Post by commissioner on Jul 15, 2022 21:45:33 GMT
Hey all,
So as everyone remembers, we discussed a new HC scoring system at the last AOM and agreed on the current system (50% of HC's team score, positive if they won, negative if they lost) on a 1 year trial basis. I think we all can see that this is a flawed rule, but nonetheless, it is one that we did in fact vote in on a 1 year trial basis. We were clear on this and this is what we agreed to.
I was just talking to an owner (who I will keep anonymous) and they would like to see us to change the current HC scoring system to a different system (they have given me their proposal) and implement it immediately and make it retroactive to Week 1 of this season. If we do anything retroactively, I can guarantee you that there WILL be some changes in the win/loss columns. But if are willing to fix a flawed rule instead of waiting the agreed upon 1 year trial, then I would rather do it now before we hit the halfway mark of the season. I am also fine leaving it in place for the year that we agreed to.
So first of all, I need to know if you guys want to change the rule now or wait until the next AOM. If you want to wait, then you do not need to read either of the proposals for the new HC scoring if you do not wish to (I also have a proposal for a new scoring format) as we will discuss it at length at the next AOM. Just simply go to the poll and select "No change until next AOM".
Every team is allowed 1 vote and you cannot re-vote. As Commissioner, I will NOT be voting.
If you are willing to consider changing it now retroactively, then please read the 2 new proposals for the HC Scoring System:
1 - Anonymous' Proposal: No negative scores, you simply get 50% of your HC score, period. Your team scores 20 points, you get 10, if your team scores 17, you get 8. Your goal here is not necessarily to pick a winning team, but the highest scoring team. The minor issue I have with this proposal is that you could potentially pick a losing team and outscore your opponent's HC. So for example, if you took Calgary HC this week and they lose 35-29 against Winnipeg tonight, your Calgary HC would get 14 points. If your opponent took the Saskatchewan HC and they won 15 - 11 over Toronto, your opponent (even though they picked a winning team) would only score 7 on their HC score. The good is that there are no negative points, the bad is that you could still get a higher score while picking a losing team which is kind of off putting and I think misses the point of HC selection. If you want this proposal select "Anonymous' Proposal implemented retroactively to Week 1" in the poll.
2 - Commissioner's Proposal: I don't think that any of us mind getting a negative score, especially if the HC you picked does horribly in a losing effort that night. But in the case of last night's heartbreaking 1 point upset loss, to lose 15 points for a 1 point loss is also not very cool (despite this being EXACTLY what we voted in at the last AOM on a 1 year trial basis). And this has been brought up to me by more than one owner already this season (just no one has outright asked to see if we can change this now instead of waiting until the next AOM). If the game is great and has lots of scoring and the final score is 51-49, it is very uncool that you would get a score of -24 just because your team missed a FG or something in a shootout. So my proposal is simply this. Use margin of victory as the point system and if we want to, cap it at +/- 10 points. So for example if your HC wins 21-17, you get 4 points. If your HC loses 24-21, you get a score of negative 3. If your HC wins 48-3, you get a 10 point score. If your HC loses 48-3, you get a score of negative 10. It's still forcing you to select a winning team and not be rewarded for picking a losing team, but it does keep it in line a bit better for the whole point of the HC. So for example in last night's game, Edmonton HC would get a +1 score and the Montreal HC would get a -1 score. Still a negative score for picking a losing team, but far more fair than the -15 for a 1 point loss. If you want this proposal select "Commissioner's Proposal implemented retroactively to Week 1" in the poll.
So with that all said, I am not a big fan of changing things that were voted in after things have already started. The only reason why I am even entertaining this is because we all can agree to some degree that the current HC scoring system is not completely fair (as was seen in last night's game). Because this fixes something that is broken, I am willing to make the change, but please be clear, that I will NOT change anything if this vote is NOT unanimous. If just 1 team votes to keep the current HC scoring system in place because this is what we all agreed to at the last AOM, then this is a dead issue, we will finish the season with the scoring system that is in place and will not be discussed again until the next AOM.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to leave them below. I have never used a poll here before, so hopefully it works. If it doesn't I MAY have to put it in a different place. Thanks in advance for your prompt attention to this discussion.
