metzgerism

Add me for alternate &/or whatnot.

Lol @ al bundy just doing what I told him. DID YOU TRY PLAYING L.A. EMPTY NET YET?!?

NHL94's infamous Ron Barr, spotted in the NHL Media Contacts guide, working locally (to here) in Palo Alto, CA. I will try and get more information. What I didn't know was that John Schrader was the replacement for Ron Barr in the inferior-but-not-as-inferior-as-later-installments NHL95. Schrader is a local Sharks intermission reporter for television. He also teaches at my school - it was shocking to walk into his journalism classroom (to talk to one of my school radio broadcasters - I call hockey, yes) and see him, and think "Hey, that's John Sch-" "Hello. Can I help you?" *stern* I pissed off the face of NHL95 without even trying This was months ago I just found out about him in NHL95 (he's ditched the Drew Carey spectacles).

The MLS isn't in Europe. Read what he said and think before you post. But if it was, I'd go for it. Bring back the old MLS scoring system! 3 points for a win, 1 point for a shootout win, 0 points for a loss! And very clearly bad for the NHL. BUT it might be good for hockey...

Okay, first of all about half of this is stuff that is either already done (like the draft picks, the Blackhawks), not done yet or won't happen, (like retraction and Las Vegas) or not a change (two-line pass).Clock: This isn't basketball, and teams have no problem moving the puck up the ice. Hanging in your own zone is dangerous, and time-wasting is NOT employed by any NHL team. I think you may have made this problem up in your head and you really don't watch enough hockey. Blackhawks: The owner died this offseason - necessitating an ownership change. Done. NBA playoff rules: The NBA playoffs are a hard bracket, meaning that they needed to change the way that they did things because 1st and 2nd in a division were always playing each other in Round 2. The NHL doesn't need to do this, as they have a soft bracket that re-seeds everyone after Round 1. Therefore, unnecessary. Realigning the Eastern Conference: How about just doing away with the conferences entirely, going to 2-3-2 playoffs (2-2-1-1-1 in cases like NYR-NYI-PHI-NJD-WSH-BOS, SJ-LA-ANA-PHX, CAL-EDM, FLA-TB-ATL, PIT-CBJ-DET, NSH-STL, OTT-MTL, or BUF-TOR). The Stanley Cup Finals might end up truly between the two best teams that way, instead of having all the strength (and all the travelling) in one conference. Fighting: I don't care one way or another...I'd prefer to see fights because I like to see cleaner hockey (in college the game gets too dull because of all the scraps), but I don't think they're cracking down, honestly. Some refs are different than others, and there's a difference between a wrongly-worded "scrum" and a true fight. I think you're making up a problem with this argument as well. I think that the young players really need to learn how and when and where to fight...I don't see a big problem, just mentioning that a lot of the up-to-code fights tend to be done by older players. I was at Sharks-Coyotes and saw JR pound a guy, but when it was clear that the other guy was hurt, Roenick was the first and most visible to call for the trainer. That's aggressive and classy, and what I prefer to see when I see a hockey fight. Of course if you're going to hockey games to see a fight break out, you're a dumbass who should just stay home and watch the UFC, where the level of skill in fighting is far superior than in the NHL...it's like NASCAR - rednecks don't watch to see a crash, so I don't watch to become a redneck.

Still looking for comments on the "bring back the two-line pass/get rid of offsides" idea...see my earlier post, as well as Scribe's...

Dunno if I made it clear, but I'm up for both SNES belts.

I think this would be an interesting move and I've contemplated it in the past, but with a couple changes - namely more lines on the ice. You would divide the ice into either 5 or 6 zones (six might be best to keep icing intact), with two-line-passes being illegal the extent of the ice...the offensive zone would probably have to be smaller, but with no offsides, a clearance out of the zone has less impact. I'm thinking 30 feet between each zone, with the nets moved to 180 feet apart. Not sure if you can be ahead of the second line and still be legal (effectively getting rid of offsides), but it's something to consider. This is an idea I'm using in creating my own game (it's a field sport), since the NHL did away with the two-line-pass rules, I'm adopting them and refining them, so I've spent some time considering this option. --- Regarding overtime rules...get rid of it. Just have ties, and I'm even one of those whack-jobs that says get rid of them in the playoffs too - series are first to 8 but give the high seed a point (to tiebreak). Considering that there isn't really a good points system with shootouts (there's 3-2-1-0, 0 for all losses but 3 for Rwins, 2 for OTwins, 1 for SOwins, they all kinda suck), just do a basic W-T-L.

