NHL and AHL playing well together

One of the goals I had in devising the AHL ratings (for the RMHL) was that the AHL and NHL ratings could play nicely together. After incorporating the players from the main rating set, I’m pretty happy with the way the newly-rated guys compare with the NHL’ers.

There are cases where the AHL ratings are pretty good (Jason Pominville, for example), indicating that the player could have played in the NHL. And that jives with our intuitive feel of the AHL: some players could be called up and contribute immediately. With more players, though, the ratings are sucht that they’d be poor NHL’ers. Again, this jives with how we view the AHL.

Then there are the goalies. There are a number of newly-rated goalies that have very good ratings. One goalie has a 92.8 save percentage. While this might not jive with how people feel about goalies, I am more comfortable with the goalie adjustments than with the player ratings, which involve a lot of inferrences. That a goalie gets a 92.8 shouldn’t been construed as me saying “this goalie is great!” It should be construed as me same “You know, for AHL 2003-04, this goalie played out of his mind.”

I’m making not judgements on talent level. I’m only judging a set of performances.

In this case, I would really, Really, REALLY, REALLY like comments. I have some long-term aspirations for these ratings, and a lot of those aspirations involve your feedback.

Aviators Ready for RHL16

If you look at the still unnamed Joe Malone Division and conclude that the Aviators are destined for fourth place, you’re not alone. In a division with three teams who finished amongst the top five in the league during RHL15, the rebuilding Aviators have little chance of climbing higher in the division’s table. On the other end, the perpetually drifting T-Men and the expansion Cougars look to be a step down from San Diego, who has added enough talent to seem a likely playoff team.

Fourth place for the Aviators looks as safe a bet as any placing for any RHL team. But lest anybody see this as a reason for disinterest in San Diego’s RHL16 campaign take two things into account:

• First, San Diego seems poised for a repeat of the injury woes which plagued the crew as RHL15 wound down.
• Second, still financially strapped, the Aviators are pushing their payroll to the limit, seemingly content with the specter of not meeting payroll on the season’s last day. Why they do this is beyond reasonable calculation and is sure to stimulate the typical high degree of player movement.

While these variables should bring some interesting storylines to the RHL16 campaign, neither of the potential plots bares a positive fruit. Neither injuries nor bankruptcy are likely to compell fans. But for Richard Farley and the Aviators, it’s all part of a plan which had the team back on the playof track for RHL16 and toward the middle of the conference’s playoff grouping in RHL17. It’s hard to argue that he and Andy Bartalone have put themselves in place to meet that expectation, though what the team decides to do throughout RHL16 is a mystery.

How that mystery unfolds will be dependent on this lineups, assembled throughout the last month of free agent signings. The entire first line as well as all three team captains were acquired on the open market, renewing a San Diego tradition of hyper-active free agency that dates back to the franchise’s founding in RHL5. New faces, new places, and hopefully new results:

Forwards

Line	Left Wing	Center	Right Wing
1	Bryan Smolinski	Chris Drury	Shane Doan
The one line of the Aviator lineup that looks capable fo staying healthy, it will be up to Bryan Smolinski, typically a second line center during his time with the Specters, to make this a true first line. New captains Chris Drury and Shane Doan look capable of leading the team into the playoffs. How much damage the Aviators do there will depend on this line’s ability to gel.
2	Martin Straka	Wes Walz	Geoff Sanderson
This is another line that depends on the ability of one of its members to step-up. Sanderson will need to play up to his skill set, or at least not drag down Walz and Straka. That is, of course, if Walz and Straka can stay on the ice. The Aviators have the resources to replace one of the them should injury come, but the team becomes seriously thinned out when (not if) both players are out of the lineup.
3	Pierre Dagenais	Michael Nylander	Turner Stevenson
After his acquisition from the Reapers in the middle of RHL15, Michael Nylander sat in the booth for almost the entire second-half of the Aviator season, a healthy scratch for his inability to get the puck in the net. This season, Farley appears intent on trying to et some value out of the salary he’s paying this Sweidsh center, putting him on a line with Pierre Dagenais (coming off an 18 goal campaign). After a tough start, Turner Stevenson was one of the more reliable Aviator forwards. Hopefully he too will benefit from a renewed Nylander.
4	Taylor Pyatt	Derek Armstrong	Mattias Weinhandl
No Aviator player saw his stature more diminished by offseason acquistions than Derek Armstrong. Winner of the Owner’s Award during the offseason, Armstrong has fallen from a psuedo first line cetner role to the fourth line. Don’t look for that too last long, though. When Nylander fails, he’ll move up. If Sanderson can’t hack the second line role, Armstrong will move up again. Until then, he centers a fourth line in which the team can have confidence (as far as fourth lines go).

