Midweek Musings, or Points of Contention...

Be warned...long post coming up as we round up the news floating around British hockey, but first of all (and this is the bulk of the post...:))

It appears my "points" system suggested yesterday needs something of a rethink in order to work properly, to put it mildly...it's one of those things that seemed fine to me but independent eyes have noticed several (well, actually far more) flaws with it, and haven't exactly been shy in telling me so. :) Rather than send out a similar email twice, I'll post what these people have said here and attempt to answer the problems-trouble is that some of them I will likely find tricky without a major overhaul of the system...the quoted bits are in italics...

Firstly, Craig writes from here in Coventry...
What if say for example Barrie Moore had been scoring at a consistent rate of 30+ a season (which isnt impossible) he'd have started on 7 points (NHLer) and could now be on 11 for next season which if the cumulative for a roster was 100 thats over 10% so not likely that he will be offered a contract, even if he wanted to return.
It's a format that could force players out of clubs and even the country against their will and we'd never see another Steve Chartrand like story.. Is it a moral format? In terms of the small teams having a chance yes, in terms of guys being able to live and work for the employers they want to I dont think so...

All very good points-and they could be easily remedied (on the surface at least) by simply scrapping the "add a point based on performance" section of the system...so unlike my original idea players aren't actually getting penalised for playing well, which will hopefully make it a more moral system and allow for players to stay in the country.

However...when you combine this with the flaws found by Adam up in Manchester, you get a really, really flawed system...He's worked out that at the moment, the top ten points scorers in the league (based on number of points per ranking point) work out thus... (name, points scored, point value under my system, points per ranking point)

Adam Calder 121 5 24.2
Dan Carlson 107 5 21.4
Greg Chambers 95 5 19
Sean McAslan 93 6 15.5
Joe Tallari 92 5 18.4
Ed Courtenay 88 5 17.6
Tony Hand 85 4 21.25
Sylvain Deschatelets 83 5 16.6
Peter Campbell 81 5 16.2
Colin Hemingway 80 6 13.33

Interestingly (but perhaps inevitably given the trend of where players come into the league from) all come into the "5 point" category as ex-ECHLers, with the exception of Colin Hemingway and Sean McAslan (6) and Tony Hand (4). He argues (and I can see his point) that the money spent could actually increase due to players like Tony Hand being able to demand far more money thanks to being a relatively low point consumer whatever their production on the ice, while the current top players and arguably those who've forced the standard of the league up (like McAslan and Hemingway this season) won't be signed because they're simply not worth taking a risk on The system works in the sense that Brits do suddenly become a more valuable part of the roster-however, if they're being paid more then we'll still see the best Brits going to the biggest teams-a point which I was trying to change with the ranking system and I've managed to fail to do so spectacularly...:)

But wait...there's more...

Also, signing someone good from abroad suddenly seems like a very stupid idea. Who would want to sign a 7-rated player (25+ NHL games) unless they were guaranteed about 150 points? (still a worse ranking than the top 2 there - 21.4)

When you look at it like that, you realise that players like Hemingway and Hand, while possibly comparable in ability, would be light-years apart in terms of worth under this system, and Brit wages would be artificially driven upwards, whereas they're likely being paid similar money (proportionate to their respective club's budget) under the system we have now...I suppose you could remedy it by making the categories much broader...make Brits exempt (although that would still lead to money issues) or set the points system simply for imports, divided thus...

College/UHL/CHL: One point
ECHL/Europe: Two points
AHL/NHL: Three points

Then, you set a limit of, say, 20 points for the ten imports, which means that you can either go with a few AHL/NHLers mixed in with ECHL, or ten ECHL/European players, or a load of AHLers mixed with a few lower-level imports. This way, there's not as much of an issue over where players come from compared to productivity (although I accept it's still there) but since you could reasonably expect a player who has played mostly at AHL level to be of a higher standard than an ECHLer, I think it's a little fairer on the ratings side. No doubt there are still flaws, so that system should probably still be put on the back burner...:)

Whilst everyone in the league hates the wage cap situation, I think it is a necessary evil to keep the standard of hockey good enough to keep it going at all. If the big teams are neutered by stopping them spending so much, the smaller teams won't get those big crowds when those teams come to town, and that may force them out of business.

