06-16-2020, 01:11 PM(This post was last modified: 06-16-2020, 01:17 PM by Rancidbudgie.)
Word count: 2500
As many have heard already through other media, and with the SMJHL approving expansion by two teams for next season, rumours are abound surrounding a potential SHL expansion to match it. @luketd wrote an excellent piece that outlined the rationale behind an expansion sooner rather than later, while providing some historical perspective as well here: https://simulationhockey.com/showthread.php?tid=107199
Now unlike the S46 expansion, with newcomers the Chicago Syndicate and the New Orleans Specters, there are also debates as to how this might affect the playoff format. Before S46, there were 14 teams from which 8 made the playoffs. The format was a standard best-of-7 elimination rounds, and worked great. After S46, the playoffs stayed the same while the number of SHL teams increased to 16. This now meant that all teams have a 50/50 split chance of making the playoffs, or missing out for the year. Again, this has been generally accepted, and worked in a straightforward manner.
Now that another potential expansion is in the works, site users are familiar with the method the SHL likes to use to expand: Symmetry is very important for simming and scheduling, so we can expect the number of teams to join to be a multiple of 2, to keep things even. If more than 2 teams were to join in the same year, GMs would probably pull a Seattle (Riot), as having to lose 4 or more players in one offseason would be crippling, and severely water down the talent in the SHL. With these things in mind, we have all been reliably assuming so far that an SHL expansion would mirror that of the SMJHL, and expand by 2 teams.
Where the snag comes in is that with two new expansion teams, the number of SHL clubs would climb to 18. If the SHL keeps the current playoff format, every season more than half of the league would be watching from the sidelines come playoff time, and as a sim league, this could be problematic on a number of fronts, but most importantly, user engagement. With even more teams for competition, many teams might languish outside of the playoff picture for even longer, which might make a negative cycle of players wanting to leave a not-as-competitive team to chase the chance at a Challenge Cup, which makes the team less likely to recover in the first place, etc. while it would be interesting to see an increased power in free agency, something that it more rare for active players to explore in the SHL, the drawbacks could be an overall hit in some user’s engagement if there is a greater likelihood of them sitting around twiddling their thumbs for a month to see their player in the sim. More than half of the players on the site probably shouldn’t be barred from seeing their player participate in one of the most exciting parts of a simulation hockey league. While yes, all teams shouldn't make the playoffs, I argue that passing over 50% of teams each postseason is something we can't ignore due to the nature of a sim league compared to an IRL sports league.
So, the problem is this: If we want to expand the SHL and promote the more frequent and stronger user engagement we have seen recently (and really is why expansion is considered in the first place), the playoff format will likely have to expand the number of teams that participate as well. So, how could we do this?
There are a few theoretical formats being discussed by everyone, on discord, in the forums, and among those responsible for ensuring the best expansion experience possible:
Here are some of the ideas that the SHL could potentially implement, should an SHL expansion happen:
16 teams now make the playoffs:
A simple solution that doesn’t alter playoff brackets at all, just adds one more layer on. 16/18 teams make it, and the tournament gives most teams a chance at the Challenge Cup.
PROS:
- Best option for maximum user engagement as vast majority of players see at least one post-season round
- Simple format that doesn’t alter existing structure
- No need to screw around with divisions, could just have conferences.
- With almost all teams in the playoff hunt, trade deadline could be insane
CONS:
- Doubling the playoff teams means way more sim time needs to be devoted to the playoffs, perhaps elongating season schedules, or meaning that playoffs would have to change to a Bo5 from a Bo7
- Maybe a little extreme for who makes it? If everyone gets in, regular season feels less important, because anyone can go on a run in the postseason
- With almost all teams in the playoff hunt, trade deadline could be insane (but in a bad way)
- Imagine being on a team that misses the playoffs, and being one of only two teams to sit out
- Tanking shenanigans may still actually see you get into the playoffs
In my opinion, this isn’t the way to go about the layoff format. The real reason to do this is for simplicity’s sake, and not having to alter the playoff structure, just adding another round. This also diminishes the feeling of having earned your way to the playoffs, and I imagine many GMs and players would have a bad taste in their mouth should this be implemented. Maybe when the SHL expands to 24-ish teams, this would be more than feasible, but for now it seems to prove that there is so such thing as being too inclusive when it comes to who makes it to the postseason dance.