Defensemen

Pair	Left	Right
1	Brian Leetch	Mathieu Schneider
Schneider got a huge contract in the offseason and will be called in to serve as a co-captain and the anchor to a defensive unit in transition. A new guard of yound d-men are coming in, but to bridge the gap Schneider and Leetch will have to each up minutes and keep the puck moving, two things with which they’ll have no problems.
2	Shaonne Morrisonn	Brent Sopel
Sopel, who spent last season in Waterloo with the Roadkill, will be up to second line duty, and although he pulled a larger load with St. Pete’s last season, it’s unclear Morrisonn will be a positive in this role with the Aviators. Like Sanderson, Smolinski, and Nylander amongst the forwards, the Aviators are hoping this young rearguard can step-up. When you have a team that’s destined for fourth in a division, such aspirations are commonplace.
3	Bryan Allen	Anders Eriksson
A valuable power-play contributor last season, Eriksson is back for a second season with the San Diego (making him one of the more tenured Aviators). Bryan Allen, acquired from Yellowknife in RHL15, will see regular time this year. If you see this pair as a glaring weakness on this team, you’re not alone.

Goalies

Starter	Back-up
Marty Turco	Mikael Tellqvist
When the draft looked to be thining out, the Aviators traded the seventh pick in the draft for Turco. He’ll hold the fort while Farley and Bartalone decide on Tellqvist’s future. Look for Turco to get all the playing time he can handle, stabilizing a defense which is otherwise lacking.

Others

Bench	Chris Taylor (C), Brad Isbister (W), Matt Pettinger (W), Brian Willsie (W), Tomas Zizka (D)
Taylor and Isbister were valuable contributors to last year’s team and can fill in without a huge loss. Willsie struggled throught RHL15 and needs to be out of the lineup. Pettinger’s role is in the future, not RHL16. Zizka will get plenty of playing time, depending on the match-ups. He and Allen will substitiute in-and-out, when both are healthy.
Minors	Patrick Sharp (C/RW), D.Brown (RW)
Brown has been bad enough in camp to push Farley’s projection on him back to RHL18. Sharp, on the other hand, could step in as a fourth line center at any time and seems guaranteed a spot on the RHL17 team.

Overall

With as many holes as this team has, it’s conceivable that bad luck or bad management could find the Aviators in fifth or sixth in the division. Looking at the rosters of the Aviators and their division-rivals, that scenario seems more likely than moving into third. But last year, with a roster that was much worse, the Aviators performed well before the sell-off. Can they replicate that performance again this season?

Wow, I was close

Going through the APBA ratings from the disk team, I noticed a lot of places where my methodologies came really close to picking up the attributes the players showed in the NHL. Consider, if you will, Cody McCormick:

APBA (NHL): McCormick C 38 21200 8:00 12/3 57/11/8/23 322 1440 0001 43 38 7 Y
RF (AHL): McCormick LW 11100 10:00 6/3 60/11/8/19 121 3440 0001 16 49 8

That seems relatively close to me. And McCormick isn’t the only one. Check out Lucas Krajicek:

APBA (NHL): Krajicek LD 59 00020 13:30 13/3 48/16/12/23 444 0222 0000 21 64 33 Y
RF (AHL): Krajicek RD 00022 19:00 9/3 48/18/13/20 432 0212 0000 4 27 8

When I was creating the ratings for these AHLers, I made the mistake of doing them at all. Anybody who was in the APBA set, I was trying to put aside until tonight. But, this weekend I mistakenly rated about six players who had also been scored out by the APBA team. Needless to say, since I didn’t think they were in the APBA set, I didn’t consult those ratings while formulating the RMHL numbers. It’s interesting how close some of them are, particularly the hidden shootin ratings.

