Login

~~GroupMeIsKindOfOkay~~ · 01-28-2013, 01:31 PM

This is why this rule is so fucking stupid.
a rookie cant be sent down cause he worked hard and got too much tpe.
Makes so mich sense.

good job commishes

BasedMinkus · 01-28-2013, 01:31 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Chris-McZehrl@Jan 28 2013, 09:28 AM
for the future i think is the activity in the NWJHL most importantly!!!

that is the entire league and season for the newcommers! if they see so many inactive teams ... then i am honest .... i would leave the league! since S9 maybe S10 we had so many active guys in the NWJHL! but now ..... must I write to about that?

umm for the most part, there are a handful of actives in juniors each year except for some exceptional years (i.e. S4, S5). I don't think anything will change.

Chris-McZehrl · 01-28-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:Originally posted by BasedMinkus@Jan 28 2013, 06:31 PM

umm for the most part, there are a handful of actives in juniors each year except for some exceptional years (i.e. S4, S5). I don't think anything will change.

LOL that is not a discussion about the most active draft class :lol:

we had since S9 or S10 rookie for 2-3 lines for each team in the NWJHL! an i think S8 and S9 we had more as 3 teams per conference or not? if you are not honest and earnestly with this topic then you shouldn't wirte here! that is very important for the league! Wink

JumpierPegasus · 01-28-2013, 01:38 PM

While I'll be fine with the rule proposed here by you guys (every first year rookie allowed, 2nd year is under 325 TPE) we would have to put restrictions on playing time I you are over 325 TPE.

You shouldn't be allowed to play more than a rookie joining he NWJHL, so you would have to play second line duties. We had this rule when we allowed those from the EEL (or EHL or whatever) to join the SHL on our bad recruitment year.

BasedMinkus · 01-28-2013, 01:38 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Chris-McZehrl@Jan 28 2013, 09:35 AM

LOL that is not a discussion about the most active draft class :lol:

we had since S9 or S10 rookie for 2-3 lines for each team in the NWJHL! an i think S8 and S9 we had more as 3 teams per conference or not? if you are not honest and earnestly with this topic then you shouldn't wirte here! that is very important for the league!

S9 had 1 line for each team tops. There are seasons where there are 2-3 lines and seasons where there are not. It fluctuates

~~GroupMeIsKindOfOkay~~ · 01-28-2013, 01:41 PM

Quote:Originally posted by BasedMinkus@Jan 28 2013, 12:38 PM

S9 had 1 line for each team tops. There are seasons where there are 2-3 lines and seasons where there are not. It fluctuates

Lolno.
whalers had like 3 active lines and 5 active dmen.
that team was more active than some SHL teams

BasedMinkus · 01-28-2013, 01:44 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Alex@Jan 28 2013, 09:41 AM

Lolno.
whalers had like 3 active lines and 5 active dmen.
that team was more active than some SHL teams

congrats on the one team bro!!!

completely overlook my point tho Smile

~~GroupMeIsKindOfOkay~~ · 01-28-2013, 01:45 PM

Quote:Originally posted by BasedMinkus@Jan 28 2013, 12:44 PM

congrats on the one team bro!!!

Falcons were active as well.
Pretty sure they had more than 1 active line

~~GroupMeIsKindOfOkay~~ · 01-28-2013, 01:47 PM

So your point is we should do nothing to try to increase the activity of juniors because not that many people would be active anyways?

good point bro!!!!

Chris-McZehrl · 01-28-2013, 01:55 PM

in which season we had cuts the teams?
S10 or S9?

maybe that is the reason! S8 we had more teams as 6 in the NWJHL! i know that to 100%!
i think 4 or 5 per each conference! after that i don't know! and i mean the S8 SHL Draftees not NWJHL! i was a S8 SHL Draftee and S7 NWJHLer Wink

Chris-McZehrl · 01-28-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Chris-McZehrl@Jan 28 2013, 06:55 PM
in which season we had cuts the teams?
S10 or S9?

maybe that is the reason! S8 we had more teams as 6 in the NWJHL! i know that to 100%!
i think 4 or 5 per each conference! after that i don't know! and i mean the S8 SHL Draftees not NWJHL! i was a S8 SHL Draftee and S7 NWJHLer

i mean not now we need more teams :lol: but that is maybe the reason for you both!(Alex and JT) Wink

teztify · 01-28-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Alex@Jan 28 2013, 01:45 PM

Falcons were active as well.
Pretty sure they had more than 1 active line

We (the Falcons) did, but there were 2 or 3 teams who had two actives max, and that's counting guys who came on every now and then.

We folded two franchises after that season because while there were some teams with plenty of actives, there were just as many with very very few, and that makes people leave.

teztify · 01-28-2013, 02:05 PM

My stance on the issue is that a player must be under 325 TPE to be sent down to the NWJHL, regardless of how old their player is. If they are sent down at 324, and want to continue earning TPE, they can do so - they just can not be updated until they are called back up to the SHL. This is because it would make them far too much better, and it makes the league about send-downs and not juniors.

Sure it sucks for guys who are at 326, but very few reach even 325 before being sent down (usually at the start of the season), and you have to draw the line somewhere. Is it also unfair for a sophomore with 326 TPE? Yeah, just as unfair. Lines have to be drawn though.

The reality is that very very few prospects are at 325 TPE at the start of the SHL season, so there is PLENTY of opportunity for teams to send down their active rookies. It's not like we're getting rid of all of them.

As far as putting restrictions on playing time for send-downs, sure it works in theory, but you have to understand some of the people we're dealing with. Guys who will ask to be called back up if they aren't getting all the playing time, and that's not me making a stretch, this has been brought up. It's not so simple as putting those restrictions on.

Chris-McZehrl · 01-28-2013, 02:08 PM

Quote:Originally posted by teztify@Jan 28 2013, 07:01 PM

We (the Falcons) did, but there were 2 or 3 teams who had two actives max, and that's counting guys who came on every now and then.

We folded two franchises after that season because while there were some teams with plenty of actives, there were just as many with very very few, and that makes people leave.

that was a good decision! so if we have now more recreates ... the NWJHL are for the newcommers more attractive! because the NWJHL have with the recreates more actives in the NWJHL Teams or not! i think we need this change for the NWJHL and SHL too! the banked TPE is crap! so we can handle this and the players they are very long active here has a bonus!
10% of the banked TPE and the rest for money! this can has a newcommer too ... later! Wink

that is not unfair!

***Toast*** · 01-28-2013, 02:19 PM

Quote:Originally posted by teztify@Jan 28 2013, 01:05 PM
My stance on the issue is that a player must be under 325 TPE to be sent down to the NWJHL, regardless of how old their player is. If they are sent down at 324, and want to continue earning TPE, they can do so - they just can not be updated until they are called back up to the SHL. This is because it would make them far too much better, and it makes the league about send-downs and not juniors.

Sure it sucks for guys who are at 326, but very few reach even 325 before being sent down (usually at the start of the season), and you have to draw the line somewhere. Is it also unfair for a sophomore with 326 TPE? Yeah, just as unfair. Lines have to be drawn though.

The reality is that very very few prospects are at 325 TPE at the start of the SHL season, so there is PLENTY of opportunity for teams to send down their active rookies. It's not like we're getting rid of all of them.

As far as putting restrictions on playing time for send-downs, sure it works in theory, but you have to understand some of the people we're dealing with. Guys who will ask to be called back up if they aren't getting all the playing time, and that's not me making a stretch, this has been brought up. It's not so simple as putting those restrictions on.

This is the exact point I was trying to make. Ilike

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us