VHL Magazine Power Poll - Cutting back in VHLM

[Toast 887]

The VHLM is quite the league in its own way, there is no denying that. It has supplied new members with enough enjoyment until their draft date has rolled around, showing that it is very effective. There isn’t a soul that would disagree with that (I hope). What if there was a way to improve it though? Currently draft classes aren’t that big. We get enough members to run these, but it definitely could be better. That’s where the problem begins in the VHLM.

 

Currently there are ten teams in the league, making it difficult for these new draft classes to really see much success. Minimal talent is spread out between the ten teams and usually we see a couple of teams trade off for future runs anyway, so why not cut a couple teams to make things more interesting in the league?

 

If the VHLM were to reduce their teams to anything between 6-8, no longer would we see the vicious cycle of tanking for multiple seasons for one shot at the spotlight. Players would have more active teams, and every team would have a shot at being relevant through the season. The more active locker rooms could lead to a better draft class for the VHL as well. There are definitely a lot of pros to this, but there are cons too.

 

Of course some GMs would lose their spots because of the cut down and we’d also lose the history of some top teams in the VHLM wherever the commishes decide to cut back on. Stats would be affected to and it would become difficult to compare it to previous seasons… and probably the biggest one of all, no more dual-league sim file. Jardy would have to make a separate sim just for the juniors if the league size was decreased.

 

So, what are your thoughts on this one guys? Should the VHLM look at cutting down the teams for the betterment of the players? Make sure to post with your vote please!

[Victor 10,581]

For what it's worth, a separate sim doesn't seem to be a requirement in fact.

I don't doube the logistics can be worked out but which teams would be cut? Without Vasteras it's a very difficult choice.

[eaglesfan036 4,585]

I voted no considering the sizes of the past few drafts. There were some really good players that made it to even mid-second round, and by having more teams these players have a chance to shine more by being first liners or major players for their teams. If we shrunk down to 6 teams, there would be a good chunk of active players who would have to spend their time on the third line and not get a chance to perform well. 

 

As far as the cyclical nature of the VHLM, there was still a cycle system when we had 8 teams, and there probably still would be a cycle with 6 teams. 

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

I'd definitely be in favor of reducing the number of VHLM-teams. Even with 3 of the 4 most recent draft classes being very strong, we aren't even close to having enough active players in juniors to supply 10 teams, even 8 teams might still stretch out the talent very thin. And as far as I know a seperate file wouldn't actually be necessary because Jardy figured out a way to remove certain teams from the schedule, so we would have some "ghost teams" that only exist on paper, but don't have any players and don't play any games.

 

The way the VHLM brings the cyclical nature we have in the entire VHL to its extreme is something that has always bothered me and makes the VHLM pretty boring imho. There are usually 1-2 contenders (and often times one of them is the very clear favorite) and 3-4 teams that have no active players at all, so why not cut 4 teams altogether? The reason teams tank for multiple seasons just to have one big run is that it just isn't possible to build a halfway decent team by using the picks your team originally has in a draft. If we only had 6 or 8 teams though, every team would be able to add 4-5 good active players through each junior draft and be competitive right off the bat, and then there are still send-downs of course. It would make locker rooms a lot more active and enjoyable for juniors and we would actually have some good competition in the VHLM for once, where more than half the league has the chance to actually do some damage.

 

I don't think players suddenly not getting enough ice time would be an issue either. We aren't trying to turn 10 active teams into 6 active teams, but 4 actives and 6 largely or completely inactive teams into 6 actives.

And to add some personal experience, I was on two different teams during my stint in juniors, one where I was pretty much the star because I was the only active player and one where I was a bit deeper on the depth chart because I was on a more active team. Definitely preferred the second destination, even though I had great GMs at both teams.

Edited August 1, 2014 by RomanesEuntDomus

[d3vilsfire 132]

I voted against reducing the number of teams. If you think about it, the VHLM is in no way the same prestige as the VHL. Sure we get all the new recruits so our jobs are important, but the VHLM is the stop gap for players to get into the VHL asap. The VHLM is there to keep new recruits active and seeing their player actually play while getting enough TPE to finally get on a VHL roster. Many players dont honestly care about winning the competition as long as their individual player performs well. An example is MF Percy Miller was on Turku when it was Turku's turn to contend. Turku had a ton of draft picks and was able to get actives in the late second and third round. Now we all know that if Turku drafted correctly, then the 3rd rounders would be 3rd or 4th line players. MF Percy Miller was a 3rd round draft pick and hated being on the 3rd line getting next to no play time. He voiced his displeasure to Turku GM (fever?) and i quickly pulled off a trade (mind you I was rebuilding) so that Percy Miller didnt quit from a lack of play time. I gave Miller a first line role and he was much more happy. Turku went on to the finals and i believe they won it, but if you ask Miller, i think he preferred being on bottomfeeder Moscow playing first line minutes than winning the cup with Turku. Miller is currently at 100TPE and back to my first line (second liner in s38) and he has told me he has enjoyed his time in Moscow despite only have 1 playoff series and no cups in 2 seasons.