RMHL Rosters Upgraded

What’s new?

I’ve incorporated data from the regular rating set into the minor league ratings. Many times this was just a straight copy-and-paste job. Other times, this required a melding of the two worlds. I’ve elected to create a composite player rather than going with either the AHL or the NHL numbers.

Please let me know if there are ANY omissions: players who played in the AHL in 2003-04, are on a prospect list, and are not in the RMHL proposed rating set.

Commenting on this Blog

Word Press has a few options regarding posting that Blogger does not support. Just to let you know, here are a few that I selected. They will affect your first (of many, hoopefully!) comment:

1. Your first comment needs to be approved by me, but after that the comments should appear immediately. Unless …
2. The comment contains a link. In that case, I will have to approve the comment. I fully support links but also want to limit spamming.

Hopefully these choices will enhance the blog experience.

Aviators News 2.0 Goes Live!

You may have read on my former blog that I’ve decided to abandon Blogspot, leaving AN1.0 behind an moving into the next generation of blogging. I have nothing but fond memories of the last season-plus at the old address, but RHL16 will usher in a new era for AN.

AN2.0 is now born.

There are still some issues regarding transferring the old data over. The import routine Word Press has set up seems unwilling to fetch my posts. At this point, I’m not too worried about it. I can pick-and-choose what content from that blog I would like to bring over. Would anybody be upset if I didn’t bring over the Harp RHL Hot List form Week 6 of RHL15? Some things can “fade into Bolivia.”

Word Press just offers much more as it concerns content management. In addition to the regular blog content, I can have sections devoted to the Minor League, Hall of Fame, rules rants: people can pick and choose what they want to hear from me. In addition, there’s the reliability factor. Word Press has been usable. Blogger/Blogspot has been far too sketchy of late.

So from here forward, Word Press is getting the Aviators’ blogtime. I’ll never forget the contribution Google and Blogger made …

But it’s time to move forward.

Aviator Prospect Report

An organization which was dry of prospect resources one season ago has pushed itself the to middle of the pack, and while San Diego may lack the elite prospects other systems can brag of, the Aviators have a number of players on track to become contributors within 5-6 RHL seasons.

Rank. Player Name, Pos., Age
1. Dustin Brown, RW, 21
2. Enver Lisin, RW, 20
3. Kurtis Foster, D, 24
4. Bruno Gervais, D, 21
5. Nigel Dawes, LW, 21
6. Stefan Ruzicka, RW, 21
7. Patrick Sharp, C, 25
8. James Wisniewski, D, 22
9. Dennis Seidenberg, D, 25
10. Lasse Kukkonen, D, 25
11. Ivan Khomutov, C, 21
12. Kevin Nastiuk, G, 21
13. Jason Ryznar, LW, 23
14. Kris Newbury, W, 24
15. Tyler Plante, G, 19
16. Evgeny Artyukhin, W, 23
17. Jonathan Ferland, RW, 23
18. Viktor Alexandrov, RW, 20
19. Mike Brodeur, G, 23

Dustin Brown
Right Wing
21 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL19
Projection: 2nd line forward

Dustin has been consistently good throughout his major junior and minor league careers – good enough to always been considered a legitimate prospect. Yet, he has always been just under the level of an elite prospect, neither performing in a truly dominant manner nor exhibiting the raw skills which would lead you to believe him capable of dominating in the future. Despite these things, Brown has shown he is about ready to contribute, already making his way through many of the hurdles that have tripped up greater prospects. How the Aviators utilize him over the next few seasons will be telling as far as his development.

