rainsilent

Waivers. Anybody sent to an affiliate above say 25 goes to waivers. Anybody of the same league or below interested sends in a claim. The team highest in the claim order gets the player. Very simple and straightforward.
 
 
 
Therein lies the problem. They have to make an offer. Knowing your trading tendencies your going to want something more than a throwaway contract. Not saying that you wouldn't make a deal like that happen more that others may be doing it to try to force trades for players. You know. Gather enough players to try to force a trade or get all the quality players and then try to work deals with lower teams. It is only a bad thing to have a high league team signing all of the quality players for lower leagues no matter if they try to trade them down or not. There is no reason that a SHL team should not be able to send a waiver claim for Baroni on my team, Sharp on yours or one of the many on Pegasus who seemingly can't offer enough contracts to FAs. Nobody should be able to collect players above a certain age (again say 24 or 25) and then without care send them to their affiliates without them going through waivers.

They are a vast improvement in the sense of a team can develop its own prospects. However much beyond that they kind of are overkill. A team shouldn't need 6+ reserve players like a few teams are going after. It is also pointless to have a good reserve team. That said some people find it important to have a good reserve team. It isn't a massive problem that needs fixing. It is just a nuisance for a team to hoard a lot of players that they essentially end up not using. The proposed waiver system is a way to get around the hoarding.

Suggesting a waiver system is hardly a nerf to the affiliate system or a protest for something new though is it? It is a real life solution to an exactly similarly identified problem in real life. Without a waiver system you risk there being less parity with more players potentially being signed and then sent to the affiliate teams of a few teams and left there until needed. It happened in the NHL until waivers were introduced. Personally I'd rather not see a Montreal like dynasty built upon always having a wealth of talent to draw upon due to hoarding talent. I'd rather see a Detroit like dynasty where it is sustained success through great management. Having a waiver system prevents hoarding of talented players above a certain age. Preventing the hoarding of players creates more parity. More parity creates better competition. Better competition makes the game better due to it being more fun to play. A more fun game will be more likely to attract more players.
 
I'm not saying that Anders needs to get this out the door asap but I don't think that this could be left alone for an extended time due to the faster leagues.
 
Also in regards to it being relatively easy to rise through the ranks that was true back when AI littered the leagues. However most will not be able to do that now with more human managers. Skilled and clever managers will pretty much be able to no matter what. I'd love to give it a go with a second team but I don't want to create essentially 2 profiles.

Waivers. Anybody sent to an affiliate above say 25 goes to waivers. Anybody of the same league or below interested sends in a claim. The team highest in the claim order gets the player. Very simple and straightforward.
 
 
 
Therein lies the problem. They have to make an offer. Knowing your trading tendencies your going to want something more than a throwaway contract. Not saying that you wouldn't make a deal like that happen more that others may be doing it to try to force trades for players. You know. Gather enough players to try to force a trade or get all the quality players and then try to work deals with lower teams. It is only a bad thing to have a high league team signing all of the quality players for lower leagues no matter if they try to trade them down or not. There is no reason that a SHL team should not be able to send a waiver claim for Baroni on my team, Sharp on yours or one of the many on Pegasus who seemingly can't offer enough contracts to FAs. Nobody should be able to collect players above a certain age (again say 24 or 25) and then without care send them to their affiliates without them going through waivers.

Suggesting a waiver system is hardly a nerf to the affiliate system or a protest for something new though is it? It is a real life solution to an exactly similarly identified problem in real life. Without a waiver system you risk there being less parity with more players potentially being signed and then sent to the affiliate teams of a few teams and left there until needed. It happened in the NHL until waivers were introduced. Personally I'd rather not see a Montreal like dynasty built upon always having a wealth of talent to draw upon due to hoarding talent. I'd rather see a Detroit like dynasty where it is sustained success through great management. Having a waiver system prevents hoarding of talented players above a certain age. Preventing the hoarding of players creates more parity. More parity creates better competition. Better competition makes the game better due to it being more fun to play. A more fun game will be more likely to attract more players.
 
I'm not saying that Anders needs to get this out the door asap but I don't think that this could be left alone for an extended time due to the faster leagues.
 
Also in regards to it being relatively easy to rise through the ranks that was true back when AI littered the leagues. However most will not be able to do that now with more human managers. Skilled and clever managers will pretty much be able to no matter what. I'd love to give it a go with a second team but I don't want to create essentially 2 profiles.

Suggesting a waiver system is hardly a nerf to the affiliate system or a protest for something new though is it? It is a real life solution to an exactly similarly identified problem in real life. Without a waiver system you risk there being less parity with more players potentially being signed and then sent to the affiliate teams of a few teams and left there until needed. It happened in the NHL until waivers were introduced. Personally I'd rather not see a Montreal like dynasty built upon always having a wealth of talent to draw upon due to hoarding talent. I'd rather see a Detroit like dynasty where it is sustained success through great management. Having a waiver system prevents hoarding of talented players above a certain age. Preventing the hoarding of players creates more parity. More parity creates better competition. Better competition makes the game better due to it being more fun to play. A more fun game will be more likely to attract more players.
 
I'm not saying that Anders needs to get this out the door asap but I don't think that this could be left alone for an extended time due to the faster leagues.
 
Also in regards to it being relatively easy to rise through the ranks that was true back when AI littered the leagues. However most will not be able to do that now with more human managers. Skilled and clever managers will pretty much be able to no matter what. I'd love to give it a go with a second team but I don't want to create essentially 2 profiles.

Suggesting a waiver system is hardly a nerf to the affiliate system or a protest for something new though is it? It is a real life solution to an exactly similarly identified problem in real life. Without a waiver system you risk there being less parity with more players potentially being signed and then sent to the affiliate teams of a few teams and left there until needed. It happened in the NHL until waivers were introduced. Personally I'd rather not see a Montreal like dynasty built upon always having a wealth of talent to draw upon due to hoarding talent. I'd rather see a Detroit like dynasty where it is sustained success through great management. Having a waiver system prevents hoarding of talented players above a certain age. Preventing the hoarding of players creates more parity. More parity creates better competition. Better competition makes the game better due to it being more fun to play. A more fun game will be more likely to attract more players.
 
I'm not saying that Anders needs to get this out the door asap but I don't think that this could be left alone for an extended time due to the faster leagues.
 
Also in regards to it being relatively easy to rise through the ranks that was true back when AI littered the leagues. However most will not be able to do that now with more human managers. Skilled and clever managers will pretty much be able to no matter what. I'd love to give it a go with a second team but I don't want to create essentially 2 profiles.

Waivers. Anybody sent to an affiliate above say 25 goes to waivers. Anybody of the same league or below interested sends in a claim. The team highest in the claim order gets the player. Very simple and straightforward.
 
 
 
Therein lies the problem. They have to make an offer. Knowing your trading tendencies your going to want something more than a throwaway contract. Not saying that you wouldn't make a deal like that happen more that others may be doing it to try to force trades for players. You know. Gather enough players to try to force a trade or get all the quality players and then try to work deals with lower teams. It is only a bad thing to have a high league team signing all of the quality players for lower leagues no matter if they try to trade them down or not. There is no reason that a SHL team should not be able to send a waiver claim for Baroni on my team, Sharp on yours or one of the many on Pegasus who seemingly can't offer enough contracts to FAs. Nobody should be able to collect players above a certain age (again say 24 or 25) and then without care send them to their affiliates without them going through waivers.

They are a vast improvement in the sense of a team can develop its own prospects. However much beyond that they kind of are overkill. A team shouldn't need 6+ reserve players like a few teams are going after. It is also pointless to have a good reserve team. That said some people find it important to have a good reserve team. It isn't a massive problem that needs fixing. It is just a nuisance for a team to hoard a lot of players that they essentially end up not using. The proposed waiver system is a way to get around the hoarding.

