Administrators Kenu Posted December 14, 2015 Administrators Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 ECL (PS4) groups have been created By Kenu 12/14/2015 Hey Everyone, We had an interesting night and the groups are now done for the first ECL on PS4! In case you're wondering how the teams were divided, here's the short version: - Top 16 teams (in order to be dividable by 4) were selected and randomised on their own. The teams to be seeded separately were chosen based on this list: http://nhlgamer.com/community...ue-format/?page=2#comment-71 - The rest of the teams were seeded randomly into the four groups and we ended up with 4 groups of 13 teams. We have contacted several teams that registered on the forum, but not on the new platform. They have until 11:00 CET to get back to me if they still want to be a part of the league. If they do, they will be randomly seeded into the groups. Once we know whether or not we get any additional teams, we can create the schedule and release it. This will happen during the day today (Monday). The schedule will have games for all teams already today, but if you have to, you can agree with your opponent to move them. Group 1: Aapon Taikasauva Checkmate Gulligellot Heroes of Our Time Holy Ghostbusters KiekkoKopla No Guts No Glory Nordic Blizzard Refuse To Lose Rideway Raiders Silver Sword Griffin TIKI TALK Tuhlaajapojat Group 2: Ducktales BK Free From Rodents Hottikset Infinity Kattiautomaatti Nordic Stars Northern Stars Origins PSHL Criminal Minds Puckaroonies Rising Phantoms HC Sjukstugan ST4DIN JOKERIT Group 3: Bombers Hockey Falun Coal Miners Finnish Jets Finnish Roosters Hybris K A R H U T Knuckle Sandwich Mestarit Areenalla MetroBulls HC SIKA Synergy Hockey THE UNITED KNIGHTS UKnighted HC Group 4: Ace Holes hc Beniserna Carlsberg HC Dynasty Ganja Bonanzas HC Circus HCF Since 2009 Northern Ascendancy Sunny Side Terrible Bears The Old Farts TJ Jezibaby Unstoppable Warriors 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECL Staff MartindalexC Posted December 15, 2015 ECL Staff Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 I'm not sure where this should go but I guess here will do. Basically I'm a bit concerned about the playoff structure. I assume right now the idea is that the top 4 from each group go forward into the playoffs and it follows a structure that is seen in the NHL playoffs, the main difference for me however is that they have 30 teams, we have 52... so I think it's a little unfair to use the same structure as seen in real life. If we're actually wanting to be vaguely fair we should try to match the real life % of teams making the playoffs (53.3%), comparatively if we were to follow the same model only 30.7% would make it in this league. My proposal is that the top 6 from each division are 'locked in' while there are also two wild card spots open for each two groups (1 & 2 / 3 & 4). Meaning group 1 could send 8, however group 2 could only send 6 as all the wild card spots for those two groups would have been taken. This would send 28 out of 52 teams to the playoffs, giving us a participation % of 53.8, *slightly* more lenient than the rl NHL model but a hell of a lot more fairer than the one I assume will be used at this point. One major issue with this however is that it assumes that all teams currently signed up will still be here at the end of the season, otherwise the participation rate gets skewed. That said however, I highly doubt 22 teams will drop out so even then this model would be more applicable than what is currently in use. An example of the model in action: (Note: these are not predictions of how the season for these groups will finish, but merely just an example) There is a bit of scheduling problem as the fourth placed team in each group would have no one to play from within their own group but that can easily be fixed by pairing them up with the fourth placed team from the other group. After however one team would have to have a bye week (ie: round off almost) in order to get the scheduling back to an even number of series. The team taking this would be a middle ranked team above but there's no real reason it couldn't be the top ranked team for instance. The model also tries to favour inter-group matchups above all else, hence why B2 does not play A6 in the second round, but instead plays B3, whilst A3 plays A6 instead of B3. At the end the winner of this side of the tournament will play the winner from the other two groups (noted as C / D in the model). It must be said that the table above does show it in a bit of a convoluted way, nevertheless the idea was to make a model that would be much more fair than what is in place atm, which imo it has accomplished. Any queries about certain matchups please feel free to ask, like I said it looks convoluted so I understand if anyone doesn't pick it up immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jnmxxx Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 As strange as it sounds i think that most of the teams wouldnt want a "bye week". Other than that it sounds good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy44205 Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 @MartindalexC You don't know what has been defined in terms of playoffs, and you didn't read the brief summary @Kenu wrote in the chatbox on that topic the other day. I love convoluted, boring meta-tournament stuff though so let's talk... First, how are wildcard spots given? Since you're so hung up on fairness I reckon you don't just compare team records across different groups since the teams haven't even played against the same opponents (even if groups are supposedly even-ish). So you want the potential WC teams to play against each other, and that takes time that all previously qualified teams will