Enver Lisin
Right Wing
20 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL20
Projection: 2nd line forward

Enver has spent his last two seasons fighting for ice time on a loaded Kazan team in Russia. Despite its veteran-laden roster, the Ak-Bars could not keep Lisin out of the lineup as the speedy wing put up 7 goals and 5 assists in 43 games. Lisin has already committed to coming over to North America to play in the RMHL during RHL16, hoping to compete for a roster spot in San Diego within two seasons.

Kurtis Foster
Defenseman
24 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL17
Projction: Top 4 defenseman

Nobody doubts Kurtis’s ability offensively. He will be able to man a spot with Mathieu Schneider on the Aviator power play for seasons to come. Doubts come in to play when considering his defensive ability. He has not developed as a skater, and his instincts in his own end lead to too many opportunities for opponents which could otherwise be stopped. To become a player who can man the top two pairs on a good team, Foster will need to improve enough to justify the role. Else, he will be a specialist.

Bruno Gervais
Defenseman
21 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL18
Projection: Top 4 defenseman

Gervais has never been highly regarded by scouts, but when the puck is dropped he always finds a way to distinguish himself amongst his peers. At every level he has both been underrated by scouting services but acknowledged through playing time and results as a viable prospect. Acquired in mid-season of RHL15, Gervais immediately impressed himself upon the Aviator staff as a player who has a strong future with the team. Do not expect this organization to undervalue his contributions.

Nigel Dawes
Left Wing
21 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL20
Projection: 2nd line forward

A truly gifted player who is a threat to create an opportunity on every shift, the questions surrounding the diminutive Dawes is whether he can adapt to the physicality and style-of-play at a higher level. His first year out of major junior will be spent in Las Vegas giving himself and his new team an idea as to whether the success he’s had will continue as his career progresses. If he can, the Aviators could have more than your typical second line winger.

Stefan Ruzicka
Right Wing
21 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL20
Projection: 2nd line forward

Ruzicka possesses and shows the skill set you expect from an elite prospect, but his infrequent application of those skills forces us to wonder what his ceiling is. Truly elite prospects dominate at the lowest levels of development, and although Ruzicka has always caught the eyes of scouts and coaches, he’s never put up a stand-out season. Hopefully a change of atmosphere and organization will shake something loose, and Ruzicka could be a valuable contributor to future Aviator teams.

Patrick Sharp
Center
25 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL17
Projection: Third line forward

Sharp has always been a good player, no matter the level. Although his potential is limited, we should expect him to also be a good player in the RHL. And really, he’s already at that level, being kept in Las Vegas based on Aviator whim, not need for development. While many prospect rankings overlook the accomplishment inherent in being a third line forward, we should remember how difficult it is to climb each rung of the development ladder. That Sharp has reached the apex of his professional journey makes him a significant prospect.

James Wisniewski
Defenseman
22 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL18
Projection: Top 6 defenseman

Similar to Gervais though one year older, Wisniewski has always been acknowledges by coaches and awards but not by scouts. The same process is happening within the Aviator organization where, despite drafting him, the scouting department has failed to advocate the virtues Wisniewski brings to a team. Those virtues are a surprisingly solid all-around game and a high degree of adaptability. Now that the Aviators have signed him to a new deal, expect the organization to take notice of their up-and-coming defenseman.

Dennis Seidenberg
Defenseman
25 years old
Expected Arrival: RHl18
Projection: Top 6 defenseman

Seidenberg has been a long time coming, but it looks as if he’s becoming a viable candidate to compete for an Aviator job over the next two to three seasons. The Aviators would like to see him take one more step forward before bringing him up for good, which means he has one or two seasons in the RMHL ahead of him. How Dennis responds to this will determine what role he has in San Diego’s future.