Overall, my point is that the VHLM isnt about the competition. Its making sure that the new recruits stay active and continue getting TPE to play in the VHL. Cutting down on the number of VHLM teams will mean that actives will be playing depth roles, which will cause a ton of them to lose interest.

[Baozi 1,638]

The cycle can be stopped when you have a draft lottery that gives all teams an equal chance at the number one pick. Since then it means there is no point to tanking. Does it mean the draft might be about luck? Yes it does lol.

Edited August 1, 2014 by tfong

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

I voted against reducing the number of teams. If you think about it, the VHLM is in no way the same prestige as the VHL. Sure we get all the new recruits so our jobs are important, but the VHLM is the stop gap for players to get into the VHL asap. The VHLM is there to keep new recruits active and seeing their player actually play while getting enough TPE to finally get on a VHL roster. Many players dont honestly care about winning the competition as long as their individual player performs well. An example is MF Percy Miller was on Turku when it was Turku's turn to contend. Turku had a ton of draft picks and was able to get actives in the late second and third round. Now we all know that if Turku drafted correctly, then the 3rd rounders would be 3rd or 4th line players. MF Percy Miller was a 3rd round draft pick and hated being on the 3rd line getting next to no play time. He voiced his displeasure to Turku GM (fever?) and i quickly pulled off a trade (mind you I was rebuilding) so that Percy Miller didnt quit from a lack of play time. I gave Miller a first line role and he was much more happy. Turku went on to the finals and i believe they won it, but if you ask Miller, i think he preferred being on bottomfeeder Moscow playing first line minutes than winning the cup with Turku. Miller is currently at 100TPE and back to my first line (second liner in s38) and he has told me he has enjoyed his time in Moscow despite only have 1 playoff series and no cups in 2 seasons.

Overall, my point is that the VHLM isnt about the competition. Its making sure that the new recruits stay active and continue getting TPE to play in the VHL. Cutting down on the number of VHLM teams will mean that actives will be playing depth roles, which will cause a ton of them to lose interest.

 

But see that's the thing, if we cut back on the number of teams we would also make sure that there aren't teams as ridiculously stacked as Turku in that season anymore, so Percy wouldn't even have been in this shitty situation to begin with. And don't you think Percy's experience on Moscow would have been even more rewarding if he had 1-2 more teammates to play and share a locker room with?

 

Besides, Moscow wasn't a terrible team in S37, you had no real chance at the playoffs but still won a decent number of games so there isn't much of a problem with that. But there were still three teams with WAY less points than Moscow, who didn't have a single or just one active. And I don't think we should have teams like this every season. The VHLM shouldn't just be about tanking your way to the top while the players either end up on a team that is incredibly stacked and can't offer much ice time to first-gens, or are basically all alone in the LR with their GMs if the get picked by a weak team. We should find a better balance then that.

Edited August 1, 2014 by RomanesEuntDomus

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

The VHLM will always be cyclical in nature as long as the best players continue to spend 1 season in the VHLM, and I don't think anyone wants to change that. Contracting the number of teams to 6 or 8 will theoretically result in every team gaining in absolute power, but the top teams will gain in relative power as this doesn't address what I see in the VHLM which is the hoarding of draft picks. I still think the best way to increase parity in the league is to institute an equal chance lottery for picks 1-4 for all non-playoff teams and restrict teams to no more than 3 first round picks and 6 picks overall in the first two rounds of the draft.

[Mike 708]

I think the best argument for reducing the number of teams is to hopefully distribute talent. The teams that have 8-10 active players usually see those players stay active at least during their VHLM career. The teams trying to lose that might have 1-2 active players are in for a rough demoralizing season.

[Will 4,614]

The VHLM will always be cyclical in nature as long as the best players continue to spend 1 season in the VHLM, and I don't think anyone wants to change that. Contracting the number of teams to 6 or 8 will theoretically result in every team gaining in absolute power, but the top teams will gain in relative power as this doesn't address what I see in the VHLM which is the hoarding of draft picks. I still think the best way to increase parity in the league is to institute an equal chance lottery for picks 1-4 for all non-playoff teams and restrict teams to no more than 3 first round picks and 6 picks overall in the first two rounds of the draft.

