Friday, March 23, 2018

2018 H2H Survey Results

As posted on the league forums, here is the 2018 H2H Survey results:
*11 GMs responding

Most of the league were interested in upping the dues and fees, and thus increasing our prize pot. 72.7% said to up the dues to 25 bucks. 72.7% said to up the loser fee to $2.50, or higher. Only one person said they weren't interested in increasing anything. We have a majority here, and we will indeed increase dues and fees starting next season.

With regards to the playoff fees, this was kind of split. 45.5% said to not add playoff loser fees at all, and 54.5% said to add at least 2 bucks. We don't have a clear majority here, so I think we'll refrain from adding it. I will note however, that any one GM would only have to pay an extra 5 bucks as you can only lose once in the playoffs, and the prize pot increase is always nice. Still, we don't have a clear majority, so....

Amazingly, 100% of GMs are satisfied with the changes to the lottery system, and we'll be instating this immediately. Also, 72.7% said to revert to POST-playoff standings for the draft order after the first two rounds (the lottery rounds). We'll be doing that.

There is a bit of a divide here on transactions, but we do have a majority, enough of one to make a decision. 63.6% said that 2 moves a week is perfect. We'll keep things the same, but had we gone to 3 moves per week, the majority would have wanted to increase the yearly total to at least 50 (63.6%).

IR and IR+ : 
The majority want to switch how we do things here; 63.6% wants 2 IR+ and 1 IR instead of the other way. We'll change it for next year.

The majority did not want to remove any player stats (81.8%) nor any goalie stats (72.7%). There was some interest in getting rid of the harder to get stats, but not enough to consider this topic any further - ever again hopefully.

With regards to the question on GAMES STARTED, 72.7% said they were not interested in adding this. Had it gone the other way, the majority were not interested in adding any player stats to counter balance the added goalie one (72.7%). When asked if everyone wanted to turn all the stats on, or keep things as they are, 90.9% said that what we had now was perfect. No changes.

So, there is a total divide here. Half the league like 3 games as the minimum required, and the other half want it increased. There is a slight edge towards keeping it at 3 (54.5%), but 45.5% want it up to at least 4, with one GM wanting even more. We'll keep it where it is for now, but if the crowd who want more wish to rally next year and convince everyone to change, we'll listen.

Oh, and by the way, 81.8% said there was no need for extra penalties to be imposed on GMs who don't reach their minimums. There was a mix of everything for the desired penalty had we instated one, with most wanting transaction removals over draft pick swaps.

This section was nearly unanimous, so let's report it and get to the meat and bones that's coming soon.

90.0% said to keep our current format of division leaders getting top 3 seeds, and 'wild cards' for the rest.

100% said NO to a 6 team playoffs.

And finally, 72.7% said that locking non playoff teams is the way to go. BUT I WILL NOTE: There is a new conversation on this that may lead us to revisit the topic in the future for some slight adjustments.

Most GMs would enjoy expanding, or at least discussing this in the future. 36.4% said that 12 is perfect.

The biggest debate of the year, and truly the topic that is the heart of the league in many ways. That's perhaps why there is a clear divide. The league is split on weighted vs unweighted basically, when you boil all this down. Let's just dive in.

54.5% said they were satisfied with both the division and schedule setup. The rest were unsatisfied mostly with the schedule setup: 27.3% just the schedule and 18.2% both division and schedule.

There was a split here with 54.5% not wanting to make a change to how we currently decide the divisions, that being the year before's ranks. 27.3% liked the idea of division leaders from the year before 'drafting' the division makup one by one. We wont make the change for now, but it's something that perhaps could be discussed in the future. GMs could sway back and forth on this one I believe.

Ok, take a breath.

The debate at heart throughout all this is whether or not we want a divisionally weighted schedule, or a totally (or as close to as possible) even one. There are minor disagreements on either side of this aisle, but those are the two main elements.

When asked if GMs would prefer to face every team just twice - except one team - removing all divisional weights basically.... 54.5% said yes. 45.5% said no. Aye carumba.

We'll get back to the above results. When discussing in division weighting, here's what we found out.

72.7% DID NOT like the idea of just increasing in division games to 4 (4x3=12 and 1x8 and 1* schedule).

When asked if GMs would like a 2 div system, 63.6% said no, they would prefer the current 3 div system.

When asked if a 4 division 2 'Conference' style league would be preferred, 54.5% said NO. Seems this one was an intriguing option for several though, it should be noted.

With all the options on the table for GMs to choose from (within a divisionally weighted system, that is without the even schedule option among them) 54.5% said they prefer the keep things exactly as they are. 36.4% would prefer some sort of 2 or 4 division setup. 9.1% like 3 divisions, but more games in division, which does give the slight edge to 3 divisions over 2 or 4 in the end. There isn't a clear majority in any of this really, but it looks like it will be 3 divisions for the foreseeable future.

Okay folks, the divide is simple when you boil things down. If we keep a divisionally weighted system, the majority believe this 3 division even in games and out, 10 and 10 (plus 1*), is the way to go.

The big issue here, the big debate, the methodological argument is; do we want the divisional weights? Half the league say no. These GMs want an even schedule. They want to face everyone twice except one team.

So... the war rageth on.

No comments: