Promotion/Relegation Leagues for NHL94?

[metzgerism]

A few years ago I attempted a European Soccer-style promotion/relegation chess league with three divisions. The goal was faster tournaments, more champions, and less people not playing their games. While it did not work then (mainly because there weren't that many people active), I've been thinking about the state of NHL94 and the fact that most of our leagues are split into A-League, B-League, etc., while there is no codified way to actually compete.

Well, for the last few hours, I've been considering such a system for a long-term league, with some of my capitalism league concepts. Here is how I would consider the divisional system:

TOP LEAGUE: This would consist of the "best" 14 players, and feature a 52-game "first" season, a 20-28 game "second" season (see the capitalism league for details), and some finals (no brackets). 14th would relegate, 13th and 12th would playoff against each other to see who gets relegated.

SECOND LEAGUE: The rest of the players are in this one (unless there are sufficient numbers for this to be an intermediate division). Similar rules apply (a first season and a second season). Top 1 player after the second season promotes, and 2nd and 3rd would play-off to see who also gets promoted.

If there is a third league, the second league would face similar relegation factors. The point is, would people be interested in this, and is 14 the right number of people for a top-tier league?

[dangler]

sounds interesting, however, i'm not interested in joining a whole bunch of leagues that take up all my time... i'm going to stick to the classic league, and 1 other league at a time (preferably some type of juiced league like your capitalism one). so if you're capitalism league is toast and theres no other juiced leagues running, then I would probably sign up for this.

another interesting consideration for this would be at the end of the season, teams at the bottom of the league could get higher draft choices for their team for next year. that way a team that wins the league will be stuck with a worse team the following season... that would be pretty cool, help even it out and vary the champions from season to season.

[Tickenest]

A few years ago I attempted a European Soccer-style promotion/relegation chess league with three divisions. The goal was faster tournaments, more champions, and less people not playing their games. While it did not work then (mainly because there weren't that many people active), I've been thinking about the state of NHL94 and the fact that most of our leagues are split into A-League, B-League, etc., while there is no codified way to actually compete.

Well, for the last few hours, I've been considering such a system for a long-term league, with some of my capitalism league concepts. Here is how I would consider the divisional system:

TOP LEAGUE: This would consist of the "best" 14 players, and feature a 52-game "first" season, a 20-28 game "second" season (see the capitalism league for details), and some finals (no brackets). 14th would relegate, 13th and 12th would playoff against each other to see who gets relegated.

SECOND LEAGUE: The rest of the players are in this one (unless there are sufficient numbers for this to be an intermediate division). Similar rules apply (a first season and a second season). Top 1 player after the second season promotes, and 2nd and 3rd would play-off to see who also gets promoted.

If there is a third league, the second league would face similar relegation factors. The point is, would people be interested in this, and is 14 the right number of people for a top-tier league?

I'm sorry, metz, but I have to weight in against the idea. In theory, it would be fun, but the real problem is guys just not finishing games. If you had everyone completing all of their games, then sure, it would be meaningful, but the idea of relegating the worst two players kinda loses its meaning when the guys at the bottom of the standings took over for guys who lost interest halfway through the season after they lost most of their games. You know, it's just not such an accurate reflection of how the replacement players played.

Essentially, the guys who are near the top of the standings in any league play all of their games because there's some potential reward in it for them. The guys at the bottom don't because there's nothing for them to play for. Unfortunately, the potential "reward" of avoiding the drop isn't incentive for some guy to stick with it.

The other problem is that you're bound to have guys leaving from season to season in the top division, and where would you go to fill those slots? The lower division, of course. The problem with that solution is that the significance of promotion is lost if several guys get promoted just to fill slots in the top division. Also, some guys would even refuse promotion, since promotion in this case doesn't mean more revenue or prestige (maybe a little prestige but not a ton), but in all likelihood it does mean harder games.

So here's what you need to do to make the idea work:

PAY US

Yes, make us professionals, give us salaries, pay us X amount per game (but make the biggest payouts reserved for the guys who finish all of their games and the guys who do the best.) You think you'd have a problem getting guys to play their games if they were getting paid? And I mean, like, $20/game minimum. Then you can make your rules whatever the fungus you want and those games'll get done. Oh, and only pay the lower division guys $7/game so that there's a real incentive to promote and to stay up.

So in the top division, that's 364 games x $40/game ($20 to each player) = $14,560 in player salaries for playing games. Kick in another $10,000 for a prize pool, and that's $24,560 in total payouts from you for the top division. For the bottom, that'd be $5,096 at $14/game, and say a $3,000 prize pool, which makes the whole thing a grand total of $32,656 for one season. And it wouldn't even be that bad, because you know that like, 2 or 3 games/season wouldn't get played for one reason or another.