You do know that it wasn't enough, right?

If the NHL had a strong U.S. television presence and advertised itself properly, then THAT would be their big form of revenue. For a lot of Americans, we understand the basic gist of hockey but there are so many that think that "there are so many rules," when compared to the other major sports, hockey is damn simple. Get rid of the trapezoid, change shooting the puck out to an icing penalty, and fix the standings. Then sell sell sell!

I lose to the computer pretty consistently, actually. I play pulled-goalie games all the time.

aim: metzgerism

Playoffs, top 16...all seeded. I don't know, it's complex, but my main argument is for 5 divisions of 6 teams, so that the divisions are retained, but Chicago or someone goes to one of the three Eastern time zone divisions (thinking an Original Six division would be neat here). Top 2 in each division get playoff berths, then 6 wild cards. And I never said anything about practicality. I just think that all the assholes in the East get it nice and easy by not havin to travel at all.

No, because then you don't have a league. You have two leagues, which is similar to what we have now, operating under the same rules of play but not the same kind of travel duress. My main arguments for one league are this: top 2 teams, regardless of division, could have a chance to meet in the Finals, and the travel woes of the Western Conference could possibly be alleviated. To make no conferences would make the bracket more accurate, and also would even out the imbalance created by 17 Eastern Time Zone clubs.

The list is moot because Super Mario Bros. 3 is not anywhere near worse than 38 other games. This is more like a "greatest impact" list, not best games, and they don't say it.

I like it too (regarding the championship belts)...aside from leagues it's a way to see who's doing what - pretty neat. However, I would prefer a 5 min period best 4/7, since it's basically the norm. It takes a little time, of course, but you're not playing that much useless time - if a player is down and out after 10 minutes, he only has to play 5 more and move on to the next game, instead of 20 more and basically just forfeit the match. An even-teams rom belt would be really nice, and we should name each belt. I think that the title-holder should have to finish 5 title defenses in a month (not 2 a week, because of the increase in time), and be able to play one of the top 2 or 3 players on a waiting list (ranked with series wins being +2, and losses being -1, in shorter matches). I'll think about this more and get back to you - the waiting list idea is the one that I want to look at the most.

best quote ever.

I once had a score of 31-1 over the CPU's Cameroon (I used Argentina). I was like...9 years old at the time. EDIT: Technos' World Cup, not Soccer.

Yeah, tickenest and I got to the shootout, he won 1-0... The instruction manual says that there's overtime AFTER the shootout though...weird.

I don't think that the NHL would agree to retraction, so I'm strictly talking about with the 30 current teams. I crunched some numbers - the most likely I think is 4 divisions (two of 8, two of 7), since the Pacific Division would consist only of teams in the Pacific and Mountain time zones. Here is what I came up with: 1 game vs. each team in a non-conference division (7-8 games) 2 games vs. each team in the other non-conference division (14-16 games) 3 games vs. each team in the other conference division (21-24 games) 5-6 games vs. each team in own division (35-39 games) You switch non-conference divisions to play twice each year, so it's a pretty odd looking schedule because the divisions are not even, but I do believe that it works out pretty well. --- My other idea, which I prefer but doesn't look great geographically, is five divisions of 6 teams. Depending on choice, either one division should be the original six OR canadian teams. Here is the schedule: 6 games vs. each team in own division (30 games) 2 games vs. each other team (48 games) 4 at-large games (probably vs. same-finishing teams from previous season) Playoffs would consist of the top 2 in each division (10 teams) and 6 wild cards. And yes, teams from the same division CAN meet in the Stanley Cup Final.

Today's San Jose Mercury News (yes, I'm a local Sharks fan) had a story about the upcoming board of Governor's meeting @ Pebble Beach (about 90 minutes away). It says that the chief concerns are the sale of the Preds and the adoption of a new schedule. Here are the proposals: BETTMAN'S IDEA (the lockout year schedule) - 82 games 24 divisional games (6/team) 40 conference games (4/team) 18 interconference games (2 vs. three, 1 vs. twelve) RED WINGS' IDEA - 84 games (back to the pre-1995 lockout number) 24 divisional games (6/team) 30 conference games (3/team) 30 interconference games (2/team) DAN RUSANOWSKY'S IDEA (probably not his, he's the Sharks PxP announcer) 32 divisional games (8/team) 50 interdivisional/interconference games (2/team) Opening the discussion, I will edit later (I have work) with my scheduling and realignment ideas.

