iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Jan 22, 2017 0:46:12 GMT
All true, but one of the points of the conference was to reduce travel costs, making them travel up to Scotland all the time (and more pertinently making the Scottish teams travel down) doesn't really fit into that. The very first priority of conferences is they have got to be as fair as possible strength wise. Travel has to come secondary or it just becomes unfair and a meaningless league title if a team wins because of an imbalance. To say put Belfast in with Manchester and the four Scottish teams would be a classic prime example of that ! |
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on Jan 22, 2017 1:50:24 GMT
I'd go for three conferences of four, play four games home away against conference rival two home and away everyone else. This gives you fifty six league games which is not far off what we have now and plenty of local money making trips for everyone. Clan Flyers Caps Stars Panthers Steelers Storm Giants Devils Blaze Lightning Flames Devils and Clan get it a little easier but no system is perfect. Storm have a tough group but will benefit from far more away supporters spending money. The only other EPL side that's even remotely viable is Hull but I think it's a little early in Shane Smith's business plan for that. There are plenty of other expansion potentials on the horizon with Aberdeen constantly rumoured to be interested, EIHL viable rinks in Blackburn and Newcastle and a new rink in Leeds. I also don't believe London is as dead as may seem. Import levels won't be increasing. This is the reason they were increased in the first place. Three conferences works but... Three home and three away against your own conference and two home two away against the other conferences would be fairer. That would give a 50 game season,only two less games than presently. Lose a couple of current doubled up challenge cup/league games and make them stand alone cup games and you can at the stay same number of games as now. Leave out any bumping up conference winners for play offs though and that Panthers/Steelers/Giants conference is too tough/unfair. The conference system is there for fairness though, it's purpose is to specifically cut down travel and create more money making rivalry games. |
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on Jan 22, 2017 1:53:12 GMT
All true, but one of the points of the conference was to reduce travel costs, making them travel up to Scotland all the time (and more pertinently making the Scottish teams travel down) doesn't really fit into that. The very first priority of conferences is they have got to be as fair as possible strength wise. Travel has to come secondary or it just becomes unfair and a meaningless league title if a team wins because of an imbalance. To say put Belfast in with Manchester and the four Scottish teams would be a classic prime example of that ! Unfortunately not. The first priority of the conferences is to cut costs. If fairness were even in the top three considerations then there'd be no conferences at all. |
|
|
|
Post by spik on Jan 22, 2017 19:47:20 GMT
The very first priority of conferences is they have got to be as fair as possible strength wise. Travel has to come secondary or it just becomes unfair and a meaningless league title if a team wins because of an imbalance. To say put Belfast in with Manchester and the four Scottish teams would be a classic prime example of that ! Unfortunately not. The first priority of the conferences is to cut costs. If fairness were even in the top three considerations then there'd be no conferences at all. So Nottingham Sheffield Coventry Cardiff Guilford MK then Belfast, Manchester and the four Scots are the best located regards travel limitation? |
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Jan 22, 2017 21:47:50 GMT
Unfortunately not. The first priority of the conferences is to cut costs. If fairness were even in the top three considerations then there'd be no conferences at all. So Nottingham Sheffield Coventry Cardiff Guilford MK then Belfast, Manchester and the four Scots are the best located regards travel limitation? Geographically that is the best scenario. But with a fair split of quality in mind,it's totally unfair. And yes,I know we lost to Fife tonight ! |
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on Jan 23, 2017 7:13:48 GMT
Unfortunately not. The first priority of the conferences is to cut costs. If fairness were even in the top three considerations then there'd be no conferences at all. So Nottingham Sheffield Coventry Cardiff Guilford MK then Belfast, Manchester and the four Scots are the best located regards travel limitation? I'd say go three groups of four; Scottish teams Panthers, Storm, Giants, Steelers Devils, Blaze, Flames Lightning Keeps everyone very localised. |
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Jan 23, 2017 8:53:35 GMT
So Nottingham Sheffield Coventry Cardiff Guilford MK then Belfast, Manchester and the four Scots are the best located regards travel limitation? I'd say go three groups of four; Scottish teams Panthers, Storm, Giants, Steelers Devils, Blaze, Flames Lightning Keeps everyone very localised. Nope that doesn't work ! A very uneven split again and Manchester would probably really struggle. |
|
Yotes
Forum Admin 
Posts: 16,753
|
Post by Yotes on Jan 23, 2017 10:59:36 GMT
It'd work perfectly well. You'd only be playing the teams in your conference 2 times more, it would give them the rivalry/travel bit without making a huge difference to the overall outcome.
