My perspective on the ESHL

Um not a vote

 

Thank you for your quality feedback.

 

I have already given my quality feedback, I do wish to type it again for your quality feedback of " well it's a lose-lose so can't do anything about it."

 

Each match up is one game.

If 4 of the top 10 or 12 teams end up getting matched up in both of the first and second rounds then that's just tough luck. There is no way to avoid that besides playing a huge round robin tournament and then bracket, but that would take forever. Every team would have the same chances of ending up playing the same teams so it would be equal for everyone.

 

In the end, the best teams prosper... go rated R

 

Are you talking about this post?

If so, I don't see a suggestion of the best, most fair and fun way. I have seen you post in the discord chat about a versus tournament to decide. Is that your idea?

By the way, I'm just playing devil's advocate here on everything. Jon and the people running ESHL were put in a tough position, came up with an idea and only after the vote are people upset.

Would you be this disgruntled if your team made it into the Invite division without having to qualify?

 

Not a bad idea, just the one game could have Rammer knock someone out early. I'm sure some people wouldn't like it and be angry about it, just the same way people are angry about the selection committee. Someone will always be pissed off.

 

Ok finally. 'Someone will always be pissed off' um no shit Sherlock.

What everyone has been saying is , yea obv people will be pissed if they lose .But let them be pissed at losing at the game or be pissed at getting a poor, randomized seeding.

not pissed at losing a vote . After all this is about promoting the game right ?

 

Again, I'm glad the voting won't be needed again anytime soon but with all those months ahead of time, how is it possible that you guys were not able to realize this idea was fundamentally insane? With experience I'm sure it won't happen again but I'm still amazed it even was used in the first place. I strongly urge you to reconsider choosing people for a committee ever again. Player representatives are a far better choice, despite the potential risk of collusion + there are easy ways to deal with that sort of thing. I would be worried if you think choosing a group of people without having the entire ESHL playerbase involved is acceptable.

 

A subjectively picked committee subjectively deciding seeding was hands-down the most fair was to pick a "competitive" field. lol.

Easily could've done a seeding process by voting with some games being played in order to have a hybrid seeding system to determine final seeding. I'm talking a 3-game pre-season max. Just something to get even the smallest possible look at what teams are capable of. I was very active early on in this process, but was never invited to continue these "huge discussions" that apparently happened.

I really don't care about the final outcome of this hilariously non-competitive seeding process, but I see where people are coming from. Not everyone got a chance to be a part of these lengthy discussions, and not everybody got to at least have one member of their team voting for them. You picking what you believe to be the best voices for us, is obviously going to make some people irritated, especially when they feel under-represented. The only people who are upset about backlash from this very poorly thought-out seeding process, are the people too dense to realize that people like their voices to be heard and have a fair opportunity to reach their highest potential.


Oh well. Here's to a new season(s) of "competitive" Mite Hockey Simulator.