Asunto: I.1

Thanks!

Such a move would put a whole bunch of teams, (nearly all Canadian), in that no-man's-land of hell, which includes the bottom 3-4 of division one, and the top 3-4 of division two!! This is where your team OR takes a severe beating as you move back and forth from D-one to D-two. Was there for about 4 seasons.....not looking forward to doing it again. The battle to win in division two and then lose in the playoffs so you don't advance too soon to division one, cannot always be won!! Questioning if this would be good for manager morale??

I don’t understand your comment. There is no div 3 in Canada anymore, so every team that isn’t in div 1 is in div 2. This move would combine USA and Canada so that divs arent half no name teams. I would hope that would be better for morale, cause who enjoyed playing no name teams half the season.

This would also make the lower divs more competitive, meaning teams would be more prepared for when they get promoted.

Higher average OTR = more pay too. I get what Bob is saying though, we should look at other merged leagues to determine if that actually happens though - rather than speculate.

Here is a brief summary of my team's last 10 seasons:
I hope it will illustrate my point.

SEASON In division 2
11 43.78 GAIN
.
. Promoted to division 1
12 -96.77 LOST
. only about 4 wins
. Demoted to division 1
.
13 54.91 GAIN
. Managed to lose late and stay in Division 2
.
14 51.88 GAIN
. Promoted to division 1
.
15 -49.95 LOSS
.
. a few wins…11th
16 -1.02 LOSS
.
. not enough wins..8th
17 -12.9 LOSS
.
. not enough wins…10th
18 -12.05 LOSS
.
. not enough wins …9th
19 8.21 GAIN
. finish 5th
. GEORGIAN BAY FOLD
20 23.71 GAIN
. finish 6th
. BENCHWARMERS FOLD
21 24.93 GAIN
FAT GUYS FOLD

OR is a determiner for every financial!!
A dwindling OR means dwindling offers and attendance!!!
Average OR loss over the past 10 seasons is minus 9.05
I would still have been losing OR over the past 3 seasons if teams ahead of me had not folded!!!!!
My team is too advanced to lose to division 2 teams now, so there is not even any hope of improving team OR through relegation.
Please note the huge OR loses that followed each time my team was promoted to division 1 !!!!! Seasons 12 and 15. This is the scenario I was trying to explain.
My only hopes for OR improvement seems to be through teams above me that fold, or the inclusion of "no manager" teams that I can beat.
I am willing to continue the "fight for first" in division 1, BUT a setback of about 10 seasons at a time when I am just turning the corner is unacceptable to me !!!!!!

As a bubble team, you'd more likely stay in div2 given the increased competition, so you're kinda proving the point of merging.

I'm with canucks. If there were more teams to battle with, then you wouldn't be teethertotting as much. Sure, it would suck to be thrown back in div 2, but since it would be a league reorganizing, I doubt there would be any OTR loss for the first season (unless you finished in actual relegation at the end of the season). Then you get to decide if you want to shoot for promotion or let other teams do the dance.

I had to go through that in hockey, where I'd gotten too good to stay in div 2, but not good enough to stay in div 1, and yeah, it sucked for a few seasons for sure, but that's just part of the game?

"More than likely" means that once again, I will go through that phase of trying to stay in Div.2 as along as I can, and then promoting to Div.1 where I may or may not be able to stay, and will as every other team does, lose OR until my team is good enough to win enough games to turn yearly OR gains/losses into to a consistently positive number. In that case, I may not have enough real living years left to get back into the top 5 in any Div.1 !! That would make maintaining a handball team a significant waste of time in my golden years. Besides, it's hard enough to advance in this game without arbitrarily being demoted so that top teams might temporarily have better teams to compete against!!! I am sure that other "bubble teams" will be similarly discouraged to learn that their last 10 years has suddenly been for naught! If I were twenty years old, I would consider this move a "minor setback", but I'm nowhere near twenty any more!! I'm thinking this game would ultimately be more competitive if there were 4-5 "no manager" teams in every division, including Div.1!!!! Then "bottom of the division" teams would have more wins, and take less time, when they have moved up, to achieve positive yearly OR nets. It would benefit bottom teams more than top teams, sorta like a little handicap advantage, to keep them in the game!!