If you want fair then they have to play a straight league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 11:20:04 GMT
It'd work perfectly well. You'd only be playing the teams in your conference 2 times more, it would give them the rivalry/travel bit without making a huge difference to the overall outcome. If you want fair then they have to play a straight league. Not really |
|
|
|
Post by pantherlee on Jan 23, 2017 12:39:52 GMT
I'd say go three groups of four; Scottish teams Panthers, Storm, Giants, Steelers Devils, Blaze, Flames Lightning Keeps everyone very localised. Nope that doesn't work ! A very uneven split again and Manchester would probably really struggle. would maybe work better if you swapped Giants for Blaze. Still keeps things localised for Blaze and Giants will have to fly no matter what and it evens things up a little |
|
|
|
Post by spik on Jan 23, 2017 12:47:22 GMT
Nope that doesn't work ! A very uneven split again and Manchester would probably really struggle. would maybe work better if you swapped Giants for Blaze. Still keeps things localised for Blaze and Giants will have to fly no matter what and it evens things up a little As long as the flight costs are pretty similar, rebate from Elite maybe to acknowledge this? Looks like we have sorted it chaps, here's hoping that the top bods can. |
|
|
|
Post by spik on Jan 23, 2017 12:49:40 GMT
It'd work perfectly well. You'd only be playing the teams in your conference 2 times more, it would give them the rivalry/travel bit without making a huge difference to the overall outcome. If you want fair then they have to play a straight league. Not really So why is this. Just asking because everyone has input that sometimes I forget. What's your ideas on this not being fair, ie) what alternatives to be the fairest? |
|
|
|
Post by Bagheera on Jan 23, 2017 12:54:13 GMT
All true, but one of the points of the conference was to reduce travel costs, making them travel up to Scotland all the time (and more pertinently makking the Scottish teams travel down) doesn't really fit into that. The travel isn't actually as big an issue as it initially appears. Ok for Cardiff yes, but it's only 1 game more at each team than they currently have to do(with 1 less trip to Belfast to pay for). Besides I don't think the cost of travel is too much of an issue for Cardiff. It really has little effect on the Scotish teams travel wise. Going to 12 teams mean that as a minimum they have to travel twice to every team out of Scotland no matter what set up you use. By using the 6 conference system with Cardiff & Belfast all you are doing is adding 1 more trip to Cardiff & 1 to Belfast. Against this season it's those 2 games replacing the 2 they'd already be travelling to Manchester for. I get it is more than 3 x 4 system but only by 2 games. |
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Jan 23, 2017 13:03:25 GMT
I'd go for the 2x6 Simply think it gives real validity to the comference system with deserved seeds. Belfast Cardiff Braehead Fife Edinburgh Dundee Nottingham Sheffield Coventry Manchester Guilford MK The only way a straight 12 works is with an extended playoffs. 44 is to little without the extended play offs. The alternative is 66. Obviously too many. This is the fairest split....but Play 3 home 3 away own conference. Play 2 home 2 away other conference. Gives a 54 game season so it's as close as your going to get in number of games and also fairness. |
|
|
|
Post by Bagheera on Jan 23, 2017 13:10:52 GMT
I'd go for the 2x6 Simply think it gives real validity to the comference system with deserved seeds. Belfast Cardiff Braehead Fife Edinburgh Dundee Nottingham Sheffield Coventry Manchester Guilford MK The only way a straight 12 works is with an extended playoffs. 44 is to little without the extended play offs. The alternative is 66. Obviously too many. This is the fairest split....but Play 3 home 3 away own conference. Play 2 home 2 away other conference. Gives a 54 game season so it's as close as your going to get in number of games and also fairness. Yep. They were my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on Jan 23, 2017 13:41:40 GMT
I'd say go three groups of four; Scottish teams Panthers, Storm, Giants, Steelers Devils, Blaze, Flames Lightning Keeps everyone very localised. Nope that doesn't work ! A very uneven split again and Manchester would probably really struggle. It doesn't work because your priorities are different to those of the league. This is no less fair than our current setup. With this setup, playing your own conference 4x4 and others 2x2 you get a 56 game league which is two more than now, lots of rivalry games and minimal travel. The system you propose gives us a conference system with barely any benefits. What's the point? |
|
|
|
Post by pingchowchi on Jan 23, 2017 13:42:06 GMT
3 conferences of 4 would give you 50 games - so not a great deal of difference in games played and if you factor in 2 extra games for the Challenge Cup it would probably work out as the same overall number of games played as now.
