The VHLE IS BROKEN (and I can fix it)

[Gustav 6,103]

I think this kind of ties into what @thadthrasher said recently about a lack of communication between GMs in different leagues. VHL GMs should be telling you when they plan to call someone up, just the same as you should be asking them if you're uncertain of your players' status. That part is certainly a two-way street, and from what I've heard there's room for improvement both ways.

 

I'm curious what you think about this--if proper communication were established, would you have many remaining issues with the system? I get the impression that most of what you don't like stems from that.

[Enorama 1,980]

13 minutes ago, InstantRockstar said:

The amount of times I've been DM'd about my players, and even other users I know on other teams being completely blindsided by a call-up when they had NO desires or expectations or communications of being called up, is wild to me. I would expect at ANY level, whether its me as an E GM, or the VHL GM's at their level, would be COMMUNICATING with their prospects and players to SEE how they feel and what THEY want to do. 

 

That's a GM issue, not a league structure issue. Name and shame 'em. 

[InstantRockstar 1,221]

1 minute ago, GustavMattias said:

I think this kind of ties into what @thadthrasher said recently about a lack of communication between GMs in different leagues. VHL GMs should be telling you when they plan to call someone up, just the same as you should be asking them if you're uncertain of your players' status. That part is certainly a two-way street, and from what I've heard there's room for improvement both ways.

 

I'm curious what you think about this--if proper communication were established, would you have many remaining issues with the system? I get the impression that most of what you don't like stems from that.

I have no issue with the system, just the lack of communication. 

 

Really, it has nothing to do with ME worrying about a player going up or not, it's theoretically up to the VHL GM's to have communication with THEIR players and THEIR intentions to call players up. It's not me they need to tell, it's the players, and THAT is what is not happening right now. The crazy amount of users I've had confide in me after being called up with nothing more than a forum notification is troubling, how can NO ONE tell this user they plan to bring them up and see if their desires would be to stay down vs come up? Giving the user some kind of say or at the very least a heads up should be priority #1 imo... 

[BarzalGoat 728]

2 minutes ago, Enorama said:

 

That's a GM issue, not a league structure issue. Name and shame 'em. 

Ok Team C  

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

I'm not commenting on the issues in the article (because I'm sure they're valid), but on the idea of the VHLE being broken....it's the second full season and the first "full" off-season (kinda) - if it was fully functioning perfectly I would have been extremely surprised. There are going to be issues that have to get sorted out that either weren't thought of originally or that have become apparent during what is essentially "live testing" this league.

[Alex 2,870]

Sorry if this comes off a little harsh, just trying to find an appropriate solution that benefits everyone and removes the potential for miscommunication between GMs.

 

There is actually a couple feasible options to solve your concerns, that become relatively obvious if you look at the numbers:

 

Option 1:

-Remove the grey area by putting the E at a hard cap of 350 TPE, also increases VHL roster sizes which is needed at this point in time

-Remove IA players from the VHLE, removes concerns players have of being played behind IA players (this is a valid concern and was reflected frequently in the retention survey)

-Put the VHLE back to 6 teams

-VHL cannot call up or have any player below 350 TPE on a roster

--If this is done there would be exactly 44 forwards, 22 defensemen, and 11 goalies currently in the VHLE, ironically this would give each VHLE team 7.33 F, 3.67 D, and 1.83 G

 

Option 2:

-Remove the grey area by putting the E at a hard cap of 350 TPE, also increases VHL roster sizes which is needed at this point in time

-no other changes

--VHLE would have rosters only a hair smaller than they are now (currently working on the exact numbers)

[InstantRockstar 1,221]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

Sorry if this comes off a little harsh, just trying to find an appropriate solution that benefits everyone and removes the potential for miscommunication between GMs.