Waivers. Anybody sent to an affiliate above say 25 goes to waivers. Anybody of the same league or below interested sends in a claim. The team highest in the claim order gets the player. Very simple and straightforward.
 
 
 
Therein lies the problem. They have to make an offer. Knowing your trading tendencies your going to want something more than a throwaway contract. Not saying that you wouldn't make a deal like that happen more that others may be doing it to try to force trades for players. You know. Gather enough players to try to force a trade or get all the quality players and then try to work deals with lower teams. It is only a bad thing to have a high league team signing all of the quality players for lower leagues no matter if they try to trade them down or not. There is no reason that a SHL team should not be able to send a waiver claim for Baroni on my team, Sharp on yours or one of the many on Pegasus who seemingly can't offer enough contracts to FAs. Nobody should be able to collect players above a certain age (again say 24 or 25) and then without care send them to their affiliates without them going through waivers.

It isn't so much a bad idea so long as the number is high enough but then what is high enough? Too low and your too restricted on developing your own prospects and nobody wants that. Too high and it doesn't matter. Ultimately you don't want to restrict the number of prospects a team has to choose from. That is just bad. It is the signing or holding onto of 25+ yo players that can play big roles on lower league teams (like Sharp on the Vandals for one example) that is not playing for the team they are contracted to that is the problem. That is what you want to prevent. The hoarding of non prospects and the best way to do that is a waiver system where someone can put a claim on a player that a team is basically holding on to and just sending down to their affiliates.

It isn't so much a bad idea so long as the number is high enough but then what is high enough? Too low and your too restricted on developing your own prospects and nobody wants that. Too high and it doesn't matter. Ultimately you don't want to restrict the number of prospects a team has to choose from. That is just bad. It is the signing or holding onto of 25+ yo players that can play big roles on lower league teams (like Sharp on the Vandals for one example) that is not playing for the team they are contracted to that is the problem. That is what you want to prevent. The hoarding of non prospects and the best way to do that is a waiver system where someone can put a claim on a player that a team is basically holding on to and just sending down to their affiliates.

They are a vast improvement in the sense of a team can develop its own prospects. However much beyond that they kind of are overkill. A team shouldn't need 6+ reserve players like a few teams are going after. It is also pointless to have a good reserve team. That said some people find it important to have a good reserve team. It isn't a massive problem that needs fixing. It is just a nuisance for a team to hoard a lot of players that they essentially end up not using. The proposed waiver system is a way to get around the hoarding.

I admit my way to say it are not the best. I just think it would be less confuse for ppl especially for new one if 24+yo not two way, so they can be sure if send down a two way he will no be claim and only have to care with 1way. Maybe for old player it can be called another name like "theird level" or something for the same purpose.
 
 
 
Yes it exactly this but you right can be recoding problem so not so simple.
 
 
 
 
You not have to apologize my friend,  you are rigth it the way im saying it and as I was telling it me who make thing confuse.

I do agree on unfair. If there is a set age to start rather than a more complex system it cannot be too low otherwise it would be exactly that.
 
Being waiver eligible still defeats the purpose of one way contracts in this game though. While you continuously say that you do understand it you still say things like this in bold.
 
Your farm team is in a lower league. The purpose of a one way contract in this game specific to a promotion/relegation league is to prevent players with such a clause in their contract to be sent down, traded to, whatever to any lower league. That includes farm teams as well as direct lower league teams like SHL relative to GHL. That is how one way contracts work in promotion/demotion leagues. Anders could use a hybrid like what you suggest and I would have no problem with it but it would require a recoding of one way contracts.
 
Maybe you do understand how one way contracts work in promotion/relegation leagues and would rather a hybrid system and you are speaking in terms of that system so me saying that you don't understand it was me misreading what you were saying. If that is the case I do apologize for the error on my part. The way you are saying it makes it look like you are viewing 1 way contracts in this game as the same as 1 way contracts in the NHL when they aren't at all.
 
 
The percentage increase could prevent you from having suitable scratch players (if you send them to the minors or not) and your good young prospects under contract (making sure then get vital playing time and maximize their growth potential rather than sitting in FA waiting to sign to a random team that may not play them a lot) though.
 
