|
Post by AvsGM on Mar 7, 2012 19:19:41 GMT -5
At the moment the following rule adjustments will definitely go into place next season.....
1. Farm restricted by OV[/b] - Most likely 65
2. Goalie fatigue/shots taken[/b]
At present the setting are as such.....
Based on 100 DU: 30 shots taken = 1 CON point removed 35 shots taken = 2 CON point removed total
The new adjusted settings will be as such...
Based on 100 DU: 26 shots taken = 1 CON point removed 31 shots taken = 2 CON point removed total
To figure out how many shots your goalie can take before losing points on each of the two levels just follow this equation...
26 x .?? 31 x .??
(?? = your goalie DU)
3. A re-worked strike system[/b] - TBD
Open for discussion.....
1. Gavin and I have discussed and would like to change the ELC length to 3 years instead of 4. This would go into place for the upcoming off season. Please feel free to give your opinion on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 20:13:49 GMT -5
I don't see a problem with these. I think with the strike system it has to be "tough love". Regardless 3 strikes and you're out no matter how long you've been in the league.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Mar 7, 2012 20:22:05 GMT -5
I agree with all of the changes, as they have all been discussed before.
I'd also like to see a rule change regarding the RFA resign that is allowed... in my opinion the 35% increase has made that "free" resign almost useless. I'd like to see that % decreased to 15%.
The 3 strike system in my opinion should be a discretionary tool that can be used to weed out non-active GMs... for example if we have a GM that is not participating in any way, it gives Jon/Gavin a reason to remove that GM. However, if that GM just sucks at sending in lines but is an active member on the message board, I don't think it should be strictly enforced.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Mar 7, 2012 21:03:29 GMT -5
I agree with all of the changes, as they have all been discussed before. I'd also like to see a rule change regarding the RFA resign that is allowed... in my opinion the 35% increase has made that "free" resign almost useless. I'd like to see that % decreased to 15%. The 3 strike system in my opinion should be a discretionary tool that can be used to weed out non-active GMs... for example if we have a GM that is not participating in any way, it gives Jon/Gavin a reason to remove that GM. However, if that GM just sucks at sending in lines but is an active member on the message board, I don't think it should be strictly enforced. I agree 100% with Jake's comments.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Mar 7, 2012 21:35:50 GMT -5
I agree with all of the changes, as they have all been discussed before. I'd also like to see a rule change regarding the RFA resign that is allowed... in my opinion the 35% increase has made that "free" resign almost useless. I'd like to see that % decreased to 15%. The 3 strike system in my opinion should be a discretionary tool that can be used to weed out non-active GMs... for example if we have a GM that is not participating in any way, it gives Jon/Gavin a reason to remove that GM. However, if that GM just sucks at sending in lines but is an active member on the message board, I don't think it should be strictly enforced. I agree 100% with Jake's comments. I agree 115%!
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Mar 7, 2012 21:38:21 GMT -5
I agree with all of the changes, as they have all been discussed before. I'd also like to see a rule change regarding the RFA resign that is allowed... in my opinion the 35% increase has made that "free" resign almost useless. I'd like to see that % decreased to 15%. The 3 strike system in my opinion should be a discretionary tool that can be used to weed out non-active GMs... for example if we have a GM that is not participating in any way, it gives Jon/Gavin a reason to remove that GM. However, if that GM just sucks at sending in lines but is an active member on the message board, I don't think it should be strictly enforced. I agree with with the Shark! The 26 and -1con is good, the average shat are 26.64 so that works
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Mar 8, 2012 7:31:57 GMT -5
I think all of these rule changes are excellent.
I was wondering if we decided against doing anything with the injury frequency. I know it was raised and discussed and I'm not sure where it stands. I think it would make it more interesting if injury frequency was a little more realistic.
I'd also like to see a change to the free agency rules that makes it less attractive to offer older free agents (over 35) big, long-term contracts, because there's a good chance they'll retire before the term is up. Ideally I think we should follow the NHL rule which basically says any contract you offer an over 35 player counts against the cap whether the player retires or not. That would stop teams from offering a 40-year old, a 5 year-8 million dollar contract, knowing full-well the player will be retired long before it expires. Another option would be to limit the maximum number of years on contract offers to over 35 players to one or two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 9:29:13 GMT -5
Three strikes is tough guys. I'm not whining or complaining Were all men here right? What about if you hit the 3 strikes, then have a poll to see if we should fire that gm? That way, if a guy is active with the posts, trade responses and such but made a few mistakes along the way he gets a second chance if his peers deem him worthy? Of course you'd only get one shot at this.If you accumulated 3 strikes again then you're done!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 9:52:14 GMT -5
I'm in agreement with Jake's comments as well.... am I the only one that cant figure out what ELC length means though???
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Mar 8, 2012 10:02:52 GMT -5
I'm in agreement with Jake's comments as well.... am I the only one that cant figure out what ELC length means though??? Entry Level Contract
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Mar 8, 2012 10:27:41 GMT -5
I agree with all of the changes, as they have all been discussed before. I'd also like to see a rule change regarding the RFA resign that is allowed... in my opinion the 35% increase has made that "free" resign almost useless. I'd like to see that % decreased to 15%. The 3 strike system in my opinion should be a discretionary tool that can be used to weed out non-active GMs... for example if we have a GM that is not participating in any way, it gives Jon/Gavin a reason to remove that GM. However, if that GM just sucks at sending in lines but is an active member on the message board, I don't think it should be strictly enforced. I wanted to change the RFA re-sign system last year and nobody was in favor of it
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Mar 8, 2012 10:29:27 GMT -5
I'm in agreement with Jake's comments as well.... am I the only one that cant figure out what ELC length means though??? Entry Level Contract Don't feel bad, Philly had to ask me last night what it meant
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 12:03:26 GMT -5
I agree with all of the changes, as they have all been discussed before. I'd also like to see a rule change regarding the RFA resign that is allowed... in my opinion the 35% increase has made that "free" resign almost useless. I'd like to see that % decreased to 15%. The 3 strike system in my opinion should be a discretionary tool that can be used to weed out non-active GMs... for example if we have a GM that is not participating in any way, it gives Jon/Gavin a reason to remove that GM. However, if that GM just sucks at sending in lines but is an active member on the message board, I don't think it should be strictly enforced. I agree with Jake a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Mar 8, 2012 13:42:17 GMT -5
I agree with all of the changes, as they have all been discussed before. I'd also like to see a rule change regarding the RFA resign that is allowed... in my opinion the 35% increase has made that "free" resign almost useless. I'd like to see that % decreased to 15%. The 3 strike system in my opinion should be a discretionary tool that can be used to weed out non-active GMs... for example if we have a GM that is not participating in any way, it gives Jon/Gavin a reason to remove that GM. However, if that GM just sucks at sending in lines but is an active member on the message board, I don't think it should be strictly enforced. I wanted to change the RFA re-sign system last year and nobody was in favor of it I don't remember what you wanted to change it to.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Mar 8, 2012 13:47:21 GMT -5
I wanted to change the RFA re-sign system last year and nobody was in favor of it I don't remember what you wanted to change it to. Well, it was a bigger change than just reducing the increase %. I THINK, it was something along the lines of 10% salary decrease, but limited to a 1 year contract. But I agree it needs to be changed, as you are correct, the current system makes it fairly pointless to do. There is rather low risk with RFAs in the first place, so why increase the salary more than needed?
|
|