Lasse Kukkonen
Defenseman
25 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL18
Projection: Top 6 defenseman

This Finnish national has engaged in a prolonged flirtation with North American hockey that seems destined to last a few more seasons. One of the better offensive threats from the blue line in Finland, the Aviators can expect a nice addition to the defenseman depth should Kukkonen decide to join their team. It won’t happen in RHL16, the Aviators have already been told. But the fact that they were told anything shows Kukkonen is considering hopping the pond.

Ivan Khomutov
Center
21 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL22
Projection: 4th line forward

Can you call somebody who does everything decently but nothing well an all-around player? That’s what the Aviators appear to have with Khomutov. He does everything you want a center to do, but he stands out in none of those areas. He’s a player bound to fit in on a fourth line at some point in the organization’s future, but he’s yet to show that his potential is more than a space-filler.

Kevin Nastiuk
Goalie
21 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL22
Projection: Back-up goaltender

A player that has shown improvement in each season, Nastiuk has slowly put himself on the Aviator radar. In an organization down on the idea of goaltending prospects, the mere fact that General Manager Richard Farley is willing to common on him is an accomplishment for the young netminder. “Who?” Farley optimistically says about Nastiuk. Who indeed.

Jason Ryznar
Left Wing
23 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL18
Projection: Checking forward

When a forward has enough skills to make it to the RHL but lack the ability to ever be an average offensive player, he deserves a special label: fungible. While we can all admire the contributions players like Kirk Maltby, Mike Keane, and Claude LaPointe have made throughout their careers, they aren’t the players in whom lore is founded. They are often indispensable parts of championship teams, but they are also readily available in trades and free agency. And nobody should draft something they can get on the open market.

Kris Newbury
24 years old
Right/Left Wing
Expected Arrival: RHL18
Projection: Journeyman

Newbury has shown some scoring touch in the last few seasons, but as that’s been as much of a product of his acclimation to leagues as his raw skillset, Newbury’s going to have to get by on those things which have always come naturally: hard work, the willingness to be physical. To that end, his upside is limited. He might explode for a 12-14 goal season in his eighth of ninth year, but that will be the high point of an otherwise pedestrian career. We might be looking at one of the first RMHL veterans in Newbury.

Evgeny Artyukhin
Left/Right Wing
23 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL17
Projection: Journeyman

At 6′4″, 254 pounds, this Russian bear is on the ice to punish opponents. Beyond this, it’s unclear what he brings to a team. Still young, Evgeny has a chance to develop into a productive role player for the Aviators. But unless he adds some more dimensions to his game, odds are he’ll be contributing to the Pilots rather than the Aviators.

Tyler Plante
Goalie
19 years old
Expected Arrival: RHL23
Projection: Back-up goaltender

Recently acquired in the Kyle McLaren trade, Tyler is still too far away from the RHL to reasonably project. That he has performed will in major junior play says only that he hasn’t precluded the possibility of an RHL career. For goaltenders, the road is long an filled with an unreal amount of competition. It’s far to see to say whether Tyler will see an RHL game.

Jonathan Ferland
Right Wing
23 years old
Expected Arrival: None
Projection: Journeyman

Ferland has more potential to flame out than anybody on this prospect list, but if he does hit he’s likely to score some goals. He’s not making the RHL as a “complete” player. Well, he’s probably not making the RHL at all. But if he does, it will be because he finally developed enough of an all-around game to justify giving him more than the paltry ice-time he’s gotten over the last few seasons. But it’s doubtful he deserves it.

Viktor Alexandrov
Right Wing
20 years old
Expected Arrival: None
Projection: “I always said we should have gotten him into that Bloomingdales’ executive training program!”

Viktor took a step back in Russia during RHL15, regressing from his performance of the previous season. Unlike Enver Lisin, Alexandrov has not had to fight hard for playing time, making his inconsistent and disappointing results more telling. Unless he takes an unexpected step forward in development, Alexandrov will not see an M contract.