As for defeating the purpose outside of prospects it actually doesn't. Look at how many vets go unsigned every offseason. Some of them are of pretty good quality. It more accurately prevents higher ranked teams in leagues from clinging on to players that can play in lower leagues while mostly being useless to the team they are on. Most managers don't have a lot of interest in veteran players anyways thus veteran players signed for depth would likely go untouched. Also all players still under trade restriction would be unavailable for waiver claims obviously.
 
I don't see the waiver system being a hassle too often though to be honest. You are in Biscuit. Look at the Pegasus team in the GHL. They have 6 players on their assigned list that are over 25. 1 is fully capable of playing in the GHL. 1 is a likely good 4th line contributor if used in a specific way. The other 4 are completely useless and dead cap to the team. Pegasus refuses to cut them (they are all on lower league contracts meaning cutting them would be for free) and likely hasn't tried to trade them. Even if they tried most managers don't have the creativity to see the value in trading for more cap space alone with a SHL team rather than demanding up front quality in return. Situations like this is going to be the most common use of the waiver system. A manager promotes and has a number of now useless players in their new league under contract. Rather than cut them for free if they are on lower league contracts and refusing to trade them they hold on to them when they don't need them. In this instance a SHL team would likely be the source of the waiver claim for those 6 players and the GHL team gets some free cap space. A win win.
 
What about if a team gets promoted and then demoted again? I would rather not hold onto most players I brought with me in that situation. I would rather do either what Erzac did recently in Biscuit (brilliant job by him although I do think he did slightly over do it) via trade what you will lose via the one way clause due to demotion for the best that you can get in two way contracts that will be on your team for at least another year if not more or go at it mostly from scratch. History of watching what is available in FA certainly shows that there won't be a lack of good FAs to go after.
 
 
How high would it be? Too low and you can't have any depth in case of injuries. Too high and it is irrelevant.

Now that there are "minor league" teams that we can send players down to I think it is a good time to start figuring out a waiver system to prevent teams from hoarding players by making players waiver eligible.
 
This is one possible way for such a system to work.
 
For players to be eligible to be claimed they have to be a certain age. Say 24. When they become eligible is completely open for discussion however I do think the minimum age considered should be 23. If they signed at 21 they have only been on that team for 2 full seasons. Any less I think would be at least a bit unfair to the team. Also they have to be sent to the farm team during the regular season. Anyone sent down before the regular season starts is not waiver eligible when they get sent down before the regular season but they are eligible for waivers if they get called up at any point.
 
As for who can claim them well at least the same league teams. I would also throw in lower league teams as well if the player would have interest in playing for said team at the lower level. As for the order of who would get waiver claims same league should start off going in reverse standing order, meaning worst team in same league gets first dibs on any waiver claims, until you reach the playoff line and then lower league teams get dibs (going form worst to best again) finishing with teams in playoff position from the original teams league.
 
Now that who is eligible and who can claim had been presented how would it work? Well when a waiver eligible player gets sent down a notification pops up in the league news section on the league home page. "x gets put on waivers." could be what it says. Also they would appear in a new tab in the transactions section called waivers. The player would be there for a number of days. For example sake lets say 4 in game days. During these 4 days any team interested puts in a waiver claim. After the required days pass the team that put in a claim with the highest position in the waiver claim system order gets the player.
 
Thoughts?

The reason you think that is probably because you think it never happens for prospects 24 and under to go through waivers. That is because NHL teams usually go out of their way protect young players (25 and under) that have 2 way contracts and are waiver eligible. They still do happen though. 2 recent examples. Greg McKegg, 24 at the time, and Seth Griffith, 23, were claimed via waivers just last season. It happens a lot more often than you think.
 
It also makes no sense to force 1 way contracts by a certain age. 1 way contracts should only be determined by player skill and demand of wanting it not by age.

