Oggetto: I.1

OTR has no effect on chance to win games. That’s OTS. You’re also looking at Canada and the US, which have faced steady drop off of players for the last several years, meaning decreased competition and teams promoting to 1.1 before they’re ready. I can’t speak to other countries as I haven’t looked at them.

Look back to the first 10 seasons of handball. There were lots of teams, lower leagues had full divisions, and there was a very competitive league 1.1. I wasn’t on top for a long time. What has allowed me to amass so much OTR is that the other top teams kept dropping out, leading to weaker teams getting into 1.1 earlier, leading to me getting more and more wins each season. I also invested in young players early on which allowed me to field the team I currently have. A lot of these players were bought while I was playing against other tough teams when there were teams stronger than me.

The problems you’re highlighting are directly from a dwindling player base, not from “the rich getting richer”. I believe OTR gains are already influenced a bit by the OTR of your opponent. Beat an opponent with lower OTR, get a slightly lower value. Beat one with a higher OTR, get a slightly higher value. Merging the countries will help with the competition issue and then the OTR difference will start to level out.

There are only 2 league 2 divs with active teams. Both divs have teams with 0 losses. There are also a bunch of inactives. There is no competition on lower leagues to prepare for higher leagues. In hockey, I started in league 4, in season 10, when teams in 1.1 had had OTS over 300 already. I built my team up, and worked my way up till I eventually got to 1.1, and was strong enough to stay. This is because there were actual teams to play against and keep me in the lower leagues till I grew my OTS. We don’t have that in handball, and that’s what’s creating the yo yo effect for teams.

I think this is right. An easier way of looking at it might be who would be in I.1? If we look at OTS, there would be teams in I.1 now who would be in Division II, and not necessarily a scrub team.

I think Bobby's point could be that his team might end up in Division II, and that he might be one of those who promotes up only to pop back down. That would be discouraging going from 4th in I.1 to bubble team. But it's not automatic that Bobby's team would win out in Division II. (all this is based off of current team strength--I recognize it's going to be different at the beginning of the season and depending on how much energy you have to use)

Basically, increased competition is almost assuredly going to mean less OTS gap between opponents, not more. And in the US, that means instead of Cataclysm (OTS 305) vs. Green Bay Top Flight (OTS 93), you might have Cataclysm vs. Jedi Masters (OTS 286), and Thunder Stealers (OTS 155) vs. Beavers (OTS 140). Not to pick on anyone's OTS--simply saying what matchups happen in Division I.1 right now vs. what would be possible matchups in Div. I and II.

Boba Fett you are absolutely right. I should have used OTS in stead of OTR. Nonetheless, the differences using OTS are just as dramatically skewed!
My point is this:
We have ended up in this position using the present criteria. Regrouping the two countries together does not solve the problem that caused this situation, it merely pushes the problem down the road where it will inevitably arise again. We should be exploring changes that will make this game more attractive to newbies. It's not that new players are not coming on board, it's that they don't want to stick around the same number of seasons that some of us have to move up. Many top teams have taken around 10 seasons or longer to rise through the ranks. If we want the generation of new players to stick around, I think it is imperative that we find a way to shorten that time period. Else, it's just a matter of time before we regroup with South America or some other group.

I do agree there needs to be better economic and OTS mobility. However, we're not going to see that change. I do think that having more active players does the game well as nobody likes playing against nonames. Having a deeper league will make it more interesting.

Does anyone think they can possibly make that change this season? Or is it more involved, such that it cannot happen until at least the one after?

Well, that certainly was a craptastic draft. Had 2As scouted, and Teslas got one of them (the other was a 5/6 CL back, I don't remember his name :/)

My best pick had a decent starting OR (428), but 65% avgQ (including 54 in FiP, and 56 in Goalie). The other guy was supposed to be a 3.5* goalie, but his goalie quality was 62 (and 77 in block, 63% overall).

You'd think B guys could AT LEAST have 70% average quality, yeah?

Sorry not sorry.

My 2nd round B pick is showing 79% AvQ before scouting.

I have fairly accurate pre-scouting, and for me it's actually a 75%, still seems better than what I got though.

Wait... that'S Thorpe. Arsenault is 85%. That was a B?! O_o

I'm back, relegated at the end of season 17, now back with 20,000 seats & concessions and a team of 17-year-old kids. I'll be horrible but financially sound.

Gannon Couture: 76 AQ

Ah man, almost got a shutout!
handball.powerplaymanager...

so close... does it ever happen?

[handball_team=16462]is a rather unfortunate name now.