|
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on Jan 23, 2017 13:43:26 GMT
And your point regarding Storm is a valid one. This is probably the biggest downfall of this setup. They'll have a crazy difficult conference but considerably more away travel. Swings and roundabouts.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Jan 23, 2017 14:35:02 GMT
Nope that doesn't work ! A very uneven split again and Manchester would probably really struggle. It doesn't work because your priorities are different to those of the league. This is no less fair than our current setup. With this setup playing your own conference 4x4 and others 2x2 you get a 56 game league which is two more than now, lots of rivalry games and minimal travel. The system you propose gives us a conference system with barely any benefits. What's the point? Our current set up is a 52 game season not 54. The problem with it is all the small teams are in one conference making it lopsided and unfair. Once again,the league is being held back by small teams or travel. It doesn't cost that much for coach travel for an extra few away trips. If it's that much of a hardship for them,then some sort of compensation from the big boys should happen. Ideally everybody should play the same teams the same number of times. Problem with that is too many or too few games. Everybody will be different but my thoughts are 2 confs of 6 teams,playing 3 home/away in your own conf and 2 home/away other conf. You basically have 4 big teams,2 mid size teams and 6 small teams. Surely it isn't hard to put 50% of each sized team in each conference then compensate a bit of any extra travel cost to a few teams if you really have to ! |
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467 
|
Post by Warren on Jan 23, 2017 14:46:29 GMT
It doesn't work because your priorities are different to those of the league. This is no less fair than our current setup. With this setup playing your own conference 4x4 and others 2x2 you get a 56 game league which is two more than now, lots of rivalry games and minimal travel. The system you propose gives us a conference system with barely any benefits. What's the point? Our current set up is a 52 game season not 54. The problem with it is all the small teams are in one conference making it lopsided and unfair. Once again,the league is being held back by small teams or travel. It doesn't cost that much for coach travel for an extra few away trips. If it's that much of a hardship for them,then some sort of compensation from the big boys should happen. Ideally everybody should play the same teams the same number of times. Problem with that is too many or too few games. Everybody will be different but my thoughts are 2 confs of 6 teams,playing 3 home/away in your own conf and 2 home/away other conf. You basically have 4 big teams,2 mid size teams and 6 small teams. Surely it isn't hard to put 50% of each sized team in each conference then compensate a bit of any extra travel cost to a few teams if you really have to ! The Key line there is: "Once again,the league is being held back by small teams or travel."There is a massive world of difference between clubs that are small but want to do better and clubs that are small, want to stay that way and think anything modern is the Devil. *Cough* Caps *Cough* Supporting and helping clubs who are trying to do better I have no issue with, but clubs that don't think that simple advertising is worth the outlay, my money shouldn't be going their way. I don't want clubs to fold but at the same time I don't want clubs that are holding the league to ransom / back |
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on Jan 23, 2017 16:24:36 GMT
As of next season we'll have five arena teams (I throw in Cardiff as they just qualify) and seven rink teams. Whether we like it or not the rink teams are the foundation of the EIHL.
I completely understand your reference in terms of fairness but that's your goal, a 'fair' league. The fact is the conferences weren't introduced for fairness, they were brought in to save the Scottish rink teams money so that they could remain reasonably competitive. The system has worked so don't expect the league to get fairer, it'll more than likely be just as unbalanced as it is now come 17/18 season.
The problem is it's not just travel, the less local rival games you have the more your travel costs go up and the lower your income from away fans drops. That could be a very negative double etched sword.