NHL does not have 1 way contracts with the same intent as with this game. The NHL 1 way contracts are completely different in intent and purpose. The NHL one way contract is not to prevent player demotion to a lower league. That is because there is no lower league for a NHL team to be demoted to. It is to determine the value of the contract in terms of cap hit and player pay no matter the league they play in. For example lets look at Jordan Eberle and his 6 million contract. Say the Islanders sent him down to the AHL for whatever reason. The Islanders would still have the cap hit of his 6 million and they would still have to pay him 6 million. In the NHL a two way contract simply determines the pay the player gets depending upon which league they play. For example a 800,000 two way NHL contract the player gets paid the full 800,000 in the NHL however if they play in the AHL they only get paid a total of around 150,000 and they do not get counted against the NHL teams salary cap.
 
In this game a one way contract is strictly so a player does not go with a team should they demote. They don't want to play in a lower league than what they are in. Thus they can not and will not go to a lower league. This is a rather common contract clause available in leagues where teams can be demoted. A two way contract in such leagues allows the player to be sent to or go with the team to a lower league. NHL 1 way contracts and 1 way contracts in this game are completely different from each other in every sense.
 
Also as said above a lot of 2 way contracts in the NHL are waiver eligible. In fact most waiver claims last year were players with two way contracts. Thus you saying that two way players being available to waivers being ridiculous is a very ridiculous statement to make since they are the most common waiver claims in the NHL.

The point of one way contracts currently is that the player can't go to a league lower than your own. It is an anti demotion clause. Sending a player down to a farm team is a "demotion."
 
Besides there is absolutely no justified logical reason to send a player that wants a one way clause to your farm team. They are going to be the best players on your team.

So basically have 3 contracts from a waiver point of view. Non eligible, same league only waivers and open waivers.

Here are the new rankings, calculated at the end of regular season.
 
