Re-structuring the league

dirty12

Registered User
Mar 6, 2015
8,965
3,636
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

AttackSound

Junior Hockey Fan Since Birth
Aug 25, 2016
2,257
977
Owen Sound, Ontario
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.

Have to agree with Otto here what you're deciding would destroy the OHL as we know it and teams would fold under what you're suggesting the league do. A lottery draft however a somewhat better option then some of the others you suggested will never ever happen in this league there's not enough top-end talent every draft to do such a thing. Even if you could just for the sake of this thread how are you gonna determine who gets picks 1-4 in a league where parity has become the norm and teams in the bottom half of the standings are looking to getting a big piece of there organizations development through the draft.

If there was more teams in the league than maybe having a draft lottery would make sense but not under the current 20 team system.

Your idea on no restrictions on the import draft would single handedly fold teams in this league especially those who aren't one with big profit margins to get import players over here.

As for your ideas on 16yo trading rules for as much as in theory it sounds like a good idea it too would cripple teams as well in this league as players who should be teams core building pieces to developing a competitive team would be then dealt over and over again by those teams that rely upon getting those top-end players in the draft would be the single thing to destroy this league in a span of just a season or two. No league governor on any team would agree to these changes.
 

member 71782

Guest
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.
 

member 71782

Guest
Have to agree with Otto here what you're deciding would destroy the OHL as we know it and teams would fold under what you're suggesting the league do. A lottery draft however a somewhat better option then some of the others you suggested will never ever happen in this league there's not enough top-end talent every draft to do such a thing. Even if you could just for the sake of this thread how are you gonna determine who gets picks 1-4 in a league where parity has become the norm and teams in the bottom half of the standings are looking to getting a big piece of there organizations development through the draft.

If there was more teams in the league than maybe having a draft lottery would make sense but not under the current 20 team system.

Your idea on no restrictions on the import draft would single handedly fold teams in this league especially those who aren't one with big profit margins to get import players over here.

As for your ideas on 16yo trading rules for as much as in theory it sounds like a good idea it too would cripple teams as well in this league as players who should be teams core building pieces to developing a competitive team would be then dealt over and over again by those teams that rely upon getting those top-end players in the draft would be the single thing to destroy this league in a span of just a season or two. No league governor on any team would agree to these changes.

I'm glad I didn't bring up my thoughts on expansion/contraction.

A draft lottery would work similar to the NHL. Every team that doesn't make the playoffs would be included. This would push teams to improve since there's no guarantee of getting the first overall pick for finishing last. The issues have nothing to do with parity between teams it has to do with how teams are run and there willingness to put a competitive product on the ice. Where a franchise is located has to do with where an owner is willing to put a team and the responsibility of that franchise lies with the owner.

Every team in the W and Q has more expenses to deal with than any team in the O when it comes to travel yet the O isn't capable of finding a better way of doing things to increase the competitiveness of the teams? That's a cop out that starts with the owners. Even going to a balanced schedule the expenses in the O should remain lower. Small market teams in the other two leagues can survive and thrive but small market teams in the O can't? I don't buy it. What I do buy is owners not willing to take care of their investments which cheats the fans and the players.

Changing the import rules should help those without the financial resources. Yes, it can be expensive to bring in imports so cutting the draft to one round lowers that expense. Second, teams cannot exchange money in trades so if a team is trading their import they don't get back the financial compensation so a team that can't afford to bring in imports can acquire them through trades without the financial costs. Allowing them to carry more than three doesn't affect the costs which gives them a chance to improve their team minus the upfront costs. Also restore trading import picks so they have an asset they can get value out of without the financial obligations. Any costs associated with the contracts of imports post release can be negotiated in any trades just like trading first round gold packages can be negotiated. getting full value for an import player in a trade instead of lower value helps any team that trades one without the obligation of taking one back if the team isn't interested in who is available. How does any of that affect a team negatively, especially if they have fewer financial resources? It doesn't so it won't cause any teams to fold. Again, owners need to take responsibility for their investments so if an owner can't play by the rules and rules can't be expanded or changed because an owner isn't willing to take responsibility why is that owner there?

The rules around first round draft picks and first round drafted players are contradictory at best. Eliminate the ability to trade the picks to save the GMs from themselves so they will always have a top player they can draft every year but then take those top players and make them available for trades in their first year while the lower ranked/drafted players can't be traded. If a team struggles to attract the top talent available when they pick then you are handicapping them by forcing them to make a pick that is probably more valuable in a trade. At the same time if the league is willing to allow trading those highly touted first round draftees then be it through request or simply a sought after part of a trade then why are other players short changed on the same opportunities and teams short changed of all available options? How does giving teams more options cripple them? How does giving teams and other players more options cripple them? If the league wants to put the focus on the players then stop limiting what they can do with the pick and stop trading the player. You can't call a player a core piece or building block then allow the best of them to be traded, that makes no sense and at the same time you can't say the league prioritizes the players when the picks are protected more than the player in those cases. Further, if a team struggles to attract the top players in the draft then limiting there ability to maximize value from the pick by forcing them to trade the player doesn't provide them with a core piece that year and compensation picks puts all teams on the hook for them not being able to attract top players.

There's less and less talent available with more and more options for that talent. The more the league is seen as less competitive overall the more that talent will explore other options and restructuring the divisions and conferences based on travel won't fix that. Things need to be based on the overall talent otherwise why would a player report to a team that's very rarely competitive or their division or conference isn't as competitive when compared to other divisions and conferences?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvenSteven

member 71782

Guest
@cfaub I'm assuming you mean $1.00 per ticket per game. Keep in mind if every team is receiving this then every team is paying it. Theres not much gain there.

Yes, $1.00/ticket/game. I know in the end, unless prices go up by that $1.00 it doesn't change the financials overall and I'm assuming most, if not all teams would increase the cost to cover that.

It's a simplistic way to look at revenue sharing in a basic way to offset travel costs.

Small market teams would see the greatest benefit going into larger markets to offset the extra travel costs.

Mid size market teams would probably see no benefit or negatives from it overall.

Larger market teams would see no real benefit, probably a small loss due to paying out more than they would return but it probably doesn't have any real negative impact on their bottom lines.
 

Hammer9001

Registered User
Apr 1, 2015
848
436
Hamilton
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

If you are making the argument the league is perpetually cyclical because different teams make the finals often, I think it's completely fair to point out that certain teams don't suffer or are able to weather those cycles far more then other teams.
 

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
If you are making the argument the league is perpetually cyclical because different teams make the finals often, I think it's completely fair to point out that certain teams don't suffer or are able to weather those cycles far more then other teams.

You can make whatever point you want.... but the fact is it's a heck of a lot harder to make it to the finals than it is to simply make the playoffs. There is no comparison
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirty12

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,551
6,750
This may be the stupidest waste of f'n time thread that pops up annually in the OHL Forum.

You really see how stupid people are.

Enjoy you visions of pie in the sky Junior Hockey Utopia's.

I will enjoy my f'd up dystopia, thank you.

Over to you, Howard......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Otto

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->