 

There is actually a couple feasible options to solve your concerns, that become relatively obvious if you look at the numbers:

 

Option 1:

-Remove the grey area by putting the E at a hard cap of 350 TPE, also increases VHL roster sizes which is needed at this point in time

-Remove IA players from the VHLE, removes concerns players have of being played behind IA players (this is a valid concern and was reflected frequently in the retention survey)

-Put the VHLE back to 6 teams

-VHL cannot call up or have any player below 350 TPE on a roster

--If this is done there would be exactly 44 forwards, 22 defensemen, and 11 goalies currently in the VHLE, ironically this would give each VHLE team 7.33 F, 3.67 D, and 1.83 G

 

Option 2:

-Remove the grey area by putting the E at a hard cap of 350 TPE, also increases VHL roster sizes which is needed at this point in time

-no other changes

--VHLE would have rosters only a hair smaller than they are now (currently working on the exact numbers)

Or, crazy thought haha, just talk to your players you plan to call up, and let them know you plan to call them up For me anyways, this has nothing to do with limits and call-ups specifically, as much as it does complete lack of communication between VHL GM's (not all btw) and their own players & prospects. Keep them in the loop, tell them of your intentions, garner their input, realistically as a GM you should be talking to your players anyways, but where the huge disconnect is, is that is NOT happening currently. We don't need harsher restrictions or removing VHLE teams, we just need VHL GM's to go to their players, speak their mind to them, pick their brains, see what THEY would like to do with their player, and then go from there. (If that makes sense)

[rory 1,759]

lmao imagine getting relegated by a roster of ur prospects

[Ricer13 2,592]

Don’t love the “VHL GMs making a mistake” part. Unfortunately teams are going to have to be at the bottom of the league and teams rebuild. The VHL needs to maintain a minimum roster requirement as well which is important.

 

I don’t want to sit here and pretend the VHL is better than the VHLE but it should take precedent over players within the guidelines of the rules.

 

The issue that I think is the biggest, is the lack of communication between the VHL and VHLE GMs. I like Jansers recommendation of implementing a timeframe that VHL GMs are allowed to call up these players. If they don’t call them up then they are now the VHLE teams property for that following season.

 

We need to work together and I don’t think relegation is the answer at this time. Could be a solution down the road but all other avenues should be looked at first. 
 

Relegation would be pretty fun though but could get messy!

[BarzalGoat 728]

2 minutes ago, WranglersSuck said:

Relegation would be pretty fun though but could get messy!

Sorry did you post something above this part xD

 

3 minutes ago, WranglersSuck said:

The issue that I think is the biggest, is the lack of communication between the VHL and VHLE GMs. I like Jansers recommendation of implementing a timeframe that VHL GMs are allowed to call up these players. If they don’t call them up then they are now the VHLE teams property for that following season.

 

This only solves half the problem of the VHLE not having full rosters. We are supposed to have all of the players from 201-350, and then some 350-400. So the VHL teams that own the current 350+players in the league don't want to call them up, we are losing players with under 300 tpe, how is that competitive. 

 

VHL GM's should be punished for not planning for the future or fielding crappy teams

[Ricer13 2,592]

12 minutes ago, BarzalGoat said:

Sorry did you post something above this part xD

 

This only solves half the problem of the VHLE not having full rosters. We are supposed to have all of the players from 201-350, and then some 350-400. So the VHL teams that own the current 350+players in the league don't want to call them up, we are losing players with under 300 tpe, how is that competitive. 

 

VHL GM's should be punished for not planning for the future or fielding crappy teams

If VHL teams don’t have enough players for full rosters how are E teams supposed to have enough? Each league should have a minimum requirement and as nice as 6-4-2 is, it isn’t always going to work out that way as the league numbers continue to fluctuate.

[BarzalGoat 728]

8 minutes ago, WranglersSuck said:

If VHL teams don’t have enough players for full rosters how are E teams supposed to have enough? Each league should have a minimum requirement and as nice as 6-4-2 is, it isn’t always going to work out that way as the league numbers continue to fluctuate.

The teams that fail to plan for the future and fall below 6-4-2 (or even 6-4-1) then need to play bots will lose and get relegated, then they can rebuild through the E, the lower tiered league where they belong. The whole point of this was that my Cologne Express from last season would've kicked Chicago's butt in a best of 7, so why were we in the lower league and they were in the higher one? 

