Extend the M, Abolish the E

[leandrofg 1,156]

12 hours ago, rory said:

how much active members does the E even have? like 15? lmfao

 

Apparently... more than you think. But why should you see it as an inactivity problem, though? Why can it not be about nurturing those "15" active members and giving them a cool transition between the VHLM and VHLE? I have 3 really active members in my LR, then 4 more that are on/off. That makes up half of the team.

 

Sure... do we need IAs to fill the team? Yes, we do. Do we lose members as they graduate the M? Also! Does it suck? Yes, of course. Do we complain? No! Because we try to give those (regardless of their activity level) in the E the best experience possible.

 

Much of the hate towards the E comes from people who stay down in the M, capped out of their frigging brains, taking spots from the new members. I get it, though. It's good for the ego. People have an amazing season in the M instead of moving up the ladder and finding competition in the E. But again, I get it because afterward we make the jump to the VHL and we are shitty players again.

[Daniel Janser 2,165]

16 hours ago, Grape said:

I've seen some M teams have 3-4 seasons of being competitive and even some win back to back. It's just the pressure to win with that short term core that causes teams to buy out. It is definitely possible to be successful without going boom or bust, the league just needs to be formatted to promote continued competitiveness instead of the BB cycle

This is what I tried to do with the Hounds in my short while with them. Have a steady influx of players through draft and waivers (preferably a good mix of max earners who will only be there for a season and slower earner you can work with for 2-3 seasons). Only last year we had such a good run without me really trying that I gambled away the future for more depth and in the hope to get a push for the title (as we had a fairly good record against Vegas). Alas it did not turn out well, and the Hounds will have now a season of suffering ahead (unless good waivers can be picked up)...

[Grape 676]

9 hours ago, leandrofg said:

Much of the hate towards the E comes from people who stay down in the M, capped out of their frigging brains, taking spots from the new members. I get it, though. It's good for the ego. People have an amazing season in the M instead of moving up the ladder and finding competition in the E. But again, I get it because afterward we make the jump to the VHL and we are shitty players again.

Seems a bit antagonistic there

[leandrofg 1,156]

12 minutes ago, Grape said:

Seems a bit antagonistic there

Not what I’m trying to pass on there. I don’t oppose to it and I don’t care if and when it happens, so I apologize if that’s what’s being reflected.

 

But let’s not take the spotlight of what I said that really matters. Those who choose to leave the M, support the E, are active members of that league and put daily effort to be competitive there should not be “attacked” like that.

 

The E may not be the solution, but it surely isn’t the problem.

[FrostBeard 2,049]

As a GM that has managed to lead teams in all three leagues, I believe we are not really at that point when E can be taken out. 

In VHLM 200 to me seems to be the best cap as that gives a player a chance to get to 100 TPE and be a viable option and actually feel useful. So there is a motivation and a reward for gaining TPE in M. With even 300 TPE cap, that would not be the case and you would see too many 3rd and 4th season players that are active, but not max earning taking away ice-time that is crucial for retention!

In VHL, lower the TPE cap and you get into a problem where you teams will have no Cap space to have them. 2 options come after that - either rise the Salary cap OR get more teams. Getting more teams IS NOT a good option as what happens when you have 5 months of dry recruitment runs and players just don't stick? You have teams with few players on and you have basically simulated a VHLE team in VHL level. Rising Salary cap adds a top of other issues. 

To me, VHLE gives an opportunity for both VHL GMs to have a flexibility in roster but also gives players a chance to go and still play on a pretty good level and feel like they are actually helping a team win. 

[animal74 1,806]

On 9/12/2022 at 3:11 PM, aimkin said:

Last season I played on SSK. We were pretty bottom of the barrel for most of the season and aside from myself, I think there was only really 1 other player who didn't go inactive and wasn't a clicker. It was a very lonely team to be on especially when there was no interaction in the locker room. I honestly think if I hadn't found my way into the more social side of the VHL, I would have quit.

 

TPE caps and 2 or 3 leagues aside, I think this point here must be made the real crux of the issue. There needs to be some measures put in place in the M for more parity to help curb the boom/bust cycle (teams must have a roster minimums or draft pick minimums?). Due to the nature of the type of league it is, the cycle won't go away, but what is happening in Mississauga this season is appalling. Having a team like the Hounds doesn't just hurt the developmental and social side for those on the neglected teams but also hurts the competitiveness of the M and is not good for rainbow flavoured unicorns to have a team with two players going 0-20 for the league in general. Why isn't the league doing more about the Hounds, even to add some of the inactives?

 

One suggestion to perhaps help the M with rosters (as there are obviously players around) is to add a round or two to the M draft. That coupled with a roster/pick minimum as I mentioned earlier, would lessen the chance that teams can trade all their picks and not construct a decent roster and/or have a weak locker room.