Something similar to whatever the hell the NFL does:
So basically, two conferences (like we have now) of 9 teams each.
14 teams make the playoffs.
Playoffs are divided by conference.
The first place team in each conference gets a bye to the second round.
The remaining 6 teams per conference face off in the first round (seed 2 faces seed 7, 3 faces 6, and 4 faces 5). Winners move on to round two, where the lowest-seeded winner of round 1 faces off against the Conference winner of the regular season, and the other two seeds face each other. Winners of those games face each other, and the winners of those games face each other in the Challenge Cup.
PROS:
- Conference titles have great importance with the bye
- Lots of teams make it, but not as insane at 16 teams making it
- Conference format stays the same
- Divisions are optional/flexible
CONS:
- 14 is still a lot of teams to make it, as only 4 teams would miss the playoffs each year with this format
- Divisions have no importance except for incentivizing strength of schedule in the sim
- We’d be copying American Football, we may as well hail Satan at that point (mostly joking)
Next idea:
12 teams make the playoffs
In this example, we would keep the conferences and divisions as is, and simply slap on two expansion teams, one per conference. Then, only the playoff format would change.
Division leaders (4 of them) get byes to the second round, and the remaining 4 teams that qualify per conference face off. The winners of that round are paired against the regular season’s division winners in the second round, and the winners move on to face each other, and then the conference champs move on to play for the Challenge Cup
An interesting tidbit was mentioned on the Rich and Luke podcast (episode 16), when an important thing was brought up regarding the SHL playoff format. If expansion does occur, and the SHL steps away from their current magic number of 8 teams making the playoffs, if you move to a system that has 12 teams making the playoffs, it will incentivize a system that is divided into 2 conferences with 2 divisions each. But with 18 teams, this means the divisions would have to be lopsided, with one division per conference having 4 teams, and one having 5.
PROS:
- Most reasonable increase in teams making the playoffs - more make it than miss it, but still some miss
- Keep conferences the same
- Expansion is easy, just pick a Western city and an Eastern city
- Division games become much more high-stakes
CONS:
- Divisions are lopsided. This is the big one, as whoever is in the division of 4 automatically has a better chance at division title than those in the 5-person division. Even if you rotate the divisions each season, that’s just deciding to make some years more challenging for teams than others, which shouldn’t be a thing. Each team should have the same challenges each season.
Here is a different proposal, and an interesting on at that, for a 10-team playoffs.
10-team format:
Total of 18 SHL teams
2 conferences with 9 teams each
Split conferences into 3 divisions, of 3 teams each, making all divisions equal sizes
Playoffs: 10 teams make the playoffs, with each division winner (6 teams) earning a bye to the second round.
The four highest point-getters in the SHL that aren’t the top of their division make it to the first/wildcard round, where the top-ranked wildcard team faces off against the fourth-ranked team, and the second and third wildcard face off. The two winners of these games are put back into the mix with the six division winners, still ranked based on their regular season performance, to make 8 teams total for the second round of the playoffs. Then the playoffs continue in traditional fashion, with winners moving on to the semi-finals and the winners of those games moving on to the Challenge Cup FInals. This solves a few problems - it rewards good divisional play, and makes division games have more weight other than just strength of schedule. It allows a little more than half of teams to make it, but doesn’t expand the pool too much to include the majority of teams making the playoffs, and it makes divisions balanced, which none of these other proposed formats can do with an 18-team SHL
PROS:
- 10 teams can make the playoffs, without sacrificing a relatively straightforward playoff structure
- Division wins are promoted as being higher stakes, due to the payoff of a season division win, perhaps intensifying rivalries.
- Implementation of wildcards mean that teams can meet new opponents in the playoffs without having to face each other only if both make the finals (for example, Calgary could now face New England in a playoff series without both having to make the CC finals). This could promote new rivalries in the cases of teams that have consecutive seasons making the wildcard round.