Another point you forget. We currently play Sheffield 4x4 in the league. Do you seriously expect either club will be in a rush to go to 3x3 and lose a considerably chunk of cash? That doesn't sound like the GM I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on Jan 23, 2017 16:32:22 GMT
Our current set up is a 52 game season not 54. The problem with it is all the small teams are in one conference making it lopsided and unfair. Once again,the league is being held back by small teams or travel. It doesn't cost that much for coach travel for an extra few away trips. If it's that much of a hardship for them,then some sort of compensation from the big boys should happen. Ideally everybody should play the same teams the same number of times. Problem with that is too many or too few games. Everybody will be different but my thoughts are 2 confs of 6 teams,playing 3 home/away in your own conf and 2 home/away other conf. You basically have 4 big teams,2 mid size teams and 6 small teams. Surely it isn't hard to put 50% of each sized team in each conference then compensate a bit of any extra travel cost to a few teams if you really have to ! The Key line there is: "Once again,the league is being held back by small teams or travel."There is a massive world of difference between clubs that are small but want to do better and clubs that are small, want to stay that way and think anything modern is the Devil. *Cough* Caps *Cough* Supporting and helping clubs who are trying to do better I have no issue with, but clubs that don't think that simple advertising is worth the outlay, my money shouldn't be going their way. I don't want clubs to fold but at the same time I don't want clubs that are holding the league to ransom / back You've been around a long time Warren. Whether we or they like it or intentionally mean it to be the case the rink teams do have us over a barrel and they always will unless another six to ten arena teams pop up. You may not want us to be in that position but it's a fact. As of next season we'll have more rink teams than ever and the league would be foolish not to do everything it can to retain their competitiveness. |
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by Warren on Jan 23, 2017 16:53:13 GMT
The Key line there is: "Once again,the league is being held back by small teams or travel."There is a massive world of difference between clubs that are small but want to do better and clubs that are small, want to stay that way and think anything modern is the Devil. *Cough* Caps *Cough* Supporting and helping clubs who are trying to do better I have no issue with, but clubs that don't think that simple advertising is worth the outlay, my money shouldn't be going their way. I don't want clubs to fold but at the same time I don't want clubs that are holding the league to ransom / back You've been around a long time Warren. Whether we or they like it or intentionally mean it to be the case the rink teams do have us over a barrel and they always will unless another six to ten arena teams pop up. You may not want us to be in that position but it's a fact. As of next season we'll have more rink teams than ever and the league would be foolish not to do everything it can to retain their competitiveness. As i say, I have no issue with the Rink teams, and its not them holding the league back as such. its the small minded minority that you dont have to advertise the sport, do anything with marketing at all to bring the fans in and make yourselves competitive. I am not saying Panthers are a shining Beacon of what to do, but compared to others (again) *cough* Caps *cough* who do nothing to help themselves. at the moment, You are right that the Rink teams have us over a barrel, but who knows with the 2 clubs coming in and both being down south. |
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Jan 23, 2017 17:09:15 GMT
As of next season we'll have five arena teams (I throw in Cardiff as they just qualify) and seven rink teams. Whether we like it or not the rink teams are the foundation of the EIHL. I completely understand your reference in terms of fairness but that's your goal, a 'fair' league. The fact is the conferences weren't introduced for fairness, they were brought in to save the Scottish rink teams money so that they could remain reasonably competitive. The system has worked so don't expect the league to get fairer, it'll more than likely be just as unbalanced as it is now come 17/18 season. The problem is it's not just travel, the less local rival games you have the more your travel costs go up and the lower your income from away fans drops. That could be a very negative double etched sword. Another point you forget. We currently play Sheffield 4x4 in the league. Do you seriously expect either club will be in a rush to go to 3x3 and lose a considerably chunk of cash? That doesn't sound like the GM I know. What's wrong with the 2x6 conference proposed above ? The Scots would keep their rivalries but only lose one game as we would versus Sheffiield,but there would be two extra games in a 54 game season too so extra income there. |
|
|
|
Post by Bagheera on Jan 23, 2017 19:00:49 GMT
As of next season we'll have five arena teams (I throw in Cardiff as they just qualify) and seven rink teams. Whether we like it or not the rink teams are the foundation of the EIHL. I completely understand your reference in terms of fairness but that's your goal, a 'fair' league. The fact is the conferences weren't introduced for fairness, they were brought in to save the Scottish rink teams money so that they could remain reasonably competitive. The system has worked so don't expect the league to get fairer, it'll more than likely be just as unbalanced as it is now come 17/18 season. The problem is it's not just travel, the less local rival games you have the more your travel costs go up and the lower your income from away fans drops. That could be a very negative double etched sword. Another point you forget. We currently play Sheffield 4x4 in the league. Do you seriously expect either club will be in a rush to go to 3x3 and lose a considerably chunk of cash? That doesn't sound like the GM I know. The key thing you have missed here is that regardless of system an expanded league means in all likelihood it will be 3 and 3 in conference and 2 and cross conference. There wont be room for 4 and 4 unless they go up to a 56 game season( 4 team conferences) or 60(6 teqm conferences). As above the travel is far less an issue as it first appears. They will have to travel out of Scotland more come what may due to 2 extra teams. All your doing is adding 1 extra trip to Cardiff and 1 to Belfast to have the 6 team conference system as opposed to the 4 team one. With all that in mind the fairer 6 team system is a no brainer for me. |
|