spend waiting so that's not good either imo. Also, why does your percentage of playoff teams have to mimic the NHL? What's the reasoning behind it, other than "looks like the NHL"? What about how the NHL was with 24 teams? Copying the real thing for no reason is not good either. With that said, the big issue with your proposal is that it does not lend itself to devising divisions for the next tournament. That's the biggest no-no. Here is what I had devised with this mysterious "NHLGamer staff" group and what @Kenu had presented in the chatbox back when 60 teams were supposed to play, and I'm going to adapt it to the 52-team format: The first 8 teams from each group make the main playoffs. After the first round of these playoffs, the 16 winners go on to decide the winner of ECL ofc, and the losing 16 run parallel playoffs. This allows to know the top 16 teams in future Div1, then team 17 (and maybe 18) because in a 3-division system with 52 teams you'll have 17 or 18 teams per division. Let's say 17 teams in Div1, 17 in Div2, 18 in Div3 for now. The remaining 15 guys in the parallel playoffs will go to Div2. The bottom-20 teams in group stage will also have "bottom playoffs" where 12 teams (the 9th-11th teams from each group) will get a 1st round bye. Not ideal but imo there's no way around it and at least only 12 teams will have to wait there. Anyway, the top-2 teams out of these playoffs will go to Div2. The remaining 18 will go to Div3. I do agree about splitting the playoff trees by "conferences" of 2 groups, meaning that the first half of the playoff tree is only groups A-B and the other one is only C-D, and they face off in the final. The reason for that is that I didn't find a way to spread every group in every playoff tree. Why is what I describe better? Because it lends itself to devising divisions obviously, but also because it gives bottom teams incentive to play ECL till the end. Also it's easier to understand imo, but that might just be because I came up with it myself... I'm not saying my playoff structure is what will ultimately be retained, but it does what it needs to do while yours doesn't so at the very least your structure will not be retained in its current state, no matter what. I enjoyed writing this wall of text of boring explanations. Thanks for the challenge Connor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gzell60 Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) 8 teams per group are qualifying for the playoffs. Sending a number of teams that doesn't break down to 2 finalists into the playoffs sounds like a terrible idea, by the way. Edited December 15, 2015 by gzell60 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECL Staff MartindalexC Posted December 16, 2015 ECL Staff Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) 18 hours ago, Billy44205 said: @MartindalexC You don't know what has been defined in terms of playoffs, and you didn't read the brief summary @Kenu wrote in the chatbox on that topic the other day. I love convoluted, boring meta-tournament stuff though so let's talk... First, how are wildcard spots given? [1] Since you're so hung up on fairness I reckon you don't just compare team records across different groups since the teams haven't even played against the same opponents (even if groups are supposedly even-ish). So you want the potential WC teams to play against each other, and that takes time that all previously qualified teams will spend waiting so that's not good either imo. Also, why does your percentage of playoff teams have to mimic the NHL? [2] What's the reasoning behind it, other than "looks like the NHL"? What about how the NHL was with 24 teams? Copying the real thing for no reason is not good either. With that said, the big issue with your proposal is that it does not lend itself to devising divisions for the next tournament. [3] That's the biggest no-no. Here is what I had devised with this mysterious "NHLGamer staff" group and what @Kenu had presented in the chatbox back when 60 teams were supposed to play, and I'm going to adapt it to the 52-team format: The first 8 teams from each group make the main playoffs. After the first round of these playoffs, the 16 winners go on to decide the winner of ECL ofc, and the losing 16 run parallel playoffs. This allows to know the top 16 teams in future Div1, then team 17 (and maybe 18) because in a 3-division system with 52 teams you'll have 17 or 18 teams per division. Let's say 17 teams in Div1, 17 in Div2, 18 in Div3 for now. The remaining 15 guys in the parallel playoffs will go to Div2. The bottom-20 teams in group stage will also have "bottom playoffs" where 12 teams (the 9th-11th teams from each group) will get a 1st round bye. Not ideal but imo there's no way around it and at least only 12 teams will have to wait there. Anyway, the top-2 teams out of these playoffs will go to Div2. The remaining 18 will go to Div3. [4] I do agree about splitting the playoff trees by "conferences" of 2 groups, meaning that the first half of the playoff tree is only groups A-B and the other one is only C-D, and they face off in the final. The reason for that is that I didn't find a way to spread every group in every playoff tree. [5] Why is what I describe better? Because it lends itself to devising divisions obviously, but also because it gives bottom teams incentive to play ECL till the end. [6] Also it's easier to understand imo [7], but that might just be because I came up with it myself... I'm not saying my playoff structure is what will ultimately be retained, but it does what it needs to do while yours doesn't so at the very least your structure will not be retained in its current state, no matter what. I enjoyed writing this wall of text of boring explanations. Thanks for the challenge Connor [1]- Wildcard