- Divisions are equally divided, without having to have a system with two divisions of 5 and two divisions of 4 in an 18-team SHL
CONS:
- An Eastern wild-card team could potentially make it into the Western Conference bracket for the second round, and vice-versa (Also meaning that there is potential for a same-conference or same-division matchup in the Challenge Cup Finals)
- If some way an entire division tanks at the same time. There would eventually come a time in SHL history where a team would win their overall bad division while being worse than possibly the other 6 conference teams not in their division, yet still get a spot in the playoffs over some others more deserving. While this format would guarantee only 1 team could make the playoffs out of such an awful division, the guarantee itself might be a bit galling to a team with a better regular season record.
- More teams earn byes than play in the first round. This is truly a wildcard-style playoff build, and while it’s not a con on its own, I anticipate some users might not like this option.
So, with this last format explained, I wanted to theory-craft a potential Division structure with this 10-playoff-teams model in the SHL:
18-team SHL:
Western Conference:
Pacific Division: San Francisco Pride Los Angeles Panthers Expansion Team #1: Potential sites include cities that have had an SHL club before, like Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver. Other strong candidate cities without an SHL or SMJHL club could include Victoria, Sacramento, Phoenix, and San Jose.
Central Division: Minnesota Chiefs Chicago Syndicate Expansion Team #2: Potential Cities include former SHL city Milwaukee (Wisconsin Monarchs), or other strong candidates like Kansas City, Green Bay, Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville, Thunder Bay, or Nashville
Eastern Conference:
Niagara Division: Toronto North Stars Hamilton Steelhawks Buffalo Stampede
Atlantic Division: Hartford Wolf Pack Manhattan Rage Baltimore Platoon
Southern Division: Tampa Bay Barracuda New Orleans Specters Texas Renegades
This is my boldest claim yet: That existing SHL teams be re-conferenced for expansion. While the SHL does not have the same challenges as other professional sports leagues like the NHL when it comes to travel schedule/fatigue, I argue geographical considerations should be utilized to promote realism and overall aesthetic. While yes, New Orleans and Texas end up in the Eastern Conference, as the Crow flies Tampa Bay and New Orleans are closest from any other teams in the SHL, 430 miles apart. New Orleans is the closest competitor for Dallas as well, being 443 miles out in a straight line. The Renegades have no one else realistically nearby, except a potential expansion team, and so I propose this Southern division. New Orleans and Texas get to keep their old division rivalry, but get to strike it out in a new Conference that better suits the geographic coordinates.
Chicago would shift out West like their NHL counterpart, joining their closest geographical rival in the Minnesota Chiefs in a division together with a suitable expansion city. With the other members of the current Great Lakes division so clustered together, Chicago would be the odd mobster out in a three-team division format, but could also benefit from the move. I know that Chicago is more East than New Orleans, and definitely more so than Texas, but I wanted to focus on close proximity rather than just timezones.
If timezones were the preferred way to go, then Minnesota, Texas, and New Orleans could stay in the west and form a division, with Chicago and Tampa Bay? being linked by an expansion club somewhere in between.
Now, expansion could literally be anywhere, as once again the SHL is not limited like other sports leagues, and city choices can be way different than my suggestions. Looking at the map, however, I found that recommending the expansion teams in these locations solve the most potential geography/division alignment problems, through the lens of trying to make a balanced set of divisions and conferences that are geographically feasible. If expansion teams end up in other parts of the continent, the divisions should be flexible enough to adjust accordingly, but still might have intrigues of their own.
So, that’s all said and done! I don’t envy the people whose job it is to make these decisions and implement them, but I hope I have provided some fodder for discussion in this important subject of the SHL’s future.
Tell me what you think about the potential playoff structure changes? What do you think would work better, a 16-team playoffs? 14? 12? 10? Stay at 8? And what should the division/conference structure look like?
06-16-2020, 02:00 PMThe__Y-man__100 Wrote: I can’t see us expanding when teams like Tampa and Minnesota have no one
This.
The allure of expansion and new teams is always bright, but we can't actually consider this when we have teams where the roster is barren like Tampa, and to a certain extent Toronto and Minnesota.
If we truly need more space for some players, we have the option of using the 4th line for the SHL teams the same way it works pretty damn well in IIHF and the SMJHL.
The argument of "nobody wants to play on a 4th line" is pretty weak, and teams can always adjust their playing times to give them more time if needed. But as of now we're pushing 800-900 TPE players out of the league sometimes, and for what?
16 teams with 3 extra forward spots opened up is 48 more SHL big league spots, and as a result, 48 less players taking up the prime slots in the J.
06-16-2020, 02:00 PMThe__Y-man__100 Wrote: I can’t see us expanding when teams like Tampa and Minnesota have no one
This.
The allure of expansion and new teams is always bright, but we can't actually consider this when we have teams where the roster is barren like Tampa, and to a certain extent Toronto and Minnesota.
If we truly need more space for some players, we have the option of using the 4th line for the SHL teams the same way it works pretty damn well in IIHF and the SMJHL.
The argument of "nobody wants to play on a 4th line" is pretty weak, and teams can always adjust their playing times to give them more time if needed. But as of now we're pushing 800-900 TPE players out of the league sometimes, and for what?
16 teams with 3 extra forward spots opened up is 48 more SHL big league spots, and as a result, 48 less players taking up the prime slots in the J.
The answer isn't expansion, that's for sure.
I disagree, especially on the 4th line. The argument is not weak its strong. Who wants to plan on the 4th line playing 7-8 minutes on a very defensive structure. Its not like the NHL wehre they get paid the minimum 750k to play there. People want to enjoy the time on the site, and playing on the 4th line is not it. You say you can increase team, but not every team is going to follow that because they want to win. And playing their top 2 lines the most will help them win. And then on the strategy you can put them up against the 4th line and they can get shelled in. Atleast with the 3rd line on good teams you can shut them down for the most part.
THe whole reason for the SHL is to play in the SHL, not spend another season or so in the SMJHL. We have the numbers to expand. When you look at teams like Tampa Bay they are empty in the SHL because they sold everyone that offseason. They have good prospects and they have a lot of draft picks. The only difference between teams like TBB now and SFP or MAN of the past is that FHM punishes teams more for tanking, so it brings it to light more. Toronto is getting stronger every season, as a good rebuild is. Next season they will have almost everyone active on the forward core, and almost everyone on the defensive side. Minnesota I cant say for certain what they are doing, but they have actives and a lot of prospects to call up.
06-16-2020, 02:00 PMThe__Y-man__100 Wrote: I can’t see us expanding when teams like Tampa and Minnesota have no one
This.
The allure of expansion and new teams is always bright, but we can't actually consider this when we have teams where the roster is barren like Tampa, and to a certain extent Toronto and Minnesota.
If we truly need more space for some players, we have the option of using the 4th line for the SHL teams the same way it works pretty damn well in IIHF and the SMJHL.
The argument of "nobody wants to play on a 4th line" is pretty weak, and teams can always adjust their playing times to give them more time if needed. But as of now we're pushing 800-900 TPE players out of the league sometimes, and for what?
16 teams with 3 extra forward spots opened up is 48 more SHL big league spots, and as a result, 48 less players taking up the prime slots in the J.
The answer isn't expansion, that's for sure.
For Minnesota and Toronto, you are absolutely ignoring they're deep prospect pools that will be filling their line-ups shortly. Or with Tampa's high number of draft picks for the next couple of seasons which will be filling those spots.
I get that you don't want expansion, as a GM, I don't want to lose good players. But by every measure, it is the correct path. You can say the 4th line argument is weak, but no matter what you do, they aren't getting special teams time, they're guaranteed playing less than 12 other people above them and you can fuck with it all you want, they won't play enough to be entertaining.
This is a game. This is for fun. Sticking people on the 4th line kills that for enough people that it would actively drive away active members of the site, I can guarantee it. I've seen enough who went inactive on the 3rd line because of limited opportunity.
This also ignores budgeting. Are we suddenly raising the budget for 4th lines to include actives? Because active teams will not have reasonable space for that under the current budget.
An old man's dream ended. A young man's vision of the future opened wide. Young men have visions, old men have dreams. But the place for old men to dream is beside the fire.