 

This

[Guest]

I voted no. That's not the real problem at hand, but we don't want to handle the real issue at hand. I brought it up in the BOG and it somewhat got rejected. See Fong's post.

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

The VHLM will always be cyclical in nature as long as the best players continue to spend 1 season in the VHLM, and I don't think anyone wants to change that. Contracting the number of teams to 6 or 8 will theoretically result in every team gaining in absolute power, but the top teams will gain in relative power as this doesn't address what I see in the VHLM which is the hoarding of draft picks. I still think the best way to increase parity in the league is to institute an equal chance lottery for picks 1-4 for all non-playoff teams and restrict teams to no more than 3 first round picks and 6 picks overall in the first two rounds of the draft.

 

I don't want to completely get rid of the cyclical nature either, just make it less extreme than it is now. But I definitely agree with you that we should have both a lottery and a cap on the number of first rounders a team can have, those are things I would like to see implemented along with the reduction of teams.

[Adams 4]

I know I'm new so I don't know much about the league(s), but here's my two cents; there are teams with one, if even active. The best teams seem to have an awful lot of the percentage of the top/regularly online players. I know there's probably a lot of memiores but it takes a lot of sense that we cut it down to 6 so teams are more even and 50-80 percent of players on each team aren't computers.

[Baozi 1,638]

If u want no cycle, then you use the euro football league style where players essentially get assigned to their regional team.

You can give each prospect a number and at the draft randomize the numbers and the prospects will be assigned to their given team. Totally random and would reduce, not eliminate the cycle.

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

I voted no. That's not the real problem at hand, but we don't want to handle the real issue at hand. I brought it up in the BOG and it somewhat got rejected. See Fong's post.

 

What do you mean exactly? A lottery that includes all teams, like fong mentioned?

[Guest]

If u want no cycle, then you use the euro football league style where players essentially get assigned to their regional team.

You can give each prospect a number and at the draft randomize the numbers and the prospects will be assigned to their given team. Totally random and would reduce, not eliminate the cycle.

So if a guy signs up from Regina he gets auto'd to Saskatoon? I'm sorry fong but thats a bad bad system.

[Guest]

What do you mean exactly? A lottery that includes all teams, like fong mentioned?

No a lottery that includes 4 teams. All teams allows teams who have carryover guys that are above 100 TPE to get richer and then in that season we are wondering why the parity is nowhere to be found

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

No a lottery that includes 4 teams. All teams allows teams who have carryover guys that are above 100 TPE to get richer and then in that season we are wondering why the parity is nowhere to be found

 

Why do you think your idea got rejected then, this is pretty much what we have been discussing for a while now?

[Victor 10,581]

If u want no cycle, then you use the euro football league style where players essentially get assigned to their regional team.

You can give each prospect a number and at the draft randomize the numbers and the prospects will be assigned to their given team. Totally random and would reduce, not eliminate the cycle.

At first I thought you meant like the World Cup which is bad enough but then I completely lost you.

[Guest]

Why do you think your idea got rejected then, this is pretty much what we have been discussing for a while now?

Well know we are bringing it up again, but a lottery system is what will help with 4 teams. No guarantee anyone has that 1st pick.

[Victor 10,581]

I know I'm new so I don't know much about the league(s), but here's my two cents; there are teams with one, if even active. The best teams seem to have an awful lot of the percentage of the top/regularly online players. I know there's probably a lot of memiores but it takes a lot of sense that we cut it down to 6 so teams are more even and 50-80 percent of players on each team aren't computers.

BTW it's nice to read the views of someone experiencing the system for the first time right now. This pretty much set up my brain to think of fairly insane proposals which I've already posted up for discussion in the BOG.

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

Well know we are bringing it up again, but a lottery system is what will help with 4 teams. No guarantee anyone has that 1st pick.

 

I never doubted that, I was just wondering what idea you were talking about that had apparently gotten shot down

[Guest]

I never doubted that, I was just wondering what idea you were talking about that had apparently gotten shot down

At first when I started that thread it was shot down. Now everyone is discussing, but really we shouldn't be bringing all that out here.

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

At first when I started that thread it was shot down. Now everyone is discussing, but really we shouldn't be bringing all that out here.

 

I agree, so don't bring it up next time please

 

Really close poll so far by the way, that's definitely interesting to see

[Victor 10,581]

I agree, so don't bring it up next time please

 

Really close poll so far by the way, that's definitely interesting to see

It's actually exactly what sterling said would happen.