spots would be given out based on points, with the tie breakers being the greater number of games won and then if this is the same between two clubs, another tie breaker will be used that is concerned with which team has the best goal differential. [2]- The reasoning is that the NHL is the premier hockey league, plus there isn't much complaints about it's structure (specifically how many teams go to the playoffs), ie: it's a good thing to try and attain. Additionally, seen as my structure mimics the real life NHL model, it would reduce any potential confusion to a degree. [3]- You are correct. I should have pre-faced the model by stating that its use would be vastly diminished if a lot of teams leave and if it is used past the current season (afterall, this is a first to have this many teams registered). [4]- This would work perfectly from what I am reading, the only issue I have is that while it does give us a good way to allocate teams for later tournaments, I feel that the divisions may become unbalanced (Eg: 17 in Div, 15 in Div 2 and 10 in Div 3) due to lower teams leaving (This could be due to a whole host of reasons, ranging from scheduling issues to straight up being shit). [5]- What is this? The second thing we've agreed on in as many days? What is the world coming to? [6]- I guess by definition, if they just happen to not shit the bed and finish relatively decently, that said how would you try to keep teams that are propping up the bottom of the table around? I'm talking about the really bad teams, the ones that would struggle to win in general (Think Ashton). They would gain nothing from keeping in the league and getting the shit kicked out of them, so it would be a good deal for them to feign 'scheduling issues' and retract from the tournament, then join back next year in Div 3. They wouldn't have gained anything for sure, but on the other hand they wouldn't have lost anything. [7]- That shouldn't really be a negative of a model. Realistically only two people need to understand a league model 'fully' (ofc it is better if everyone understands it perfectly, that said, apart from the WC selection which as I've outlined is based off points, there isn't much of a complicated aspect to it), the creator and the person actively using it (ie: the commissioner / scheduler). Overall I'd say our models differ on the basis from which they were created. Yours is to be used to allocate divisions for the next tournament. Mine is to try and raise the skill of those that eventually make it into the playoffs (WC selection) and stop basically everyone getting into the playoffs. (an issue that may very well appear later on in the tournament as teams leave). That said yours would work better for season one, however I'd say mine would be better suited for when there isn't a need to later split teams into divisions for later tournaments. Edited December 16, 2015 by MartindalexC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECL Staff MartindalexC Posted December 16, 2015 ECL Staff Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 18 hours ago, gzell60 said: 8 teams per group are qualifying for the playoffs. Sending a number of teams that doesn't break down to 2 finalists into the playoffs sounds like a terrible idea, by the way. I'm confused, in my model and Billy's there is 2 finalists (one from group a/b and one from group c/d). Unless of course you're talking about the 'bye week' I outlined. In which case, yes it would be a little strange / awkward but it could just be given to the top ranked team remaining in each 'conference'. A reward if you will for playing well throughout the tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daigle_ Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 send all teams to the playoff so everyone is happy? if you dont make top 4 in a group you really think you deserve to be in the playoffs, really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECL Staff MartindalexC Posted December 16, 2015 ECL Staff Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 50 minutes ago, pnordetun said: send all teams to the playoff so everyone is happy? if you dont make top 4 in a group you really think you deserve to be in the playoffs, really? That's 12 teams out of 52 (23.1%), that's beyond unfair and then some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Kenu Posted December 16, 2015 Author Administrators Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Playoffs are set for 32 teams. Sure it's the majority, but it gives all teams a chance to fight for the playoffs and hopefully we won't see teams split as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy44205 Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, pnordetun said: send all teams to the playoff so everyone is happy? if you dont make top 4 in a group you really think you deserve to be in the playoffs, really? It's not worse than the concept of divisions where you crown the best, but also the best of the worst. You're allowed to disagree with the entire "giving bad teams incentive to play" in the name of elitist considerations such as "make the ECL playoffs mean more" but I think the guys in charge have to look at both ends of their spectrum of players. Also, the ranking teams thing for divisions. By the way, if I know anything about anything, the playoff format for this current tournament is NOT applicable to a potential division-based system (rather, it is a necessary step towards divisions). The next tournament and playoffs will be wildly different. Note to @MartindalexC : Before 1991 the NHL had 24 teams with 16 making the playoffs. Let's just say ECL mimmicks NHL in the 80's, when the real scores were looking like videogame scores, too. Everything makes sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.