06-16-2020, 01:22 PMhhh81 Wrote: We're super limited on what we can do playoff format-wise in FHM, so that could be a barrier.
If I'm not mistaken, the only options for playoffs in FHM are 8-, 12-, and 16-team formats, so that does throw a wrench into some of the suggestions here. Well thought out article, though!
06-16-2020, 01:22 PMhhh81 Wrote: We're super limited on what we can do playoff format-wise in FHM, so that could be a barrier.
If I'm not mistaken, the only options for playoffs in FHM are 8-, 12-, and 16-team formats, so that does throw a wrench into some of the suggestions here. Well thought out article, though!
that is correct. Doing some research on my own terms. 12 teams would be the most easiest to do. But it will have to be 2 conferecnes and 2 divisions in each conference. So then it brings in the question of how will the divisions be structured to have one with 5 teams and one with 4 teams
The allure of expansion and new teams is always bright, but we can't actually consider this when we have teams where the roster is barren like Tampa, and to a certain extent Toronto and Minnesota.
If we truly need more space for some players, we have the option of using the 4th line for the SHL teams the same way it works pretty damn well in IIHF and the SMJHL.
The argument of "nobody wants to play on a 4th line" is pretty weak, and teams can always adjust their playing times to give them more time if needed. But as of now we're pushing 800-900 TPE players out of the league sometimes, and for what?
16 teams with 3 extra forward spots opened up is 48 more SHL big league spots, and as a result, 48 less players taking up the prime slots in the J.
The answer isn't expansion, that's for sure.
For Minnesota and Toronto, you are absolutely ignoring they're deep prospect pools that will be filling their line-ups shortly. Or with Tampa's high number of draft picks for the next couple of seasons which will be filling those spots.
I get that you don't want expansion, as a GM, I don't want to lose good players. But by every measure, it is the correct path. You can say the 4th line argument is weak, but no matter what you do, they aren't getting special teams time, they're guaranteed playing less than 12 other people above them and you can fuck with it all you want, they won't play enough to be entertaining.
This is a game. This is for fun. Sticking people on the 4th line kills that for enough people that it would actively drive away active members of the site, I can guarantee it. I've seen enough who went inactive on the 3rd line because of limited opportunity.
This also ignores budgeting. Are we suddenly raising the budget for 4th lines to include actives? Because active teams will not have reasonable space for that under the current budget.
Stop it, you know this isn't for fun anymore.
i understand what you're saying, but it also feels like with more available builds at the ready, a defensively tough 4th line could be useful? And couldn't these players play on the PK? I get it though, its more because of how the TPE works, and its not like a 700 TPE 4th liner will build specifically to kill penalties.
The problem i have isn't even about losing good players, its that we have teams that still need to grow and grow. I'm not ignoring what's going on in the "rebuilding" teams for the record, and i think it has something to do with seeing how rebuilding teams could compete faster in STHS as opposed to being simply brutalized in FHM. I'm conditioned differently. Either way, my fears are that of potentially having 5 teams stuck in this rebuild for a long ass time phase as opposed to just the 3 we have now. I understand we'll never have a league of parity where everyone has a chance to win the cup in the same season, but i just don't want more opportunities for constant underacheiving. Though you're right. Toronto and Texas have done well, so it's clear that it can be done.
I don't think anyone would argue raising the Salary Cap either! haha.
Maybe i'm just bitter because I have to retire now, and I don't want to. A 4th line lets Joe K live a hockey life for another few seasons, lol. The problem might not even be with players not having spots as much as it is players being able to last 20+ seasons. Our weak regression system is partially responsible for what's going on here. Once we make regression more harsh (And we should, there shouldn't be another Joe K, or Esa, or Eriksson, etc ever again) that will also help with player movement up and down the lineup.
