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?
First my math was off, 76, not 78 game schedule so four extra on the road and at home.
Revenue sharing that was suggested by someone earlier in the thread, $1.00/game to the visitors would help offset the travel costs for all road games. It would also help to incentivize all teams to become a draw on the road thus improving the overall product of the league.
The goal is to make the playoffs. In the first round teams do see a drop in attendance, you do some great work with attendance so you would be better at confirming this than I would so I'll trust your numbers if I'm wrong. Teams are willing to spend for lower revenues and fewer dates to get into the playoffs when in many cases they have no chance of getting beyond the first round. For the top four teams that means they are spending more as well with the expected payoff being getting beyond the first round. A combination of basic revenue sharing that puts incentives on each team to become a draw while eliminating one round of the playoffs where teams see a drop in attendance sounds like a pretty fair payoff for most teams.
The rivalry games I agree can bring in some extra bodies to the games but while Windsor/London just had 5800 for a nationally televised game Windsor/Flint just had less than 3600 for a division rivalry between two teams battling it out for playoff positioning a week later. I think the Windsor/London game had some fan incentives to help draw a bigger crowd, Windsor/London on Dec. 15th had less than 4300. The product on the ice, home and away teams has an effect regardless of rivalries as well. Windsor has an inconsistent product and it's been that way for a few years now. Increase the level of competitiveness across the league and you'll increase attendance a bit more regularly.
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
I agree with this. When it is more difficult to miss the playoffs than it is to make it the first round becomes meaningless since much of the time it's a forgone conclusion as to who is going to win. Make the playoffs more difficult to start with as well as ensuring that the top teams in the league are in it every year and both the regular season and the entire playoffs become much more important. If adding a few extra games is a tough sell due to the potential revenue losses what's the incentive to finish 5th through 8th in either conference if the chances of getting beyond the 1st round is minimal or even gett9ing two home dates for the lower seeded team. Take the extra home dates, potential for increased revenue for all teams while eliminating a round of the playoffs that the sixteen teams that qualify probably don't make any money off of anyways or minimal return at best while still seeing increased travel expenses.
Eliminate the conferences/divisions and rank the teams 1 through 20 and the top 8 teams make the playoffs. You have a bigger battle to get into the playoffs, every team in the playoffs has a legitimate shot at winning or at least should have and you have the best of the league instead of the best of each conference regardless of how they compare to the rest of the league. Having played a balanced schedule to do it they've all had to go through the same schedule to get there as well so there's little to no real difference in strength of schedule.
less picks in drafts means more free agents for teams with the most resources. Even if the U18 seems a waste, some selected players have made it that previously would have been signed as FA to teams with the greatest resources. It’s been a few years since London has traded FAs for multiple 2nds and/or 3rds.
Imo the draft(s) rules are mostly good for struggling teams. Flint for example, has comp picks Dellandrea & Wismer plus use of acquired picks from McLeod being a defect. They were able to negotiate the release of import Kolyachonok because of import limits. Flint probably does not get Oksentyuk without Koly. The rules allowed the trade of no-show Janek for picks. And, they traded U18 pick K.Pearson to OS for a conditional pick.
I really do like the idea of a lottery for the bottom five.
Cutting the draft to 10 rounds should also make the U18 draft more relevant.
First thing is with fewer draft picks it increases the value of draft picks which combined with the new restrictions on trading draft picks should see the costs of deals return to some more along the lines of what we had 15+ years ago. That allows more teams to make a push more often helping to reduce the cyclical nature of the league. Increased competitiveness.
With fewer picks there's also going to be fewer flier picks taken as well since getting the top talent to report will become even more important. That should make for more opportunities for the supposed "less desirable" teams to get better players. This alone won't do it which is why in my original post I said restructuring the league has to be about more than realignment. Teams have to become more competitive on a more regular basis. These suggestions would provide some of the tools to do that but the teams have to take responsibility for doing it as well.
Would this eliminate players from picking their spots? No, nothing will change that but it should lessen it a bit and once teams start to become more competitive through that then reporting issues should come down a bit. Another thing I've mentioned before when topics like this have come up is compensation picks. The league should not be providing compensation picks unless the payer will not report to the league period. So that would take quite a while to recover that pick. When players won't report the two teams involved in the deal should settle the compensation like any other trade. This is where trading first round picks should come into play as well as with how first round draftees are tradable. If you can trade the player then there's no reason for not being able to trade the pick. If the league wants to put the emphasis on the kids then being able to trade your top drafted players makes no sense. Either all 16 year olds are tradable or none should be and if you can trade any other pick as well as first round 16 year olds then first round draft picks should be on the table.
Reducing the import draft to one round isn't a necessity. If the restrictions on how many imports a team can carry were lifted having multiple rounds increases the amount of chances a team has at drafting even more high end players. Lifting the limit on how many a team can carry allows teams to get full value for their imports when they deal them and doesn't require them to have to take an import back as happens in a lot of import deals thus allowing the teams involved more options when making a deal. Trading import draft picks should be restored as well.
A lottery would have to be for all teams that don't make the playoffs. Again this is an incentive for teams to improve their product. Run it along the lines of the NHL lottery so that you limit how far a team can drop down in the draft but at the same time it takes away any incentive to tank simply to get a high pick for a couple of years.
Like Otto responded to my original post, none of this would likely happen. Just if there's going to be any type of restructuring it has to go beyond simply realignment if the goal is to create more competition. It has to be a mix of finding balance, providing tools and providing incentives for teams to become more competitive on a regular basis. The idea of parity is nice but until you create an environment that incentivizes competitiveness you will never really have ongoing parity. Bring value to back to draft picks so they matter both as tools to build a team through the draft and as trade chips and you will see prices become more reasonable allowing teams that may be borderline to get in on making additions at the trade deadline which suddenly adds another competitive team(s) to the mix during the stretch. A balanced schedule takes away the perception of this division or conference being tougher/easier than any others by ensuring every team has the same schedule to deal with. Obviously U17s/WJCs and other outside tournaments can come into play but the effect should be minimal.
I don't see different teams being in the finals as showing parity, it shows more that the junior cycle is believed to be the only way to do things and as some teams, not just London have shown it doesn't have to be this way. What I am proposing should simply mean every team has a reason to compete every year and here's some of the tools that makes that possible. Sure, some teams will miss the playoffs for consecutive years and some will make them for consecutive years but the road to get there should be a better product for the fans.
Attracting talent to the league and individual teams is another conversation that the league needs to tackle but it has to start with individual teams doing a better job.