[v.2 1,260]

45 minutes ago, Alex said:

Sorry if this comes off a little harsh, just trying to find an appropriate solution that benefits everyone and removes the potential for miscommunication between GMs.

 

There is actually a couple feasible options to solve your concerns, that become relatively obvious if you look at the numbers:

 

Option 1:

-Remove the grey area by putting the E at a hard cap of 350 TPE, also increases VHL roster sizes which is needed at this point in time

-Remove IA players from the VHLE, removes concerns players have of being played behind IA players (this is a valid concern and was reflected frequently in the retention survey)

-Put the VHLE back to 6 teams

-VHL cannot call up or have any player below 350 TPE on a roster

--If this is done there would be exactly 44 forwards, 22 defensemen, and 11 goalies currently in the VHLE, ironically this would give each VHLE team 7.33 F, 3.67 D, and 1.83 G

 

Option 2:

-Remove the grey area by putting the E at a hard cap of 350 TPE, also increases VHL roster sizes which is needed at this point in time

-no other changes

--VHLE would have rosters only a hair smaller than they are now (currently working on the exact numbers)

This is the most realistic list of suggestions I’ve seen so far.  Nice one Alex

[Beketov 8,642]

I’m going to tell you right now that relegation is not going to happen. It’s too much of a logistical nightmare. What happens to the players and prospects of the teams that get relegated, that are all in the VHLE now despite being far above the cap? What about the VHLE players that are now on a VHLE team? It just over complicates matters without really fixing anything.

[Dom 1,440]

I think that when you look at all the VHL teams you can easily tell that this is rather a lack of player in some positions league wide and not a simple GM mistake. This is the effect of the big S75 draft class retiring. 3 seasons ago when that draft class were in their prime it was the opposite case hence why the VHLE was born. On the bright side though, the recruitment team has scored big ads in the last seasons, especially the S82 one and I think it is a cycle that we just have to find a way to balance.

[BarzalGoat 728]

44 minutes ago, Beketov said:

I’m going to tell you right now that relegation is not going to happen. It’s too much of a logistical nightmare. What happens to the players and prospects of the teams that get relegated, that are all in the VHLE now despite being far above the cap? What about the VHLE players that are now on a VHLE team? It just over complicates matters without really fixing anything.

I mean the answer is obviously that the cap goes away. I answered the other question in an edit a couple hours ago, the players the VHLE teams currently own become players "on loan", and they enter the VHL drafting process the year after the relegation is introduced in order to start owning their own players. 

 

TBH I think this is a super lazy answer and I know you're a busy guy, but it might've been better not to comment something so entirely dismissive of a fresh and interesting way to solve the league's apathetic GM problem in the VHL. 

[Enorama 1,980]

1 hour ago, BarzalGoat said:

Ok Team C  

 

Yeah I planned my competitive cycle around winning when my team has an actual shot and losing when we don't. Flipping the league to a relegation league would lead to more teams just being middling so-so teams for a long time and just a few popular FA locations thriving each year, which isn't exactly exciting.

 

As I have said plenty of times, it's absolutely an issue if a VHL GM isn't communicating with their players that they're going up. The VHL GM reaching out to the VHLE GM is good as a courtesy, but not negligent imo. Now imagine if they didn't even tell their players ahead of time that they were being traded too

 

6 minutes ago, BarzalGoat said:

the league's apathetic GM problem in the VHL. 

 

The league's last actual apathetic GM left when we fired Bush. Just because some of them aren't active in genchat doesn't mean they don't care deeply about their teams.

[Ricer13 2,592]

1 hour ago, BarzalGoat said:

The teams that fail to plan for the future and fall below 6-4-2 (or even 6-4-1) then need to play bots will lose and get relegated, then they can rebuild through the E, the lower tiered league where they belong. The whole point of this was that my Cologne Express from last season would've kicked Chicago's butt in a best of 7, so why were we in the lower league and they were in the higher one? 

