Minimum Games Played Per Week

Let me start off by saying how much fun this tourney has been, so thank you to all parties who took the time to put it together.

I am wondering how everyone would feel about a minimum games played per week. I believe the max games played for this tourney is 150, but I have a hard time seeing more than ten teams playing 150. It would be nice to see everyone play anywhere between 10-25 games a week. I know this may seem like a lot especially since we only have 8 man rosters, but if you break it out by 4-7 days (depending how many nights a week your club plays) it is not that many games per night.

This change would balance out the standings, and point distribution for a win/loss per game. I think we can all agree it is frustrating winning a game for 1 point, and losing 18 for a loss just because the team you are playing does not have as many games played as you.

Having a minimum number of games played may change the selection process for mgmt for this tourney. You would be forced to select people not just based off skill, but availability.

This change will promote and demand activity which will make the tourney that much more fun on a nightly basis. Since we have already started the tourney, I know this may be difficult to implement this season if the powers at be wished to make the change.


I am interested to see others thoughts and I am glad to see that club is fun again for the first time since NHL11. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

 

There is a total minimum games played (which doesnt accomplish what you are trying to accomplish). Im not comfortable making a change for this tournament due to rosters already being set, but its definitely something I'd consider for future tournaments.

Also, while winning a single point for a game is a thing you shouldnt ever lose 18. The sudden drop off in points was Tris recalculating the system after finding a bug, most teams dropped a lot of points.

 

If we do a Min games per week we should bump the roster up to 10 or 12,we are 4-1 for the week and the last few nights we only had 5 guys on each night it was fustrating since we couldn't use a sub, Maybe implementing an ECU system at your own risk, the ECU can not claim any prize money and can not be on any roster. Just an Idea

 

Yes I completely agree that for this tourney it would not be wise to make such a big change.

I believe we beat Creativity or RC last night and only received 1 point. Then we played xbobz and lost 18 according to someone in the party.


Edit - I misunderstood that we lost 18 points in a game. The other team received 18 for beating us, we only lost 5.

 

I don't agree with ecu or roster increase. But I also think it would be tough to have a minimum games per week rule applied since the tournament is already rolling, but I know where Keck is coming from and that would be nice.

The point system looks like it will be much better once activity from other clubs increases. We never lost 18 points for a game, a team got 18 points for beating us, but we only lost 5 I believe. Seems Tris got it squared away imo.

 

You lost 5 points against Xbobzz and the boys (They gained 17). You must have caught all those teams while they were hanging out near the bottom of the leaderboard.

 

obviously adding this rule in this tourney wouldnt be good (which is what Keck said in response to Nuge saying he cant), but in the future it could be a possibility if there is enough active players. But if this tourney is successful, I can only see more teams wanting to participate in the tourney which would prob make it possible.

 

Yeah, it is a good idea, unfortunately, we've been struggling to get 6 people online at a given time so far for this tourney and it has made it difficult to get games in. I think moving forward, something like this in addition to an increase in team size are both great ideas. Having 10 people on a roster would increase activity for us for sure.

 

Moving forward this may be a good idea, only if roster size is increased by 1-2 players. I think if this rule is in place a team should also have maybe one week out of the season where if htey don't get the minimum games in they won't be penalized.

 

*Fixed

 

here is an idea: you can add a free agent roster where people with good availability, not as many friends and average skill (sounds like me) can pay say half (5$) and be put on this roster where you can fill in for any team. also i think limiting games played with each team weekly/seasonally would be smart.

 

I like where widow is going with this but they shouldnt be able to play for multiple teams. Maybe get an ecu or 2 per team that pays 5 dollars and can only play for that team. I know the tourney is underway but this is a building process and if we allow 2 more players per team called ECUs then maybe we will get some really good activity out of players and teams.

 

I know with my teams selection, we weighed availability just as highly as need. (we didn't even bring a natural C or LW because of that) But I personally don't think we should stray from the original roster size. I think there is 5 or 6 teams above 10 gp and we haven't even made it a week yet. I'm sure teams will get their activity up by the conclusion of the season.

Maybe in the future seasons teams should be able to carry some additional players, but I'm even against that because that will take away teams and essentially kills activity in another way, by having too many players allocated while only 6 can play.

 

I'm a fan of Keck's idea, just because it doesn't become like the EASHL where it's a race to games played. Despite the fact that there is already a quota so to speak on games played, I still think that there will be teams that may struggle to reach this. I don't have a problem with Nuge not changing it right now for simplicity sake, but maybe some food for thought going into the next tourney.

What would you guys think about having an equal amount of games played against each team for the next tourney, and doing away with the points system? I'm not saying that the points system isn't going to work out, but I think that this may also simplify things in the sense that nobody has to worry about points, and everybody has an equal shot at the same teams. Nobody would be able to complain that Team A had a tougher set of games than Team B, and didn't get rewarded enough points for it.

 

I like the brainstorming thats occurring in here but there will be no additional players. I dont see how labeling them as ECUs changes anything, you have 8 guys, try to pick specific nights to get together. You dont have to play every night. Pick a couple weekdays per week and 1 day every other weekend and you'll easily get to 50+ games.

 

If you have everyone play everyone the same amount you'll get to a point where teams will have trouble getting games (Only have 2 teams left to play and neither are on) or you'll have too many games to fit in however long the season is (If you need to play each team 5 times thats 80 games). Im not saying its an awful idea, but it takes away from the ability to get a game whenever you want for an entire month and turns into something thats more rigid with more of a schedule.

 

Additional players, lets go.

 

A roster size of 10 would be perfect for future considerations

 

If/When we do a summer season of this tournament I'll definitely consider having larger rosters (9 or 10) due to most people having worse availability during the summer.

 

Normally I don't agree with alot of things but keck does have a valid point and I really like that idea.