Mike Brodeur
Goalie
23 years old
Expected Arrival: None
Projection: Will be busy during intermissions

If you said that Brodeur’s development has stunted you’d be erroneously acknowledging preceding development that never existed. Mike Brodeur looks like a prospect who’s always been behind somebody or something, but there has been insufficient upward movement in his career to label him a prospect. Something could click and he could into a valuable RHL commodity. But that seems unlikely, at this point.

Realistic Minor Hockey League: Consummation Day

On Sunday, August 12, the details of the Realistic Minor Hockey League (RMHL) and its first season were established during a day-long meeting of governors in San Diego. The group kept a public blog of the decisions. Here is how the meeting transpired:

---

Sunday, 2:15pm – Board finalized business by establishing a timeline to have the first RMHL games played by RHL16, Day 30. Until that day, RMHL will ask the minor league teams to work with the parent organizations to identify coaches for the teams. RMHL teams without coaching options from parent organizations will receiving coaching staffs appointed by the RMHL league offices.

RMHL established procedure for changing minor league team affiliations and partnership deals, to be considered come RHL17. Board establishes current cities and alignment on as an on-trial basis to be evaluated at season’s end.

---

Sunday 2:10pmRMHL board identifies interim presidents for each organization and conference, establishes budgets for each team, and sets timelines for each team to have secured basic infrastructure (arena agreements, office space, etc.). Team presidents will be responsible for working with parent clubs should personnel fro those organizations be assigned to govern minor league teams.

---

Sunday, 2:09pm – Four teams from each conference will make the playoffs, establishing an eight-team, three round posstseason. The first two rounds will be intra-conference, with teams seeded 1-to-4 by order of finish meeting in best-of-five series, 1 versus 4 and 2 versus 3, following a 2-2-1 format. The winner of these series play each other in the subsequent playoff round, the the winners in that round playing in the championship series. The championship series will be Best-of-7 and follow a 2-3-2 format (potentially reducing travel costs).

---

Sunday, 2:06pm – Teams will be limited to 25 players on their roster, with roster changes possible after each 10-day period. roster changes may also happen before the playoffs, though not between series. The 25 player roster can be composed of any players identified as prospects by the parent team(s).
Sunday, 1:58pm – Final league alignment and team names codified:

Mountain Conference	Southeast Conference
Colorado Springs Cadets	Atlanta Dogwoods
Denver Bricklayers	Charlotte Coastal Cats
Henderson Verdin	Columbia River Jockeys
Las Vegas Pilots	Jacksonville Timucua
Phoenix Scorpions	Richmond Jeffersonians
Tucson Sonorans	Tampa Bay Manatees

---

Sunday, 1:38pm – Atlanta requests to change nickname from Peaches (identified on a preliminary application) to Dogwoods, the name which has always been intended for the team.

---

Sunday, 1:30pm – U.S. Texas group, having lost out on their bid for the second RMHL conference, notifies the Board that they intend to continue developing their group’s proposal with the hope that growing prospect resources in RHL teams will allow for a third conference in the near future. Board recommends to the U.S. Texas group that their back-up sites need to be improved to ensure the long-term viability of the region for the RMHL.

---

Sunday, 1:27pm – Team associations are assigned to the Mountain conferences minor league teams:

U.S. Mountain Conference
Colorado Springs - South Edmonton (25), South Calgary (11)
Denver - Calgary (36)
Henderson - Edmonton (24), Waterloo Roadkill (12)
Las Vegas - San Diego (22), Guelph Reapers (16)
Phoenix - Airdrie (20), Waterloo Thundercats (18)
Tucson - Grand Prairie (21), Albany (11), Victoria (6)

---

Taking a break from the updates, we have received our first question of the day. Hopefully it will clear up some confusion:

Q: What’s with all the back-up teams?

I detect cynicism. Can’t we have a little positivity? Do you know how much vitriol this blog usually spews?

Each group submitted six main cities and a series of back-ups. Without these fallbacks, the RMHL Board would not consider a group’s application. Some groups had a number of backups, while others had very few. That the back-ups are being evoked by both the Southeast and Mountain groups should not serve as a reflection on the strength of that group’s bid. In most cases, there was a very thin line between being a main and back-up city. All back-up cities are fully capable hosts.

