shape and if you average years, they likely get screwed.
It remains highly subjective as to who is loaded. Keep in mind that we routinely see teams going to the SCF and then disappearing. Buffalo, Anaheim, Carolina are all examples. Minnesota had a good run two years ago and they still suck. And under your system they get screwed. The Devils I believe once won a cup and then missed the playoffs. Things change all the time. There are reversal of fortune.
The fact of the matter is, the system in place is that you get higher picks if you did not perform well in the
previous season. Teams such as the Caps, Penguins and Hawks all got their high pick in 2004 thanks to the previous season. And so on.
Another fact is that, no matter how smart one is, it is impossible to accurately predict how the standings would look like at the end of a season that doesn't take place. It just cannot be done.
There are no strong teams. No playoff run. No nothing. There aren't any losers or winners.
The NHL has put a simple system in place that, in reality, DOES not reflect "how loaded" a team is. The current system is an ABSTRACTION. I'm not saying it's bad or anything. But it remains a very simple system to avoid having to make judgment calls and subjective evaluations of "how loaded" a team really is.
Because I can garantee you that otherwise, certain teams would get higher picks. The current system has flaws but is a nice way to settle things. You win more games, you get a lower pick. You lose more games, you get a higher pick.
Without a NHL season, that simple, effective but flawed system does not exist.
So now, we are left with finding a way to a fair system. What are you going to do? Everybody has his favorite solution. Most of them usually involve a complex calculation that gives their favorite team a better shot at the pick. We could come up with a dozen different systems and they would all make sense, in a way. And they would all lead to different results. That leads me to think the only way to truly settle this is to just give an equal shot to everybody.
Besides, the teams who screwed the pooch the last few years got their higher picks already. Nobody needs to cry for them.
Also, it is my strong belief that any half-assed equity system of the sort you have in mind will cause a dangerous precedent. Teams disgrace themselves enough as it is to reach the #1 pick. If you put such a system in place, be fully prepare to turn the league into a ****ing joke EACH and EVERY season that precedes the end of a CBA. And that's a fact.
Teams will tank hard to get rewarded twice as much. We just shouldn't accept that because that's not what the NHL is about. Now, if you like that kind of stuff and do not care for the integrity of the sport, that's your business. But I do. And I like to think I'm smart enough and yet, I can't come up with ANY fair way to favor certain teams in the next lottery. I very much doubt you or ANYONE can come up with an objective system that favors certain teams above others.
I haven't seen a single one. The minute I see one, I will strongly support it you can be sure. I think things should be fair. But when you can't define what fair is, I believe completely random is the way to go.
I've seen dozens of variations on what the system should look like. Which one is the best? Why?