1. West Chicago Protons (GM: Richard Feynman – bouncer)
OFF: 89 DEF: 92 SG: 95 OVR: 90,8
1st in GHL, 141pts.
 
2. Harrisonville Sabercats (GM: Hurja Herra)
OFF: 88 DEF: 90 SG: 92 OVR: 89,2
13th in GHL, 73pts.
 
3. Deadwood Vandals (GM: Kim Vandaele - koekefix)
OFF: 88 DEF: 89 SG: 96 OVR: 89,0
2nd in GHL, 123pts.
 
4. Cedar Rapids Minutemen (GM: Richard Armour - rainsilent)
OFF: 87 DEF: 90 SG: 94 OVR: 88,7
3rd in GHL, 106pts.
 
5. Richford Rebels (GM: Jusu Manager)
OFF: 87 DEF: 90 SG: 90 OVR: 88,3
11th in GHL, 85pts.
 
6. Canmore Grizzlies (GM: Matt Muffett - themattinthehat)
OFF: 87 DEF: 89 SG: 92 OVR: 88,2
6th in GHL, 93pts.
 
7. Eldred Elite (GM: Steven Bennett)
OFF: 86 DEF: 89 SG: 93 OVR: 88,1
8th in GHL, 90pts.
 
8. Portland Oilers (GM: Xavier Zhou - xZhou)
OFF: 87 DEF: 89 SG: 91 OVR: 87,9
5th in GHL, 94pts.
 
9. Rome Trojans (GM: Yann Rock)
OFF: 87 DEF: 88 SG: 91 OVR: 87,9
10th in GHL, 85pts.
 
10. Moapa Valley Gothic Knights (GM: David Chaw - FTW)
OFF: 87 DEF: 88 SG: 91 OVR: 87,9
12th in GHL, 76pts.
 
11. Thetford Mines Pegasus (GM: Anthony Grauwels - Pingu)
OFF: 88 DEF: 87 SG: 90 OVR: 87,6
7th in GHL, 91pts.
 
12. Violet Volcano (GM: Soupy Salez)
OFF: 86 DEF: 88 SG: 94 OVR: 87,3
4th in GHL, 105pts.
 
13. York Wolf Pack (GM: Jiri Heikkala)
OFF: 85 DEF: 88 SG: 93 OVR: 87,0
9th in GHL, 88pts.
 
14. Oshawa Dynasty Heroes (GM: Kris Zenatik - Euph)
OFF: 86 DEF: 88 SG: 87 OVR: 86,8
14th in GHL, 71pts.
 
15. St.Thomas Stray Cats (GM: Erzac Ray - Erzac)
OFF: 86 DEF: 85 SG: 89 OVR: 85,5
16th in GHL, 59pts.
 
16. Collegeville Rhinos (GM: Nicolas Senet)
OFF: 85 DEF: 84 SG: 90 OVR: 84,5
15th in GHL, 60pts.
 

It really depends. Your players may the problem, the way your setting them up may be the problem or it may just be the tactics as you suspect. If you go to a better tactic from a bad one it actually is possible to see immediate improvements but that is rare. Typically initially there will be a drop off but, so long as you chose the right tactic, you will inevitably see improvement eventually.
 
In regards to PP and PK tactics if you want a good PP and PK you need to know the ideology behind what is going on or you will be finding success via blind luck and it likely won't be consistent.
 
First PK since there are currently only 3 tactics in game. I am going to go in order from safest in real life (and thus most common in the NHL) to aggressive.
 
The Box: This tactic tries to prevent the opposing teams power play from being able to get a shot from the most dangerous part of the ice. The middle. The negative is that due to emphasis on keeping the middle of the ice unavailable the outside is open for use making it weak against power plays that try to create scoring chances via one timers. So why is this the safest? Because the middle of the ice is by far more dangerous than an outside shot save rare great shooters like Ovechkin.
 
Diamond: This tactic is basically the box set on one end to counter the outside shooter situation however it opens up a lot of opportunity for seam passes to and through the most dangerous part of the ice. This is the other popular PK in the NHL however it has two major weaknesses compared to the boxes one. 1. The middle of the ice is much more vulnerable due to it being more open. 2. A distinct lack of defensive coverage low in the zone.
 
Wedge: This one you pretty much don't see in the NHL. Well you do and you don't but I will explain later. This tactic has one player aggressively challenging the opposing player with the puck trying to force them into a mistake. In game wise it works as an aggressive cross between the first two. However in working as a cross it pretty much carries the weaknesses of both of the others at the same time while having its own as well. This is basically an all or nothing PK tactic and if you want to even consider using it you need to have players with high speed, defense and spirit. If you are a GHL team all 3 of those attributes pretty much needs to be in the 90s for this PK to be effective. In terms of seeing this in reality it is all about how aggressive the PK is rather than this being its own PK tactic. A very aggressive box or diamond is going to have one player constantly pressuring the puck carrier on a PK whereas a more passive PK will stay more confined.
 
As for PP in game there are 4 options here.
 
Umbrella: This is the first outside shooter PP set. 3 shooters with 2 guys in front for screens, deflections and rebounds. While this set up is great for creating scoring chances this one also is weak in that it has limited options for moving the puck making it weak against aggressive PKs.
 
1-3-1: Most common PP in the NHL by far because it can easily blend into a down low set up or up high set up or even into different PP sets with relative ease. Great for highly skilled players but you need highly skilled players for it to work.
 
Overload: The down low PP tactic with a focus on quick player and puck movement. While the two above struggle in game (the 1-3-1 in reality doesn't care as it is reliant on player skill alone but if it were that way in game it would be the only used PP due to having no weakness outside of the lack of your own players flaws) with more pressure this one is the in game counter to a high pressure PK.
 
Spread: This one doesn't even exist in reality. At least anymore. Maybe it existed in the 80s to early 90s when a team had a lack of skilled forwards. It also has a silly name to go with it in game. This should be called crash the net (since nobody is spread anywhere on the ice) since all 3 forwards go to the front of the net and the 2 point players just throw shots at the net looking for deflections and rebounds with a few lucky shots hopefully finding their way through everything into the net. Technically this is the worst PK listed due to it having no out from an aggressive PK and it would be incredible luck to get a shot through to net in a passive one even though it doesn't work that way in game. If you want to use it have high strength ratings in all 3 forwards and high shot ratings on your point guys. I really think this one exists solely so the wedge can be properly considered good against a PP.
 
