My reaction to the survey results
Personally, I am excited by the results of the RHL Survey. I'm glad we are moving forward with our structure mostly intact, with what looks to be a few tweaks to some of our rules that aren't working as intended.
The fact that many of the league's original owners who recently left are starting to return proves that we have an effective, if slightly addictive, product. :)
I was never a big supporter of the tiered approach, but accepted that an attempt was needed to renew interest. Since we've found out though that an owner's enjoyment/interest/activity levels seems to be dictated by means other than the leauge format, it makes sense to abandon it. It's great to see that those who originally supported it are willing to revert back since it doesn't work. Egos and pride have no place in these sorts of decisions. Maybe if those involved with the NHL felt the same way, we wouldn't have lost a full season.
I'd love to get back into a division with Eagle rivals like the Spartans, Freeze and Penetrators. Throw in the Stingers and we have the RHL's 'do or die' Oiler fan division. It would have to be the Mark Messier division, or maybe the Dave Semenko...
The biggest 'hot issue' for me is player development. I have always felt that teams are punished for having a strong system of prospects and young players. The combination of how soon they require contracts and how much they get paid has created a system where teams look to dump the '4J/12s' unless they are playing in the NHL. Also compounding the issue is how soon a player can become a UFA. Eight RHL seasons isn't enough time, especially with those players that take 2-3 years to develop on a farm team and another couple playing 8 minutes a night on the 4th line when they do finally make the bigs. This doesn't make sense, and encourages more teams to build through the auction instead of developing from within.
I won't repeat what I've said on Steve's blog, but what I would like to see from a review on player devlopment ruless are:
-longer development time before players need a contract, and/or a significant reduction in what we have to pay our 'minor leaguers'
-more control once they become rated. I suggested some sort of performance pay structure for players on their first contract. It could be based on games played, points, average minutes, or whatever depending on the level of complexity we want.
The fact that many of the league's original owners who recently left are starting to return proves that we have an effective, if slightly addictive, product. :)
I was never a big supporter of the tiered approach, but accepted that an attempt was needed to renew interest. Since we've found out though that an owner's enjoyment/interest/activity levels seems to be dictated by means other than the leauge format, it makes sense to abandon it. It's great to see that those who originally supported it are willing to revert back since it doesn't work. Egos and pride have no place in these sorts of decisions. Maybe if those involved with the NHL felt the same way, we wouldn't have lost a full season.
I'd love to get back into a division with Eagle rivals like the Spartans, Freeze and Penetrators. Throw in the Stingers and we have the RHL's 'do or die' Oiler fan division. It would have to be the Mark Messier division, or maybe the Dave Semenko...
The biggest 'hot issue' for me is player development. I have always felt that teams are punished for having a strong system of prospects and young players. The combination of how soon they require contracts and how much they get paid has created a system where teams look to dump the '4J/12s' unless they are playing in the NHL. Also compounding the issue is how soon a player can become a UFA. Eight RHL seasons isn't enough time, especially with those players that take 2-3 years to develop on a farm team and another couple playing 8 minutes a night on the 4th line when they do finally make the bigs. This doesn't make sense, and encourages more teams to build through the auction instead of developing from within.
I won't repeat what I've said on Steve's blog, but what I would like to see from a review on player devlopment ruless are:
-longer development time before players need a contract, and/or a significant reduction in what we have to pay our 'minor leaguers'
-more control once they become rated. I suggested some sort of performance pay structure for players on their first contract. It could be based on games played, points, average minutes, or whatever depending on the level of complexity we want.
posted by Chris - Eagles at
12:14 p.m.
1 Comments:
Yup totally agree on the cheaper minor league contracts. Do any of you know what AHL players make in comparison to their NHL contracts?
I'd go for the Mark Messier Division or even Grant Fuhr. Can't be cement head :), gotta be an Alberta boy. Sather giving Flames management the ole finger in game 2 of '88 was THE moment for me.
By
Howard, at 12:33 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home