Truly close competition is between teams who "on any given day" can have virtually equal chances of winning. When there is such a significant difference between top and bottom teams, in a division, there is little incentive for "weaker team" managers to continue. They have the option to leave and are more likely to do it if they see their chances of advancement dwindling. "No manager" teams have no such option to leave!!!!! I think more managers would hang around if they felt that they had a reasonable chance to beat the top teams in their division!!

Managers don't want to feel like they are a "midget-level" player playing in the NHL because there are no leagues in between!!!! No one plays any game for long when it is grossly apparent that they have an almost zero chance of any wins or even an upset. Take away all hope, and even the hardiest of souls will eventually cease efforts!!

You once wrote an article in the magazine called:

Factors that Lead to Wins in Hockey.

Teams with a 100 point positive difference in team OR have an almost 100% chance of winning.
Even at a difference of plus 50, the top team has a 88% chance of winning.
If divisions were determined in 50 point increments, and filled in to 20 teams with "no manager" teams, then ALL leagues would be much more competitive with newer teams able to advance faster. This would go a long ways to minimizing the difference in team OR between the top and bottom teams in the country. In my opinion, it would also decrease the time it takes for new teams to move up the ranks which would encourage them to continue playing the game!!.

I don’t understand your complaint. There is literally always a bottom 3/4 of each division. Your scenario will always be experienced by managers. It’s how the game is set up. Teams are promoted and demoted each season. You don’t want the merger just because you don’t want to be one of those teams.

Merging will include more teams in the bottom level, making them more competitive, and increasing OTR gains, and making it so teams don’t bounce up and down as much. It should help prevent teams from becoming bored and quitting. Just because you don’t want more competition isn’t a reason to not merge and keep the game stagnant and boring.

Also, Vlady responded and said they are going to look into it. He said the coding is different than soccer, so it wouldn’t be the same process, but he’s going to see if it’s possible.

Another point. I started season 10 in hockey back when there were 4 league levels. The top teams had a huge advantage over me in time invested, but I still worked up and built a team that was competitive in 1.1. There were full leagues in the bottom, and it was fun building a team. It also kept it competitive enough that when I was promoted to 1.1 I was ready to compete. My otr was stagnant for a few seasons, but I kept building till I made it into the playoffs.

Having no name teams makes it boring, and teams in bottom levels then promote before they’re ready because there isn’t any competition. Merging the countries will fill out the bottom leagues, increasing competition, and making teams ready for the jump to 1.1. Leaving it as it is, the game is boring and predictable and people will continue quitting.

After a careful study of the top two tiers in all sports, and in several countries, I have made the following observations.
There are far more teams from the bottom half of leagues that become inactive than there are from the top half.
If the ones from the top half are apparently leaving due to boredom, and the ones from the bottom half are leaving because they feel they will never be competitive,
it would seem that lack of competition or no hope of ever competing are the main reasons for leaving.
Far more appear to be leaving because they feel they will never be competitive.
Apparently, your handball team will never face serious competition even if the two countries were combined. There are 44 active teams in the top two divisions of both countries combined.
Your OTR is at least 100 points higher than 42 of them, which means you have a 99+% of beating those 42 teams . Not too much competition or too many losses there.
Adding "no manager" teams may not be the solution, but something needs to be done to level the playing field, and give both unhappy groups some hope.
Top teams have little threat to their OTR, while bottom teams have little hope of gaining OTR, especially when most of their funds are needed for facility and arena advances.
If more "no manager" teams is not the answer, consider the following.
I do not have access to the amount of OTR gain for wins at all levels of play. Maybe teams that are expected to win should get less per win than they do now, and low level teams should get more OTR gain per win??
This should close the huge OTR gap differences that appear to let "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
Lower ranked teams would get better offers sooner than they do now to help them improve their team quicker, and top teams who no longer require money for facilities and arena would not so easily stay ahead of the pack.
What we need is more active teams that show a graduated OTR decrease from top to bottom as opposed to the the existing huge gaps where division 2 teams are forced to play in division 1 before they are ready.