06-16-2020, 03:50 PMJKortesi81 Wrote: The problem i have isn't even about losing good players, its that we have teams that still need to grow and grow. I'm not ignoring what's going on in the "rebuilding" teams for the record, and i think it has something to do with seeing how rebuilding teams could compete faster in STHS as opposed to being simply brutalized in FHM. I'm conditioned differently. Either way, my fears are that of potentially having 5 teams stuck in this rebuild for a long ass time phase as opposed to just the 3 we have now. I understand we'll never have a league of parity where everyone has a chance to win the cup in the same season, but i just don't want more opportunities for constant underacheiving. Though you're right. Toronto and Texas have done well, so it's clear that it can be done.
As someone on one of the bad teams, I see expansion as a great chance to catch up a bit quicker. While the currently stacked teams will lose a good player or two to the expansion draft, we're gonna lose some sub 800 tpe regressing players, while our young core can be protected or is still playing in the SMJHL. Expansion will lead to more parity, not extended rebuilds.
Mathias Seger #15 | Player page | Update page Sigs by Donini, RainDelay, Fever and OrbitingDeath
06-16-2020, 02:58 PMJayWhy Wrote: For Minnesota and Toronto, you are absolutely ignoring they're deep prospect pools that will be filling their line-ups shortly. Or with Tampa's high number of draft picks for the next couple of seasons which will be filling those spots.
I get that you don't want expansion, as a GM, I don't want to lose good players. But by every measure, it is the correct path. You can say the 4th line argument is weak, but no matter what you do, they aren't getting special teams time, they're guaranteed playing less than 12 other people above them and you can fuck with it all you want, they won't play enough to be entertaining.
This is a game. This is for fun. Sticking people on the 4th line kills that for enough people that it would actively drive away active members of the site, I can guarantee it. I've seen enough who went inactive on the 3rd line because of limited opportunity.
This also ignores budgeting. Are we suddenly raising the budget for 4th lines to include actives? Because active teams will not have reasonable space for that under the current budget.
Stop it, you know this isn't for fun anymore.
i understand what you're saying, but it also feels like with more available builds at the ready, a defensively tough 4th line could be useful? And couldn't these players play on the PK? I get it though, its more because of how the TPE works, and its not like a 700 TPE 4th liner will build specifically to kill penalties.
The problem i have isn't even about losing good players, its that we have teams that still need to grow and grow. I'm not ignoring what's going on in the "rebuilding" teams for the record, and i think it has something to do with seeing how rebuilding teams could compete faster in STHS as opposed to being simply brutalized in FHM. I'm conditioned differently. Either way, my fears are that of potentially having 5 teams stuck in this rebuild for a long ass time phase as opposed to just the 3 we have now. I understand we'll never have a league of parity where everyone has a chance to win the cup in the same season, but i just don't want more opportunities for constant underacheiving. Though you're right. Toronto and Texas have done well, so it's clear that it can be done.
I don't think anyone would argue raising the Salary Cap either! haha.
Maybe i'm just bitter because I have to retire now, and I don't want to. A 4th line lets Joe K live a hockey life for another few seasons, lol. The problem might not even be with players not having spots as much as it is players being able to last 20+ seasons. Our weak regression system is partially responsible for what's going on here. Once we make regression more harsh (And we should, there shouldn't be another Joe K, or Esa, or Eriksson, etc ever again) that will also help with player movement up and down the lineup.
If we want to increase parity we should add a 6m and 7m contract tier for 1500 and 1700 TPE players. Would also open up spots for lower end players because teams wouldn't be able to afford teams full of 1000+ TPE players.
06-16-2020, 06:04 PM(This post was last modified: 06-16-2020, 06:05 PM by FlappyGiraffe.)
06-16-2020, 06:00 PMTommySalami Wrote:
06-16-2020, 03:50 PMJKortesi81 Wrote: Stop it, you know this isn't for fun anymore.
i understand what you're saying, but it also feels like with more available builds at the ready, a defensively tough 4th line could be useful? And couldn't these players play on the PK? I get it though, its more because of how the TPE works, and its not like a 700 TPE 4th liner will build specifically to kill penalties.
