I was thinking a few weeks back, looking at Sudbury leading the Central.....IN NO WAY, SERIOUS.....I repeat, NOT serious, that they could keep everything exactly the same, schedules and all but every year the Midwest and West division rotate being in the Eastern Conference and the Central and East just rotate being in the West. Just change the headings on the standings page and let playoffs begin. Playoff travel would be increased but that’s it.
Re-structuring the league
- Thread starter Mein Yak
- Start date
Hammer9001
Registered User
My opinion on the subject is yes the Mid-West division is heavily weighted because London and Kitchener and the history, money and proven success they have brought to the table. That said, parity isn't achieved by alignment, nor spreading out the games in a different fashion, or even adjusting the playoff format. All you are doing is shuffling the thrones and the stools.
If you want to add parity, the solution is revenue sharing, which gives teams more resources to work with to compete with the big dogs who have all the money in the world. Additionally, there must be a better benefits/punishment system in place for when parents refuse to let players play in certain markets.
If you want to add parity, the solution is revenue sharing, which gives teams more resources to work with to compete with the big dogs who have all the money in the world. Additionally, there must be a better benefits/punishment system in place for when parents refuse to let players play in certain markets.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
twinsdad
Registered User
It really is, it’s the only issue. Whether there is a doable solution is another matter.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
It's not an issue. In the last 10 seasons 13 of the leagues 20 teams have made an appearance in the finals. In the last 5 seasons 9 different teams have been in the finals with Erie being the only team appearing twice.
How many teams in the last 10 seasons haven’t been competitive? I won’t disagree that there is probably close to half of the league that is often competitive, but there is a lot that are not, that isn’t what I would call parity. That is have and have nots. And given the cyclical nature of junior hockey it should lend itself to different teams making runs frequently, but often that isn’t the case.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
So 9/10 different teams in the finals over the last 5 years doesn't equate to different teams making runs frequently?
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Last 5 seasons final 4
West Conference
Eriex3
Soo x2
Saginaw
Guelph
Kitchener
Owen Sound
London
East Conference
Oshawa x2
Ottawa
Hamilton
Kingston
Peterborough
Mississauga
Barrie
Niagara
North Bay
16/20 of the leagues teams have been in the final 4 in the last 5 years.
The teams that are missing are Sarnia, Windsor, Flint, and Sudbury.
Flint and Sudbury have had ownership issues in that span, Windsor is trying to recover from the OHL sanctions.. and Sarnia.. well... is just plain Sarnia ...
This to me looks like parity.. you want a shot at a title.. get your house in order. 3 of the 4 teams on the list of teams that didn't make it in the last 5 years have a legitimate shot of making a run this season. I don't think I need to tell you who the odd team out is.
West Conference
Eriex3
Soo x2
Saginaw
Guelph
Kitchener
Owen Sound
London
East Conference
Oshawa x2
Ottawa
Hamilton
Kingston
Peterborough
Mississauga
Barrie
Niagara
North Bay
16/20 of the leagues teams have been in the final 4 in the last 5 years.
The teams that are missing are Sarnia, Windsor, Flint, and Sudbury.
Flint and Sudbury have had ownership issues in that span, Windsor is trying to recover from the OHL sanctions.. and Sarnia.. well... is just plain Sarnia ...
This to me looks like parity.. you want a shot at a title.. get your house in order. 3 of the 4 teams on the list of teams that didn't make it in the last 5 years have a legitimate shot of making a run this season. I don't think I need to tell you who the odd team out is.