Tecmo Super Bowl is leagues ahead of anything you will see nowadays - only there's little "football" in the "game." Baseball Stars (and it's many reincarnations) is also incredibly good. We have a very perceptive non-hockey community here (and I just think that all sports games made in the last 10 years are horrid simulatrons). Something unknown because nobody plays it much: Super Rugby for the SNES (japan only), not the best simulation of the sport, but an easy-to-get-into game - much like NHL94, I learned rugby from this game, and learned how to actually PLAY this game from playing actual rugby. Generally, the older the sports game, the more game-elements there are (making it more fun) with less sports elements (those make it less fun). Thank god NHL94 combined them both oh-so-well.

I figured you would say that it was "excessive" or something to that effect, and my response: It couldn't be any other way if you did it like this. There has to be a significant advantage to dominant play in order to score that many points, and to demerit "halfsies" play. Mathematically, this has to be the way it is. However, if you wanted to decide every game playoffs-style, it'd be 10-6-3-1-0, more moderate for sure. Like I said, I don't think it's a problem (especially not in my format, all I'm saying is to make "most games played" the first tiebreaker, instead of "least games played," to encourage play). On your other note, I think that's a good idea, giving merit-based awards. Hell, you gave me MVP in the Summer League just for playing - how can I say no to that!

1) Coaches can do this now. Because of this, I disagree with you: People playing is NOT the most important thing, because garnering proof is too difficult. If they want to collude this way, sure. Whatever. When playoffs come around, if they skirted the system, they will suffer when facing opponents who won't go for that s**t. 2) People can't say "Oh, but I played that guy" at the end. It's the coach's job to report, confirm, and get on the ass of the other guy to make sure the result counts. BEFORE the deadline. There is no bartering, no bickering, at 12:01 AM on day one of the playoffs, you know who you play and that is FINAL. 3) I have a pyramidal scoring system that encourages winning in an X-game set - by a severe margin. I've proposed it for chess to avoid quick draws, which essentially is your issue, so I'll propose it here...BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY For every x "hockey points (Hp)" you get, you receive x^triangle "league points (Lp)," but only against the same opponent. Assume a four-game set at one sitting (and this will look RPG-ish but it's not supposed to): 0 Hp = 0 Lp 1 Hp = 1 Lp 2 Hp = 3 Lp 3 Hp = 6 Lp 4 Hp = 10 Lp 5 Hp = 15 Lp 6 Hp = 21 Lp 7 Hp = 28 Lp 8 Hp = 36 Lp This means that if you go 2-2, you both get 10 points. Pretty pathetic when you see that a 4-0 record would get you - not twice as much - but over three and a half times as much. This solves collusion - in a BIG way - but ends up supporting players who totally outclass their peers. A little strange, but you won't likely see anyone sitting on their laurels in overtime, that's for sure. P.S. If you want to have every game be decided, I suggest a 3-2-1-0 system for shootouts (expanding this severely), or just going one point/win with endless overtime. It has to have a zero sum basis, because the system itself is NOT zero sum, and that is on purpose.

I mentioned several ideas to Halifax: 1) 100% player roms (so that nobody is uneven going into battle). This will be trialled, I believe, in the winter nostalgia. 2) And this is the critical one, something that I call "open league." OPEN LEAGUE I don't care WHO plays. I think ultimately the cap would be at 26 teams, so that nobody is duplicating teams on an even-team rom, but there is no need to limit the number of coaches. You should play four games (two home/two away) against every other team in the open league phase. With 26 teams, this is 100 games. Here's the kicker, I don't care if you don't play all of your games, I don't even care if you play half of your games. But, ultimately, the coach that plays more has more opportunity to advance to the playoffs. ONE deadline is set. There is NO waiting list. At the deadline, players with the most points advance. First tiebreaker is MOST games played (not least), and then most wins. This means that a player that goes 10-90 will be ranked higher than a player that went 10-2. This, in itself, emphasizes playing games, and awards active players without dealing with kicking people out. The inequities of the system generally need not apply - the goal is to get people active, and in past trials the active players benefit, even if they are not that good. Furthermore, the playoffs are there, and I can't imagine the best coach in the league NOT being in the top 8/12/16. This gives more responsibility to players, and less to Halifax and Evan and others. Plus, if there are a LOT of league games on the schedule, there is almost always an opportunity to play, but not necessarily a need to if you are suddenly very busy IRL.