$32,656, metz. You've got money to burn, right? No? Well, get us some sponsors. I'm sure Evan and nhl94.com would be happy to contribute $10, maybe $20 per season in sponsorship. You can probably hit up Mark Cuban for the rest. He's kinda crazy.

I see no way in which this plan can fail.

[metzgerism]

I'm sorry, metz, but I have to weight in against the idea. In theory, it would be fun, but the real problem is guys just not finishing games. If you had everyone completing all of their games, then sure, it would be meaningful, but the idea of relegating the worst two players kinda loses its meaning when the guys at the bottom of the standings took over for guys who lost interest halfway through the season after they lost most of their games. You know, it's just not such an accurate reflection of how the replacement players played.

I would never have "replacement" players because I would use the system you see in the capitalism league - points for playing, you know?

Essentially, the guys who are near the top of the standings in any league play all of their games because there's some potential reward in it for them. The guys at the bottom don't because there's nothing for them to play for. Unfortunately, the potential "reward" of avoiding the drop isn't incentive for some guy to stick with it.

Well in one season of the capitalism league, we've seen that not be the case.

The other problem is that you're bound to have guys leaving from season to season in the top division, and where would you go to fill those slots? The lower division, of course. The problem with that solution is that the significance of promotion is lost if several guys get promoted just to fill slots in the top division. Also, some guys would even refuse promotion, since promotion in this case doesn't mean more revenue or prestige (maybe a little prestige but not a ton), but in all likelihood it does mean harder games.

That's true, probably your best point

So here's what you need to do to make the idea work:

PAY US

Yes, make us professionals, give us salaries, pay us X amount per game (but make the biggest payouts reserved for the guys who finish all of their games and the guys who do the best.) You think you'd have a problem getting guys to play their games if they were getting paid? And I mean, like, $20/game minimum. Then you can make your rules whatever the fungus you want and those games'll get done. Oh, and only pay the lower division guys $7/game so that there's a real incentive to promote and to stay up.

So in the top division, that's 364 games x $40/game ($20 to each player) = $14,560 in player salaries for playing games. Kick in another $10,000 for a prize pool, and that's $24,560 in total payouts from you for the top division. For the bottom, that'd be $5,096 at $14/game, and say a $3,000 prize pool, which makes the whole thing a grand total of $32,656 for one season. And it wouldn't even be that bad, because you know that like, 2 or 3 games/season wouldn't get played for one reason or another.

$32,656, metz. You've got money to burn, right? No? Well, get us some sponsors. I'm sure Evan and nhl94.com would be happy to contribute $10, maybe $20 per season in sponsorship. You can probably hit up Mark Cuban for the rest. He's kinda crazy.

I see no way in which this plan can fail.

I pay you in points!

[angryjay93]

I would never have "replacement" players because I would use the system you see in the capitalism league - points for playing, you know?

i hate to be a pain in the ass, but ive seen you say this a few times on the boards recently. Didnt captialism league have a bunch of replacements because guys still didnt play despite getting points for games? Or am i misinformed?

[statto]

The GENS leagues already have promotion/relegation (being a SNES guy, I assuming) but in a way which lets GENS leagues take the best players from the lower leagues and move them into the 'A' league as the leagues change over time.

The idea works in theory in NHL94 leagues but again not in practice for reasons stated above, although I think there is a way to get around the problems - a franchise league.

This means that the coach of the franchise is not important, but the franchise itself is important.

The best way to do it would probably be 2 divisions of 14 teams, or 3 of 9 teams, because then mod-roms don't come into play, and not make it tournament-style like Metz's suggestion. Cap league rom might work best for this. You'd have an A division and a B division.

For the first season, have signups, and as soon as the A division fills up everyone else (even unassigned teams) is assigned to the 'B' division.

Top 8 teams go to the playoffs in each division. The bottom 2 teams in the A league are relegated to the B league. The B league regular season winner is promoted along with the winner of the B league playoffs - if they're the same, then the playoff runner-up is also promoted, but the playoff winners are league champions.

Run it cap league-style, no checkpoints.

Now here's the problem - people not playing, replacement players, et cetera.

Teams which lose their coaches are open for anyone to apply for. Let's say that I get Hartford as my team, and I'm in the A division, but I really want Calgary even though they're in the B division, and the Calgary coach quits, I could say I want Calgary and as long as I'm the first bidder, I would get that team (thus opening up Hartford). If a team is not claimed by an existing coach within 3 days of the commissioner announcing the coach getting fired, the first person on the waitlist gets that team if they want it.

Let's say there's a team in the A league who no one wants and no one on the waitlist - they would go on hiatus. Games already played would be counted, but that team would be effectively removed from the league until another coach is found. If no coach is found by the end of the year, the goal would be to have a full league instead of a league with a bunch of teams without coaches, and the franchise wouldn't be relegated but instead completely removed from the league. If the league is full and there are 'hiatus teams', they can start up in the middle of the season in the B league.