So as everyone remembers, we discussed a new HC scoring system at the last AOM and agreed on the current system (50% of HC's team score, positive if they won, negative if they lost) on a 1 year trial basis. I think we all can see that this is a flawed rule, but nonetheless, it is one that we did in fact vote in on a 1 year trial basis. We were clear on this and this is what we agreed to.
I was just talking to an owner (who I will keep anonymous) and they would like to see us to change the current HC scoring system to a different system (they have given me their proposal) and implement it immediately and make it retroactive to Week 1 of this season. If we do anything retroactively, I can guarantee you that there WILL be some changes in the win/loss columns. But if are willing to fix a flawed rule instead of waiting the agreed upon 1 year trial, then I would rather do it now before we hit the halfway mark of the season. I am also fine leaving it in place for the year that we agreed to.
So first of all, I need to know if you guys want to change the rule now or wait until the next AOM. If you want to wait, then you do not need to read either of the proposals for the new HC scoring if you do not wish to (I also have a proposal for a new scoring format) as we will discuss it at length at the next AOM. Just simply go to the poll and select "No change until next AOM".
Every team is allowed 1 vote and you cannot re-vote. As Commissioner, I will NOT be voting.
If you are willing to consider changing it now retroactively, then please read the 2 new proposals for the HC Scoring System:
1 - Anonymous' Proposal: No negative scores, you simply get 50% of your HC score, period. Your team scores 20 points, you get 10, if your team scores 17, you get 8. Your goal here is not necessarily to pick a winning team, but the highest scoring team. The minor issue I have with this proposal is that you could potentially pick a losing team and outscore your opponent's HC. So for example, if you took Calgary HC this week and they lose 35-29 against Winnipeg tonight, your Calgary HC would get 14 points. If your opponent took the Saskatchewan HC and they won 15 - 11 over Toronto, your opponent (even though they picked a winning team) would only score 7 on their HC score. The good is that there are no negative points, the bad is that you could still get a higher score while picking a losing team which is kind of off putting and I think misses the point of HC selection. If you want this proposal select "Anonymous' Proposal implemented retroactively to Week 1" in the poll.
2 - Commissioner's Proposal: I don't think that any of us mind getting a negative score, especially if the HC you picked does horribly in a losing effort that night. But in the case of last night's heartbreaking 1 point upset loss, to lose 15 points for a 1 point loss is also not very cool (despite this being EXACTLY what we voted in at the last AOM on a 1 year trial basis). And this has been brought up to me by more than one owner already this season (just no one has outright asked to see if we can change this now instead of waiting until the next AOM). If the game is great and has lots of scoring and the final score is 51-49, it is very uncool that you would get a score of -24 just because your team missed a FG or something in a shootout. So my proposal is simply this. Use margin of victory as the point system and if we want to, cap it at +/- 10 points. So for example if your HC wins 21-17, you get 4 points. If your HC loses 24-21, you get a score of negative 3. If your HC wins 48-3, you get a 10 point score. If your HC loses 48-3, you get a score of negative 10. It's still forcing you to select a winning team and not be rewarded for picking a losing team, but it does keep it in line a bit better for the whole point of the HC. So for example in last night's game, Edmonton HC would get a +1 score and the Montreal HC would get a -1 score. Still a negative score for picking a losing team, but far more fair than the -15 for a 1 point loss. If you want this proposal select "Commissioner's Proposal implemented retroactively to Week 1" in the poll.
So with that all said, I am not a big fan of changing things that were voted in after things have already started. The only reason why I am even entertaining this is because we all can agree to some degree that the current HC scoring system is not completely fair (as was seen in last night's game). Because this fixes something that is broken, I am willing to make the change, but please be clear, that I will NOT change anything if this vote is NOT unanimous. If just 1 team votes to keep the current HC scoring system in place because this is what we all agreed to at the last AOM, then this is a dead issue, we will finish the season with the scoring system that is in place and will not be discussed again until the next AOM.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to leave them below. I have never used a poll here before, so hopefully it works. If it doesn't I MAY have to put it in a different place. Thanks in advance for your prompt attention to this discussion.