In a league where the majority of the teams make the playoffs, you should be able to win a few rounds every half decade or so, that isn’t really a huge accomplishment. I guess I was looking at it more in a broad picture of being competitive more often then not. Really, I don’t even feel like parity is the argument to be had, but moreso how many teams in every given season that have a chance to win the championship. Maybe I’m just getting old, but I seem to remember back in the day, the playoffs seemed wide open and many teams had a chance to win, now a few teams load up(some more often then others) and the others are in a constants cycle of building. Now it’s a few teams that load up and a bunch of teams in the middle hoping to get lucky.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Wondering what "back in the day" means. Is that the 70's? The decade started with 9 teams and finished with 12... so yes it's going to appear more wide open during that time.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
So looking at the 90's # of appearances in the finals
Soo x3
Detroit x3 (Incudes Plymouth)
Peterborough x2
Guelph x2
Oshawa x2
Ottawa x2
North Bay x2
Belleville
Barrie
London
Then the last 10 seasons
London x3
Guelph x2
Barrie x2
Mississauga x2
Niagara x2
Erie x2
Windsor
Owen Sound
Oshawa
Hamilton
North Bay
Soo
Ottawa
Still looks to me like there is more parity today then there was back in the day
rangersblues
Registered User
- Mar 21, 2010
- 2,671
- 2,650
I will agree that with teams loading up there are very few upsets in the first round, partially from the top teams adding players, but also the bottom teams trading away their best players. After the first round things are up for grabs.
I don'tthink parity is that big of an issue. As Otto points out 80% of the team have made a conference final in the past 5 years. I don't think you can top that. Some teams are more consistently competitive than others; that's the reward for being better run, as it should be. Other teams never seem to be competitive. Sadly you can't fix stupid.
I don'tthink parity is that big of an issue. As Otto points out 80% of the team have made a conference final in the past 5 years. I don't think you can top that. Some teams are more consistently competitive than others; that's the reward for being better run, as it should be. Other teams never seem to be competitive. Sadly you can't fix stupid.
I think you miss read my post or I should have explained it better... It was meant to show total number of games played so three trips north and not 6.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Yup... totally messed that one up
Even still 3 trips up north instead of 1 and 3 trips to Niagara instead of 1 .. and still with the 1 trip to Erie isn't something the Attack would go for.
I suppose What I was trying to say was on any given year that amount of teams who have a chance to win, is small. Not how often a team can be competitive from year to year. Although I was surprised to see the variety in the stats you showed.
I can’t see it ever changing now unless somehow they limit trading down the road,
While I would like to see some changes to the league it'll take more than realignment to improve the perception of parity across the league.
For me
One league, 1 - 20.
Balanced schedule, everyone plays each other four times. Increases the schedule to 78 games which is two extra weeks. Eliminate one round of the playoffs which is potentially about two weeks. That guarantees every team 5 more home dates of revenue.
While 2 conferences could be maintained would rather see the top 8 in the playoffs. A lot more incentive for teams to improve how they run things with fewer spots available meaning just relying on the cycle likely doesn't work anymore, teams have to always be improving year after year.
Revenue sharing has been mentioned. Give a buck a ticket to the visiting team which helps offset travel costs. It also provides incentive to have a competitive team every year. For those arenas that don't sell out regularly the visitors share the burden by bringing in a good product to sell more tickets.
Go to a lottery system for the draft. It deters tanking since there is no guarantee that last place will get you first overall.
Cut the draft to 10 rounds, cut the import draft to 1 round. Fewer opportunities to play as a 16 year old could cut down on some of the flier picks that may never report while also limiting some of the kids who pick their spots. It won't change it all but with fewer opportunities it could help spread the talent around.
No restrictions on how many imports a team can have. A 1 round draft is sufficient since not a lot of teams pick 2 imports but allowing teams to carry as many as they want allows teams to maximize value in trades and not have to move another good player in order to acquire another import. This could help some teams that aren't"desirable" bring in some high end talent making them more competitive and more "desirable". Also keeps imports in the mix for OA years if they have no plans elsewhere.
Change the 16 year old trading rules. Either they can all be traded or none. Exempting all but the first rounders makes no sense. They eliminated trading first round picks so every team could bring in top level talent then the top level talent can be traded away. If that's the thoughts behind not trading first round picks then those players should be off the table.
Restructuring divisions/conferences won't change things. Placing incentives for teams to step up their game should.
If teams can't rely on playoff revenue for one round every couple of years it forces the teams to step up their game. No more ase of schedule between the conferences and everyone has a chance to get more gates than home ice in the first round would bring, which usually has soft attendance while an extended season in heated playoff races should bring in more fans.
Just some thoughts.
For me
One league, 1 - 20.