---

Sunday, 1:17pm – Jacksonville representatives inform RMHL that the team will be nicknamed the Timucua, honoring the region’s Native American heritage.

---

Sunday, 1:00pm – Further evidence that food is a stimulant for negotiation, two decisions are surprisingly made over lunch.

First, the U.S. Mountain group looks to have been awarded the second RMHL conference after pitching a twin-cities model. The model would have three pairs of cities form the six-team conference, with each pair of teams playing each other 12 times, playing each remaining team in the league 7 times. As a regional accommodation for the twin cities model, two back-up cities have replaced Salt Lake City and Albuquerque amongst the six cities forming the conference. Henderson will serve as Las Vegas’s twin, and Colorado Springs will be Denver’s twin. Phoenix and Tucson remain and will twin with each other.

Second, the Southeast group has replaced Miami amongst their six cities with Jacksonville, electing not to wait for the Miami group’s response.

---

Sunday, 12:35pm – Board breaks for lunch.

---

Sunday, 12:32pm – U.S. Southeast conference and RHL affiliations descided:

U.S. Southeast Conference
Atlanta - Indianapolis (29), Lethbridge (6)
Charlotte - Yellowknife (27), Guelph Spectres (10)
Columbia - Kitchener (20), Chicago Gargoyles (11), Seattle (7)
Miami or Jacksonville - Chicago Capones (27), Kansas City (5), Winnipeg (4)
Richmond - Washington (21), Saskatoon (14)
Tampa - Baffin Isle (29), Cleveland (6) 

The remaining associations will be placed in the other conference. Specific alignment will be determined once the group (Mountain or Texas) is selected.

---

Sunday, 12:20pm – Board quickly agrees to the following associations between RHL teams as it concerns their minor league teams:

Team A - Calgary (36)
Team B - Indianapolis (29), Lethbridge (6)
Team C - Baffin Isle (29), Cleveland (6)
Team D - Chicago Capones (27), Kansas City (5), Winnipeg (4)
Team E - Yellowknife (27), Guelph Spectres (10)
Team F - South Edmonton (25), South Calgary (11)
Team G - Edmonton (24), Waterloo Roadkill (12)
Team H - San Diego (22), Guelph Reapers (16)
Team I - Washington (21), Saskatoon (14)
Team J - Grand Prairie (21), Albany (11), Victoria (6)
Team K - Kitchener (20), Chicago Gargoyles (11), Seattle (7)
Team L - Airdrie (20), Waterloo Thundercats (18) 

Numbers in parentheses are the number of prospects a organization will contribute to the minor league team’s player pool. Teams were matched-up based on this number, with no teams from the same RHL division being associated with each other.

The Board shifts to allocating these teams to the two conferences, with the city-assignments to be decided for the Southeast conference.

---

Sunday, 12:06pm – Board decides (as a practical manner) against reviewing the list of 439 prospects to eliminate potential ineligibles. Instead, the Board decides to associate RHL teams with RMHL teams in such as way that each RMHL team has access to a number of players sufficient to account for irregularities.

RMHL teams will also be able to sign free agents, RHL or otherwise, though all free agent acquisitions are subject to league approval and must be made from players who have been eligible for at least one prior RHL Entry Draft.

---

Sunday, 12:00pm – Board reviews prospect lists submitted by teams to help determine potential players for RMHL16. The following summarizes the number of prospects available from each RHL team’s system:

36 Calgary
29 Indianapolis
29 Baffin Isle
27 Yellowknife
27 Chicago Capones
25 South Edmonton
24 Edmonton
22 San Diego
21 Washington
21 Grand Prairie
21 Airdrie
20 Kitchener
18 Waterloo Thundercats
16 Guelph Reapers
14 Saskatoon
12 Waterloo Raodkill
11 Chicago Gargoyles
11 South Calgary
11 Albany
10 Guelph Spectres
 7 Seattle
 6 Lethbridge
 6 Cleveland
 6 Victoria
 5 Kansas City
 4 Winnipeg

---

Sunday, 11:53am – Board tables discussion of Miami and Jacksonville to give the Miami coalition time to gather information. The board shifts to discussion of player distribution, player eligibility, and roster construction.

