Team reputations

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:21 am

It's pretty obvious that there are some kind of team reputations coded in where staff, players, etc. far prefer to sign with certain teams over other teams. For example, if you try playing as the Leafs, Canadiens, Flames (the three I have noticed this with), almost any FA will jump to sign with you for less money. Try playing as a team like the Penguins or Coyotes, and it's next to impossible to get big name free agents to come to you, and even scouts and coaches often will refuse to sign with you but will take the same job with a bigger name team.

To test this, I started a franchise as the Coyotes and tried to sign Jason Allison. He wanted 2.2 mill/year, which I offered him but he eventually signed with the Capitals. Then, I tried the same thing starting with the Flames. He wanted 1.6 million per year and signed almost right away. What is kind of wierd about this is it seems to be a hardwired reputation, and does not matter how a team is doing. Even if you're coming off 3 straight Stanley Cup wins as the Penguins and the Leafs finished last 3 straight years, free agents seem to always go to Toronto for less money.

Any idea where I can see this hidden stat and get a list of teams by reputation?

Post by **Tasku** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:30 am

Those numbers can be seen and changed in the editor.

I do have to disagree on this being a fixed number though. This is especially evident in playing smaller leagues, where the few good players everyone want to sign, tend to go to the teams that in the past few years have been the most successful in the league. Team reputation, just as player and staff reputation changes according to achievements.

But reputation is not the only thing that determines where players and staff prefer to work. Usually players, who have a long history in certain team, will rather go back to familiar organizations, than look for a new one. Money can't buy everything.

Post by **Shadd666** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:02 am

Tasku is right. Furthermore, teams like the Leafs have a huge history that certainly improves their reputation even with bad results. Same for the Canadiens. Their hardcore fan base is also much appreciated by the players. Playing in an empty and silent arena is certainly far less exciting than playing in front of a big and noisy crowd. I don't know for sure if those 2 points are taken into account in the game for the overall reputation of a team, but it would be logical.

19nazzy · Post by **19nazzy** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:15 pm

Shadd666 wrote:Their hardcore fan base is also much appreciated by the players.

Unless they haven't been playing too well

ElQuapo · Post by **ElQuapo** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:24 pm

The reputation does change - try downloading the save game editor and check teams against their starting reputation after a year. The winners will go up and the bad teams down.

Post by **Shadd666** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:38 pm

19nazzy wrote:
Shadd666 wrote:Their hardcore fan base is also much appreciated by the players.
Unless they haven't been playing too well

Sure

pens66 · Post by **pens66** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:58 pm

I think that the attraction rating of the city where a team is located (or rather the arena, because that's the link) plays a pretty large role. The mentioned Toronto, Montreal and Calgary have 19s and 20s while Glendale (Coyotes) has a 0. So it''s random but could wound up pretty bad.
I noticed this while creating a team in Cincinnati. Nobody wanted to sign because it had a attraction of 5 (or something like that). I put it higher and then the free agents suddenly came in.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:22 pm

I don't understand why Toronto and Montreal have such huge attraction ratings. They are the largest hockey markets in the world, but the media in both markets is absolutely relentless on their teams. I think a lot of FAs underperform in Toronto and Montreal because of the media/fan pressure. Also, a lot of players don't want to sign in Canadian cities because of the higher taxes and would prefer to play in the USA; definitely for non-Canadian players anyway. I think setting the attraction rating that high kind of unbalances things a bit; but it does make the non-traditional market teams a bigger challenge. It is to the point where I have offered guys head coaching jobs that they refuse to be assistant coaches or scouts in Calgary, Edmonton or Toronto. In real life, would that happen? Probably not.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:45 pm

There is some real weirdness in how the attraction ratings are set. For example, Boston is set at a 0 and trying to get even good scouts to go there, you'd think it was like a leper colony. I don't understand why Boston would be such an unattractive destination given that fans there are known for their passion about sports (moreso Red Sox and Patriots fans than Bruins but still). Yes, you could argue the media is brutal, but so is the NYC, Toronto and Montreal media. Meanwhile, Sunrise, FL (Panthers) is rated a 18. Why?

Systemfel · Post by **Systemfel** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:43 am

jdh79 wrote:There is some real weirdness in how the attraction ratings are set. For example, Boston is set at a 0 and trying to get even good scouts to go there, you'd think it was like a leper colony. I don't understand why Boston would be such an unattractive destination given that fans there are known for their passion about sports (moreso Red Sox and Patriots fans than Bruins but still). Yes, you could argue the media is brutal, but so is the NYC, Toronto and Montreal media. Meanwhile, Sunrise, FL (Panthers) is rated a 18. Why?

Probably because of the nice weather. Playing in the NHL + warm weather = pretty good situation, don't you think?

Post by **batdad** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:40 am

Yeah...IRL lots of veterans (particularly ex Laffs) have taken off to play in Florida.

Belfour, N'Dyk, Roberts, Stumpel...and the list goes on. Because it is warm and they are old and like to golf. Well, at least all of em are older than me, but not by much.

jdh79 · Post by **jdh79** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:50 am

I would think that going to Florida where there is no real NHL atmosphere, no fan passion (aside from retired Canucks that account for most of their attendance, most of which come to see the visiting team), and a history of no actual success in years would be a huge turn off, at least for a player that loves the game. I would far rather play for an original 6 team.

Post by **batdad** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:18 pm

Yes, so would many. But many players do not do well in the media spotlight, or with a rabid fanbase, and enjoy their privacy. Living in Vancouver, this has always been an issue for many a Canuck player. bert, Bure, Mogilny....all of them wanted out because they wanted to be somewhere where they would not be recognized every time they went outside of their own home. Yes, Bert wanted out before Moore incident.

Not all players are the same. Not all think like you or like me. And choosing where you play (media vs non media coverage area) does not reflect AT ALL on whether they are good hockey players. Just reflects on their personalities.

And as they get older and have kids, one other thing comes into play: How would you like your kid to go to school every day, and have other kids bug him/her about how "Stupid, ugly, slow, lazy or even great your dad is" on a constant basis. Not exactly the way I would have wanted to grow up, nor how I want my kids to.

In a place like Florida, players can hide from this. New Jersey, LA, Anaheim, Columbus, Tampa,Carolina, Nashville are other examples of places like this. Now I am pretty sure that 4 of those cities have won cups with players who chose to be there because they were out of the media and hockey crazed areas. And Florida and LA have been to the final, and Nashville has been very competitive.