Balanced schedule, everyone plays each other four times. Increases the schedule to 78 games which is two extra weeks. Eliminate one round of the playoffs which is potentially about two weeks. That guarantees every team 5 more home dates of revenue.
While 2 conferences could be maintained would rather see the top 8 in the playoffs. A lot more incentive for teams to improve how they run things with fewer spots available meaning just relying on the cycle likely doesn't work anymore, teams have to always be improving year after year.
Revenue sharing has been mentioned. Give a buck a ticket to the visiting team which helps offset travel costs. It also provides incentive to have a competitive team every year. For those arenas that don't sell out regularly the visitors share the burden by bringing in a good product to sell more tickets.
Go to a lottery system for the draft. It deters tanking since there is no guarantee that last place will get you first overall.
Cut the draft to 10 rounds, cut the import draft to 1 round. Fewer opportunities to play as a 16 year old could cut down on some of the flier picks that may never report while also limiting some of the kids who pick their spots. It won't change it all but with fewer opportunities it could help spread the talent around.
No restrictions on how many imports a team can have. A 1 round draft is sufficient since not a lot of teams pick 2 imports but allowing teams to carry as many as they want allows teams to maximize value in trades and not have to move another good player in order to acquire another import. This could help some teams that aren't"desirable" bring in some high end talent making them more competitive and more "desirable". Also keeps imports in the mix for OA years if they have no plans elsewhere.
Change the 16 year old trading rules. Either they can all be traded or none. Exempting all but the first rounders makes no sense. They eliminated trading first round picks so every team could bring in top level talent then the top level talent can be traded away. If that's the thoughts behind not trading first round picks then those players should be off the table.
Restructuring divisions/conferences won't change things. Placing incentives for teams to step up their game should.
If teams can't rely on playoff revenue for one round every couple of years it forces the teams to step up their game. No more ase of schedule between the conferences and everyone has a chance to get more gates than home ice in the first round would bring, which usually has soft attendance while an extended season in heated playoff races should bring in more fans.
Just some thoughts.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I know it won't happen just some thoughts on changes I wouldn't mind seeing that puts the emphasis more on the teams needing to step up while giving them some tools to do it and taking away some of the perceptions or beliefs that a certain conference or division has an easier schedule.
Hammer9001
Registered User
Parity though is a two edged sword, it's not enough to show the wins, but the losses too.
Lets look at the other side of the coin. Lets look at which teams in the OHL failed to make the playoffs since 2006 (since that is as far back as the OHL playoff bracket tracker on their website goes.). If a division is far more cutthroat then any other division, then they will make the playoffs far more. So, here are the numbers.
London - 0
Kitchener - 2
Guelph - 2
Owen Sound - 2
Erie - 6
Total 12
Windsor - 3
Sarnia - 3
Flint/Plymouth - 4
Saginaw - 1
Soo - 3
Total 14
Ottawa - 2
Kingston - 4
Hamilton/Belleville - 3
Peterborough - 5
Oshawa - 2
Total 16
Mississauga - 1
Sudbury - 4
North Bay/Brampton - 1
Barrie - 3
Niagara - 1
Total 10
So what does this mean? It means the Central and Mid-West divisions are more consistently competitive then the West and East and are consistently avoiding being the odd-man out, and it's far worse if you remove the lowest outlier from each division.
Last edited:
rangersblues
Registered User
- Mar 21, 2010
- 2,671
- 2,650
Why would they have to?
As I said, drop the playoffs to three rounds, about two weeks and extend the season by those two weeks. That would cover six games and the remaining four can be scattered throughout the year. No need for four or five games a week.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Drop the playoffs by a round means cutting 8 teams out of the playoffs.
And your 5 more home games of revenue will be gone rather quickly when you consider the extra travel you have created by having each team play each other an equal amount of times. Not to mention you would see lower overall attendance by eliminating a bunch of games between rivals. Just look what the Knights/Spits did for attendance last week. 5800 .. and you want to eliminate one of those trips so you can see Kingston an extra time?
Last edited:
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I wouldn't look at simply making the playoffs as being a success in a league where 80% of the teams make it in a year. And on top of that first round upsets are a rarity