---

Sunday, 11:45am – The Board takes a five minute break and will informally consider the Miami situation.

---

Sunday, 11:41am – Board is informed that the coalition representing the prospective Miami team reports they may not be able to negotiate a lease with the city for the facility proposed in the league assessment plan. The City of Miami is now unwilling to provide rent-free facilities to the RMHL. The plan’s first alternative site, Jacksonville, has already responded affirmatively to the prospect of replacing Miami’s entry into the RMHL. The Miami group told the Board that they will have more information on Monday regarding the lease situation.

The next back-up location in the U.S. Southeast plan is Birmingham, Alabama.

---

Sunday, 11:37am – Board quickly accepts a proposal which will have the two leagues, RMHL16A and RMHL16B, joining into one (RMHL16), where each group of six teams will be organized as conferences with no inner-conference play in the regular season. Each team will play a forty game schedule, with four home and away games against each other their five conference opponents.

Playoff format is to be decided, but a seven game championship series amongst the top two teams will be the goal. The details of determining the top two teams are being discussed.

---

Sunday 11:27am – Board decides to pursue two league model and to discuss the details, including whether the league will support 6 or 12 teams, whether players can cross-over in a 12 team model, whether the leagues will play simultaneously, and whether there will be a championship round. The U.S. Mountain and U.S. Texas groups are notified that each group’s proposals will be heard in the afternoon, with the goal of deciding before the day’s session ends.

---

RHL16A Teams
Atlanta Peaches
Charlotte Coastal Cats
Columbia River Jockeys
Miami Viajeros
Richmond Jeffersonians
Tampa Bay Manatees

Sunday, 11:08am – RMHL Board finishes a thirty-minute conference call with Richard Farley, league owner and chief executive. Farley advises against voting and asked the group to seek consensus. He endorses both the U.S. Southeast group and the two-season structure. Farley also offers that the two league structure should have twleve independent teams, if possible, with the winners of the two leagues playing in a championship series at leagues end. The call ended with the RMHL board awarding one league to the U.S. Southeast group.

---

Sunday, 10:21am – Discussions during break put the vote on hold. RMHL board is now informally discussing the idea of splitting the first season into two, smaller seasons. The first season would take place over the first 60 RHL days and be located in the U.S. Southeast. The second season would take place over the second 60 RHL days and be located in one of the two remaining groups. The goal of this would not only be compromise amongst the different factions supporting various groups. The split would also serve to promote the league in different regions, make assessments as to the lnoger term viability of each area, and potentailly bring mroe players involved.

Each season would be separate: RMHL16A and RMHL16B. There would be two sets of champions. Other details, such as whether teams woulc remaining in tact across different locations or whether coaching staffs would follow teams, have been brought up but not discussed.

---

Sunday, 10:12am – Group to take fifteen minute break and take preliminary vote on location once they return. Fifty percent rule decided – if no group gets fifty percent, top two groups will run off in a second vote.

---

Sunday, 10:08am – Concerns over readiness of sites in the U.S. Mountain group bring a previous eliminated group back into consideration. The U.S. Texas group would consist of teams in Oklahoma City, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and New Orleans.

---

Sunday, 9:55 am – RMHL Board, having decided to locate the league’s six teams in a geographical region underrepresented by RHL teams, have narrowed the choices to two. The U.S. Southeast group of sites would consist of teams in Miami, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond and Columbia. The U.S. Mountain group would have teams in Denver, Tuscon, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Albequerque. Board will consider individual city growth factors in determining which group will host RMHL16.

---

Sunday, 9:30 am – RMHL Board convenes session, decides to get coffee. First order of business will be evaluating where to locate the six teams which will be participating in RMHL16.