The problem i have isn't even about losing good players, its that we have teams that still need to grow and grow. I'm not ignoring what's going on in the "rebuilding" teams for the record, and i think it has something to do with seeing how rebuilding teams could compete faster in STHS as opposed to being simply brutalized in FHM. I'm conditioned differently. Either way, my fears are that of potentially having 5 teams stuck in this rebuild for a long ass time phase as opposed to just the 3 we have now. I understand we'll never have a league of parity where everyone has a chance to win the cup in the same season, but i just don't want more opportunities for constant underacheiving. Though you're right. Toronto and Texas have done well, so it's clear that it can be done.
I don't think anyone would argue raising the Salary Cap either! haha.
Maybe i'm just bitter because I have to retire now, and I don't want to. A 4th line lets Joe K live a hockey life for another few seasons, lol. The problem might not even be with players not having spots as much as it is players being able to last 20+ seasons. Our weak regression system is partially responsible for what's going on here. Once we make regression more harsh (And we should, there shouldn't be another Joe K, or Esa, or Eriksson, etc ever again) that will also help with player movement up and down the lineup.
If we want to increase parity we should add a 6m and 7m contract tier for 1500 and 1700 TPE players. Would also open up spots for lower end players because teams wouldn't be able to afford teams full of 1000+ TPE players.
Scrapping htd could work too. I agree with Joe on regression also, I've left grease alone for nearly a year and he's still serviceable as an SHL player.
Making regression isn't the answer imo. Spending 4 years in the J and then just 8-10 seasons in the SHL kinda sucks for those that want to have a longer career and aim for the hall of fame.
06-16-2020, 06:00 PMTommySalami Wrote: If we want to increase parity we should add a 6m and 7m contract tier for 1500 and 1700 TPE players. Would also open up spots for lower end players because teams wouldn't be able to afford teams full of 1000+ TPE players.
Scrapping htd could work too. I agree with Joe on regression also, I've left grease alone for nearly a year and he's still serviceable as an SHL player.
Rancidbudgie
![[Image: antonescu.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/805449267791396866/813098363007402014/antonescu.png)
![[Image: BKGrppM.png]](https://i.imgur.com/BKGrppM.png)
![[Image: AH23zKq.png]](https://i.imgur.com/AH23zKq.png)
![[Image: BAL_Player_Page.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/298599854899200001/1129921039950958682/BAL_Player_Page.png)
![[Image: BAL_Update.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/298599854899200001/1129921040164855819/BAL_Update.png)
![[Image: zcOwSzN.png]](https://i.imgur.com/zcOwSzN.png)
![[Image: b1AwZLU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/b1AwZLU.png)
![[Image: ezgif-3-597e9990a5.png]](https://im3.ezgif.com/tmp/ezgif-3-597e9990a5.png)
![[Image: DOF5tXM.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DOF5tXM.png)
![[Image: tjyuut.jpg]](https://image.ibb.co/dTgjZK/tjyuut.jpg)
![[Image: TommySalami.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/TommySalami.gif)
![[Image: sve7en.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/sve7en.gif)
![[Image: 1tWWEzv.png]](https://i.imgur.com/1tWWEzv.png)
![[Image: 8zFnf2t.png]](https://i.imgur.com/8zFnf2t.png)
![[Image: 6Lj3x8E.png]](https://i.imgur.com/6Lj3x8E.png)
![[Image: xkAdpbO.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xkAdpbO.png)
![[Image: xnZrhKU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xnZrhKU.png)
![[Image: 9YigPG2.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9YigPG2.png)
![[Image: bpYxJ69.png]](https://i.imgur.com/bpYxJ69.png)
![[Image: 8PlNwDd.png]](https://i.imgur.com/8PlNwDd.png)
![[Image: JKortesi81.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/JKortesi81.gif)
![[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/0XJkcN5.png)
PROFILE![[Image: luketd.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/luketd.gif)
![[Image: outlaws2.png]](https://simulationhockey.com/images/smilies/outlaws2.png)
![[Image: monarchs.png]](https://simulationhockey.com/images/smilies/monarchs.png)
Mathias Seger #15 | ![[Image: Segi.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Segi.gif)
![[Image: wMFFUe4.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/wMFFUe4.gif)
![[Image: CsnVET2.png]](https://i.imgur.com/CsnVET2.png)
![[Image: c8B2LE3.png]](https://i.imgur.com/c8B2LE3.png)
