ATD 2017 Vote 6 - Byes and Hidden Seedings?

[ResilientBeast]

As I pointed out in the hidden seedings thread (which won) we run into a problem if we have any number besides 16, 32, or 64 (stretch goals )

Now as HT18 pointed out there are a couple ways of dealing with this

There's a few things we can do, none are perfect...

1. Have a play-in round...This would be a problem as it would tell voters who both the bottom and top teams are.

2. Byes for the top teams...same problem as above.

3. Not all teams make the playoffs...this is the only way to ensure all playoff teams' seeds remain unknown. The sacrifice is some teams will not get to participate in a playoff series at all.

Jarek also said maybe this is the year to let gms double up on teams

If any other options are presented we can add them to the poll

Click to read more...

 

[ResilientBeast]

Multiple votes are allowed, please pick whichever ones are acceptable for you

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I don't think we can answer this question until we know how many teams we have, as it will have a large effect on how many teams miss the playoffs. If we have 17 teams like we have now it's very easy to just leave one team out, but what if we have 24 teams? In order to completely avoid having any byes, we would either have to have 2 divisions of 8 and 2 divisions of 4 (which is very unbalanced), or have 8 teams miss the playoffs (which is a third of the teams participating). At that point I would much rather go with one of the other options.

 

[seventieslord]

I honestly can't vote for any of these options, lol

 

[Iceman]

"Not all teams make the playoffs"

So in other words, there will be GMs that are done right after the draft? That wouldn't be very fun, especially if we are going to hide the seedings.

 

[Theokritos]

"Not all teams make the playoffs"

So in other words, there will be GMs that are done after the draft?

Not in a round-robin system... but I'll bite my tongue. Last word from me on that topic.

 

[jarek]

I think we should give the round-robin system some very serious consideration if we do not reach 32 teams.

 

[VanIslander]

I think we should give the round-robin system some very serious consideration if we do not reach 32 teams.

As long as it is administered by someone who isn't in the draft, I'd vote for it.

How about a poll?

 

[seventieslord]

I think that might be the least unappealing option. If we want to hide seedings, we can't have byes or play in rounds, but that results in teams missing the playoffs, so this gives them a degree of involvement until that happens.

 

[rmartin65]

I did not think of this possibility when I came up with the idea for hidden rankings. I wish I had a better solution but, for now, if everyone participating finds hidden rankings acceptable and will remain in the draft regardless, I think we are best served by waiting until the sign-ups are closed. Then we can decide on whether we should allow for a couple people to have multiple teams or if some teams dont make the play-offs.

Byes and play-ins wont work with hidden seedings because they inherently rank some teams; it either shows the strongest teams (byes) or weakest teams (play-ins).

All things considered even, I lean towards not all teams making the playoffs. However, to make that feasible, I do think we should do something to make the hunt for the playoffs more interesting. Perhaps thats where the round robin idea plays in? Or maybe each division has a "playoff chase thread, wherein GMs state the case for their team to be more worthy of making the playoffs than their competitors.

 

[Dreakmur]

Can we really vote on this if we don't know how may teams we have?

 

[jarek]

Can we really vote on this if we don't know how may teams we have?

I want this option regardless of how many teams we have.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I want this option regardless of how many teams we have.

Which option?

 

[Johnny Engine]

I assume he means the hidden seedings.

In practice, if we hypothetically had 4 divisions and the winners each got byes, we could have 2 byes in each conference, and no indication of how they stack up against each other. You'd still have distinct classes of teams, but no feeling that the winners of any give matchup is pre-determined.

 

[rmartin65]

If the number of GMs stays low (we are 18, I believe), I think that having teams not make the playoffs makes the most sense. The lowest ranked team in each conference just gets eliminated, and we have a 16 team playoff.

 

[VanIslander]

If the number of GMs stays low (we are 18, I believe), I think that having teams not make the playoffs makes the most sense. The lowest ranked team in each conference just gets eliminated, and we have a 16 team playoff.

The voice of reason and elegant simplicity. Apt too, given the NHL playoff schedule.

But maybe too straightforward for the administrative ninjas with time to kill and plans to complicate.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The voice of reason and elegant simplicity. Apt too, given the NHL playoff schedule.

But maybe too straightforward for the administrative ninjas with time to kill and plans to complicate.

Though I am kinda organizing things, I don't want to unilaterally make decisions, we had time and it was a valid issue so I wanted to give as many people as possible the opportunity to give solutions.

 

[jarek]

Based on the voting, I would say if we get very close to 32 teams (say we get up to 28 or so), then we should allow a couple people to manage 2 teams to get up to 32, but if we have any lower than that, then unfortunately we may need to disqualify some teams from the playoffs.

Even at 25 or 26 teams, we should probably look to see if enough GMs want to manage 2 teams to get to 32.. disqualifying that many teams from the playoffs is quite a large number.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Based on the voting, I would say if we get very close to 32 teams (say we get up to 28 or so), then we should allow a couple people to manage 2 teams to get up to 32, but if we have any lower than that, then unfortunately we may need to disqualify some teams from the playoffs.

Even at 25 or 26 teams, we should probably look to see if enough GMs want to manage 2 teams to get to 32.. disqualifying that many teams from the playoffs is quite a large number.

I'll send another round of pms to regulars who haven't checked in or pmed me yet.

But it's looking like it'll be a smaller ATD this year which is cool

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

If the number of GMs stays low (we are 18, I believe), I think that having teams not make the playoffs makes the most sense. The lowest ranked team in each conference just gets eliminated, and we have a 16 team playoff.

The voice of reason and elegant simplicity. Apt too, given the NHL playoff schedule.

But maybe too straightforward for the administrative ninjas with time to kill and plans to complicate.

I don't know why you think this would be too straightforward when I basically already said the exact same thing...

I don't think we can answer this question until we know how many teams we have, as it will have a large effect on how many teams miss the playoffs. If we have 17 teams like we have now it's very easy to just leave one team out, but what if we have 24 teams? In order to completely avoid having any byes, we would either have to have 2 divisions of 8 and 2 divisions of 4 (which is very unbalanced), or have 8 teams miss the playoffs (which is a third of the teams participating). At that point I would much rather go with one of the other options.

 

[VanIslander]

The polls indicate...

Not all teams make the playoffs 64 %

GMs can have more than one team 43%

No byes for top ranked teams, no play-in rounds.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I think it should be stated that if the "Not all teams make the playoffs" option wins, then there will be a B-tournament for those that don't make it.

This idea has already received a lot of support, and there really isn't any reason not to have that tournament. It has no effect on the actual playoffs, and therefore doesn't affect anyone in a negative way. Again, this is all IF that specific option wins.