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the PP/PK system go to something like this: 3 PP systems and 2 PK systems. The PPs being overload, 1-3-1 and umbrella and the 2 PKs being box and diamond. Umbrella is strong against the box but weak against the diamond (say +10% and -10% respectively. Overload being the opposite and 1-3-1 being neutral. Say all things being equal a 1-3-1 will score 18% of the time on the PP. With the umbrella the rate would be 28% against the box but only 8% against the diamond and vice versa with the overload. I am not trying to say that my idea is better than what we have in game currently. I am actually not sold myself that it is better but this idea is an entirely different conversation.

The gap in Biscuit isn't as big as you state but it still is very noticeable.
 
The reason why I asked if just adjusting the talent gap would be enough is because it logically doesn't make sense to have the other promotion/relegation playoffs be one way and have the GHL/SHL one different. Especially if the talent gap largely goes away. Also as you say the talent gap is the reason for you posting then if it is fixed your reasoning for the playoff change (besides just wanting something different) goes away too does it not?
 
Finally I am indifferent to your idea as, even though I see the good and bad, I just don't see it as an improvement. Chiefly because it just makes things unnecessarily more complicated to have 2 different promotion/relegation systems at play at the same time.
 
I do think that at least 2 teams should promote automatically with the current system. I played a game where only one team promoted each year (with no fight for a 2nd spot) which made it very frustrating just to finish second repeatedly. However I would think it better that 2 more teams have the chance to demote rather than a chance and another forced demotion. Once a GHL league gets filled with human players and there are no outstanding teams benefiting from a history of AI trade abuse the margin of error becomes rather small to the point where an injury plagued season can see a regular strong playoff team finish in the bottom 5. That said I do not think that we currently have the best possible system in place in terms of making promotion/relegation fun and fair all around. I do believe that we have the best in terms of simplicity which from Anders perspective coding wise is much more important.
 
Personally I think that once Anders gets rid of the skill gap between the SHL and GHL you will find the system to be perfectly fine.

The gap in Biscuit isn't as big as you state but it still is very noticeable.
 
The reason why I asked if just adjusting the talent gap would be enough is because it logically doesn't make sense to have the other promotion/relegation playoffs be one way and have the GHL/SHL one different. Especially if the talent gap largely goes away. Also as you say the talent gap is the reason for you posting then if it is fixed your reasoning for the playoff change (besides just wanting something different) goes away too does it not?
 
Finally I am indifferent to your idea as, even though I see the good and bad, I just don't see it as an improvement. Chiefly because it just makes things unnecessarily more complicated to have 2 different promotion/relegation systems at play at the same time.
 
I do think that at least 2 teams should promote automatically with the current system. I played a game where only one team promoted each year (with no fight for a 2nd spot) which made it very frustrating just to finish second repeatedly. However I would think it better that 2 more teams have the chance to demote rather than a chance and another forced demotion. Once a GHL league gets filled with human players and there are no outstanding teams benefiting from a history of AI trade abuse the margin of error becomes rather small to the point where an injury plagued season can see a regular strong playoff team finish in the bottom 5. That said I do not think that we currently have the best possible system in place in terms of making promotion/relegation fun and fair all around. I do believe that we have the best in terms of simplicity which from Anders perspective coding wise is much more important.
 
Personally I think that once Anders gets rid of the skill gap between the SHL and GHL you will find the system to be perfectly fine.

I need to very much get back to my version of #2. I will likely do what I know of player profiles this weekend due to this reminder.
 
#3 should be doable. If I remember correctly, for a manager not new to the team they have to wait until the offseason to do this, under the action button when in the team menu you can edit everything with the team under the edit franchise button which is the last option.
 
#4 would be great as almost every day in the offseason I get about 50 messages a day regarding players I am following getting contract offers.