Hold on...someone supporting the wage cap?! But in all seriousness, that argument holds up pretty well-but only assuming that all the wage-cap loopholes are closed by the league-one of the major reasons, in my view, that there is such a disparity in a league where everyone should be spending similar amounts is because the bigger teams simply hand over more money to their stars but don't declare most of it under the cap-e.g
Player A wage: £250 a week (counts towards cap)
Player A's wife receives a position at a sponsor, all worked out through the club and guaranteed for the season: £300 a week (doesn't count under cap, but the income for player A and his family is now £550 a week guaranteed)
Player A uni course paid for by the club: £3000 a year (more incentives in there)
Then you have bonuses etc...which many teams simply can't afford. In my eyes the only way to sort things out is, as people have been screaming for for years, to have an independently audited wage-cap. Trouble is, the owners (who after all run the league) are never going to vote for that because half of them would then be exposed as breaking the agreement they came up with in the first place...

However-he does finish with a point I disagree with...:)

Artificially creating a situation where Brit's are necessary lowers the standard of the league and jeopardises it's future. That's the problem with it how it is isn't it?

Yes...however, I would argue that the example of the Superleague shows just what can happen, in Britain at least, when you allow teams a free market, wage-cap or no wage-cap...the league standard may rise but teams drop like flies as the bigger-budget sides simply throw money at imports. At least imposing a limit on this means that young British players (who will cost far less than an equivalent third-line import) are involved and the wages are just about workable. The main reason I think there are such problems in British hockey at the moment isn't so much because of the import limit as the fact that the one thing intended to ensure a level playing-field has so many holes in it it's untrue-and the teams with the bigger reserves of cash are still simply throwing it at the best players. Given that there is no way you can artificially restrict the wages spent on any one single player without falling foul of employment laws (this was an option I considered for a nanosecond as an answer to Brits being able to demand more money under the import limits).

Although...having just slated the ISL...If the wagecap were enforced properly (yes, I know it's a dream, but bear with me), a return to the no-import-limit days could work-simply because at the moment one of the major reasons for costs rising is British players being able to demand money out of all proportion to their ability. In a "free" market, given the ability to sign an import for £100 a week less of comparable ability to, say, Ashley Tait, wouldn't most teams take it?

One thing I have learned from this exercise is that (shock) a wage-cap, properly enforced, is a far more likely way of ensuring parity in the league than my idea of attempting to regulate the spread of ability throughout the teams-and also a far easier way to encourage a rise in the popularity of hockey thanks to higher standards than artificially regulating it by making more Brits play...and thanks to the hugely impressive efforts of readers like Adam and Craig, you even have the irrefutable proof...:)

Phew...I have a feeling that this discussion may not be over yet, but for now let's finish with the other major news item so far this week...

Bye bye Marty: The EIHL is losing possibly its best defenceman (and British hockey possibly one of its best players ever) as Neal Martin has signed for Aalborg in the Danish league for next season, marking the end of four years in Coventry in which the Canadian has won everything. There's not much more to say than this...

"Neal, you've been a class act both on (and by all accounts off) the ice, it's been a pleasure watching you, and good luck to you and your family"

If British hockey as a whole could speak, then that would be the message...

That epic post (nearly 1,700 words-almost worthy of a uni essay) has just about exhausted me talking about hockey for today...tomorrow we see some Thursday Thoughts, as well as a in-depth preview of the first playoff match-up to get underway in Sheffield v Manchester...

Many thanks to those who've provided the impetus for today's post with their comments, and as always, keep keeping your eye on the puck...