Are there any negatives to a 10 man roster right now?

I honestly think we should just make it a 10 man roster this tournament if every team agrees to it. It would make all teams more active and add money to the pot. What do some of you guys think?

 

It only makes sense, teams will be much more active, more money, more players... makes sense

 

Everyone was presented the rules before the tournament. Upon reading them, people bought in. Unless something absolutely devastating comes up that threatens the integrity of the tournament and isn't covered by the rules, they should be followed through to the end. Improvements can be made for future tournaments, but people bought in and agreed to this set of rules. No way it should change all willy nilly because some people changed their minds part way through. Everyone knew what they were signing up for.

Also good luck getting everyone to agree on anything, ever.

 

I'm not saying I disagree, but it has already been said that it is staying the same for this tournament, why does everyone continue to bring this up? People payed money expecting to play by the rules we all agreed upon beforehand. You can't make big changes mid-way through after you have everyone's money. I agree it should go up to 10, but it will have to wait until next tourny.

 

Like deciding that the standings will dictate host, right?

I hate to keep harping on this but that above is already an example of additional rules being added without the knowledge or consent of the community. So the fact that we are so fixated on keeping everything else the same when we've already broken this threshold seems incredibly silly to me.

 

The difference:

Nothing changed in regards to the host rule. It wasnt included in the original rules because it honestly slipped my mind, and the 2 weeks it was posted on the forums in advance of the tournament no one brought up that it was missing. When Tris asked me the day the tournament started how it would be determined I went with what I know, better team = Host. Changing anything mid-tournament is something that I'm adamantly against, as you know. The standings clearly show that winning on the road isnt very difficult, with the collective record of away teams sitting at 70-76-13, and considering the Away team winning is supposed to be an upset anyways (with the better team getting home ice advantage), I'd say the host decision hasnt drastically altered the course of the tournament to the level that we should still be harping on it 10 days in.

If its something that the community wants changed for Tournament #2 I'm all ears for suggestions.

 

Just because there was 1 minor "mistake" (something was left out, not changed), doesn't mean you can scrap everything and ruin the integrity of the league by making major changes, what kind of thinking is that? You are literally complaining against who gets to wear dark or light jerseys and sends the challenge. After seeing some of the bounces for and against us in games, coupled with the data nuge just gave us, I believe host doesn't even matter. Not to mention EA says there is no such thing (not that I believe everything they say), but still a good indicator.

 

to think and/or say that host does nothing is absurd, but i dont mind the host system. i would rather have this system where you know who will be host, a bracket would be awful and a random system would cause more problems if a team gets an unfair ratio of home to away games.

 

Nothing might've changed, but it wasn't fully disclosed either, that is my point. Whether it slipped your mind or not is sort of irrelevant, it was an additional rule added after everyone had paid.

Again, I'm not a firm believer in host advantage either and your stats certainly make a good case that it doesn't impact the overall game, but we did play a couple games last night where the game was awfully choppy, whereas we know which one of us should host because we all have a good connection on that player's host. It may seem insignificant but in a case like that it is frustrating to never be the beneficiary.

Finally, my entire point in all this was that rules have been implemented and/or changed (however you want to describe it) after people have paid. You may see them as insignificant but obviously this was a big enough deal that it has been disputed by several on this forum, not just myself. So call it what you will, but that to me sets the bar that not everything was official from day one.

 

Where have I suggested scrapping everything? The only thing is your brash assumptions and gross generalizations.

I'll say it again, I guess since it wasn't clear the first 12 times. I'm not a firm believer in host advantage. Others on my team feel differently, and a placebo effect is a real thing whether or not people want to acknowledge this point or not. My point is, things were changed after people paid, whether they are "minor" or simply "forgotten" or not is irrelevant. If we are on the premise that the rules are a contract that we all agreed to, this would be "red-lining" that contract.

 

You say that it was an additional rule that was added, but based on the written rules it would have been a mess. Host would have come down to teams racing to send the challenge first because there was no actual way to determine home and away.

That would have been absolutely devastating for the tournament and caused way more headaches than implementing something right away that determines a home team and an away team. I believe this would fall under the thing Kody said above:

What I havent heard is a concrete suggestion of how to handle hosting games. It cant be whoever puts up the game, then there would be teams who would refuse to accept others challenges. It could be random, but I could see a team getting "screwed over" by the system and complaining about that as well. It could be alternate hosts with the same team, but who would get first crack at host? There are a lot of options but all have flaws. If we can come up with a list of options for next time we can have a vote for how to handle host, but for now it isnt something that requires a change.

 

lol, I'm no legal expert but I don't think any modifications to a "contract" are allowed without approval from both parties after terms are agreed to. Whether or not it is "something absolutely devastating" or not holds no water. Something like the impact of host advantage is mighty subjective (in peoples' opinion, whether or not the results prove otherwise doesn't matter in this case).

And FWIW Nuge, I fully agree that a decision had to be made with respect to host and how it was determined. However, I strongly disagree with you not making that information public before a decision was reached, or at least having it voted on since everyone was already signed on. In my few years in the business world, if something isn't ironed out in a contract and it needs to be revised or altered, it is negotiated about by all parties involved not simply dictated by one party.

Also, when we look at how the situation is now, how is randomizing host not a better option than this? I understand people would be upset if they host 45% of the games, but that sure as shit is a lot better than 0. And it is essentially like doing a coin-toss in football.

 

Brash assumptions and gross generalizations? You complained about messages to get players kicked off the team, you are talking about a placebo effect with host advantage like it means something (so if it is placebo we need to cater to it anyway even though it's not a real thing?), and i believe you were talking about expanding roster size to 10 but im not 100% about that and don't feel like looking. My point is a rule was ADDED to give the tournament consistency (host), not CHANGED from what everyone agreed upon.

 

Tris, Nuge, and everyone else with a horse in this race that is the LG Pro Series has said rosters are staying at 8 players/team. Deal with it and move on.

 

I just ADDED a rule that all games are now 6 periods like CAN-AM instead of 3. Since the initial rules never specified what constitutes a game, I was able to ADD this rather than CHANGE anything. Everyone should be cool with that, right?

 

Anyway, I'm beating a dead-horse at this point so I'm going to let it go. I'm getting to the point now where I'm playing devil's advocate and it isn't going to get us anywhere. But I disagree that we need to hold fast on all these rules/regulations, especially if it is only going to benefit the tournament.

 

Why the fuck should the team with the better record not get to host games ?

 

That is a significant change, not a minor change like who gets host... you are just looking for loopholes to be an asshole about it. there is always going to be something that is not stated and gets overlooked. the constitution we have in vhl/lg has been around for years and we still are missing the part how loop goals should count and various other things that probably should be there. at the end of the day things are going to be missing and we have to trust the staff (in this case nuge) to make the right decision and follow it. if you aren't happy about things bring it up for next tourny and if everyone agrees im sure it will be changed. anyways, like you already said you are just playing devils advocate arguing for the sake of arguing, this will be my last response directed towards you. please continue to get pounded, hopefully your having fun though.

 

I don't give a fuck about the argument but host can definitely be an advantage and not alternating host is a small flaw with this thing.

 

Other than the obvious logic of the sake of fairness?

And for what it is worth, record doesn't necessarily matter.