ATD #9 Sign-up and Preliminary Discussion
- Thread starter Transplanted Caper
- Start date
EagleBelfour
Registered User
I can't believe we only have 20 teams so far. We thought about creating a second division since we had too much demand to get a team, and now we only have 20 teams?
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
FissionFire
Registered User
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
The sign-up thread has been up for only TWO (2) days !!!!!!!!!Joey's going in round 23.We have 20 teams. If you posted the draft order before 6PM ET Sunday so we can start planning our strategies, it would be sweet!
I just now, this very hour, PM'd some past g.m. greats to inform them about the sign-up period, so even if they are away for the weekend they'll know monday or tuesday.
Pms just sent to: wisent, Bluebleeder, pnep, #66, Pwnasaurus, murphy, reckoning, go kim johnsson, HankyFourFingers
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Contraction, at least short-term, might not be such a bad thing, although it means a lot of first round byes or a playoff system in which only the top 16 teams in the league are in. If we go forward with fewer than 28 teams, a change in the playoff system will be pretty much a given, though that's not necessarily such a bad thing, as the 7 and 8 seeds never seem to advance past the round of sixteen, anyway.
A 24 team league, for example, would have to hand out eight first round byes to reach the magic 16 for the second round under the old system. That's past the point of absurdity, in my opinion.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
what the hell... I'll re-arrange my month-long May holiday to be close to the Internet
VanIslander & Frightened Inmate #2 will co-g.m. a team in the ATD#9
Franchise name to be announced.
VanIslander & Frightened Inmate #2 will co-g.m. a team in the ATD#9Franchise name to be announced.
Last edited:
- Feb 24, 2003
- 29,961
- 3,053
Yep. We have two weeks before the draft even starts, and draft position isn't a prerequisite for developing a list and the direction you want to take your team in. Right now the plan is to cap things off in a week, or once we hit 28 teams which seems to be the preferred # for a cap. Also, once we hear back from the former GMs who were PM'd we'll have a better idea of what the GM list will look like.
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
Hi guys just back from a few days away.
The Donair City Loch Ness Monsters would be a good name for my team if i'm not too late.
The Donair City Loch Ness Monsters would be a good name for my team if i'm not too late.
- Feb 24, 2003
- 29,961
- 3,053
Heat McManus
Registered User
Hey all,
got a PM from one of the long-time ADT GMs. SOunds like a fine old time. I'll sign up as a GM, or co-GM as long as somebody will accept my team name:
The Brooklyn Yawning Otters
As a first-timer, is there some kind of mentor program? or am I left to burn and flail on my own?
Has anybody picked John Davidson as their play-by-play?
got a PM from one of the long-time ADT GMs. SOunds like a fine old time. I'll sign up as a GM, or co-GM as long as somebody will accept my team name:
The Brooklyn Yawning Otters
As a first-timer, is there some kind of mentor program? or am I left to burn and flail on my own?
Has anybody picked John Davidson as their play-by-play?
- Feb 24, 2003
- 29,961
- 3,053
Peace in our time. The two biggest rivals in the draft have apparently joined forces.what the hell... I'll re-arrange my month-long May holiday to be close to the Internet
Franchise name to be announced.
What I wouldn't give to be able to read the PMs between these two GMs as they discuss their options.
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Well, I thought of being the Spokane Canaries, from the PCHL of 1916 and 1917 and FI#2 stated in a PM that it's "a horrible name for a hockey club".
So we haven't agreed on a team name yet.But be scared, be very scared, when we agree on things.
It'll be golden!
My Valetta squad is looking for new management ...Well, I thought of being the Spokane Canaries, from the PCHL of 1916 and 1917 and FI#2 stated in a PM that it's "a horrible name for a hockey club".
But be scared, be very scared, when we agree on things.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
ha ha.. you know what i think about that Poodle name
i like silly names as long as they are REAL names of ice hockey teams (that's half the humour!): like...
Topeka ScareCrows
Richmond Sockeyes
Muskegon Zephyrs
San Diego Gulls
Fayetteville FireAntz
- Feb 24, 2003
- 29,961
- 3,053
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,195
- 14,620
Unfortunately I’ll be very busy during tax season (April) so I probably won’t be around for discussion as much as usual, but I should be good after that.
Mandatory voting-- although there’s usually less participation towards the end of the drafts, mandatory voting might force some participants into make quick, rushed votes that aren’t fully researched. Keeping tracking of who voted, and publishing those results at the end would be a good idea, as this would provide some social pressure to keep up-to-date, but mandatory voting is going too far.
The minor league drafts have proven that there’s enough talent to support 30+ teams. We could probably even extend it to 40 without watering things down too much. However, the costs of expansions are a slower draft, and less familiarity with each team. Based on what I thought about the speed and complexity of the last draft, I’d prefer limiting this to 30-32 teams.
GBC suggested “12 hours for rounds 1 to 8, 8 hours for rounds 9 to 16, 6 hours for rounds 17 to 21, and 4 hours for rounds 22 to 24?â€. This sounds good to me—PMing is the way to go.
I like the idea of choosing a play-by-play commentator at the end. Whatever we can do to shine some light on forgotten parts of NHL history would be great.
Brooklyn Yawning Otters is my favourite team name.
Mandatory voting-- although there’s usually less participation towards the end of the drafts, mandatory voting might force some participants into make quick, rushed votes that aren’t fully researched. Keeping tracking of who voted, and publishing those results at the end would be a good idea, as this would provide some social pressure to keep up-to-date, but mandatory voting is going too far.
The minor league drafts have proven that there’s enough talent to support 30+ teams. We could probably even extend it to 40 without watering things down too much. However, the costs of expansions are a slower draft, and less familiarity with each team. Based on what I thought about the speed and complexity of the last draft, I’d prefer limiting this to 30-32 teams.
GBC suggested “12 hours for rounds 1 to 8, 8 hours for rounds 9 to 16, 6 hours for rounds 17 to 21, and 4 hours for rounds 22 to 24?â€. This sounds good to me—PMing is the way to go.
I like the idea of choosing a play-by-play commentator at the end. Whatever we can do to shine some light on forgotten parts of NHL history would be great.
Brooklyn Yawning Otters is my favourite team name.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Exactly!
32 teams would be 8 per division, perfect for playoff match-ups
28 would be like ATD8 and ATD7
30 would be unbalanced in terms of divisions
Changed My Vote
Although I voted yes (I changed my vote), I was wrong. Forcing people to vote will mean some will flip a coin to keep eligible for future drafts. Always nice to read your posts, my friend.
Last edited:
