The Impending Problem With The VHLE!

[Alex 2,904]

The VHLE has proven to be a great addition to the league this past season as it allows players to really hit their stride before coming to the VHL. With that being said there is one big issue with the VHLE that could be on the horizon. Let me just preface this by saying that I think the VHLE has been a good addition to the VHL. Also, I will add that in no way is this meant to put anyone down as with the introduction of the VHLE there was bound to be a couple of kinks.

 

The Impending Roster Size Issue

This is the big impending issue with the VHLE. This current season the average VHLE roster consisted of 14 players, assuming every player that will be above 350 TPE leaves (some will likely stay) the average roster size in the VHLE will increase to a minimum of 17 players per team. If the VHL continues to grow at it's current rate the VHLE will have too many players in as few as 2 seasons once they hit 23 per team (1 over the STHS limit). 

 

Solutions:

1. Expand the VHLE, this solution I think would be very much a short term fix to the issue as it would likely arise again.

 

2. Bring the VHLM cap back up to 250 TPE, in reality I think this is probably the best solution as it solves both the VHLE's and VHLM's roster size issue, with the VHLE having nearly full rosters, and some VHLM teams having near empty rosters.

 

Thank you for reading this and if you have any other ideas or comments feel free to share them!

[samx 1,106]

2 minutes ago, Alex_J32 said:

Thank you for reading

bold of you to assume I read it.

[N0HBDY 1,017]

56 minutes ago, Alex_J32 said:

Expand the VHLE, this solution I think would be very much a short term fix to the issue as it would likely arise again.

I like this idea but it also doesn’t help the issue with the VHLM and their roster sizes, I think I heard this idea on @Spartan’s podcast, and I’m sure he’ll say I don’t explain it right but I believe he said that balancing out the team differential between the E and M is also a solution, so bring the total # of teams in the M down from 12 to 10, and raise the total # of teams in the E from 6 to 8.

[BarzalGoat 728]

Good idea! 

[Spartan 4,073]

1 hour ago, N0HBDY said:

I like this idea but it also doesn’t help the issue with the VHLM and their roster sizes, I think I heard this idea on @Spartan’s podcast, and I’m sure he’ll say I don’t explain it right but I believe he said that balancing out the team differential between the E and M is also a solution, so bring the total # of teams in the M down from 12 to 10, and raise the total # of teams in the E from 6 to 8.

Loose concept was that as of M playoffs starting, there were like 8 forwards, 3.5 defensemen and 1.5 goalies per team if you were to evenly allocate all the rostered M players across the M teams. Not that close to the M's goal (last I know) of having teams run 9-6-2's. Had spitballed reducing number of teams in the M to increase people per team which would also reduce the skewness of M rosters inherently, and add teams to the E if necessary. I'd only think it's needed if the average E team is running more than 9-4-2's tbh.

[The Domino Archives 334]

On 11/4/2021 at 3:13 PM, Spartan said:

Loose concept was that as of M playoffs starting, there were like 8 forwards, 3.5 defensemen and 1.5 goalies per team if you were to evenly allocate all the rostered M players across the M teams. Not that close to the M's goal (last I know) of having teams run 9-6-2's. Had spitballed reducing number of teams in the M to increase people per team which would also reduce the skewness of M rosters inherently, and add teams to the E if necessary. I'd only think it's needed if the average E team is running more than 9-4-2's tbh.

casually cutting defenders in half

[The Domino Archives 334]

On 11/4/2021 at 12:49 PM, Alex_J32 said:

 

1. Expand the VHLE, this solution I think would be very much a short term fix to the issue as it would likely arise again.

good news! and bad news!