 

They wouldn’t need to play bots if they just sign players to come play in the VHL rather than in the E. If it’s within the rules there is no issue with that outcome, it just inconveniences the E GMs who should be able to manage around that. 

[Ricer13 2,592]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Sorry if this comes off a little harsh, just trying to find an appropriate solution that benefits everyone and removes the potential for miscommunication between GMs.

 

There is actually a couple feasible options to solve your concerns, that become relatively obvious if you look at the numbers:

 

Option 1:

-Remove the grey area by putting the E at a hard cap of 350 TPE, also increases VHL roster sizes which is needed at this point in time

-Remove IA players from the VHLE, removes concerns players have of being played behind IA players (this is a valid concern and was reflected frequently in the retention survey)

-Put the VHLE back to 6 teams

-VHL cannot call up or have any player below 350 TPE on a roster

--If this is done there would be exactly 44 forwards, 22 defensemen, and 11 goalies currently in the VHLE, ironically this would give each VHLE team 7.33 F, 3.67 D, and 1.83 G

 

Option 2:

-Remove the grey area by putting the E at a hard cap of 350 TPE, also increases VHL roster sizes which is needed at this point in time

-no other changes

--VHLE would have rosters only a hair smaller than they are now (currently working on the exact numbers)

I would also like to back what Alex is saying about inactive players. In no way, shape or form that M, E or VHL GMs should be playing inactive players over active players. Yes we want good competition but how is that good for retention if players are getting no ice time or points. If all teams follow the same rule of activity>inactivity then the playing field will be fair. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by WranglersSuck

[FrostBeard 1,975]

I will just say that I am against any type of relegation - it is quite simple: It is between drafting or relegation. With both, our leagues would become a steaming hot mess. 
The problem that was addressed with this article will become a nothing thing in a few seasons anyway, so I guess my solution would be - make sure that GMs talk between leagues and have the respect to inform each other about the decisions. 

[Alex 2,870]

@BarzalGoat, correct me if I'm wrong here, it seems like you only want what is best for the VHLE, there is nothing wrong with this, we all do. 

 

The VHLE does have a lot of issues right now and there is no easy solution that will make everyone happy.

 

Here's my thoughts on the problems:

- First off, I believe branding the VHLE as a competitive league was a mistake, in my opinion calling it a growth league or advanced league would have been better suited, retention should always come first in all 3 leagues.

 

-The VHLE has a massive IA problem as 33% of the league is IA (19 forwards, 12 D, and 6 goalies). Players are tired of playing behind IA players, this was brought up several times in the retention survey. GMs should always put active players first and there is no excuse for playing an IA player ahead of an active one, after a quick look this was relatively common in the E last season.

 

- The soft cap, this has lead to several communication issues on behalf of GMs moving to a hard cap of 350 would A) get rid of any miscommunication between GMs, B) increase VHL roster sizes, and C) Makes VHLE roster sizes manageable and provides players more playing time.

 

I do believe that there is a solution that satisfies all parties involved without making a rash decision that will be hard to undo, if you would like to talk this out feel free to dm me, we can also chat on VC sometime if you would like.

[nurx 908]

I think a transformation of the VHLE into a much similar league to the VHLM is best. The problem the VHLE solves was a problem of to many lower TPE players. The VHLE in reality should be a league incredibly similar to the VHLM because it fills a very similar role as the VHLE. You also said that I was claiming you job wasn't useful? That doesn't even make sense. The thing is VHLE/M GMs should have super similar jobs but E GMs have to have more ability to help new members.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

1 hour ago, BarzalGoat said:

I mean the answer is obviously that the cap goes away.

 

And this is a complete non-starter for parity reasons, especially when "money" is fake.

[Berocka 2,192]

2 minutes ago, Fire Fletcher said:

 

And this is a complete non-starter for parity reasons, especially when "money" is fake.

I think he meant the tpe cap for the vhle

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

1 hour ago, BarzalGoat said:

to solve the league's apathetic GM problem in the VHL. 

 

Not saying it is a problem, but the answer is VHL GM term limits.