Example:

Both leagues have 14 teams. I play with Calgary. I quit mid-season having played half my games and no one wants my team, and the A league has effectively dropped to 13 teams. Calgary are relegated because they don't have a coach, which sucks, but since it's the franchise, they drop down anyways.

Different season. I play with Calgary. I quit mid-season after having gained enough points to not get relegated. No one picks up my team, but I don't get relegated even if there's no coach because I gained enough points.

The problem is that the B league may not have enough coaches after several seasons because everyone wants an A-league team, in which case a restructure would be necessary (before the season, announce you're relegating 2 more teams than normal).

[metzgerism]

i hate to be a pain in the ass, but ive seen you say this a few times on the boards recently. Didnt captialism league have a bunch of replacements because guys still didnt play despite getting points for games? Or am i misinformed?

Yes, but I was testing the waters out with this format. In theory, there is no need to replace coaches, and the next league will fulfill that promise in practice.

Part of the problem is that I set aside teams before announcing the league, and those players either went MIA in the interim or decided they did not want to play SNES anymore. Next time, I will not be removing anyone.

[JeffBC]

I don't like the replacement of coaches either in the leagues.

The guy doesn't play his games and he is not in the playoffs.

Fine one less guy to fight for a playoff spot.

If they don't play their games in the league then they are not welcome in future leagues until they beg to come back.

It is a misrepresentation of a replacemant player record if he does take over another players record.

Should be less teams in the league like 12.

Means good teams for everybody.

1. TOP LEAGUE

2. SECOND LEAGUE

Win 3 points or (still 2 damn).

OT win 2 points

Tie 1 point

Ot loss 1 point

Loss 0 points

My point is tie and OT loss is 1 point.

Damn.

You play 3 periods then your in OT and lose.

You play 15 mins then lose in OT and get 0 points while the other person gets 2 points.

All of you that think that OT loss deserves no points. Whatever you have a stupid point of view.

This will be changed one day so do it from now on in the next leagues.

Duhh.

If they get it to OT it's a point.

People don't play to get in OT.

TOP LEAGUE guys should not get reminded about how many games they need to play.

A lot of us SNES guy's have proven that we get our games in at the end.

SECOND LEAGUE guys they will be more of the new players that might end up being bums rolling around in gutters.

I like reminders saying when the league season ends and how many weeks left but that is it.

Simple Halfax just don't do it. Easy.

If you want people to get them in do something different try and get a few guys to sign up and agree

that they will be on AIM Saturday or Sunday afternoon or evening. I'd sign up.

Or weekdays in the evening 4:00pm -7:00pm Pacific time zone.

[addisonbr]

A couple of general responses.

- I notice that when folks have really strong opinions about how people not playing their games can be fixed, it is often a result of a combination of their own above-average enthusiasm and commitment to the leagues, and not really getting their head around the fact that this community numbers in the "dozens", not the "hundreds" or "thousands" or "etc.". We haven't really hit the magical tipping point where intellectually complicated schemes are going to work, despite the logic on paper. Because at the end of the day the person thinking up the plan usually doesn't factor in that 90% of the rest of the community isn't as fired up about video game leagues as he is.

- In MLB, teams that lose in extra innings get no points. In the NFL, teams that lose in sudden death overtime, after losing the coin flip and never even touching the ball on offense, get no points. In the NBA, teams that lose in quadruple overtime get no points. These leagues have managed to survive on the concept that two competitors battle until there is a winner and a loser, and that the loser of the game is treated the same no matter how much of a moral victory he may have earned along the way. I understand that there are folks out there who want "partial credit", but not everyone here needs that.

[metzgerism]

- In MLB, teams that lose in extra innings get no points. In the NFL, teams that lose in sudden death overtime, after losing the coin flip and never even touching the ball on offense, get no points. In the NBA, teams that lose in quadruple overtime get no points. These leagues have managed to survive on the concept that two competitors battle until there is a winner and a loser, and that the loser of the game is treated the same no matter how much of a moral victory he may have earned along the way. I understand that there are folks out there who want "partial credit", but not everyone here needs that.

Jeff won't understand this. He will understand this:

1) The NHL is wrong anyways.

2) NHL playoffs don't give partial credit.

3) A lot of hockey fans don't like the OT loss point.

4) Jeff I'm sorry I don't know how to fix it yet.

[statto]

Jeff won't understand this. He will understand this:

1) The NHL is wrong anyways.

2) NHL playoffs don't give partial credit.

3) A lot of hockey fans don't like the OT loss point.

4) Jeff I'm sorry I don't know how to fix it yet.

Mmm OT Loss (belch)

They should just be tied after 3 periods. Playoff games too